"CATEGORY","RAWTEXT"
"2","LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SFC0000020070530e35u0002y EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 1094 Words 30 May 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.8 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  'High costs of the amnesty bill'  Editor -- The Senate immigration bill has been defended by promoters of virtual unlimited immigration, both from the left and the right. No wonder Americans are very angry at our elite.  If another amnesty is granted, millions of naturalized citizens could become potential voters. Considering how close recent presidential elections were, even if most naturalized citizens do not vote, is there a chance that our immigration laws will be seriously enforced?  Newcomers will consume energy and need jobs, education, health care, welfare and many other costly services. Due to their low incomes, any taxes that most newcomers will pay could not offset even the cost of educating their children, which averages $7,500 per child per year. For the same reason, most immigrants granted amnesty and their relatives could receive an earned-income tax credit of up to $4,400 a year.  The United States has already exported high-tech and manufacturing jobs to Latin America and Asia, and imported workers from those regions. No Americans concerned about the future of American children should support this Senate amnesty bill, which would result in open borders for professionals and low-skilled workers.  YEH LING-LING  Executive Director  Diversity Alliance for  a Sustainable America  Oakland ----------------------------------------------  We need high gas taxes  Editor -- Your editorial got it wrong -- We should want high gas prices (Grandstanding on gas prices,"" May 28). Just think, where else can we lower the trade imbalance, reduce the federal debt, lower carbon emissions, eliminate traffic snarls, make alternative energy more competitive, increase miles-per-gallon ratings of our cars and get us out of our SUVs and into hybrids, buses and car pools -- all with a simple gas tax.  Tax it up to $6 per gallon. It works for Germany, France and Britain who use half the oil we do. Better Uncle Sam gets it now than OPEC gets it later.  C.V. ALLEN  Modesto ----------------------------------------------  Midwifery on decline  Editor -- Thank you for bringing much-needed attention to the shrinking midwifery options for women in San Francisco (""Fewer options for those who seek natural births,"" May 29).  I am expecting my second child any day and experienced hospital- based midwifery care with great success in both of my pregnancies. Realizing that this option may become even more scarce to women is just another discouraging sign of the failures of our medical system, which, in the case of obstetrics, seems to prioritize liability above all other matters.  I was particularly struck by the description of providing one-on- one midwifery support during labor as ""boutique."" Perhaps if this type of support -- which has been proven to reduce the need for interventions and surgery -- was the norm rather than the exception, more women would feel confident and less fearful of the birthing process.  As it stands, most women and their partners are left with minimal support until the very last stages of labor, which is inherently intimidating and frightening. One can't help but feel that it is time to seriously re-evaluate our expectations and treatment of the birthing process in order to bridge the ""cultural gap"" between midwives and physicians that Dr. Elaine Gates alludes to in her quote. Maintaining the status quo does not appear to be a productive option for anyone involved.  LENA BROOK  San Francisco ----------------------------------------------  Decline of news  Editor -- Professor Neil Henry (Open Forum, ""The decline of news,"" May 29) laments the loss of journalism jobs (and the loss of student-customers) due to changes in the information-dissemination business.  In my lifetime, I have witnessed the end of dozens of newspapers and magazines that succumbed to rising costs and loss of audience (The Hearst San Francisco Examiner, Life magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, etc.).Consolidation that enabled the survivors to flourish without meaningful conventional competition has stripped them of the ability to fend off robust, politically diverse new entrants favored by a changing audience.  Perhaps the good professor seeks to elevate spiritually a profession that has been unable to retain the audience it claims to serve right here on Earth.  JACK BenARY  Mill Valley ----------------------------------------------  Cindy Sheehan  Editor -- Cindy Sheehan should never be mistaken as having been the face of the anti-war movement. She was our heart.It is time we searched our souls.  ROBERT B. LIVINGSTON  San Francisco  -- -- --  Editor -- Cindy Sheehan is the Paris Hilton of the anti-war movement.She is pathetic, inarticulate and thoroughly unaware of her negative contribution to the American body politic. Her simplistic view of the world and incessant blaming of President Bush for everything wrong in the world is the anti-war left's vacuous equivalent to ""it's hot.''  MATT MITGUARD  San Francisco ----------------------------------------------  Berkeley High's 'victory'  Editor -- What an extraordinary contrast on the Memorial Day editorial page. First, a small half-hearted editorial, ""A day for memories,'' and then Louis Freedberg's rant on what a great victory the students at Berkeley High had in fighting the military (Personal Perspective, ""Victory at Berkeley High'').  Freedberg makes it seem as if Army recruiters are kidnapping students. The last time I heard, no one was being forced into the military. I think your typical high school student is more then able to say ""no,"" if and when he or she is contacted by a recruiter.  Webster's Dictionary defines duty (military) as an obligatory task, conduct or service. A moral obligation. This obligation should be part of citizenship and growing up. It is unfortunate that many of the students at Berkeley High will never understand that.  JAMES VOLSTAD  Millbrae  -- -- --  Editor -- Thanks for a very well -written and thoughtful piece in Monday's Chronicle. The Berkeley Board of Education has been wrestling with this issue since early 2002, when I drafted our opt- in procedures.  As Freedberg accurately pointed out, this is not just a knee- jerk reaction against the occupation of Iraq and the military, but a fundamental issue of student privacy. The state education code is very explicit about the issue of student privacy, and the severe limitations on the release of student contact information to outside organizations and individuals.  Board member Nancy Riddle and myself attended assemblies at Berkeley High on May 21 to explain students' (and parent/guardian) legal right to ""opt-out'' of providing contact information to military recruiters. Forms were available at these assemblies, and will remain available for the remainder of the school year.  JOHN SELAWSKY  Vice president  Berkeley school board GRAPHIC (2); Caption: (1) / Jim Meehan / NewsArt.com, (2) / Barrie Maguire / NewsArt.com"
"1","Tank fleets deserve better from DHS MBLK000020070505e3410000m Editorial By Charles E Wilson 670 Words 01 April 2007 Bulk Transporter 6 Volume 69; Number 10; ISSN Number 00316431 English � 2007 Prism Business Media Inc. All rights reserved.  ON ANY given day, the bulk logistics sector in the United States handles close to 900,000 hazardous materials shipments. Tank truck carriers play a major role, transporting a significant percentage of the loads. Refined fuels top the list, but the fleets also move some of the most hazardous of cargoes.  Most of the loads are hauled safely, securely, and without incident. Serious events remain rare enough that they still make the national news. It is an impressive performance, but it is by no means easy. In fact, the job has gotten steadily tougher over the years.  Security in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 took on a much greater significance for hazmat haulers. Unfortunately, the federal government's approach to hazmat security has been haphazard at best, and incompetent at worst. As a result, we probably are no more secure today than we were in 2001.  Fault lies primarily with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) � which deserves the prize as perhaps the most dysfunctional of cabinet-level departments. Congress comes in a close second, especially in light of the fact that the biggest push to create DHS came from the Democrats who now control both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  When it comes to DHS, it's hard to tell what they are trying to achieve. Instead of protecting the United States from foreign threats, for instance, the bureaucrats at the department seem more intent on arresting and jailing the US enforcement officials who are assigned to guard our borders. So far the record would suggest that DHS bureaucrats don't have a clue about real border security.  The DHS bureaucrats also seem to have no idea what it will take to secure hazmat transportation adequately in the United States. The Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) stands as a prime example of bureaucratic bungling.  On it's face, the TWIC card was a promising idea. However, the DHS bureaucrats turned it into a very expensive, very cumbersome security document that may provide very little protection from terrorist infiltration of the hazmat transportation sector. Today, the same Democrats who were so eager to create DHS have been ranting about the failures of the TWIC program.  They are upset that DHS spent $94 million (or about $60,000 per TWIC card based on projected participants) on a program that is woefully behind schedule and over budget. The most recent delay came when the rollout date was pushed back to at least May.  Overseen by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is under DHS, the TWIC program was mandated by Congress as a part of port security legislation in 2002. The plan called for high-tech, tamperproof identification cards that would be issued to workers needing access to secure areas of US ports. That includes hazmat truck drivers.  Under the plan, TSA is supposed to collect background information and fingerprints on approximately 1.5 million workers with port access. Background checks would be performed to look at criminal history, possible terrorist links, and immigration status.  The TWIC program largely duplicates the truck driver hazmat background check requirement that has been in place at the Department of Transportation (DOT) since 2005. The National Tank Truck Carriers and American Trucking Associations were unsuccessful in their efforts to convince the DHS bureaucrats to accept the DOT hazmat background check. That's too bad because DHS could have saved a lot of time, effort, and money. Maybe the TWIC program would even be up and running.  Many of the DHS blunders related to hazmat security programs come from what appears to be poor communication, a culture of bureaucratic arrogance, and general ignorance of the way hazmat shipments are managed. All of that needs to change.  Hazmat transport security is critical in this day and age. DHS needs to become a competent organization that can work together effectively with the transportation industry to achieve positive results.  http://www.primemediabusiness.com"
"3","Immigration 2.0 TRIB000020070401e3410003l Perspective 518 Words 01 April 2007 Chicago Tribune Chicagoland Final 4 English Copyright 2007, Chicago Tribune. All Rights Reserved.  Last year's immigration debate started on a sour note and stayed shrill to the end. Republicans in the U.S. House--furious that 12 million people had settled here illegally with the tacit approval of those who were supposed to keep them out--attacked the problem with a punitive bill designed to round 'em up, toss ?em out and lock down the border.  Immigrants responded with a display of public activism that inflamed some people and inspired others. Yes, we're lawbreakers, they said, but try to live without us. The Senate's watered-down attempt to find middle ground was DOA in the House. All that noise for nothing.  It's time to take a deep breath and start over.  Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) have crafted a bill designed to supply the country with the workers it needs, backed up by a system that doesn't tolerate -- much less invite -- abuse. The bill would increase enforcement at the border and in the workplace, adding customs inspectors and border patrol agents and stiffening penalties for illegal workers and those who hire them. It would create a program to admit 400,000 guest workers a year and provide a path to citizenship for those already working here.  Late last week, the White House and Senate Republicans were circulating sketchy details of their own new plan. It would shift emphasis in granting visas to favor prospective new workers over family members seeking to join immigrants already here. That faces heady resistance from Democrats, who would add more visas rather than sacrifice family reunification.  The root of the immigration problem is the dumbfounding disconnect between the number of workers our economy regularly absorbs and the number the government admits legally. In 2005, only about 5,000 visas were issued for low-skill jobs, but nearly half a million people slipped in and found work without them.  But the law is the law, and many Americans find the idea of legalizing those workers especially distasteful. The Flake-Gutierrez bill would not give them a free pass. They would have to register for ""conditional non-immigrant status,"" pass background checks and pay $2,000 in fines. After six years -- during which they must pay taxes, remain employed and learn English -- they'd go to the end of the line to wait for legal residency and eventual citizenship. Before they could apply, they'd have to exit the country and re-enter legally, a largely symbolic gesture but an important one because it would place them, finally, on the right side of the law.  Those who chose not to take those steps would find it much harder to stay. The bill gives employers a new pool of legal workers, an electronic system for verifying their immigration status and tougher penalties for hiring illegal immigrants.  Gutierrez and Flake envision a system under which it is possible to operate legally -- and risky not to. The White House plan, while less generous, seems to have the same goals. Another loud debate is sure to follow. Editorial"
"1","MY SENATE SENIORITY IS A VALUABLE ASSET FOR THE STATE PPGZ000020070401e3410004n EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, Washington, D.C. 329 Words 01 April 2007 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette FIVE STAR H-2 English � 2007 Post Gazette Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  While I appreciate the flattering comments in the March 23 editorial ""Specter's Span,"" I differ with the retirement suggestion.  Senate seniority, like a mind, is a terrible thing to waste. It took 26 years to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In the midst of tough chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease, my stamina enabled me to maintain a full schedule, including my widely praised presiding over two Supreme Court confirmations.  Notwithstanding past ailments, my health is excellent. In my daily squash match, I compete with, and frequently beat, competitors half my age. I am younger than Sen. Ted Stevens, 83; Sen. Frank Lautenberg, 83; Sen. Dan Inouye, 82; and Sen. John Warner, 80. All of them are reportedly running for re-election. Last November, Sen. Robert Byrd, 89, was re-elected to his ninth term and continues to serve as chairman of the Appropriations Committee to the great benefit of West Virginia.  By 2008, or 2010 at the latest, I will be senior Republican on Appropriations and chairman when the party again regains control of the Senate. In that position, I can do much for Pennsylvania and would have a significant role in establishing national priorities on federal spending.  In the Senate, it takes years to establish relationships and skills to forge compromises on the big issues. My independence has enabled me to bridge the political divide and produce bipartisan results on key issues, like NIH funding, judicial confirmations and immigration reform.  It is a real privilege to serve in the Senate and have the opportunity to influence the major issues that confront our state, nation and the world. Beyond those factors, I like the job and have the energy and experience to handle it. So I intend to keep at it for another term unless the voters tell me otherwise. PHOTO; Caption: PHOTO: Specter: Experience matters"
"2","READER FORUM NSL0000020070402e3420003p EDITORIAL STAR-LEDGER STAFF 1331 Words 02 April 2007 The Star-Ledger FINAL 14 English (c) 2007 The Star-Ledger. All rights reserved.  Confront warming Catastrophic traumas mobilize nations. America reacted swiftly and firmly to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and 9/11. We reassessed perceptions, sinking a slow-to-react president's poll numbers and party, after New Orleans and the Gulf Coast were sunk by Hurricane Katrina. Yet we react slowly to long-term catastrophes in progress, such as melting glaciers, profoundly exacerbated by manmade climate change. Therein lies the danger. Just because the direst consequences of global warming are not felt instantaneously does not mean they will not have a devastating impact on mankind's future. As the world's major superpower, we must create a broad strategy to reverse this threat and organize a world symposium to work out the details and enact them.  Alas, our president with the low poll numbers has no intention of doing so. Thus a new Democratic Congress must focus the public on the urgency of confronting the threat, demand sacrifice associated with withdrawal from our fossil fuel addiction, attempt to pass veto-proof legislation that confronts this momentous challenge, organize the world symposium - or face the wrath of frustrated voters in 2008.  - Lawrence Uniglicht, Galloway  Carbon shell game Chicken Little, a k a Al Gore, recently brought his ""the sky is falling"" fairy tale to Washington, where he is being lauded as the all-knowing genius delivering the needed wakeup call to America on global warming. Gore, whose four homes consume energy at 20 times the norm and who travels the globe in private aircraft, delivers a message that says, ""Don't do as I do; do as I say."" He buys ""carbon offsets,"" so his lifestyle needn't be altered. He's a multimillionaire who can afford carbon offsets, especially when he buys them from his own company.  The real problem is that if there is any validity to global warming, sweeping it under the rug with carbon offsets doesn't reverse the trend but perpetuates it. Shifting from fossil fuels to electric to heat a home is shifting carbon pollution from the home to the electrical generating station. Yet Gore takes great pride in the fact that he has ""sacrificed"" by raising the electric bill at his homes rather than burn fuel oil. He was recently voted an Academy Award for his film, ""An Inconvenient Truth."" We need a recount.  - Kurt Van Anglen, Westfield  Selective statistics Reader Frank Hanna (""Cold facts,"" March 23) uses information that February was colder than usual in an attempt to refute global warming and to criticize and demean ""Academy Award-winning scold Al Gore and his cadre of Hollywood idiot savants."" However, the National Climate Data Center reported in mid-March that in the period from December through February, the average global temperature was the warmest on record, dating back to 1880 when global temperature readings were first gathered in an organized manner. Of the 12 hottest years on record, 11 have occurred since 1995. In 2006, five states had their warmest December on record, and no state was colder than average.  Global warming deniers, desperate for any information that might contravene the science, have latched on to February's colder-than-normal temperature as proof that global warming is a myth. Global warming is real despite denials by conservatives who refuse to accept what reputable scientists have confirmed. It is created primarily by human activities, and we can expect further dangerous warming if we don't reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.  - Selma Prager, Springfield  Empty heads While we spend more than $300 million on the unpopular Iraq war, with more than 3,200 of our military men and women killed, the Pentagon has killed a project to map the brain. Scientists from Rutgers, Harvard, MIT and other institutions consider mapping the complex workings of the brain one of their greatest endeavors, equal to our landing on the moon. The government has decided to end funding for the brain research project, refusing to spend a modest $300,000. Our government's priorities are skewed, and to our detriment.  The brain project brought together some of the greatest minds in our country - neuroscientists, psychologists, computer scientists. The innovative project, Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, is inspiring. With the decision by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the project ends.  It's such research that's made America great and why we have among the world's highest standards of living. That our leaders are impeding our future and halting beneficial research is reprehensible. They should be ousted from office. A golden opportunity is being derailed.  - Clyde Lenny Dinkins, Irvington  Hope for brain-injured With the exception of the brain injuries occurring in Iraq, the media don't seem to realize the magnitude of traumatic brain injuries on the general population. It is estimated 5.3 million people live with traumatic brain injuries in this country. Approximately 150,000 new cases occur each year. The emotional, physical and financial stress is overwhelming. The cost to the economy is an estimated $48 billion annually. Many live without hope for decades. Their continuing courage in the face of overwhelming diversity should be an inspiration to all of us. Fortunately, new technologies and recent medical advances indicate that brain cell regeneration as a future cure is a realistic goal. The immediate benefit of an expanded brain injury research agenda will be a renewal of hope to those who have suffered for so long.  - Dennis Benigno, Clifton  The church's position Your headline ""Stem cell research gaining ground in Catholic Church"" would seem to imply that the church had previously been against such research or at least lukewarm in support. The church has always strongly supported adult stem cell research and strongly opposed embryonic stem cell research. Although the article makes this distinction, the head��line suggests a church finally freeing itself from a benighted past and moving brightly with all the scientists into an enlightened future.  Senate President Richard Codey's observation that ""the church also was moved to act because so many of its members quietly support embryonic research"" lends support to this view. But the church is ""moved to act"" not by counting heads but by the Holy Spirit.  The Rev. Tad Pacholczyk's warning that the state's support of adult stem cell research could be ""nothing but a slick means of winning votes"" is well taken. The November referendum would seek an additional $500 million for stem cell research - with no distinction between embryonic and adult. I couldn't support such a measure. It would be like voting for a measure funding abortion clinics and adoption agencies.  - Joe Moscinski, Hillsborough  Immigration reform We need new laws regarding illegal immigration. I suggest the following:  There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special election ballots, and all government business will be conducted in our language.  Foreigners will not be a burden to taxpayers: no welfare, food stamps, health care or other government assistance.  Foreigners may not protest: no demonstrations, no waving foreign flags, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing the president or his policies. If they do any of these, they will be sent home.  If anyone comes here illegally, he will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.  These policies make a lot of sense. It doesn't matter that all happen to be laws in Mexico.  - Frank J. Wodzinski, Elizabeth  Draining away jobs I am awed and appalled by the variety of products sold in this country stamped ""Made in China."" Toys, tools, hardware, clothing, gadgets, kitchen ware, electronics - no product line appears immune. There is enough blame to go around, from the consumer looking to save, to the manufacturer looking to improve his bottom line, to unions striking for higher wages, to the government looking to . . . what? Just what are officials doing to stem the heavy and steady loss of jobs in industries so basic to supporting a healthy economy?  - Ralph Rufolo, Florham Park /nm"
"5","Talking Nonsense; The Bush administration's plan on immigration is divorced from reality. WP00000020070402e3420000x Editorial 556 Words 02 April 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A14 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  PREOCCUPIED with scandal at home and war overseas, the Bush administration is resting its hopes of making a dent in the nation's domestic agenda largely on its stated goal of overhauling immigration policy. Yet the White House is doing too little to craft a plan that can attract bipartisan support and effectively reshape the nation's unrealistic rules on immigration. Rather than nudge its Republican allies toward such a strategy, the administration seems more intent on placating party hard-liners.  A week after sensible, bipartisan legislation to reform immigration policy was introduced in the House, the administration circulated a collection of talking points last week. The document, the product of meetings between senior administration officials and Republican senators, is a step backward -- not only from legislation passed by the Senate last year but also from the general proposition that any genuine reform must be workable. In particular, the document offers up a template for punishing immigrants with repeated and possibly indefinite fines even after they emerged from the shadows to secure legal status.  In addition to toughening enforcement and beefing up the border, President Bush has spoken reasonably of providing an eventual path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants already in the country. But the discussion document released by the White House, while declaring breezily that most illegal aliens ""will eventually all be processed through the system,"" provides no real avenue for that to happen. Rather, the administration would require that an undocumented immigrant pay $3,500 in fines and fees every three years to remain here, plus an $8,000 fine if and when his or her application for legal permanent residence was accepted -- which might be never. In the meantime, immigrants who had legalized their status in the United States would not have the right to sponsor their relatives to join them. That would diminish the chances that immigrants already here could assimilate, establish communities and unify their families. It is a blueprint for social problems.  Nor would future immigrants, on whose labor the nation's economy similarly depends, be treated realistically. Although it is estimated that some 400,000 immigrant workers will be needed annually to satisfy demand in the labor market, the White House plan would insist that these ""temporary workers"" leave every two years and remain out of the country for six months, for a maximum of six years' work here. That stricture invites rule-breaking, both by workers and by employers, who need a reliable and experienced workforce. The administration concedes that ""model"" employees should be eligible to apply to stay in the country permanently, but it provides no additional visas that would help make that possible. Temporary workers would also be barred from bringing wives and children with them, ensuring the growth of a sizable class of single, rootless men and their attendant social problems.  At its heart, the White House plan is a political document, not a workable program destined for success in the real world. It seems more intent on punishing illegal immigrants than in forging a framework to deal with them forthrightly. It may appease some immigration hawks, but it will not address a problem that Americans overwhelmingly say they want fixed. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200704021ED-IMMIGRATION2"
"5","Bush immigration plan divorced from reality OKLD000020070403e3430009m San Mateo 484 Words 03 April 2007 The Oakland Tribune English (c) Copyright 2007 ANG Newspapers. All rights reserved.  THE Bush administration is resting its hopes of making a dent in the nation's domestic agenda largely on overhauling immigration policy. Yet the White House is doing too little to craft a plan that can attract bipartisan support and reshape the nation's unrealistic rules on immigration. Rather than nudge Republicans toward such a strategy, the administration seems intent on placating party hard-liners.  A week after sensible, bipartisan legislation to reform immigration policy was introduced in the House, the administration circulated a collection of talking points. The document, the product of meetings between senior administration officials and Republican senators, is a step backward � not only from legislation passed by the Senate last year but also from the general proposition that genuine reform must be workable. The document offers a template for punishing immigrants with repeated, possibly indefinite fines even after they secure legal status.  In addition to toughening enforcement and beefing up the border, President Bush has spoken reasonably of providing an eventual path to citizenship for  12 million undocumented immigrants already in the country. But the White House, declaring breezily that most illegal aliens ""will eventually all be processed through the system,"" provides no real avenue for that to happen. Rather, the administration would require that an undocumented immigrant pay $3,500 in fines and fees every three years to remain here, plus an $8,000 fine if and when his or her application for legal permanent residence was accepted � which might be never. In the meantime, immigrants who had legalized status would not have the right to sponsor their relatives to join them. That would diminish the chances immigrants already here could assimilate, establish communities and unify their families. It is a blueprint for problems.  Nor would future immigrants, on whose labor the nation's economy depends, be treated realistically. Although it is estimated that 400,000 immigrant workers will be needed annually to satisfy demand in the labor market, the White House plan would insist that these ""temporary workers"" leave every two years and remain out of the country for six months, for a maximum of six years' work here. That invites rule-breaking, both by workers and employers, who need a reliable, experienced workforce. The administration concedes that ""model"" employees should be eligible to stay permanently, but it provides no additional visas that would make that possible. Temporary workers would also be barred from bringing wives and children with them, ensuring the growth of a class of single, rootless men and their attendant social problems.  The White House plan is a political document, not a workable program destined for success. It seems more intent on punishing illegal immigrants than forging a framework to deal with them forthrightly. It may appease some immigration hawks, but it will not address a problem that Americans overwhelmingly say they want fixed.  Washington Post  Editorial "
"1","OPEN GOVERNMENT BILLS IMPORTANT TO US ALL ASHC000020070405e3440000b B; BUSINESS STAFF 683 Words 04 April 2007 Asheville Citizen-Times FINAL 6 English (c) Copyright 2007, Asheville Citizen-Times. All Rights Reserved.  I  It may not receive the scrutiny reserved for tax bills or education initiatives, but there is a quiet battle going on in our state capitol over something every bit as important: Your right to know.  There are two bills up for debate that North Carolina citizens should know about. One, SB 1546, would keep open a window for the public. Another, SB 1006, would draw a curtain over some public records.  SB 1546's principal sponsor is Sen. David Hoyle of Gaston County. This bill is in response to a North Carolina Court of Appeals ruling in 2005 in a case that pitted the Charlotte Observer against the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority and Carolinas Medical Center. The newspaper had sought access to compensation records for Carolinas Healthcare System employees, including expense reimbursements for some employees, under the Public Records Act and Public Hospital Personnel Act. Carolinas Healthcare responded that it felt the information was not public record, a sentiment the court agreed with.  Setting a precedent  Further complicating the matter, the UNC School of Government started advising that the ruling meant that pay packages for all public sector personnel beyond salary could not be reviewed, essentially meaning employment contracts are secret.  In a nutshell, public money, private contracts are at odds with the concept of open government.  According to the North Carolina Press Association, SB 1546 would redress the situation by:  n Adding all forms of compensation to the list of data that must be disclosed to the public and press.  n Require that all written and oral, past and current contracts with government employees be disclosed.  n Amend the public hospital employee's statute, as well as state, county, municipal, school board, public health authority and water and sewer authority employee statutes.  More secrecy  SB 1006, on the other hand, takes a step toward codifying secrecy. Sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand, SB 1006 puts scrutiny of the purchase of physician medical practices off-limits under the North Carolina Public Records Act. It would roll back the results of a two-year battle by another newspaper, The Wilkes County Journal-Patriot, to view the contract between a Wilkes County doctor who sold his practice to a public hospital in that county.  The Journal-Patriot asked for a copy of the purchase agreement between Wilkes Regional Medical Center, a public hospital owned by the town of North Wilkesboro, and the doctor. The hospital argued the contract wasn't subject to disclosure because it was ""competitive health care information.'' A court ruling sided with the paper, stating ""the contract here is a contract with a public hospital to purchase a medical practice. There is nothing in the record to suggest that other hospitals or entities were competing for (the) medical practice, and therefore nothing to suggest this contract contained 'financial terms' or health care information directly related to financial terms such that this contract should be kept confidential.''  Two-tiered system  In essence, SB 1006 would seem to create a two-tiered system where public hospitals get different treatment than other public entities under law. At best this holds forth the possibility of public scrutiny not following public interest (and dollars). At worst, it holds the promise of the slippery slope, setting a precedent where the public's right to know comes with strings attached, caveats and qualifiers for this or that sector.  While much of the focus of this legislative session will be on hot-button issues like immigration or gay marriage, the two bills we've discussed here do not represent some obscure legislative backwater. They are at the heart of the openness needed in a democracy.  Particularly in North Carolina, where some inroads have been made recently on ethics and lobbying reform in an effort to clear the air of the taint of a number of high-profile scandals, any potential slide toward the dimming of sunshine laws is dismaying. SB 1006 deserves to be shelved to help keep records open. For the same reason, SB 1546 deserves passage."
"5","Another amnesty? CHI0000020070405e3450001h Editorials/Letters Gerald Shinn The Chicago Sun-Times 216 Words 05 April 2007 Chicago Sun-Times Final 32 English � 2007 Chicago Sun Times. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  There is a new immigration proposal before Congress. This legislation, co-sponsored by Representatives Jeff Flake and Luis Gutierrez, is even worse than last year's bill passed by the Senate.  It calls for amnesty for any illegal immigrant who has been here for nine months or longer. The bill also calls for an increase in legal immigration and a guest worker program that would allow up to 400,000 ""temporary workers"" and their spouses and dependent children into the country every year.  There's nothing temporary about this program. Does anybody doubt that the ""guest workers"" and their families will refuse to leave when their visas expire? Does anybody doubt that Flake, Gutierrez and their cohorts will be standing there with another ""comprehensive"" bill that includes yet another amnesty? This is not a ""guest worker"" program. It's a huge increase in immigration.  We have created just 5 million jobs in America since the beginning of 2001. We brought in twice as many immigrants during the same time frame: 10 million.  That Flake-Gutierrez is, to put it mildly, a bad bill is quite obvious. The only question is why? Campaign contributions from businesses wanting cheaper labor? Pandering for ethnic votes?  Gerald Shinn, Franklin Park"
"1"," Hits and Misses DAL0000020070407e3470000j EDITORIALS EDITORIALS 846 Words 07 April 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 16A English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  The House sends a clear sign ...  In case the Texas Senate missed it, that was a signal the House sent this week. A big signal. The House voted 126-16 to undo most of the restrictions the Legislature put on the Children's Health Insurance Program in 2003. That lopsided victory shows that the House is not interested in backing down on the CHIP changes, which some in the Senate appear to endorse. Message now delivered, we hope the Senate heeds it. The House's improvements would benefit as many as 100,000 uninsured Texas kids.  ... and that's not all it's been up to  The CHIP bill isn't the only positive step Tom Craddick's House has taken. It's played up its interest in creating a new energy planning team. It has been serious about passing water legislation to ready Texas for a populous future. It has taken a stand in favor of open government by requiring the recording of votes on final passage of bills. And it has squashed immigration bills that could have derailed the session. Such progress doesn't happen without Mr. Craddick's approval, so we say good job so far. Don't stop now!  A compassionate legacy  Although he coached hundreds of young African-Americans to careers in the National Football League, Eddie Robinson's legacy at Grambling State University will be the great strength of character he imparted to his athletes. Over a nearly 60-year coaching career, Mr. Robinson, who died this week, brought grace, honor and loyalty to his profession, his school and his teams. He will be missed.  A real Fab Five does it again  We expect to see another team win consecutive NCAA basketball championships one day, but we doubt that team will do it the way the University of Florida did. The Gators, the first repeat champs in 15 years, won their titles with the same starting five, after an 84-75 victory Monday over Ohio State. In an era of one-and-done ""college"" stars barely hitting campus before hopping to the NBA, congrats to Al Horford, Corey Brewer, Joakim Noah, Taurean Green and Lee Humphrey for retiring the togetherness trophy.  Mayoral candidates agree: Leave immigration to D.C.  The mob of Dallas mayoral candidates seldom speaks with one voice. With so many contenders (11 at last count), unanimity on any issue is an unlikely prospect. So we were heartened by their solidarity at a recent forum as they denounced the Farmers Branch approach to illegal immigration. The candidates who spoke to the Greater Dallas Hispanic Chamber of Commerce rightly noted that the issue is best left to the federal government and agreed that local ordinances would bring unnecessary headaches. Dallas' next mayor will have plenty of other problems to contend with.  Time to go  Ward County Attorney Kevin Acker is right: Ward County District Attorney Randall Reynolds should resign. Mr. Reynolds' failure to prosecute men accused of molesting youth inmates at the West Texas State School in Pyote was a grave miscarriage of justice that demands Mr. Reynolds' removal.  Wrong place, wrong time, wrong words  Yes, Congress, as a co-equal with the executive branch, has a legitimate voice in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Nonetheless, we're concerned that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria over the objections of the White House sent mixed signals to the country. We've favored engaging Syria in regional talks, but symbolism matters. What's worse, when she injected herself into the complex diplomatic stalemate between Syria and Israel, Ms. Pelosi badly misrepresented or misread the views of both sides. Such sloppy efforts at diplomacy are inexcusable.  Baghdad as Potemkin village  Sen. John McCain led a GOP congressional delegation to Baghdad last weekend and took a stroll in a marketplace. ""Things are better, and there are encouraging signs,"" he later said. ""Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today."" Angry merchants pointed out, however, that the U.S. lawmakers swooped in protected by more than 100 soldiers and several attack helicopters and that the market area had been sealed off to traffic prior to the visit. Baghdad must become a truly stable and secure city, not a mere Potemkin village for political photo-ops.  A deal they can't refuse  ""You've got a nice operation here. Hate to see anything happen to it. Let me offer you a deal: You can keep this going, and I'll take half."" That's probably how things sound to local officials as state lawmakers shake them down for a share of the money generated by red-light cameras. Legislation to do just that (SB 125) overwhelmingly passed the Senate this week and went to the House. It's fine if lawmakers want to regulate the cameras by capping fines and making sure they aren't used as speed traps. But they ought to keep their hands out of the till. PHOTO(S): Grabbling State Football team and coach Eddie Robinson"
"4","D.C. IS STALLED ON IRAQ, BUT NOT ON IMMIGRATION PMBP000020070408e3470002v OPINION 501 Words 07 April 2007 The Palm Beach Post FINAL 10A English Copyright 2007. The Palm Beach Post, All Rights Reserved.  The serious bidding in the negotiations for comprehensive immigration reform may have started quietly over the congressional Easter recess when the White House floated a proposal with new figures.  The numbers weren't about immigration quotas but prices for participating in the guest-worker program President Bush wants to create. The latest offering from the White House would allow illegal immigrants to apply for three-year work visas that would cost $3,500 and could be renewed indefinitely for the same fee. Illegal immigrants would have legal status with the visas, but to gain permanent residency and a green card, they would have to return to their home countries and pay a $10,000 fine to reenter the United States legally.  A White House spokesperson downplayed the proposal as ""discussion points,"" but the discussion clearly has taken a serious turn when carping over dollar amounts begins. Immigrant rights advocates quickly criticized the proposals as economically oppressive for the millions of minimum-wage workers in low-end jobs. A $10,000 fine represents most of a year's work for many of them. What incentive would there be for them to participate in a government program?  Yet implied in the criticism is the acknowledgment that while these numbers may be too high, there probably are some in the middle that can work. The best news for the nation would be that leaders in Congress have moved beyond the debate over whether comprehensive reform should happen and now are just haggling over the price.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has emerged as a central player in the negotiations while the Democrats and White House have been preoccupied with the Iraq spending bill. He has led meetings with a core group of Republican senators, including Florida's Mel Martinez, and tried to produce a more conservative version of a House bill introduced last month by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.  Their plan would create a six-year path to legal residency, but it also first introduced the requirement that illegal immigrants leave the country, then reenter legally. The so-called ""touchback"" provision is an attempt to provide political cover for lawmakers opposed to amnesty and rewarding people who have broken the law.  Besides the size of the fines, Republicans also want to counterbalance, allowing legal status to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants with spending more money for border control. There also are provisions that would favor skilled workers over unskilled and prohibit temporary workers from bringing family members. Both are non-starters for lawmakers such as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who believes that Congress has a moral obligation to enable immigrant families to work their way to residency.  Sen. McConnell's work behind the scenes and the new draft from the White House are strong signals that while Washington can't agree on much else, political will to deal with immigration may be forming. "
"4","New Year, Same Crawl Congress gets nowhere fast on immigration fix DAL0000020070408e3480006g POINTS EDITORIALS 568 Words 08 April 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 2P English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  Worried? You bet.  Why wouldn't anyone who believes it's high time that Congress fixed our nation's broken immigration system, the one that allows in about 400,000 illegal immigrants each year and allowed us to accumulate about 12 million living here without legal visas?  Here we are, three months into a new Congress, and we have yet to see a hearing or a single vote on immigration. In Congress time, that is more than a third of the year gone. It could be as much as half the year, when you consider that the House and Senate will work on legislation until the August break but may only stay in session another couple of months after Labor Day.  Even more worrisome is when we look back at last year's pace. Consider where Washington was then on correcting the immigration problem:  2006  Jan. 1: The year began with the House having already passed an immigration bill in December 2005. Many criticized it as too focused on only securing the border. Nonetheless, the House bill headed to the Senate, where it would rev up the pace.  February: GOP Sen. Arlen Specter spent hours fine-tuning a bill to respond to the House and to present to his Senate Judiciary Committee in March.  March: The Judiciary Committee received the Specter bill and started going over the fine print. Amendments flew back and forth. Arms were twisted.  Week of March 27: The Judiciary Committee passed out the Specter bill, which immediately went to the full Senate. It fell apart after a procedural vote revealed that it lacked enough support.  Week of April 3: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist released a compromise plan crafted by fellow Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez. President Bush blessed it. But that bill, too, failed on its own procedural vote. Apparently exhausted, Congress headed to Easter recess.  Week of May 15: The Hagel/Martinez plan was reintroduced. The full Senate took it up and considered numerous amendments.  Week of May 22: The Senate finally passed the Hagel/Martinez.bill.  What happened after that, of course, is that the House and Senate couldn't work out their differences, so Congress is back at it again this year. As you can see, it's running behind even the minimal pace of last year.  You can sum up this year's work pretty quickly:  2007  January, February and March: Led by Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Senate starts putting together a new bill. The White House tries to line up Republican support; John McCain starts feeling heat on the presidential trail. The process slows, so no bill comes out in March as predicted. Only the House gets going, with Republican Jeff Flake and Democrat Luis Gutierrez proposing in late March a more comprehensive plan than the House's previous attempt. Still, no bill is headed to the House floor.  Week of April 2: Congress, undoubtedly exhausted, heads home for another recess. Little progress. No bill.  Are you concerned yet? There's so much that needs to happen to pass a comprehensive bill that secures the border, allows in guest workers and gives illegal immigrants a chance to earn citizenship over time. And there are only so many days in which to make that happen.  Yeah, we're worried. You should be, too."
"4","Move now on comprehensive immigration reform XNWP000020070410e3480000m Metro; B N-P Staff 883 Words 08 April 2007 News-Press Fort Myers 10b English (c) Copyright 2007, News-Press. All Rights Reserved.  Opinion  Editorials  A year after big immigration reform rallies in Lee County and around America, the cause remains in limbo.  There are signs that might be changing. President Bush looks as if he might be thinking about leading again on the issue. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he'll bring reform up next month.  The gridlock needs to be broken before elections and Iraq smother every other issue.  ""Comprehensive"" reform remains the only reasonable answer to this dilemma: a combination of much tougher immigration control with a legal accommodation for some of the millions of illegal immigrants whom this country's employers need and who have made a constructive place for themselves here.  That said, it has become clearer than ever in the past year that this country will need to make a powerful commitment to enforcement if reformers are to overcome the deep skepticism of many Americans about legalization.  Bush and other reformers are striving mightily to avoid any appearance of ""amnesty,"" or the mere forgiveness of illegal status. They insist that what they envision is ""earned"" legalization, involving fines and other hurdles that would make illegal immigrants comply with the law retroactively.  This is necessary. But a caution is in order. The goal of immigration should be full citizenship, and its achievement should be encouraged, not made too difficult or distant.  A White House draft recently leaked after talks among Republican leaders is worrisome because it does not provide a clear path to permanent residency and citizenship for guest workers. The population of illegal immigrants should not be merely converted to a permanent resident underclass, legal but unassimilated to American life. That would be a mockery of the promise of immigration, both to immigrants and the rest of us.  So get tough, and demand legality, but preserve the dream. We are not just trying to get immigration under control, but to make it work as it has so gloriously for this country.  A measure filed recently in the House by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., is a good starting point for breathing life back into reform. It would create a ""new worker"" (guest worker) program tied to visas and earned citizenship measures for both new workers and those here already. It also provides for a crucial system for verifying applicants' legal residency for employers, necessary if compliance is to be forced on businesses.  Flake-Gutierrez also requires heads of households to leave the country and re-enter legally to have a chance at permanent residency for them and their families.  The bill also includes tough enforcement measures that should help satisfy critics disappointed with control efforts so far, including that big tease, the 700-mile border fence Congress still hasn't fully funded.  They include:  • About 15,000 new border agents.  • Higher criminal penalties for businesses hiring illegal immigrants, and for immigrants involved with gangs.  • Money for states and cities that help patrol the border.  • Criminal penalties for anyone caught avoiding border agents.  • Twenty new detention facilities for up to 20,000 illegal immigrants. Such facilities have proven crucial to border control.  • Requiring Homeland Security to certify that the border is secure before the rest of the bill takes effect.  A lot of this will stick in the craw of immigrants, their advocates, and Democrats. But get real. The Democratic victory in the congressional elections last November did not signal smooth sailing for reform, contrary to some naive expectations. The Democratic majorities are thin, and some of those Democrats were elected or re-elected by telling constituents they will not go soft on immigration. So the enforcement side of the equation needs to get tougher.  Most illegal immigrants already here are here to stay, like it or not. They are here, for the most part, because we need them, and they are living constructive lives in our communities.  They must be woven legally into America's social fabric. Urge our leaders in Washington to act.  CONTACT THEM  Visit these Web sites and click on the contact or e-mail links. Only Connie Mack's is a direct e-mail address.  • U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez (202) 224-3041; visit the Web site martinez.senate.gov to e-mail  • U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (202) 224-5274; visit the Web site billnelson.senate.gov to e-mail.  • U.S. Rep. Connie Mack (202) 225-2536; e-mail connie.mack@mail.house.gov.  • Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (202) 224-3542; visit the Web site reid.senate.gov to e-mail.  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (202) 224-2541; visit the Web site mcconnell.senate.gov to e-mail.  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (202) 225-0100; visit the Web site house.gov/pelosi to e-mail  • House Minority Leader John Boehner (202) 225-6205; visit the Web site house.gov/boehner to e-mail.  • President George W. Bush (202) 456-1111; visit the Web site whitehouse.gov to e-mail; click on White House Interactive  news-press.com/opinion  •Forum: Join the forum on immigration."
"1","U. Texas: EDITORIAL: U. Texas' brave new East Mall UWIR000020070410e349000bv 599 Words 09 April 2007 U-Wire English (c) 2007 U-Wire. All Rights Reserved.  U-WIRE-04/09/2007-U. Texas: EDITORIAL: U. Texas' brave new East Mall (C) 2007 Daily Texan Via U-WIRE  Staff Editorial, Daily Texan (U. Texas)  AUSTIN, Texas -- Architects who have been planning the future Student  Activity Center held two forums with students last Wednesday, which was a step to keep the project as ""transparent as possible."" During the meetings, a few major revelations emerged.  The biggest news was that the College of Liberal Arts is interested in constructing a building of its own on the East Mall, which may fold into construction of the SAC. The buildings are currently being designed to connect via an atrium, and the liberal arts wing may spill over the hill into the East Mall bus circle.  The architects kept saying that they ""needed"" 333,000 square feet for the project, about 180,000 of which for the SAC. That means much of the internal programming of the building has already been sketched out, but it won't be publicly discussed until next fall.  We can already predict what's likely to be included: a food court, theater space, study and lounge spaces, an auditorium and student organization space. If the Student Services Building is any indicator, it won't be long until student governance organizations start bickering over where their new offices will be in the SAC. Although the SSB didn't open until 1997, students were planning where their offices would be located in 1993. (One proposal last semester for SAC space included a meeting room for student governance, something like a senate chamber. Again, we won't know until at least the fall if that will make it to the final SAC.)  Perhaps more interesting was the disclosure that the new East Mall construction will likely require the demolition of Steindam Hall and the nearby ROTC Rifle Range Building. The demolitions are more-or-less contingent on whether the College of Liberal Arts can find a heavy-hitting donor to fund a new liberal arts building. SAC designers were told by the University of Texas to propose one plan with and one without Steindam Hall.  But all this East Mall discussion has been devoid of a major conversation concerning open public spaces. If the East Mall bus circle, one of the last ""free-speech zones"" on campus where students can hold a rally (such as last year's 1,000+ immigration rally) gets gobbled up, where can students congregate en masse? If we add planters as planned to the East Mall, similar to those on the West Mall, which used to discourage protests in the 1970s, can we expect similar eyesores to eventually inhibit our beloved South Mall?  We're still not over of the SAC's tainted push to get students to charge future Longhorns a $65-a-semester fee for the building, including a privately funded campaign for the ballot initiative. According to Keshav Rajagopalan, SG's current internal financial director, records indicate that Cassandra Carr, a senior advisor for Public Strategies who is also on the board of directors at Temple-Inland Inc., gave $900 to that campaign. Cappy McGarr, president of McGarr Capital Holding, gave $500 to help SG lobby students for the future fee. We sure hope Carr wasn't buying Temple-Inland a hand in construction materials for the new building.  But the building marches on, as do plans to drastically change the East Mall. All praise be a new Whataburger on campus.  ##30##  Distributed via M2 Communications Ltd - http://www.m2.com"
"4","LIGHT A BEACON SEPI000020070411e34a00006 Editorial 238 Words 10 April 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer FINAL B6 English © 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  We hope President Bush's border visit lights a fire under senators of both parties. It will take strong bipartisan Senate action next month to create momentum for comprehensive immigration reform.  Bush went Monday to Yuma, Ariz., where he hailed stepped-up border patrol activity. The president hopes to show conservatives that border enforcement already is being toughened as he tries to win their support for broader reform.  The president has been on the right track for years in advocating balanced, humane changes. With Democrats in control of Congress and some Republicans willing to join in a search for good compromises, Bush may have his best chance yet for getting a reform law passed.  Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy praised Bush's visit and urged bipartisanship. ""There is a lot of common ground,"" Kennedy said, ""especially in the need to strengthen our borders and enforce our laws, though important differences remain to be resolved.""  A White House draft of reform ideas went overboard with punishing those doing hard work here. But the president's overall push has been for stronger enforcement, more opportunities for legal entry and new ways for the current illegal entrants to earn citizenship in their country of choice. The country needs balanced changes if it is going to bring real controls to immigration while living up to its own values and building a stronger economy. P-I EDITORIALS IMMIGRATION REFORM"
"4","Bush again embattled on immigration reform plan TUCC000020070411e34a0000c Citizen Voices; B 635 Words 10 April 2007 The Tucson Citizen 1B English (c) Copyright 2007, The Tucson Citizen. All Rights Reserved.  President Bush renewed his push � for comprehensive immigration reform Monday, but he immediately found himself criticized by the right and the left.  The criticism leaves us pessimistic that anything meaningful will become law. We're even more so because members of Congress on both sides of the aisle see this as an opportunity to score points against a politically weakened Bush.  That is a travesty and a tragedy. This is an issue of national security, of economic stability and of humanitarian justice that ought to transcend political opportunism.  Bush was in Yuma to again make his case that immigration laws are broken. He pointed out that security along the U.S.-Mexico border has been toughened, so it is time to deal with other aspects of immigration reform.  Bush's immigration proposal, which sensibly includes a guest-worker program, has been attacked by the conservative wing of his own Republican Party on the basis that it does not focus enough on border security.  Democrats attack it because they feel it is punitive to those in a guest-worker program. By not allowing them to bring family members to the United States, it creates a permanent underclass of workers, they argue.  A guest-worker plan must be part of any plan. As Bush noted in Yuma, ""You cannot fully secure the border until you take pressure off the border. And that requires a temporary- worker program.""  Bush also said that it is impractical to arrest and deport up to 12 million illegal immigrants.  ""It may sound good,"" the president said. ""It won't happen.""  It was encouraging that Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., was with Bush on his visit. It also was encouraging that Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is at the opposite pole philosophically from Kyl, praised the president by saying Bush ""did the right thing.""  But otherwise, Bush's support is tepid. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has scheduled time for an immigration debate in late May. But what will senators debate? At this point, no bill is in the Senate.  The House has a bill that is a reasonable bow to representatives who want security, a guest-worker program and a tough road to citizenship for those who have entered the country illegally.  But Democrats are not eager to give Bush a domestic victory, and many Republicans won't go along with anything that allows people who entered the country illegally to stay.  The Border Patrol is apprehending more than 2,000 illegal immigrants every day in its Tucson sector, making it impossible for agents to look for real criminals. And with the approaching summer temperatures, many of those people will die.  Congress must get to work on real immigration reform.  •  McCain musn't be 'too busy'  Last year, Sen. John McCain was an immigration reform leader, sponsoring legislation with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.  But this year, the Arizona Republican has shied away from the debate. Why?  Some have accused McCain of dodging the immigration issue so he can gain support from conservatives as he runs for president.  His aides deny it. They told The Washington Post that he is simply ""too busy"" to lead immigration legislation and has handed it to others.  Too busy with what? Safely shopping in the Baghdad marketplace?  Immigration reform must be a top priority of every senator and representative from Arizona. It is inexcusable that McCain isn't properly representing his constituents on this matter.  •  UPCOMING EDITORIALS  SABINO CANYON: Repair to let nature have her way? What should happen to our flood-ravaged canyon?  HERITAGE AREA: Members of Congress today will propose creation of the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area.  •  › Express an opinion on these topics. E-mail us: opinion@tucsoncitizen.com"
"4","Editorial Roundup APRS000020070411e34b002k1 By The Associated Press 4358 Words 11 April 2007 19:20 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:  April 6  The Times Reporter of Dover-New Philadelphia, Ohio, on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:  The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who brought a new level of meanness to politics during the 2004 presidential campaign, are back in the news with the appointment of one of the major donors to the group as ambassador to Belgium.  Sam Fox, a St. Louis businessman who has donated millions to the Republican Party over the years, made a $50,000 contribution to the Swift Boat group three years ago.  The group gained notoriety for a series of TV attack ads claiming that Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for president, exaggerated his Vietnam War record. The ads are widely considered to be a major reason why Kerry lost the election to President Bush.  When Fox appeared before the Senate for his confirmation hearing last month, Democrats made an issue of the contribution. Fox praised Kerry's war record, calling him a hero, but refused to apologize for the contribution.  When it became clear that Fox had no chance of winning approval from the Senate, Bush withdrew the nomination. Then, on Wednesday, while the Senate was out of town, Bush made a recess appointment, naming Fox to the post. Democrats were outraged. ...  We think Bush would have been wise to accept defeat on this issue and move on.  ------  On the Net:  http://tinyurl.com/25cvnb  ------  April 7  The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, on White House e-mails:  A couple of recent scandals have highlighted the possibility that unofficial e-mail addresses have been used by some White House staff in an effort to circumvent the archival process of official records.  There were the e-mails sent to convicted lobbyist and haberdashery fanatic Jack Abramoff by Karl Rove's assistant Susan Ralston, who used a non-White House e-mail address to share internal White House info with Abramoff. White House e-mails, after all, are copied and saved as part of the Presidential Records Act, which requires that presidential records be released to the public 12 years after each president leaves office.  The second is the ongoing investigation into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, which, it seems, were discussed using unofficial e-mail servers, including ones registered to the Republican National Committee, using domain names such as gwb43.com. The PRA requires that all official business be carried out on an official White House e-mailing system.  President Bush claims not to use e-mail. At all. ...  Public-records chicanery has been standard political practice -- Presidents Nixon, Clinton and Bush Sr. have all been accused of it. And from the get-go, this administration in particular has sought broad authority over how much info the media and general public can access. On Nov.1, 2001, Bush issued Executive Order 13233, which revoked a prior order issued by President Reagan. In doing so, Bush gave himself and former presidents the right to withhold records or delay their release indefinitely. A license to re-write history via incomplete records? You bet. But there's hope yet.  The Senate is currently looking at The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 1255), which seeks to rescind Executive Order 13233. The bill passed in the House, and is now referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We can only hope that Bush won't veto this bill, as he has threatened to do. Although at least that would be a matter of public record.  ------  On the Net:  http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/310441--emailed.html  ------  April 8  The Kansas City (Mo.) Star, on immigration reform:  The second major recent congressional effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform puts the emphasis on the nation's security first. Backers hope that tweak will deflect the backlash that undid previous reform efforts.  The first word in the title of the latest legislation to tackle the nation's immigration quandaries says it all: Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007.  The bill, introduced last month, is a bipartisan effort sponsored by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, and Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican.  Legal analysts are poring over the fine print of the nearly 700-page package, but it appears to include all of the necessary components -- penalties for those who have come to the U.S. illegally, more visas for needed workers and stronger efforts to secure the nation's borders.  The bill sets up an employment verification system for employers to check the immigration status of applicants. It includes civil penalties against employers unwilling to cooperate and criminal penalties if employers hire illegal workers knowingly.  The bill also increases penalties for immigrants associated with money laundering, firearms offenses, drunken driving and gang crimes. And it offers immigrants the ability to eventually gain U.S. citizenship after they work in the U.S. five years, pay fees, meet English language requirements and pass background checks.  Some troublesome aspects of past proposals wisely have been avoided. The bill prohibits a national identification card and clarifies the role of state and local law agencies on immigration enforcement.  The proposal is a starting point. Much work is ahead. Yet, with so many lawmakers seeking a presidential nomination, a fairly small window exists for such contentious issues to be decided before Congress turns a hyper focus on presidential campaigning.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/62978.html  ------  April 8  The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., on campaign fundraising:  Money, unfortunately, is part of the political game.  If initial first-quarter reports are any indication, previous presidential campaign fund-raising records are going to be shattered in the 2008 race.  Is it any wonder that our state and federal budgets are in such terrible shape when the people running the show get accustomed to freely spending large amounts of other people's money?  A week ago the big news was that Sen. Hillary Clinton had set a record for presidential-primary candidates by raising $26 million in the first quarter of 2007.  By midweek we learned that her key rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, had raised $25 million.  Poor John Edwards.  The $14 million collected by the former North Carolina senator in the past three months looks anemic next to dollars vacuumed in by Clinton and Obama. Yet it's nearly twice the ""old"" primary fund-raising record of $7.4 million. That was set in the first quarter of 2003 -- by Edwards.  Of course, Republicans aren't standing around with their hands in their pockets. They have their hands out looking for donations, too.  Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney wasn't far behind the Clinton-Obama money machine with $23 million raised in the first quarter. And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain were on par with Edwards, raising $15 million and $12.5 million, respectively.  Campaign financing is a lot like the weather: Everyone talks about it, but no one can do much about it.  Whether we like it or not, money matters in politics. It buys advertising, brochures, bumper stickers and signs for rallies. It pays for travel around various states, not only for the candidates but also their campaign workers.  In the end, it's the votes that count. But without money to count, campaigns may not last long enough for votes to be cast. That's not ideal, but that's reality.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.pantagraph.com  ------  April 9  The Denver Post, on stem-cell bills in the U.S. Senate:  The U.S. Senate is set to take up legislation this week that would lift restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. It is a continuation of efforts that ended in the Oval Office last year when President Bush vetoed a bill passed by the Republican-dominated House and Senate that would have allowed funding for new stem-cell lines.  We hope the current stem-cell efforts will make it into law.  Two bills are expected to be debated in the Senate. One is similar to last year's legislation, which would have allowed funding for research on donated embryos stored in fertility clinics and destined to be destroyed.  The other bill proposes to use stem cells taken from embryos that doctors determine are too deficient to produce a child if they were implanted. The bill sponsor, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, said his proposal avoids Bush's moral concerns that human embryos have to be destroyed in the name of federally funded research.  Stem cells are a promising area of research that some scientists believe could result in cures for such diseases as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's and treatment for spinal-cord and other injuries.  In 2001, the president banned the use of federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research beyond the 20 or so lines already in existence.  Last month, Bush's chief medical researcher publicly endorsed taxpayer funding for embryonic stem-cell research. ""From my standpoint, it is clear today that American science will be better served, and the nation will be better served, if we let our scientists have access to more stem-cell lines,"" Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, told the Senate health appropriations subcommittee. He said that the funding limits imposed by Bush have stalled efforts to advance research that could help sick and injured people. He noted that some of the existing stem-cell lines have degraded and are no longer suitable for research. He also said that studies suggesting that adult stem cells and other non-embryonic types are just as promising ""do not hold scientific water.""  The House has already passed a new stem-cell funding bill, and the public opinion surveys show a majority favors opening the door for scientists to pursue this research.  The president is the odd man out on this critical issue, and we hope the bipartisan support for stem-cell research will prompt him to reconsider his position.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci--5623567  ------  April 9  Star Tribune of Minneapolis, on the use of antibiotics in animals:  Wisconsin dairy farmer John Vrieze wants FDA permission to give his cows a powerful antibiotic, cefquinome, that is now the drug of choice and last resort for several difficult-to-treat human conditions. He shouldn't get that permission.  By all accounts, Vrieze is a very good dairy farmer who embraces advanced techniques for keeping his cows happy, healthy and producing. So when one of his cows comes down with bovine respiratory disease, he'd like to treat the animal with a powerful drug, cefquinome. The manufacturer of cefquinome has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration for permission to begin selling the drug for use in animal husbandry.  That has set up a tug of war between those opposed to wider use of antibiotics in animals and those who favor it. In this battle, the opponents are the good guys; they include the American Medical Association, other health groups and the FDA's own advisory panel.  The problem is that the disease-causing microbes which antibiotics attack constantly mutate. The wider the use of an antibiotic, the sooner one of those mutations will defeat the drug.  Widespread use of antibiotics in animals accelerates this process tremendously, leaving humans more vulnerable to diseases once controllable. That's what is behind a movement to reduce the use of antibiotics in animals ....  Enter cefquinome. A close cousin, cefepime, is the only effective treatment available for some serious infections. Worried that using cefquinome in animals puts the efficacy of cefepime at risk, the advisory board at the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine recommended against approving animal use.  The panel had two other reasons for voting the way it did: A dozen other, effective treatments already are on the market for bovine respiratory disease, and the incidence of that disease can be significantly reduced if the animals are treated right -- i.e., not frequently moved long distances and not packed tightly together.  Notwithstanding the commonsense judgment that drugs from the cephalosporin family should be reserved for humans, the FDA may still approve it for animals. The reason is one that has become common under the Bush administration: deference to industry.  FDA guidelines have been rewritten so that approval in a case like this is pretty much guaranteed unless opponents can prove a risk to a drug used in humans to fight a food-borne illness. Since that is not the case for cefquinome, dairy farmer Vrieze may get his wish and be allowed to use its close cousin on his sick dairy cows. His ""Bossy"" may be better off, but someone's very sick Aunt Millie eventually is going to pay the price. Something's wrong with that outcome.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.startribune.com  ------  April 9  The Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News, on Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria:  The White House can't have it both ways. It cannot condemn a visit to Syria by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi without also denouncing a trip there by a group of Republicans that included U.S. Rep. Bob Aderholt of Haleyville (Ala.).  Bush accused Pelosi of failing to heed the administration's policy against American travel to Syria, which it ranks as a supporter of terrorism.  It is hypocritical of the president to ignore the visit ... by the group of Republicans a week before the Pelosi trip.  In truth, neither visit should be censured. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission urged our elected leaders to engage states such as Syria that can help achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East.  The Pelosi visit also included Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Israel.  A spokesman for the White House National Security Council called Pelosi's meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ""counterproductive."" ...  But Pelosi said Assad gave her reassurances that he was ready to resume the peace process by engaging in negotiations with Israel. Those talks collapsed in 2000.  Assad's involvement is important because of his influence on Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Syria also is influential in the affairs of other Arab nations.  Aderholt, who rarely parts company with the president, said last week that it is important to engage nations like Syria in dialogue and seek common ground on issues.  Bush is wrong to ignore Assad. By default, leaders in Congress are shouldering the responsibility to rekindle Middle East peace efforts.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage  ------  April 11  The Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times, on nuclear inspections in Iran:  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's boast about Iran's expanded nuclear program has elicited a skeptical response from several Western nations.  Mr. Ahmadinejad claims that his country is now producing enriched uranium on an industrial scale, a significant step that would violate U.N. resolutions and move Iran farther down the road to a nuclear weapon.  Iran says its nuclear program is directed toward peaceful energy production. The United States and other countries fear Tehran intends to develop a nuclear warhead.  Russia, France and the United States, though, expressed doubts that Iran could have made the technological leaps needed to operate 3,000 centrifuges (nearly 10 times the previously known number) required to warrant President Ahmadinejad's claim. ...  There was also international concern about Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments suggesting Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and limit further cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. monitoring group.  The comments were made as two IAEA inspectors arrived in Iran to visit the uranium enrichment plant. If President Ahmadinejad's claims are true, then it could escalate tensions and jeopardize negotiations to resolve the standoff between Iran and the United Nations. It has imposed sanctions to punish Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.  Uncertainty persists over the nature and extent of Iran's nuclear ambition. President Ahmadinejad's remarks only heightened the doubts and add to the urgency in opening Iran's nuclear program to full international inspection.  ----  On the Net:  http://www.watertowndailytimes.com  ------  April 8  Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, on Japan-China summit:  For the first time since October 2000, a Chinese leader is coming to Japan.  More than anything, visits by national leaders raise public awareness in both countries, and are good opportunities for the people to erase misunderstandings and distrust. Such visits also show that actual efforts are being made to improve relations.  If one considers the need for regional progress and safety, including the creation of an East Asian Community, it is all too evident that cooperation, not conflict, should be sought.  Japan needs to further dialogue and cooperation so that China's future will benefit Japan and the region. The other Asian countries, anxious about China's increasing importance, including its military buildup, no doubt expect Japan to play that role.  Japan-China relations were seriously damaged during former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's time in office. We would like the Chinese premier's visit to send a message to the world that the two countries are serious about repairing the rift and about taking further steps for better ties.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.asahi.com/english/  ------  April 10  The Hindu, Madras, India, on Special Economic Zones:  After a freeze and a review of the policy on Special Economic Zones, a group of Ministers of the Union Cabinet has come out with a partial solution, which nevertheless is welcome insofar as it goes. The main objective of the policy promoting the production of goods and services rather than real estate and commercial development is sought to be strengthened by raising the processing area in an SEZ uniformly to 50 per cent of its extent. Secondly, a ceiling of 5,000 hectares is fixed on the size to keep the administrative and social costs of dislocating people from farms and homes manageable. The third and most significant change is the ban on the exercise of the state's power of eminent domain to compulsorily acquire land in the case of pending applications for SEZs. Compulsory acquisition has been the lightning rod for protests by farmers, social activists, and political parties and the change in policy should serve to defuse much of the opposition to SEZs on the ground. The use of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 involves the obvious inequity in compulsorily acquiring land at low prices from farmers, ostensibly for a public purpose, and handing it to industries and real estate developers. The change of use invariably saw land values increase several fold, the gains of appreciation going to government agencies, industries, and real estate developers rather than to the farmers. With SEZ developers now having to buy land from willing sellers, possibly at much higher prices, farmers will no longer be uprooted against their will.  Following the experience of China, SEZs were conceived of as a quick fix to get over the problems of lack of infrastructure, multiplicity of controls and clearances, and an unfriendly tax policy and promote productive enterprises and attract foreign investment. ... Still, two major policy areas remain unaddressed. First, income tax concessions and exemption from import duties, service tax, Central sales tax, and State taxes are offered to SEZ developers and units. These result in a substantial loss of revenue and the question arises if such tax incentives-led industrialisation is sustainable. Secondly, rapid growth and industrialisation have brought to the fore the issue of conversion of farmland and wasteland to industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The reform of land use planning laws and regulations to make them more transparent and rule-based and the development of efficient land markets brook no delay. An important component of the policy should be the rehabilitation of farmers and farm labour, who will be unsettled from their traditional avocations.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.hindu.com/  ------  April 11  The Daily Telegraph, London, on the captured sailors and Marines:  The fiasco following the release of the service personnel captured by Iran confirms at least one suspicion: that this Government profoundly misunderstands the nature and ethos of the Armed Forces as institutions. While it has been happy, in pursuit of an at times reckless foreign policy since 1997, to send servicemen and women into conflict, it has never properly understood what this means for them, the forces and the country. The present Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne, seems to have even less of a grasp of these fundamentals than his predecessors. That he could have allowed the 15 captured sailors and Marines to sell their stories to the media caused astonishment when announced a few days ago. On reflection, the decision - taken in full disregard of its consequences, especially for morale - is outrageous and profoundly damaging. By it, Mr Browne has done what no Minister of the Crown has ever managed to do: he has brought our Armed Forces to a point where some right-thinking people might start to hold them in contempt.  This dereliction by Mr Browne is all the more disgraceful given what was, it seems, the reason for permission being granted in the first place. There were no ""exceptional circumstances"" to be accounted for, whatever was said at the time: those in the Forces risk their lives for their country day in, day out. There was, though, a desire on the part of the Government to look good in the aftermath of its humiliation following the capture of the 15. The sailors and Marines were therefore enlisted as part of a despicable spin operation. Most of them, fortunately, have had the presence of mind to refuse to play this game. Those who have not should be aware that they have done themselves and the Royal Navy no favours.  As a result of the policy of the last decade, our Armed Forces are grotesquely overstretched and therefore exceedingly vulnerable. This Government has made ever more exacting demands on the Services while starving them of resources, equipping them inadequately, and presiding over a recruitment and retention crisis. The Prime Minister in particular has revelled vicariously in the heroism, professionalism and sacrifice of our servicemen and women while doing precious little to ensure that their jobs can be carried out more safely and accountably. Parliament is in recess. When it returns next Monday, Mr Browne had better go to the Commons and give a full and honest account of what led him to sanction the selling of the captives' stories to the media. When he next faces the Commons a week today, Mr Blair should be asked what Downing Street knew about this bizarre and unprecedented interpretation of Queen's Regulations, and when. Mr Blair may not much care: he is in his last weeks in his job. Since Mr Browne manifestly understands so little about the ethos of the Services for which he is politically responsible, it might be as well if he were too.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/  ------  April 11  Lietuvos rytas, Vilnius, Lithuania, on the cost of emigration:  A new poll has revealed a shocking truth: more than 20,000 children have been left by parents, who emigrated to work abroad. Most of those children - very lonely and deprived of basic care - are raised by strangers. These children tend to become more absent-minded and aggressive.  We often hear loud condemnation of those who left their loved ones in search of better pay. But before condemning emigrants, we should ask what makes people abandon those who are most important to them and travel to a strange land in hopes of earning more money for their family?  These people are eager to build something they never had: cozy homes and a brighter future for their children.  Imagine those same 20,000 or more staying in Lithuania, existing on an allowance or humiliating pay for odd jobs. For most, leaving was the only choice.  Had they not left, the army of unemployed would be even larger and crime rate possibly higher. There is no reason to be angry with people who decided to sacrifice their children's ""today"" for better ""tomorrow.""  You cannot stop people from working abroad if conditions are better there. The answer to this problem is the rapidly growing Lithuanian economy and rising salaries, a fact that makes more and more emigrants come back.  Emigrants are active and skilled part of our society. They know children cannot be left alone too long, and most are returning to Lithuania as soon as possible.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.lrytas.lt  ------  April 11  Aftenposten, Oslo, Norway, on climate change:  The year's second report from the UN international climate panel is the most clear documentation yet of the impact of manmade climate change.  The climate experts behind the report aren't just predicting the dramatic changes global warming can bring in the coming decades. They also demonstrated that the effect of increased CO2 emissions is already a fact.  Therefore, we know that even large emissions cuts in coming decades will not be enough to avoid the comprehensive consequences of the emissions that have already been released. Glaciers are already melting and the oceans are on the verge of rising because of temperature increase over large parts of the globe.  The political drama of these findings was underscored by the difficult negotiations on the final draft that was signed in Brussels. The United States, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia tried to tone down the content. These are powerful and populous countries that must join in if a future international climate agreement is to work.  These countries' behavior is a result of a reluctant attitude that is will take strong international pressure to change. The steadily more compelling evidence of the damage caused by manmade climate change means that time has run out for downplaying the unpleasant facts as a way of reducing their own obligations.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.aftenposten.no 7"
"1"," Sampling of editorials from upstate New York APRS000020070411e34b001mq 2417 Words 11 April 2007 13:22 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  The Buffalo News on reform in Albany.  April 11.  Observers have understandably focused on Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer during the self-declared reformers first three months on the job, and while many have appropriately criticized his performance regarding such issues as openness, he is only one part of the equation.  New Yorkers can elect reform-minded chief executives from now until Niagara Falls dries up, but unless the Legislature also commits to changing its secretive and autocratic ways, New York government will never become any better than it is today.  The most obvious example of the death grip lawmakers hold on Albany is in the way the budget is negotiated. Spitzer came to office pledging to change the three-men-in-a-room culture that shuts out rank-and-file legislators and keeps the public in the dark. He caved in quickly to the old ways, but he did so largely for two reasons: One, he is new on the job and had his hands full the first time out and, two, the Legislature has taken no serious steps to commit itself to a fully open, transparent system.  But as legislators happily made clear at least twice since January, they are integral to the process and they are entirely willing to throw their weight around. What is more, lawmakers can do this even if, as occurred in February, they had previously promised to pursue a particular matter in an agreed-upon way. As Spitzer learned when Assembly Democrats engineered the selection of Thomas P. DiNapoli as state comptroller, lawmakers can -- and do -- renege.  Thats a knife that cuts both ways, though, because having that weight to throw around also makes them integral to the problem that every taxpaying New Yorker understands in some fashion. Residents of this state shoulder one of the nations highest tax burdens largely because the Legislature has weight and because it is dysfunctional, organizing itself first to benefit its members and its high-dollar patrons and then, sometimes, voters.  Last year, those voters flocked to Spitzer, a candidate with a platform and history of reform. The Legislature responded ambivalently -- signing on to an important workers compensation reform but installing a crony as state comptroller. It approved significant changes in how school aid is distributed in New York, but drove an already-high budget to stratospheric levels of spending.  Most of all, though, the Legislature has done little to reform its own rules of procedure. These are the problems pointed out in the explosive Brennan Center report that tagged the Legislature as the countrys most dysfunctional, after building an irrefutable case.  The Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader still control what their chambers will vote on, and since they control leadership appointments and staffing, they also control how those votes come out. The legislative leaders also keep a choke hold on how measures work their way through the system, therefore limiting what can even be considered for a vote.  Its a system designed to suffocate unwanted reforms. Human nature being what it is, that includes reforms that diminish the power of those who control what reforms are adopted. Thats a cycle that can be broken only by fear. Lawmakers have to believe that it is in their interest to change a legislative system that has helped make the upstate economy an undeclared disaster area. That means fearing voters, who now have a tool to focus that fear: a reform-minded governor.  Spitzer needs to use his authority and his bully pulpit to push the Legislature toward reform. He hasnt proved to be the steamroller his campaign seemed to promise, but he still is the hammer. If voters want their reform message to be heard, they have to be the anvil.  ----  On the Web: http://www.buffalonews.com  The Middletown Times Herald-Record on deer herd management.  April 10.  Controlling the deer herd in New York state is not a topic with a single challenge and a single solution. Among many other forces, there are two recent ones -- the changing number of hunters and the pressure of development -- that can often distort both the statistics, such as the number of deer killed in a season, and the perception, such as the frequency of deer sightings in populated areas.  The new head of the Department of Environmental Conservation, Pete Grannis, seemed to acknowledge the difficulty of defining the issue and the approach in an interview Sunday in the Times Herald-Record.  Asked what ideas he had for controlling the perceived, perhaps real, most likely regional overpopulation of deer in suburban areas, he chose to be political instead of decisive: ""Obviously, the areas where deer are a particular problem are not areas where hunting can be a really viable alternative. I don't see any easy, quick solutions.""  The appointment of Grannis was controversial because he was labeled a city guy who did not appreciate hunting and trapping, a commissioner who would elevate the environmental efforts of the department at the expense of the sportsmen. The National Rifle Association tried to help slap that label on him, even though the DEC does not handle gun regulation. Grannis is probably right when he says that the NRA raised a fuss to get attention and help in fundraising and recruitment.  With Grannis' wishy-washy answer on controlling the herd, however, suburban neighborhoods have more to fear from his tenure than do hunters and other sportsmen. The encroachment of the deer into populated areas is too real to ignore.  For sheer anecdotal power, nothing beats a story from earlier this month about the increase of deer herds and deer sightings in New York City, including a herd on Staten Island and smaller numbers in Manhattan parks. As The New York Times reported, the city has received -- and rejected -- its first requests for ""deer-crossing"" signs, including one near the border between Westchester and the Bronx.  Backyard observations throughout the mid-Hudson would back up that feeling that there are more deer making inroads into suburban neighborhoods, posing dangers on the roads, damaging shrubs and gardens, generally becoming a nuisance and probably not enjoying their suburban lifestyle any more than the drivers who swerve to avoid them.  Reports from the state Department of Environmental Conservation back up this sense that there are more deer around. Hunters took almost 190,000 deer in the 2006-07 hunting seasons, the first increase after three years of declines. In its official report on the season, the DEC attributed the increase to wildlife management programs undertaken in previous years ""to rebuild and stabilize the deer population in many areas of the state, since many wildlife management units were below desired levels.""  The DEC is very aware of its obligation to hunters who not only carry on a valued tradition and work to preserve wildlife habitat but also contribute a significant amount of money to the state. It should have the same obligation to the suburban neighborhoods ill-equipped to handle an increasing deer population and a deer population destined to live a less-than-ideal life dodging cars.  What Grannis should have said, and what he still could say, is that the DEC will devote the same effort, the same expertise to reducing the population in populated areas as it did to increasing the population in rural areas.  ----  On the Web: http://www.recordonline.com  The Utica Observer Dispatch on public access in the Adirondacks.  April 10.  The state last week completed agreements to protect almost 260,000 acres of Adirondack wilderness and open much of it to public recreation. Besides new hiking and snowmobile trails, easements will open valuable river access and canoe routes.  This is the right direction, and Gov. Eliot Spitzer and other state leaders need to continue these efforts to make sure a significant portion of the Adirondacks remains protected and accessible to the public in the years ahead.  The latest deal was initiated by the Pataki administration in 2004 with the International Paper Co. for conservation easements on 257,000 acres of forest and wetlands in nine counties, including portions in Herkimer and Hamilton counties, within an hour's drive of the Mohawk Valley.  Under the contracts, logging by Lyme Timber Co., which bought most of International's Adirondack holdings, will continue through ""sustainable forestry,"" including selective harvesting and planting to replace trees. In return, Lyme gets a break on local taxes, paid instead by the state, and agrees to never sell the land for development.  This is important for two reasons.  First, it will help sustain public access to the wilderness, especially as more and more average New Yorkers are priced out of the Adirondacks. At one time, working families could scrimp and save enough to buy a summer place in the mountains, but real estate today -- especially lakefront property -- commands premium prices and comes with hefty taxes. Most families no longer can afford it. By making sure this land isn't used for development, it protects the forest and guarantees recreational opportunities for everyone -- as intended when the Adirondack Park was created in 1892.  Second, this is just good forest management. The forests are a major source of lumber for the mill in Ticonderoga. This conserves and replenishes the working forest, which is beneficial to both the environment and the Adirondack economy.  A major challenge in the Adirondacks is to protect the forest and fuel the economy. This deal does both, and demonstrates the kind of custodial care necessary to make sure that the Adirondacks remain open to everyone.  ----  On the Web: http://www.uticaod.com  The Times Union of Albany on President Bush and Saddam Hussein.  April 11.  So this is what a President normally so attentive to anniversaries and milestones, not to mention a news media that dutifully records them, had to say Monday, four years to the day when Saddam Hussein fell from power. Nothing at all from President Bush, and quite little from reporters.  Oh, President Bush had a full enough day, as he talked about immigration laws in Yuma, Ariz., on his way back to Washington after spending the Easter holiday at his ranch in Texas. It took The Washington Post's Dana Millbank to prominently, if rather irreverently, point out that the lead item under the ""latest news"" heading on the White House Web site was the Easter egg roll on the White House lawn.  Has Mr. Bush gone into a retreat of sorts over a war that's gone wildly off course since Saddam was overthrown, ostensibly for the possession of weapons that he turned out not to have after all? Was the President's speech last month on the fourth anniversary of the war itself, in which he implored for patience, of all things, that much of a dud?  Mr. Bush's problem is that the Iraq that he's created by invading it appears to be not much better off, especially for most of the 26 million Iraqis. He did talk about the war on Tuesday, before the ever so safe audience of the American Legion in Fairfax, Va., and about the progress toward a functioning democracy in a country overwhelmed by sectarian violence and chaos.  The President has reached a point where not mentioning Iraq is a rather damning commentary of its own, and where mentioning it makes for unconvincing speeches.  Others, of course, don't have that problem. An Iraqi politician named Ali Allawi, a self-described senior adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, gave a speech in Washington that was timed with the release of his book, ""The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace.""  Mr. Allawi denounces everyone from the people who planned the invasion of Iraq to the government authority that now oversees its occupation. ""Monumental ignorance"" and ""rank amateurism and swaggering arrogance"" are among his favored catch phrases.  In the Iraqi city of Najaf, followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr gathered by the thousands on Monday to demand that U.S. forces leave their country.  ""We live at this moment and so far 48 months of anxiety, oppression and occupational tyranny have passed, four years which have only brought us more death, destruction and humiliation,"" Mr. Sadr was quoted as saying. ""Every day tens are martyred, tens are crippled, and every day we see and hear U.S. interference in every aspect of our lives, which means that we are not sovereign, not independent and therefore not free.""  Such is the rhetoric that comes from a leading Iraqi figure whose political following is also part of what passes for the country's government.  No wonder Mr. Bush wanted to talk about immigration on Monday. If only the circumstances allowed for it to be a more pressing matter.  ----  On the Web: http://www.timesunion.com  The Watertown Daily Times on nuclear inspections in Iran.  April 11.  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's boast about Iran's expanded nuclear program has elicited a skeptical response from several Western nations.  Mr. Ahmadinejad claims that his country is now producing enriched uranium on an industrial scale, a significant step that would violate U.N. resolutions and move Iran farther down the road to a nuclear weapon.  Iran says its nuclear program is directed toward peaceful energy production. The United States and other countries fear Tehran intends to develop a nuclear warhead.  Russia, France and the United States, though, expressed doubts that Iran could have made the technological leaps needed to operate 3,000 centrifuges (nearly 10 times the previously known number) required to warrant President Ahmadinejad's claim.  ""There are announcements, and then there is technological reality,"" said French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei.  There was also international concern about Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments suggesting Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and limit further cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. monitoring group.  The comments were made as two IAEA inspectors arrived in Iran to visit the uranium enrichment plant. If President Ahmadinejad's claims are true, then it could escalate tensions and jeopardize negotiations to resolve the standoff between Iran and the United Nations. It has imposed sanctions to punish Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.  Uncertainty persists over the nature and extent of Iran's nuclear ambition. President Ahmadinejad's remarks only heightened the doubts and add to the urgency in opening Iran's nuclear program to full international inspection  ----  On the Web: http://www.watertowndailytimes.com 7"
"4","LAST, BEST CHANCE BSUN000020070411e34b0001w EDITORIAL 497 Words 11 April 2007 The Baltimore Sun Final 12A English Copyright 2007, The Baltimore Sun. All Rights Reserved.  President Bush has offered his opening bid in a new round of negotiations to produce comprehensive immigration reform, and it's not very tempting.  In order to win the support of conservative Republicans, Mr. Bush appears to be trending right. His aides are floating proposals to stiffen penalties for undocumented workers seeking citizenship, to require all of them to make at least a brief return to their country of origin and to set up a two-tier system for green cards that favors skilled workers over the relatives of U.S. citizens.  And yet those who would like to stem the human tide over the U.S.-Mexican border while also bringing the 12 million workers already here out of the shadows have reason for optimism at the president's approach. He seems sincerely committed to bringing about a practical and compassionate reform package while remaining flexible enough on details to keep his negotiating options open.  ""It's important for people not to give up, no matter how hard it looks,"" Mr. Bush said Monday at a border crossing in Yuma, Ariz. ""We deserve a system that secures our borders and honors our proud history as a nation of immigrants.""  As debate on immigration reform formally begins in the Senate next month, Mr. Bush faces perhaps his last, best chance to score a major domestic achievement before progress on such controversial issues is effectively blocked by the 2008 presidential campaign.  It may also prove the best opportunity for Republicans, whose votes are critical to passage of immigration reform even through this Democratic-led Congress, to have an impact beyond what they might have if a Democratic president is elected next year.  Even so, Mr. Bush is trying to toe a delicate line. He's never been sympathetic to conservatives who believe the U.S. can simply deport the millions who are in this country illegally and build border fences so thick and so wide that they stay out. ""It won't happen,"" he said.  Yet it's Mr. Bush's job to try to persuade lawmakers who hold such views to support a broader measure that allows for guest workers and provides a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Hence the talk of ""meaningful penalties"" of time and money.  Another important point of agreement between Mr. Bush and Democratic advocates of immigration reform, led by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, is the need to crack down on employers who effectively lure illegal workers over the border and then exploit them through low pay and conditions American workers wouldn't tolerate.  All in all, a successful update of U.S. immigration policy would involve a complicated mosaic of often highly controversial provisions negotiated on the head of a pin. Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona puts the odds of producing such legislation this year at no better than 50-50.  And yet the moment is unusually ripe. All involved in good faith should be encouraged."
"4","IMMIGRATION REFORM THE ISSUE: BUSH WILL TRY AGAIN. OUR VIEW: IT MAY HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT. EVVL000020070509e34b00024 Editorial 413 Words 11 April 2007 The Evansville Courier A8 English © 2007 The Evansville Courier. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  President Bush has relaunched his drive to win passage of comprehensive immigration law reform, very likely his last chance at a major legislative initiative.  The White House has advanced a detailed plan, but one the White House stops short of labeling the president's, saying it is a draft and is intended to put ideas on the table for discussion.  It's unlikely opponents will be fooled.  The Bush draft calls for stepped-up border security, tougher enforcement of laws against hiring undocumented workers, and a guest- worker program. But the real sticking point is a path for the 12 million illegal immigrants here now to gain legal residence and eventually citizenship.  Bush would grant illegal workers here now three-year renewable visas at a cost of $3,500 each time. To become legal permanent residents, recipients of these ""Z visas"" would have to return to their homeland, pay a $10,000 fine and apply for re-entry through a U.S. consulate.  While these provisions are fairly onerous, it's doubtful they will mollify immigration hard-liners who will construe it as a form of amnesty. The hard-liners say they will consider a path to legal residence once the borders are secure, but such security can never be 100 percent.  While raids on workplaces have been stepped up, they've been seen as controversial and disruptive and have produced a catalog of hard- luck stories that only makes the government look heartless.  The Senate is more accommodating than the House on reform and will go first with a bill now being negotiated between the Bush administration and Republicans, to be voted on at the end of May.  The problem is that the House. Democratic support for Bush-style reform is less now than it was in the last session when Republicans tried to make it radioactive. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly has said that to win passage of a comprehensive bill - one that is more than just bigger fences and tougher enforcement - Bush will have to deliver around 70 Republican votes.  Bush showed real political courage on immigration reform, but his standing with congressional Republicans has dwindled so far that courage might not be enough and, like other of his initiatives that have stalled - the Iraq war, Social Security reform, tax reform - immigration may have to wait for the next president."
"4","Bush on the Border NYTF000020070411e34b00037 Editorial Desk; SECTA 623 Words 11 April 2007 The New York Times Late Edition - Final 20 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  President Bush went to the Mexico border in Arizona on Monday and showed once again that immigration is an issue he understands. He said America suffers from a system that exploits people who come to do jobs that citizens won't do. He said the country needed ''a practical answer'' that promotes an orderly flow of legal immigrants, eases pressure at the border and opens a path to citizenship for the hidden 12 million who keep our economy humming. And he urged Congress to find that answer through a ''serious and civil and conclusive debate.''  It was good that Mr. Bush made these points, as he periodically does. But there was a dissonance in his speech, because it came only two weeks after he and a group of Senate Republicans circulated a list of ''first principles'' about immigration that amounted to a huge step backward for efforts to fix a broken system in a reasonable, humane way.  It proposed new conditions on immigrant labor so punitive and extreme that they amounted to a radical rethinking of immigration -- not as an expression of the nation's ideals and an integral source of its vitality and character, but as a strictly contractual phenomenon designed to extract cheap labor from an unwelcome underclass.  New immigrant workers and those already here would all be treated as itinerant laborers. They could renew their visas, but only by paying extortionate fees and fines. There would be a path to legal status, but one so costly and long that it is essentially a mirage: by some estimates, a family of five could pay more than $64,000 and wait up to 25 years before any member could even apply for a green card. Other families would be torn apart; new workers and those who legalize themselves would have no right to sponsor relatives to join them.  In a country that views immigrants as its lifeblood and cherishes the unity of families, the Republican talking points were remarkable for their chill of nativism and exploitation. They were also unrealistic. The hurdles would create huge impediments to hiring and keeping a stable work force, while pushing the illegal economy deeper underground.  The thrust of Mr. Bush's speech leaves little room for a vision as crabbed and inhumane as the one he and his party have circulated. It's hard to tell whether his plainspoken eloquence in Yuma was meant to distance himself from those earlier and benighted talking points, or whether he has simply been talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Mr. Bush should clear up the confusion. He should reaffirm the importance of family-based immigration and of an achievable path to citizenship for those willing, as he put it, ''to pay their debt to society and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.''  Clarity and forcefulness from Mr. Bush are important because the prospects for a good immigration bill this year are so uncertain. The Senate plans to take up the issue next month, but there is no bill yet, and the talking-points memo shows the debate drifting to the hard right. Edward Kennedy, the Senate's most stalwart advocate of comprehensive reform, has been left in the lurch as the Republican presidential hopefuls John McCain and Sam Brownback have run away from sensible positions to court hard-line voters. A decent bipartisan House bill, sponsored by Representatives Jeff Flake and Luis Gutierrez, may not get the hearing it deserves.  Mr. Bush made a strong case for comprehensive reform on Monday. He should keep it up -- publicly and forthrightly, as he did this week, and forget about backroom negotiations that produce harsh political manifestoes to appease hard-liners."
"4","NA GEN Editorial Roundup APRS000020070412e34c0022x 1561 Words 12 April 2007 17:19 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  ------  The Tuscaloosa News, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, on Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria:  The White House can't have it both ways. It cannot condemn a visit to Syria by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi without also denouncing a trip there by a group of Republicans that included U.S. Rep. Bob Aderholt of Haleyville (Ala.).  Bush accused Pelosi of failing to heed the administration's policy against American travel to Syria, which it ranks as a supporter of terrorism.  It is hypocritical of the president to ignore the visit ... by the group of Republicans a week before the Pelosi trip.  In truth, neither visit should be censured. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission urged our elected leaders to engage states such as Syria that can help achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East.  The Pelosi visit also included Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Israel.  A spokesman for the White House National Security Council called Pelosi's meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ""counterproductive."" ...  But Pelosi said Assad gave her reassurances that he was ready to resume the peace process by engaging in negotiations with Israel. Those talks collapsed in 2000.  Assad's involvement is important because of his influence on Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Syria also is influential in the affairs of other Arab nations.  Aderholt, who rarely parts company with the president, said last week that it is important to engage nations like Syria in dialogue and seek common ground on issues.  Bush is wrong to ignore Assad. By default, leaders in Congress are shouldering the responsibility to rekindle Middle East peace efforts.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage  ------  The Watertown Daily Times, Watertown, New York, on nuclear inspections in Iran:  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's boast about Iran's expanded nuclear program has elicited a skeptical response from several Western nations.  Mr. Ahmadinejad claims that his country is now producing enriched uranium on an industrial scale, a significant step that would violate U.N. resolutions and move Iran farther down the road to a nuclear weapon.  Iran says its nuclear program is directed toward peaceful energy production. The United States and other countries fear Tehran intends to develop a nuclear warhead.  Russia, France and the United States, though, expressed doubts that Iran could have made the technological leaps needed to operate 3,000 centrifuges (nearly 10 times the previously known number) required to warrant President Ahmadinejad's claim. ...  There was also international concern about Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments suggesting Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and limit further cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. monitoring group.  The comments were made as two IAEA inspectors arrived in Iran to visit the uranium enrichment plant. If President Ahmadinejad's claims are true, then it could escalate tensions and jeopardize negotiations to resolve the standoff between Iran and the United Nations. It has imposed sanctions to punish Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.  Uncertainty persists over the nature and extent of Iran's nuclear ambition. President Ahmadinejad's remarks only heightened the doubts and add to the urgency in opening Iran's nuclear program to full international inspection.  ----  On the Net:  http://www.watertowndailytimes.com  ------  The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, on White House e-mails:  A couple of recent scandals have highlighted the possibility that unofficial e-mail addresses have been used by some White House staff in an effort to circumvent the archival process of official records.  There were the e-mails sent to convicted lobbyist and haberdashery fanatic Jack Abramoff by Karl Rove's assistant Susan Ralston, who used a non-White House e-mail address to share internal White House info with Abramoff. White House e-mails, after all, are copied and saved as part of the Presidential Records Act, which requires that presidential records be released to the public 12 years after each president leaves office.  The second is the ongoing investigation into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, which, it seems, were discussed using unofficial e-mail servers, including ones registered to the Republican National Committee, using domain names such as gwb43.com. The PRA requires that all official business be carried out on an official White House e-mailing system.  President Bush claims not to use e-mail. At all. ...  Public-records chicanery has been standard political practice -- Presidents Nixon, Clinton and Bush Sr. have all been accused of it. And from the get-go, this administration in particular has sought broad authority over how much info the media and general public can access. On Nov.1, 2001, Bush issued Executive Order 13233, which revoked a prior order issued by President Reagan. In doing so, Bush gave himself and former presidents the right to withhold records or delay their release indefinitely. A license to re-write history via incomplete records? You bet. But there's hope yet.  The Senate is currently looking at The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007 (H.R. 1255), which seeks to rescind Executive Order 13233. The bill passed in the House, and is now referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We can only hope that Bush won't veto this bill, as he has threatened to do. Although at least that would be a matter of public record.  ------  On the Net:  http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/310441--emailed.html  ------  The Kansas City Star, Kansas City, Missouri, on immigration reform:  The second major recent congressional effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform puts the emphasis on the nation's security first. Backers hope that tweak will deflect the backlash that undid previous reform efforts.  The first word in the title of the latest legislation to tackle the nation's immigration quandaries says it all: Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act of 2007.  The bill, introduced last month, is a bipartisan effort sponsored by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, and Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican.  Legal analysts are poring over the fine print of the nearly 700-page package, but it appears to include all of the necessary components -- penalties for those who have come to the U.S. illegally, more visas for needed workers and stronger efforts to secure the nation's borders.  The bill sets up an employment verification system for employers to check the immigration status of applicants. It includes civil penalties against employers unwilling to cooperate and criminal penalties if employers hire illegal workers knowingly.  The bill also increases penalties for immigrants associated with money laundering, firearms offenses, drunken driving and gang crimes. And it offers immigrants the ability to eventually gain U.S. citizenship after they work in the U.S. five years, pay fees, meet English language requirements and pass background checks.  Some troublesome aspects of past proposals wisely have been avoided. The bill prohibits a national identification card and clarifies the role of state and local law agencies on immigration enforcement.  The proposal is a starting point. Much work is ahead. Yet, with so many lawmakers seeking a presidential nomination, a fairly small window exists for such contentious issues to be decided before Congress turns a hyper focus on presidential campaigning.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/62978.html  ------  The Pantagraph, Bloomington, Illinois, on campaign fundraising:  Money, unfortunately, is part of the political game.  If initial first-quarter reports are any indication, previous presidential campaign fund-raising records are going to be shattered in the 2008 race.  Is it any wonder that our state and federal budgets are in such terrible shape when the people running the show get accustomed to freely spending large amounts of other people's money?  A week ago the big news was that Sen. Hillary Clinton had set a record for presidential-primary candidates by raising $26 million in the first quarter of 2007.  By midweek we learned that her key rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, had raised $25 million.  Poor John Edwards.  The $14 million collected by the former North Carolina senator in the past three months looks anemic next to dollars vacuumed in by Clinton and Obama. Yet it's nearly twice the ""old"" primary fund-raising record of $7.4 million. That was set in the first quarter of 2003 -- by Edwards.  Of course, Republicans aren't standing around with their hands in their pockets. They have their hands out looking for donations, too.  Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney wasn't far behind the Clinton-Obama money machine with $23 million raised in the first quarter. And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain were on par with Edwards, raising $15 million and $12.5 million, respectively.  Campaign financing is a lot like the weather: Everyone talks about it, but no one can do much about it.  Whether we like it or not, money matters in politics. It buys advertising, brochures, bumper stickers and signs for rallies. It pays for travel around various states, not only for the candidates but also their campaign workers.  In the end, it's the votes that count. But without money to count, campaigns may not last long enough for votes to be cast. That's not ideal, but that's reality.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.pantagraph.com 7"
"1","CAN RUDY DO IT? ; WINNING OVER DISENFRANCHISED CONSERVATIVES IS A MUST FOR GUILIANI AGCR000020070413e34c000eu EDITORIAL 438 Words 12 April 2007 Augusta Chronicle ALL A04 English © 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Rudy Giuliani said in Augusta Wednesday that New Yorkers felt isolated and alone in the immediate hours after the 9-11 attacks.  America's conservatives know the feeling well.  On fiscal, immigration and national security issues, especially, conservative Americans have found President George W. Bush sorely wanting.  He's allowed spending to go through the roof, including via the massive Medicare prescription drug bill. He's failed to secure the southern border, and has been selling amnesty for illegal aliens under various labels.  Even his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was seen as a betrayal of conservatives and a wimpy attempt to appeal to the Senate's liberal faction - or at least to fly under its radar.  Nor do many conservatives feel represented in the current 2008 presidential field.  Giuliani's biggest chore in the Republican primary - especially if someone like former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson jumps in - may be to convince Southern conservatives that he's the most conservative candidate in the field.  In a quick conversation with us at the Reynolds Street fire station on Wednesday, Giuliani made his case in rapid-fire fashion:  * He touted his fiscal restraint as mayor of New York, including 23 tax cuts totaling $9 billion; a 20 percent reduction in workforce; and turning a $2.3 billion deficit when he took office into a multimillion-dollar surplus.  * He recalled his crime-fighting efforts, which started at the level of aggressive window-washers, which had begun to plague drivers in the city. In his book, Leadership, he also describes painstaking organizational efforts in public safety that focused on ""performance indicators.""  * He's hawkish on the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.  * He's for a border fence, both real and virtual, and against amnesty, saying those here now should have to get back in line behind those applying to come here legally - and that they should be required to know English.  Even so, many conservatives won't like his famously pro-choice views on abortion and his support of ""domestic partnership"" recognition for gay couples.  It remains to be seen whether such stances will be a deal- breaker in the South. That may depend on whether the GOP field widens.  Clearly, Giuliani has the right stuff to be commander in chief. He has already shown the kind of leadership our next president will have to exhibit in the face of threats from nuclear proliferation and Islamic terrorism.  Whether he can allay conservatives' sense of abandonment and isolation is another matter."
"4","Bush's border politics TRIB000020070412e34c0005c News 634 Words 12 April 2007 Chicago Tribune Chicago Final 24 English Copyright 2007, Chicago Tribune. All Rights Reserved.  President Bush's prescription for immigration reform has always included four points: border security, workplace enforcement, a guest worker system to address this nation's labor shortages and a plan to bring the 12 million immigrants living here illegally into the open.  U.S. Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) nailed all four points in the 700-page bill they tossed onto the table two weeks ago. The bill drew predictable scowls from recalcitrants who think the solution is to wall off the border, period. But it has much in common with the comprehensive bill passed last year by the Senate and favored by Bush. With a little muscle from the president, it seemed, the Flake-Gutierrez bill could pass. And work.  But Monday, the president poured cold water on that plan. He doesn't think it's restrictive enough to get through Congress. Determined to sign an immigration law before he leaves the White House, Bush has been meeting with Senate leaders to draft a measure that he hopes will appease enough hard-liners to ensure passage. The plan he sketched out Monday is less welcoming than the Flake-Gutierrez bill, or last year's Senate legislation.  Like the Flake-Gutierrez bill, Bush's plan calls for more guards at the border, better systems for verifying the legal status of job applicants and stiffer penalties against employers who hire illegal workers. But the president is backing away from the idea of ""earned citizenship"" for immigrants who have settled here illegally. His plan would allow them to stay indefinitely under a renewable ""Z"" visa that would cost $3,500 every three years. But to get green cards and eventual citizenship, they would have to leave the country and return through regular channels after paying a $10,000 fine.  Those are steep costs for workers at the bottom of the labor ladder, but the greater obstacle is the shortage of visas that would let them re-enter legally. Bush's plan does little to reconcile the huge gap between the number of jobs that need to be filled and the much smaller number of visas that are granted. Bush would increase the number of worker visas slightly by diverting visas now allotted for applicants who want to join family members already living here. That would reverse a long-standing policy of promoting family unification and would net only a fraction of the workers needed. It's not worth it.  Bush's plan also provides for an unspecified number of low-skilled guest workers who would have to leave this country after two years and wait six months before returning. Those workers could not bring their families and would not be working toward citizenship.  Immigrants and their advocates consider the Bush plan a betrayal given his assertions that ""family values don't stop at the Rio Grande."" They also say the plan would create a permanent underclass of revolving-door guest workers and Z-visa sub-citizens.  Those are valid concerns. The country would be better served by a plan that encourages immigrants and their families to put down roots -- to assimilate, invest and build communities.  White House staffers insist the president has merely outlined his ""talking points"" and is open to other approaches. Let's count on it. In the meantime we can be grateful for the relative quiet of the hostile hard-liners who dominated last year's debate. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) can still be counted on to demand the deportation of illegals, but he's not calling the shots. The people who have the floor right now -- on Capitol Hill and in the White House -- don't yet agree on immigration legislation. But they are focused on getting the job done. Editorial"
"4","MR. CHRISTIAN'S SAGE ADVICE HFCT000020070413e34d0004h EDITORIAL 238 Words 13 April 2007 The Hartford Courant STATEWIDE A8 English Copyright 2007, The Hartford Courant. All Rights Reserved.  A lot has happened since the national limelight last found George Christian, executive director of the Library Connection, a nonprofit interlibrary service in central Connecticut. Mr. Christian was one of four Hartford-area librarians who challenged an FBI order to turn over their patrons' Internet records under the USA Patriot Act -- and, eventually, made the government blink.  That was last year. Since then, a federal investigation has exposed a pattern of bumbling, abuse and lying by the FBI as it waved the banner of the Patriot Act and ordered businesses, institutions and individuals to turn over private records. In a three-year period, the agency sent out more than 140,000 of the so-called national security letters, collecting reams of telephone records, e-mail addresses, employment and credit histories -- all secretly and without judicial review.  Few of these requests produced charges relating to terrorism or espionage.  Half of the targets were never prosecuted; those who were mostly got charged with fraud, immigration violations and money laundering.  Mr. Christian went to Washington, D.C., this week. During an appearance before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, he offered an insight that comes out of his professional brush with the FBI's use of the USA Patriot Act: ``Terrorists win when the fear of them induces us to destroy the rights that make us free.''  We couldn't have said it better."
"4"," Our View: Immigration reform needs reality check; Cracking down on those in this country illegally doesn't address that they're part of work force MERCED0020070413e34d00003 opinion 634 Words 13 April 2007 Merced Sun-Star 1 English All content is copyrighted (c) 2007 The Merced Sun-Star and may not be republished, rebroadcast or redistributed without the express written consent of The Sun Star.  The United States needs a reality-based immigration system. The current system makes lawbreakers out of too many good people.  The reality? There is more demand for immigrants than there are legal visas available to immigrant workers. There's also a huge backlog in family visas for those seeking to join family members. The wait is routinely seven to 10 years and up to 22. This lack of visas is a root cause of the undocumented population.  President Bush understands this dynamic. In a speech Monday, he noted past reform efforts failed to address underlying economic conditions: ""People will make great sacrifices to get into this country (to) find jobs and provide for their families. People are coming here to put food on the table, and they're doing jobs Americans are not doing. People are coming to work, and many of them have no lawful way to come to America, and so they're sneaking in.""  Yet, when it comes to specifics, Bush seems to be backing away from a balanced, comprehensive package that includes a path to citizenship, plus tough border security to stop drug dealers, gangs and other criminals. In his draft plan leaked last week, the president seems to kowtow to hard-liners who oppose immigration rather than working with those committed to a bipartisan approach. That's unfortunate.  The Bush draft would allow temporary workers but requires that they leave every two years and stay out of the country for six months. They could work here for a maximum of six years. They would not be allowed to bring wives and children. This doesn't address long-term work force needs or deal with the reality that many of those living and working in the United States will marry, have children and settle here. Our immigration system needs to acknowledge the need for a stable immigrant work force. It also needs to be flexible enough to allow those who establish roots to apply for permanent residency.  As for the existing undocumented population -- estimated at 5.4 million men, 3.9 million women and 1.8 million children -- the new Bush proposal is far more restrictive than last year's Senate bill, which he supported. The new draft would allow undocumented workers to apply for three-year work permits costing $3,500 each time. To get legal permanent residency, they'd have to return to their home country and pay a $10,000 fine to re-enter legally. This provides little incentive for people to come forward.  On enforcement, Bush wants to build more fences and hire more U.S. Border Patrol agents. An investment in greater enforcement will pay off if we take steps to accommodate the actual demand for labor in the United States -- freeing up resources to go after criminals. Fences, unfortunately, have done more to keep people in than out, and most Americans oppose them.  A better starting point for balanced, comprehensive reform is last year's bipartisan Senate legislation (S. 2611) that passed 62-36 and a new House bill (HR 1645) by Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Jeff Flake, R.-Ariz.  The Senate plans to debate immigration the last two weeks of May, the House in July. The president wants something on his desk by the end of the year. To get beyond the current gridlock, Bush will have to work hard to persuade more Republicans to support a balanced immigration bill that deals with America's immigration reality.  This president is knowledgeable and experienced on immigration issues. Setting a new immigration policy could be a legacy for his administration, if he doesn't squander the opportunity."
"5","An editorial voice: plan divorced from reality CINP000020070416e34e0003r 471 Words 14 April 2007 The Cincinnati Post Cincinnati A9.0 English © 2007 Cincinnati Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The following editorial appeared in the April 2 edition of the Washington Post under the headline ""Talking Nonsense: Bush administration's plan on immigration is divorced from reality"":  ""Preoccupied with scandal at home and war overseas, the Bush administration is resting its hopes of making a dent in the nation's domestic agenda largely on its stated goal of overhauling immigration policy. Yet the White House is doing too little to craft a plan that can attract bipartisan support and effectively reshape the nation's unrealistic rules on immigration.  ""A week after sensible, bipartisan legislation to reform immigration policy was introduced in the House, the administration circulated a collection of talking points last week. The document - - , is a step backward -- not only from legislation passed by the Senate last year but also from the general proposition that any genuine reform must be workable. In particular, the document offers up a template for punishing immigrants with repeated and possibly indefinite fines --  ""In addition to toughening enforcement and beefing up the border, President Bush has spoken reasonably of providing an eventual path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants already in the country. But the discussion document provides no real avenue for that to happen. Rather, the administration would require that an undocumented immigrant pay $3,500 every three years to remain here, plus an $8,000 fine if and when his or her application for legal permanent residence was accepted -- which might be never. In the meantime, immigrants who had legalized their status would not have the right to sponsor their relatives to join them. That would diminish the chances immigrants already here could assimilate, establish communities and unify their families. It is a blueprint for social problems.  ""Nor would future immigrants, on whose labor the nation's economy similarly depends, be treated realistically. Although it is estimated that some 400,000 immigrant workers will be needed annually to satisfy demand in the labor market, the White House plan would insist that these ""temporary workers"" leave every two years and remain out of the country for six months, for a maximum of six years' work here. That stricture invites rule-breaking -- The administration concedes that ""model"" employees should be eligible to apply to stay in the country permanently, but it provides no additional visas -- Temporary workers would also be barred from bringing wives and children with them, ensuring the growth of a sizable class of single, rootless men and their attendant social problems.  ""At its heart, the White House plan is a political document -- -- It may appease some immigration hawks, but it will not address a problem that Americans overwhelmingly say they want fixed."" ISSUES Caption: Juan Ramirez chants during an immigration reform rally earlier this month in Dallas.; Credit: Associated Press"
"5","NO NEW LAW NEEDED ; WHY PASS MORE IMMIGRATION LAW WHEN CURRENT ONES ARE BEING IGNORED? AGCR000020070502e34f0007b EDITORIAL 401 Words 15 April 2007 Augusta Chronicle ALL A04 English © 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The president is pushing again for new laws on illegal immigration.  Why? We've haven't enforced the old laws!  Consider: We don't have an illegal immigration problem because we don't have laws against it. We have a problem because those laws haven't been enforced.  Let's try that first.  In the process, we may discover that the illegal immigration flow slows when jobs dry up because it's against the law to hire illegal aliens.  Moreover, as proposed in a 2005 white paper by the Center for Immigration Studies' executive director, Mark Krikorian, enforcement of current immigration laws could also inspire many of the estimated 12 million illegal aliens already here to return home.  To Krikorian's thinking, such an ""attrition"" strategy ""would combine an increase in conventional enforcement - arrests, prosecutions, deportations, asset seizures - with expanded use of verification of legal status at a variety of important points, to make it as difficult and unpleasant as possible to live here illegally.""  That includes making it difficult to get fake IDs, which is the inspiration behind the federal Real ID Act of 2005. The law provides strict standards for issuing state driver's licenses.  It's important to note that states are beginning what may be a full-scale mutiny regarding Real ID: Just recently, South Carolina's state Senate voted not to participate in Real ID unless the federal government pays for the estimated $25 million up-front cost and $11 million annual outlay.  Nearly half the states are up in arms about the law, the implementation of which has mercifully been delayed until the end of 2009.  We respectfully suggest the president first fix that problem, as well as the rest of the border problem, before pushing for any new laws.  Without strict enforcement of existing immigration laws, and a more secure southern flank, any new ""guest worker"" program or ""path to citizenship"" will only be seen as amnesty, which will only reward lawbreaking and encourage more of it.  Mr. President, we don't need any more laws just yet. You've got the power now to secure our border, and the authority to make sure businesses aren't hiring illegal aliens. Use the power you already have. You'll most likely find that the illegal job market dries up."
"1","TESTING THE WATERS ; Democrats are busy defining party strategies for 2008 BFNW000020070417e34f0002c Viewpoints By Mark Sommer NEWS STAFF REPORTER 1686 Words 15 April 2007 Buffalo News Final I1 English © 2007 Buffalo News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The two architects of the resurgent Democratic Party's capture of the House and Senate last November are now offering blueprints for 2008.  Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel's ""The Plan: Big Ideas for America,"" which he co-wrote with fellow Clinton administration alum Bruce Reed, and New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer's ""Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class Majority One Family at a Time"" present pragmatic proposals aimed at addressing middle-class concerns.  Emanuel speaks of a ""new social contract,"" while Schumer bundles his ideas under a ""50 Percent Solution."" Though their proposals often differ, each presents concrete ideas for health care, national security, education, energy, taxes and fiscal responsibility.  In doing so, the veteran lawmakers attempt to answer the question -- ""What does the Democratic Party stand for?"" -- that has dogged the party since President Bill Clinton left office.  The middle class, they argue, is ready for change after dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and anxiety over the disruptive effects of globalization and technology.  ""Washington leaves out the middle class. And in the 2008 election, I think the middle class will be up for grabs,"" said Schumer, who like Emanuel spoke with The Buffalo News about his plan for the future.  Emanuel, whom ""West Wing"" character Josh Lyman was partly modeled after, put the Democrats' opportunity more rhetorically: ""We say in the book that unlike Franklin Roosevelt, who inherited the Depression and created the greatest middle class the world has seen, Bush inherited the longest period of growth and gave the middle class its greatest anxiety.""  New York's senior senator and the two-term Chicago congressman have seen their political stock rise after leading the Democratic Party's senatorial and congressional campaign committees, respectively, to stunning victories. They were credited with recruiting candidates who appealed to red state voters, while outraising and outhustling their Republican counterparts.  But both Jewish Democrats -- Schumer now ranks third in the Democratic leadership in the Senate, Emanuel fourth in the House -- believe it's hardly a time for the party to rest on its laurels. The election results, they say, were more a referendum on an unpopular president than an embrace of their party.  Nor do Emanuel or Schumer spare Democrats from considerable criticism while lambasting Republican policies and tactics of recent years.  ""We talked about [the middle class], but we didn't listen to them,"" Schumer said. ""Even worse, we were under the illusion that they liked what we had to say. In the 2004 election, the middle class was the runaway bride, and Democrats were left standing at the altar.""  While both say they are encouraged by early steps taken by the Democratically controlled Congress, they think there's a long way to go.  ""I think we're doing pretty well,"" Schumer said. ""We're enacting [laws], so the public knows we're for real. We're finally holding the president's feet to the fire, which the public demanded. But in terms of actually getting closer to a platform or a vision, we're not there yet.""  Both plans, for instance, offer considerable tax relief to the middle class. Schumer would reduce property taxes used to fund education by half by rolling back the highest income-tax brackets to mid-1990s levels.  College would be easier to attend, with Emanuel's plan providing universal college access.  Both dramatically reduce dependence on foreign oil, with Schumer doubling miles-per-gallon standards, and Emanuel promoting hybrid cars and alternative fuels to slash gasoline usage in half over the next decade.  Neither plan, however, addresses government corruption or, most notably, the Iraq War, two issues that drove people to the polls in November. And if what's happening in Baghdad is the dominant political issue a year from now as it is today, it could relegate other issues to the back burner.  But Schumer doesn't expect that to happen, believing President Bush will be forced to withdraw half of the troops by the 2008 election. If not, Schumer still expects Democrats to continue being political beneficiaries of an unpopular war.  Emanuel said the war's fluid situation as he worked on the book made it too difficult to project conditions on the ground by the time of publication.  ""The goal of the book,"" Emanuel said, ""was to look into the horizon.""  > Meet the Baileys  Schumer's conversationally written, red-, white- and blue- covered ""Positively American"" is divided into two parts.  In ""Meet the Baileys,"" readers are introduced to Joe Bailey, an insurance adjustor, and his wife, Eileen, a part-time medical office worker. The fictitious Long Island middle-class couple -- they ""could be in Cheektowaga,"" Schumer said -- with three kids in public school have been, to hear Schumer tell it, indispensable in guiding his political decisions.  ""I have run my political life with the Baileys in mind,"" he said. ""Joe and Eileen Bailey are real to me.""  Schumer even advised senatorial candidates he recruited to pick their own Joe and Eileen Bailey, and start talking to them.  The Baileys, Schumer said, are anxious about sweeping changes in technology that allow jobs to be more easily outsourced, terrorists to be more lethal and children to be encountered by predators on the Internet.  ""The average American is having a difficult time adjusting. All these changes make it harder for them to be optimistic. Technology has caused all of this, and government hasn't responded well,"" Schumer said.  He says Joe and Eileen Bailey won't vote for Democrats if they aren't strong on defense. He speaks of creating an international force to enter hot spots, using more mobile fighting forces and doing a better job of securing the country from biological, nuclear and chemical attacks.  The second part of the book focuses on what Schumer calls ""our kitchen table compact,"" in which he spells out his ""50 percent solution"" in 11 key areas.  He wants to increase, by half, the fight against terrorism, reading and math scores and the admittance of legal immigrants. He wants to cut by the same amount dependence on foreign oil, cancer mortality, abortions, illegal immigration, property taxes that fund education, childhood obesity and children's access to Internet pornography.  ""The Republicans still have a vision and a platform; it will be similar to '04. It's just not a very good one,"" Schumer predicted. ""But my fear is, no matter who the candidates are, an outdated platform will beat no platform. So we need to have an effective one.""  > Clinton redux  Emanuel and Reed were top advisers during Clinton's two terms in office, where they absorbed their former boss's willingness to defy the left-right divide in crafting policy solutions.  Their slim and easily digestible book, ""The Plan,"" attempts a similar approach.  ""The whole goal here is to think through an agenda, and an intellectual framework, for the party,"" Emanuel said.  Some have suggested ""The Plan"" is meant to do for Democrats what Newt Gingrich's ""Contract with America"" did for Republicans in 1994. But Emanuel says the book is more like a second edition to ""Putting People First,"" a 1992 book about candidate Clinton's agenda that Reed, now president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, helped write.  "" 'The Plan' is five big new ideas based on America's oldest value, responsibility. We offer a new bargain, and ask a new patriotism in return -- doing more for Americans and asking Americans to do more for their country,"" the authors write.  ""The Plan"" seeks to instill a sense of national purpose. It creates universal citizen service, and offers guaranteed universal children's health care, universal college access and universal retirement savings.  Emanuel and Reed also call for a return to fiscal responsibility and an end to corporate welfare; tax reform for the middle class; a ""smarter and tougher"" strategy to fight terrorism; and slashing gasoline consumption by half in a decade.  ""There are a number of documents coming out, and I think that ['The Plan'] is one of the best,"" Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., told The News. ""Obviously, I have a very high regard for Rahm and Bruce, and I think they hit a lot of the issues that we're going to have to deal with.""  Some of the ideas in the book showed up first in the Democratic Leadership Council's ""American Dream Initiative"" that Clinton helped lead in 2005. They have reappeared in her speeches, and her proposed policies, as she travels the country running for president.  > Left-center divide  The effort to address middle-class concerns is a potentially winning strategy, said Michael Fauntroy, professor of public policy at George Mason University, and the author of ""Republicans and the Black Vote.""  ""If you want to capture the majority of voters, you are going to have to show a commitment to the center ideologically, and a commitment to middle-class voters,"" Fauntroy said. ""If the Democrats are able to do that, I think they will be in the position to dominate for a generation or more.""  But Emanuel's and Schumer's remedies don't go far enough for some on the left, including Katrina vanden Heufel, editor of The Nation.  Vanden Heufel favors a ""bolder politics"" on trade, budget and health care issues, wants the whole notion of a ""war on terrorism"" challenged, and greater importance assigned to such international challenges as global warming, pandemics, global inequality and genocide. And she wants the troops out of Iraq now.  Emanuel downplays ideological divides within the party.  ""My view is, 'Don't tell me if it's left or center. . . . I'm more interested in finding where you can make advances,"" Emanuel said.  Emanuel and Schumer are confident they've done just that. Time will tell whether the road map to victory they created in taking back Capitol Hill will now lead to the White House.  e-mail: msommer@buffnews.com Caption: Rep. Rahm Emanuel, left, and Sen. Charles Schumer have formulated plans to address middle-class concerns."
"1","Rove left out of Bush's push to reach compromise on immigration bill CHI0000020070415e34f0002z Editorials Robert Novak Robert Novak The Chicago Sun-Times 684 Words 15 April 2007 Chicago Sun-Times Final B6 English © 2007 Chicago Sun Times. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The White House is letting it be known on Capitol Hill that top presidential adviser Karl Rove will play no part in President Bush's forthcoming big push to pass a compromise immigration bill.  Rove, renowned as architect of Bush's 2000 and 2004 elections, was named deputy chief of staff at the beginning of the second term and assigned additional duties dealing with issues beyond politics. However, he has been under intensive attack this year in the Democratic-controlled Congress with demands that he be subpoenaed to testify under oath about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.  Consequently, he probably would not be helpful in trying to find a middle ground on the immigration problem, which will require bipartisan cooperation.  RAHM BLAST  Rep. Rahm Emanuel, House Democratic Caucus chairman, plans a major speech in the next two weeks to be delivered at a nonpartisan site that will depict the controversy over President Bush's dismissal of U.S. attorneys as a part of a broader pattern of corruption.  Emanuel plans to say that the U.S. attorneys issue, in the public mind, ""will be to corruption what Katrina was to incompetence."" He will paint a pattern of Bush administration abuses that include the Interior Department, General Services Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Department of Education on student loans.  Such an attack would get lost amid the flood of partisan oratory if delivered on the House floor. Consequently, Emanuel has been searching for a nongovernmental site, such as the National Press Club or the Brookings Institution. Emanuel is credited with making the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys a major issue for Democrats.  DELAYING THOMPSON  Although revelation of his cancer history has cleared the decks for Fred Thompson to run for the Republican presidential nomination, his commitments as a television and radio performer may delay his announcement until June.  As an actor on NBC's ""Law and Order,"" Thompson can scarcely abandon the show during the May ratings sweeps and has taped programs that will be aired then. He also has commitments to ABC as a stand-in for radio commentator Paul Harvey.  There was no reason for Thompson to make the cancer revelation if he did not plan to run for president, and this indicates he intends to join the race. However, prominent Republicans are delaying an endorsement until he actually announces his candidacy.  MCCAIN'S BAGHDAD TRIP  In a private conference call with supporters of Sen. John McCain's presidential candidacy, Tom Ridge indicated disapproval of the candidate's most recent visit to Baghdad.  Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania and secretary of Homeland Security, questioned whether the Baghdad trip was McCain's idea or came from his staff. No clear answer was forthcoming, but the criticism in Ridge's tone was implicit. A strong supporter of Bush's Iraq policy, Ridge endorsed McCain for president on Feb. 28.  McCain has come under fire for saying that Baghdad was safer since the U.S. troop surge and then entering the Iraqi capital under heavy security protection.  BLOCKING BUSH  Democratic leaders, furious over President Bush's recess appointment of millionaire St. Louis businessman and Republican contributor Sam Fox, are contemplating keeping the Senate in session most of August to stop the president from again circumventing the confirmation process.  Fox's nomination as ambassador to Belgium was blocked because of his $50,000 2004 contribution to the Swift Boat veterans group that attacked presidential candidate John Kerry's record during the Vietnam War.  Kerry led the fight against Fox. Bush withdrew the nomination, but then sent Fox to Brussels without confirmation by nominating him during the Easter recess.  Angered by this process, Democrats are talking about keeping the usual Senate recess time in August short so that Bush may be unable to submit recess nominations. Such a summer schedule presumably would include pro forma sessions that would keep short the official length of any recess.  novakevans@aol.com"
"5","A last-ditch effort CINP000020070417e34g0000e 388 Words 16 April 2007 The Cincinnati Post Cincinnati A8.0 English © 2007 Cincinnati Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  President Bush has re-launched his drive to win passage of comprehensive immigration-law reform, very likely his last chance at a major legislative initiative.  The White House has advanced a detailed plan, but one the White House stops short of labeling the president's, saying it is a draft intended to put ideas on the table for discussion. It calls for stepped-up border security, tougher enforcement of laws against hiring undocumented workers and a guest-worker program. But the real sticking point is a path for the 12 million illegal immigrants here now to gain legal residence and eventually citizenship.  Bush would grant illegal workers here now three-year renewable visas at a cost of $3,500 each time. To become legal permanent residents, recipients of these ""Z visas"" would have to return to their homeland, pay a $10,000 fine and apply for re-entry through a U.S. consulate. While these provisions are onerous, it's doubtful they will mollify immigration hard-liners who will construe it as a form of amnesty. The hard-liners say they will consider a path to legal residence once the borders are secure, but such security can never be 100 percent. While raids on workplaces have been stepped up, they've been seen as controversial and disruptive and have produced a catalog of hard-luck stories that only makes the government look heartless.  The Senate is more accommodating than the House on reform and it will go first with a bill now being negotiated between the Bush administration and Republicans, to be voted on at the end of May.  The problem is the House. Democratic support for Bush-style reform is less now than it was in the last session when Republicans tried to make it radioactive. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly has said that to win passage of a comprehensive bill -- one that is more than just bigger fences and tougher enforcement -- Bush will have to deliver around 70 Republican votes.  Bush showed real political courage on immigration reform, but his standing with congressional Republicans has dwindled so far that courage might not be enough and, like other of his initiatives that have stalled -- the Iraq war, Social Security reform, tax reform - - immigration may have to wait for the next president. Editorial"
"2"," LETTERS, FAXES & E-MAIL STJR000020070418e34g0002y EDITORIAL 2034 Words 16 April 2007 The State Journal-Register 9 English © 2007 The State Journal-Register. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Don't be confused by endorsements  The Williamsville Education Association (WEA), which is a misleading name for Williamsville's local teachers union, is making endorsements for the upcoming Tuesday school board election, telling people who you should vote for. The WEA bases its endorsements on interests of the teachers union (such as teacher pay raises and benefits), rather than who may be better qualified or work harder on behalf of the community and schools.  This past week, the WEA mailed flyers to every household in the Williamsville School District, hoping to influence your vote. Funding for the WEA's political actions are derived from the IEA's political action committee, WPACE (Williamsville Political Action Committee for Education).  A similar situation happened two years ago, when all four Williamsville School Board candidates endorsed by the WEA were elected. Such political action is not only unfair to the candidates, but also unfair to the voters. Voters who read about the WEA endorsements are confused, thinking the organization is related to the PTO, which it is not.  Voters of Williamsville School District, please consider all school board candidates and vote your conscience. Read the material that has been hand-delivered to your door by the two candidates who are women. Contact the candidates and ask about their qualifications. Then make up your own mind which candidates will best represent students, parents, taxpayers and other members of the community, as well as supporting our teachers.  Citizens for a Balanced  School Board  Ken Lazar  Sherman  Concerned about fire chief's comments  I am a citizen of Riverton, and was watching the news the other night regarding the Riverton Fire District trustees election.  The comment from the present fire chief makes one wonder what is really going on with the current fire district board. Riverton's fire chief stated he ""would not be able to work with some of the new trustees, if elected.""  The thought of having someone in power making a statement like that makes one believe that there is something going on behind closed doors. I believe any chief/leader, no matter what type of organization, should be professional enough to handle all situations. Why is it that the chief cannot work with the new trustees? Sounds to me like a new, diverse board is needed.  Alexanderia Stone  Riverton  Editor's note: Riverton Fire District trustees were previously appointed and will be elected for the first time this year. A recent headline on a letter to the editor indicated they were already elected.  Questions location of Riverton firehouse  I believe the Riverton citizens should be aware that the current board is building the firehouse on the north side of the tracks, which will leave two schools and day cares on the south side of tracks unprotected for periods of time throughout the day and evening because of the large number of trains that come through our town. The fact is that fires can burn very quickly and every second counts in a fire.  Maybe a statistical research should have been done, or still could be done, in order to make sure the town has proper coverage during times of delays.  Another factor that may come into play is that there is also a large fuel source across the street. If again, a fire would happen at that gas station, would there still be access to reach the firehouse? And two, have they actually taken in account how close they are to such a large fuel source?  Citizens have voiced their opinions at the forum and open meeting on Wednesday night but the current board is turning deaf ears. So to all citizens, please vote with the thought of everyone's safety in mind. Maybe a new board will hear the voice of the taxpaying citizens.  Eric Ellis  Riverton  Don't OK another shelter for homeless  I urge all Springfield taxpayers to vote a resounding NO to funding for another shelter for the homeless transients and vagrants in this town. Wouldn't it be a more prudent, viable option to support the many shelters we have here instead?  The adage, ""you don't work, you don't eat"" needs to be implemented, whether it is cleaning, trash pickup, learning a new trade skill, anything that would contribute to society, instead of clogging up the library with knapsacks and bags and loitering and panhandling all hours of the day and night.  As a landlord, I have attempted to assist those transients who receive government monies and receive in turn destroyed/damaged property, other transients on parole moving in, trafficking of drugs, gambling, dog fighting, weapons and prostitution, child neglect, et cetera.  After the eviction process is completed, these opportunists move on to parasitize another area, leaving behind an unbelievable amount of trash and filth, ruined and broken furniture and appliances, used needles, condoms, crack baggies, lighters and paraphernalia, used sanitary products, unwashed moldy clothing and spoiled food, not to mention all the discarded children's school pictures, cut-up baby clothes, damaged toys and strollers. Many transients and homeless receive Link cards that are promptly traded for dope, government assistance for gas/electric/housing, handouts of food, toys and clothing, discounted or ""free"" medical visits.  My question is, why should we keep kowtowing to these people who contribute nothing except further encourage spending for our already bloated bureaucracy?  Linda Fleming  Springfield  Rochester must move into 21st century  As the owner of Gambino's Family Restaurant in Rochester, I am writing to express my support for the repeal of prohibition in Rochester.  After opening in July 2006, we have built a popular place where most people return regularly. Most days we serve breakfast and lunch, but are open on weekends for dinner. Most of our evening dining customers bring alcoholic beverages of some type with them, but we are not allowed to sell it. If we would, we would probably expand our restaurant and attract more customers.  Many have asked us if prohibition was repealed, could we survive with competing restaurants that might open. I welcome competition and would love a cluster of other restaurants in Rochester offering a destination with options. If prohibition is voted down by the voters, I will live with their decision and continue to offer the best Cajun food in this region of Illinois.  I am writing also as a taxpaying citizen of Rochester. Our Rochester business community needs to be revitalized. Most of our 3,500 citizens shop in Springfield and consequently our Rochester tax base is far too dependent on residential property. We have no industry and little commercial development. The zoned business district in Rochester could include a pharmacy, expanded grocery store, new restaurants, and new or expanded fuel stations, but none are likely to expand or come to Rochester without licensing. Several have tried but did not make it.  Employment opportunities, especially for youth, are also very limited due to the lack of retail and commercial outlets. And why should Rochester citizens have to pay Springfield's higher sales tax? Or travel 10 or more miles to a commercial district?  Like many others here, I believe it is time for Rochester to move into the 21st century and allow licensing under the strict provisions developed by the village board if the referendum passes. So I urge citizens to vote on Tuesday and vote ""NO to Allow us to Grow.""  Gaetano Gambino  Rochester  Write-in candidate has some ideas  I agree with the gentleman who wrote that he is fed up with his right to smoke being taken away. I understand his frustration of smokers and businesses that are losing business because of the current ordinance that bans smoking in public restaurants, bars and clubs.  Well, here is a chance to send a message to our officials stating that the voters are fed up. Vote for the candidate who will really go after what you need. I do not smoke but I do not believe in taking a choice away from a citizen. I am asking for your support on Tuesday. My name is Micheal Gragg and I am a write-in candidate.  I believe we need to do something about the homeless issue now, and let's make the night bus service a reality, not just talk. Plus, I believe that the north side needs more police presence. I also think that it's about time that we regulate landlords and give them certificates of approval to rent a property out before a tenant can move in. For years, that happened in other cities. We should have had it done years ago.  We definitely need to do something with the old Cargill plant. Either put something in there or tear it down. Plus make more sidewalks by Cargill.  Michael Gragg  Springfield  Enforce immigration laws we do have  Last week, I was handed an article about Mexico's immigration laws. As I sat wondering why we silent majority Americans seem so lackadaisical about our freedoms being taken away at an alarming pace, I decided to check this article out. In brief summary, this is what I found.  Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. Illegal immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process. Immigrants and foreigners are banned from public political discourse; are denied certain basic property rights; are denied equal employment rights. Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens; are not to be trusted in public service; may never become members of the clergy. Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers. Anyone who aids in illegal immigration is imprisoned.  Because of limited space, the entire policy cannot be listed here. Get on your computer or go to the public library and check it out for yourself. Then go to http://www.ilga.gov, click on House/Senate members, find out who the chief sponsors of HB 1100 are (gives driving certificates to illegal immigrants) and contact them to voice your opposition to this bill. It has already passed the House and awaits action in the Senate. Also, send your letter to our U.S. congressmen and the president. Yes, it all takes time; is your country worth it?  I'm not a racist. I don't condone discrimination. I am opposed to rewarding illegal immigrants by giving them benefits. If they truly want to become U.S. citizens, they should go through the process legally. Can you imagine the outcry of our neighbors across the border if the United States adopted an immigration policy such as theirs? Enforcing the immigration policy we do have might be a good place to start.  Mary Jane Fagan  Petersburg  Duke officials mishandled lacrosse situation  While the Durham County, N.C., district attorney has been appropriately chastised for jumping to conclusions, either deliberately or otherwise, last year in accusing those Duke University students of sexual assault, I believe the powers at Duke also deserve chastisement.  By immediately suspending the accused players from school, suspending the rest of the school's lacrosse season, and firing the team's coach, they not only unfairly punished the accused players but the whole lacrosse team, not to mention Duke's reputation, as well.  While Duke officials eventually may apologize for acting too hastily, the tarnishing of these students' reputations is likely to follow them the rest of their lives, and could adversely affect their future educational and career pursuits.  I hope that Duke, and other entities in similar situations, in the future remember that in the United States we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.  Obviously, Duke had to say something upon learning of the accusations, but a statement such as, ""we take these accusations very seriously and will take appropriate action upon our review of all the facts,"" would have been quite sufficient under the circumstances at that time.  Dick McLane  Springfield Caption: From left, Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann smile during a press conference Wednesday in Raleigh, N.C., after prosecutors decided to drop all remaining charges against the three Duke lacrosse players who were accused of sexually assaulting a stripper at a team party."
"2","LETTERS AKDG000020070417e34h0008r Editorial 2146 Words 17 April 2007 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 13 English Copyright (c) 2007 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.  Troops deserve more honesty  Re your recent editorial, I, too, wish godspeed to our troops. However, I disagree that they should be issued lies along with their ammunition. They deserve better and, in truth, this is a fool's errand.  Recently, mass demonstrations erupted across Iraq including Iraqi soldiers demanding an end to the U.S. occupation. No one knows what success there will look like or when it is likely to be achieved.  Your conflation of 9/11 with this fiasco is so threadbare, it no longer warrants rebuttal. The [following comments] do.  ""America cannot allow Iraq to become a failed state."" When did the state of Iraq become our prerogative?  ""Vietnam didn't have to be Vietnam."" Oh? Pray tell, what should it have been, Kansas? If only those damned liberals hadn't said, ""Enough!"" Or as W. observed, showing up 40 years late, ""Vietnam proves that you never give up."" ""[O]ne big killing field."" With the exception of Cambodia, whose leader's mindset was akin to Dick Cheney's, it never happened. To be sure, there were some settling of scores in Vietnam (see Hussein, Saddam), but for all intents and purposes, 30 years of slaughter ended in 1975, and Vietnam became what it is and should have been all along-Vietnam.  Finally, there is your comment about our ""burdens of empire"" and how our defense and freedom in the world are one. To that end, did we establish the dungeon at Guantanamo? Or to revisit a metaphor of Vietnam, must we destroy freedom to save it?  JAMES R. FILYAW  Fort Smith  Imus outrage excessive  The level of outrage directed at Don Imus over his recent comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team is not only unduly excessive, it is also misdirected.  Trying to be funny, Imus referred to the team as ""nappy-headed hos."" For those who don't already know, ""ho""' is illiterate for ""whore."" It would be a stretch to find a joke in implying that female basketball players are prostitutes. But Imus thought it would be funny for an old, white guy to try to talk like a young, black hip-hopper, so in imitating what is heard routinely in rap music, he crossed the line and used words that only blacks can use with impunity.  Not surprisingly, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson slithered out from under their rocks and unleashed the full force of the PC police, successfully demanding the firing of Imus. According to Jackson, Imus' firing was ""a victory for public decency. No one should use the public airwaves to transmit racial or sexual degradation."" His outrage would be better directed at the hundreds of current rappers polluting the airwaves with messages that routinely degrade women.  If the stigma that Imus stumbled over applied to the black music industry, then he wouldn't have had such words to imitate. Then he could have been fired [because] he isn't funny or informative.  TOM GUSEWELLE  Harrison  Citizenship diminished  American citizenship is a heritage treasured by the majority. Our forefathers, some as indentured servants, some slaves, others passing the United States immigration requirements as set forth by law, paid for ours.  Greed-driven corporations, farmers, government officials and contractors of all sorts are now rejecting the historic legal means that built this great nation while the majority has been duped that illegal is better.  Greedy employers say alien employees work harder than citizens and do jobs that citizens don't want. Just like the big plantation owners of the Old South, they lie, beat and cheat. Our highest government officials ignore immigration laws while demanding that some citizens obey the IRS laws. Hypocrisy is accepted and expected of our sworn officials.  Does the government have the right to take a citizen's property without due process of law? They are taking our citizenship, which is more valuable than property. The 2010 census is only three years ahead. There currently are approximately 12 million to 20 million illegal residents who will be counted and be given U.S. representation in Congress. That's four to six times more voice in national government than Arkansas has. This is apparently what Americans want based on the silence from the public.  JIM GLOVER  Heber Springs  Nutt is doing a fine job  Enough is enough is enough. Everyone is griping, complaining and bellyaching about Houston Nutt and Frank Broyles. Broyles has done things for the University of Arkansas that no one else would have ever tried to do.  One example is the weight room. What does every recruit say when they visit? They love the weight room. Where did the weight room come from? Broyles.  The man is retiring at the end of the year. Why keep on about him? So-called Hawg fans should look at the good and let the man be. As for Nutt, let him run his same old plays. If he repeats as SECWest champion with a 10-2 record, fine with me. It seems most people want a 12-0 record and a national champion every year. Not gonna happen, people.  Get real. There are a lot of more important things to worry about in life. After we have two or three losing seasons in a row, then we have something to worry about.  VAN ADAMS  Fayetteville  Why not turn off lights?  There is an easy solution to the vandalism and graffiti problem in Springdale or any other city: Turn the city street lights off and this will cut the crime rate and save the city money on energy.  JOSEPH L. BERRY  Redfield  Column touched heart  The column written by Mike Masterson on the occasion of the birth of his second granddaughter really touched my heart. It was all about how his grandchildren needed to conduct their lives.  I hope he will run it again sometime. It had a lot of wisdom in it and basically advised them to conduct their lives in accordance with the enduring wisdom of the Bible.  I at first thought I would have my 15-year-old granddaughter read it, but decided to read it to her so she would be sure and get it all. I also made copies of it and gave it to friends who had grandchildren. Good work, Mike.  BILL READER  Ward  Listen to the scientists  Whether you like Al Gore's politics isn't the point, because global warming is not a campaign issue, it's a scientific issue. Gore simply publicizes it.  By the way, Gore never said he invented the Internet. He said he helped to create it, which he did, by introducing legislation in Congress to aid its development.  A cold snap does not disprove global warming. What counts is yearly temperature average. Twelve of the last 13 years have been the hottest on record. Scientists predict weather extremes along with gradual warming. We may now be seeing changing weather patterns in Arkansas.  Some say we poor little human beings couldn't affect worldwide climate. But ancient peoples created deserts just by grazing goats and cutting down forests. Now there are 6.5 billion of us burning coal, oil and the Amazon [forests]. Do you think actions have no consequences?  Decades ago, a few scientists worried about a possible new Ice Age. There was nothing like the current consensus about global warming. When tens of thousands of scientists worldwide agree on something and urgently try to get our attention, I listen. Who is more likely to have a bias, scientists telling governments what they don't want to hear or propagandizing oil companies like ExxonMobil that won't let anything cut into their profits?  So now Rush Limbaugh is the expert on climate change? They must be putting stupid in the water again.  CORALIE KOONCE  Warming caused by sun  Yes, the Earth is experiencing global warming. No, it is not caused by anything that puny man is doing.  Global warming is caused by variations in the sun's activity. Global warming creates higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not vice versa. Evidence is abundant that the Earth's natural climate has varied over the centuries from Ice Age conditions to warm periods and back again. In addition, agricultural production in past global warming cycles has always increased in the world as a whole.  If you really want to know the true story of global warming, go to one of the major bookstores, or perhaps your local library, and get the book by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, ""Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years."" Whatever else you do, please stop listening to the false information coming from the United Nations, Al Gore and other global warming alarmists.  JIM ERSKINE  Bentonville  Education is no enemy  While I encourage parents to involve themselves in the education of their children, I am disturbed to see the vehemence with which Laurie Taylor Masterson and many others have attacked Arkansas school libraries, alleging that these libraries provide vulgar books and pornography to children.  These books are educational, not titillating. The central message of these books is that sexual pleasure and perversion are not synonymous, and that children should not feel guilty for feeling or fulfilling normal sexual impulses. Since when did sex become inherently perverted? Since when did ""Fahrenheit 451"" become our national reality? Since when did it become the school library's responsibility to limit educational resources?  Parents, stop expecting society to raise your children for you. If you want to restrict your child's emotional and intellectual growth, do it on your own time and stop demanding that your libraries and legislators take on your responsibility.  ALLISON ELAINE REDDING  Farmington  Excerpts are debatable  Your recent editorial, ""Department of Dissent,"" is to be commended for its wishful thinking, but not for the interpretation of sacred texts.  You stated that ""the Muslim holy book specifically condemns suicide."" But according to Sam Harris, in his book, ""The End of Faith,"" the Koran contains a single ambiguous line, ""Do not destroy yourselves."" Harris also states that ""on almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict."" The desire for a peaceful world is a noble goal that passivists, humanists as well as peaceful Christians and Muslims, seek to achieve. But to use only the excerpts from divine texts to validate one's desires leaves much to dispute. Yielding to the ""cafeteria plan"" to back one's argument leaves questions about the validity of one's research. Christians quote the peaceful scriptures of the Bible, yet ignore violent ones.  I wish for peace on Earth. I believe it is a goal in itself. Do we really need divine spirtual guidance to define this? I believe peace can be accomplished through mutual love and respect for all people, and without trying to sanction it by using ambiguous ancient writings.  JOHN M. RAINWATER  Little Rock  Cruelty bill needs teeth  The Senate Judiciary Committee was so right on to reject House Bill 2788, the animal cruelty bill. The bill that needed support was Senate Bill 777.  This legislation has teeth, but the Arkansas Farm Bureau won't support it. Why? Are they afraid that future serial killers won't get their chance to skin, burn and torture dog, cats and horses? Why were they so opposed to SB 777, which would have implemented true reforms?  Let's really begin to get a true animal cruelty bill on the books and stop horsing around.  NANCIE PHILLIPS  Hot Springs  Feedback  Story just propaganda  Your recent Perspective story, ""A health care secret,"" written by members of the right-wing Cato Institute, contained no disclaimer that it was simply propaganda for the health insurance industry. I believe you are obligated to publish more balanced coverage than that or to put it in a more correctly labeled ""Right-wing perspective"" section.  If you want to know some real health care secrets, ask someone who has filed bankruptcy for medical bills, or someone who got a bad diagnosis while between jobs (and is now uninsurable), or someone who has to choose between paying for food or paying for life saving medicine.  MARTHA J. BREWER  Little Rock  Cut international aid  I have an important question to ask the Democrats, Republicans, senators, dog catchers and everyone else. Why are we sending billions of dollars overseas to these deadbeat countries that don't care anything about us?  They have one hand out for our money and the other hand is holding our burning flag. Yet our government keeps sending money.  The military doesn't have the funds to support the returning personnel who fought in that stupid war. There aren't any funds to support the military hospitals. I say cut off the funds to these deadbeat countries and support the American people first.  FRED STEWART  Little Rock  This article was published 04/17/2007"
"1","It's still time to go, Al FWST000020070420e34k0001u B Star-Telegram 578 Words 20 April 2007 The Fort-Worth Star-Telegram Tarrant 10 English Copyright (c) 2007 The Fort-Worth Star-Telegram. All rights reserved.  Let's assume that the bumbling dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys was not an overt attempt to intimidate them or impede politically explosive prosecutions.  The evidence doesn't unequivocally prove that. But let's just assume.  Even so, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' long hours of testimony Thursday didn't repair the damage done by his defective leadership.  Gonzales admitted mistakes, accepted responsibility and told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee he's ""always sought the truth.""  But then he proceeded, under sometimes withering questioning, to contradict, backtrack and evade. He failed to show a grasp of how much support for him has ebbed. And he demonstrated that he just doesn't get how many ways this mess looks wrong.  Harking to a March USA Today column Gonzales wrote claiming that the ousted U.S. attorneys ""lost my confidence,"" committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked when he lost confidence in former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico.  ""Mr. Iglesias lost the confidence of Sen. Domenici,"" Gonzales replied.  That would be Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, who recommended Iglesias for the job but last year made a questionable phone call inquiring whether indictments in a corruption case involving Democrats would come before the November election.  Though Gonzales wants us to believe that no improper politics intruded, he acknowledged discussing Iglesias with presidential political adviser Karl Rove and President Bush.  There's no doubt that Democrats initially stirred the embers here. But some of the committee's Republicans were just as fired up Thursday as Democrats.  Lawmakers from both parties grew skeptical about Gonzales' truthfulness because internal documents and a former aide have contradicted his claim at a March 13 news conference that he had little involvement in choosing which prosecutors to dismiss.  On Thursday, Gonzales continued to assert that he relied on the judgment of trusted aides but made the final decision. He defended the firings, but it became clear that he mainly found the justifications after the fact in documents released to Congress when a squall erupted.  In one example of backtracking, Gonzales said that former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego ""was acutely aware"" about concerns with her record on prosecuting gun and immigration crimes. But when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., pressed him over letters praising Lam, including one from a top Justice official, Gonzales brought up complaints from members of Congress then conceded, ""we should have done a better job of communicating with Ms. Lam.""  Gonzales was, at turns, contrite and combative. He seems to have learned lessons about the pitfalls of excessive delegation and inattention.  But he shamelessly tried to shield himself with the career Justice Department employees, telling senators that ""when there are attacks against the department, you're attacking those career professionals.""  At least one Democrat and one Republican asked Gonzales why he should keep his job before Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma bluntly said he shouldn't.  ""I believe there's consequences,"" Coburn said. ""I believe this has been handled in a very incompetent manner. ... The confidence in U.S. attorneys throughout the country has been damaged. ... The reputation of the attorney general's office has been tarnished. ... The best way to put this behind us is your resignation.""  Gonzales believes he can continue to be ""effective as attorney general.""  But his inability to see why not shows why it's time for him to go."
"1","EDITORIALS Senate Shame INVDAI0020070420e34k00009 ISSUES & INSIGHTS 476 Words 20 April 2007 Investor's Business Daily NATIONAL A14 English (c) 2007 Investor's Business Daily  U.S. Attorneys: Democrats turned the Senate Judiciary Committee into a circus-like political rally Thursday, complete with chants from costumed demonstrators. Alberto Gonzales was the most sober man in the room. How does ""The World's Greatest Deliberative Body"" treat the nation's chief law enforcement officer?  With his panel breaking for lunch, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy was seen giggling as a departing Attorney General Gonzales was subjected to crowds holding up signs and bellowing ""Resign!"" in the hearing room. After Gonzales returned for the afternoon session, noisy demonstrators were allowed to roam freely around the room with their placards. At the hearing's final gavel they sang and shouted taunts.  Why didn't Leahy have the Capitol Police clear the room? Why didn't the ranking Republican, the liberal Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, call on Leahy to do so? Or someone on the committee concerned with the Senate's highfalutin reputation?  They didn't because that mob demanding Gonzales' scalp is what the hearing was all about. The senators may have worn suits and ties and spoken in softer tones (though not always), but their blood lust for the White House is just as fervent as the extremists who wore orange garb and pink police costumes and had ""Arrest Gonzales"" duct-taped on their backs.  Consider Leahy's nonsensical contention that ""the Department of Justice is experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled during its 137-year history."" Does he forget Bill Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, erecting a wall between the FBI and the CIA that buried vital intelligence that could have exposed the 9/11 plot?  The Gonzales inquisition amounted to a colossal waste of time.  ** The best New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer could do was raise doubt about whether fired U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was told there were issues with her prosecution of immigration cases. Then, with a staged solemnity, Schumer asked Gonzales to resign.  ** All Leahy could do was pinpoint a date -- Oct. 11, 2006 -- when the president discussed with Gonzales his concern about a lack of voter-fraud prosecutions by fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.  ** The best a grandstanding GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina could serve up was the charge that many of the fired U.S. attorneys ""just had personality conflicts with people in your office or the White House and just made up reasons to fire them.""  Some smoking guns, those.  Once again: Under the law, U.S. attorneys are hired and fired by the president; no public or private explanation is needed. There is no scandal. Yet Schumer was gleefully confident that Gonzales' head would roll because GOP senators were ""so skeptical"" of him.  The White House should realize that sacrificing Gonzales won't end Congress' feeding frenzy. It will whet it."
"4","State editorial roundup APRS000020070423e34n001vj By The Associated Press 2367 Words 23 April 2007 15:18 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  A sampling of editorial opinion around Texas:  April 23  The Dallas Morning News on presidential debates:  If becoming an informed voter were easy, everyone would do it.  It's not, of course. When it comes to choosing our next president, there's no shortage of information about the candidates. Some is critical, some interesting, some salacious, some irrelevant.  All we can predict is that you won't learn enough about the major party nominees if we hold to the series of heavily scripted, play-not-to-lose, watch-what-you-say debates.  Despite many good intentions, presidential debates offer little more than bland recitations of carefully calibrated positions and the occasional sound bite from a gaffe or putdown.  You need more. And a smart fellow named Norman Ornstein has a way for you to get it.  Mr. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, recalls the 1963 talks between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democratic incumbent John F. Kennedy to change the face of presidential campaigning.  They had agreed to campaign in tandem, flying from city to city together to hold a series of moderator-less debates on issues of the day. Imagine the respect, civility and confidence that must have required. Unfortunately, as we in Dallas know too well, an assassin's bullet halted those plans.  We believe Mr. Ornstein is onto something when he proposes a variation of the Kennedy-Goldwater plan for 2008 a series of weekly debates from Labor Day to Election Day, at least eight such face-offs.  That opens the door to a variety of formats and topics. Some could have moderators, others not. Some could hinge on questions from journalists or even experts in the fields. In others, the candidates could question each other. Some could be wide ranging; others could be on a single issue, say, Iraq or health care or immigration.  Preparation, yes. Pre-packaged answers, no.  We would add that any network that wanted to televise such a debate would agree to remove time limits. If a debate goes an hour, fine; if it takes all night, we go all night.  Today's made-for-TV debates, as our Todd Gillman wrote in 2004, are ""about as spontaneous as a dog show.""  We need a better way. Let's see what's inside these candidates. With less scripting, we can learn more about who they are and how they would govern. Doesn't our choice for the nation's highest office deserve that much?  ------  April 23  Fort Worth Star-Telegram on a poll tax:  An insidious scheme to turn back the clock on voting rights in Texas tragically has once again made its way to the state House floor.  The architects of this idea, pitched as a noble effort to prevent voter fraud, cannot be allowed to succeed with what is surely one of the greatest assaults on the right to vote in this state since passage of the federal Voting Rights Act in 1965.  Two bills are scheduled for debate Monday in the lower chamber: House Bill 218, which would require a photo ID along with a voter registration card to cast a ballot, and HB 626, which would require a certified copy of a birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate to register to vote.  Opponents, who promise an intense floor fight, note that such requirements put undue hardships particularly on ethnic minorities, the elderly and the poor. They also say that these bills were introduced because these citizens are also believed to trend toward voting Democratic.  Recent published reports have indicated that there was an organized effort, allegedly hatched in the White House, to suppress voter turnout during the 2006 election by getting state legislatures to pass more stringent voter identification laws and by conjuring up allegations of widespread voter fraud in some battleground counties and states.  A photo ID bill passed the House during the last legislative session but was defeated in the Senate.  Considering the cost of certified copies of documents, these bills are, in effect, proposing a new poll tax. A certified copy of a birth certificate costs $23; a passport is $85; a naturalization certificate is $200.  Naturalization certificates warn on the document itself that copying one ""without lawful authority"" could result in punishment.  State Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, who is fighting the legislation, emphasizes that the bills represent a ""reversal of the progress Texas has made since the days of poll taxes and segregation.""  No logical person would oppose fighting voter fraud, but there are plenty of laws and procedures already in place to combat such illegalities.  Lawmakers should trust our justice system to deal with any balloting irregularities -- unless there's another purpose behind the proposed laws.  ------  April 22  Houston Chronicle on global warming's effects:  As human-induced heating of the globe moves from scientific prediction to reality, there is a growing awareness that the threat goes far beyond bad weather.  In a groundbreaking debate at the United Nations Security Council last week, diplomats raised the chilling specter of large areas of the world torn by armed conflicts among populations beset by flood, drought and other side effects of climate change. Pressing the case that global warming represents a threat to international security, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett told the council ""an unstable climate will exacerbate some of the core drivers of conflict, such as migratory pressures and competition for resources.""  Opposing the British initiative are China and an alliance of developing nations. Those nations' diplomats contend the Security Council is dominated by major powers and is not the place to be debating an issue that effects all nations. A U.N. study suggests that the countries most severely affected by climate change in the short term will lie in the tropical Third World already wracked by poverty, political instability and sectarian violence.  Retired American military officers prepared a report for a Virginia think tank, the CNA Corporation. According to the report, ""National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,"" the authors say projected climate change will undermine already marginal living conditions in many countries, ""causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states.""  Because of its broad impact, global warming will provide multiple threats, including fostering terrorist movements while undermining democratic governments in favor of authoritarian rule and radical ideologies. The United States will likely be drawn into such situations, the report stated, to prevent humanitarian suffering or to support political allies.  The authors recommend that all branches of the U.S. military and intelligence services begin to devise national defense strategies that take into account the projected impact of climate change. ""As military leaders, we know we cannot wait for certainty. Failing to act because a warning isn't precise is unacceptable.""  The price tag for climate change in blood and money will grow exponentially the longer the United States refuses to join the international community in curtailing the greenhouse gas emissions that fuel the phenomenon. Even if the worst effects of global warming occur elsewhere, we will be begetting an infinitely more dangerous and desperate world to future Americans.  That is truly an unacceptable outcome.  ------  April 23  Austin American-Statesman on university admission:  Texas' top universities need a better mechanism for selecting students than just the Top 10 percent law.  The Legislature should give them more flexibility so they can compete for the brightest and best students and continue strengthening diversity.  The admissions law, which requires the state's premier public universities to automatically admit Texas students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class, helped the state navigate through a difficult period after the courts struck down affirmative action admissions in 1996. The University of Texas and Texas A&M were able to use the rule's colorblind admissions to target students at predominantly minority high schools.  But a decade later, the Austin campus is feeling the pinch of the 1997 law that is too restrictive to meet the future needs of our top universities. And it is so sweeping in its scope that it threatens to crowd out any other method of admitting students. It is appropriate to revise it now.  Top UT officials, including UT President William Powers and UT System regents Chairman James Huffines, are in agreement about the solution: Cap the law.  Last week, UT System regents voted to back legislation that would allow universities to cap admission under the law at 50 percent of their freshmen enrollees from Texas. We urge lawmakers to listen to the folks closest to the problem. The bill that would fix the problem, by Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, is scheduled for a hearing today.  At this point, the law forces UT to rely heavily on a sole criterion for selecting students. About 71 percent of UT's freshmen from Texas are Top 10 percent graduates. It's not hard to imagine a future in which that figure rises to 100 percent because UT is the preferred school for top 10 graduates.  Without caps, there will come a day when all enrollment slots are filled by the top 10 percent of students. That kind of admissions policy leaves no room for the talented math, music or art student who might have fallen short of the top 10 percent mark. And it ultimately will limit the number of minority students who are admitted once UT hits the 100 percent threshold.  Details of how a 50 percent cap would work still need to be decided. But the regents took a positive step last week in offering an incentive for students who might not make the cut under that mark by pledging to offer Top 10 percent students admission to a least one of the UT System's nine academic campuses.  Even now, UT officials say the 10 percent law is hindering their efforts to go after the brightest and best minority students. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race and ethnicity could be considered and UT is using affirmative action in its admissions. Huffines and Powers have cited diversity as a top priority and say UT could improve on that front with more flexible admissions. We agree.  Under their leadership, enrollment of African American and Latino students has improved significantly: Spring enrollment this year is up 6.4 percent for African Americans over spring 2007, and up 5.8 percent for Hispanics. We trust their judgment that the university can and will do better. Certainly UT and Texas A&M must improve efforts to expand enrollment of minority students to ensure that the state is producing the next generation of leaders, engineers, scientists, teachers, doctors and legislators.  There is no way, however, that UT can do that in handcuffs. The Legislature must remove the restraints.  ------  April 22  San Antonio Express-News on democracy in Russia:  Critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin have a conspicuous tendency to die from the most unnatural causes. So when they're only beaten and arrested, it might be considered a measure of progress if Putin wants his country to be judged alongside such authoritarian outcasts as Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.  Of course, that's not how Putin wants Russia judged. Putin asserts Russia's deserved place at the table with the world's great democracies. In 2006, Putin held the presidency of the Group of Eight industrialized powers, consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.  But in democracies, the government doesn't set baton-wielding riot police on peaceful protesters, as authorities in Moscow and St. Petersburg did recently. And they don't detain hundreds of people on trumped-up charges.  Opposition leader and former world chess champion Gary Kasparov was one of them. He was held for 10 hours, charged with shouting anti-government slogans.  Do slogans pose a threat to truly great powers?  A spokesman for Putin conceded to reporters last week that some police might have overreacted in the opposition ruckus.  The Russian government will need to show greater respect for nonviolent opposition and less tolerance for brass-knuckle intimidation if it wants to be part of the enlightenment club.  ------  April 23  The El Paso Times on TAKS replacement:  Increasing unhappiness with the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, a standardized exit exam for high-school students, appears to be on its way out.  On Thursday, the Texas Senate voted to replace the controversial TAKS with exams that would cover four core subjects and would be administered to students in grades 9-11.  However, TAKS wouldn't completely disappear because the exams would still be given to younger students.  Almost everyone has heard the phrase ""teaching to the test."" That's probably the main gripe with TAKS, with students, parents and teachers alike saying that too much time is being spent in the classroom preparing students specifically to pass the test.  Few people would dispute that some kind of effective exit testing is needed for high-school students. We agree.  But TAKS has taken on a life of its own and has become an academic goal rather than an academic assessment. It imposes undue stress on students, teachers and parents. Its relevance has come under question.  As currently envisioned, according to an Associated Press article, the new exit tests would cover English, math, science and social studies. Each test would be worth 100 points and students would be required to accumulate a minimum of 840 points to graduate.  That translates to 70 percent of a possible 1,200 points, which isn't unreasonable, although some might see it as too low.  Additionally, test grades would comprise 15 percent of the students' course grades, and good scores on tests such as the SAT could be counted toward the exit exam requirement.  The whole process seems a bit complicated, yet it appears to be more workable than the TAKS.  The bill now goes to the House, where a committee has already approved a similar bill.  We urge favorable consideration of the Senate initiative or at least a measure that combines the best of both bills. 7"
"1","EDITORIALS Probes Spring Eternal INVDAI0020070425e34p00006 ISSUES & INSIGHTS 684 Words 25 April 2007 Investor's Business Daily NATIONAL A12 English (c) 2007 Investor's Business Daily  Scandal: Washington is a different place since the Democrats took over -- a place of perpetual investigations. Maybe at some point voters will get fed up and ask someone to start doing his job.  We admit we're perplexed at the purple-faced rage President Bush's chief political aide, the brainy Karl Rove, seems to bring out in certain people. It's the kind of anger that creates many enemies intent on taking him down.  The latest of these efforts is the launch by something called the Office of Special Counsel of what the Los Angeles Times says is ""a broad investigation into key elements of White House operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.""  Just what is being charged? That Rove and his underlings might have improperly given a PowerPoint presentation to the General Services Administration. This, it is alleged, violates the Hatch Act, a Depression-era law intended to keep politics apart from the civil service.  Gee, imagine that -- a political adviser to the president talking about politics! Wonder where the Office of Special Counsel was when then-Vice President Al Gore was making plainly illegal political phone calls from his office.  But for Rove this is par for the course. He has been aggressively attacked since early in Bush's first term, blamed by congressional Democrats and their allies on the far left for Bush's electoral victories in 2000 and 2004 -- and for repeatedly outsmarting them on all sorts of issues, from tax cuts to party outreach to Latino voters.  We know, we know: The investigation by the Office of Special Counsel is headed by Scott J. Bloch, a Bush appointee.  But Bloch has recently been engaged in a bitter dispute with the White House, and anyone who thinks his decision hasn't been influenced by powerful Democrats' ongoing complaints, threats and rage at Rove doesn't know how Washington works.  Remember, Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor who ended Scooter Libby's career, was a Republican, too.  In any event, Rove for the Democrats is merely a means to an end. They know they can't make law without facing Bush's veto pen. So they've opted instead to weaken Bush by investigating anything that moves in his administration. Rove is a high-profile target.  By pushing the ""Culture of Corruption"" charge against the GOP, Democrats hope to avoid doing anything before the 2008 presidential elections. That way, they won't have to take anything but rhetorical stands on such things as the war on terror, immigration, entitlement reform, pork-barrel spending and looming tax hikes.  If they paralyze the White House, mission accomplished.  That explains the threat this year to subpoena Rove and former White House attorney Harriet Miers as part of the probe into the Justice Department firings.  It also explains how vice presidential aide Scooter Libby could be found guilty of lying about a crime that was never committed.  And how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales now finds his career in jeopardy for doing what this nation's top legal officials have done since the start of our republic: firing those who don't fit in with the president's priorities. It's none of Congress' business.  Given their self-righteousness, we'll be anxious to see if the Democrats' attention to misconduct extends to their own.  Will Sen. Hillary Clinton's fundraising irregularities get probed? How about the mysterious $100,000 that showed up in Rep. William Jefferson's freezer during a corruption probe?  What about former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's theft of documents from the National Archives -- which may have been part of an elaborate attempt to fool the 9/11 Commission about Clinton White House efforts in the war on terror?  We won't even go into Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's questionable land deals.  We might as well get used to it. The Democrats have no agenda to speak of, other than destroy the Bush White House. It's going to be a long two years."
"4","Finally, movement | Hope gains for bipartisan immigration reform SDU0000020070427e34p00004 OPINION BORDER CITY. ONE IN AN OCCASIONAL SERIES ON IMMIGRATION ISSUES 537 Words 25 April 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune R,F B.8 English © 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The anti-amnesty crowd is getting nervous, and that can only mean one thing: Common sense is taking hold in the immigration debate, and we're getting close to a comprehensive solution.  That is how it looks now that the Senate is reportedly prepared to dedicate two weeks in May to debating an immigration reform package. A group of key senators from both parties has been meeting regularly with two Cabinet officials -- Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff -- to pound out the specifics of a comprehensive immigration bill combining border enforcement, guest workers and a path to legalization for illegal immigrants who pay back fines, learn English and meet other conditions.  One of those senators, Republican Mel Martinez of Florida, reports that the group has made ""a ton of progress"" toward a bill and that the remaining stumbling blocks are ""small and manageable.""  That optimism may be tied to a pair of concessions that Democratic senators seem to be making to those Republicans whose first priority is border security. The first is a set of ""triggers"" that would require that certain border enforcement mechanisms be in place before provisions for guest workers or legalization kick in. The other is a ""touchback"" requirement that illegal immigrants must briefly return to their home countries and apply to re-enter the United States legally on an expedited basis through a new ""Z visa"" program.  There seems to have been a lot of movement in the Senate on the right, left and center of this debate as lawmakers have learned to bend in search of a bipartisan solution. Though Democrats control both houses of Congress, much of the discussion has focused on what it will take to win Republican votes for any eventual reform bill. And that is where the White House has proven most helpful in reaching out to key Republican senators such as Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas.  This is encouraging news. This level of maturity and flexibility is in short supply in Washington these days. And so whenever it surfaces, it should be met with applause, especially on an issue so contentious.  We only hope it carries over to the generally more chaotic House, which blew its own chance at reform last year with an incomplete, enforcement-only approach. Now that the House is under Democratic control, perhaps there will be more support for a comprehensive approach like the one embodied in legislation proposed by Rep. Luis Gutirrez, D-Ill., and Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. It too has language about triggers and touchbacks.  There is no perfect solution to this country's illegal immigration woes. But that is no excuse for inaction or for maintaining the status quo. That would be the real amnesty, as workers and employers would simply continue on as they have been.  It is time to give the sound bites a rest and do something bold, positive and thoughtful in immigration policy. That seems to be where we are headed in this new spirit of compromise, and it is really important that we get there."
"2","READER FORUM NSL0000020070427e34r0003s EDITORIAL 1395 Words 27 April 2007 The Star-Ledger FINAL 20 English (c) 2007 The Star-Ledger. All rights reserved.  Cover the uninsured There has been lots of news lately about plans to cover the uninsured. As an emergency physician, I see the devastating effects of being uninsured. I write on behalf of the 46 million Americans without health insurance. Many are people who work and choose food and clothing over the cost of health insurance.  The most heartbreaking examples are children. When they go without essential medical care, they end up in my emergency room. Because they lack health care, these children are less prepared to learn in school and succeed in life.  For the past 10 years, the State Children's Health Insurance Program has provided a safety net for children whose parents can't obtain or can't afford health insurance. In New Jersey, that number is 240,000, or 15 percent of the state's kids. New Jersey has been a leader in getting these children (and in many instances their families) covered under this program. Washington lawmakers are debating how much money to devote to kids' coverage. It is imperative that Congress fully reauthorize and expand the SCHIP program.  - Bruce Bonanno, Belmar The writer is spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians.  End run on schools The Education Law Center is at it again, circumventing the constitution by trekking back to court for more school construction funding. It isn't bad enough that the first court ruling set in motion waste and corruption that swindled taxpayers out of billions of dollars in the failed Schools Construction Corp. The Education Law Center wants to continue this taxpayer rape with the court's blessing. No matter that the court has no constitutional authority to require the Legislature to act or that this court action violates the state and federal constitutions.  It's time for the imperial New Jersey Supreme Court to heed the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in another school financing case: ""The desire to reform a school district or any other institution cannot so captivate the judiciary that it forgets its constitutionally mandated role. Usurpation of the traditionally local control over education not only takes the judiciary beyond its proper sphere; it also deprives the states and their elected officials of their constitutional powers. At some point we must recognize that the judiciary is not omniscient, and all problems do not require a remedy of constitutional proportions.""  - Douglas Wicks, Basking Ridge  Lagging in Paterson Milton Vorst's April 8 article leaves out important reasons for the yet-unrealized political empowerment of Paterson's Arab-Americans. While Paterson may be the economic and ethnic capital of New Jersey Arab-Americans, it is naive to depict its Arab population as thriving or as the political power base for the state's 250,000 residents of Arab descent.  Most of the people interviewed don't live in Paterson. Thus their economic stature hasn't translated into tangible political currency in Paterson. In every city department, we remain terribly underrepresented, and this may be self-inflicted. While Paterson has the most Arab-owned businesses, most of the economic activity is generated by wealthier Arabs from surrounding areas. The local population remains perpetually prey to menial and low-paying jobs with little chance of upward mobility. This is because many have questionable immigration status or are beset by language barriers or lack high-level skills or education. Add to this the city's indifference to the Arab section, which, if fully developed, could become an economic mecca. Until Paterson is perceived as a place in which to live and raise families, the American dream will elude the community.  - Aref Assaf, Denville The writer is president of the American Arab Forum.  Newark's champion Love him or hate him, respect him or fear him, former Mayor Sharpe James was one of a kind, and no one can deny that he loved Newark. He was a fighter for the city and its people. He was flamboyant and colorful, mean and vindictive, the kind of guy you didn't want to double-cross. But he would go out of his way to help those who came to him. With James' pending Senate retirement, an era is ending not only in Newark but in the state and country.  For the past 40 years, Newark has been a rough place to govern. Ken Gibson took office as the city was beginning its downward spiral, and there probably wasn't much that could have been done to prevent it. James came up from Newark's streets and school system. He had a feel for the people and the city. He fought for the city and its people from the steps of City Hall to the Statehouse. The people of Newark were lucky to have an orator and gladiator like James looking out for them. I am looking forward to reading his autobiography.  - Julius J. Spohn, Newark  Try a travelogue State Sen. Sharpe James is not seeking re-election. It's always sad when a political legend leaves office. James was one of the many icons who make this state such a great place to live if you're struggling financially. He says he is writing his memoirs. It would be great if he wrote a travel book. He could tell us about all the exotic places he visited while he was Newark's mayor. It would be almost as good as going there yourself. With his charm and personality, he would also be a natural to do TV commercials. I could just see him standing on the steps of City Hall holding up that piece of plastic and saying, ""The City of Newark Card - don't leave home without it.""  - Warren Goldfein, West Orange  Road bullies I have read with interest Paul Mulshine's column on tailgaters. I am a cautious driver, and I know my limitations. But it is hard to keep your mind on what you can and cannot do when you're scared: The often immediate result of tailgating is the person ahead becoming quite frightened. Too cool to care? Bully for you! But being frightened makes me a worse driver. It's not easy keeping your wits about you with a fellow motorist threatening to push you into a tree or a river. And I should think a tailgater would be far more inconvenienced by getting into an accident than by backing off just a little and being perhaps two minutes late for that bowling match.  - Laura M. Wixson, Lincoln Park  Bad for the image Reader Gretchen Gardner is not the only one fed up with your obsession with ""The Sopranos."" I also want to shout, ""Help. Enough already"" with the constant overhyping of this program. It was bad enough when it was only in the entertainment section, but when it became front-page ""news,"" you clearly went way over the edge.  Is it any wonder New Jersey has such a poor image? The state's largest newspaper reports at great length about the corruption and mismanagement so rampant in the state (and rightly so) but can only counterbalance this negative image with almost daily drivel about ""The Sopranos"" and Bruce Springsteen. While these performers have their fans who are entitled to updates about their progress, any out-of-stater reading your paper would get the idea that that's all there is. Surely there are a lot more positives you can print about our great state - Princeton, Rutgers, Nobel Prize winners, centers of high tech, great pharmaceutical companies, beaches, mountains, skiing, hiking, fishing, ethnic diversity. Please, a little more thought in your content.  - Max Wisotsky, Highland Park  Inspiring women As a woman who was not encouraged to play sports as a kid, I think Bob Braun is missing the point. The Rutgers women's basketball team is an inspiration to all the women who were brought up to think they shouldn't compete or that being a winner is somehow not ""feminine."" This is a team of beautiful, smart, successful women who show us all what being feminine means. Learning to work as a team, to be your best, to work as hard as these women have, is a lesson that supports the best in all of us. Go, ladies, and may your Rutgers education - including C. Vivian Stringer's many lessons - bring you success throughout life.  - A. Tana Kantor, Princeton"
"3","Democrats and illegal immigrants LVGS000020070430e34s0000c Commentary 320 Words 28 April 2007 The Las Vegas Review-Journal 12B English © 2007 The Las Vegas Review-Journal. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  As further proof that hypocrisy remains a central plank in the Democratic Party platform, left-leaning lawmakers in Carson City now want to have it both ways on illegal immigration.  On Monday, the Democrat-controlled Assembly passed a get-tough- on-immigration bill that targets business owners. Assembly Bill 383 would allow the Nevada Tax Commission to strip the state business license from a company that knowingly employs illegals. To help employers determine whether they're hiring illegals, the bill mandates that the state provide a Web link that allows companies to verify the Social Security number provided by a prospective worker.  Meanwhile, Senate Democrats frantically tried to amend Senate Bill 415, which would prohibit illegals from receiving Millennium Scholarships. Minority Democrats wanted to let illegals have the scholarships provided they signed affidavits saying they would seek citizenship if given the opportunity. This toothless provision, which outlined no consequences for scholarship recipients who go back on their word, was killed by majority Republicans on a party- line, 11-10 vote.  On Tuesday, facing defeat, six Senate Democrats tried to save face by voting with the 11 Republicans to pass the legislation.  However, the bill faces certain death in the Assembly, where Democrats have worked for years to ensure that illegals have access to a free college education. Those efforts have included staunch opposition to having the state verify the Social Security numbers of Nevada high school graduates who apply for the scholarships.  So Democrats want illegal immigrants to have full access to public schools and state colleges and universities, but they don't want them to be able to get jobs when they graduate?  They don't want the state to verify Social Security numbers and withhold taxpayer subsidies from students who are in the country illegally, but they want to punish businesses that take the same approach with employees?  Makes a lot of sense."
"4","PROGRESS ON IMMIGRATION, BUT SUCCESS STILL IN DOUBT PMBP000020070429e34s0001z OPINION 462 Words 28 April 2007 The Palm Beach Post FINAL 14A English Copyright 2007. The Palm Beach Post, All Rights Reserved.  Congress is closer to passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill than at any time during the last two decades. But closer doesn't mean close.  As the debate begins to sharpen focus on the contentious details of a guest-worker program and border security, advocates on all sides are staking out positions of no retreat.  The week began with 35 conservative radio talk show hosts descending on Washington for an event called ""Hold Their Feet to the Fire."" The commentators came to the capital to rally opposition to legislation that would allow ""amnesty"" to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. Defining amnesty is half the debate. Conservatives say it is any path to legal status for people who have entered illegally. Immigrant advocates believe proposals that would impose fines, collect back taxes and put applicants in line for citizenship for up to 11 years hardly qualify as amnesty.  A Washington Post poll found that 81 percent of people said the government isn't doing enough to stop illegal immigration, but 62 percent also said illegal immigrants already in the country should keep their jobs and get a chance at legal status. On Tuesday, the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that wants less immigration, released a report that found that out-of-wedlock births among Hispanic immigrants have more than doubled since 1980, a trend that reflects the rate among native-born Americans. The implication is that illegal immigrants do not have the strong family values President Bush and other immigration advocates claim.  The Brookings Institution points out that the U.S.-born labor force will decline as Baby Boomers age, and the country will need foreign workers to fill the gap. The Washington-based think tank invited Reps. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., to discuss their bipartisan reform bill called the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act. It has the blessing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the guest-worker program the White House wants. Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and John Kyl, R-Ariz., are collaborating on a Senate version.  U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez is telling business groups that ""comprehensive immigration reform is no longer a question of if, but when and how."" It is also a question of how much. A sticking point is the size of fines for illegal immigrants. A fine too high will keep them from participating in the program; a fine too low won't satisfy moderate lawmakers who need political cover to embrace reform and fight off conservative radio talk show hosts.  Mr. Gutierrez may be right that comprehensive reform is coming, but whether it's close is an open question."
"1","FEDERAL JUSTICE: SPINNING WHEELS SEPI000020070430e34t0003s Editorial 408 Words 29 April 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer FINAL J2 English © 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  As President Bush props up Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, scandals around the administration's politicization of the Justice Department continue to grow.  Last year's firing of high-performing U.S. attorneys, including Seattle's John McKay, underlines the changes under a highly ideological right-wing leadership in the department that seems to see law enforcement as an election tool. None of the problems have been more serious than in the Civil Rights Division, which brought no discrimination cases on behalf of black or American Indian voters in a five-year period.  This week, a Seattle P-I report on post-9/11 changes in federal law enforcement showed the FBI overall has pursued far fewer civil rights cases of all kinds than in the past. After FBI agents investigate, their cases go to Justice Department attorneys, who decide whether to file cases. A retired agent told the P-I, ""A lot of us felt like they were causing us to spin our wheels on civil rights cases.""  The administration deliberately has transformed Justice's Civil Rights Division, which enjoyed bipartisan respect for decades. The debasing of the division stemmed from both ideology and resource shifting, which largely may have served as an opportunity to accelerate change. A 2005 Washington Post report on upheaval in the division pointed to low morale among professional staffers, who believed the administration wanted people who shared its views on civil rights. The Post also noted many attorneys had been handed immigration and deportation cases, which could reflect resource choices.Last year, The Boston Globe found that Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, abandoned a tradition of non-political hiring of the division's attorneys and inserted political appointees into the screening of applicants in 2002. As a result, most hires had no civil rights experience and were more likely to be members of the Federalist Society and other conservative groups.  With questions about voter fraud cases popping up in the firings of U.S. attorneys, a Salon.com article last month noted that in 2006 Gonzales sent Bradley Schlozman, an Ashcroft-era civil rights division appointee, to serve as an interim U.S. attorney in Missouri. Just before Missouri's 2006 election, which proved crucial to U.S. Senate control, Schlozman (who has since left office) filed four voter fraud cases. Whatever Gonzales' future, there is more to learn about Bush-style Justice. P-I EDITORIALS"
"5","FEDERAL JUSTICE: SPINNING WHEELS SEPI000020070430e34t0003s Editorial 408 Words 29 April 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer FINAL J2 English © 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  As President Bush props up Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, scandals around the administration's politicization of the Justice Department continue to grow.  Last year's firing of high-performing U.S. attorneys, including Seattle's John McKay, underlines the changes under a highly ideological right-wing leadership in the department that seems to see law enforcement as an election tool. None of the problems have been more serious than in the Civil Rights Division, which brought no discrimination cases on behalf of black or American Indian voters in a five-year period.  This week, a Seattle P-I report on post-9/11 changes in federal law enforcement showed the FBI overall has pursued far fewer civil rights cases of all kinds than in the past. After FBI agents investigate, their cases go to Justice Department attorneys, who decide whether to file cases. A retired agent told the P-I, ""A lot of us felt like they were causing us to spin our wheels on civil rights cases.""  The administration deliberately has transformed Justice's Civil Rights Division, which enjoyed bipartisan respect for decades. The debasing of the division stemmed from both ideology and resource shifting, which largely may have served as an opportunity to accelerate change. A 2005 Washington Post report on upheaval in the division pointed to low morale among professional staffers, who believed the administration wanted people who shared its views on civil rights. The Post also noted many attorneys had been handed immigration and deportation cases, which could reflect resource choices.Last year, The Boston Globe found that Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, abandoned a tradition of non-political hiring of the division's attorneys and inserted political appointees into the screening of applicants in 2002. As a result, most hires had no civil rights experience and were more likely to be members of the Federalist Society and other conservative groups.  With questions about voter fraud cases popping up in the firings of U.S. attorneys, a Salon.com article last month noted that in 2006 Gonzales sent Bradley Schlozman, an Ashcroft-era civil rights division appointee, to serve as an interim U.S. attorney in Missouri. Just before Missouri's 2006 election, which proved crucial to U.S. Senate control, Schlozman (who has since left office) filed four voter fraud cases. Whatever Gonzales' future, there is more to learn about Bush-style Justice. P-I EDITORIALS"
"4","The Amnesty Sideshow NYTF000020070430e34u0002d Editorial Desk; SECTA 585 Words 30 April 2007 The New York Times Late Edition - Final 20 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  We have all seen how presidential candidates shift positions to impress primary voters. It's usually as measured and boring as dance instruction: O.K. everyone, now dip to the right -- or left -- then back to center. But on the volatile topic of immigration, Republicans are lurching, falling over themselves to convince voters that where they stand is not where they stood.  The fakery is hard to watch, as it comes at a time when courage and bipartisan realism are critically important. The Iowa maunderings of two candidates in particular -- Senators Sam Brownback and John McCain -- have complicated the prospects of a bipartisan immigration bill that would affect millions of lives. While the bill's fate is being decided in difficult closed-door negotiations in the Capitol, they and other G.O.P. hopefuls are on the stump, tying themselves in knots on ''amnesty'' and dancing farther out to the fringes of public opinion.  Mr. Brownback is a right-wing Republican whose religion teaches compassion for the stranger -- immigrants, too. He was a co-sponsor of last year's bipartisan Senate bill. But this year he bailed out of negotiations, and last week disowned his vote for last year's bill, to the delight of conservatives who scorned him as ''Amnesty Sam.''  Mitt Romney is also going through contortions. The Boston Globe posted audio clips of Mr. Romney praising, in 2005, an immigration bill sponsored by Mr. McCain and Senator Edward Kennedy as sensible and ''quite different'' from amnesty, then dissing it as amnesty in this year's campaign. Mr. Romney now wallows in the support of Joe Arpaio, the showboating Phoenix sheriff famous for humiliating prisoners and pushing a round-'em-all-up approach.  Rudolph Giuliani has sharply changed his tone. Once a stout defender of immigrants, Mr. Giuliani now talks about sending people to the back of the line and installing ''heat-seeking equipment'' at the border. He insists that he opposes amnesty, but the ''amnesty'' he objects to is an ''amnesty'' nobody is talking about -- blanket forgiveness, a free pass to a green card. Once you hear him talking about helping immigrants who pay fines and back taxes, stay out of trouble, learn English and wait in the back of the visa line, it seems clear that he belongs in the comprehensive-reform fold with Mr. Kennedy and others -- whether he admits it or not.  Of all the retreats, the most disheartening may be Mr. McCain's. This former straight talker once lent his name to the most promising immigration bill in Congress. But as Senator Kennedy has struggled to draft a compromise this year, his former partner has been trumpeting border security on the campaign trail and letting momentum for comprehensive reform stall in Washington.  Mr. McCain and his adversaries may believe that primary politics demands such behavior, but surveys of the larger populace tell a different story. Americans want the immigration issue solved, and they strongly favor ''amnesty,'' whether you call it that or not. An array of recent polls show powerful support for an earned path to citizenship.  ''Call it a banana if you want to,'' Mr. McCain said of the amnesty debate last year, in a welcome moment of lucidity. If a good bill emerges, it will be because enough lawmakers stayed focused and kept their heads. If the effort collapses, a large share of the blame must go to amnesty-fixated Republicans lost in the fog of the 2008 presidential race."
"4","It's time for solution on immigration issue CHI0000020070501e35100014 Editorials The Chicago Sun-Times 451 Words 01 May 2007 Chicago Sun-Times Final 27 English © 2007 Chicago Sun Times. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Somewhere between the demands of the participants at today's immigration march -- unconditional amnesty for all illegal immigrants -- and the punitive House bill that spurred last year's round of protests is a reasonable middle ground. President Bush and the Senate tried to find it last year, only to be stymied by the House's Republican hard-liners. But Democrats are running the House and Senate now, and if today's rally serves any useful function, it will be to prod Congress to get moving and address the issue.  Bush used two speeches over the weekend to make the same point. ""I know convictions run deep on the matter of immigration,"" he said during his weekly radio address Saturday. ""Yet I am confident we can have a serious, civil and conclusive debate."" Later, in a speech to graduates at Miami Dade College, he said, ""Maintaining the promise of America requires that we remain an open and welcoming society. Our nation faces a vital challenge: to build an immigration system that upholds these ideals and meets America's needs in the 21st century.""  Bush has backed an approach that we have long viewed as reasonable and pragmatic. In general, he would allow the estimated 12 million illegal aliens to remain here if they meet such conditions as paying fines and taxes and learning English. He would also create a guest worker program that would admit needed foreign workers and eventually allow them to apply for citizenship. And he favored tougher measures to control the border and enforce immigration laws.  The Senate last year passed a bill that followed Bush's approach. The House agreed to tougher enforcement and border security, but it refused to go along with other changes because Republicans could not stomach offering a path to citizenship to people who broke the law to cross our borders. That view is understandable, to a point. Where it breaks down is in a reality check: Those people are already here, and since we can't deport them without overwhelming our court system, we must do something else.  Democrats are generally more sympathetic to immigrants, and their House and Senate leaders have supported the more pragmatic legislation. But they don't want to pass anything unless a significant number of Republicans join them on the politically volatile issue. That's where the president needs to deliver. There are reasons for optimism. The Senate already has shown that reasonable reforms can win bipartisan support. And polls show Americans support  a path to legalization -- as well as tougher enforcement and border security. Washington just needs to get cracking and get it done."
"4","Let's talk about immigration; Extreme positions must be resolved in a fair manner. FBEE000020070502e3510000l LOCAL NEWS The Fresno Bee 390 Words 01 May 2007 The Fresno Bee FINAL B8 English Copyright 2007. The Fresno Bee. All Rights Reserved.  President Bush's renewed push for immigration reform is a welcome move at a time when all we've been getting from Congress is sound bites. It's time for the Senate and House to follow up on their rhetoric and do something about our dysfunctional immigration policy.  This contentious issue must be solved in a balanced way. That may be difficult given the extreme positions that many have on immigration. Some say the solution is simple: tougher enforcement on the border. Others want a border that allows a free flow of workers into this country.  The president is correct in saying it's time for a comprehensive approach to fixing the nation's immigration policy. He wants ""secure borders"" and an immigration policy that keeps the United States ""competitive in a global economy."" He also says something must be done to resolve the status of those already here illegally.  Improved border enforcement is crucial to any immigration policy. So is a temporary guest-worker program that allows a controllable and reliable number of workers into this country to take jobs in industries that American citizens just don't want to do. Agriculture, of course, is one of those industries.  There also must be a path to citizenship for those already here. There are far too many illegal immigrants in this country to deport. But they should not go to the head of the line, and there must be a waiting period for legal status. Applicants should pay reasonable fines, and show that they have had a responsible work history.  It's time for a reasonable debate on this issue. We aren't hearing that from talk radio hosts or those participating in the immigration rallies around the country.  Unfortunately, it's far too easy to take extreme positions on immigration. It's much more difficult to find common ground that will protect the nation's security, fairly resolve the needs of our economy and find solutions for those who have been caught in the middle.  Congress should stop its political grandstanding. Pass a comprehensive immigration reform law.  Tell us what you think. Comment on this editorial by going to http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion, then click on the editorial. EDITORIALS"
"4","Recent Nebraska newspaper editorials APRS000020070503e35300cfg By The Associated Press 1259 Words 03 May 2007 18:47 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Excerpts from recent Nebraska daily newspaper editorials on topics of statewide interest.  ---  April 26  The Grand Island Independent on road funding  GRAND ISLAND -- Roads are a big deal to Nebraskans, especially in rural Nebraska, where destinations are far for both business and personal travel. ...  Given that premise, one can imagine the reaction of those living in the western two-thirds of the state when a Lincoln politician proposed that Omaha and Lincoln receive all of the state's road construction money for seven years. And did we mention that he also pointed out the rest of the state should not receive any road money during those seven years?  Ken Svoboda, a candidate for the Lincoln mayor's job, made the suggestion last week. In an obvious play to tug on the Lincoln voters' emotional vibes, he greedily suggested that the economic development of Lincoln and Omaha were more important than the road needs of the rest of the state. ...  Lincoln is in a financial bind. It seems they committed the city's money to the huge Antelope Valley project, the massive O Street widening project and redevelopment of the 48th and O streets area. So, according to Mr. Svoboda, because of his city's taking on too many projects at once, the rest of the state gets to bail his city out of a jam and clean up its mess. ...  To deprive outstate Nebraska of all road construction dollars for seven years would be a colossal mistake and harm the economic development of the state's agricultural backbone.  The most unfortunate outcome of his remarks is that those of us west of Northwest 48th Street can't vote against him.  (AP Note: Svoboda lost the election on Tuesday.)  ---  April 25  North Platte Telegraph on children's breakfasts  NORTH PLATTE -- In a story Sunday, we reported that state Sen. Tom Hansen was back in town over the weekend, meeting with constituents.  Hansen was fairly positive about the new crop of freshman senators, of which he is one, saying that they're learning a lot in Lincoln. Asked by a constituent if there will be budget cuts this year, Hansen's response was simple and direct: ""There better be.""  That sounds great, but a couple of paragraphs later, he related a little story. He said he missed breakfast one day before attending a session of the state Senate. A bill was being discussed which would expand the program that provides breakfasts in public schools in Nebraska.  By 11 a.m., Hansen said, he was getting pretty hungry. And the experience led him to this conclusion: ""How can kids pay attention in school when they don't eat breakfast?""  We're apparently left to conclude that ""there better be"" budget cuts elsewhere sufficient to not only reduce the budget, but to also offset the additional dollars that Sen. Hansen wants to spend making sure kids don't have to learn on an empty stomach. ...  Gone, apparently, is the notion that parents should be responsible for feeding their children before they go to school in the morning. ...  If this move toward a state government that is all things to all people is what the freshman senators are learning about at the Legislature, we've got some serious doubts whether all those new faces in the unicameral will make much difference at all.  ---  April 27  Omaha World-Herald on water legislation  OMAHA -- After all the words said and written about water management in Nebraska and the Republican River emergency, the Legislature's vote to pass Legislative Bill 701 Thursday was almost an anticlimax.  Almost. Nothing so monumental could every really be anticlimactic. ...  Lawmakers have done an excellent job providing tools for the state Department of Natural Resources and the three Republican River natural resources districts to handle the region's water supply problem. ...  Additional water is needed to bring Nebraska into compliance with a 1943 compact with Kansas and avoid potential federal court action and financial damages. ...  The legislation will send a powerful message to Topeka about Nebraska's willingness to address its water management deficiencies and its determination to meet its obligations under the compact. Perhaps that will be enough to persuade Kansas authorities to be flexible in the next few years as the Republican NRDs struggle to meet the compact's requirements. ...  The spotlight now shines on the state DNR and its director, Ann Bleed, as well as on the Republican NRDs and the groundwater and surface-water irrigators in the valley. These are the actors who will determine the success or failure of the Legislature's plan.  The state needs to move past petty arguments and past disagreements. Everyone's goal is the same: to protect and preserve Nebraska's limited water resources. ...  The moment is now. Seize it.  ---  April 28  Hastings Tribune on a local hero  HASTINGS -- To hear his sisters and parents talk about him, you'd think 1st Lt. Kevin Gaspers of Hastings was a superhero.  He was tough, the way superheroes ought to be, and he fought the bad guys courageously as a paratrooper in Iraq. ...  ""He was a son that anybody would be proud to have,"" said his mother. ...  Gaspers' parents, John and Pam, knew their son had a dangerous mission. He and the others in the 82nd Airborne Division searched out the enemy using unconventional means: They gathered names of insurgents from local people, then hunted each down at his home. In his letters home from Iraq, Kevin Gaspers called it ""a long and painful process."" ...  Now that he is gone, the stories of Gaspers' life growing up and of his adult life on and off the battlefield are a comfort to his family. They also have been comforted by the actions of the Hastings community. ...  This is third time we've paid tribute in this part of the newspaper to an area soldier killed during the Iraq war. Each time, we've been saddened over the loss. But we are proud of them and the legacy they leave behind. And, just like the others, there's no doubt in our mind that Gaspers was a hero.  ---  April 27  Kearney Hub on immigration reform  KEARNEY -- Immigration is one of those polarizing issues that divide lawmakers and stymie efforts to enact meaningful legislation. It's because immigration is such a divisive issue that we are excited to see U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel injecting some leadership and reason into the debate.  Hagel's Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007 merits attention. It offers realistic solutions to the daunting question of what to do about the estimated 12 million people who are in the United States illegally. ...  According to Hagel, because most of the 12 million aliens are performing jobs that need to be done, they are an integral part of the nation's economy. ...  Acknowledging the economic facts, Hagel's legislation would allow illegal aliens who are economic contributors to remain in the United States while they work toward citizenship. Hagel's act would create a merit-based point system. ...  Illegal aliens who do not appear to be contributing, and who don't appear interested in citizenship, would be deported. ...  For too long our nation has ignored the immigration issue and instead looked the other way as a river of low-cost labor flowed into our country. It's now time to constructively address the situation. Setting standards for illegal aliens to remain here and achieve U.S. citizenship makes more sense than deporting 12 million of them. 7"
"4"," [ Editorials ] DHLD000020070508e35300088 NEWS Editorials 520 Words 03 May 2007 Chicago Daily Herald All 20 English © 2007 Chicago Daily Herald. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Let's rally around immigration reform  Once again, immigrants rallied in Chicago.  And it begs the question - when will Congress rally around a plan to reform a terribly flawed immigration system that is rejected both by the protesters who say it treats them unfairly, and by their critics who are angered by the audacity of those who demand rights while mocking the nation's laws by being here illegally.  As Congress stalls, the number of illegal immigrants in this country swells. It has tripled in 25 years, according to the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington, D.C., climbing from 3.3 million in 1980 to between 11.5 million and 12.5 million last year. Some 400,000 illegal immigrants live in Illinois.  They come here to work. Obviously, they are having no trouble finding it.  The argument goes, no harm because illegal immigrants are in jobs no American citizen wants to hold. While that is only partly true, what is a fact is that employers who hire them are breaking the law just as surely as those who are crossing our borders without documentation.  We don't have the means, or the will, to round up and deport millions of illegal immigrants, who will just find their way back across porous borders anyway. Keep in mind, too, that many of them have been here for many years. They have established families and a steady income and are contributing to society.  But any immigration reform policy that is serious about stemming the flow of illegal immigration must clearly communicate to the business community that existing laws against hiring illegal immigrants must be obeyed. If those planning on coming here to work know jobs will be very hard to find because employers are truly afraid of being arrested and put out of business, they might stay put. Laws against hiring illegal immigrants are farcical if they are not enforced.  At the same time, illegal immigrants who have put down respectable roots should have a path to citizenship. An immigration reform bill that failed in the U.S. Senate last year has the right way to do this. For one, undocumented immigrants seeking citizenship - on a rigorous, 11-year track - would have to pay fines and back taxes.  As undocumented employees become citizens, as outlined by the Senate bill, pay for certain job sectors will rise. As it is, illegal immigration has depressed wages in areas of employment demanding unskilled labor.  Today, illegal immigrants - certainly those who attended the Chicago rally in the thousands - have little fear of being deported. So you have to wonder, what motivation would they have to reveal themselves and enjoin in a long, 11-year campaign to become citizens when they can just as well keep their jobs and homes as illegal residents?  True, there would have to be firm enforcement of the citizenship provision and laws against hiring illegal immigrants, not to mention stronger border enforcement, for this to have any chance to work. It's not a perfect solution. But it's better than no solution, the strategy of a meek Congress."
"4","Beyond Raw Emotion Congress, follow Americans' lead on immigration DAL0000020070503e3530000n EDITORIALS EDITORIALS 303 Words 03 May 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 16A English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  There's one thing - and possibly one thing only - that advocates on both sides of the immigration debate can agree about, and that is that emotions on both sides run deep. You could see passion in the marches in Dallas and other cities this week - smaller rallies than a year ago, but no less heartfelt. And you can see it in the Farmers Branch debate over a May 12 ballot proposal that would effectively prevent illegal immigrants from renting in the Dallas suburb.  When you step back from the heat, though, a practical streak guides most Americans.  Consider the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll. It shows that 78 percent of Americans understand that many immigrants came here illegally but would let them earn citizenship nevertheless.  A Washington Post/ABC News survey last month revealed similar thinking: 62 percent of respondents favored illegal immigrants keeping their jobs and earning citizenship.  May this practical streak guide Congress and the White House as the Senate narrows in on an immigration reform plan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced yesterday that he wants the full Senate to debate immigration the week of May 14.  For example, if senators are going to allow in a certain number of foreign workers annually, they should provide enough green cards to give the workers a shot at staying here permanently. Otherwise, the Senate will be effectively encouraging foreign workers to go underground after their temporary work visas end. Let's be realistic: Few will want to give up a good job to return home. Nor will businesses want to lose workers they've trained.  We like passion as much as the next person. But, as most Americans understand, immigration is one issue where only practical thinking will move us forward."
"4","Immigration sense ; Political grandstanding still blocks needed reforms WORC000020070504e35300018 EDITORIAL 247 Words 03 May 2007 Worcester Telegram & Gazette ALL A14 English © 2007 Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The rhetoric at immigration rallies this week in Worcester, Los Angeles and hundreds of cities in between had an unusually sharp edge - and quite understandably so. While everyone agrees the system is in dire need of reform, neither the erstwhile Republican- controlled Congress nor the current Democrat-controlled Congress has been able to move beyond political gamesmanship and grandstanding to actually get the job done.  Reasonable alternatives to the current mess are available. Reforms embraced by the White House and liberal senators alike would tighten border security while dealing realistically with the millions of immigrants, currently in the United States illegally, who have become part of the fabric of the nation's economy.  The Senate bill passed last year aimed to bring illegal aliens out of the shadows. It would create a guest-worker program, recognizing the economic role immigrant workers play in agricultural areas of the Southwest and elsewhere.  While providing enhanced border security, the bill also would offer a chance for citizenship for those who come forward, pay a fine, learn English, study American civics, demonstrate they had paid their taxes and then take their places in line behind other applicants for citizenship.  Few dispute that U.S. immigration policy has been an abject failure; an estimated 400,000 to 850,000 people continue to enter the country illegally each year. Members of Congress who play political games with this issue do the country a disservice."
"1","THE ISSUE: GOP PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE PHX0000020070505e3540000b Opinions 532 Words 04 May 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser B4 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  Presidential candidate debates 18 months before the general election got you flummoxed?  Well, brace yourselves. As the host of last night's Republican presidential candidate debate said, ""It's only the beginning.""  Certainly Thursday evening's GOP debate, sponsored by MSNBC-TV and Politico.com, proved crowded enough with 10 announced Republican candidates, including Arizona's John McCain.  With subjects flying from Iraq to immigration reform to evolution, the candidates often struggled breathlessly to blurt out coherent responses.  Pushed relentlessly forward by host Chris Matthews of MSNBC (himself a pretty breathless sort), most of the GOP 10 leaned on favored themes. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney steered often toward his experience as a chief executive; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, his success at fighting crime in his city; and U.S. Sen. McCain, pork-busting.  At such an early moment in the campaign, ""debates"" among these vast seas of candidates (the Democrats on April 26 numbered eight) probably help voters winnow the likely also-rans more than focus on the real prospects.  McCain, a seasoned veteran of Matthews' rapid-fire talk show, fared pretty well.  In such a staccato format (candidate comments were limited to about 30 seconds each), it is no small feat to register real indignation. But regarding the recent comment by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the war in Iraq is lost, McCain came across as forceful as any candidate did in the entire 90 minutes. ""When the majority leader of the United States Senate says that we lost the war,"" citizens reject that notion, he said.  As expected, most of the candidates found ways to delicately distance themselves from the highly unpopular President Bush. McCain did not hesitate to declare that, as president, he ""would not have mismanaged the war,"" and that he would have given his veto pen a great deal more exercise.  Arizona's senior senator, who has shown some marked improvement in polling since his robust defense of his Iraq views in a major speech on April 11, did distinguish himself on certain controversial issues. Regarding federally funded stem-cell research, just McCain and Giuliani among the 10 would support such a proposal.  But, tightly formatted as it was, the structure of Thursday's debate reigned over the depth of commentary. For even well-informed viewers, the rapid-fire questions thrown at the candidates -- about Iraq, Iran, tax reform, religion and, believe it or not, the tragic 2005 death of Terri Schiavo -- must have proved confusing.  Happily, the Republicans managed to work through their first organized debate of the 2008 presidential race without invoking too many cloying anecdotes about the travails of their own family members.  This early, that alone is a measure of a successful debate.  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: Sen. John McCain (right) jabs home a point as fellow candidate Tommy Thompson listens."
"4","FROM OUR READERS: FIX THE GREEN CARD PROCESS DFP0000020070505e3540003d EDP; EDITORIAL 233 Words 04 May 2007 Detroit Free Press METRO FINAL 10A English (c) Copyright 2007, Detroit Free Press. All Rights Reserved.  I am an Asian-Indian and came to this country in October 1999 on an H1B visa. I am a software professional, and I have been working in the United States. My only goal is to get a better quality of life and provide the best for my family. In doing this, I have always been a law-abiding person.  I have always maintained my legal status, and I have been trying to get my green card through my employer. Due to prolonged delays in immigration processing, I have been waiting for four years. If there is no change in legislation, I might have to wait four to five years more.  As a legal, taxpaying and productive member of society, my career and working status are stalled by this seemingly never-ending, unfair wait in the American legal immigration system. We are not able to take major decisions, like buying a home, establishing a business for my spouse, or investing in the economy in stocks, etc.  Look at us and the whole community who are highly skilled, peace-loving and helping the U.S. economy grow. Support the Senate's immigration bill. This legislation is mainly for illegal immigrants, but it also carries provisions for legal immigrants.  Sandeep R. Diwakar  Farmington Hills  DISCLAIMER: THIS ELECTRONIC VERSION MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM THE PRINTED ARTICLE"
"4","Family Values, Betrayed NYTF000020070504e3540003e Editorial Desk; SECTA 481 Words 04 May 2007 The New York Times Late Edition - Final 22 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  When George W. Bush was running for president in 2000 as a new kind of Republican -- the caring kind -- he had a ready answer for those skeptical of his moderate views on immigration. ''Family values do not stop at the Rio Grande,'' he said, again and again. He was standing up for immigrants who come here seeking better lives for their children, and he repeated the message so often that it stuck.  Now, like so much else in Mr. Bush's tattered slogan file, it's in danger of coming unstuck. Negotiators struggling to draft an immigration bill in Washington are being pressured by the White House and Republican leaders to gut the provisions of the law that promote the unity of immigrant families in favor of strictly employment-based programs.  Details are still being sweated out in private, but a draft proposal circulated by the White House and the G.O.P. would eliminate or severely restrict whole categories of family-based immigration in favor of a system that would assign potential immigrants points based on age, skills, education, income and other factors. Citizens would no longer be able to sponsor siblings and children over 21, and their ability to bring in parents would be severely limited.  Unattached workers with advanced degrees and corporate sponsors could do all right, but not families, not the moms, pops, sons and daughters who open groceries and restaurants, who rebuild desolate neighborhoods and inspire America with their work ethic and commitment to one another. The plan would also shut out hundreds of thousands of people who have applied for family visas under current rules and are patiently waiting because of long backlogs.  The goal seems to be to end what immigration restrictionists call ''chain migration,'' a tendentious term that recasts in a sinister light one of the fundamental ways America was built, and a decades-old cornerstone of our immigration policy. It's a cruel distortion that feeds fears of outsiders and fails to acknowledge that healthy immigration levels keep the economy running, particularly in a country with low unemployment and birth rates and workers who shun backbreaking, entry-level jobs.  America needs immigrants. Last year's bipartisan Senate bill recognized this, and raised quotas for both family and employment-based immigration. Congress should do so again. Closing the door to families would be unjust and unworkable, and a mockery of the values that conservatives profess. It would only encourage illegality by forcing people to choose between their loved ones and the law.  Compromise is necessary with any bill, particularly on an issue as complex as immigration. But if a deal hews so closely to the new harsh line of the White House and G.O.P that it fundamentally distorts America's pro-immigrant tradition, it would be better to ditch the whole thing and start over."
"2","LETTERS AKDG000020070507e35500020 Editorial 2184 Words 05 May 2007 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 17 English Copyright (c) 2007 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.  Cheney is consistently wrong Dick Cheney's attacks on Harry Reid are as disturbing as they are disingenuous. No one has been more wrong about Iraq from day one than Cheney.  The Cheney doctrine has been a recipe for disaster in Iraq that has put American troops in unforgivable danger and made America less secure. The vice president has only been consistent in his miscalculations and misdirection. I could hardly believe my ears when he had the nerve to accuse Senate Majority Leader Reid of being uninformed. This is the same man who claimed we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and that the Iraqi insurgency was in its last throes when in fact the civil war was growing.  Remember his famous assurances? ""We will succeed in Iraq, just like we did in Afghanistan. We will stand up a new government under an Iraqi-drafted constitution. We will defeat that insurgency, and, in fact, it will be an enormous success story."" ""My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."" ""There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al-Qa'ida and the Iraqi government. I am very confident that there was an established relationship there."" ""Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."" Cheney should return to his secure, undisclosed location to rejoin his neo-con friends rather than attack the majority leader, who is fighting to keep faith with American troops.  DAVID G. McNULLY North Little Rock News story was flawed The Associated Press story, ""Report: Katrina bidding flawed,"" is flawed. The AP writer confuses the issue even more than it already is by using nonsensical terminology.  There is no such thing as a ""no-bid contract."" The term ""no-bid"" means the offerer declines to bid on a line item in a solicitation or on the entire solicitation. If there is no bid, there can be no contract. Contracts awarded without going through the bidding process are correctly termed ""non-competitive procurement"" and are negotiated with a selected company instead with full documentation to support the decisions.  The writer then refers to ""one of the original no-bid winners,"" which makes even less sense. If you don't bid, you don't win. ""Winner"" means one beats out the other(s) in competition, just as in a sports event; if there is no one to compete against, there is no winner.  When the paper fails to edit a report for accuracy, the public is getting bad information. The public doesn't care whether it was your writer or the wire service. They see it in your paper, and if they think your paper is reliable, they believe what you print. In this case, I know what you printed is wrong, so I am less likely to believe anything else you print. At least I can caution your readers that your information about public contracting cannot be relied on.  E. SUE COATES Malvern Control isn't the answer The recent tragic shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech University has, not surprisingly, brought renewed calls for new and strict gun controls from the anti-gun crowd. An example of this is columnist Dan K. Thomasson's recent commentary, ""Pols won't stand up to gun lobby."" His column is the same old, tired rehash of anti-gun myths that have been refuted by unbiased research. He cited a study which claims to prove that restrictive gun laws will reduce suicides. The fact is that other countries that have strict gun controls also have higher suicide rates than the United States.  He also argues that firearms are valueless for self-defense. But according to the National Center for Policy Analysis, an acclaimed study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University found that Americans successfully use firearms more than 2.5 million times per year to thwart crimes. It's estimated that as many as 65 lives are saved each year for every person killed with a firearm.  Thomasson blames the powerful gun lobby led by the National Rifle Association for the inability of gun-control advocates to enact their desired legislation. The real reason is that they do not have command of the facts.  ELWIN GAMMEL Hector Votes are disappointing I am very disappointed by the recent votes of our Arkansas senators and all but one of the congressmen, who showed their lack of confidence in our military forces.  Their voices run counter to what much of America thinks. We have a military force that is more than capable to handle the situation in Iraq if they are allowed to do so and Congress will simply support them rather than meddling.  I grow tired of their political bickering, which is undermining our military and image overseas. These votes show that the Democratic Party is definitely vested in defeat in Iraq and is encouraging those who are killing our troops with their rhetoric, all for political gain. I hope the American people will wake up and see just what these recent votes mean.  SAM VANDERBURG Bald Knob Success is shared by all This has been some spring. Everywhere I read of success by the billions for some of this country's largest companies. Top executives were paid millions in salary plus other compensation. Wow, it seems that some people are really worth a great deal more than the persons at the lower end of the firms.  Arkansas continues to be near the bottom of the list for per capita income, yet we have a few of the richest people in this state. What is the fair distribution? No one's success is achieved alone. From the custodian to the accountant to the receptionist to the delivery person, all combine to make a product or service successful. Honesty and respect are essential to work with and for any company or business.  Orders for products and services are given to other countries and we lose jobs here, yet we are the ones expected to purchase the goods or services. Where is the logic in that thought process?  God commands us to love others as he loves us. For the Bible Belt state, I wonder where the love begins and ends. It seems to me that greed is the god of some individuals and companies. Heaven help us, I pray.  ANITA C. GATZKE Little Rock Cartoon was offensive The recent political cartoon [featuring Cho Seung-Hui] was revolting. Most Americans are still reeling from the day this killer caused the world to weep. The cartoon glorified four gunmen who committed despicably evil acts, one representing a presidential assassin, two illustrating the depravity at Columbine, then the latest crime against humanity at Virginia Tech. The cartoonist placed the words of the Second Amendment above them. Shame on the cartoonist and the Democrat-Gazette. It was obscene.  The slain VT souls were lambs penned for slaughter. If we revered the Second Amendment as much as the rest of the Bill of Rights, people would have a choice to carry a firearm anywhere. Tools of self-protection would be as trendy and cool as the newest cell phone, iPod or Blackberry.  A person with a legally concealed handgun could have prevented carnage. Instead, there was mass murder. The campus was a gun-free zone.  ""The laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . . Such laws . . . serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."" Thomas Jefferson, ""Commonplace Book,"" 1774-76.  Ben Franklin wrote that ""democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch, [and] liberty is a wellarmed lamb deciding the vote."" Preferring liberty, I choose to be a well-armed lamb.  ANNE BRITTON Fayetteville Others also were wrong Yes, an apology is needed.  Letter writer G.M Kesselring defends Nancy Pelosi's visit to our enemies in the Middle East and justifies it as insignificant compared to the actions of President Bush. He noted that Bush stated in the 2003 State of the Union address that Saddam Hussein ""possessed 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons [of chemical agents] and about 30,000 munitions with which to deliver those weapons of mass destruction."" If Kesselring had bothered to check the actual text of the 2003 State of the Union address, he would have noted that what Bush said was that the 1999 United Nations report contained that data.  Somehow the Bush haters seem to forget that President Bill Clinton, the United Nations, leaders of every major free-world intelligence service, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and virtually every prominent Democrat leader, looking at the same data as our president, concluded that Saddam had WMD.  God bless our president as he stands against these defeatists.  BRUCE RITTER Fayetteville Characters are familiar The Democratic debate was nothing but Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: Snow White: Hillary Clinton, the leader; Bashful: John Edwards, who couldn't express; Doc: Chris Dodd, a good listener; Dopey: Dennis Kucinich, goofy ideas; Grumpy: Mike Gravel, good reason; Happy: Joe Biden, yes; Sleepy: Barack Obama, who put me to sleep; Sneezy: Bill Richardson, who couldn't stop.  BILLY PEEL Mabelvale Study other alternatives Ethanol boondoogle: Corn is subject to weather. Public radio in March reported that the federal subsidy for corn in 2006 was $8 billion of our tax dollars, a price support to help the farmer by creating a supply shortage with incentives not to plant acreage while the feds, with our tax dollars, buy and store surplus supplies. That support pays little to the farmer with less than 500 acres, but mainly goes to the big corporations such as ADM and ConAgra.  Corn takes more energy to produce a gallon of gas than crude oil, so the current fad of building ethanol plants in the guise of patriotism has raised the price of corn by reducing the supply, so farmers with livestock are paying more for feed; also for dogs and cats. That results in higher costs for growers of cattle, pork, turkeys and chicken, with higher prices downstream for consumers at grocery stores, fast-food [establishments] and restaurants.  Search Google for ""federal corn subsidy."" Billions of barrels of crude oil reserves are in oil shale in Western and other states. Athabasca tar sands in Alberta, Canada, are currently mined and producing crude oil. The solutions: eliminating the corn subsidy, developing and producing oil sand and oil shale reserves; and fuel-cell development.  DON LOEDDING Violet Hill Womack on right track A recent editorial faults Rogers Mayor Steve Womack for applying for a federal program to train police officers to enforce immigration laws in the course of their duties while it lauds Springdale Police Chief Kathy O'Kelley for applying for similar training, but only for officers at the county jail to apply to people arrested for other crimes.  You say that in Rogers it would be too easy for police to arrest people for ""driving while brown."" Since another recent article in your paper cited a study concluding that 51 percent of the aliens in Arkansas are here illegally, I can only conclude that you actually condone people breaking the law to enter this country illegally and think it politically correct to ignore that 51 percent until someone is robbed, hurt or killed, and only then may the police ask politely if they are here illegally, too.  I laud Womack for recognizing that illegal is illegal and a crime in itself and not a free pass to do as you please until you get caught at something worse.  PHIL WARNER Garfield Feedback No hope for animals What a Legislature we have. Lawmakers refused to make it a felony to skin a dog alive or roast a kitten in a microwave, but they voted to issue birth certificates to dead fetuses for the purpose of providing a ""keepsake"" (a proponent's own words).  I can't say that I have any great hope for the future of animals in Arkansas, either, after reading that Rogers middle-schoolers visiting Heifer International Global Village couldn't forgo meat for even one meal and instead chose the slaughter of a rabbit-by breaking its neck-so that they could have meat. I am very unimpressed with Heifer International. Surely there is another way to get the point across.  SUSAN LOESCH Little Rock State can be a leader ""More arms the solution,"" the well-written and thought-provoking letter by Freddie C. Sligh, in my opinion is the solution to many of the crime problems both in our state and our country. Our state legislators would do well by acting on his observations and setting a precedent for the country. Sligh's ideas are nothing more than good ole common sense.  HENRY C. BRUNE Russellville  This article was published 05/05/2007"
"1","Outrage INDY000020070508e35600004 EDITORIAL 427 Words 06 May 2007 Indianapolis Star FINAL EDITION E02 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Indianapolis Star. All Rights Reserved.  Outrage  Despite having done little on such key issues as overhauling the property tax system and school reform, the General Assembly did find time to busy itself with the business of interior design. Interior design? Yes. By wide margins, both houses passed Senate Bill 490, which not only would have required interior designers to register with the state, but even would have made it a misdemeanor for someone to claim to be a ""registered interior designer."" As if there aren't trade associations that can handle such matters themselves. Thankfully, Gov. Daniels vetoed this uselessness.  Nightlines  Craig Ferguson: President Bush was on ""American Idol"" last night. He made an appearance, and afterwards the phone lines were jammed with people trying to vote him off.  This woman named Ms. Julia ran a high-class prostitution ring in Washington, D.C. And she's releasing the names of her clients. It's starting to look like GOP stands for ""Getting it on with a Prostitute.""  David Letterman: Former CIA Director George Tenet has written a tell-all book. President Bush has not read the book. Boy, there's a surprise.  Conan O'Brien: San Francisco is a great place. It's the only place where marijuana is legal, but plastic bags are not.  The mayor of San Francisco is planning to make this city a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. As a result, San Francisco is changing its name to Los Angeles.  Jay Leno: This week all the Republican candidates will be coming to California to debate each other at the Reagan Library. The winner will be selected by ExxonMobil.  Yesterday there were huge immigration rallies all across the country. In fact there were so many, most Wal-Marts are down to just one clerk.  According to the New York Post, Hillary Clinton used three private jets in a single day, in a campaign swing through South Carolina. Today she was officially named a Hollywood environmentalist.  The number of reported burglaries in Marion County this past January, a 7 percent increase over the reported incidents during the same time last year. It continues a trend of seven consecutive years of increases in reported burglaries.  Why it matters:  The sense of security for residents is precious. A rise in burglaries not only disturbs it, but also causes residents to consider leaving the city for the suburbs. For businesses, the cost of rising burglaries comes in lost merchandise and increasing insurance bills. Stemming burglary -- and ultimately the long-term spate of rising crime -- is crucial to improving quality of life."
"4"," Skilled masses OKLD000020070507e35700089 Tri-Valley 834 Words 07 May 2007 The Oakland Tribune English (c) Copyright 2007 ANG Newspapers. All rights reserved.  THE immigration reform debate has largely revolved around immigrants who do jobs Americans are not willing to do. But what about immigrants who do the jobs Americans are not ABLE to do?  The H-1B visa, for ""specialty occupation workers"" in high-tech fields such as medicine, computers and engineering, is capped at 65,000 a year. Many of those industries face a shortage of skilled American labor. So, on April 2, the first day visa applications were accepted for fiscal 2008, few were surprised that the quota was hit within hours. By law, the 123,480 applications received in the first two days will be processed by lottery.  The tens of thousands of H-1B rejects will constitute some of the world's best and brightest, and America is foolish to block them from the U.S. economy. After all, according to the National Science Foundation, a third of all science and engineering doctorates awarded in the United States go to foreign students (whose numbers are not limited). And according to the National Venture Capital Association, over the past 15 years one out of every four public companies backed by venture capital was started by an immigrant (including Google and eBay). The current H-1B cap is outdated, having been set by Congress before the Internet boom and the related blossoming of high-tech companies. Recognizing the need for foreign talent to keep U.S. high-tech industries on the cutting edge, Congress temporarily raised the ceiling to 195,000 for fiscal 2001 through 2003, only to let it relapse out of neglect. Every year since, the cap has been reached well before the start of the fiscal year.  For those applicants not selected in this year's lottery — or who were shut out of the process entirely because they had not graduated by April 3 — the next opportunity to file an H-1B petition is not until April 1, 2008. If those applications are accepted, the applicants will be able to start work on Oct. 1, 2008. But by that time, immigration experts and leaders in high-tech industries fear, many of the workers will have returned home or moved to countries such as Australia that have recently changed their immigration regulations to attract highly skilled workers. It may not be long before U.S. companies follow the talent overseas.  Congress is considering several bills that address the need to reform the H-1B program, including two that would raise the cap to 115,000. If they want America's high-tech industries to stay innovative, members of Congress should address the labor problem — and preferably before the class of 2007 heads home.  Washington Post  Editorial  Unmask the phantom  REPUBLICANS and Democrats may not agree on much when it comes to campaign finance. Yet there should be unanimity on one issue: the need to speed up disclosure of who is contributing big bucks to politicians seeking office.  Senators are considering legislation that would accomplish that goal in their clubby chamber. Yet a single unnamed senator — call that senator The Phantom — has put a hold on legislation that would require electronic filing of Senate campaign reports. Who is this masked senator?  In all likelihood, The Phantom is a supporter of the current Stone Age reporting requirements in the U.S. Senate. Unlike their counterparts running for the House or the White House, candidates for the Senate don't have to file their reports electronically.  First, candidates file paper copies of their reports with the Senate Office of Public Records, which scans them and sends them digitally to the Federal Elections Committee.  The FEC prints the reports and sends them to a vendor in Fredericksburg, Va., where the information is keyed in by hand and then transferred back to the FEC database.  This process costs taxpayers $250,000 yearly. More important, it often prevents voters from learning who has contributed to Senate candidates until the election is over.  Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Sen. Thad Cochran,  R-Mississippi, are sponsoring S. 223, which would require the information to be filed electronically. The bill has the support of 36 other senators, including Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California.  Twice last month, Feinstein went to the Senate floor to obtain unanimous consent on the legislation, which sailed through committee without an objection. And twice, an unnamed GOP senator put what is known as ""secret hold"" on the bill under the Senate's arcane rules.  Who is this Phantom? Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, surely knows. He issued the first objection ""on behalf of a Republican senator.""  The Senate's Republican leadership should be ashamed. They are using shrouded methods to protect a shrouded system of campaign financing, and senators from both parties are providing protection.  Many of them presumably know the identity of The Phantom. But in the chummy world of the U.S. Senate, they refuse to unmask that senator or to renounce such devious ways.  Sacramento Bee  Editorial"
"2"," LETTERS PGHK000020070510e3580001u A; OPINION 1297 Words 08 May 2007 Poughkeepsie Journal 6A English (c) Copyright 2007, Poughkeepsie Journal. All Rights Reserved.  {dcbdc}Past immigrants could teach lesson to present  Many articles have been written and many comments made regarding the immigration problem in this country. I would like to give my perspective.  My mother's family emigrated from Denmark in the late 1890s.  My father, along with his mother and brother, emigrated from Italy and disembarked at Ellis Island on March 28, 1912. He was 7 years old. His father emigrated three years earlier so he could find work and eventually bring his family to America.  Life was not easy. There was a language barrier and new immigrants had to learn English. There was no bilingual education. No one knew what welfare was; no labor laws existed. The skills that kept them surviving in their homeland were brought with them and passed on to others in this country. Masons, bricklayers, tailors, butchers, and the list goes on.  Now, in 2007, we have a new kind of immigrant. One who came to this country through a pipe, or ran across the border ahead of immigration officers, or swam across a river. There are also those who are on a student visa, which has long since expired. Many are felons in their own country.  I am not trying to deny people admittance to this country. However, it is a slap in the face to people who immigrated legally.  I do not have a solution. But, the image of people standing in long lines on Ellis Island is being denigrated by the politicians in Washington who are trying to find a ""politically correct"" solution to the problem.  Beatrice V. Lindsay  Fishkill  {dcbdc}Be wary of candidate for city school board  Maybe it's time to rethink the need for a school board. Why not make it part of the overall city government? Let's face it, we don't have a one-room schoolhouse and the old school marm any longer.  As far as former Poughkeepsie schools Superintendent Robert Watson, why would anyone put the weasel in charge of the chicken coop? Let's not forget the taxpayer money that was wrongfully paid to him during his prior service. The district may have been reimbursed. However, the real truth is, had it not become public knowledge, it would have been a crime undiscovered. I'm sure some will attempt to turn this into a racial issue, but the truth is, ""If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then you can certainly bet it is a duck.""  Adam P. Nowik Jr.  Poughkeepsie  {dcbdc}Put a stop to Senate drug compounding bill  The people of this country must come together and prevent passage of the proposed U.S. Senate legislation, ""Safe Drug Compounding Act of 2007."" This draft legislation is misleadingly named, as compounded drugs are already safely and effectively controlled by our state pharmacy boards.  The real purpose behind the proposed law is to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical giant Wyeth Corp., maker of conjugated estrogen products Premarin and Prempro, which have been shown by the Women's Health Initiative study to have negative health effects, by restricting or eliminating access to bio-identical hormones available via compounding pharmacies. Details can be found on the International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists' Web site, www. iacprx.org.  We must ask ourselves why, in this day and age, women are still only being offered horse estrogens and artificial, health-damaging ""progestins,"" instead of the readily available human-identical estrogen and progesterone? The reason is the pharma companies' profit-generating capabilities are limited because they can't patent the drugs themselves, only the delivery methods. Most drug tests are conducted by and paid for by the drug manufacturers, so why spend money with so little to gain?  Access to natural compounded drugs is vital to the health and well-being of many Americans, both men and women. Protect our right to access them by writing or calling your senators today and urge them to vote ""no"" to this proposed law.  Peggy Norton  Hyde Park  {dcbdc}Benefit memorial concert well-supported  Recently, the Dutchess Putnam Restaurant & Tavern Association held a benefit concert in memory of the late James Secor Jr., victim of injuries sustained in an automobile accident. We would like to thank the following individuals and businesses who helped contribute to its success:  Musical performers: Helen Avakian and Charlie and Kim Cornacchio, all of whom gave their time to come and perform and gave attendees an afternoon of great music.  Prize donors: Sam Adams, Beacon D'Lites (Donna Trappe), Joseph Bertolozzi, Dutchess Beer, Eber Liquor, Ellen T. Esposito artists, Frank Flynn, Goodfellas Inn, Hobnobbin' Pub, Lobo, Lombardi's Place Restaurant, Mohonk Mountain House, Jim Moroney's Cycle Shop, Mountain Laurel Florist Garden & Gifts, Salon of NY, Service Liquor, Adam B. Shatesky, Steve Shaver, Southern Dutchess Bowl, Southern Liquor, Spaten, Twist and Union Beer.  Additional thanks to Express Depot in Fishkill for providing printing services and Cablevision and WHUD (100.5 FM) morning show hosts Mike & Kacey, and WPDH (101.5 FM) for event promotion.  It gladdened our hearts to see so many members of the local community come together and give something back.  Susan E. MacDonald and Brian C. Rexhouse Sr.  Benefit co-chairwoman and co-chairman and president of the Dutchess Putnam Restaurant & Tavern Association  {dcbdc}Supermarket is friend to Highland schools  On behalf of the Highland Central School District, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Hannaford Supermarket in Highland for the generosity it continues to show toward the Highland schools.  Recently, we ordered a cake to recognize the high school varsity cheerleaders for their successful year and their win at the national championships. Upon receipt of the cake, we were informed there would be no charge and that Hannaford was donating the cake.  At the board of education meeting April 10, we celebrated the cheerleaders' victory, and the well-decorated and delicious cake was a huge hit. Thank you to the Hannaford supermarket for its continued support of the school district and the Highland community.  John McCarthy  Superintendent, Highland Central School District  {dcbdc}Arlington teachers are much appreciated  As we celebrate Teacher Appreciation Week, I would like to thank and recognize all the teachers in the Arlington school district, especially those at Arlington Middle School, where I have been the PTA president for the last three years.  I have been able to observe all kinds of situations where our teachers have gone ""the extra mile."" I wanted to let our teachers know they are very appreciated. I encourage everyone to help us celebrate Teacher Appreciation Week.  Maryellen Siegel  Poughkeepsie  {dcbdc}Daughters and sons treated to on-job visit  In concurrence with Take Your Daughters and Sons to Work Day on April 26, Arlington High School, in cooperation with the Poughkeepsie Area Chamber of Commerce, sponsored its annual job shadow day program. Job shadow day is an opportunity for students to better understand the world of work and better understand the answer to: ""Why do I have to learn this?""  I would like to thank the following community members and business leaders for volunteering their time and expertise to our youth:  Absolute Auction and Realty, American Red Cross, Arlington Central School District, Arlington Fire Department, Assemblyman Joel Miller, Jeff Battistoni, Beckwith Group, Center for Performing Arts, Chase Bank, Clear Channel Broadcasting, Crystal's Closet, DOT Federal Credit Union, Dutchess County Sheriff's Office, Hudson Valley Glass, Hudson Valley Renegades, IBM, LaGrange Veterinary Hospital, Lutheran Care Center, Orthopedic Associates, PC's Paddock, Poughkeepsie Grand, Poughkeepsie Journal, Solomon Chiropractic, Spackenkill School District, St. Francis Hospital, TEG Federal Credit Union, TLC Pediatrics, Valley Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Vanderbilt and Franklin D. Roosevelt estates.  Lynn LeFevre  Supervisor of guidance  & counseling services  Arlington Central School District"
"2","LETTERS AKDG000020070510e35a00021 Editorial 2223 Words 10 May 2007 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 15 English Copyright (c) 2007 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.  Don't put much store in polls  The Democrats in Congress like to cite the polls that show the American people want to pull all United States forces out of Iraq immediately. The only problem with relying on polls to form foreign policy is that the average American is completely ignorant of what the consequences would be if we should suddenly pull out and abandon the Iraqi people to their fate.  Let's assume that we cut and run as the Democrats are demanding. What would be the consequences? Answer: All government officials, as well as all Iraqis who were loyal to the coalition forces, would be killed within days of our departure. Iran eventually would be in control of Iraq and all its resources. Iran would own the world petroleum market. How would you like to pay $10 per gallon for gas? They could easily destroy the U.S. economy and throw the country into a depression. Iran would have their nuclear weapons in short order because all opposition to their quest for those weapons would cease. Iraq would become a training ground for world terrorists whose primary mission would be to strike within the United States.  All countries in the region would be threatened by Iran, including Saudi Arabia. Those countries could not look to the U.S. for help because our days as a superpower would be over. Those are a few of the consequences we can expect if the Democrats have their way.  As I have stated before, the best friends the terrorists have are the congressional Democrats.  FRED LEMON  Cabot  Resignation regrettable  I regret very much Robert Green's resignation as state surveyor and the events leading up to it.  I have known Green for many years and we have disagreed on a few surveying decisions, but most often we agreed. Even when we disagreed, there was nothing malicious from Green, only his believing that he was trying to elevate our work to a higher standard.  That is what he tried to do as state surveyor, and he stepped on a few toes. A lot of the feedback to surveyors from his offices came from his examination of plats sent to him for filing. When a plat went to his office, you could expect at least one red mark in his reply, and sometimes the darned thing had so many red marks, it was hard to tell one from the other. But always it was Green's desire for surveyors to keep seeking a higher standard.  I wonder if the Taylors-state Sen. Jerry Taylor and his son, Kelly-got so riled because their surveying firms received copies of their plats that were all marked in red. Could it be that the enlarged image of their importance was challenged by this, and ""By gosh let's show that so-and-so""? People like that are the reason the general public has such a distrust for our profession.  One last thing. Land Commissioner Mark Wilcox was too weak to support his man and got the state surveyor's office taken away from his authority. Charlie Daniels would not have allowed that.  JAMES COOK  Calico Rock  Bans are not a solution  I'd like to take a crack at letter writer Carolyn Pugh's clever, well-thought question about the Virginia Tech murders relative to using a knife by posing a question or two of my own.  How many people would have been killed if he had used a bag of feathers, or how about a baseball cap? Conversely, I wonder how many he could have gotten with C4 explosives or perhaps a pilfered nuclear weapon. Suppose he had taken a plane and crashed it into a hospital. He could have used a car on a day care center, too. Shall we ban everything? How about if everybody just stays home and reads the Bible? Just a few more useless questions to ponder.  Now one good relevant question: How many does Pugh think [the shooter] would have gotten if only 10 of the victims had been armed with their own handguns? What if some had stun guns? How about even some Mace?  Pugh's well thought out knee-jerk reaction only serves to stimulate the dull-witted into the same useless and predictable reaction. It serves to start up the same old utterly nonsensical demands about gun control, Ms. Pugh. Please stop.  RICK BURRY  Eureka Springs  Characterization flawed  As a former Catholic and Protestant and a convert to the Eastern Othodox Church, I would take issue with Rev. Carolyn Yeldell Staley's characterization of Russian orthodoxy as merely the national church of Russia and her implication that most Russians don't have a personal faith in Jesus Christ through it when untold millions of laypeople and clerics died for their faith in the Communist purges and are now called the new martyrs of Russia.  There is really some presumption here when Billy Graham, who, when he preached in Russia, always told the newly committed to go to their Russian Orthodox churches. The Orthodox Church carries the fullness of God's revelation through our Lord Jesus Christ and the purity of doctrine from the time of the Apostles.  In the last 30 years, there has been an influx of converts into the Orthodox Church, with sometimes whole congregations converting and being led by their former Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist and Assembly of God ministers, who have become ordained Orthodox priests. A number of well-known authors such as Frederica Mathewes-Green, Frank Schaeffer, Rod Dreher and Father Henry Patrick Reardon have written about their conversions.  It would behoove those who are not familiar with it to examine this ark of salvation steeped in beauty, spiritual purity and preserving truth through all generations. It is also wonderful that our great American religious freedom makes this possible.  ALICE CARTWRIGHT  Rogers  No intelligence at work  Darwinism theology: In the beginning, matter. There's no intelligence. No mind. We've just got dirt. How are we going to get plants, animals, people? If there's only matter, that's the only place for them to come from; therefore, evolution is true. You don't even have to look at the data.  You're a complex chemical machine without soul or spirit because all that exists is matter, so when you die, you're done. Everything got here by random chance process. Chemicals gave rise to the first cell (from dumb rocks) spontaneously. Once there was nothing, now there's something. Miraculous.  Can that cell diversify into invertebrates, amphibians, fish, reptiles, mammals, birds, man? It has to have the capability of unlimited change to become you and me someday. Can it do it? Atheists say yes. Since this cell was the first living thing, it had to come from non-living chemicals, another miracle. Yet the law of biogenesis says life comes only from life. It's law because there are no known observations that contradict it.  The law says we know of no examples that life didn't come from previous life, so we have Darwinists spouting philosophy, but it's taken as science. Evidence is simply not there to support it. Biologist Richard Dawkins says we don't need evidence, we know it's true. That's called faith. It's pretty dumb for atheists to say that only Christians have faith, but only atheists know the truth. And to accuse Christians of being against science is sheer ignorance and untrue.  JULIA SLOCUM  Edgemont  Experience educational  Having previously chaperoned the Kirksey Middle School field trip to Heifer International, I was dismayed by negative publicity created by parents who complained about children witnessing the killing of a rabbit during the latest trip.  The Global Village experience is a wonderful opportunity for students to see real challenges faced by the poor throughout the world.  Students ""live"" one evening in different ""villages."" Each village has specific items they can use in preparing their evening meal. They are encouraged to trade goods with other villages to better provide for their own village.  The rabbit is given to one village. To eat the rabbit, the villagers must vote unanimously to do so, and they are required to watch the process to help them understand and appreciate that the rabbit gives up its life to provide them with food. Teachers strongly encourage children to vote according to their own convictions and to ignore any peer pressure that may occur.  The rabbit scenario is not something unforeseen. Parents are fully informed at the parental meeting or through information mailed to the parents prior to the trip. Most children learn about the rabbit from talking to previous trip participants.  Heifer International is an amazing organization that makes a difference in fighting poverty around the world. This experience teaches children to use precious resources in a responsible manner and to work together to ensure that everyone has enough food to eat by trading fairly and sharing resources.  DEBBIE RAMBO  Lowell  Laws aren't `just for fun'  Re the Associated Press story, ""Immigration supporters march for action"": Roberto Organo, an illegal immigrant, says the U.S. can enforce the law, but needs to give him a chance because he's been here for 15 years.  Consider other laws and see that we don't get a chance. If we're found in violation of the law and there's proof that we have been for a long time, the consequences don't disappear. When pulled over for driving with your preschoolers buckled into seat belts but not safety seats, you get a ticket. Explaining to the officer that you cannot afford car seats yields the response that poverty isn't an excuse for breaking the law.  Living and working in the U.S. without permission is [wrong] regardless of taxes paid. Why build a country on lies and deceit? It's time for everyone to get in line and come through the front door. No more employment or housing for illegal immigrants, and no public education for their children. Those who've been here for years ought to appreciate that they're not being punished more seriously, thank the communities they have invaded and move back home as complete families. Any children born in the U.S. are American citizens and will be able to return at will. They'll also be able to solicit legal immigration paperwork for their families in due time.  If immigration law is just for fun, then I'd like all of the money back that I had to pay for my family to be in compliance with it.  OCTOBER VANEGAS  Centerton  Clinton lacks credentials  I find it almost inconceivable that Hillary Clinton is a serious candidate for president of the United States. What has she ever achieved on her own that would qualify her for the presidency?  True, she was a member of the Bill Clinton administration, which happened to be the most corrupt gang . . . that ever occupied the White House, and she had her hand in every crooked, sleazy scheme that was hatched there. But why, pray tell, would anyone in his right mind want this woman as president?  Her phoniness is so transparent it's sickening. She has a narcissistic attitude that makes me think she expects you to bow down in her presence. If she should somehow be elected as our next president, then we can truthfully say that this country has gone totally nuts.  CHRISTY WICKMAN  Jacksonville  Feedback  Some didn't get joke  I generally think of myself as a little slow on the uptake, but when I read Connie Meskimen's letter re Daylight Saving Time, I took it for a clever and amusing piece of writing. I chuckled and forgot about it. I was surprised by the reaction to it.  It didn't particularly surprise me that people would be so quick to assume that someone was so abysmally ignorant, although I wish it had. It certainly didn't surprise me that some people would respond to it with political lectures. (In fact, I'm pretty sure these two tendencies are related and, not surprisingly, are both shown by people who simply missed the joke.) What did surprise me was the number of people who felt that their own personal wisdom and scientific expertise were needed to save the rest of us from the misconception that clocks can affect the weather.  CHRIS RUNYAN  Cabot  Opportunity missed  I am puzzled at Tim Summers' decision to leave the Democratic Party to run as a Republican for state representative in 2008 because he couldn't win as a Democrat. The last time I checked, he has won every one of his elections as a Democrat.  More important is the missed opportunity for Benton County to have a bipartisan delegation in the Legislature. With a Democratic governor and Democratic majorities in both House and Senate, a Democrat from Benton County would have more access in Little Rock.  I trust that our voters know party affiliation should not be the defining qualification for elective office. Quality and experience must be why we elect people to represent our interests. But like the federal government, Benton County needs both parties representing us for the best outcome.  BARBARA McCOY  Bella Vista  This article was published 05/10/2007 "
"4","THE ISSUE: IMMIGRATION REFORM PHX0000020070512e35b00030 Opinions 616 Words 11 May 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser B6 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  Comprehensive immigration reform has to be realistic.  It has to be bipartisan.  It has to happen fast.  Like it or not -- and we don't like it -- there is only a little time before the 2008 presidential campaign eclipses all controversial topics.  That's why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid set a firm date for the Senate to begin debate on immigration. But he should not cut off the work being done by the bipartisan group of senators and the Bush administration.  Their so-called grand bargain is not finished and appeared to be flagging late Thursday.  Rather than await an outcome, Reid called for using last year's Senate-passed bill as a starting point for next week's scheduled debate. The reaction? Sen. John McCain, who co-sponsored that bill last year, joined three other key GOP senators in vowing not to support anything but the grand bargain.  Republicans are lining up behind that position, while Democrats are backing their leader. That's a needless distraction.  Discussions should focus on the substance of reform, not the strategies for getting a bill to the floor.  Senators as politically diverse as Jon Kyl and Edward Kennedy have been working on the ""bargain"" that aims to bring together the White House and members of both parties.  We support the effort, which has earned criticism of both senators from core constituents. But some of what's been leaked about that plan is not realistic.  * It includes ""triggers"" that require more border security before any guest-worker program or legalization of the current undocumented workforce. Security is essential and some triggers might be necessary to win conservative support.  * Enough guest workers have to be legally admitted or the demand for illegal workers will keep the border in chaos. Based on estimates of the number of illegal migrants being employed, that means about 400,000 to 500,000 guest-worker visas per year. Labor unions are urging lower caps and restrictionists are advocating admitting some workers as temporary only. Negotiators are playing with lower caps or admitting some workers as temporary only, with no chance to stay.  * There must be a clear path to citizenship. It is not this country's tradition, or interest, to create a sub-class of disenfranchised workers. Some guest workers will want to work awhile and return home. But we need to welcome those who want to become part of our nation. We also need to provide the current undocumented population with a reasonable way to become a legal part of the society they have been serving.  * The tradition of basing immigration on family ties is a reflection of our national respect for family values. Curbing that, as negotiators propose, is a historic step that demands careful public debate.  So let's start the debate. If talks have broken down, let's get this grand bargain back on the table. Senate Republicans and Democrats have made concessions to keep the discussions going. Both will likely need to give even more.  Congress has to get this done. Neither side should dig in and hope to deflect blame for the resulting stalemate.  Neither side should forget that there will be a great deal of blame to go around if this opportunity to enact comprehensive immigration reform slips past.  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: Sen. Edward Kennedy CAPTION: Sen. Jon Kyl"
"4","First things first; Immigration reform should start with securing borders, curbing hiring of illegals CLMB000020070511e35b0000j Editorial & Comment 365 Words 11 May 2007 The Columbus Dispatch Home Final 10A English (c) 2007 Columbus Dispatch. All Rights Reserved.  Word of secret, high-level negotiations between Senate Democrats and the Bush administration offers hope that a sensible compromise on immigration reform finally will emerge.  This critical issue has been stuck for more than a year between competing proposals. A 2006 House bill would have walled off the entire border and made felons of the 12 million immigrants who are in the country illegally. A Senate measure aimed to boost border enforcement but provide a way for illegal immigrants to earn legal status. President Bush sought a guest-worker program that would allow foreigners to hold jobs without the right to become citizens.  Any real solution to America's illegal-immigration problem must start with more resources for guarding the border and more means to prevent employers from hiring illegals.  Sealing a 3,000-mile border with Mexico, much of which runs through desert and wilderness, never will be possible, but more guards and more resources could greatly reduce the number of illegal crossers.  But employers' demand for low-wage labor is just as great a cause of illegal immigration as porous borders. As long as impoverished Latin Americans know they can find jobs in the United States, they'll find ways to get here.  The potential Senate and White House compromise reportedly includes plans to create a high-tech identification system for temporary workers. A better solution would be an equally high-tech, universal identification system for U.S. citizens and those with legal permission to live or work in the country.  If every legal worker could easily prove that status with a universal identity document, employers would have little excuse for hiring anyone without it.  Many illegal immigrants have lived and worked productively in the United States for years. Creating opportunities for them to earn the right to stay legally is a goal that is pragmatic and humane.  Americans and their elected representatives are split down the middle between accommodating illegal immigrants and getting tough with them. A compromise that gives each camp some of what it wants is the only way out of the impasse."
"4","Editorial ; Sanctuary revival risks a backlash BHLD000020070513e35d0001q EDITORIAL 390 Words 13 May 2007 Boston Herald All Editions 22 English © 2007 Boston Herald Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Some churches are trying to rev up the immigrant ""sanctuary"" movement again. How depressing - and maybe counterproductive.  We have had it up to here with arrogant ""I'm more moral than you are"" tactics. Moral issues permit no discussion, no compromise, no search for better approaches, just ""My way or the highway,"" whether on minimum wages, global warming, nuclear power, same-sex marriage or whatever.  Various churches in Los Angeles, Chicago, San Diego, Seattle and New York City (eventually 50 cities are supposed to be involved) will take part in trying to revive a movement of the 1980s when much of Central America was engulfed in civil wars. At first only two Los Angeles churches will physically house anyone (another person already is living at a Chicago church). The other churches will provide lawyers, escorts to immigration hearings, moral and material support, but no one will move in unless deportation is coming. The thought is that enforcement agents would not enter a church though they have every legal right to.  There are 12 million illegal immigrants. Nearly all are here for economic reasons. Many in Congress are working diligently to find a way to accommodate them by changing this nation's laws.  It was different in the 1980s - many illegal immigrants could be legitimately called refugees, fleeing oppression and civil strife in their native lands.  That said, we must note that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency frequently goes after people who ought to be at the bottom of the priority list, people like the 360 tax-paying New Bedford factory workers picked up in March, when it's young visa- violating single males from countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that produce terrorists who ought to be at the top of the list.  The agency says it is cracking down on those who have ignored deportation orders. Fine, but surely it is picking up many others.  Perhaps the movement is trying to pressure Congress, where the House and Senate are trying to make difficult compromises to reconcile conflicting versions of immigration legislation. Any final bill is expected to provide paths - perhaps not as easy as some would like - to citizenship for those now here. The sanctuary movement could produce a backlash, which would be a shame. The immigration laws badly need reform."
"4","EDITORIAL SUMMARIES: A review of the week's editorials MHLD000020070513e35d0006u L 347 Words 13 May 2007 The Miami Herald F1LA 4 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Miami Herald. All Rights Reserved.  POSADA GOES FREE  To understand why a federal court ordered the dismissal of immigration fraud charges against Luis Posada Carriles it is necessary only to understand that: (1) His indictment was based on an interrogation full of crucial errors of interpretation. (2) The immigration proceeding in which he allegedly lied was deemed by the court to be a ruse designed to elicit information that the government could use to pursue a criminal investigation. Either reason is ample grounds for dismissing the charges  -- May 11.  A LAW TO BE FEARED  A revolt against the Real ID Act is growing, and with good reason. Real ID driver's-license provisions force another unfunded mandate on states and raise serious privacy concerns. Worse, the law could weaken national security, not strengthen our ability to stop terrorists as the law's supporters claim -- May 10.  FIX IMMIGRATION NOW  The U.S. Senate has a limited time to advance immigration reform -- and it should seize the moment. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa, Harry Reid, D-Nev., Mel Martinez, R-Fla., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, will be key to shaping a bill with pragmatic fixes for the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system. The result could be spoiled by hard-line senators who insist on punitive provisions that won't re solve the current stalemate -- May 9.  SESSION ENDS  State lawmakers didn't deliver property-tax reform during the regular sessions as they promised, but they did pass hundreds of other bills -- some good, some bad -- that could affect your life in ways big and small. Overall, the 160 senators and representatives passed more than 300 bills -- May 8.  PROTECT GALAPAGOS  For years, the natural wonderland known as the Galapagos Islands has been under the threat of environmental degradation. The renown of this marvelous archipelago has attracted too many visitors and too many new inhabitants, resulting in damage to the biodiversity of the Galapagos and outstripping the capacity of managers to protect against further harm -- May 7."
"4","Get it done Our position: Congress needs to move on immigration before election politics kick in. ORSE000020070513e35d0003t EDITORIAL OPINION Sable 275 Words 13 May 2007 Orlando Sentinel FINAL A22 English Copyright 2007, Orlando Sentinel Communications. All Rights Reserved.  When it comes to immigration, Republicans and Democrats often look like contentious boxers: Nobody wants to lose the fight.  But as the debate over reform continues in Congress next week, each side needs to move away from its ideological corner and find middle ground.  The Senate is where the action will be next week. The framework of a proposal made last year is in place, including new language that ought to appeal to those demanding stronger border enforcement. More important, the bill includes a comprehensive package to address 12 million undocumented workers in the United States.  That's 12 million reasons to figure this out. The U.S. simply can't ignore these people for another year. And that's exactly what will happen if they let the next few months slip away through partisan rhetoric. The election season that kicks in by late summer will crush any chance of legislation passing this year.  That simply can't happen. Compromise needs to be found in a legalization plan that requires immigrants to pay fines, learn English and pass background checks, among other stipulations. It's not amnesty, as some extremists suggest.  Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martinez -- who has taken hits from both sides of the debate -- needs to continue to rise above the rhetoric and join other leaders in pushing for bipartisan reform. A Senate bill will likely need to be passed first before the House moves on this issue.  But the sparring needs to stop now, before the political crossfire paralyzes America for another year."
"2","LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SFC0000020070513e35d0000o EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 1420 Words 13 May 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL E.4 English © 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  It's always been a sucker's bet  Editor -- So it turns out we've had ""anemic lottery sales"" for only 20 years? Gee, why could that be? First your chances of winning were one in a zillion and then they changed it to one in a kajillion and they went from a 20-year payout to a 26-year payout in graduated payments ... and they only have about 57 confusing games to play. You're better off saving your dollar a week to save up for a new water heater or something. Not too hard to figure that one.  GARY JAGELS  Alameda  ----------------------------------------------  Corporate U  Editor -- As a fellow academic (Department of English, Santa Clara University), I want to call out my colleagues on the University of California Academic Senate who just voted 43-4 to reject the proposed ban on doing research for and otherwise serving the tobacco industry (""Faculty votes down tobacco ban,"" May 10). They should know that in claiming ""freedom of research"" as their excuse for taking blood money, they sound as phony and self-serving as Tom DeLay invoking ""freedom of speech"" as the reason why we must continue to allow plutocrats to buy politicians like himself. I especially loved it that the professor offering the ""freedom of research"" rationalization was from the UCLA Department of Comparative Literature, as though once we stand on principle and say no to the emphysema/lung cancer lobby, tomorrow she will be pressured to give up her work on iambic pentameter and Derek Walcott's use of nautical imagery.  JEFF ZORN  San Francisco  -----------------------------------------------  No credit-card wars  Editor -- My idea to stop the Iraq invasion, and perhaps all future U.S. wars of aggression, is for Congress to introduce legislation that would require a ""war tax"" on the people of America before we initiate any war. I think that an extra 20 percent flat tax on all Americans who make more than $100,000 per year should suffice. This should be effective immediately.  The reason this war has been initiated, and allowed to continue this long, is because the American people have hardly suffered at all. The only people that have had to sacrifice are the ones who have lost loved ones in Iraq, and 99 percent of them come from families who make less than $100,000 per year. It is the lower class who pays with their blood, so maybe the upper class should pay with their money?  The $1 trillion to $2 trillion bill for this war is just being added on to our unimaginable debt. The American people just say ""charge it"" with total detachment from reality. Maybe if they got hit where it hurts (in their pocketbook), then they would care enough to stand up and make their voices heard in Washington.  AUGUST WAGELE  Concord  --------------------------------------------  Don't blame Democrats  Editor -- Columnist Victor Davis Hanson predictably hammered the Democratic leaders who want us out of Iraq (""Your war, not mine!"" May 10). I wonder what he thinks about the group of Republican lawmakers who showed up at the president's office last week -- unannounced -- to suggest that he consider new strategies in this war? They dropped in to express concern over their respective constituencies' growing distaste for this war. I imagine there was some discussion about how their continued support for this debacle could damage their chances for re-election.  The Democrats Hanson took to task were feckless in their support for Bush's war. To some extent, they ignored their own constituencies in favor of what nationwide polls were suggesting was widespread support for the war. Now that those numbers have dramatically shifted to the anti-war side, it's safe for those same spineless Democrats to ride that wave. Both parties are guilty of self-preservation. Bush has been the most consistent of the bunch; tragically, he's been consistently wrong.  MARK WARDLAW  Santa Rosa  ----------------------------------------------  ABCs of education  Editor -- NTanya Lee states (Open Forum, May 10) that the San Francisco schools have ""a two-tiered system."" This is patently false. The school district bends over backward to give all students equal opportunity regardless of race or ethnicity. If she were to spend time in the schools, she would find some true causes of the academic achievement gap like unruly students, uncooperative parents, households that place a low value on education and students whose primary language is not English.  GARY FULMER  Pacifica  -------------------------------------------  'Playing their violins'  Editor -- I was truly frightened by NASA's National Snow and Ice Data Center report (""Arctic sea ice smaller than ever,"" May 2) that the previous polar ice cap melting predictions were wrong. According to the latest measurements, sea ice could disappear in the summertime between 2050 and 2100.  My fear is that as the polar ice cap goes, so goes Greenland, also in the northern latitudes. When that happens, parts of San Francisco's Financial District, Hunters Point and the Marina District will be under water. San Francisco's supervisors are still playing their violins while we face inundation. Instead of planning for a new football stadium that will be under water soon, the board should declare a state of emergency and prepare for eventual relocation of those neighborhoods, design new road configurations, and prepare to move the sewer plant. The challenge of this new century will be how fast we respond to the new conditions imposed by sea-level rise.  JOHN STEPHENS  Napa  -----------------------------------------------  Fear and preparedness  Editors -- Some of the contingency planning for a domestic act of nuclear terrorism (""Contingencies for nuclear terrorist attack,"" May 11) is legitimate emergency planning, and some of the planning involves the use of fear to create market opportunities (for the purveyors of duct tape, plastic sheeting and personal bomb shelters). But there are some obvious weaknesses in our ability to respond to emergencies that don't require much speculation.  The tanker truck explosion in the MacArthur Maze revealed the fact that the East Bay has no hospitals specializing in treating burns. The driver of the tanker had to be moved to a San Francisco hospital. It amazes me that Alameda and Contra Costa counties (approximately 2.5 million people) have no burn unit.Having to rely on resources at the other end of the Bay Bridge cannot be considered adequate preparedness.  HANS THOMAS  Oakland  ---------------------------------------------  A battle cry for the planet  Editor -- As a child of the '60s, I am gratified to read recent letters to the editor about our No. 1 challenge, overpopulation.  My hope is that this topic will reach a high point in all media, as it has been the sleeping dog for too long now. The politicians do not want to touch it, so it must become the battle cry of the general population.  I also hope that the public will be able to realize with this discussion that the potential overturn of Roe vs. Wade will add to this out-of-control issue, and as we discuss immigration reforms, that the size of families should be taken into consideration, not only for immigrants, but for the native-born citizens as well.  LEIGH NORLING  Fort Bragg  ------------------------------------------  Wrong example  Editor -- So, Israel uses ""profiling"" for airport security, and is trying to train us in their ways (""U.S. airport security experts take a look at Israel's methods,"" May 10).  Israel is an apartheid state in which anti-Palestinian profiling is routine. I hope we don't fall into this trap. We should be, instead, teaching Israel the virtues of justice and equal rights for all.  BADRUDDIN KHAN  San Francisco  ----------------------------------------  Pelosi under fire  Editor -- The Chronicle's defense of Nancy Pelosi reads like a press release from the Speaker's office. (""GOP keeps heat turned up on Pelosi,"" May 10). Pelosi's tenure as speaker has been a self- inflicted disaster, especially her trip to Syria. Her declining poll numbers are not the result of Republican mud-slinging as claimed by staff writer Edward Epstein.  DANA WALSH  San Francisco  ---------------------------------------  Double standard  Editor -- I would like to know what the ethical standards are that allow our justice system to drop charges against a terrorist, accused of having blown up a passenger airliner killing 73 people on one hand, while on the other hand, we start two discretionary wars to prevent terrorism.  What are the values that permit less than complete outrage at that hypocrisy?  HUGHES RYAN  St. Helena GRAPHIC (2); Caption: (1) / Lance Jackson / The Chronicle, (2) / Paul Lachine / The Chronicle"
"4","Congress's Start; It's time to begin recording concrete achievements. WP00000020070513e35d0007d Editorial 702 Words 13 May 2007 The Washington Post FINAL B06 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  FOUR MONTHS into the 110th Congress is too early to assign grades to the new Democratic majority -- but not too soon to remind lawmakers that most of their self-assigned tasks remain undone; that progress in the next few months on immigration, trade and lobbying reform is critical; and that this Congress will be judged on what it accomplished -- and on where it punted.  The biggest punt thus far concerns entitlement spending, an issue on which the administration, chiefly Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., has been seeking to jump-start discussions. This is an auspicious moment that Democrats seem determined to squander. First, the Democratic Congress has a lame-duck Republican president who could take, or at least share, the blame for cuts that will have to be part of any solution. Second, as members of Congress well know, the longer they wait to take on Medicare and, particularly, Social Security, the harder the problem they will face.  Democrats have seized on Vice President Cheney's comments to Fox News in January about raising payroll taxes -- ""This president has been very, very clear on his position on taxes, and nothing's changed"" -- as a rationale for why they can't risk bargaining with the administration. But this is an excuse, not a legitimate basis for inaction. After all, Mr. Cheney also said there would be ""no preconditions.""  Meanwhile, lawmakers for the most part have used their oversight powers usefully, though we wish more energy were spent examining torture policies, for instance, and less on subpoenaing the secretary of state. Although the budget process has yet to play itself out, the adoption of tough pay-as-you-go rules to constrain new mandatory spending has had a surprisingly beneficial effect in restraining demands for new programs. The Senate's passage of a measure to strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory powers is an important step.  Still unanswered is whether Democrats will deliver on their campaign promises and whether both sides will find ways to forge consensus on issues of common concern. House Democrats' ""Six for '06"" campaign pledge has so far amounted to ""None in '07."" Much of this (federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, for instance) is out of Democrats' control, given the Senate's supermajority rules and President Bush's veto pen; in some cases (having Medicare negotiate drug prices, for example), that's just as well. But even such relatively noncontroversial matters as increasing the minimum wage remain undone. Voters are starting to notice, and the coming weeks will be crucial for Democrats to put some actual accomplishments on the board.  On a matter that is within their control, it's still uncertain whether House Democrats will produce a lobbying and ethics reform package worthy of their campaign pledges to end the ""culture of corruption."" The key tests will be whether lawmakers require lobbyists to disclose the bundles of campaign cash they deliver (as the Senate version of the measure has done) and whether the House will create a more credible ethics process, including some kind of independent arm to assess and investigate ethics allegations.  On immigration, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is right to bring to the floor last year's measure, which won the support of 23 Republicans. The clock is ticking on this incendiary topic, and the administration has not improved matters by pushing an unbalanced and punitive plan. If Mr. Bush is looking for a legacy issue beyond Iraq, this could be it, but he is, so far, blowing the chance.  On trade, an agreement that seems to clear the way for approval of trade pacts with Peru and Panama is a start, but only that. Much more important is the passage of deals with Colombia and South Korea, and extension of presidential trade negotiating authority, which is needed to complete a new global trade treaty. Congressional leaders should work with Mr. Bush to extend the authority -- not because they like or trust him but because doing so will be better for the economy in which they, too, have an important stake. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200705131CONGRESS13"
"4","State editorial roundup APRS000020070514e35e002hn By The Associated Press 2671 Words 14 May 2007 18:20 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  A sampling of editorial opinion around Texas:  May 12  Fort Worth Star-Telegram on more education for illegal immigrants:  For several years, the message from the Texas business community has been: Get more students through high school; get them a college education; make sure they're prepared for the work force. It's vital for the state's future.  From that perspective, Texas House members made the right choice by killing a bill that would have pushed college further away from hundreds, maybe thousands, of high school graduates.  The proposal by Rep. Bill Zedler, R-Arlington, would have rescinded a 2001 law that allows illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition if they've lived in Texas at least three years, gotten their high school diplomas and pledged to seek citizenship as soon as they're eligible.  By staying in school, working toward graduation and setting their sights on higher education, these students have shown their determination to be responsible, productive contributors to the economy. Adding a financial hurdle that could be insurmountable won't discourage illegal immigration to any great degree, but it could help to keep young people who've lived in the United States for most of their lives to stay in low-income, underground economy jobs.  Congress' failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform has left in limbo an untold number of high school graduates: Their migration violated U.S. law, though as children most had little choice where their parents took them; they have no country to return to because this is the home they know; they've followed the traditional steps to the American dream by working to further their education.  Even with college degree in hand and a goal of getting proper documents, they currently have few routes at this point to legalize their status.  This is just one aspect of the complicated immigration debate. But it's one where Texas made a smart move by bringing higher education within reach of young people worth investing in. The Legislature should reject any attempts to slip a repeal onto pending bills during the frantic final days of the session.  Meanwhile, Congress needs to create a way for these graduates to fulfill their part of the bargain.  ------  May 14  El Paso Times on selling lottery tickets in bars:  Chente Quintanilla, our Democratic state representative from District 75, has a logical idea, and it's being considered strongly in the Texas House. Since we have the Texas Lottery, and since its proceeds help fund education, why not sell lottery tickets in bars, too? It would be convenient for lottery players. No standing in a checkout line.  Paying for public education in Texas has long been a problem. Lawmakers are now debating to either lower Texans' property taxes or giving teachers raises. Last year it took a special session of the legislature to iron out school funding issues.  Budget analysts say if tickets could be sold in bars, nightclubs and other businesses that serve alcohol, the state could count on an an additional $64 million for education over the next five years.  Tickets, of course, would continue to be sold at their present locations, most often convenience stores.  Quintanilla's bill was tentatively approved by the House Thursday. It would strike from law a provision that prohibits lottery tickets from being sold at locations with alcoholic beverage permits. Next the bill needs final House approval. Then it would be sent to the Senate.  Texas must find ways to help ease tax burdens. In El Paso, the largest taxing entities are the school districts. We pay much more in property taxes to our school district than we do to the city.  Overall, property taxes in El Paso are much higher than in neighboring Dona Ana County in New Mexico.  We need tax relief.  Since we have the Texas Lottery to help fund those schools, let's raise more school money by making it easier to purchase a lottery ticket. It would be one way to ease, at least a little bit, the amount of property taxes required to fund public education.  ""We'll have a pitcher, and bring us each a lottery ticket, please.""  ------  May 8  Houston Chronicle on demand for gasoline responsible for high prices:  At a time when the cost of crude oil is dropping, Americans are paying record high prices for gasoline. On the Gulf Coast, according to the Energy Information Administration, gasoline prices rose 17 cents a gallon in a week, 54 cents for the year. Houstonians pay 28 cents a gallon more than they did last week, but 3 cents less than they did this time last year, when they really took a beating at the pump.  Americans pay an average 25 percent more for gasoline now than they did at the start of the year. The seasonal rise is usually no more than 7 percent.  If the normal cycle does not account for the run-up, who or what is to blame?  One factor is puny refinery output. Industry analysts report that storms, repairs and maintenance (and perhaps a little Machiavellian behavior on management's part) have held U.S. refinery output to about 89 percent of capacity. Inventories slid as the peak demand of the summer driving season approached. Some people's fear of a shortfall and some well-positioned people's desire for it applied upward pressure on prices at the pump.  If the motorist really wants to assess all blame for high prices that can be assessed, he must look to himself. Americans drove 3 percent more miles this March than they drove in March 2006. That rising demand at a time of limited supply would all but guarantee high prices even if refiners were going all-out.  If Americans want to bring down prices, all they need to do is drive less. If everyone ceased driving one day a week car-pooling, electronically commuting or taking mass transit instead demand would drop 15 percent. Universal adherence to the principle cannot be expected, but much smaller drops in demand have been known to bring significant price cuts.  Analysts report that the outlook for lower prices is good. As refineries come back on line or increase production, supply goes up and prices moderate.  Democratic leaders in Congress, embodied by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, champion conservation but apparently do not understand that high prices are a necessary incentive to the conservation of energy. If energy is cheap, people will use it extravagantly.  The Democrats' desire to focus public dissatisfaction with rising gasoline prices on the administration is understandable, but not their faulty policy analysis that rests on the assumption of low energy prices.  In these days of partisan bickering and gridlock, Washington politics is almost irrelevant to the price of gasoline. If Americans want lower prices, they hold the means to attain them by adjusting their habits.  ------  May 9  San Antonio Express-News on a distraction from high gas prices:  The paradox is painfully familiar: The more gasoline we pour into our tanks, the more money we drain from our wallets. A Michigan company may not be able to fatten your pocketbook, but it can make your time at the pump a little more entertaining.  Gas Station TV, a firm based in Oak Park, Mich., has mounted 1,000 TV sets on the pumps of gas stations in Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, according to USA Today.  The 20-inch sets, providing high-definition images, will replay ESPN highlights throughout the day.  The firm plans to expand its operation to Chicago, New York and Los Angeles next month, with plans to have 6,000 television screens by the end of the year.  Gas Station TV, a digital television service delivered by a broadband connection, allows all participants to benefit: The stations, which are not charged for the screens, get to customize their own ads, while ESPN and the TV company get a cut of the ad revenue.  As for the consumers, well, they get to see that continuous stream of highlights while their tanks gulp all that gas.  But even a rabid sports fan would trade sports highlights for lower prices at the pump, something that Gas Station TV, despite its cutting-edge technology, cannot provide.  ------  May 8  Austin American-Statesman on craze to move up primary dates:  While a bill to move up Texas primaries to Feb. 5 reposes in a Senate committee, the Florida Legislature has approved moving its party primaries up to Jan. 29, escalating the race of states to move their primary election dates back. There is even talk in New Hampshire of a December primary.  The race to be first has taken on absurd proportions, and the Texas Legislature would be wise not to get caught up in the rush. Senators should recognize that an even earlier primary benefits just about everybody in politics except the voter. In short, the Texas version of the early primary bill serves voters best just where it is bottled up in committee.  The argument for moving the primary dates back is that states with large populations yearn to be relevant in the presidential nomination derby. There may be something to that, but whatever merit that argument holds is overwhelmed by the reality that early primaries won't work to enhance voter education on the issues. What early primaries enhance are the fortunes of the front-runners whose status is determined by a relatively small stable of donors, pundits, pollsters and party insiders.  Early primaries will magnify the influence of big donors as well because the earlier the primaries, the more expensive the air time. A February primary means a December filing deadline. Candidates not only will have to compete for attention, they will find the competition expensive because of holiday advertising rates.  The real beneficiaries of an early primary are not voters but incumbents they have established name recognition other political insiders and the people who give to them.  The March primary date is soon enough too soon really but it sure beats moving the date back to strengthen the grip of incumbents and big political donors.  ------  May 14  The Dallas Morning News on clean energy takes a back seat in Austin:  The legislative session began with an anti-coal rush.  Lawmakers, it seemed, could not file enough legislation limiting power plant emissions and promoting cleaner coal technology. The dozens of bills introduced took aim at gaping holes in the state's environmental regulations.  But during the last couple of months, nearly all of those proposals stalled out.  Coal became a dirty word in Austin. But those same four letters also turned into a death knell for legislation.  Last week's deadline for House bills passed without a coal plant moratorium, more stringent pollution limits or needed changes to the permitting process for electric utilities. The Senate didn't do any better.  The announced buyout of TXU apparently distracted lawmakers. They took their eye off the ball after the utility's buyers scaled back plans to build 11 coal plants.  But the urgent need for a long-term strategy and strengthened regulations remains.  TXU still plans to build three plants that burn lignite, the filthiest type of coal. Several other utilities are seeking coal permits.  Legislators should not close up shop before reforming air pollution rules. Otherwise, they'll leave the door open to energy companies looking to build cheap and dirty coal plants using last-century technology. Texas' lax regulations make polluting profitable while endangering public health.  The few measures that have gained traction are focused on funding cleaner coal technology and on enhancing the state's prospects of landing FutureGen, a federally funded, zero-emissions coal plant.  We support these efforts. But they don't go far enough. Lawmakers have implemented only half of the tried-and-true carrot-and-stick strategy by encouraging the use of cleaner coal. However, they also need to punish polluters and set strict emissions standards.  With the session in its final days, we're hopeful that bills such as HB 3732, which provides grants for ""ultra-clean energy projects,"" will be amended to include improvements to the permitting process and other measures aimed at protecting air quality.  While lawmakers still have much to do to address power plant pollution, the news out of Austin has not been all bad for the environmentally inclined. Senate approval of SB 12, which will take polluting cars off the road, and SB 1687, which calls for emission reduction strategies for greenhouse gases, is a sign of progress. The House also should be lauded for passing HB 3693, which includes a range of energy efficiency measures.  All three proposals are important parts of the state's broader energy policy and should be enacted.  But we urge lawmakers to go further. Nibbling around the edges of these issues is insufficient. We hope they'll tackle the topic that started it all: coal.  ------  May 8  Victoria Advocate on cell phones disrupt schools:  A handful of students at Natchez High School in Mississippi last month received text messages warning that a bomb would go off later in the day. The students who received that quickly forwarded it -- to school officials and to peers and parents. So the school had to be evacuated and the building searched.  Authorities found no bomb. But thanks to the ubiquity of cellular telephones among teens, a prankster disrupted a school day, costing the Natchez district in lost time and wasted dollars.  Granted, pranksters have always found ways to disrupt whatever they wanted to disrupt. Letting students routinely use cell phones during the school day, however, makes it easier to perpetrate such disruptions and more difficult for school officials to quash them quickly.  Natchez school officials worry that cell phones quickly spread unsubstantiated rumors and ""can lead to panic, confusion and potential safety concerns,"" The Natchez Democrat reported.  ""We are going to take a proactive stand against cell phones throughout the district,"" said Wayne Barnett, the district's director of operations. ""When you look at the safety of all the kids, cell phones create a problem.""  Victoria public schools prohibit students from ""displaying, turning on or using a cellular telephone or other telecommunications device on school property during the school day,"" according to the district's 2006-07 Student Code of Conduct.  Violators face confiscation of their cell phones, and subsequent violations result in small administrative fees to retrieve the confiscated phone.  A growing number nationwide are cracking down, both to help control disruption and to limit the use of cell phones and text messages for potential cheating on exams.  At California's Watsonville High School, ""students can only use their cell phones during lunch and during breaks,"" the Contra Costa Times reported.  ""They cannot use them during class or even when they're out in the hallway on their way back from the bathroom, one of the more common violations,"" the newspaper continued.  ""One of the biggest excuses is, 'I have to call my mom! She needs to pick me up!' And when that happens I say, 'No, your mom has to call me,'"" said Elvira Martinez, an administrative secretary at Watsonville High School.  ""If students really need to use their phone to get ahold of their parents, then they can use that phone right over there on the wall,"" she added.  Enforcing any on-campus ban on cell phones or other communications devices, however restrictive, is not easy. But as the Watsonville High School principal told the Times, students should expect to focus their attention on their classes during the time they are there. What they communicate on their cell phones is rarely, if ever, more important than that.  The Victoria policy is too easy to violate. Allowing students to carry cell phones ensures that they will be used, at least for text messaging. Banning them from campus and strictly enforcing that is the only way to prevent the disruption they can cause. 7"
"4","POSSIBILITIES BSUN000020070514e35e00027 EDITORIAL 408 Words 14 May 2007 The Baltimore Sun Final 8A English Copyright 2007, The Baltimore Sun. All Rights Reserved.  Successful negotiations so often seem on the verge of collapse just before a deal is reached that prospects for immigration reform may actually be brightened by the current Senate stalemate.  Republican negotiators are chafing at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's deadline of today for producing compromise legislation. Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat, has threatened to offer instead the measure passed last year by the Republican-led Senate, which some Republicans now regard as too liberal. And neither side has the 60 votes necessary to accomplish anything.  But overcoming such obstacles requires political will, and there just doesn't seem to be the national drumbeat necessary to convince senators they have more to lose by doing nothing than by voting for a proposal with some unpopular features.  Intervention by President Bush may be all that can break the stalemate - and even then, Mr. Bush would likely have to change tactics by standing up to conservative hard-liners instead of trying to placate them. For the president, who is seeking a major domestic achievement before he leaves office, that should be a gamble worth taking.  The framework of a deal began to emerge last week after months of quiet talks between such unlikely Senate partners as Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona and Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat.  Talk of trying to eject the 12 million aliens who entered the country illegally was dropped, but in its place was a general agreement that all who sought citizenship would have to go back, at least briefly, to their country of origin. The package also includes an expanded temporary-worker program for low-skilled and high-skilled workers, and verification programs to make sure workers wind up where they are supposed to.  But as of late last week, negotiators were still at odds over penalties illegal immigrants would have to face before winning legal status; whether guest workers would be allowed to seek citizenship; and a proposal by the White House that immigration preference be granted on the basis of labor needs rather than family connections.  Mr. Bush has trended to the right this year in order to win the backing of conservatives. But that appears to have been a miscalculation with a Congress now dominated by Democrats.  Still, it's not too late - and a president in search of achievement can be mighty persuasive. Curbing the cost, cruelty and exploitation of illegal immigration would be an achievement indeed."
"4","Time to debate immigration OMHA000020070514e35e000e7 Editorial 247 Words 14 May 2007 Omaha World-Herald Iowa;Midlands;Nebraska;Sunrise;Metro 06B English © 2007 Omaha World-Herald. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  It shouldn't be necessary to say, but it is: Congress needs to roll up its sleeves and work out a thorough immigration bill. This is why lawmakers get paid  Americans likely will know soon whether any meaningful progress will be made before 2009. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated he'll force legislation out of committee and onto the Senate floor this week. But President Bush needs to put the pressure on recalcitrant Republicans, Reid says  U.S. Sens. Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson of Nebraska say they'll back Reid's push. They should urge every lawmaker they can to do likewise. This debate needs to happen  Lawmakers express broad agreement that the U.S.-Mexican border needs to be better secured. The struggle continues over whether Congress should stop there (the position of Nelson and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley) or also address the status of the 12 million illegal immigrants already here (the stance of Hagel and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin)  The general outlines of needed change are clear: Secure the border. Crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Regularize temporary workers. Settle the long-term status of illegal immigrants. Promote their assimilation into mainstream American society  The 2008 presidential race is poised to become the catch-all excuse for doing nothing for two more years. If that happens, Americans will know how to answer when asked whether Republicans or Democrats are to blame. That answer: Yes."
"4","LAST CHANCE LOOMING FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM PMBP000020070515e35e0000n OPINION 414 Words 14 May 2007 The Palm Beach Post FINAL 12A English Copyright 2007. The Palm Beach Post, All Rights Reserved.  The debate over immigration reform has careened between party lines for years with little progress. Suddenly, it has a deadline.  On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., intends to bring the immigration plan the Senate passed last year to the floor and force Republicans to confront it. GOP senators will try to block debate. They believe that quiet negotiations between the White House and congressional leaders have a better chance of producing compromise. Though the Senate agreed on a comprehensive plan last year, positions constantly are shifting.  Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., was one of the architects for moderation last year when he cosponsored a bill that strengthened borders, set up a guest-worker program and allowed a path toward legal status to most of the 12 million illegal immigrants already here. Applicants would have had to learn English and pay back taxes and fines. It could have been the basis for a reasonable compromise. But since then, Sen. Martinez has become chairman of the Republican National Committee. He now says, ""Last year's bill is not the solution for this year."" Translation: The political calculus has changed and the 2008 election is near.  Talks involving the White House have foundered. Republicans want to make highly skilled immigrants the focus of the guest-worker plan and limit the current practice of keeping families together with visa preferences for relatives. Immigrants would not be able to bring family members into the country unless their incomes are above the poverty level and they have health insurance. Democrats object to provisions that would separate families and alienate a growing political constituency of new Hispanic voters.  As negotiations have dragged on, requirements for legal status have grown tougher. A recent version requires an unreasonable 13-year wait before immigrants could get green cards for permanent residency. The longer the wait, the less it looks like amnesty. The government gave illegal immigrants amnesty in 1986, which encouraged millions more to come in hopes it would happen again. As if inspired by the call for benchmarks in Iraq, immigration negotiators have agreed on triggers -- hiring more border guards, building more fences, improving ID cards -- that must be met before a guest-worker program can start.  If reform doesn't come soon, it's doubtful before 2009, when presidential campaigns are over and the White House has a new occupant. This is the last deadline Congress will have for a long time."
"4","Act now on immigration reform BSTNGB0020070515e35f00058 Editorial Boston Globe 454 Words 15 May 2007 The Boston Globe 3 A.12 English © 2007 New York Times Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  THE US Senate has a historic chance to pass a strong immigration reform bill this week. Senate action could lead to a law that strengthens the border and helps millions of undocumented workers come out of the shadows and find legal employment.  A thoughtfully constructed bill could end a treacherous era in which the letter of law has been unevenly applied: Sometimes the country winks at immigration violations; sometimes officials crack down hard. Without a clear, consistent policy, the unspoken advice to undocumented workers is chilly: Just don't get caught.  Two years ago, a bipartisan bill held out a reasonable compromise. Sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy and Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, the bill got tough on border enforcement and was smart on workplace regulations, recognizing many parts of the economy - including restaurants, hotels, meat processing, agriculture, and construction - rely heavily on immigrant workers.  This year, the bill has been overtaken by politics. Now that he's running for president, McCain has backed away from parts of the bill. And other presidential candidates have attacked the McCain- Kennedy bill for offering a supposed amnesty to the estimated 12 million undocumented people who live in the United States. What the bill actually called for was fining people and putting them at the back of the line to legalize their status here. It was a practical response, given that the country lacks the resources to deport millions of people, and even if it could engage in mass deportations, countless factories would shut down their operations, creating millions of dollars in losses.  Fortunately, there is hope that a deal will be struck before the Senate takes up the issue tomorrow. That deal could strengthen the border and create a worker identification system, so that employers could more readily determine who is eligible to work in the United States. Once these pieces were in place, there would be a mechanism to help workers legalize their status if they learn English and pay fines.  If no deal is struck, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, will still bring the issue to the floor tomorrow, by presenting an unwieldy bill that the Senate passed last year.  Deal or no deal, the last thing the country needs is another political showdown. There has already been enough drama - enough promises that reform was imminent, when in fact it wasn't. If the Senate doesn't act now, immigration reform could languish. The will to address the issue would disappear as the presidential race heats up and Democrats and Republicans opt to do what is politically safe, rather than what is essential or what is right. That would be a huge loss."
"4","Fix Immigration Now; More dithering in Congress equals more chaos. WP00000020070515e35f0000m Editorial 686 Words 15 May 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A14 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  AMAKE-OR-BREAK point has arrived in this country's effort to enact meaningful immigration reform. After failing last year to devise a way out of the deadlock that has left 12 million illegal immigrants in legal limbo, and the likely future influx of several hundred thousand new workers annually in equally dire straits, Congress is faced with the political calendar's hard reality. If lawmakers fail to hash out a compromise now, the presidential cycle probably will dash any hope for progress until at least 2009. Americans overwhelmingly prefer a workable solution now, and lawmakers owe it to them.  The components of that fix do not lend themselves to the usual horse-trading on Capitol Hill; expediency could produce more laws that won't work, and an artless compromise may invite more law-breaking. But an array of stakeholders -- employers, unions, immigrants' rights groups and others -- agree on the outlines of an approach that would replace chaos with an orderly regime that coaxes illegal workers out of the shadows, satisfies the labor market's demands and fashions a realistic, enforceable legal framework while protecting the interests of newcomers. Here are the main ingredients of such a system:  * For the 12 million immigrants already here illegally, a fair route to legal status and citizenship. Almost no one seriously advocates mass deportation of illegal immigrants, who comprise perhaps 5 percent of the labor force. For workers who satisfy clear and reasonable requirements -- a modest fine, a law-abiding record, steady employment, competent English, payment of back taxes -- there should be a pathway to eventual citizenship. Onerous, open-ended fines, as the Bush administration has proposed, or a requirement that immigrants leave the country and then reenter in order to ""reboot"" and supposedly legitimize their status here, will only dissuade many from compliance.  * A realistic system for future immigrants. Any workable law needs to reckon with the demand for 400,000 immigrant workers annually, most of them in relatively unskilled jobs. The current slogan that ""temporary means temporary,"" in fashion among some conservative Republicans, is reality-blind: If the law creates a revolving door of future immigrants, it will frustrate the needs of employers while encouraging some so-called guest workers to overstay their visas and break the law. This country long has welcomed foreign workers and in time made Americans of them; there must also be a legislative mechanism for that to happen with those future immigrants who want and deserve to stay.  * A humane approach to immigrant categories. Proposals to scrap the long-standing system of preferences based on family or employer sponsors, and replace it with a merit-based regime, pose a false either-or choice. Much of the demand for immigrant labor is for farmhands, landscapers, drywallers and other low-wage workers, and denying them the chance to reunite here with their families is inhumane. A sensible strategy needs to recognize both a globalized economy's demand for employees with fluent English and advanced academic degrees and the continuing need for lower-end workers.  The debates over these and other parts of an immigration bill tend to obscure the broad agreement on many points, including the need for tougher border enforcement; sanctions for firms that hire illegal immigrants; and a system for employers to verify that job applicants are here legally. Many of those points of agreement are reflected in a bipartisan House bill introduced in March.  But the House is waiting for the Senate; if a bipartisan deal can be struck there, the House will probably follow suit. A starting point for any debate should be that this country needs immigrants -- those already here and those yet to come. Immigration hawks who seem more intent on punishing illegal workers than incorporating them into America's social fabric won't solve the problem. And the longer Congress dithers, the more states and localities will attempt to deal with the matter on their own -- and the more anarchy will become the rule when it comes to immigration enforcement. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200705151ED-IMMIGRATION15"
"4","THE ISSUE: SENATE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL PHX0000020070519e35i0008n Opinions 637 Words 18 May 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser B4 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  This bipartisan deal on immigration reform is not a done deal. It is, however, strong evidence of a sincere desire by the Senate and the White House to resolve one of the nation's most vexing problems.  New hope amid doubts  The Senate's hard-won compromise on overhauling immigration law leaves people on both sides with nagging doubts.  That's good.  This product of closed-door, bipartisan negotiations is not a done deal. It is, however, strong evidence of a sincere desire by the Senate and the White House to resolve one of the nation's most vexing problems.  The participation of Arizona's Republican Sen. Jon Kyl in the negotiations gives conservatives reason to believe their concerns were heard. Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy's role does the same for liberals. Both men took political chances to get this done.  It will take continued political courage to shepherd a bill through the Senate and, ultimately, the House.  The Senate compromise, announced Thursday, is premised on an enforcement-first model favored by Republicans. A crackdown on employers, additional Border Patrol agents, hundreds of miles of border fence and an electronic employee-verification system would have to be in place before a guest-worker program could begin or the estimated 12million illegal immigrants currently in the country could pursue permanent residency.  But in a concession to the Democrats, those 12million people could step forward immediately and get temporary-residency permits.  After enforcement triggers are met, the undocumented could apply for a new ""Z"" visa that would allow them to stay indefinitely, if they meet requirements and pay a fine.  Immigration restrictionists still call this amnesty, but they are unlikely to prevail. Business wants these workers, and the nation cannot realistically deport them. Immigrant rights groups worry that the requirements for the Z visa will be so stringent that those who come forward for temporary permits will wind up getting deported.  Such fears could undermine a program that depends on migrants feeling comfortable enough to come out of the shadows. Yet the chance for even temporary legalization would be a strong pull. Migrants feel so threatened these days that some are drawing up legal papers to designate guardians for their U.S.-born children in case the parents are deported.  This proposal would establish a guest-worker program for 400,000 migrants per year -- again, after the triggers have been met. Business says that's a reasonable number, but labor unions want it lowered.  In a concession to Republicans, the proposal makes these workers truly temporary, with two-year visas that could be renewed twice, but only after the worker returns home for a year.  Business doesn't like the idea of losing workers who've gained job skills; migrant rights advocates want all guest workers to have a path to citizenship; and two unions -- Service Employees International Union and Unite Here -- vow to oppose any bill with the ""temporary means temporary"" provision.  This concept, and the Republican push to shift immigration policies to give preference to those with skills over those with family ties, will be hashed out on the floor of the Senate in coming weeks.  Those on the left and right will be asked to compromise on strongly held beliefs. A root canal would be more fun.  But just getting a bill to the floor is an accomplishment.  There's reason for hope.  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: 1) Sen. Jon Kyl CAPTION: 2) Sen. Edward Kennedy"
"4","COOPERATION WORKS BSUN000020070518e35i0000g EDITORIAL 365 Words 18 May 2007 The Baltimore Sun Final 18A English Copyright 2007, The Baltimore Sun. All Rights Reserved.  Lo and behold, it's still true that if negotiators with divergent views but a common goal work hard enough and long enough, they can produce a workable compromise - even on one of the nation's most contentious issues.  Yesterday's breakthrough agreement on immigration reform between President Bush and a bipartisan group of senators also demonstrated the wisdom of including those with relatively extreme views along with more moderate voices.  Which is not to say the compromise proposal will have an easy trip through Congress, or that it can't be improved along the way.  But all the negotiators - including two members of Mr. Bush's Cabinet - deserve credit for giving a long-overdue update of the nation's immigration laws its best chance in years.  If it succeeds, millions of undocumented aliens will finally be able to come out of the shadows, win quick legal status and, after paying fees and a $5,000 fine, start on a long path to permanent residency. Heads of households would be required to return to their home country, at least briefly.  Meanwhile, a new priority would be established for extending immigration privileges that favors education and skill level over family connections. Only spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens could take advantage of family ties.  The proposal is more conservative than the bill passed by the Senate last year, reflecting concerns that border security improvements and implementation of a high-tech worker identification program should be in place before a new temporary guest worker program is launched.  Predictably, though, it was immediately tarred as an ""amnesty"" program by conservative lawmakers, who believe that all 12 million illegal aliens should somehow be rounded up and deported. And liberal lawmakers complained about upending the long-standing practice of immigrants' being able to send home for their relatives.  Yet President Bush called the proposal ""an important accomplishment, an important first step"" at what all acknowledge is the most auspicious moment likely to present itself until after next year's elections.  The rest of Congress should take advantage of this opportunity to make solid progress toward developing an immigration policy that is realistic, effective and humane."
"4"," Editorial ; An immigration bill only D.C. could love BHLD000020070519e35i0001q EDITORIAL 353 Words 18 May 2007 Boston Herald All Editions 14 English © 2007 Boston Herald Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  It is, of course, good news that after weeks of behind-closed- doors effort, Senate Democrats, Republicans and the White House have reached a compromise on an immigration bill, thus breathing life into an effort that had been moribund for months.  And because it is a COMPROMISEit has the look and feel of a Rube Goldberg invention - a bewildering hodge-podge of triggers and levers aimed both at securing our borders and recognizing that 12 million illegal immigrants already live inside those borders. And it does provide a path to citizenship, even if that path looks more like a labyrinth.  ""Politics is the art of the possible,"" Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said, ""and the agreement we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America.""  President Bush affirmed his support for the measure, saying, it ""would bring undocumented workers already in this country out of the shadows without amnesty and without animosity.""  Technology will lend a hand (now there's a concept) with the creation of a new high-tech worker ID program and enhanced border security. Only when those are in place will the legislation trigger a new guest worker program. But ""guest"" will mean what it says. Those workers would have to return to their home countries after two years and then apply for permanent citizenship.  Illegal immigrants will be provided a path to citizenship, but it will be a long and difficult one - requiring fees, fines and for heads of household a return to their native countries first.  And for the first time a point system will reward the advanced education and job skills of new immigrants, adding those to a list of priorities along with family unification.  This is, in short, a bill only those inside the Beltway could love, understand and craft. There is much about it that leaves us skeptical it could be effectively implemented. But with the current system badly broken, anything is better."
"3","Immigration reform helps Vermont farmers BRFP000020070524e35i0002h A; Opinion 505 Words 18 May 2007 The Burlington Free Press 01 6 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Burlington Free Press. All Rights Reserved.  Immigration reform  helps Vermont farmers  A deal worked out in Congress that would grant legal status to the millions of illegal immigrants working in this country is good news for the undocumented workers and for Vermont dairy farmers who rely on them, even if the proposals are unfair to those immigrants who followed the rules.  Federal policies that have kept food prices low has meant that Vermont dairy farmers are unable to get prices for their milk that cover the ever rising costs of fuel and feed. That in turn has meant the farmers are unable to pay the kind of wages that would attract workers in a tight labor market to jobs that mean early starts, long hours and require physically demanding labor.  Some Vermont dairy farmers unable to find help at wages they can afford have turned to illegal immigrants to fill the gap. The state estimates as many as 2,000 Mexican workers -- many, if not most, without proper visas -- form a vital part of Vermont's agricultural economy.  In recognition of their importance, the state, in effect, rolled out an unofficial welcome mat for undocumented workers by providing services including language lessons to help farmers and workers better communicate. At the same time, the Vermont State Police does not recognize Mexican government-issued identification cards that are commonly accepted by banks and the U.S. Treasury Department.  The state's mixed message only emphasized the fact that immigration is an issue that can only be effectively handled at the federal level. The lack of legal status is a threat to these worker who face possible exploitation and are reluctant to report abuse and crime to the authorities for fear of deportation.  Under the proposal, illegal immigrants can obtain a ""Z visa"" after paying a $5,000 fine, and get on track for citizenship, a process that could take eight to 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their native countries first to qualify. Other provisions include a temporary guest worker program along with tougher border and worker identification programs, and an immigration policy that weighs skills and education over some family ties.  The reforms embrace a pragmatic approach that recognizes that it would be impossible, economically or physically, to remove all of the illegal immigrants already working in this country. At the same time, there is an injustice in rewarding those who entered the country illegally with a path to citizenship, something that is denied to some even with proper visas and to many waiting in line for visas at U.S. consulates overseas.  The proposed reforms, worked out by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and praised by President Bush, will go a long way toward helping ease Vermont agriculture's labor problems and help insure protection for the workers themselves. The reforms solve both an economic and political problem for the nation, but they also undermine the idea that in this country, it pays to play by the rules."
"4","Seize the opportunity to reform immigration CHI0000020070518e35i000cm Editorials The Chicago Sun-Times 470 Words 18 May 2007 Chicago Sun-Times Final 41 English © 2007 Chicago Sun Times. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Senators from both parties announced Thursday they had reached a deal on a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration laws. The plan, which would bolster border security, enhance enforcement and offer a route to citizenship to 12 million illegal immigrants, also has the support of President Bush. At first glance the deal appears to represent a reasonable and pragmatic approach to solving the immigration issue -- or at least a good starting point for further refinements.  We've been here before, of course. The president and Senate last year agreed to a similar bill, only to see it shot down by Republican hard-liners in the House. But there are differences -- in the bill as well as in the House, where Democrats are now in charge - - that could make this effort succeed where it failed last year.  Under the deal, immigrants who were here illegally before Jan. 1 would have a chance to legalize their status if they meet certain conditions and jump through some bureaucratic hoops, including paying a $5,000 fine, passing criminal background checks and, for heads of households, returning to their home country first. The deal also would permit 400,000 guest workers to stay here for up to two years. But to satisfy Republicans, the path to citizenship and the guest worker program would be blocked until border security improvements are made and a high-tech worker identification program is completed. Even so, the tougher enforcement provisions probably won't be enough to woo many hardliners, who are opposed to any change that appears to reward those who illegally crossed our borders. We're not happy about it either, but those immigrants are here and simply can't be deported without swamping our court system.  Another change may strike many Democrats as unpalatable. In a major philosophical switch long sought by Republicans, the negotiators proposed to use a point system that would give skills and education levels more weight than family connections in deciding whether immigrants should get legal status. This recognizes that labor market needs should influence immigration policy. Only spouses and minor children would qualify for automatic family unification, while other relatives would likely need to meet the skills and education qualifications.  The battle over immigration is so divisive that there can never be a perfect solution. The Senate negotiators said they know their deal will be attacked from the right as amnesty and from the left as not humanitarian enough. But as Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), the lead Democratic negotiator, said, the deal represents ""the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America."" Congress shouldn't let this chance slip away."
"4"," 'A path out of the shadows' TRIB000020070518e35i00044 News 595 Words 18 May 2007 Chicago Tribune Chicago Final 26 English Copyright 2007, Chicago Tribune. All Rights Reserved.  Thursday was do-or-die day for negotiators trying to draft an immigration-reform bill with a prayer of passing the U.S. Senate this year. The plan that emerged after two months of closed-door wrangling was immediately attacked from the left and the right, one side condemning it as anti-family and anti-American and the other condemning it as too lenient on lawbreakers. It's just that kind of intractable talk that had threatened to kill any hope for compromise -- and maybe still will.  For now, at least, there is a bill to debate. Let's pause to applaud that accomplishment before hell breaks loose on the Senate floor.  The agreement reached by a team of senators and White House officials contains many elements on which there is broad agreement. It's strong on enforcement, providing more resources to secure the border, more workplace inspectors and tougher sanctions for employers who hire illegal workers. It requires specific enforcement measures to be in place before more immigrants are allowed into the country. It promises a reliable federal identification system for employers to confirm the immigration status of potential hires.  But the issues that divided the negotiating team promise to play out at high volume on the Senate floor.  The bill would offer the 12 million immigrants living here illegally a chance to stay and become citizens -- what Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called ""a path out of the shadows.""  A path, though with conditions -- including a $5,000 fine and a requirement that they exit the country and re-enter legally -- that some consider punitive and prohibitive. Hard-liners say such concessions amount to amnesty and are unacceptable.  Immigrants and their advocates, meanwhile, are distressed by proposed changes in the distribution of future work visas. The current system, which favors relatives of legal immigrants, would be replaced with a point system that considers such things as education, English proficiency and work skills in addition to family ties. Lower-skilled immigrants probably would have to enter as temporary guest workers, allowed to stay for only two years.  Immigrants-rights groups say the proposals would split families and create an official underclass of workers; business groups don't like the idea of replacing workers every two years.  As a practical matter, the guest worker plan as written seems to invite the kind of abuse that created the current mess -- workers who overstay their permits and employers who look the other way or even facilitate fraud in order to keep their businesses running.  Last year's Senate bill, which passed 62-36, called for increases in both family-based and employment-based visas, as well as a guest worker program that provided a path to eventual citizenship. It was, by and large, a good bill.  But House Republicans refused to even consider the Senate measure, insisting that a guest worker program would have to wait till the border was sewn shut and flatly rejecting the idea of earned citizenship for illegal immigrants. And congressional nose-counters say last year's bill isn't tough enough for this year's Senate.  In the House, a more moderate bill -- much like last year's Senate bill -- awaits what promises to be a raucous debate.  We recognize this is a delicate process. A noble bill that doesn't become law isn't worth very much. The hope here is that the Senate bill unveiled Thursday can be nudged closer to what the Senate envisioned last year, without killing the entire process. Editorial"
"4","EDITORIAL A chance for serious immigration reform A compromise plan by Senate leaders and the White House could be the last opportunity for real change before politics muddles the issue next year. DNVR000020070518e35i0001s Denver & The West 442 Words 18 May 2007 Denver Post Final B.6 English © 2007 Denver Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Senate leaders and the White House forged a vital compromise Thursday that could lead to historic changes in this country's broken immigration system.  The agreement, which would give legal status to workers already here while beefing up control of the border, gives Congress a workable blueprint to debate beginning next week. It would create a temporary worker program for new immigrants and a separate program for migrant agricultural workers. And to prevent employers from continuing to hire illegal workers, new high-tech enforcement measures would be instituted to verify a worker's status.  The compromise, whose passage won't be a slam dunk, was reached just as new data were released outlining precisely why we need a solution to illegal immigration. According to the nation's top demographers, U.S. population and labor force growth in coming decades will depend on immigration rather than growth in the native- born population.  That population growth - tomorrow's workforce - needs to be legal and out of the shadows. Congress has a very small window for approving immigration reform before election-year politics makes sensible debate impossible, underscoring the timing of Thursday's agreement.  A stalemate in negotiations was apparently broken when leaders agreed on a 'point system' that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill levels over family connections when awarding green cards. A parent already here could still be reconnected with minor children and spouse. The new rules would make it tougher for an immigrant's siblings and older children to enter the U.S.  Provisions to better secure the border while punishing businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants were added to win GOP support, and they're important. For any type of guest-worker program to work, the U.S. needs to control its borders.  The last major immigration overhaul, 1986's Simpson-Mazzoli Act, failed miserably because the government never cracked down on businesses. The failure stemmed from congressional refusal to create a tamper-proof ID card. If a new plan is going to work, there needs to be some type of secure identifier for workers so employers know the legal status of potential hires.  The proposal also includes a separate, temporary-worker program for 400,000 migrants a year, which we consider essential, given labor shortages in the fields.  The need for immigration reform is clear. Whether Congress can enact necessary and historic legislation on a hyper-sensitive issue is not."
"4","Immigration reform plan has promise; Serious debate on this divisive issue can now begin in Senate. FBEE000020070519e35i00024 LOCAL NEWS THE FRESNO BEE 403 Words 18 May 2007 The Fresno Bee FINAL B8 English Copyright 2007. The Fresno Bee. All Rights Reserved.  Negotiators in the U.S. Senate have crafted a promising immigration reform plan, although its passage is far from guaranteed. The compromise plan must still be voted on in the full Senate and then must pass the House of Representatives. President Bush said he supports the plan.  The proposal announced Thursday is a crucial breakthrough, and now it's time to get this much-needed reform accomplished. Senators and representatives can't let critics pick it apart. Otherwise, we will be left with the status quo. The precise details, of course, will determine the effectiveness of the proposal. But we like what we see so far.  The proposal includes increased border security, creates a temporary guest-worker program and offers a path to legal status. The version that ultimately becomes law undoubtedly will change some, but any serious reform must contain these three key elements.  The proposed agreement would allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a ""Z visa,"" which would put them on track to permanent residency. But it won't be easy or cheap. They would have to pay fees and a $5,000 fine. It also would take between eight and 13 years, according to news reports.  The temporary guest worker program would be delayed until certain ""triggers"" were reached. A separate program would cover agricultural workers.  White House negotiators were crucial in pushing Senate leaders to adopt a compromise. That shows the commitment of the president to an issue that he has been trying to get resolved since he first took office.  Bush issued a statement that said the compromise is a crucial step toward comprehensive immigration reform, and the proposed bill would secure our borders and ""treat people with respect -- without amnesty and without animosity.""  Sen. Dianne Feinstein said the bill isn't perfect, but it's an acceptable settlement of this contentious issue. She asked critics to judge it in the context of being a carefully crafted compromise that must appeal to many factions.  It's time for an immigration reform bill that meets the needs of the nation's security, employers and those who are being exploited by the current unfair system.  Tell us what you think. Comment on this editorial by going to http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion, then click on the editorial. EDITORIALS McCLATCHY/TRIBUNE"
"4"," Bordering on real reform; Though lawmakers are far from the finish line, a 'breakthrough' immigration bill shows promise. LATM000020070518e35i00036 Main News; Editorial Pages Desk 507 Words 18 May 2007 Los Angeles Times Home Edition A-22 English Copyright 2007 The Los Angeles Times  THERE HAVE BEEN many ""breakthroughs"" on immigration reform over the last two years, but the one reached by Senate negotiators Thursday came with at least two things we haven't seen before: a realistic, bipartisan plan for legalizing illegal immigrants and a meritocratic overhaul of the haphazard system for awarding visas. But this hopeful moment, like previous ones, may come to naught, pushing long-overdue reform back at least two years.  The agreement's controversial centerpiece is the new ""Z visa"" for undocumented residents. If the compromise eventually becomes law, all who came to the U.S. before Jan. 1, 2007, could obtain probationary legal status by passing a criminal background check, submitting fingerprints and filling out an application. Longer-term Z visas would be handed out after applicants pay thousands of dollars in fines and fees, pass tests in English and civics and demonstrate continuous employment. Heads of households would be required to return to their country before obtaining a green card, and Z visa holders would be ineligible for upgrading their status until all the existing immigration backlog is cleared away.  After years of bruising debate over ""amnesty"" -- the misleading term preferred by legalization opponents -- it's remarkable that the Z visa gained bipartisan acceptance. There seems to be mounting appreciation for the fact that 12 million people living in legal shadows is corrosive to the rule of law.  Also encouraging is the agreement's point system for green cards, attempting to quantify the attributes most desirable among would-be immigrants. Factors such as education, work history and English ability would be scored to determine who gets priority for green cards, rather than just the usual family connection or employer endorsement. Although deemphasizing family unification goes against historic U.S. policy, the point plan would align policy more closely to another American ideal -- meritocracy. And those family members already in line would be helped by nearly half a million visas a year for people who applied before the spring of 2005. Visas for farmworkers and high-tech talent also would be increased.  Other elements of the plan are more dubious. A proposed guest worker program could prove too rigid by being renewable only twice, with a one-year gap in between. Care would have to be taken to avoid creating a new population of illegal immigrants.  But the single most objectionable aspect of the plan is that it probably won't pass. The Senate has been here before, but the House has never embraced comprehensive reform. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has already expressed ""serious concerns"" about the bill, and the freshman class of Democrats does not seem enthusiastic.  The consequences of failure this spring would be catastrophic -- not only would serious reform likely be put off until after the 2008 election, but few of the presidential candidates seem eager to tackle the issue. The country can't wait until 2009."
"4","IMMIGRATION: ONE STEP NYPO000020070518e35i0002c Editorial 531 Words 18 May 2007 New York Post 28 English (c) 2007 N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.  A key group of U.S. senators yesterday reached bipartisan accord on legislation that President Bush termed ""an important first step toward [the] comprehensive immigration"" reform that he has long championed.  This is a victory for the president, and he is to be congratulated.  But what of the bill?  Comprehensive, it certainly is.  Workable is another matter.  And underscore ""first step"" - for the legislation is one of the most controversial bills of the Bush era, and it faces a sure-to-be-cantankerous Senate debate and vote next week.  Then will come a rocky trip to the House of Representatives.  At the heart of the deal is the creation of a ""Z-visa"" - which would allow illegals to pay a fine of $5,000, plus relevant fees, thereby placing themselves on track toward a green card.  The ""Z"" holders would eventually have to return to their native country to make a formal application for citizenship in the United States - a process that could take between eight and 12 years - but would be permitted to return while the process proceeds.  The bill also creates a temporary guestworker program in which applicants could come to the United States to work for a two-year period. The guest-worker visa could be renewed twice, with yearlong departures in between.  However, neither the Z-visa nor the guest-worker program is to begin until border security has been enhanced and a verifiable, high-tech ID-card system for immigrants is operational.  The legislation also:  * Provides for a crackdown on employers who hire illegals.  * Would add 6,000 new Border Patrol agents, bringing the force to 18,000, and construct some 200 miles of vehicle barriers and new towers for border surveillance.  * Calls for a new ""points system"" for evaluating future immigration applicants that would give greater preference to those with good education and skill sets, and less to folks who simply have family already here.  This is a significant improvement over the current ""family ties"" preference - a virtual open-door policy to immigrants, regardless of their ability to make meaningful economic contributions.  Still, conservative critics are skeptical.  With cause.  The Z-visa sure sounds like amnesty by another name. And amnesty for lawbreakers, by definition, undermines respect for law in a nation that is animated by the rule of law.  But the practical impediments to packing up the estimated 12 million illegals now in America and shipping them home are so daunting that they render the notion ridiculous.  And no practical alternative exists.  That dilemma is what the Senate - indeed, the entire nation - has been struggling with for years.  Furthermore, most illegals now come to America largely for economic reasons. Their presence in numbers clearly raises security issues, but they don't begin to approach those confronting, say, Great Britain - a nation already victimized by immigrant-related terrorism.  Still, as the bill proceeds through Congress, it is imperative that its border security and verifiable-ID provisions be maintained.  If not strengthened.  Bottom line?  The president can savor this victory; he has earned it.  But he above all understands that much work remains to be done before true immigration reform is achieved."
"4","A big step forward in debate over immigration TUCC000020070521e35i00002 Citizen Voices; B 605 Words 18 May 2007 The Tucson Citizen 1B English (c) Copyright 2007, The Tucson Citizen. All Rights Reserved.  The contentious immigration issue is far from settled, but Thursday's agreement between the White House and senators from both parties makes it more likely that a bill will be passed this summer.  This is a giant step that could allow a bill to be signed into law before the issue is swept into the vortex of the 2008 presidential election.  The agreement covers all the major issues needed in a comprehensive bill: tougher border security, a way for employers to verify that employees are here legally, a guest-worker program and a process that allows those now in the country illegally to work toward permanent residency.  While passage in the Senate is far from assured, it is encouraging that the agreement won support from both Sen. Jon Kyl on the right and Sen. Ted Kennedy on the left.  Kyl, R-Ariz., called it ""the best opportunity that we have in a bipartisan way to do something about this problem.""  Kennedy, D-Mass., called it ""the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows.""  The obvious sticking point will be the fate of the estimated 12 million people now in this country illegally.  Many conservatives are opposed to any agreement that would permit them to remain.  As a practical matter, it would be impossible to find and deport 12 million people.  The agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a special visa.  After paying fees and $5,000 fines, they could get on track to permanent residency, which could take eight to 13 years.  There also would be a guest-worker program that would negate the need for people to trek through the desert and take other life-threatening steps to come here to work.  If Americans cannot be found for jobs, guest workers could enter the country and stay for two years. They would have little opportunity to stay here permanently.  But neither the visa nor the guest- worker program would take effect until border security is improved and a high-tech worker identification program is completed.  One aspect of the agreement that will be hotly debated is the shift from an immigration system weighted toward family ties to one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills.  Immigrants could bring in only spouses and minor children, not entire families. That shift was made to curry Republican support, but it is troubling to Democrats who say it unfairly rips apart families.  President Bush said he believes the agreement will allow Congress to engage in ""a serious, civil and conclusive debate"" about immigration.  We hope he is right. This is an opportunity that must not be lost.  •  Tucson's Maya the real prize  Fifth-grader Maya Ohana has won second prize in a national writing contest. She's a top prize for Tucson.  The home-schooled 10-year-old is black, Cherokee and Asian on her mother's side and German and Scottish on her father's side.  Her poem ""I am America"" was picked from among 5,000 submissions in a contest to help children think about the contributions of immigrants.  Congratulations, Maya. Your sharp perceptions on our melting pot show sensitivity and wisdom beyond your years.  Her poem begins:  I am the faces of immigrants coming to America  I am the faces of pilgrims who sailed across the Atlantic  I am the faces of those who walked ""The Trail of Tears''  › Maya Ohana's entire poem is with this editorial at http://www.tucsoncitizen.com."
"4","Breakthrough on Immigration; A bipartisan bill could mean a lasting fix for a broken system -- if Congress works out the kinks. WP00000020070518e35i00006 Editorial 573 Words 18 May 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A22 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  THE BIPARTISAN deal on immigration announced in the Senate yesterday is a breakthrough: It probably represents the best hope in decades to fix this country's non-functioning immigration system. Most important, it would allow millions of illegal immigrants already here to put themselves on the right side of the law and on a path toward eventual permanent residence. But like most rough drafts, this one needs work. It's critical that in addressing one set of immigration problems, the legislation doesn't create a new set.  Crafted with critical guidance from the Bush administration, the 380-page bill includes much to cheer about, not least the ideological range of its sponsors, from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). But their alliance also highlights the bill's central political trade-off -- legalization for 12 million immigrants already here in return for second-class status for hundreds of thousands of future low-skilled workers the U.S. economy needs each year.  Among the bill's most constructive elements are provisions that would provide legal protection for hundreds of thousands of migrant agricultural workers; a fast track to permanent residence for immigrant college students and members of the military who entered the country as children; tighter border security; and a system for employers to verify that job applicants are here legally -- with penalties for employers who fail to do so.  The bill recognizes that many of the 12 million illegal immigrants here, whose labor is critical to the economy, are here to stay and must be treated decently and realistically. They will have a path to permanent residence, but not one that can be disparaged as ""amnesty."" In addition to establishing law-abiding records and good employment histories, they will have to wait eight years before applying for permanent resident status, pay $5,000 in fines (less than the White House proposed) and, in the case of heads of households, leave the country and reenter legally. That last provision -- a sop to the anti-immigrant crowd -- is absurd and mean-spirited; it would be a burden for many hard-working immigrants.  The bill also would provide relief for an estimated 4 million or more foreign relatives of U.S. residents and citizens who, having applied for visas to be reunited with their families before spring 2005, now face waits of up to 22 years. Under the bill, an additional 240,000 green cards would be granted annually to clear the backlog within eight years. But future visa rules would favor highly educated and job-qualified applicants over many categories of relatives, such as adult siblings and grown children. In a globalized economy, that may make sense, but it will exact a real human cost.  The bill's most troubling aspect is its treatment of the future annual flow of 400,000 to 600,000 low-skilled workers needed to satisfy the demand for labor. They would have to leave every two years and stay out of the country for a year, for a maximum of six years' work here -- a system that invites rule-breaking by workers and employers and raises the specter of a future class of illegal immigrants. That is precisely the problem this bill was intended to solve. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200705181ED-IMMIGRANT18"
"4","A big deal on immigration BSTNGB0020070521e35j0003i Editorial Boston Globe 473 Words 19 May 2007 The Boston Globe 3 A.10 English © 2007 New York Times Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  DEFENDING THE immigration reform compromise he helped to broker this week, Senator Edward Kennedy reminded Americans that ""politics is the art of the possible"" - that is, not of perfection. The intricate proposal now before the full Senate is far from perfect. But it is also far better than the status quo, and, just as important, it has a realistic shot at becoming law.  The nation is deeply split on immigration, which makes it especially difficult to devise a law to address the permanent status of immigrants, including the estimated 12 million who are here illegally. The proposed bill includes concessions to those who want stricter limits on immigration, including 18,000 additional border guards, $5,000 fines for illegal immigrants, and a provision that a 370-mile border fence must be completed before any of the other proposals can go forward. Still, predictable cries of ""amnesty"" from the nativists in Congress have already been heard. Unless they are ready to arrest, jail, and deport 12 million people, including millions of children, they should stop obstructing progress.  Kennedy, Senate Republicans, and the White House tackled at least three major immigration conundrums in one proposal: how to handle those already here illegally; how to structure a guest worker program desired by employers in low-skilled industries; and how to rationalize the system for granting visas and green cards.  The resulting bill is a marvel of social engineering. It establishes a complex point system of achievements - owning a home, carrying health insurance, speaking English, obtaining advanced degrees or specific skills - that will be counted up to determine eligibility for legal status. The point system replaces the long tradition of family unification as the main criterion for entry to the United States; under the new bill, spouses and offspring of legal immigrants would still be allowed in, but more extended family would no longer automatically be granted preferential status.  The guest worker program - under which 400,000 workers would be allowed to immigrate legally for two-year stints in specific jobs - is not popular with labor groups, many businesses, or with immigrant advocates. The plan is clearly cumbersome and disruptive to families, but it does provide an alternative to the terror that comes with working here illegally. Employers who exploit illegal workers need to be pressured to join in - with more and tougher prosecutions if necessary.  Now is probably the last window for action on comprehensive reform before presidential politics thwart any rational debate. Millions of desperate people enter the United States every year, risking their lives and often eking out mean livings in squalor and fear. They deserve a chance to work, train, and pay their way toward becoming legal residents, and the canny old negotiator Ted Kennedy has likely found the clearest path to get them there."
"4","EDITORIAL: A 'last gasp' for immigration reform POR0000020070520e35j00005 Editorial The Oregonian 528 Words 19 May 2007 The Oregonian Sunrise D4 English © 2007 Oregonian Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  SUMMARY: The new bipartisan compromise provides the best opportunity in years to repair our broken borders  The United States remains so deeply divided over immigration laws that it's impossible to reform them in any way that isn't partially objectionable to every member of Congress.  The beauty of the sweeping new immigration bill announced Thursday lies in its political trade-offs. They're aimed at helping House and Senate majorities swallow their objections and enact historic reforms offering legal status to 12 million illegal immigrants while tightening border security and cracking down on employers of undocumented workers.  Taken as a whole, the bipartisan deal is a reasonable one, but it's frightfully fragile. The Republican Party has split over the legislation, and so have Democrats.  Hard-line conservatives complain the bill would grant a virtual amnesty to immigrants who had broken the law. That's certainly true: It is indeed flat-out amnesty, but that legitimate objection leads nowhere productive because America simply can't deport or jail 12 million people.  These critics should accept the trade-offs. Republican negotiators, for example, got agreement on a long-sought ""merit- based"" immigration system designed to make America more globally competitive. They also got a temporary worker program that would admit 400,000 to 600,000 foreign workers into the country each year.  Labor unions oppose that provision, of course. And hard-line liberals object to the switch to ""merit-based"" immigration, which they fear would limit the importance of family ties while emphasizing education levels, job skills and experience.  Again, those objections should be weighed against the trade- offs. The big one for Democrats is the legalization program that they've sought for many years. It would put millions of illegal immigrants on track for permanent residency and possible citizenship, after paying fines and fees.  Like all compromises, this one has a lot of moving parts, and not all of them fit together perfectly. If the deal survives its precarious journey through both chambers of Congress, the bill finally signed by President Bush may look quite a bit different from the one unveiled this week.  The fact that an unpopular president supports the legislation should not influence any American's perspective on it. Far better to look at the Senate negotiating partners who announced the compromise Thursday.  There on one side was Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., hero of the left, who acknowledged the widespread criticism but called the bill ""our last-gasp stand"" on immigration reform.  And there on the other side was Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the staunch conservative who campaigned relentlessly last year against amnesty for illegal immigrants. Now he says he's willing to compromise to meet Arizona voters' demand that he ""do something about illegal immigration.""  This bill would indeed do something. It would provide the first true progress on immigration reform in 21 years.  Members of Congress from Oregon and Washington state should get behind this legislation, or some version of it. It's the best shot this country has had to fix its broken borders in a painfully long time. "
"4","Don't sink it Our position: A new plan for immigration reform deserves support from the House. ORSE000020070519e35j0000n EDITORIAL OPINION Sable 484 Words 19 May 2007 Orlando Sentinel FINAL A16 English Copyright 2007, Orlando Sentinel Communications. All Rights Reserved.  The fire and fury over a new bipartisan compromise on comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. Senate misses the big picture:  The framework of this bill is solid. There is something for folks on each side of the debate.  It will help bring an estimated 12 million undocumented workers out of the shadows, strengthen the U.S.-Mexico border, demand stricter accountability from employers and place job skills over family ties in deciding who gets into the country. The House should tweak but not sink it.  The proposed legislation isn't amnesty, as some demagogues such as Republican Rep. Ric Keller of Orlando insist.  Paying $5,000, as undocumented immigrants would have to do, isn't a free ride. They would also have to briefly return to their country, and go through background checks.  The fine is reasonable, particularly since smugglers routinely charge thousands of dollars to get people across the border. This provision will take money out of smugglers' hands, and allow the undocumented to become part of the legal work force.  ""Work"" is the operative word. The U.S. needs a certain percentage of low-wage workers. Undocumented workers make up about 5 percent of the work force, but the numbers are much higher for certain jobs. Undocumented immigrants account for 24 percent of the nation's farm workers, 17 percent of cleaning crews, and 14 percent of construction workers.  A guest-worker program will address those labor needs, while another visa program will adopt a points system that will reward immigrants with needed job skills, education and the ability to speak English.  Caught in the squeeze will be families, a seismic philosophical shift in U.S. immigration policy. But it is also a pragmatic one.  The current system can favor a deadbeat brother. About 63 percent of the 1.1 million immigration visas went to relatives of U.S. citizens or legal residents last year. Only 13 percent went to individuals because of their skills. The policy shift will address the need for specialty jobs like nursing.  So whether it's a busboy or an academic with a Ph.D., the system will embrace those willing to work legally.  This isn't a perfect plan, but it's a sound foundation. The demagogues -- Mr. Keller, talk show host Lou Dobbs, Republican Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite of Brooksville -- shouldn't be allowed to poison the discussion.  Americans don't want to hear the negative chatter anyway. A recent USA TODAY/Gallup poll showed overwhelming support -- 78 percent -- for allowing immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally to apply for citizenship if certain requirements are met.  And that's the exact intent of this bill. It's time to get past the emotion, and finally end the turf wars on immigration."
"4","Don't kill deal on immigration PGHK000020070523e35j00014 A; OPINION 673 Words 19 May 2007 Poughkeepsie Journal 4A English (c) Copyright 2007, Poughkeepsie Journal. All Rights Reserved.  Republican and Democrat leaders are so far apart on so many critically important issues - what to do about Iraq, how to proceed with a sound energy policy, where to draw the line between national security and a citizen's right to privacy - that deep political divisions have impeded much progress in Washington these days.  But federal leaders could be close to reaching compromise on one substantial matter - immigration reform - and they should make the most of it.  The deal would fast-track legal status to millions of undocumented workers. It would also increase security at U.S. borders to stem the tide of illegal immigrants  Some Republicans contend the proposal is too lenient in how it treats the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Some Democrats say the plan is too restrictive toward future immigrants and unfair to families. But concessions are necessary to reach compromise. And neither political party is about to do anything that would seemingly give the other a big advantage in the next presidential election.  Admirably, President Bush, former governor of a border state, has been pushing for a compromise for years now, though he was more inclined to start a pilot guest worker program, not make the wholesale changes this agreement offers. Bush and the key lawmakers involved in the deal realize the nation's ineffective immigration policies can't be ignored any longer.  ""This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty but without animosity,"" Bush said.  The lawmakers working out the details - including U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. - say the agreement represents the best chance to obtain necessary bipartisan approval.  Nevertheless, some Democratic and Republican leaders say they will oppose the bill. Understanding the possible political consequences of entering into a deal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Nev., says she won't bring up the matter unless Bush can guarantee enough House Republicans will vote for its passage. Another key Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, says he has ""serious concerns"" about the bill. For the most part, Democrats are upset that the new system would give preference to immigrants with certain skills, regardless of whether they have family ties in the United States.  Meanwhile, despite Bush's views to the contrary, some conservatives are branding the deal as ""amnesty."" U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, put it bluntly: ""What part of illegal does the Senate not understand? Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty.""  {dcbdc}Major roundup unlikely  Actually, the deal puts a premium on taking a pragmatic approach to a long and growing problem. The United States is not about to round up 12 million illegal immigrants. Neither the enforcement nor legal systems in our country could come close to handling such a task, and such a move would greatly hurt the economy. In many cases, unskilled immigrants are filling jobs Americans do not want; their presence has kept many goods and services, especially the cost of food, at more affordable rates for all Americans than would otherwise be the case.  Enabling illegal immigrants to come forward and begin a path to citizenship - contingent on paying fees and fines when appropriate - makes sense. While leaders on both sides are fretting over the potential consequences, few are addressing perhaps the most important concern: Will illegal immigrants come forward to enter the path to legal recognition, or will their fear of being deported be too much to overcome? Keep in mind, even under this bill, the road to permanent residency could take between eight and 13 years.  Nevertheless, negotiators of this deal have set forth some reasonable ways to bring more lawmakers on board to make a sweeping agreement possible. Their efforts should be discussed and debated, but they must not be scuttled or ignored. The nation needs a new strategy on immigration. Continually rejecting fresh approaches is simply not the answer."
"4","AN IMMIGRATION BILL WORTHY OF OUR COUNTRY RNKE000020070522e35j0000b EDITORIAL 413 Words 19 May 2007 Roanoke Times & World News METRO B9 English © 2007 Roanoke Times & World News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  President Bush and Senate leaders agreed on an immigration bill that treats people humanely, provides much-needed security for our borders and cracks down on employers who favor cheap, illegal immigrant labor.  The compromise isn't perfect, but it does offer the best opportunity yet to address the growing problems attributed to illegal immigrants. The next hurdle will be to gain consensus with the House, which last year passed an immigration bill that could be summed up in one word -- mean.  There is reason to hope, as the majority now rests with Democrats. The immigration bill will be a test of leadership because it is unlikely that Congress will try again before members stand for reelection next year.  ""This is the last best chance to pass immigration reform,"" warned Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. ""If this collapses, it would be years before you could re-create this.""  As unwieldy as the immigration problem has grown in recent years, without reform, it will only worsen. The burden will then continue to be shouldered by local and state governments that already try to piece together mostly punitive measures to deal with the impact on their communities.  This is a national problem that requires a national solution. President Bush and Senate leaders have crafted a workable compromise that will both satisfy and upset each faction in the debate. It isn't everything all might wish for, but it is fair enough to be agreeable to the liberal Ted Kennedys and the conservative Jon Kyls of the Senate.  The bill starts by recognizing that it is not feasible to lock up 12 million people and deport them. It then provides for ways in which some illegal immigrants can earn citizenship and others can gain temporary worker status. Labor unions don't like this because they believe guest workers will permanently depress wages.  Nor do some like the shift from a family-based immigration policy to one focused on employment. This could pose a hardship on families by making it difficult for adult siblings and children to join their families.  Businesses, too, will grumble about added regulations as the bill would require employers to electronically verify new hires.  But each faction does stand to gain as well.  It is a serious compromise that seeks to be humane, practical and tighten our borders. Once it gains passage in the Senate, House members would serve their constituents well with swift concurrence."
"2","LETTERS FROM READERS SLMO000020070519e35j00030 Editorial 1060 Words 19 May 2007 St. Louis Post-Dispatch Third Edition A38 English Copyright 2007, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. All Rights Reserved.  Superhighway: It's not a conspiracy, but it's real  Regarding ""Would you believe the United States, Canada and Mexico will merge, with a 'SuperCorridor' through an immigration and trade center in Missouri?"" (May 13): No one who has written about a superhighway from Mexico to Canada has ever charged that it is a conspiracy. By definition, a conspiracy must be secretly hatched. There is nothing secret about the superhighway.  The first leg of the superhighway was created by the signing of a contract by which the Texas governor and Department of Transportation assigned a 50-year lease to a Spanish company, Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, to build a toll road from Mexico through Texas to Oklahoma, requiring the use of eminent domain powers to take a half million acres of farmland and ranch land.  Texas Rep. Mike Krusee, who said he knows of no plans to build a superhighway through Texas, is well known as the chief promoter of the Texas superhighway, which has created a firestorm in the Texas Legislature. When the Texas House voted 139 to 1 on May 2 to stop the highway with a two-year moratorium, Mr. Krusee was the one who voted no. The Senate previously voted 27 to 4 against the toll road.  It's obvious that such an expensive toll road won't dead-end at the Oklahoma border. Ask the Kansas City City Council about its plan to bring highway and rail lines north and make Kansas City a ""port."" Kansas City already has committed $3 million of taxpayers' money and has been in negotiations with Mexico for three years.  President George W. Bush did go to Waco, Texas, in 2005 and proclaim the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, and he did go to Cancun in 2006 to celebrate its first anniversary. That is not ""rumor"" or ""conspiracy."" You can read about it and see the pictures on the White House website.  The Post-Dispatch article artfully claims that plans for North America are merely ""cooperation"" and ""coordination."" If you read the Council on Foreign Relations document posted on its website, you will see that the operative words are not those, but are ""common outer perimeter,"" ""integration,"" ""freer flow of people within North America"" and ""seamless North American market.""  Please get the facts straight before making accusations about ""conspiracy."" It looks like the only conspiracy is the one to try to discredit people who comment about what we read on the White House, SSP, CFR, SmartPort and other websites.  Phyllis Schlafly | Ladue  Sour review  I had the opportunity to read Marcus Eriksen's ""My River Home"" shortly after it was published. When I read the review ""Life, love and war on a raft trip home"" (May 6), I was offended by the sour, dismissive tone and felt it was an attempt, like so many defenders of this current disastrous war, to discount the messenger to invalidate the message.  I am a veteran and a writer. When I read ""My River Home,"" I concluded that Mr. Eriksen was one of those rare people with the courage to face their failings, reveal their confusions and chronicle their internal shifts so that others might be encouraged to do the same. That he writes poignantly and lyrically is part of what makes this book important reading for those who wish to understand returning veterans.  Wilson ""Woody"" Powell | Pacific  Stirring symphony  It is not often that one is privileged to attend a performance in which composer, conductor, chorus and soloists achieve both brilliant musicianship and profound depth in presenting a piece of music. I thank the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra, David Robertson, Christine Brewer, Paul Groves, Dwayne Croft, the St. Louis Symphony Chorus and the St. Louis Children's Choirs for a magnificent and stirring performance of Benjamin Britten's monumental anti-war paean ""War Requiem.""  Together, they expressed the complete futility and tragedy of warfare through the combination of a Latin Requiem Mass interspersed with the poetry of Wilfred Owen. In the excerpt from his poem, ""Strange Meeting,"" Mr. Owen's words are sung in a dialogue between an English and a German soldier. They are beyond any analysis or explanation: ""I am the enemy you killed, my friend.""  Margaret P. Gilleo | Ladue  Actually, we hate unfair taxes  Paul Sloca, communications director of the Missouri Republican Party, says that Missourians detest tax increases (Letter, ""Well, we do hate taxes,"" May 12). What Missourians hate is our unfair state and local tax systems that put a much heavier tax burden on low- and middle-income people than on the wealthy. To be fair, taxes must be based on the ability to pay.  Taxes are not punishment. They are an investment in the common good in our community.  So, if you hate taxes, I offer this advice:  Don't flush your toilet. Don't drive on paved streets or highways. Don't call 911. Don't bring your garbage to the curb. Don't fly in an airplane that uses air-traffic controllers. Don't use the court system. Don't call the police when you get robbed. Don't send your children to public schools. Don't attend a state university. Don't expect a Social Security payment. Don't let Medicare pay your medical bills if you are 65 or older or disabled. Don't make use of police services. Don't call the fire department. Don't expect federal assistance if a natural disaster destroys your home or business. Don't expect the military to defend your country. Don't visit national parks or hike in national forests. Don't eat U.S. Department of Agriculture- inspected meat, cheese, eggs or produce. Don't take any medications tested and approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Don't use the public library. Don't go to a state university-affiliated hospital. Don't watch state college sports. Don't go to a state, city or municipal-run airport. Don't ask to use the G.I. bill to go to college. Don't get married, have children or die and expect the government to keep track of all the certificates. Don't use public transportation. Don't visit public museums. Don't cross a bridge.  Pat Martin | Kirkwood Chair, Missourians for Tax Justice YOUR VIEWS"
"4","Trigger-Happy; On immigration, the cost of wishful thinking may be high. WP00000020070519e35j0000l Editorial 472 Words 19 May 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A16 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  SUPPOSE FOR a moment that the Senate's immigration bill, unveiled Thursday amid great fanfare, becomes law this year. Here's a partial, multibillion-dollar to-do list for the Department of Homeland Security:  * Hire, train and deploy 5,000 to 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents, bringing the total force to 18,000.  * Hire, train and deploy thousands more civilian workers who would begin registering an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country, and provide the technical and logistical capacity to do that, including registration centers, electronic fingerprinting, etc.  * Erect 370 miles of fencing along the Mexican border.  * Develop and implement a comprehensive worker-verification system that would enable employers to quickly check on whether a job applicant is in the country legally.  Oh, and by the way, the deadline for all that would be the end of 2008.  That would be a tall order and a daunting time frame for any government agency, let alone a bureaucratic behemoth such as Homeland Security, which has been beset by organizational inefficiencies from its creation. But according to the Senate immigration bill, meeting all those goals is necessary -- a trigger, in legislative parlance -- for going forward with a major element of the new immigration system that would allow 400,000 to 600,000 temporary workers to enter the country legally each year. In other words, the department's failure to satisfy the legislation's so-called triggers could mean an ongoing influx of illegal immigrants and more deaths in the desert or, if the new fencing is effective, a critical shortage of low-skilled labor in construction, landscaping, hospitality and other industries.  Secretary Michael Chertoff and his aides insist that the department is up to the task. Employers are much less sanguine. They point out that for the employee-verification system to work, there would need to be an unprecedented level of technical cooperation and coordination between U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency of DHS, and the Social Security Administration. (The verification system relies on cross-checking Social Security numbers.) A pilot program along those lines has worked reasonably well for the past few years, but a system covering everyone will have to handle 60 million annual inquiries from the country's 7 million or so employers. Brace yourself for the inevitable breakdowns, glitches and bungles, whether the system is ready on time or not.  The triggers make some political sense. There will be enormous pressure for them to be implemented on time so that the temporary-worker program can go forward. But the cost of long delays, which would be the norm in a project of this magnitude, will be high indeed. That possibility should invite scrutiny from senators. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200705191ED-IMMIGRATION19"
"4","Best chance yet at immigration fix CINC000020070523e35k0002y E; Editorial 860 Words 20 May 2007 The Cincinnati Enquirer Final 2 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Cincinnati Enquirer. All Rights Reserved.  Enquirer Editorial  A new, bipartisan compromise on immigration reform being considered in the U.S. Senate offers some hope - finally - that the political impasse might be broken on one of the thorniest issues facing America: what to do about the estimated 12 million people who are here illegally.  The product of three months of negotiations among lawmakers, the plan announced Thursday (see outline at right) is far from ideal, and we're likely to see substantial changes before - and if - it is approved by both houses of Congress. Conservatives object to some parts of it; liberals object to others. But politicians and members of the public who don't see this complex, 380-page bill as their preferred solution shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.  As Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., put it: ""To the American people, I would say, 'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.' ""  We'd second that - and add that the federal government has made such a mess of immigration policy in the past couple of decades that any thoughtful, fully vetted proposal is bound to be an improvement. Opponents on the left and right already have denounced the Senate plan, yet some proponents say they're confident it will be approved.  President Bush, who should get credit for helping move this issue forward in the past last year despite opposition within his own party, says the compromise's approach ""will help enforce our borders but, equally important, it will treat people with respect."" His unlikely ally on this issue, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., calls it ""the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America.""  To do that, both sides will have to tone down the rhetoric.  Some conservatives are labeling this plan - or any other plan short of mass deportations - as ""amnesty."" But the long, difficult path toward legal residency it offers hardly fits that word. And we have to face facts. It is physically impossible to move 12 million people out of the country, and we wouldn't want to anyway. The disruption could devastate our economy - and notably, as Feinstein has correctly pointed out, the nation's food supply through the loss of agricultural workers. We do need what many of these immigrants have brought to our nation.  Some liberals are concerned that the reform would be too restrictive, based more on immigrants' education and skills than family ties, and would unfairly create a class of temporary workers. But it is clear our border security must be strengthened, and we cannot afford to allow virtually unrestricted entry into the U.S., which could further strain our resources and tear at the nation's social fabric.  If there is to be an immigration reform, it should be done soon, before presidential election-year politics intervene. Some announced candidates have already made it a point of contention, and any delay will make it impossible for lawmakers to do anything but posture and bluster on the issue. This may be our best - our only - opportunity in years to craft a substantial immigration reform. Kennedy called it ""our last-gasp stand.""  As we said almost exactly a year ago, Americans should expect Congress to pass ""a rational, humane solution that both values those who have come here to work and demands respect for our borders and laws.""  Compromise is often difficult; this one will be particularly difficult. But at various turning points in our history, leaders have been able to find common ground in ways that upheld the essential principles behind this nation.  ""I think we've got a deal that reflects who we are as Americans,"" Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said. Let's hope he is correct - both about the deal and about who we are.  About the plan  Key points in the proposed immigration reform:  Illegal immigrants who arrived before Jan. 1 get a work authorization and are placed on a track (eight to 13 years long) to permanent residence.  Those who apply must pay a $5,000 penalty over time, and the heads of household must return to their home countries, with a guaranteed right of return here.  The Border Patrol would be doubled, with a new security perimeter and border fence.  Afterward, a ""guest worker"" program would begin to allow 400,000 temporary workers a year for two-year visas, after which the workers would have to return home for a year, then re-enter for additional two-year work stints.  Guest workers would earn points toward a ""merit-based"" green card, and could bring their families for 30-day visits each year.  What do you think? Do you agree with the provisions in this plan, or would you suggest alternatives? To comment, go to the Conversation box on Enquirer.Com, or e-mail your thoughts to letters@enquirer.com.  CAPTION: The Associated Press CAPTION: Demand for U.S. immigration reform has prompted many rallies nationwide, such as this one in CAPTION: Tulsa, Okla, earlier this month."
"2","Tell senators to pass a few binding resolutions for a change CINC000020070523e35k0002x E; Editorial 748 Words 20 May 2007 The Cincinnati Enquirer Final 2 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Cincinnati Enquirer. All Rights Reserved.  Your Letters  I would like to congratulate the U.S. Senate for passing another non-binding resolution. This resolution states they will pass a spending bill to fund the troops in Iraq by Memorial Day.  Do they think the American people are stupid? Our senators are afraid to take a stand for or against this war. Please contact your senators and ask them to take a stand on funding for the troops, illegal immigration and Social Security. Tell them we are looking for serious solutions to serious problems, and we are tired of them wasting the taxpayers' money on non-binding resolutions.  Dan Gay  Liberty Township  Declare victory,  pull troops out of Iraq  Regarding the guest column by Sen. Jim Bunning ""Iraq war not lost; politicizing it jeopardizes our troops, their mission"" (May 5): After reading and listening to the debate over the military spending bill recently passed by Congress and vetoed by our president, I have noticed one of the questions that keeps arising is whether we can ""win"" the war or whether it is already ""lost.""  Looking back at why we went to war in Iraq, I have to come to the conclusion that we have indeed won the war and it has been won for some time. Iraq is clear of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein is not longer the leader of the country, and a democratically elected government is in power. It is now time to declare victory, remove our troops, and help to organize a regionally brokered agreement to bring about an end to the civil war in the country. Keeping our troops in the middle of the conflict is causing a needless loss of American lives and a waste of American treasure.  Brad Homoelle  Cheviot  GOP can't let Dems  win immigrant vote  If the Republicans let the immigration bill pass as it is now written, they will be committing political suicide. By legalizing 12 million immigrants now in this country, and millions more to come who are hungry for ""entitlements"" available to them, the Democratic Party will vastly outnumber the Republicans and we will become a one-party country. The burden of supporting these entitled masses will be enormous. We need to reduce the illegal aliens not give them ""legal status"" to drain our economy.  Robert Minke  Independence  Visit Police Museum  well worth the time  In keeping with National Police Memorial Week,I would like to suggest that participants and guests include in their activities a visit to the Cincinnati Police Museum, at Eighth Street and Freeman Avenue. There is easy access and plenty of parking.  I had the opportunity to visit the museum recently and was very impressed with the accumulation of memorabilia that has been put together. Equally impressive were the volunteers who give of their time. They are very knowledgeable and exhibit great pride in relating stories about the policemen and women of yesterday and today. The stories cause one to wonder why we as citizens do not have more respect for these brave, dedicated men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day.  Jean S. Hunt  Sharonville  ACT answers were  printed wrong  How can a front-page Enquirer article on the ACT, of all things (May 17), be so filled with errors? On Question 1, the correct answer is ""B,"" but it is x to the 4th power; it is erroneously printed ""x4."" Surely the printing technology exists to print this correctly. The Question No. 2 ""Answer"" shows ""K."" There was no ""K"" as a choice among the five possible answers, A through E.  On question No. 3, you seem to have this one right. Congratulations, you just failed your ACT (Accuracy, Content Test).  Rick Jones  Madeira  We're grateful for  what Falwell did  Seeing Jim Borgman's May 17 cartoon, I wasn't surprised. I didn't expect him to accept Jerry Falwell or his cause. But there are many of us who were grateful for Falwell and his dedicated life. He loved the sinner but hated the sin. He meant a lot to a lot of us. He became a national conservative leader when we really needed one, and he did so at great cost to his own work and even his health. He fought the good fight until the very end and speaking for many, we are very glad he did.  Linda Ervin  Liberty Township"
"4","Hope on immigration DYRC000020070522e35k00016 OPINION01 307 Words 20 May 2007 Daily Record English (c) Copyright 2007, Daily Record. All Rights Reserved.  A compromise by its very nature is not perfect. But that doesn't make it bad.  Representative Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate have reached a compromise on immigration, which has been attacked by both the left and the right. The partisan attacks ignore the reality that both sides must give a little to get something done. Prior to the compromise made public this week, nothing had been done on immigration since the House and Senate passed very different bills last year.  Those unhappy with this compromise should answer the following question: Would they rather that nothing be done?  The proposed compromise would accept reality and grant temporary legal status --a Z visa -- to illegal workers now in the United States as long as they have no criminal record and paid a $1,000 fine. Workers would receive a four-year, renewable visa allowing employment in the United States after they paid $4,000 and passed an English test.  This is the part of the program that is raising a ruckus among some conservatives, who would only be satisfied if illegals were rounded up and deported. These critics need a reality check. Deportation is not going to happen. It would be inhumane, and the workers are contributing to the American economy.  Other aspects of the compromise are not liberal at all. The Z visa program would not begin until border security is strengthened. The compromise also stipulates that those with Z visas cannot become citizens or get permanent residency -- a green card -- until the head of a household leaves the country for an indefinite period. It also says English is the language of the United States.  The compromise proposes to deal humanely with a very complicated problem. We think those representing New Jersey in the House and Senate should support it."
"4","Surprise, senators agreeing on illegals DYRC000020070521e35k00010 OPINION03 616 Words 20 May 2007 Daily Record English (c) Copyright 2007, Daily Record. All Rights Reserved.  Bipartisan efforts in the Senate have resulted in a compromise immigration reform package that reformers hope will eventually end up on President Bush's desk.  The hours leading up to the announcement Thursday produced an unexpected twist: A provision that was supposed to be controversial wasn't, and something expected to be a no-brainer turned into a sticking point.  Political observers had predicted that the main stumbling block to a compromise would be the thorny question of what to do with 12 million illegal immigrants. Since a mass deportation is impractical and futile, the most popular choices are: (a) offer illegal immigrants a conditional path to earned legal status; or (b) make jobs so difficult to get that they -- don't laugh -- self-deport.  I shouldn't mock. Why not require illegal immigrants to take over the chore of policing themselves? We outsource everything else.  The debate was supposed to be over the question of what to do with workers already here. Yet the real point of contention turned out to be a White House proposal to import an additional 400,000 temporary ""guest workers"" per year using so-called Y visas, which would be renewable every few years. Conservatives want to make sure that temporary doesn't become permanent and that workers go home when the time on their visa is up. Liberals are afraid workers would be exploited and then tossed aside with no protection, much less a shot at putting down roots and pursuing the American Dream.  That's a discussion worth having, but as the full Senate argues over the compromise in the weeks to come, it should keep in mind that there's a much larger issue to be resolved first: the fate of the illegal immigrants already here.  The assumption had been that Republicans in Congress -- reluctant to offend the party's base -- would never go along with a path to legalization. They've learned to live with the idea. In the negotiations, a consensus emerged that such a concession is acceptable -- provided the path includes numerous conditions, unfolds over a substantial period of time, and comes with a renewed emphasis on border enforcement.  Republicans must see the writing on the wall. Americans have warmed up to the idea of giving illegal immigrants a chance to earn legal status. Look at the polls. There's been a radical shift in public opinion since this debate first started almost six years ago. In 2001, when President Bush floated the idea of legalizing the undocumented, polls showed about two-thirds of Americans opposed to the idea. Now, surveys show as much as 78 percent willing to go along with a conditional path to legal status.  Whatever the reason, more and more Americans seem resigned to the idea that we're about to see a massive legalization program -- albeit one that is conditional on immigrants paying fines, learning English, perhaps even returning to their home country briefly in a ""touchback"" before re-entering legally.  There are still big issues to resolve with regard to any path to legal status, so it was a bit surreal to see senators arguing over the minutiae of a guest-worker program that isn't even in place yet. It's hard to tell whether that is evidence of progress or another example of why members of Congress seem out of their depth when tackling what is perhaps our most daunting domestic policy issue.  Say, maybe it's their jobs we need to outsource.  {dcIdc}Ruben Navarrette Jr., is a columnist and editorial board member of The San Diego Union Tribune. He can be reached at ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com. "
"4","A Good Starting Point But immigration plan will need some work DAL0000020070520e35k0000t POINTS EDITORIALS 796 Words 20 May 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 2P English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  The fact that the Senate will return to immigration this week is a political miracle of sorts. Sharply divergent points of view - and we mean really sharp - have stalled the debate for an entire year.  Thanks, however, to brutal negotiations involving the White House and dedicated senators from both parties, the Senate will start with a bipartisan bill. Deserving of Texans' thanks for renewing the debate are President Bush, who has kept the issue alive in speeches, and lead Senate negotiators Ted Kennedy and Jon Kyl.  As an editorial board that has pushed hard for immigration reform, we think this bill is a good place to begin - but with the understanding that major work is still to be done:  The selling points  Border security: The plan doesn't wink at ratcheting up border security. The addition of 18,000 border agents and 70 new radar towers will help take the lawlessness out of the southern border. So will the resources to detain 27,500 aliens a day.  We have never been wild about a border fence, but the 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of road barriers should satisfy those who think a wall will reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. In fact, border hawks should like that many security measures must be in place before a new temporary worker program starts.  Enforcing the worksite: One of the best parts is the new electronic identification system. Employers will know if they are hiring legal workers. There's too much uncertainty today when it comes to worker IDs. The situation in Cactus, Texas, proved that.  Unlike the current system, all workers must prove they are here legally. Under the new system, employers would run their info through a new national verification database. If those on the job aren't legal, the employers are fined and the workers are fired.  Pathway to citizenship: Mr. Kyl, a Republican, has reversed course and acknowledged that there's no way to correct our immigration problems without giving the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living here a chance to earn citizenship. More power to the man for stepping forward, knowing many will scream amnesty.  It's not.  Illegal immigrants seeking citizenship must pay a $5,000 fine, possess a job, undergo a background check and wait eight to 13 years before becoming a citizen. They don't jump to the head of any line. In fact, they can't earn citizenship until all current applications are approved or rejected.  They can eventually earn citizenship, though, and that's crucial to getting immigrants to come out of the shadows.  What needs work  Temporary workers: 400,000 foreign workers could qualify for employment visas annually. That essentially matches the number of foreign workers who come here illegally each year.  There's a catch, though, that could make the provision unworkable. Temporary workers could earn three two-year work visas. In between each two-year stint, they would have to return home for one year.  The risk with the return-home requirement is that some workers may go underground and stay here. We would prefer that senators amend the bill to match the House plan, which has no return-home provision for temporary workers.  At the least, senators should amend it so more exceptions can be granted to workers in high-demand industries. That would minimize the temptation for some workers to go underground.  Green cards: Fortunately, temporary workers could earn a green card after their work stints end. But that could become a mirage if the Senate doesn't include enough cards that let workers stay here legally. (Green cards allow for legal permanent residency, not citizenship.)  The Senate would be foolish to ignore reality. Temporary workers with good jobs probably will stay here, even if they can't get a green card. So it's important to have enough cards to go around in order to know who is actually here.  This proposal represents an improvement over the status quo, but it's not the endgame. We urge Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn to address these shortfalls this week.  The next few months will be like crawling through broken glass, as Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum aptly put it Friday. But Washington must grit its teeth and work through the pain if the nation is to finally fix our broken immigration system.  STILL NOT SOLD?  Why border hawks should like the Senate plan:  - 18,000 new border agents  - Ends ""catch and release"" of illegal immigrants  - 70 new radar towers  - Resources to detain 27,500 illegal immigrants a day  - An electronic verification system for all employees  - Illegal workers lose their jobs  - Employers face big fines"
"4","EDITORIAL A BORDER FIX? PROSPECTS FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM GET BRIGHTER LAD0000020070523e35k00014 Editorial 447 Words 20 May 2007 Los Angeles Daily News VALLEY V2 English � 2007 Los Angeles Daily News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  THAT Senate Democrat and Republican leaders, as well as President George W. Bush, have agreed on a tentative immigration plan gives rise to hope that comprehensive reform may be here at last.  It's about time.  For 20 years, it's been no secret that America's immigration policies were badly broken. And since 9-11, it's been exceedingly clear that those broken polices endanger national security.  But getting the nation's leaders to actually revise our immigration laws has been a near-impossible feat. The Senate came close by passing a plan last year, but it was torpedoed in the House of Representatives.  This time around, the House has new leadership, but that's no guarantee of a different result.  The problem with immigration is that it bumps into several sacred cows, and outside of the Senate, the ideologues on all sides have been unwilling to compromise.  On the one hand, we have restrictionists who refuse to accept any plan that normalizes the status of some 12 million illegal immigrants already living here. On the other, there are immigration activists who oppose even sensible efforts at border enforcement or modest civil penalties for those who have violated the nation's laws.  Yet while both sides dig in their heels, the country goes without reform that it desperately needs.  Whatever becomes of the Senate's compromise plan, the final version of immigration reform must contain the following ingredients if it is to do any good:  A sensible system for new immigrants to enter the country legally. Greater enforcement may help shore up our borders, but only reasonable options for legal immigration will effectively end illegal immigration.  A mechanism for making the millions of illegal immigrants who are already here legal and, eventually, citizens. It's morally unacceptable -- and a security risk -- to have millions of people living here invisibly. The law must work to bring illegal immigrants out of the shadows, thus protecting them from exploitation and all of us from the criminality that the current system encourages.  Realistic requirements. It will be of no value if the new law is as widely ignored and unenforced as the old ones. Onerous regulations that would preclude compliance should be an obvious nonstarter.  Within these general parameters, compromises of all kinds by all sides will be necessary. Immigration supporters and opponents alike, for example, will likely need to accept that a path to citizenship is the price to pay for tougher enforcement -- and vice versa.  The Senate compromise plan looks like a good start. Now it's up to the rest of Washington to finish the job."
"4","The Immigration Deal NYTF000020070520e35k000dt Editorial Desk; SECT4 774 Words 20 May 2007 The New York Times Late Edition - Final 11 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  The immigration deal announced in the Senate last week poses an excruciating choice. It is a good plan wedded to a repugnant one. Its architects seized a once-in-a-generation opportunity to overhaul a broken system and emerged with a deeply flawed compromise. They tried to bridge the chasm between brittle hard-liners who want the country to stop absorbing so many outsiders, and those who want to give immigrants -- illegal ones, too -- a fair and realistic shot at the American dream.  But the compromise was stretched so taut to contain these conflicting impulses that basic American values were uprooted, and sensible principles ignored. Many advocates for immigrants have accepted the deal anyway, thinking it can be improved this week in Senate debate, or later in conference with the House of Representatives. We both share those hopes and think they are unrealistic. The deal should be improved. If it is not, it should be rejected as worse than a bad status quo.  The good. Part of the compromise is strikingly appealing. It is the plan to give most of the estimated 12 million immigrants here illegally the chance to live and work without fear and to become citizens eventually. The conditions are tough, including a $5,000 fine, and a wait until certain ''trigger'' conditions on border security are met and immigration backlogs are cleared. It requires heads of households to apply in their home countries, sending them on a foolish ''touchback'' pilgrimage. That is a large concession to Republican hard-liners, but they, too, have come a long way: consider that last year the House of Representatives wanted to brand the 12 million and those who gave them aid as criminals. A winding and expensive path to citizenship is still a path.  The bad. The deal badly erodes two bedrock principles of American immigration: that employers can sponsor immigrants to fill jobs and that citizens and legal permanent residents have the right to sponsor family members -- young children and spouses, of course, but also their grown children, siblings and parents. The proposal would eliminate several categories of family-based immigration, and it would distribute green cards according to a point-based system that shifts the preference toward those who have education and skills but not necessarily roots in this country. Supporters say that the proposal has been tweaked to give some weight to kinship, and that many immigrants would still be able to bring loved ones in. But the repellent truth is that countless families will be split apart while we cherry-pick the immigrants we consider brighter and better than the poor, tempest-tossed ones we used to welcome without question.  The awful. The agreement fails most dismally in its temporary worker program. ''Temporary means temporary'' has been a Republican mantra, motivated by the thinly disguised impulse to limit the number of workers, Latinos mostly, doing the jobs Americans find most distasteful. The deal calls for the creation of a new underclass that could work for two years at a time, six at the most, but never put down roots. Immigrants who come here under that system -- who play by its rules, work hard and gain promotions, respect and job skills -- should be allowed to stay if they wish. But this deal closes the door. It offers a way in but no way up, a shameful repudiation of American tradition that will encourage exploitation -- and more illegal immigration.  It is painful, for many reasons, to oppose this immigration deal. It is no comfort to watch as this generation's Know-Nothings bray against ''amnesty'' from their anchor chairs and campaign lecterns, knowing that it gives hope to the people they hate.  It is especially difficult because lives are in the balance. The millions without documents live in constant fear: a campaign of federal raids has spread panic and shattered families. Congress's dithering has encouraged the rise of homegrown zealots: mayors, police departments, county executives and legislators who take reform into their own hands, with cruelly punitive measures. No amount of hostile legislation is going to drive the immigrants away. A collapsed immigration deal could put off reform for years, and encourage more of this cruelty.  It is the nation's duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders."
"4","Immigration debate ; New plan has key elements for solution OKC0000020070522e35k0002j OPINION OUR VIEWS 482 Words 20 May 2007 The Oklahoman CITY 18A English Copyright 2007 The Oklahoman Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.  WITH the U.S. Senate scheduled to open debate this week on a compromise immigration reform proposal, we like what Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said as the plan took fire from all sides within hours of its unveiling.  ""The question is, do you want to solve the problem or do you want to complain about it?"" Chertoff responded. ""There will be people who want to complain and will miss the problem if they can't complain about it. This is about solving it.""  Certainly, the bipartisan compromise announced last week has flaws. It's bound to. Immigration is as complex as any issue in the public square, and the solution won't come easily. Indeed, because of immigration's complexities and the attendant political considerations, the issue has been on hold in Washington for too long.  This new proposal is a serious attempt at comprehensive reform. It can be the basis for a thoughtful, adult discussion, which we hope will result in long-needed action. As Chertoff said, let's hope the politicians don't miss the problem in the rhetorical blizzard that will accompany the Senate's work.  The compromise would grant temporary legal status to virtually all of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the United States, while allowing them to apply for residence visas and citizenship � at the end of an 8- to 13-year process. That's key, because it would protect those who've obeyed the law trying to become U.S. citizens.  It would set up a guest worker program that would let foreigners work in the United States two years before returning home for a year � for up to three cycles. An immigration point system based on education, work skills and English proficiency would be created. Speaking English, we think, is critical.  Nothing would be done until after tough, modern border controls and a crackdown on undocumented workers are in place.  Conservative critics say the proposal amounts to amnesty for illegal immigrants and that promises to secure the border as a first priority will prove empty. We hope not. Ending illegal immigration is critical to a comprehensive solution. So is realistically addressing the current illegal population, recognizing the economy needs workers and acknowledging the valuable contributions immigrants can make, as they have throughout America's history.  The compromise proposal appears to hit the key areas that must make up a solution to the immigration problem. The fact that past attempts have come up short is no reason to do nothing or focus on simplistic notions � like building a wall from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas.  An immigration solution is long overdue. Let the Senate debate in good faith and develop a plan that will be fair, workable and remember, always, that America is a nation of immigrants. EDITORIAL (immigration graphic)"
"5","FAIR DEAL THE IMMIGRATION COMPROMISE CAN'T BE PUT OFF PPGZ000020070520e35k0001n EDITORIAL 741 Words 20 May 2007 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette FIVE STAR H-2 English � 2007 Post Gazette Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Plenty of issues in American political life can be put off until another day. With immigration reform, the nation does not have that luxury. Everyone needs to remember that, in considering the imperfect but necessary compromise worked out by Senate negotiators to get this thorniest of legislative initiatives moving at last.  * * *  At least 12 million illegal immigrants are already here, and for all the horror stories concerning their presence, their labor and talents have become indispensable to the economy, especially in low- level jobs that Americans themselves scorn. To leave them here as a permanent underclass, with uncertainty, fear and no opportunity to match their residency with the obligations of citizenship, is a certain prescription for social alienation and distress.  Even if it were possible to ship every one of them home, a logistical nightmare beyond imagining, the forced deportations would be as cruel as anything seen since the Nazis loaded up their trains to purify their fatherland.  There is no tomorrow, no manana, on this issue. The problem is now and it is only going to get worse if that truth is not faced squarely. The choice is very simple: to play the demagogue or to work out a solution. The Senate negotiators, with the support of President Bush, have made the responsible choice, fashioning a comprehensive bill that cannot please everyone, which is the sign of many a good compromise.  The framework of that solution has been known for months. In the first place, the borders must be made secure and employers must be required to check that only legal immigrants work for them. The other essential step is to permit immigrants to apply for legal status (provided they have no criminal record) and set them on the path of eventual citizenship.  In melding the concerns of Republicans and Democrats, the bill does all these things. It calls for the construction of 370 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border (and 200 miles of vehicle barriers plus 70 ground-based radar and camera towers). It would add 18,000 Border Patrol agents. And it would require employers to electronically verify new hires within 18 months and existing employees within three years.  The proposed law requires that these security benchmarks be reached before provisions opening the path to legalization and citizenship take effect. Illegal immigrants could then obtain a renewable ""Z visa"" allowing them to stay in the country indefinitely. After paying fees and fines totaling $5,000, they could eventually get on track for permanent residency, but it might take eight to 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first. A temporary worker program also would allow up to 600,000 people to fill jobs that American employees can't fill.  Even so, there's something here for everyone to dislike. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, for example, has concerns about the temporary worker program and the limitations on family immigration (the bill would place more emphasis on job skills and education than family ties).  Conservatives are repelled by giving a group of foreigners who broke the law ""amnesty,"" although many of the bill's supporters claim it is not that. These last objections, coming from those who normally support the president, threaten to be the most damaging. Their concerns will be amplified by broadcast blowhards who tap into the nativist sentiments in America that have never completely gone away.  * * *  Yes, obeying the law is important, but there are probably few adults in America who haven't broken the law at some stage of their lives. And there are far worse crimes than coming illegally to a country that is a beacon of hope and opportunity in order to pursue a better life for yourself and your family. Who among us who love America can say we would not have done that ourselves? In that context, amnesty -- for that is what it is -- is not perfect but it is reasonable, as long as Congress and the White House take steps to secure the borders, thus ensuring this is the last time it is ever granted.  Immigration reform has to be done, it has to succeed and it can't wait. If the demagogues succeed in derailing it, America will be the loser. To their credit, President Bush and some in the Senate are now bravely defying the naysayers. "
"4","SENATE DEBATE: IMMIGRATION MEASURE COMBINES SANCTIONS, REAL-WORLD SOLUTIONS SRPD000020070522e35k0000m LOCAL 312 Words 20 May 2007 Press Democrat CITY B8 English � 2007 Press Democrat. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Any meaningful immigration reform measure will require two primary components. The measure needs to (1) toughen sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, and (2) provide some commonsense framework for dealing with the 12 million people who are in this country illegally but aren't going anywhere.  The bipartisan reform bill that will be debated in the U.S. Senate this week offers hope that, at last, progress is being made on this divisive issue.  Among other things, the bill would improve American competitiveness by making education and job skills, as well as family relations, factors in determining an illegal immigrant's application for legal residency.  Importantly, the measure also promises to beef up the Border Patrol and to strengthen enforcement both at the border and at places of employment.  It's not every day that a measure is endorsed by President Bush and Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, but both Bush and Kennedy on Thursday praised the compromise.  The president described the agreement as the foundation for ""an immigration system that is secure, productive, orderly and fair.""  Another supporter, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said the bill is likely to attract criticism from people on the right who think it isn't tough enough and people on the left who think it's too tough.  This is, of course, what happens with compromises. People with dogmatic views are determined to get everything they want from the bill -- even when it's obvious they can't have it their own way.  What should be obvious to everyone is that no one benefits from the current stalemate, which protects a status quo that no one likes.  If politics is the art of the possible, this compromise may represent an opportunity to move forward with a tough and honest approach to illegal immigration."
"1","OUR VIEWS // Road apathy RVSD000020070531e35k00010 EDITORIAL THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE 668 Words 20 May 2007 The Press-Enterprise D02 English � 2007 The Press-Enterprise. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  It is greatly disappointing that Inland Southern California's elected representatives in Washington are taking such a hands-off approach to easing Southern California's transportation woes. Federal legislators need to actively fight for the billions of dollars necessary to lighten the crush of international trade.  The federal government has a crucial role in addressing this region's traffic congestion and contributing toward solutions. Yet there is no legislation in Congress this year to fund much-needed railroad grade separations or truck-only lanes along Southern California's bustling trade corridors. And there are no bills to finance road and rail upgrades using a portion of the $6 billion-plus in customs revenue the U.S. government collects each year at the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.  Any such proposal would be a worthy cause for a U.S. senator or member of Congress. Yet California's representatives won't even commit to pursuing those goals when Congress takes up a transportation funding reauthorization bill in 2009.  Despite this legislative resistance, freight movement through Southern California is unquestionably a national issue. More than 75 million tons of merchandise passed through Riverside and San Bernardino counties last year to other parts of the United States. Just 3 million tons of that freight remained here.  And more freight is coming. Growth in trade from Asia will cost Southern California more than $36 billion over the next two decades, transportation planners say. Inland residents will pay a disproportionate share of that cost through longer commutes and a poorer quality of life - largely to handle the sofas, blenders and flat-screen TVs that pass through this region on their way to other states.  Winning federal funding for road and rail projects that would ease the local burden should top the California delegation's agenda. Yet Inland representatives appear reluctant to aid local efforts. The Riverside County Transportation Commission is circulating a sensible eight-year plan to finance and build 18 high-priority railroad grade separations. Part of the $510 million strategy calls for the federal government to contribute $233 million, or 41 percent of total project costs. The rest of the funds would come from local and state sources.  Incredibly, not a single Inland member of Congress backs the plan. That avoidance is all the more remarkable given that Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are top Democrats in a Democrat-controlled Congress.  Yet state and local transportation planners have consistently shown initiative on the goods-movement challenge in ways the federal government has not. California voters in November passed a $19.9 billion transportation bond to fund highway and rail improvements. San Bernardino and Riverside counties over the years have levied sales taxes and development fees to widen roads and fund rail-crossing construction. Meantime, Congress lards federal highway legislation with money to build bridges to nowhere in Alaska, while undercutting vital projects that would keep America's goods moving and the economy humming.  Given the legislative fights over immigration and the Iraq war, it might not be realistic to expect Feinstein or Boxer or any one member of Congress to win support for goods-movement projects this year. But they are not even making the effort, let alone selling the case. Voters should call their elected representatives to account for acting so indifferently to the foremost economic and environmental challenge confronting Southern California today.  * * *  CONTACT ELECTED OFFICIALS  U.S. SENATORS  Dianne Feinstein  Phone: 202-224-3841  E-mail: senator@feinstein.senate.gov.  Barbara Boxer  Phone: 202-224-3553  E-mail: senator@boxer.senate.gov  U.S. REPRESENTATIVES  26th District: David Dreier  Phone: 202-225-2305  41st District: Jerry Lewis  Phone: 202-225-5861  43rd District: Joe Baca  Phone: 202-225-6161  44th District: Ken Calvert  Phone: 202-225-1986  45th District: Mary Bono  Phone: 202-225-5330  49th District: Darrell Issa  Phone: 202-225-3303  Or visit http://www.house.gov for an easy way to write your representative."
"4","Trigger-Happy; On immigration, the cost of wishful thinking may be high. WP00000020070521e35k000dr Editorial 472 Words 20 May 2007 The Washington Post FINAL B06 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  SUPPOSE FOR a moment that the Senate's immigration bill, unveiled Thursday amid great fanfare, becomes law this year. Here's a partial, multibillion-dollar to-do list for the Department of Homeland Security:  * Hire, train and deploy 5,000 to 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents, bringing the total force to 18,000.  * Hire, train and deploy thousands more civilian workers who would begin registering an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country, and provide the technical and logistical capacity to do that, including registration centers, electronic fingerprinting, etc.  * Erect 370 miles of fencing along the Mexican border.  * Develop and implement a comprehensive worker-verification system that would enable employers to quickly check on whether a job applicant is in the country legally.  Oh, and by the way, the deadline for all that would be the end of 2008.  That would be a tall order and a daunting time frame for any government agency, let alone a bureaucratic behemoth such as Homeland Security, which has been beset by organizational inefficiencies from its creation. But according to the Senate immigration bill, meeting all those goals is necessary -- a trigger, in legislative parlance -- for going forward with a major element of the new immigration system that would allow 400,000 to 600,000 temporary workers to enter the country legally each year. In other words, the department's failure to satisfy the legislation's so-called triggers could mean an ongoing influx of illegal immigrants and more deaths in the desert or, if the new fencing is effective, a critical shortage of low-skilled labor in construction, landscaping, hospitality and other industries.  Secretary Michael Chertoff and his aides insist that the department is up to the task. Employers are much less sanguine. They point out that for the employee-verification system to work, there would need to be an unprecedented level of technical cooperation and coordination between U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency of DHS, and the Social Security Administration. (The verification system relies on cross-checking Social Security numbers.) A pilot program along those lines has worked reasonably well for the past few years, but a system covering everyone will have to handle 60 million annual inquiries from the country's 7 million or so employers. Brace yourself for the inevitable breakdowns, glitches and bungles, whether the system is ready on time or not.  The triggers make some political sense. There will be enormous pressure for them to be implemented on time so that the temporary-worker program can go forward. But the cost of long delays, which would be the norm in a project of this magnitude, will be high indeed. That possibility should invite scrutiny from senators. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200705201ED-IMMIGRATION19"
"4","IMMIGRATION COMPROMISE XWSJ000020070521e35k0000n A Editorial 404 Words 20 May 2007 Winston-Salem Journal METRO 20 English (c) Copyright 2007 Piedmont Publishing Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  For the hardliners in the immigration debate, no compromise will ever be good enough.  For one side, any form of legal status for the approximately 12 million immigrants now here illegally is unacceptable.  For the other, a quick and easy path to citizenship for these 12 million is a must - and, oh yes, their families must be welcomed into the country, too.  As is so often the case, the wisest policy lies somewhere in the middle, doors shut while deporting millions.  President Bush and a broad coalition of U.S. senators have reached a compromise, but it represents the right general direction for American immigration policy.  The United States must first, and foremost, secure its international borders. Every country must control its borders. Look around the world at the nations that do not and every case represents a disaster - think Pakistan and Iraq.  physically and legally. Fences will be built along the border with Mexico and more federal personnel will be sent there. (That may have the added benefit of stemming the illegal flow of drugs, too.) The compromise will call for a crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants and thus create the lure that brings them here.  The compromise also recognizes that the 12 million illegal immigrants already here create multiple problems of labor supply, human rights and compassion. The United States cannot find and deport all of these people. Even if it tried, it would have to split families that are comprised of citizens and noncitizens, those here legally on visas and those not.  The United States already has a labor shortage for many kinds of work. That is what drives this crisis. This compromise recognizes the need to keep the foreign labor here and to recruit more highly trained foreign workers in the future.  Many politicians are making their living from the immigration crisis. They offer tough words, but no hope for a solution. The traditional political spectrum does not apply here. Conservatives are on both sides, and so are liberals. Moderates are pleading for someone to prove that democracy can work in a heated environment and that compromise is possible.  The president has been right about immigration all along. He recognizes the complexity of the crisis and has pleaded for a compassionate and intelligent compromise. He and the Senate appear to have found that. It is time to solve this problem. This compromise will work."
"4","Last chance for reform CINP000020070522e35l0000b 461 Words 21 May 2007 The Cincinnati Post Cincinnati A.10 English � 2007 Cincinnati Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The compromise between President Bush and bipartisan Senate leaders is the last best shot at meaningful immigration reform.  The White House says Bush supports all the provisions in the measure, but if so, he's alone because seemingly everybody else objects to one or another portion of the 380-page bill. But this is shaping up as a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.  If immigration reform is not passed this year, it will get caught up in presidential-campaign politics next year, and there are already indications that at least some of the candidates -- with backer John McCain being a strong exception -- see no political mileage in supporting the bill. After that, it's anybody's guess, but a new president is unlikely to spend political capital on such a controversial issue.  For Bush, the bill may be the last chance of a battered presidency to enact a signature piece of legislation, but it will require the president to get into the trenches. Immigration reform faces tough going in the Senate and even tougher going in the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she won't bring it to the floor unless the president can produce at least 70 Republican votes.  The bill would change U.S. immigration policy in several important respects.  It would provide a path to legal status and ultimately citizenship for the 12 million here illegally after first clearing up the backlog of 4 million people patiently awaiting visas to enter the country legally.  It puts college students and members of the military brought here illegally as children a fast track to legal status.  It shifts some emphasis in the issuance of visas from reuniting families to admitting immigrants with desirable skills and education. And it allows for 400,000 to 600,000 guest workers a year to enter the country on a temporary basis.  It promises a database for employers to verify the legal status of their hires and then ups the penalties for hiring illegal workers once that verification system is in place.  Critics, and there are many, say the bill rewards lawbreakers, and by definition illegal immigrants have broken the law. But having stipulated that, then what? A humane and socially acceptable plan for expelling 12 million men, women and children from our country has yet to surface. And congressional critics of immigration reform always seem the quickest to denounce the feds for ""overzealous, heavy-handed tactics"" when employers in their districts are raided.  There is much in this bill that demands improvement, but the alternative is to go on as we've been going -- patching the border with a wall here, some barbed wire there and meanwhile the illegals still keep coming. Editorial"
"4","TIME TO COME OUT OF THE SHADOWS DFP0000020070524e35l000ax EDP; EDITORIAL 358 Words 21 May 2007 Detroit Free Press METRO FINAL 12A English (c) Copyright 2007, Detroit Free Press. All Rights Reserved.  If, in fact, 12 million people are living illegally in the United States, the federal government is not going to be able to round them up and send them home. The Customs and Border Patrol bureau in the Department of Homeland Security - with a budget of nearly $8 billion, 40,000 employees, National Guard help and new fencing - has been barely able to reduce the flow.  So the question to be debated by the Senate becomes what to do about them. The tentative deal announced last Thursday with the White House appears to be the foundation of a solution. The fact that it's being criticized by both the far left and the far right is a good sign.  The proposal deals with the present by requiring more border fortifications and allowing a new class of two-year ""guest workers"" into the country. It addresses the past by allowing illegal immigrants to come forward, pay a fine and demonstrate that they can live in this country without being a burden. And it speaks to the future by setting up a system based on skills, education and job experience for future arrivals who want to seek U.S. citizenship.  Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who had been adamantly opposed to overhauls of immigration, called the plan ""the best opportunity that we have in a bipartisan way to do something about this problem.""  But there are some sticking points, including a new point system that would be used to evaluate future immigrants. It sets a higher value on employment than on family connections, which could mean, for example, that three unrelated chemical engineers get admitted instead of one with a spouse and child.  For illegal immigrants, the plan hardly constitutes amnesty. The fine for those who come forward would be $5,000, and the waiting period 8-13 years to attain citizenship. That's a long wait, but in the meantime, people could stop living in the shadows and being exploited in a largely underground economy.  MEMO: IN OUR OPINION  DISCLAIMER: THIS ELECTRONIC VERSION MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM THE PRINTED ARTICLE"
"4","Editorials XHAD000020070523e35l00022 Main; A 384 Words 21 May 2007 Honolulu Advertiser 8 English (c) Copyright 2007, Honolulu Advertiser. All Rights Reserved.  Time for agreement on immigration reform  In the art of compromise, neither side gets 100 percent of its wish list granted. But in the end, the accord creates an overall better situation than what existed before. This is what the Senate must keep in mind today as it begins debating a landmark immigration compromise.  The agreement reached last week puts us on the path to overhauling a failing immigration process that for decades has forced millions into the shadows and pulled apart far too many hardworking families.  It's a good start and � with some key adjustments � it should be passed.  Some of the basics are rightly addressed. The plan would add 6,000 border patrol agents to deal with the country's porous borders, provide a streamlined electronic verification process for employers to verify its new hires and hold them accountable for violating the law.  It also would attempt to clear a staggering backlog of roughly 5 million applicants seeking to reunite with families, many of whom have waited more than 20 years.  The compromise bill offers probationary legal status for illegal immigrants in the country prior to Jan. 1, 2007, provided they pass criminal background checks and meet other requirements, including paying fines and fees. They could eventually become citizens in a painfully lengthy process estimated to take 12 years.  Applicants for these ""Z visas"" would face sizeable hurdles, including the requirement that heads of households must return to their home countries and reenter legally. They also would have to pay steep fines and fees: Applicants are subject to a $1,000 fine and a $1,500 processing fee. Renewals would cost another $500 and those seeking green cards would have to pay an additional $4,000 in fines.  The Senate this week has the chance to make some key improvements. For example, the fees are much too steep, particularly for those working in excruciatingly low-paying jobs. Sending heads of households back to their countries amounts to a disincentive to seeking the legal path to citizenship. And the focus on family reunification has been supplanted by a meritocracy platform; there should be a better balance in that regard.  Congress has the opportunity to move us forward through sensible compromise. Let's hope they make the most of it."
"5","EDITORIALS Getting It Right INVDAI0020070519e35l00005 ISSUES & INSIGHTS 622 Words 21 May 2007 Investor's Business Daily NATIONAL A16 English (c) 2007 Investor's Business Daily  Immigration: Like many, we're not entirely happy with the deal crafted by Congress last week. But that said, let's not hyperventilate in our anger. The bill is a compromise and, even now, still a work in progress. This is, after all, a Senate compromise, and it's clear it won't pass the House as now written. So there's still time to change the things we don't like, and improve the things we do.  As President Reagan used to say, sometimes half a loaf is better than none. And stepping back from the rhetoric that has marked this topic for years, there are positive things to say about this measure and even ways to make it acceptable.  To begin with: What's the big hurry? The bill hasn't even been printed yet. No one has read the whole thing. Yet, Senate leaders wants a vote early this week on the 740-page package. Not exactly the best way to handle ""comprehensive"" reform, if you ask us, and a big reason why so many people are panicked.  Before anything passes into law, hearings should be held and cost estimates provided. This measure is monumental and far-reaching, but crafted in a backroom by a cadre of pols working in secret. Now it's time to ask the people what they want.  When they do, politicians are likely to find that what Americans want most is secure borders. Indeed, a Rasmussen survey earlier this month found 56% prefer an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform.  Last year's Secure Fence Act was supposed to do just that -- by erecting a 750-mile fence along our 2,000-mile border with Mexico. It hasn't happened yet. Given how people feel, any bill that doesn't fully take into account border security is dead on arrival.  That's not to say Americans' feelings have blinded them to the fact that we are an immigrant nation, peopled literally by every country on Earth. But the 9/11 attacks drove home to many the importance of secure borders. Others see the 12 million to 20 million illegals already here as a massive failure of our justice system.  This is an extraordinarily large bloc of people to assimilate, and the welfare costs are enormous. As budget analyst Robert Rector recently told Congress, the social costs of low-wage illegals will exceed their benefits by about $1 trillion more over the next decade.  In any bill, the devil's in the details. We see the devil here clearly.  Under the compromise, 400,000 guest workers each year will get special visas that could be renewed up to three times for two years. Four million more would be allowed to come in under generous family provisions. So there will be a big jump in newcomers.  Troubling, too, are the so-called Z-Visas for which those now here illegally will be eligible. This document will give those here illegally access to driver's licenses and Social Security numbers. If that's not amnesty, nothing is.  That said, the bill has some positive features. For example, it starts to move us away from an immigration system based on family ties to one based on merit and skills. This is important. It also seems to commit the government to securing the border before the rest of the provisions take effect. If security isn't first, it will fail.  Further negotiation is no doubt on the way. A common-sense starting point might be Rudy Giuliani's idea of securing the border first, then making sure all who come are fingerprinted and have tamper-proof IDs. So let the negotiating begin."
"2","Unrealistic plan on immigration LATM000020070521e35l0000x Main News; Editorial Pages Desk 378 Words 21 May 2007 Los Angeles Times Home Edition A-16 English Copyright 2007 The Los Angeles Times  Re ""Senators craft immigration compromise,"" May 18  The compromise immigration legislation is doomed to fail. It's financially unrealistic and logistically impractical and will be all but ignored by future waves of undocumented immigrants -- just like our current immigration laws are now. Many of the proposed laws are aimed at those who don't have the means to pay ""Z visa"" fees. Those who could pay would likely decide not to return to the countries they escaped from in the first place.  All this does is give politicians and journalists another feel-good story without any practical way to solve anything. It does, however, offer immigrants more reasons to not follow the rules.  ERIK DERR  Palmdale  *  Our senators must not be listening to the majority of their constituents who say ""No amnesty."" This compromise bill is a slap in the face to all those who respect our laws and wait their turn to enter our country legally.  Promises, promises -- let us give a path to citizenship to the current group of lawbreakers and we will really clamp down in the future. Deja vu, it's 1986 again.  ROSEMARY HAGEROTT  Sierra Madre  *  The continuing debate on immigration has unfortunately devolved to a debate on race. There are, however, legitimate questions: Can our infrastructure support tens of millions more people clogging our roads, schools and hospitals? What are the effects of Balkanizing our culture with an increasing number of foreign, assimilation-resistant groups? Who will bear the economic costs of serving huge numbers of largely impoverished newcomers?  Overpopulation has diminished the quality of life in this country. The current move toward amnesty will not help.  L.J. PEEBLES  South Pasadena  *  Re ""Bordering on real reform,"" editorial, May 18  I share The Times' approval for some portions of the proposed immigration bill in the Senate -- specifically, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants who were brought here as children, enabling immigrants with special skills and high levels of education to come to the U.S. more easily and creating a functional, workplace-based enforcement system. So why do these sensible reforms have to be tied to, and dragged down by, questionable and controversial policies like guest worker programs and mass legalization?  ANDERSON GANSNER  Chicago"
"1","Editorial; The Democratic Congress; Any day now PHLI000020070521e35l0000w EDITORIAL 525 Words 21 May 2007 The Philadelphia Inquirer CITY-D A10 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Philadelphia Inquirer. All Rights Reserved.  The new Democratic majority might be working harder than the previous Congress, but it's difficult to praise it when the results are about the same.  Thin.  When House Democrats took control in January, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California set an ambitious agenda with six priorities. Democrats even pledged to crack the whip and enforce a five-day work week - no more of the ol' three-day weeks under Republican rule.  After more than four months, Democrats don't have much to show for it yet. Lobbying reform, one of the issues on which Democrats rode to victory last year, remains undone as lawmakers retreat on enforcement provisions. A promise to require the government to negotiate bulk prices for prescription drugs under Medicare is stalled in the Senate. The House approved a cut in student loan rates, but the Senate has yet to act. Bills to enact the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission have taken a back seat to discussions about funding for the war in Iraq.  The House approved a rollback of tax breaks for oil companies to pay for research into alternative fuels, but the Senate has its own ideas. There is agreement on legislation to increase the federal minimum wage and cut taxes for small businesses, but the package has yet to become law.  Not one of these proposals has been enacted, and these ideas were supposed to be the easy ones that would give the Democratic majority momentum. The public is noticing. One recent poll showed Congress' approval rating at 29 percent, down from 44 percent in January. Another survey found that 73 percent of the public thinks Congress has done ""not too much"" or ""nothing at all.""  There is some progress to report, however. House and Senate Democrats last week reached agreement on a $2.9 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2008, a plan that promises a surplus in five years. While approving a budget ranks as one of the most basic responsibilities of Congress, it's a duty that Republican majorities had dodged several times in recent years.  Senators from both parties last week reached a breakthrough with President Bush on immigration policy, a compromise that had eluded the previous Congress. Congress has also reached a tentative trade deal with Bush aimed at ensuring certain labor and environmental standards in international agreements.  ""I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'gridlock,' "" said Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D., Pa.), who calls the trade agreement ""very significant.""  ""We've only been at this for four months,"" she offered.  The House could take a step this week toward reining in the culture of corruption that helped to bring down the Republican majority last year. Lawmakers are expected to consider a measure that would require lobbyists to disclose the contributions they ""bundle,"" or collect from other wealthy donors, for candidates for Congress and for president.  It is an important test of whether the new Democratic majority is more concerned about serving itself or about the constituents it serves. So far, the answer to that question isn't as clear as it could be."
"5","IMMIGRATION REFORM: HIGHLY FLAWED BILL SEPI000020070522e35l0000w Editorial 282 Words 21 May 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer FINAL B5 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  We suppose we should be thrilled at the bipartisan piece of immigration legislation - spirit of cooperation, a step in the right direction and all that. But we can't say that we are, and here's why: As it is, the bill is highly flawed and we sincerely hope that the Senate and House find ways to improve the language.  While the bill allows for the legalization of roughly 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. through Z visas, it also requires that temporary ""guest workers"" leave the U.S. and pay $5,000 in fines. It's not even clear when they could become legal residents or citizens, but it could take nearly a decade. Temporary workers, meanwhile, can enter the U.S. on a thrice-renewable Y visa, but must leave the country for a full year once every two years.  While citizenship ought not be handed to illegal immigrants, creating a system that acts as more of a deterrent than an incentive for them to follow a legal path seems counterproductive.  The bill creates harsh roadblocks for permanent residents hoping to bring their family members to the U.S. Its ""point system"" favors educated, skilled workers. While we applaud attracting the cream of the crop to our labor market - big ups for proposing an increase in the number of H-1B visas for skilled workers - this system creates two classes of immigrant workers: an elite (wealthy) class and an (impoverished) underclass.  The House and Senate ought to come up with a better, solid bill for President Bush to sign in September, one that is workable and fair for all. P-I EDITORIALS"
"2","LETTERS, FAXES & E-MAIL STJR000020070524e35l000f1 EDITORIAL 2089 Words 21 May 2007 The State Journal-Register 5 English � 2007 The State Journal-Register. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Group seeks period clothing donations  The Old Stone House, originally built in 1835 on Buckhart Road by Samuel Stevens of Charlestown, N.H., has now been reconstructed in the historical park immediately west of the Rochester Village Park and the Rochester Cemetery on the Rochester-Lake Springfield Road (now part of the Lincoln-VanBuren Trail). Groups wishing to schedule tours may call President Kathleen Winhold, 498-7012.  Now that the Old Stone House is ready for tours, the Rochester Historical Preservation Society is looking for period clothing for docents and other volunteers to wear for the events at the historical park. Period male or female costumes of any size would be welcomed (but not Halloween, please), and could consist of long dresses, skirts, aprons, shirts, trousers, blouses, caps, boots, shoes, etc.  Persons who might have Sesquicentennial or Bicentennial or other period costumes taking up space in their closets, and who would be willing to donate them to the society, may write to RHPS, Box 13, Rochester, IL 62563 or call Dorthy Ross at 498-7571 to make arrangements for the donation of such items. The society would be most appreciative for any such donations.  Dorthy Ross  Rochester  A few tips on how to make ends meet  The State Journal-Register should issue a warning: ""Caution, the following may be dangerous to your health.""  After reading your articles about health care I think I feel a stroke coming on! People proclaim health-care coverage a major priority in their lives. How untrue! What they mean is they want employers, friends, family and neighbors to pay their premiums.  If many of your featured families had a little pride and money- management skills, they wouldn't need programs like KidsCare and Family Care. I would be happy to give them a few pointers. The Wilhite, Davis and Hoffek families could use some.  Suggestions include, downgrading houses and cars, paying no credit card interest, no eating out, no vacations, curtail your kids' extracurricular activities, no cell phones, shop at thrift stores, rummage sales, store sales and grocery stores like Aldi's. If you can't afford private school, don't expect the general public to help you out.  Do not have children out of wedlock and only divorce if you are very wealthy. A lifetime supply of birth control doesn't cost as much as the first six months of an infant's life. If you can't afford children, don't have them.  My husband and I have never had insurance provided (he farms). We currently pay $18,000 in premiums and our out-of-pocket and co- pays bring the total to about $30,000 a year. We had two sons who we also covered. Most people can afford insurance but their entitlement mentality takes over. Encourage legislators to stop this madness, lower taxes, and force people to care for themselves first.  Carolyn L. Marley  Nokomis  Grateful bill to ban horse slaughter OK'd  I would like to thank the Illinois senators and representatives who worked at, supported and voted to pass House Bill 1711, which bans the slaughter of horses in Illinois.  So many people have worked so hard to get this accomplished. Not just people from upstate Illinois; there are people from downstate, including veterinarians, who are against the slaughter of horses!  I would imagine the people living around Cavel can literally breathe ""a breath of fresh air"" now! I would not want to live by the stench of the blood and other ""parts"" that would generate from the plant. It is my understanding that Cavel has been fined many times for not complying with regulations. I would think this could pose health risks for residents near the plant.  Anti-slaughter people from outside Illinois have said they would boycott Illinois until Cavel was closed. Upon closure, this additional money that will be coming in now from tourism may be enough to offset the cost of laid-off workers until the plant can convert over to hog or cattle slaughter.  Illinois can now return to being a beautiful, non-horse slaughter state! We can open our doors and welcome visitors again. Be sure to see the new Lincoln Museum! It's excellent!  Betty Scheldt  Carlinville  Onus is on Israel to spur peace process  George Sisk's May 8 op ed should have said what Israel can do instead of taking back Palestinians displaced in 1948 and millions of their descendants. By Sisk's own reasoning, a livable homeland for Palestinians is the perfect alternative. So when is Israel finally going to either compensate Palestinians for their lost property, allow them a new homeland not sliced and diced by Israeli settlements - or both?  The onus is on Israel, as the consistent winner in this 60-year struggle, to finally drive solutions for war-weary, tax-weary Americans who've spent at least $128 billion on a constant, expensive state of war for the past 35 years. In a place with such tight land and water constraints, Israel will have to accept some constraints on its size if it really wants peace. We need Sisk to address issues like this, instead of stereotyping and dehumanizing Palestinian refugees.  Since when does the winner get to keep kicking and kicking the loser while he's down to prevent him from ever getting up? That's what it felt like reading Sisk's claim that Palestinians want to return to homes their families occupied for generations solely to destroy the lives of Israelis now living there.  Let's not forget that Palestinians left their homes en masse in 1948 to escape a war zone. The majority were fathers and mothers or children these parents needed to protect. Palestinians were no different from other refugees even in finding themselves on the wrong side of history, with a new regime in their homeland permanently barring their return. Not one has ever been able to go back. After so many years, polls don't even show that a majority of refugees would want to return for more than a visit. However, they do want something for what their families have lost and what they've been through for the past 60 years. What that is, is a proper subject for peace negotiations.  Sandy Baksys  Springfield  Lawmakers forget us once they get to D.C.  I hope your readers realize that, if they have an opinion or want senators and representatives to consider a problem, they might as well forget it!  Once senators get to Washington, D.C., they don't care about the people who sent them there. A representative (phone-answerer) in Sen. Dick Durbin's office on Thursday told an Illinois citizen they have never before had so many calls begging him not to vote for something as they had over the illegal immigration issue. The citizens of Illinois don't want criminals pouring into this country - and any one who does come illegally is a criminal! With each crime one commits, the next becomes easier.  The Senate absolutely did not listen to the citizens who are going to pay dearly for all of these people. They didn't listen to those who don't want our country rapidly changed by people looking for welfare handouts. We do admire immigrants who come legally to our shores - all of our ancestors did. But now, if this bill passes the House, the flood will be greater than the country can handle. Wouldn't it be nice if senators remembered the Founding Fathers set up our system so they represent us?  Betty Harryman  Taylorville  Shut up, Democrats!  The Democrats don't have the guts to cut the funding for the troops.  I want them to stop saying they support the troops. They don't when they keep saying that we lost the war in Iraq.  Robert Ryan  Springfield  Suggestion for Insight  Maybe if Insight would drop channels 9 and 64, they could come up with enough money to pay FSN to show the 20 Cardinal games they are going to black out.  Ernie Marks  Springfield  Falwell did not speak for all Christians  I've usually been able to just ignore Chris Britt's always inflammatory cartoons, but when he depicted Jerry Falwell appearing in heaven to be greeted by a (presumably) married lesbian couple who told him the Lord would be back soon (""she"" was away), I felt the need to point out a few things:  1.) Britt, like all tolerant and peace-loving individuals, chose to assault Christianity as a whole. He's done it before, and he'll do it again. I know that the thought of a female God would be insulting to Jews and Muslims as well, but seeing Britt's track record, this was aimed at Christians, clearly.  2.) The women are holding hands, which isn't wrong in itself, but is put in to imply they're married. If they're in heaven, that wouldn't be the case, and not because they're gay, but because there's simply no marriage in heaven. (Matthew 22:30 - look it up if you don't believe me.)  3.) Falwell used hateful speech, that is true, but he was NOT a mouthpiece for all Christians. Not all of us are hateful and racist. You always hear of the bad things that so-called followers of Christ are doing, but never the good. I guess my point here is people shouldn't assault our faith because of one man. It'd be like comparing all of Islam to Osama bin Laden.  4.) Some Christians would be surprised if Falwell even made it to heaven. True, he got the Moral Majority movement started, but his words and actions may have hurt the cause for Christ more than helped it.  These are all just my opinions, mind you. I also don't speak for Christianity. I'm also thankful Britt doesn't have a picture of me for when he attacks people of faith again on a slow news day.  Michael Wright  Taylorville  Making fun of Falwell a shallow Britt effort  Chris Britt just can't help himself, can he? The poor tunnel- visioned soul is so liberal that he cannot pass up an opportunity to ridicule a conservative, even if that conservative has just died. It seems that he can barely contain his joy.  The day after the passing of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Britt has the temerity to mock and make fun of him. Are you really that shallow, Chris?  Dave Dierks  Springfield  Tactless, tasteless, rude and insulting  In regard to your political cartoon last Wednesday, I found it to be tactless, tasteless, rude and insulting. The subject was Christian Pastor Jerry Falwell.  Less than 24 hours after his death, your paper went out of its way to insult his family, his memory and Christian believers everywhere. Can you picture his grieving wife and children seeing this before they even make arrangements at the funeral home?  Secondly, how could you be any more insensitive to also assault the faith of millions of Christians? Imagine for a moment that it had been your cartoonist, Chris Britt, who had died. Would the editorial staff immediately publish a cartoon or an editorial attacking his character or his personal beliefs? Of course not! You would never be so tactless and offensive with a staff member. So how can you justify attacking Falwell's faith? Should your readers see it as anything other than anti-Christian bias?  Your editorials often pretend to carry the banner of ""tolerance"" but then display a pattern of attacking good citizens who stand up for faith and values. We can agree that Falwell was imperfect (as any of us can be with our opinions on public policy). I was not always in agreement with him. Yet, as Americans, we could appreciate his leadership on issues of faith, family and freedom. These are things that make America better. We should commend those who uplift positive values rather than take cheap shots upon their death.  Most cartoons are witty, clever or humorous. Chris Britt's work has none of these qualities but instead is sophomoric and often vicious in his assault on the personal character of decent people. We don't mind poking fun at politicians in both parties, but Britt has crossed the line of good taste 100 times over. In the capacity of an employer, I personally would not retain the services of such an employee.  Dale Powell  Springfield"
"5","Immigration debacle WATI000020070521e35l0008v EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 1063 Words 21 May 2007 The Washington Times A18 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The bipartisan immigration ""reform"" legislation pushed by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Jon Kyl and others, applauded by Michael Chertoff, the secretary of Homeland Security, and Carlos Gutierrez, the secretary of Commerce, is a disaster in the making. That is not so slowly becoming abundantly clear.  It's a disaster for national security, for keeping Islamist jihadists out of the country, for exploding the costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, for preserving the rule of law, and for that quaint principle called national sovereignty. From the details that have leaked out thus far, the legislation, which provides amnesty for nearly all of the 12 million (or maybe even 20 million) illegal aliens already here, would swell the size of the welfare state in a way we haven't seen since Lyndon Johnson imposed his Great Society on us four decades ago. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who is likely to lead the fight to save the nation from this disaster, and Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation will reveal at a press conference this morning the details of just how expensive it will be. We're talking trillions of dollars - that's not millions or even billions - over the next several decades.  Senate floor debate on the bill begins today, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid clearly wants to force it through before Memorial Day, before senators and everyone else can become familiar with even a fraction of what is in this massive bill, which could run to 800 pages. It was still being written over the weekend. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is said to lean in favor of the bill, yesterday said that at least two weeks would be required for a serious Senate debate on such a complex piece of legislation. We hope he means it when he says ""serious debate."" To win the support of conservatives who opposed last year's immigration bill, the administration agreed that provisions enabling illegals to remain here could only become effective after new border-control measures are in place.  These include the hiring, training and deployment of 5,000 to 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents, increasing the total to approximately 18,000 agents. (Assuming there are 12 million illegals here, this amounts to 2,000 of them getting amnesty for every new Border Patrol agent hired to keep illegals out).  The legislation calls for erecting 370 miles of additional fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. To put that number in perspective, in October, the Senate passed legislation sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, calling for 854 miles of fencing. Mr. Hunter protests that the Senate bill in effect ""cuts my fence in half."" (Actually, it's closer to 55 percent.) That assumes of course, that Congress actually keeps its word and appropriates money for the fence. Counting on Congress is always a very big ""if."" Another ""trigger"" requires that the Department of Homeland Security - not a model of bureaucratic efficiency - develop and implement by the end of next year a system to enable employers to quickly verify that job applicants are in the country legally. In exchange for such very modest achievements, the administration and the Senate propose to make enormous and in some cases unacceptable concessions to illegal aliens and their political patrons. Here are some of them:  * Amnesty, document fraud and terrorism: There is good reason to be skeptical of the notion that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) - the Homeland Security bureaucracy that will be charged with verifying whether tens of millions of illegals are terrorists and/or criminals, and therefore ineligible to receive amnesty - is up to the job. Over the past four years, the ineptitude of the immigration services bureaucracy has been severely criticized by the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office and other investigators. This, according to Michael Cutler, who spent more than 25 years as an immigration agent, would ""provide millions of illegal aliens who have violated our nation's borders"" with ""official identity documents that would enable terrorists to embed themselves in communities around our country as they await instructions to launch the next terrorist attack against against our nation and the people who live in the United States."" Mr. Cutler says the Senate bill should be named the ""Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act of 2007.""  * Staggering increases in federal, state and local spending, with attendant pressure for tax increases. Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation says one major effect of the Senate amnesty bill will be to make approximately 9 million additional persons - many of them low-skilled immigrants - legal permanent residents of the United States who could lawfully benefit from a variety of social programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and public housing. Over the course of their lifetimes, these people will utilize $2.5 trillion more in government services than they will pay in taxes. American welfare and social services were designed for poor Americans; as a result of amnesty legislation, this legislation would expand the American welfare state to include a significant portion of the population of Mexico. Instead of going home to Mexico at the end of their working years, these elderly beneficiaries of amnesty would remain in this country ""and collect public funds for the rest of their lives,"" Mr. Rector says.  * The Senate immigration bill includes legislation called the DREAM act, legislation subsidizing college education for illegal aliens. And what a dream it is.  * Illegal aliens who worked using fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers will be able to collect Social Security Disability Insurance.  The Bush administration deludes itself if it believes that the measure can be improved during Senate debate. Right now, the toughest criticism of the bill is coming from labor unions who argue that the amnesty/guest-worker provisions are too strict, and from senators like Mel Martinez of Florida, a Republican who talks of waiving the much-ballyhooed $5,000 fine illegals are meant to pay. If the administration wants to preserve what's left of its credibility on immigration, it would spare us Mr. Chertoff's hyperbolic rhetoric that critics of the administration regard anything short of capital punishment to be ""amnesty."" The only ""capital punishment"" coming is what's likely to happen to the careers of those determined to inflict this disaster on us."
"4","Immigration fix ; Current system in dire need of reform WORC000020070522e35l00015 EDITORIAL 290 Words 21 May 2007 Worcester Telegram & Gazette ALL A6 English � 2007 Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The U.S. Senate today will begin debate of a landmark reform in the nation's immigration law - bold legislation that would restore a modicum of order to a system that has been growing more dysfunctional by the year. The compromise, hammered out in months of bargaining by the White House and congressional leaders, is an opportunity the lawmakers must not squander.  With an estimated 7.5 million to 20 million illegal immigrants already in the United States, credible border security and antifraud measures were essential provisions. A high-tech employment verification system backs up the beefed-up border patrols.  In a departure from current policy, the bill would give additional weight to prospective immigrants' skills, education and job experience. As in an earlier Senate bill, illegal aliens who come forward and pay a fine could qualify for a ""Z visa"" that eventually could lead to permanent residency. It also would establish a temporary guest-worker program leading, in some cases, to award of a green card.  The bill recognizes the plain fact that undocumented workers are critical to the economy of the Southwest and form a significant minority of the work force in tourism, manufacturing and other sectors. Yet they often are underpaid, unfairly treated and work in abysmal conditions, but dare not complain for fear of deportation and, perhaps, separation from their children who are natural-born citizens.  The bill recognizes the need for skilled, educated immigrants to fill jobs that go begging in Massachusetts and other states. Immigrants historically have been part of the vital human capital that has built and sustained this nation. That is no less true today.  Congress should not let this opportunity pass."
"3","Kansas editorials APRS000020070522e35m009q4 By The Associated Press 1694 Words 22 May 2007 15:08 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Kansas newspapers:  ------  May 21  The Topeka Capital-Journal on official English:  In any tongue, new legislation establishing English as the official language of Kansas seems likely to be considered weak by critics and proponents alike.  The bill, which Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed into law earlier this month, says no state or local government agency has to provide documents or hold meetings in any language except English.  But that's about all it says.  The issue triggered passionate debate during the 2007 legislative session, but the product was more of a whisper than a bold statement about dealing with illegal immigration.  There's nothing in the legislation preventing governments from offering documents in a language other than English or using interpreters at meetings, which means those who strongly believe English should be the language of the state are likely to think it doesn't go far enough...  Critics of the overall legislation generally agreed it was important for immigrants to learn English but said state government shouldn't do anything to shut out individuals not fluent in the language. They described the early versions of the legislation as elitist and exclusionary -- anti-immigrant, in other words.  Before signing the bill, Sebelius expressed reservations about removal of the funding and said she wasn't convinced the overall legislation was necessary...  But if you didn't hear any cheers or jeers when Sebelius signed the bill, there's no need for a hearing test.  We didn't hear much hubbub, either, and we think that's because the bill that came out of the Statehouse this year amounts to an insignificant step in dealing with the complex issues of legal and undocumented immigration.  ------  May 21  The Hutchinson News on wind farms:  Everything, apparently, has its critics.  The vigorous opposition to wind energy has been a surprise, and the criticisms make little sense.  The latest place where wind has drawn rigid opposition is Hays, where a wind farm is on the drawing board on the city's southwest fringe. And that opposition just might kill the project.  That would be a shame, because harnessing the wind to create pollution-free energy is an altogether positive use of one of Kansas' greatest, but least appreciated, natural resources.  And the reasons for opposing it are mostly nonsensical. That some neighbors who are not getting any direct economic benefit are grumbling is understandable. But some of the other supposed drawbacks are silly.  One of them is the aesthetics. We suppose the people of Kansas' east-central Flint Hills had an argument there -- though not much of one. But this argument falls flat on the short-grass prairie of western Kansas, the grand vistas of which long ago were blemished by power lines, water towers and grain elevators...  They are not a noise problem, as some assert. And as for killing birds, that has not been documented.  Environmentalists' opposition is especially frustrating. Wind energy is, after all, renewable energy. If you don't like coal, fine. But wind?  And then we have some people ludicrously complaining that it somehow is wrong to export energy to users elsewhere. This same argument comes up whether it is the Hays wind farm or the Sunflower Electric coal-fired power plant expansion in Holcomb, near Garden City...  Kansas is not rich in many natural resources. But it is rich in wind. We can complain about the wind and complain about wind farms. We should complain about neither, for wind is an opportunity, and development of wind energy is brilliant.  Any western Kansas city ought to be thrilled over the prospect of developing a wind energy operation.  ------  May 18  The Lawrence Journal-World on underage drinking:  Do you think it's better or safer to have young people under 21 drinking alcohol in a supervised setting rather than to risk them drinking alcohol in their cars or elsewhere?  If so, a new law says think again.  The bill signed into law by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius amends the law that makes it illegal to host a party where minors are consuming alcohol. The law previously applied only to minors under 18; now it applies to anyone under age 21.  According to the new law and Attorney General Paul Morrison, ""You allow property that you own or control to be used for a party like that criminally you are on the hook.""  Unfortunately, the question of older adults sometimes parents sanctioning alcohol consumption by minors often their own children arises all too frequently around graduation time. In our culture, alcoholic drinks are so closely associated with celebrations, that many people can't separate the two. High school or college graduation is worthy of celebration, they think, and that means alcohol.  There are many ways to rationalize drinking. People can say if young people are old enough to vote and serve in the military, they are old enough to have a drink. That sounds good on the surface, but people that age sometimes lack the self-control to drink responsibly plus, it's against the law...  It may be difficult to say no to your children, but both the law and common sense dictate that you must. It's up to parents and other adults to set a good example for young adults. A great start is to send the message that alcohol and drunkenness aren't the only way or even the best way to celebrate a life milestone.  ------  May 18  The Wichita Eagle on immigration reform:  Solving this country's immigration crisis should be a top priority for our leaders. But as Congress this week again takes up immigration reform, lawmakers seem less willing to face the stark realities and make the tough decisions needed to forge a comprehensive solution.  The sticking point remains, as always, the 12 million or so illegal immigrants already living in this country. Their presence here is a stubborn reality that Congress can't quite face...  Key Republicans who had advocated earned citizenship, such as Sens. Sam Brownback of Kansas and John McCain of Arizona, seem to have decided that running for president means running away from real leadership on this issue.  McCain has been AWOL on the issue. And Brownback, a key McCain ally last year, has taken a harder line toward illegals, as have other GOP presidential aspirants such as Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.  Their retreat makes it less likely that a bill will pass...  Congress is right to pursue tough measures against illegals who don't want to become U.S. citizens. There's evidence that enhanced enforcement at the border, combined with a surge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdowns at workplaces, is depressing the illegal labor market somewhat...  Still, America's huge shadow population calls for a pragmatic approach. A waiting period and fines are in order, but making illegals return en masse is unworkable.  If Congress can't forge a grand bargain in coming weeks, immigration reform likely will be dead until after the 2008 presidential election.  The American people deserve a heroic effort from lawmakers to break the impasse.  ------  May 16  Clay Center Dispatch on Greensburg cleanup:  When the Army Corps of Engineers arrived in Greensburg, Kansas last week to begin cleanup of the devastated town, they weren't prepared for what they saw. What they witnessed shocked even the most experienced Katrina veteran...  The night of the first post-storm town meeting under a large tent, amidst a flattened debris field of devastation that left only a few dozen homes standing, Greensburg's energetic mayor announced he was the first in town to get a building permit to rebuild his home. And Greensburg residents began digging out and cleaning up whenever the bevy of politicians, media and FEMA personnel would get out of the way.  Greensburg is not only going to rebuild, but the community announced yesterday it will go ahead with the planned 43rd annual Greensburg Rodeo May 25 and 26. That's THIS May 25 and 26, some nine days hence. That tornado exposed an awesome spirit of latent pioneer optimism and self-reliance and community. We suspect they even surprised themselves...  Because government largely leaves us alone out here on the prairie, Kansans still know the joy and freedom of self-reliance and independence--knowing that what we can't do for ourselves our friends and neighbors will be there to help with, and vice-versa. Kansans aren't used to government helping with much of anything.  Of course, Katrina had its heroes and many no doubt helped each other. But that went largely ignored by the media.  The media is watching Greensburg, and just as the Amish of tiny Nickel Mines in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania taught America how to forgive, the rubes of Kansas are showing America what she once was and should be again.  ------  May 11  The Winfield Daily Courier on gambling:  A good suggestion arose at Thursday's legislative forum in Winfield.  Rep. Kasha Kelley of Arkansas City, who opposed the casino gambling bill passed by the Legislature, spoke articulately on her concerns about the social impact of such gambling.  In response, Rep. Ed Trimmer of Winfield, who voted for the bill, warmly voiced his view that Kelley's evidence was anecdotal and a comprehensive study was needed.  We agree.  The bill signed by Governor Kathleen Sebelius was put together without benefit of committee hearings in either the House or the Senate.  Only the most dramatic stories about gambling's social impact were heard on the House floor, where the principal debate took place.  Now that the bill is law and headed for the courts, where its constitutionality will be determined, there is time for the study Trimmer suggests.  Rather than thrash around with politically charged shibboleths about the social ills of casino gambling - or ignore them - we in Kansas should do our homework.  We should find out what those ills are, how deeply they affect individuals and families, and what other states have done in response.  Then we should prepare ourselves to ameliorate those ills in our state as best we can. 7"
"4","Recent editorials from New Jersey newspapers APRS000020070522e35m00fo1 1723 Words 22 May 2007 23:50 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Tuesday's Star-Ledger of Newark on immigration reform:  The immigration bill that will be debated in the Senate this week -- and probably longer -- is an admirable, if flawed, effort to craft a compromise that will satisfy Republicans fearful of unprotected borders and Democrats concerned about a track to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Our hope is that the Senate debate, followed by conference with the House of Representatives, will forge a less equivocal deal.  At its best, the bill accomplishes what one of its crafters, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., described recently. It ""brings millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America"" by creating a path to citizenship, though an arduous one, for the country's 12 million illegal immigrants. It also provides for stronger border security and calls appropriately for stricter background checks by employers.  Among other things, illegal immigrants would have to pay a $5,000 fine and pass a criminal background check. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries to apply for permanent residency for household members.  A difficult process, however, is better than none. This proposal is harsh but reasonable.  The bill's compromises become more problematic in provisions for awarding visas on a merit-based system. The new system would award points based on education level, job skills and knowledge of English.  While the idea is to ensure a greater flow of skilled workers into the country, the system would be too cumbersome and rigid to adjust to employers' changing needs. And immigrant rights groups are correct when they complain that such requirements would unravel a system that for 40 years has favored uniting family members.  Also troubling is a temporary worker program for 400,000 immigrants a year, with a two-year visa renewable up to three times. This system would create an underclass whose work and effort will never result in the privilege of citizenship. And the provision for leaving the country after two years guarantees that, rather than disrupt their families' lives, many will choose to stay illegally.  There is plenty here to cause agita. Some Republicans still see the citizenship path as ""amnesty."" Some Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, say the merit-based system needs to be ""improved."" Many immigration experts fret that the scale and timing of some of the proposals -- such as that the Department of Human Services distribute to all U.S. employers, within 18 months, an improved version of a program to check Social Security numbers against government databases -- are too unreasonable to be effective.  Compromise will be the underpinning of any immigration bill that gets passed. We hope, though, that certain aspects of the current plan -- most notably the temporary worker program and an unmodified merit system -- are altered during the debate. After waiting years for an overhaul of the immigration system, it would be worthwhile to craft a bill that is effective and fair.  ------  On the Net: http://www.nj.com  Sunday's Herald News of West Paterson on universal health coverage:  Earlier this month, Barack Obama, the Illinois Democratic senator and presidential candidate, told a New Jersey audience that the nation could have universal health coverage by the end of his first term. He said he'd finance his plan by saving billions through preventative care, providing better care for the chronically ill and using technology to end bureaucratic waste and inefficiency. If need be, he might even roll back tax cuts that have benefited the richest of Americans.  Obama's plan is just one of many that have been advanced over the last 60 years.  In the late 1940s, President Truman called for national health coverage. During the 1970s, a move toward national universal health care, spurred by Democrats Wilbur Mills and Ted Kennedy, foundered in the wake of post-Watergate politics.  And in the early 1990s, then-first lady Hillary R. Clinton presided over a failed attempt to reach consensus on universal health care coverage.  Today, more than 45 million Americans lack health insurance. They include 1.3 million in New Jersey, where the number of uninsured has grown by 300,000 in the last five years.  As a series by Herald News health writer Betsy Querna has shown, the uninsured cut across a broad swath. In April, she wrote: ""She's the woman ahead of you in the grocery line. The man sitting next to you in church. The child who plays with yours after school. The woman who cares for your son or daughter.""  Over time, opposition to universal health care insurance (some have dismissed it as ""socialized medicine"") has been strong and well-financed. The opponents, including conservative Republican politicians (who maintain that a free market sustains quality and choice), domestic insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies say they seek to protect the nation's health care system from government red tape and ineptitude they believe would attend an American version of European-style universal health care coverage.  But we are already paying much more for our health care and getting much less than people do in other industrialized nations. We trail many other industrialized nations in terms of infant mortality and life expectancy.  Prompted by domestic insurers who seek to hold down costs, some Americans travel overseas for cheaper operations. Meanwhile, the uninsured here continue to overburden the nation's beleaguered emergency rooms, often the only places they can go for treatment.  During the 1930s, Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins said that Social Security provided ""a measure of protection and alleviation"" for a nation staggered by the Great Depression. Through the years, Social Security has alleviated the fear that Americans would plunge into poverty as they aged and left the workforce.  A new national health care security plan would allay the concerns of a nation where millions are uninsured and millions more fear they could lose their coverage through divorce or loss of employment. Although we are a fractured nation, we are united in the need for the change universal health coverage would bring.  Many of the working poor continue to lack coverage. New and uninsured immigrants continue to enter the country. Businesses continue to shrink from offering health care coverage for their middle-class workers.  The crisis posed by so many Americans without health coverage is a wound that has not been healed by time but has festered through neglect and inaction. The evidence is all around us like a mirror that reflects the difference between what the nation is and what the nation could be. We can't waste a minute more in looking away.  ------  On the Net: http://www.northjersey.com  Tuesday's Home News Tribune of East Brunswick on Gov. Jon S. Corzine and seat belt use:  The seat belt is such an easy-to-use contraption and so effective a safety device that it remains a wonder how so many otherwise bright and cautious individuals can continue to ignore it at such peril to themselves. Yes, individuals like Gov. Jon S. Corzine, whose failure to buckle up before an April 12 accident on the Garden State Parkway left him with a broken leg, sternum, 11 ribs and collarbone. Corzine behaved stupidly that day, a fact he readily admits. But perhaps some good may yet come of Corzine's careless act, if not for the governor himself than for the public he serves.  Meaning, it just so happens that Corzine is now the perfect poster boy for this year's ""Click It or Ticket"" campaign, the annual push by law enforcement across the nation to get more drivers and passengers to strap in. Traffic-safety officials will try to get that message out by aggressively enforcing New Jersey's seat belt laws during a two-week blitz that started yesterday and ends June 3.  The public ought to help them out -- and itself -- by wearing those seat belts. It does make a difference.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that safety belts saved 135,000 lives and prevented 3.8 million injuries nationwide between 1975 and 2000. Police note that safety-belt usage is especially important for people ages 15 to 35, for whom motor-vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death.  That group includes young people like John P. Corchado, a 23-year-old Edison man who was killed Sunday when the car he was driving jumped a guardrail and he was ejected. Corchado wasn't wearing his seat belt. Or the two occupants of a crash on Dec. 5, 2006, on Route 1 in South Brunswick. Both were ejected from their car. Neither was buckled in. One died and the other was critically injured. Or the 16-year-old who was seriously injured on Oct. 16, 2006, when he was ejected from his vehicle when it struck a tree on Fresh Ponds Road in South Brunswick. These are only a few examples of what can happen when a safety belt isn't used. As anyone might imagine, the rest of the list is long, agonizingly so because so much of the injury and death is preventable.  Consider that people can learn to wear their seat belts. As one example, seat-belt usage in West Virginia has increased from 49.8 percent to 88.6 percent since 2000, a dramatic surge credited mainly to the Click It or Ticket campaign. In the Northeast as a whole, the usage percentages are lower, closer to 75 percent. Still, New Jersey does better than most states. Seat-belt use here at last count was around 83 percent.  The bottom line is seat belts are the most effective safety devices in vehicles today, estimated to save 13,000 lives each year, while 7,000 people die because they did not use belts. Taking those numbers one step further, if 90 percent of motorists on the nation's roads buckled up (the U.S. Department of Transportation's goal for 2007), an estimated 5,536 additional fatalities and 132,700 additional injuries would be prevented each year.  Those are big numbers, an annual savings in suffering and death worth aspiring to. And all it would take is a change of habit. These coming days, may a few more people listen and learn -- and strap themselves in.  ------  On the Net: http://www.thnt.com 7"
"4","Tennessee Editorial Roundup APRS000020070522e35m00cw7 1284 Words 22 May 2007 19:41 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  The following is a roundup of recent editorials from Tennessee members of The Associated Press. In some cases, the editorials have been edited for length. They do not reflect an editorial position of the AP but represent the opinions of the newspapers from which they are taken.  --------  The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal, May 19  As some Southern states waged a vicious second Civil War in the 1950s and 1960s to block desegregation, thousands of African-Americans and white people were arrested while standing up for freedom.  The protesters were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, inciting riots, loitering and more, as they peacefully marched, staged sit-ins and protested to bring an end to the South's oppressive Jim Crow laws, including barriers to African-Americans being able to vote.  For exercising their rights as American citizens, they unjustly ended up with criminal records. For some, those charges for years negatively impacted their search for jobs or resulted in their being dismissed from jobs or expelled from schools.  Recently, some Southern states, including Tennessee and Alabama, have moved to offer pardons to those convicted of acts of civil disobedience during the civil rights movement. Some civil rights warriors have expressed disdain for the effort, calling their arrests a badge of honor. In truth, the pardons should have been granted years ago, but it's never too late to right an injustice.  That's what's happening in Tennessee. The House and Senate this week passed the Rosa Parks Act, named after the mother of the civil rights movement, that would grant pardons to individuals who sought them.  Now, Gov. Phil Bredesen needs to get up to speed on the legislation and quickly sign it into law.  --------  The (Clarksville) Leaf-Chronicle, May 20  The new bipartisan immigration bill may be the best and only chance that Congress will have in dealing legislatively with those who have entered the United States illegally.  Right now, there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.  The proposed compromise bill -- which has been endorsed by President Bush -- would offer a way for the illegal immigrants to become legal.  Under the proposal, those who entered the country illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, could apply for provisional legal status.  They would have to pay a $5,000 per household fine, have no criminal background, learn to speak English, pay back taxes and return to their country of origin to reapply for guaranteed legal entry.  The proposed law also contains a provision for more security along the Mexican border and requires employers to check new hires against a government database to determine if they can legally work in the United States. A new guest worker program is created.  Reaction to the proposal has been mixed. Some liberals don't like the idea that a merit-based point system for immigrants will replace the historic procedure of preference for those with family members who already are U.S. citizens.  Some conservatives complain that the new path to citizenship is too close to a free pass.  Let's face the facts.  A bill never will be crafted that will appeal to everyone -- and it's physically impossible to simply deport 12 million illegal immigrants. A bipartisan group of senators worked on this legislation for months and did the best it could.  Congress is urged to give it the fair hearing and consideration that it deserves.  --------  Bristol Herald Courier, May 20  Battle lines are drawn in Nashville over the governor's plan to increase the cigarette tax to pay for education.  Gov. Phil Bredesen and Senate Republicans are still talking. But in this legislative version of a sandbox squabble, House Republicans want to take their toys and go home. Someone should send them to time out instead.  Tennessee's schools, as a whole, are inadequate. Pick any statistic you like -- the dropout rate, the number of adults without college degrees, standardized test scores. All indicate an educational system struggling to meet the demands of today's high-tech world.  The best plan is the governor's plan, which raises the tax on a pack of cigarettes from 20 cents (48th in the nation) to 60 cents. The higher rate remains below the national average, but is well above that in the neighboring, tobacco-belt states of Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia.  Bredesen wants to spend all of that new money -- and a portion of the state surplus -- on a restructured school funding formula. The new formula would mean more money for every school district and would end the competition between districts for the scraps that fall from the legislative table. No district would have to lose for another to win. This is a revolutionary, and overdue, change.  Senate Republicans, while reluctant to throw in their lot entirely with the governor, are willing to meet in the middle. With Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey in the lead, the Senate GOP offered an increase of 30 cents per pack phased in over four years. This would eventually result in a 50-cent per pack tax -- just a dime shy of the governor's plan.  Bredesen rejected the Senate suggestion, but talks continue. We are confident that a compromise can be reached.  Not so in the House, where our own Rep. Jason Mumpower has drawn a firm (some would say hardheaded) ideological line in the sand. No new taxes in a time of surplus. Not even for schools.  Perhaps Mumpower's grade school teachers can track him down and talk some sense to him.  If a state puts its treasure where its heart is, where is Tennessee's heart? We can do better. Mumpower and company must come back to the bargaining table.  --------  The (Maryville) Daily Times, May 20  We do not see much bipartisan-type support for the supposedly three leading announced candidates for president in both the Republican and Democrat party contests. And there is not an especially driving support for any candidate especially in the Republican competition.  We feel that it is highly important that our nation select a leader that has great integrity, a lot of common sense and who is not tightly tied to being a politician. We have too many strictly politicians already.  It is important that we elect a man who is of the people, who will listen to common sense and not be financially tied by donations and other reasons to the oil industry, the automobile industry or any other segment of the economy. He needs to be a candidate of the people.  Whether he should run as a Republican or chose the more difficult trail as an independent, we think former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson from Tennessee could fill the job better than any among the announced candidates in both political parties.  Political party conventions are down the drain. Party nominees probably will be decided in the early February 2008 primaries, as much as six months prior to the party conventions and nearly nine months before the actual election.  So, now is the time to be thinking seriously about who should be our next president. Fred Thompson as a person is much the same as the solid roles he frequently plays in television shows. He is smart, experienced in law and government, he is not looking for a job nor is he tightly bound to any political agenda. We think he owes it to the people of the nation to seek the office of President of the United States.  This is not a home-state endorsement of a non-candidate dark horse hopeful. We think he is the person that can best fill the office of President of the United States. 7"
"3","More grief over Gonzales; bragging cut short on earmark; Warner out? AGCR000020070612e35m000e0 EDITORIAL Robert Novak 678 Words 22 May 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stock on Capitol Hill dropped even lower among Republicans last week when he tried to make his second in command the fall guy for firing U.S. attorneys on the day that Paul McNulty announced his resignation as deputy attorney general.  In a May 15 appearance at the National Press Club, Gonzales for the first time stressed that the evaluation of federal prosecutors and the decision to fire them had been in McNulty's hands. McNulty, a former senior House Republican staffer, is a popular figure on the Hill.  A footnote: Speculation in Washington legal circles is that President Bush has been reluctant to get rid of Gonzales for fear that Senate Democrats would not confirm his successor without a commitment to name a special prosecutor in the U.S. attorneys case.  A HIDDEN EARMARK: Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey has pulled down from her Web site a press release boasting of an earmark attached to the supplemental appropriations bill that Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey claimed was free of earmarks.  Lowey on May 9 announced an $8,665,000 appropriation for ""flood mitigation projects"" in parts of New York hit by the recent nor'easter. The press release boasted of the 10-term congresswoman's efforts in securing the money.  Rep. Jeff Flake, a Republican earmark watchdog, on the House floor May 10 noted it ""seems an awful lot like an earmark to me if a member actually does a victory lap afterwards and says that member actually inserted (it) in the bill."" When Flake asked Obey to explain, the Appropriations chairman responded, ""I claim no responsibility for any statement made by any member."" Shortly thereafter, Lowey pulled down the press release.  OMITTED REPUBLICAN: An unhappy Rep. Phil English of Pennsylvania feels he was omitted for unexplained reasons from what became a highly publicized meeting at the White House for the moderate Republican Tuesday Group to discuss Iraq war policy with President Bush.  English did not complain to the White House, but he believes he was removed from the invitation list by presidential aides. A moderate conservative, English has sometimes clashed with the Bush administration on trade policy and the minimum wage. He also voted for anti-Iraq surge legislation.  White House aides contend English's name was not on the list given them by the Tuesday Group.  AMERICAN APARTHEID: At a recent internal debate by the conservative House Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina warned that the GOP ran the risk of looking like the racist National Party of South Africa on the immigration issue.  Inglis' comment was made at a closed-door ""retreat"" of the Study Committee held at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. The bitter debate reflected the split over immigration in conservative ranks.  Supporters of Bush's proposed moderate immigration reforms blamed last year's defeat of Republican Reps. J.D. Hayworth in Arizona and John Hostettler in Indiana on their immigration hard line. But at the retreat, the majority said Hayworth and Hostettler were not hard enough.  FAREWELL TO JOHN WARNER? With 80-year-old Republican Sen. John Warner not disclosing until late this year whether he will seek a fifth term in 2008, Rep. Tom Davis is building strong statewide support for the GOP nomination if Warner does not run.  Conservative activists are not happy with the prospective nomination of Davis, who has a lifetime 70 percent American Conservative Union voting record compared to Warner's 81 percent. Davis, who represents a Washington suburban district, would be a strong candidate in populous Northern Virginia (carried by Democrats in their recent statewide victories). Former Gov. Jim Gilmore is a more conservative possibility if he gives up his current campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.  A footnote: Former Gov. Mark Warner would be the strongest Democratic candidate for the Senate, but insiders believe he may forego that race to keep himself available as Sen. Hillary Clinton's vice presidential running mate.  Creators Syndicate"
"4","IMMIGRATION REFORM FLAWS XWST000020070523e35m0002p EDITORIAL 501 Words 22 May 2007 The Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal ALL A8 English � 2007 The Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The United States can and should welcome new immigrants. This big country has always benefited from immigration, and there is every reason to believe that now, in an era of globalization, those benefits will be even greater.  It would be nice if immigration were an orderly process. But here's a news flash: It isn't. Never has been, never will be. As frustrating as it may be to accept this reality, Americans ought to recognize that some immigrants will always arrive via routes that do not happen to be officially sanctioned. Those prone to hysteria will refer to those who do not arrive with proper paperwork as ""illegal aliens,"" but we prefer to recognize them as ""your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,"" and we believe that the United States should continue to lift its lamp ""beside the golden door"" for them.  As such, we have a good measure of sympathy with the comprehensive immigration reform plan that Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy and Dianne Feinstein have cobbled together after months of working in conjunction with Republicans Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham and John McCain, among others.  There are millions of men and women working in America today, paying taxes, serving in the military and contributing in meaningful ways to our communities who need to be put on the path to citizenship. This reform legislation does that, albeit in the most bureaucratic, expensive and potentially dysfunctional way imaginable.  No one, not even its proponents, can tell Americans with a straight face that this is the immigration fix that is needed. And some of the flaws are severe - particularly when it comes to the legislation's failure to ensure that workers are not exploited. Too many sections of this measure read as if they were written by U.S. corporations that want more excuses to depress wages and lower working standards.  The fact that President Bush and his congressional allies want to rush this measure through to approval before the Memorial Day recess illustrates just about everything that is wrong with official Washington. Of course, America needs immigration reform. Of course, that reform should come quickly. But members of the House and Senate should at least get a chance to read the legislation, and citizens should have a chance to respond to it, before a final vote is taken.  U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is refusing to simply embrace this bill and unthinkingly vote for or against it. The senator says, ""Based on the limited information available so far, I have serious concerns about the bill, including whether it does enough to protect the rights of both U.S. and foreign workers.""  Feingold's concerns are well placed, and we are heartened by his declaration that ""I will be looking closely at ways to improve the bill ... when it comes to the Senate floor.""  Improvement is necessary. Rushed, imperfect immigration reform is not want America needs, or what it should accept. "
"1","Now for the tough stuff TRIB000020070522e35m0003b News 727 Words 22 May 2007 Chicago Tribune Chicagoland Final 18 English Copyright 2007, Chicago Tribune. All Rights Reserved.  Running for president of the United States is even less fun than most of us imagine. Sure, you're often bathed in floodlights, and strangers suddenly know your name, even if it's Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. But the travel is hellish, the food is often fried, and the long hours you spend schmoozing self-important donors only bring you that much closer to the grave. Then there are the not-so-good days, when hecklers who've never even met you shout cliched political nicknames: flip-flopper, know-nothing, dwarf.  Despite those indignities, Americans are blessed with -- depending on how one counts -- two dozen announced and unannounced candidates for president. We don't formally begin the wheat-from-chaff process for a few months. But we're at the point -- right now, this week -- when the candidates' job gets more difficult. Even as our job as engaged citizens tacks easier.  Three increasingly difficult, nowhere-to-hide issues immediately confront the nation and those who seek to lead it. Each candidate probably will find himself or herself fielding pointed questions about all three. By their responses, or non-responses, they'll demonstrate their abilities to think through conundrums, manage potential crises, and craft public policies that could bring the nation together:  * This week Iran probably will scorn another UN Security Council deadline to suspend its enrichment of uranium and return to negotiations over its nuclear program. This follows last week's news that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency believe Iran has solved technical challenges and is enriching uranium on a much larger scale than previously known. Expect to hear candidates quizzed on whether the U.S. can allow Iran to become a nuclear power -- and, if the answer is no, what should this country do to prevent that?  This won't be easy for anyone, but it's especially tough for Democrats. Example: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the past has sounded hawkish toward Iran, a stance that puts him at odds with many in his party. But every candidate knows that the modest economic sanctions on Iran haven't worked. Just as every candidate knows that the next president will be in a world of hurt if he or she has to contend with a nuclear Iran suddenly dominating the Mideast.  * This also is the week congressional Democrats have pledged to send President Bush a new war-funding bill to supplant the one he vetoed. The Associated Press reported Monday that Democratic leaders have grudgingly blinked and will pass a bill without any timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. The AP also says Democrats have agreed to strip out the political pork that secured Democratic votes for the earlier bill. They will, though, include in their legislation an increase in the minimum wage.  Whatever the outcome, the white-hot issue of war funding -- and the likelihood that some of the candidates will have to cast votes in Congress -- promises to make this an uncomfortable week for many of the presidential candidates. With Memorial Day looming symbolically, they'll need to tell the American public how they feel about funding U.S. soldiers during wartime.  * As if Iran and Iraq don't create enough turbulence, the candidates also face testy questioning about new Senate legislation to overhaul U.S. immigration law. Few people who have read about the bill have come away smiling. If you're like most pols who have spoken thus far, you think it's too punitive, or too forgiving, toward the 12 million immigrants now here illegally. So, how would you want your next president to react? Is this a bill any leader of this nation should champion? Or is it so flawed that you'd want your president to demand better of Congress -- and unambiguously threaten a veto?  Difficult duty for the candidates -- but hugely valuable for the rest of us. We get to see how adroitly or clumsily they react, how wisely or foolishly they settle on their stances.  Watching two dozen candidates perform under pressures like those they'll face this week may not tell us which of them is best suited for the office. It will, though, help us nudge the weakest among them toward the sidelines -- with our heartfelt thanks for volunteering to do such a difficult job. Editorial"
"4","LAST CHANCE FOR REFORM THE ISSUE: SENATE LEADERS, BUSH REACH COMPROMISE ON IMMIGRATION. OUR VIEW: THIS MAY BE THE ONLY SHOT AT CHANGE. EVVL000020070626e35m000ad Editorial 537 Words 22 May 2007 The Evansville Courier A6 English � 2007 The Evansville Courier. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The compromise between President Bush and bipartisan Senate leaders is the last, best shot at meaningful immigration reform.  The White House says Bush supports all the provisions in the measure, but if so, he's alone, because seemingly everybody else objects to one or another portion of the 380-page bill. But this is shaping up as a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.  If immigration reform is not passed this year, it will get caught up in presidential-campaign politics next year, and there are already indications that at least some of the candidates - with backer John McCain being a strong exception - see no political mileage in supporting the bill. After that, it's anybody's guess, but a new president is unlikely to spend political capital on such a controversial issue.  For Bush, the bill may be the last chance of a battered presidency to enact a signature piece of legislation, but it will require the president to get into the trenches. Immigration reform faces tough going in the Senate and even tougher going in the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she won't bring it to the floor unless the president can produce at least 70 Republican votes.  The bill would change U.S. immigration policy in several important respects.  It would provide a path to legal status and ultimately citizenship for the 12 million here illegally after first clearing up the backlog of 4 million people patiently awaiting visas to enter the country legally.  It puts college students and members of the military brought here illegally as children on a fast track to legal status.  It shifts some emphasis in the issuance of visas from reuniting families to admitting immigrants with desirable skills and education. And it allows for 400,000 to 600,000 guest workers a year to enter the country on a temporary basis.  Most important, we believe, it promises a database for employers to verify the legal status of their hires and then ups the penalties for hiring illegal workers once that verification system is in place. If jobs, the lure that attracts most illegal immigrants to this country, are made more difficult to get by cracking down on those who put the welcome mat out, that will help significantly.  The problem many Americans have with most immigration proposals, this one included, is that they reward lawbreakers; by definition illegal immigrants have broken the law.  But having stipulated that, then what? A humane and socially acceptable plan for expelling 12 million men, women and children from our country has yet to surface. And congressional critics of immigration reform always seem the quickest to denounce the feds for ""overzealous, heavy-handed tactics"" when employers in their districts are raided.  There is much in this bill that demands improvement, but the alternative is to go on as we've been going - patching the border with a wall here, some barbed wire there, and meanwhile the illegal immigrants still keep coming.  As we have said before on this page, the status quo is unacceptable."
"4","A sensible roadmap FLTY000020070523e35m0000h A; Editorial Florida Today Editorial 531 Words 22 May 2007 Florida Today Final/All A06 English (c) Copyright 2007, Florida Today. All Rights Reserved.  Florida Today Editorial  A few weeks ago, about 100 people gathered in Palm Bay for a prayer vigil on immigration reform.  They asked for a ""viable, humane and realistic immigration system"" to legalize millions of people who now work in the shadows.  That's a goal we have backed for two years, and thanks to an innovative bipartisan compromise bill in the Senate, that's what the nation now has before it.  While far from perfect, it sets up a basic framework to solve this bitterly divisive issue by providing a road to citizenship for the 12 million illegal immigrants who now cannot be tracked.  With agreement from senators as philosophically different as the liberal Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and conservative John Kyl of Arizona, the measure:  Increases the number of border patrol agents, calls for a 370-mile wall along part of the U.S.-Mexican border, and creates an employee identification system that could use such biological indicators as iris or hand-scans.  Only after those steps are completed could workers seek citizenship.  Meanwhile, they could work here legally under a so-called Z Visa. But to become Americans, they would have to:  --- Go to the back of the line for citizenship, waiting eight years or more.  --- Pay $5,000, face a background check, and have a good job record.  --- Household heads also would have to leave the country and come back in legally.  All that said, several elements of the bill concern us, including:  --- Demanding the head of the household leave the country to start the citizenship process. That is unnecessarily destructive, because spouses and children could be left behind.  --- Favoring highly educated English-speaking workers in future entries into the U.S. That could anger some Americans who fear losing their jobs to the immigrants.  --- Creating, in a separate part of the bill, a permanent underclass of legal workers who could work here for no more than six years, and could never become citizens.  That would only drive workers underground -- the opposite of the goal of reform.  Nonetheless, the debate now underway in Congress offers the best chance to work out a solution before 2008 election politics make it impossible.  But while many back it, others promise a brutal fight -- especially in the House.  There, Republicans Rep. Dave Weldon of Indialantic and Tom Feeney of Oviedo are typical of opponents who refuse to give the measure the slightest consideration.  We urge them to reconsider and recognize the value of compromise -- as many in their party do -- including President Bush and Sen. Mel Martinez of Orlando.  ""If we don't pass this bill, nobody that is in the shadows today will come out of the shadows and be accounted for,"" Martinez told a GOP gathering Friday.  He's right.  For the nation to get a handle on who is here and who is coming in, as well to provide a fair solution for those who do much of the nation's hardest labor, comprehensive reform is essential.  Congress should shoulder its leadership role, accept a compromise and solve this festering problem now, for justice and for the nation's security."
"4","Border solutions RNOB000020070522e35m0000w Editorial/Opinion 596 Words 22 May 2007 The News & Observer Final A10 English Copyright (c) 2007 by The News & Observer Pub. Co.  The nation can't keep closing its eyes as the illegal immigrant problem continues to worsen. And if Congress has any chance of solving that problem, reform has to be bipartisan and entail compromise. That's an encouraging feature of the legislation being considered this week in the Senate, following a breakthrough announced jointly by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a leading liberal Democrat, and Jon Kyl of Arizona, head of the Senate Republican Conference.  The bill tackles many of the hard policy issues in the immigration debate. Still, extreme elements in both parties can be expected to balk. That will require senators with a stake in resolving the long-standing deadlock to put shoulder to wheel. Count North Carolina's two senators, Republicans Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, as among those who have an interest in a solution, since they represent a state with one of the nation's fastest rates of growth in Hispanics who entered the country illegally.  The new bill isn't perfect, but that's the nature of a compromise. The bureaucracy needed to carry out the reform may turn out to be massive and and thus expensive. (That would be the price for inaction for so many years.) The bill includes tough enforcement, but if it veers even farther in that direction, some illegal workers may burrow deeper underground.  In general, the legislation can be characterized as practical. It would allow the 12 million or so Hispanics now estimated to be in the United States illegally to stay, but on a probationary basis. That offers fairness to the thousands of immigrants who arrived here legally and now wait patiently for the process to take its course.  Illegal immigrants who want permanent residency would be required to pay $5,000 in fees, and a family's head of household would have to return home for a period of time for the process to start. Those are stiff requirements but not impossible barriers. Keeping up with who was in compliance would be difficult, and is one of several valid objections that will need to be answered.  Conservatives win their demand for tighter border security, which may address national security concerns as well. Significantly, the legislation would require employers to better monitor whom they hire, and it would increase penalties for companies violating the law or doctoring paperwork to hide such hires.  Poverty may drive immigrants across the border illegally, but companies here invite such illegal crossings when they hire workers with little regard for whether their paperwork is valid. They then can poorly pay and badly treat illegal workers without fear that the workers will complain to authorities. That's not only bad for the illegals -- it erodes workplace conditions for everyone.  Dole and Burr should insist on a leading role in shaping a final bill. Illegal immigration increasingly strains North Carolina's medical and education budgets, and a small portion of Hispanics in the state illegally are putting a greater burden on police and the court system.  Opposition to the compromise seems to have stiffened among House members over the weekend, which is the wrong way to go if that means no bill at all. Congress certainly should be looking to make sure that changes in the immigration laws move the country closer to its goals: an orderly, lawful process of absorbing new arrivals that both recognizes the economy's demand for workers and helps ensure fairness in the workplace. But legislation needs to be negotiated in good faith, not with an eye toward scuttling reform."
"4","A very good effort PLQM000020070525e35m0004v EDITORIAL 696 Words 22 May 2007 The Patriot Ledger RUN OF PAPER 6 English � 2007 The Patriot Ledger. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  OUR OPINION  No, the immigration compromise the Senate is debating is not perfect and has a list of measures those on either side of the issue refuse to embrace.  Perhaps, though, that's what makes this bill the best chance we've had in a generation to address the growing problem of illegal immigration in this country.  Anytime there is a proposal that has the endorsement of both President Bush and our own liberal lion, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, it deserves a long, hard look and serious consideration to become law.  There are 12 million illegal immigrants in this country today. They are not going away on their own and we don't have the funds or facilities to round them up, try them and ship them out.  This is no amnesty program, as many conservative critics claim. The bill would require illegals to pay a $5,000 fine, return home at least once and get in line to wait for a green card, perhaps as long as eight years. That is not forgiveness; it is a challenge to those who truly want to become permanent citizens.  The bill also does not dismiss family as a measure for allowing someone into the country, as a number of Democrat opponents and immigrant advocates are charging. Spouses and minor children of American citizens would still receive preference in visas but siblings and adult children would have to stand and apply on their own.  While Kennedy and his counterpart, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, have said they would have written a different bill had they done it on their own, the inclusion of key elements to fix the problem in our lifetime and assuage concerns for both sides is encouraging.  The backlog of 4 million visa applications would be whittled away by the granting of 440,000 additional visas annually, a priority of Democrats;  A merit-based system using a combination of job skills, education and English proficiency would rank visa applicants, addressing concerns of conservative Republicans.  For businesses looking for continuity, illegal immigrants already here who want to continue working but not necessarily become citizens can get the so-called Z visa fairly quickly.  About 400,000 to 600,000 guest workers would be allowed in each year under a temporary-worker program.  Perhaps the biggest concession is none of this happens until more border fencing is erected and additional border patrol officers are hired, a necessary security ingredient in the wake of Sept. 11, which had derailed Bush's immigration agenda.  Before this is dismissed as a debate that merely affects the southwest and other entry ports, remember in our region the vast numbers of Asians, Irish, Cape Verdeans, Haitians, Portuguese and Brazilians that have swelled south of Boston.  They've become key to the restaurant and other hospitality services, construction, flooring, cranberry, blueberry and apple harvesting, fishing and a slew of other low-skill, high-demand jobs. They've become an integral part of our economy and our communities.  Yes, we'd like to see some fixes in the bill. Placing the responsibility on businesses to copy documentation and check a government database for someone's legal status could become onerous and fraught with pitfalls. The 1986 law that is currently in place requiring employers to ask prospective workers to see their documentation should be able to be tweaked to meet the need.  Also, $5,000 is a lot to ask low-wage workers to save while they still have to eat, live, find transportation, arrange day care and buy health care for their families. Some argue that human smugglers charge as least that much but not everyone pays a smuggler and, besides, the government should not be in competition or compared with black market mercenaries.  No, this bill is not perfect, but then we're hard-pressed to find one that's been passed into law that is. What this bill is, is a once-in-a-lifetime compromise borne out of bipartisan cooperation aimed at eradicating a divisive issue in our country and treat everyone with humanity and decency and give something all our ancestors once had - a chance."
"4","The right idea | Give compromise immigration plan a chance SDU0000020070524e35m00013 OPINION 484 Words 22 May 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune F B.6 English � 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  If only Americans could devise a way to pair willing employers with willing workers, and free up the Border Patrol to go after terrorists and smugglers instead of people who come to do jobs that Americans aren't doing.  In a nutshell, that is the idea that sparked the latest installment of the perennial immigration debate. It came from President Bush, who early in his presidency seized upon the idea of establishing a new guest-worker program to import temporary workers for industries where employers found it difficult to fill jobs with American workers.  A guest-worker plan is one of the components of the recently unveiled compromise immigration bill, which the Senate began to debate yesterday. The plan is to bring in as many as 400,000 guest workers per year for two or three years, and then require those workers to go home for a year before they reapply to reenter the country.  This is a major component of the proposal, and certainly one of the most controversial aspects of the plan. In fact, one of the few things on which critics on both the right and the left agree is that the guest-worker program is a non-starter, albeit for radically different reasons. Many conservatives fear that the workers won't leave and that, as former Sen. Alan Simpson likes to say, there is nothing more permanent than a temporary worker. Meanwhile, many liberals are worried the guest workers would be exploited by employers and bring down wages for U.S. workers.  These are not trivial concerns, but they can be addressed through the amendment process, especially now that the Senate Democratic leadership has wisely abandoned its ill-conceived plan to ram through this important piece of legislation with very little debate. It now seems clear that senators will be discussing the proposal for at least two weeks, and perhaps longer.  That is the best course. Senators need to use the time to address concerns about the guest-worker plan. This isn't complicated. There needs to be a series of punishments and incentives created to entice foreign workers to return to their home countries when their time in the United States is up. And legal safeguards need to be put in place to protect workers from abuse and exploitation while they are here. As for bringing down wages for U.S. workers, well, that assumes the native born want to do these jobs in the first place -- even at the best of wages.  President Bush had the right idea from the beginning. We need a program that pairs willing workers with willing employers and does so in a manner that is fair, just and humane to all parties. Who knows? Perhaps this is just such a plan. We'll never know if we don't give it a chance."
"2","LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SFC0000020070522e35m00010 EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 1266 Words 22 May 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.6 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Prison over college leads to dismal future  Editor -- You get what you pay for -- and thanks to AB900 this means more crime and less well-educated citizens for the state of California. The lame excuses by Fabian Nu`nez, the governor and other legislators that they can't help but enlarge California's already massive failure of a prison system are completely unacceptable.  They could just as easily enact a sentencing commission, parole reform and community development programs to reduce crime by shrinking the prison system.Instead, more prisons means they're planning on more crime -- which we all suffer from. Making the prisons' budget larger than the university system means that we'll have more criminals and fewer trained professionals -- I guess the halls of government are a preview of this dismal future.  RAPHAEL SPERRY  San Francisco  -- -- --  Editor -- Our prison overcrowding crisis is the direct result of California's dismal high-school dropout rates, with more than 80 percent of our convicts dropouts. School choice has been demonstrated to slash in half dropout rates by giving kids the attractive options that allow them to feel that sense of community, of belonging, even of family, that will keep them in school.  Passing a K-12 voucher system in California would soon empty our prisons and allow us to concentrate our tax money on infinitely more worthwhile endeavors.  ALAN BONSTEEL, president  California Parents for  Educational Choice  Tiburon  ---------------------------------------------------  Whales in the balance  Editor -- One can only wonder what the message may be in this unprecedented whale visit. The timing exquisitely coincides with the gathering of scientists and international policy-makers at the International Whaling Commission meeting in Anchorage next week. As we witness the beauty, grace and mystery of ""Delta"" and ""Dawn,'' we must realize that this international organization is within a vote or two of allowing the resumption of commercial whaling -- led by Japan, Norway and Iceland.  We ask: What can we do? Will the damage and injury done by some manmade machinery and other human obstacles lead to the whales' demise? This is not just a question for the whales in the Sacramento River, but a global question that we, as citizens, must address. The fate of the world's whales lies in the hands of the United States (and other) governments. The issues of global warming and depletion of food sources will linger. But officials at the IWC meeting can vote to ban all whaling. For more information, contact Sea Sanctuary at (650) 322-6311.  ROBIN MANKEY  Executive Director  Sea Sanctuary, Inc.  Palo Alto  -- -- --  Editor -- I don't know why the press hasn't come up with the correct names for the whales -- they are George and Condi: up a creek without a paddle, completely lost and over their heads, going in circles, blowing off steam and they clearly have no exit strategy.  RUTH BAILEY  Lafayette  ---------------------------------------------  Immigration 'sales job'  Editor -- There are plenty of Americans ""on the left'' who oppose the supposed ""grand bargain'' on immigration. Senate Bill 1348 merely demonstrates that both parties are in the thrall of the multinational corporations who have stolen the livelihoods of American middle-class workers.  The supposed hurdles that this bill requires illegal immigrants to go through to get on the path to citizenship will never be enforced. They are just part of the sales job being done on the American public. The new rules also insult those foreigners who have made the effort to immigrate here legally.  The ""Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007'' is another amnesty, nothing more. It demonstrates that this country needs a third political party dedicated to the United States and government of the people, by the people and for the people, not to globalization and one-world rule.  C.D. PAUL  Oakland  ---------------------------------------------  Family guy's ignorance  Editor -- I was absolutely appalled to read the quote by Paul Cameron (""S.F.'s same-sex couples asked to adopt foster kids,'' May 21), director of the Family Research Institute, stating that with regard to the adoption of foster youth a married couple is the ""gold standard'' ... an orphanage would be the second choice, then a single woman'' (he apparently doesn't even consider single men as adoptive parents).  As a former foster youth who resided both in foster homes and orphanages, I can absolutely assure Cameron that a home with a caring person, regardless of gender, marital status or sexual orientation is far preferable to an orphanage.  In making this statement, Cameron reveals a stunning ignorance of the issues of caring, bonding and attachment for foster youth. His comments also conflate pedophilia with sexual orientation, another example of breathtaking ignorance.  DAVID F. PERRY  Alameda  ---------------------------------------------  Signs we loved  Editor -- Apropos the dazzling billboard at the foot of the Bay Bridge; who remembers some of the other billboards and signs that have graced our skyline, and what would they make of them now? I have vivid memories of the Sherwin-Williams ""Covers the Earth'' billboard facing east-bound traffic coming off of the bridge. Who can forget the Hamm's brewery sign that greeted travelers? I recall that this sign could be seen from all over the East Bay at night!  TOM APPLETON  Berkeley  ---------------------------------------------  Mayor of Castro Street  Editor -- May 22 will be Harvey Milk's 77th birthday. My wife Helen and myself met Harvey in 1973 when he moved into his home at 573 Castro St. and opened his camera shop at 575 Castro with his lover Scott Smith. Harvey, along with many other gays, is responsible for saving this great district. In the few years he had, Harvey did so much for the Castro district. There is not enough space to list all that Harvey did to improve this district. He was a very proud gay, and I never saw gay people holding hands until Harvey and his lover Scott walked down Castro Street. The rest is history.  A couple of weeks after Harvey Milk became supervisor, I went to visit him at his office in City Hall. He was receiving calls from all over the United States from gay persons asking him if it were true that gays would be safe in the Castro district. Harvey said ""you will be safe.'' On Harvey's birthday next year, May 22, 2008, a bronze bust of him will be placed in City Hall for people from all over to see.  Everyone who lives or works in the Castro knows that this district is a special place. During the next year, I invite you to see for yourself. Go to the Harvey Milk Library in the Castro and read Randy Shilts' book, ""The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life & Times of Harvey Milk."" Read and look at all the history about the Castro in Strange de Jim's photo history, ""San Francisco's Castro.'' When you visit the Castro, go to the Muni station and walk downstairs, and you will see pictures of Harvey on the wall. Go to 573 Castro and look up, and you will see a mural of Harvey looking out the window. Look at Harvey's old camera shop at 575 Castro and read the plaque on the sidewalk.Thank you, Harvey Milk, for making the Castro a nice place for everyone to enjoy. You will always be the mayor of Castro Street.  ALLAN BAIRD  San Francisco PHOTO, GRAPHIC; Caption: PHOTO: Harvey Milk quipped, ""I am probably the only elected official who cuts the ribbon and then puts it in his hair.'' / Daniel Nicoletta March 7, 1978, GRAPHIC: John Overmyer / NewsArt.com"
"2","Reshape immigration reform NSL0000020070522e35m0007y EDITORIAL 486 Words 22 May 2007 The Star-Ledger FINAL 14 English (c) 2007 The Star-Ledger. All rights reserved.  EDITORIAL  The immigration bill that will be debated in the Senate this week - and probably longer - is an admirable, if flawed, effort to craft a compromise that will satisfy Republicans fearful of unprotected borders and Democrats concerned about a track to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Our hope is that the Senate debate, followed by conference with the House of Representatives, will forge a less equivocal deal.  At its best, the bill accomplishes what one of its crafters, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), described recently. It ""brings millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America"" by creating a path to citizenship, though an arduous one, for the country's 12 million illegal immigrants. It also provides for stronger border security and calls appropriately for stricter background checks by employers.  Among other things, illegal immigrants would have to pay a $5,000 fine and pass a criminal background check. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries to apply for permanent residency for household members.  A difficult process, however, is better than none. This proposal is harsh but reasonable.  The bill's compromises become more problematic in provisions for awarding visas on a merit-based system. The new system would award points based on education level, job skills and knowledge of English.  While the idea is to ensure a greater flow of skilled workers into the country, the system would be too cumbersome and rigid to adjust to employers' changing needs. And immigrant rights groups are correct when they complain that such requirements would unravel a system that for 40 years has favored uniting family members.  Also troubling is a temporary worker program for 400,000 immigrants a year, with a two-year visa renewable up to three times. This system would create an underclass whose work and effort will never result in the privilege of citizenship. And the provision for leaving the country after two years guarantees that, rather than disrupt their families' lives, many will choose to stay illegally.  There is plenty here to cause agita. Some Republicans still see the citizenship path as ""amnesty."" Some Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, say the merit-based system needs to be ""improved."" Many immigration experts fret that the scale and timing of some of the proposals - such as that the Department of Human Services distribute to all U.S. employers, within 18 months, an improved version of a program to check Social Security numbers against government databases - are too unreasonable to be effective.  Compromise will be the underpinning of any immigration bill that gets passed. We hope, though, that certain aspects of the current plan - most notably the temporary worker program and an unmodified merit system - are altered during the debate. After waiting years for an overhaul of the immigration system, it would be worthwhile to craft a bill that is effective and fair. KENNEDY"
"4","THE ISSUE: ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DEBATE PHX0000020070524e35n00012 Opinions 555 Words 23 May 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser B6 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  Do you like illegal immigration? Deaths along the border? The increasing violence of gangs who smuggle people into the country?  Do you favor a large and growing population of illegal workers? Are you fond of the idea that businesses can't tell who's legal and who isn't?  Do you enjoy the knowledge that an out-of-control border is an invitation to terrorists?  If these things are enhancing your quality of life, you don't have to do a thing.  Just stay quiet.  Sit back and let the most extreme voices left and right shout down the compromise immigration reform bill that senators of both parties and the White House put together.  If people who occupy the sensible middle don't speak up and provide some cover for the reform-minded in Congress, then loud and unreasonable factions win.  The leader of Arizona's Republican Party says reaction to this bill has been overwhelmingly negative. We suspect those shouting the loudest represent the extreme edge of the party. This bill was not written to appeal to restrictionists.  But despite what some restrictionists are yelling, this bill is, in fact, far tougher and more enforcement-heavy than the bill the GOP-controlled Senate passed last year. It beefs up the border and includes strong employer sanctions. Enforcement ""triggers"" must be met before a guest worker program begins.  Compromises never entirely please everyone, and this one isn't perfect. But it has promise. It recognizes the reality that you cannot deport 12 million undocumented workers. It accepts the fact that the nation relies on their labor, and they shouldn't have to hide. It provides a long, hard, expensive way for them to join the mainstream.  It's not amnesty.  In fact, it is so far from amnesty that some on the immigrant advocacy groups are grumbling and balking.  But here in Arizona -- where both of our U.S. senators have been active in trying to achieve needed reform -- the loudest voices are those that call those senators ""traitors"" and demand this bill be dumped because it's too soft.  They are champions of the status quo.  If they succeed in shouting down reason, there will be no immigration reform this year. The upcoming presidential campaign means there will be no reform next year, either.  If the rage of the loud ones cows lawmakers who have been courageous enough to reach across the aisle and compromise, then this bill will die.  The multifaceted tragedy along the border will continue for years.  So it's really up to the people who occupy the vast middle ground. Speak up. The opponents are sending e-mails and making phone calls to Congress. Don't let their voices be the only ones heard.  It's your government, too.  Tell lawmakers to work this compromise and make comprehensive immigration reform a reality this summer.  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., backs the Senate's latest immigration-reform legislation. "
"4","Editorial Roundup APRS000020070523e35n00dnv By The Associated Press 2882 Words 23 May 2007 19:37 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:  May 19  Chicago Tribune, on the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell and the comments of radio icon Don Imus:  How strange it is to describe someone in the context of the controversial things they have said, as though all of their lives were spent babbling nonsense or offensive gibberish or inflammatory flapdoodle. It may well be the one characteristic that links the disgraced radio icon Don Imus to the late media preacher who was behind the Moral Majority, Rev. Jerry Falwell.  For each man, the use of words accepted in one place caused trouble in another. ...  Falwell's followers found in him a great preacher and leader, sure enough, just as Imus' audience believed him witty, provocative and acceptable, up to a point. (""Nappy headed ho's"" would be the point at which Imus became unacceptable).  But outside of the world of the converted, the choir to which Falwell preached, he became notorious for comments that would be applauded by the flock but widely questioned, criticized, even condemned, by those outside of it. The same phenomenon happens when people scrutinize the words of rap music or analyze the kinds of songs that were played in New Orleans brothels at the turn of the last century. ...  A lesson presents itself in the wake of his death: In the world of words, good and bad can be as much in the ear of the listener as in the heart of the speaker.  Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com. May 19.  ------  May 22  Star-Ledger, Newark, N.J., on immigration reform:  The immigration bill that will be debated in the Senate this week -- and probably longer -- is an admirable, if flawed, effort to craft a compromise that will satisfy Republicans fearful of unprotected borders and Democrats concerned about a track to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Our hope is that the Senate debate, followed by conference with the House of Representatives, will forge a less equivocal deal. ...  There is plenty here to cause agita. Some Republicans still see the citizenship path as ""amnesty."" Some Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, say the merit-based system needs to be ""improved."" Many immigration experts fret that the scale and timing of some of the proposals -- such as that the Department of Human Services distribute to all U.S. employers, within 18 months, an improved version of a program to check Social Security numbers against government databases -- are too unreasonable to be effective.  Compromise will be the underpinning of any immigration bill that gets passed. We hope, though, that certain aspects of the current plan -- most notably the temporary worker program and an unmodified merit system -- are altered during the debate. After waiting years for an overhaul of the immigration system, it would be worthwhile to craft a bill that is effective and fair. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.nj.com  ------  May 21  Star Tribune, Minneapolis, on impoverished children:  ... (Rep. Betty) McCollum's Global Child Survival Act doesn't envision anything especially novel; it simply seeks a return to the principled practice of the past. In the last three decades, U.S. aid helped cut child-mortality rates in the developing world by half. Yet even now, children in the poorest of nations still face a nearly 20 percent chance of dying before 5. And despite the persistent need, U.S. child-health aid has dropped 20 percent since 1997. ...  McCollum's bill comes just in time to prevent the dive from becoming a disaster. ...  The Global Child Survival Act does that: It calls for a jump in child-health spending of $600 million next year and prescribes further annual increases through 2012....  Yet what matters most is not how many dollars McCollum & Co. seek to spend on this quest -- but how many lives those dollars might save. If the U.S. does its share, public-health experts predict, 6 million child deaths in the developing world can be prevented each year. That counts as quite as bargain.  ------  On the Net: http://www.startribune.com  ------  May 19  Los Angeles Times, on consolidating federal food safety agencies:  This spring, thousands of dogs and cats got sick from eating pet food made with tainted wheat products from China. Pictures of sad puppies hooked to IVs filled newspapers. In short order, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) called for a new, consolidated federal agency to oversee food safety in the United States.  At first glance, the chain of events looked a lot like the headline-driven rush to action that spawned the Department of Homeland Security, glomming dozens of entities under one roof and hamstringing a lot of them in the process (think FEMA). Consolidating departments is not always the best way to ensure good governance.  But when it comes to ensuring food safety currently handled by an overlapping bureaucratic nightmare in need of ""fundamental reexamination,"" according to the Government Accountability Office it may make sense to centralize.  ... The regulations that govern food safety are woefully out of date, written before the U.S. imported much of its food and before the advent of processed tasties made of mysterious stuff like ""wheat gluten."" ...  The Safe Food Act would create a single agency that, unlike the FDA, could concentrate solely on food safety standardizing inspection and recall standards across all food types and markets, more aggressively screening imports and so on. It's a welcome acknowledgment that food safety needs to adapt to the 21st century.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/  ------  May 20  The Boston Globe, on the Department of Defense:  From Abu Ghraib to Walter Reed, the Department of Defense has been mired recently in a succession of scandals. In both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the military's civilian and uniformed leaders have also been asked by Congress to explain their decisions about troop deployments, economic reconstruction, friendly-fire casualties, and training of Iraqi and Afghan forces. In fulfilling their responsibility to oversee the military, members of Congress need access to the views of anyone in uniform, not just high-level officers.  But new Bush administration guidelines would limit Congress's freedom to get testimony from a wide range of service members and civilian Pentagon employees. The Department of Defense is reserving the right to bar enlisted personnel, career bureaucrats, and any officers below the rank of colonel from testifying to oversight committees or having their statements transcribed.  ... If the department itself had paid more attention to the voices of privates, it might not have allowed the appalling conditions in the outpatient quarters of Walter Reed hospital, for just one example, to become such a symbol of bureaucratic indifference and neglect. Congress should insist on hearing the testimony from anyone, civilian or military, in the Department of Defense.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial--opinion/  ------  May 21  The Buffalo (N.Y.) News, on gasoline prices:  ... There are two problems with the price of gasoline. One is that it takes more and more money from people's wallets, both when they buy gas and when they buy anything that was transported from there to here. ...  The other problem with the price of gasoline is that, despite the public outcry and the echoed outrage in the halls of Congress, people keep right on buying it. ...  The petroleum industry is so dominated by so few firms that the question of whether the market has been manipulated is self-evident. Of course it has, as much by the governments unwillingness to pass and enforce anti-trust laws as by any treachery among the petro giants.  Sen. Charles E. Schumer's call for an investigation into suspected price-fixing by the oil industry is a good idea. ... Maybe Schumer can make a deal with Big Oil. Either boost the use of the nations refining capacity from the current 88 percent, and build more capacity, to lower prices. Or just raise those prices to, say $6 a gallon, and keep them there. Keep them there long enough for people to make the calculation that they want more efficient cars, wider-reaching mass transit systems and houses that are in the same ZIP code as their jobs, because neither the public nor the auto industry seems to want to head in that ultimately necessary direction on its own.  Otherwise, the oil industry remains in the role of the very clever drug pusher. Enough to keep us hooked, never enough to kill us. At least, not right away.  ----  On the Net:  http://www.buffalonews.com  ------  May 19  The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tenn. on the civil rights movement and pardons:  As some Southern states waged a vicious second Civil War in the 1950s and 1960s to block desegregation, thousands of African-Americans and white people were arrested while standing up for freedom.  The protesters were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, inciting riots, loitering and more, as they peacefully marched, staged sit-ins and protested to bring an end to the South's oppressive Jim Crow laws, including barriers to African-Americans being able to vote.  For exercising their rights as American citizens, they unjustly ended up with criminal records. ...  Recently, some Southern states, including Tennessee and Alabama, have moved to offer pardons to those convicted of acts of civil disobedience during the civil rights movement. Some civil rights warriors have expressed disdain for the effort, calling their arrests a badge of honor. In truth, the pardons should have been granted years ago, but it's never too late to right an injustice.  ... The House and Senate this week passed the Rosa Parks Act, named after the mother of the civil rights movement, that would grant pardons to individuals who sought them.  Now, Gov. Phil Bredesen needs to get up to speed on the legislation and quickly sign it into law.  --------  May 17  The Indianapolis Star, on the Chrysler sale:  Daimler's sale of Chrysler to a private investment company could be the first step in a massive overhaul of American automobile companies.  The sale creates an alternative business model to the approach used since Ford Motor Co. went public on Jan. 17, 1956 -- almost 40 years after General Motors stock first traded on the New York Stock Exchange.  Daimler's reasons for shedding Chrysler at a bargain basement price best frame the challenges facing Cerberus, the automaker's new owner. For Cerberus to succeed, experts say, the organization needs to cut operating expenses by as much as 30 percent, improve quality control and compete more aggressively in global markets, especially in China.  As a private company, Chrysler may be able to deal with operating costs more effectively. Health care for workers sits atop that list, as it does for America's other automakers.  As when it was bailed out by Congress in 1979-80, Chrysler has an opportunity to reinvent itself, and to possibly create operations more competitive with foreign automakers.  Astute consumers will watch carefully to see if Chrysler's new approach can produce higher-quality vehicles for lower prices. You can bet that Ford and GM will be watching, too.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.indystar.com  ------  May 23  The Independent, London, on the murder of Alexander Litvinenko:  A frost is about to descend upon relations between Russia and the UK. And quite right too. The decision by the director of public prosecutions that there is sufficient evidence to charge a Russian former KGB officer, Andrei Lugovoi, with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko is bound to send an icy wind blowing from London to Moscow. Britain has begun extradition proceedings even though the Kremlin has already announced that Russia's constitution does not allow its nationals to be extradited.  There is a lot at stake here. The diplomatic atmosphere between Russia and the UK is strained thanks to the case, and that is against a background of general unease in relations between Moscow and the West in general. ...  Even so, some things are not negotiable. To enter the territory of another sovereign state and commit a murder is not acceptable. It opens you to prosecution under the law of the land where the crime was committed. All the more so when the weapon used to poison Mr. Litvinenko was a radioactive isotope which threatened the lives of a large number of innocent bystanders.  Moscow may huff and puff that the murder was not sanctioned by the Kremlin but there seems little doubt that this was a revenge attack by the FSB, the body which succeeded the KGB, against Mr. Litvinenko, a former agent who blew the whistle on corruption in the FSB in 1998. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading--articles/article2573273.ece  ------  May 21  Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, on hedge funds:  The stock markets in New York and Shanghai are flying at dizzying heights and the repercussions from a possible crash in either market are vast--even though the damage would be limited if all investors were able to cover the risks out of their own pockets.  In fact, the global financial system could be plunged into crisis if a hedge fund that uses vast sums collected from investors to make highly speculative and heavily leveraged market bets were to collapse.  Hedge funds perform important functions for markets, by spreading risks and ensuring smooth transactions. Keeping a tight leash on hedge funds because of the speculative nature of their investments would hinder the efficient development of financial markets.  Leaving them unregulated, however, is even more dangerous because a hands-off approach makes it impossible to assess the risks posed to markets by the positions taken by hedge funds.  If hedge funds are linked to the operations of financial institutions to the extent that the risks hedge funds are taking on pose a serious threat to the health of those financial institutions, then the financial regulators of major countries should instruct such financial institutions to ensure their relations with the funds are safe and sound.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.asahi.com/english/  ------  May 22  Daily Star, Beirut, Lebanon, on the violence in Lebanon:  The violence in Lebanon over the past two days, including the clashes in the North and the bombing near a shopping mall in Beirut, ought to serve as a wakeup call to any Lebanese leader who harbors illusions about the state of affairs in this country. Any honest assessment would conclude that the domestic political context and the security situation have progressed well beyond what could appropriately be termed ""difficult."" ...  Lebanese leaders simply can no longer afford the luxury of doing nothing to resolve the country's six-month old political crisis. The events in Tripoli and Beirut over the past two days have had repercussions on every aspect of the political sphere and will impact matters ranging from relations with Syria and the Palestinians to the regulation of weapons inside the country and the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Even as leaders try to navigate their way through the minefield of these and other issues, the country is careening at full speed toward another crisis over the presidential elections. The situation therefore requires the creation of a united front with the active participation and support of all of the country's communities. In short, the time is long overdue for a unity government.  Until now, Lebanese leaders have failed to create a unity cabinet because they have been unable to agree on the number of seats for each faction. Perhaps it is time for all of the parties to look beyond their past mathematical disputes and invent a new equation for governing the country. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.dailystar.com.lb  ------  May 22  The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, India, on Islamic clerics:  When is a hug not a hug but a great sin, an obscene and un-Islamic act? When hardline clerics from Islamabad's Red Mosque decree it so. Pakistan's Tourism Minister Nilofar Bakhtiar appears to be paying the price for not keeping people at arm's length. Ms Bakhtiar has had to resign because a fatwa was issued against her for getting up close and personal with her French paratrooper trainer after she successfully completed a course in parachute jumping. No sooner were the photographs published of the so-called embrace, than clerics jumped into the fray to defend' the honor of Pakistani women.  Never mind the fact that the 71-year-old instructor did nothing which could be remotely construed as obscene. The event was organized last month to raise money for victims of the October 2005 earthquake. But then charity does not always begin at home if the clerics have their way. For one, they have not come to terms with the fact that women are entering the political fray, where horror of all horror, they will have to work cheek-by-jowl with men. Earlier this year, a woman minister in the Punjab province was shot dead by a fanatic who believed women should simply not be allowed into politics. The Foreign Minister's resignation is another example of how bigots stand in the way of modernization. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.hindustantimes.com 7"
"4","Indiana Editorial Roundup APRS000020070523e35n00b48 By The Associated Press 858 Words 23 May 2007 16:19 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Excerpts of recent editorials from Indiana newspapers:  May 23:  The Tribune, Seymour, on immigration bill:  The compromise measure on immigration the Senate is considering is almost miraculously constructive, considering differences between the two major parties and polarized opinions among Americans on an issue where emotions run high. It's far from perfect and is likely to have unintended consequences, but it's a solid start.  There will be a legalization procedure, but it will be expensive, lengthy and bureaucratic. The legalization procedures wouldn't start until 18,000 more Border Patrol agents are hired, hundreds of miles of a fence are built and an electronic system for employers to check legal status, with enhanced penalties for employers who hire illegals, is put in place. Future legal admissions would have a point system that incorporates education, special skills, relatives already here and knowledge of English.  Implementing the bill would require a much larger and more expensive bureaucracy, and there is no guarantee it would be efficient or humane.  But this is a political compromise within a polarized Congress, and such compromises are never ideal. Those who oppose this approach or something like it are choosing to accept the present situation. That means pretending to have workable laws while winking at those who break them, creating an ever-growing population of people whose status is both dicey and vulnerable and widely resented.  May 23:  South Bend Tribune, on teacher appreciation:  Most people have a favorite teacher, one who motivated and inspired, whose name conjures up good memories of learning. Perhaps it was the fourth-grade teacher who tapped into undiscovered potential. Or the high school teacher who helped ease the path to college.  What better way to express appreciation for a favorite teacher than by signing the ""Nation's Largest Teacher Thank You Card""?  As part of this month's National Teacher Day and Teacher Appreciation Week, the National Education Association and the National Parent Teacher Association are building a card for the nation's public school teachers. Thousands of individual thank you cards from people across the nation will be compiled and combined into one oversized card, serving as a tribute to those who teach.  To honor the teacher who influenced and inspired you, log on to http://www.teacherthankyoucard.org. The deadline for sending a card is Dec. 28, but there's no time to waste, especially if you're lucky enough to have more than one person to thank.  ------  On the Net: http://www.southbendtribune.com  May 17:  The Indianapolis Star, on Chrysler sale:  Daimler's sale of Chrysler to a private investment company could be the first step in a massive overhaul of American automobile companies.  The sale creates an alternative business model to the approach used since Ford Motor Co. went public on Jan. 17, 1956 -- almost 40 years after General Motors stock first traded on the New York Stock Exchange.  Daimler's reasons for shedding Chrysler at a bargain basement price best frame the challenges facing Cerberus, the automaker's new owner. For Cerberus to succeed, experts say, the organization needs to cut operating expenses by as much as 30 percent, improve quality control and compete more aggressively in global markets, especially in China.  As a private company, Chrysler may be able to deal with operating costs more effectively. Health care for workers sits atop that list, as it does for America's other automakers.  As when it was bailed out by Congress in 1979-80, Chrysler has an opportunity to reinvent itself, and to possibly create operations more competitive with foreign automakers.  Astute consumers will watch carefully to see if Chrysler's new approach can produce higher-quality vehicles for lower prices. You can bet that Ford and GM will be watching, too.  ------  On the Net: http://www.indystar.com  May 16:  The Herald-Bulletin, Anderson, on drug imports:  Americans are economically trapped by out-of-control prescription drug costs, and the U.S. Senate recently made sure the trap will stay intact.  On May 7, the Senate voted down a measure to allow Americans to purchase imported drugs at a fraction of the price charged by U.S. pharmaceutical companies. This means that Americans will continue to pay high prices for prescription drugs.  Those voting against the measure say that the safety of the American people is paramount when it comes to drugs. Advocates for imported drugs, on the other hand, say that the protection is for the drug companies, not the consumer.  Prices are usually lower in foreign countries because prescription drugs are government controlled. In America, the market determines the price. But if the market is tampered with, such as defeat of this measure, then the market forces that control prices can't work.  Prescription drug prices in the U.S. are the highest in the world. To lessen the burden on the consumer, especially senior citizens on fixed incomes, the market should be opened up to include prescription drugs from foreign countries. That would be a true free market solution to a real problem.  ------  On the Net: http://www.heraldbulletin.com 7"
"4","Editorials from The Kentucky Enquirer, The Daily Independent, The Paducah Sun APRS000020070523e35n002et 1568 Words 23 May 2007 05:00 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Excerpts from recent editorials from across Kentucky:  The Kentucky Enquirer, Fort Mitchell  A new, bipartisan compromise on immigration reform being considered in the U.S. Senate offers some hope -- finally -- that the political impasse might be broken on one of the thorniest issues facing America: what to do about the estimated 12 million people who are here illegally.  The product of three months of negotiations among lawmakers, the plan is far from ideal, and we're likely to see substantial changes before -- and if -- it is approved by both houses of Congress. Conservatives object to some parts of it, and liberals object to others. But politicians and members of the public who don't see this complex, 380-page bill as their preferred solution shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.  As Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., put it: ""To the American people, I would say, 'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'""  We'd second that, and add that the federal government has made such a mess of immigration policy in the past couple of decades that any thoughtful, fully vetted proposal is bound to be an improvement. Opponents on the left and right already have denounced the Senate plan, yet some proponents say they're confident it will be approved. ...  Some conservatives are labeling this plan -- or any other plan short of mass deportations -- as ""amnesty."" But the long, difficult path toward legal residency it offers hardly fits that word. And we have to face facts. It is physically impossible to move 12 million people out of the country, and we wouldn't want to anyway. The disruption could devastate our economy -- and, as Feinstein has correctly pointed out, the nation's food supply through the loss of agricultural workers. We do need what many of these immigrants have brought to our nation.  Some liberals are concerned that the reform would be too restrictive, based more on immigrants' education and skills than family ties, and would unfairly create a class of temporary workers. But it is clear our border security must be strengthened, and we cannot afford to allow virtually unrestricted entry into the U.S., which could further strain our resources and tear at the nation's social fabric. ...  Compromise is often difficult. This one will be particularly difficult. But at various turning points in our history, leaders have been able to find common ground in ways that upheld the essential principles behind this nation.  ""I think we've got a deal that reflects who we are as Americans,"" said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. Let's hope he is correct about the deal and about who we are.  ------  On the Net: http://news.enquirer.com  ------  The Daily Independent, Ashland  U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, a Republican from Kentucky's 5th District, has joined another Republican congressman from Appalachia -- Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia -- in asking the federal Food and Drug Administration to reclassify the painkiller OxyContin so that only people in severe pain can be prescribed the drug.  In light of the recent guilty pleas by the maker of OxyContin and three of its current and former executives to charges of misleading the public about the drug's risk of addiction, the request is well-timed and appropriate. OxyContin is a more powerful and addictive drug than its maker promoted it to be.  But of course we already knew that, didn't we? OxyContin, a trade name for oxycodone, has been so widely abused in this region that it has earned the nickname ""hillbilly heroin."" From 1996 to 2001, the number of oxycodone-related deaths nationwide increased 400 percent while the annual number of OxyContin prescriptions increased nearly twentyfold, according to a report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. In 2002, the DEA said the drug caused 146 deaths and contributed to another 318.  A number of those deaths have occurred in this region, where the abuse of prescription medicine -- aided at least initially by rogue doctors who operated ""pill mills"" -- reached epidemic proportions.  Purdue Pharma L.P., its president, top lawyer and former chief medical officer will pay $634.5 million in fines for claiming the drug was less addictive and less subject to abuse than other pain medications, U.S. Attorney John Brownlee said after the recent guilty pleas. The plea agreement came just two days after Purdue Pharma agreed to pay $19.5 million to 26 states and the District of Columbia to settle complaints that it encouraged physicians to overprescribe OxyContin.  Brownlee said Purdue learned from focus groups with physicians in 1995 that they were worried about the abuse potential of OxyContin. The company then gave knowingly false information to its sales representatives that the drug had less potential for addiction and abuse than other painkillers. ...  Rogers and Wolf cited the guilty pleas in asking FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach to reclassify OxyContin so it can only be prescribed to those with severe pain. Currently, those with moderate pain can get the drug.  OxyContin can be extremely effective in easing the agony of those in severe pain, particularly those in the final stages of cancer. For them, the drug can make their final days more bearable.  The problem is that too many people who probably could have had their pain eased with a less potent drug have been prescribed OxyContin and become addicted to it -- often with tragic results. Further limiting OxyContin's availability is in order. Indeed, it's overdue.  ------  On the Net: http://www.dailyindependent.com  ------  The Paducah Sun  It's time America just dealt with the problem of smokers in our midst once and for all.  We've got to replace these piecemeal, halfway measures to rid ourselves of this national scourge with a permanent solution. For everyone's sake. It must be just as defeating for the smokers to lose their rights little by little as it is tiresome for free breathers to fight for smoke-free air a cubic yard at a time.  The smokers complained about designated smoking sections in restaurants. They complained when they were booted from government buildings. They complained when they were banished from restaurants. They're complaining now that they can't smoke near the entrances to public buildings. And they'll probably complain when the state makes them wear ""UNCLEAN"" signs around their necks. It's madness to keep fighting every step of the way.  Instead of listening to them trot out that libertarian nonsense about personal ""rights"" every single time society places a reasonable limit on where they can light up, let's just put the smokers in a place where we won't have to deal with them, and they won't have to deal with us, ever again.  Let's send them to the moon.  It's not as radical as it sounds. Oh sure, there would be a few details to work out, such as that little issue of surviving in an environment with no air. But, hey, the smokers have already figured out a way to do that.  And we'd have to come up with a way to transport them all up there. That's completely doable, what with the recent private ventures in space transportation. The federal government could even pay for their one-way tickets with the money saved in Medicare and Medicaid for treatment of smoking-related illnesses.  Naturally, the smokers would have to take a little initiative, such as developing infrastructure and habitable dwellings and food sources and all that minutiae. But these people are resourceful. Look at their ingenious methods for getting nicotine fixes without being detected.  Some might object to this proposal on the grounds that it will break up families in which not every member smokes. But which is more important, seeing the very same people every day or breathing clean air? Life's about choices. Besides, they can still stay in touch if they must. That's what cell phones are for. And instant messaging.  The moon colony is not an original concept. Like every great idea, it is borrowed. When Britain was faced with the problem of prison overcrowding, they offered convicted criminals a choice -- the gallows or Australia, the world's largest penal colony. Most of the convicts had not committed a capital offense, but the Crown wanted to provide a little incentive to help the poor saps recognize the benefits of the Down Under Option.  The ones healthy enough not to die on the ship over and alert enough not to get killed by the other convicts once they arrived eventually molded a civilization of sorts halfway around the world, which back then was as remote as the moon is today. Today they have indoor plumbing, motorcars and even breweries. Come to think of it, they had breweries before they had houses.  We're not saying the moon is a penal colony, not really. And maybe we don't have to go so far as to offer the gallows as the only other option. It's probably a bit harsh for this day and age. Instead, we could give them the choice of, say, watching Michael Moore documentaries all day every day. We could call it the Moon or Moore Choice.  They'd probably prefer the gallows.  ------  On the Net: http://www.paducahsun.com 7"
"4","Sampling of editorials from upstate New York APRS000020070523e35n008ye 2415 Words 23 May 2007 13:08 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  The Times Union of Albany on trafficking laws in NY.  May 20.  The Legislature took a giant step last week when it reached an agreement with Governor Spitzer on a new law to punish those who engage in human trafficking. The urgent need for a state law has long been apparent, and various lawmakers had introduced anti-trafficking legislation during the past two years. But the Assembly and Senate were never able to reconcile their differences over how best to address the issue, and an agreement seemed out of reach. The impasse was indefensible. But this year, thanks in large part to a chorus of reformers, including religious, labor and good government groups, the lawmakers had a hard time putting off the issue any longer. Governor Spitzer's support for anti-trafficking legislation also helped smooth the way toward an agreement.  Many victims of trafficking are young women who are lured from other countries with the promise of a job in the United States, only to find themselves forced to work in brothels and massage parlors. Still others, male and female, are forced to work as domestics, in restaurants or factories for little or no wages.  Because many of the victims enter the country through New York, a tough state anti-trafficking law should have been a priority long ago. But opponents had argued that a state law would be redundant, given that trafficking is already a federal offense. True, but federal resources are finite, and agents understandably tend to focus on large-scale operations. That allowed small-time traffickers to operate without fear of punishment under state law.  The lack of a state law also perpetuated the suffering of trafficking victims, who were routinely subjected to prosecution for offenses such as prostitution, even though they were forced to participate against their will.  Twenty-nine other states have long had anti-trafficking laws, but the agreement reached by Mr. Spitzer and legislative leaders means that New York will soon have one of the toughest anti-trafficking law in the country. Just as important, the victims will be treated as victims, not criminals, and will be eligible for services, including housing assistance, and treatment for mental health and drug problems.  Finally.  ----  On the Web: http://www.timesunion.com  The Times-Herald Record of Middletown on state's DNA database.  May 22.  Gov. Spitzer's proposal to dramatically expand the use of DNA collection and testing has great potential to solve unsolved crimes and exonerate those wrongly found guilty. Assuming that it works as well as the governor believes it will, this could be the turning point that unites science and law enforcement into an efficient force that determines true guilt and innocence.  Any hesitation, and there should be some with the implications that this new law carries, comes from the glib assurances that the system is perfect. Should the DNA tests be mistaken in one half of 1 percent of the cases, that will translate into thousands of people wrongly identified as suspects. And because of the belief in the sanctity of DNA testing as opposed to mere evidence or testimony, a mistake here will be almost impossible to combat.  The sweeping scope of the Spitzer plan also raises issues that go to the heart of constitutional protections that have been slowly and now are being rapidly eroded by the Supreme Court. The governor wants to take DNA samples from pretty much anybody charged with pretty much anything more serious than a traffic ticket. Those who have nothing to hide, the argument goes, would not be afraid of this. But there are two valid concerns that the governor needs to include in his thinking. A test cannot be perfect, and having nothing to hide has never been the guiding principle in a nation that believes in innocence.  The governor wants to have DNA taken from people found guilty of any misdemeanor. That could include unauthorized use of a credit card, as well as minor drug offenses. Some other states do not include as many crimes but do intrude more into what used to be considered basic rights, taking samples from those who are merely arrested and have not yet been tried or convicted.  Police and prosecutors are behind this bill because they know how powerful a tool DNA can be to find suspects and persuade juries to convict them. Defense lawyers have been lured into support by the prospect of access to much more DNA evidence, a powerful tool for those who claim wrongful conviction.  The only ones without a voice in this matter are those who worry that in their rush to test and judge, the governor, the prosecutors and the lawyers are willing to accept that a percentage of people will somehow end up as unintended victims. The governor and the legislators are supposed to represent that cohort as well. It is up to them to write the law with that traditional constitutional protection in mind.  ----  On the Web: http://www.recordonline.com  The Poughkeepsie Journal on immigration.  May 19.  Republican and Democrat leaders are so far apart on so many critically important issues -- what to do about Iraq, how to proceed with a sound energy policy, where to draw the line between national security and a citizen's right to privacy -- that deep political divisions have impeded much progress in Washington these days.  But federal leaders could be close to reaching compromise on one substantial matter -- immigration reform -- and they should make the most of it.  The deal would fast-track legal status to millions of undocumented workers. It would also increase security at U.S. borders to stem the tide of illegal immigrants  Some Republicans contend the proposal is too lenient in how it treats the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Some Democrats say the plan is too restrictive toward future immigrants and unfair to families. But concessions are necessary to reach compromise. And neither political party is about to do anything that would seemingly give the other a big advantage in the next presidential election.  Admirably, President Bush, former governor of a border state, has been pushing for a compromise for years now, though he was more inclined to start a pilot guest worker program, not make the wholesale changes this agreement offers. Bush and the key lawmakers involved in the deal realize the nation's ineffective immigration policies can't be ignored any longer.  ""This is a bill where people who live here in our country will be treated without amnesty but without animosity,"" Bush said.  The lawmakers working out the details -- including U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. -- say the agreement represents the best chance to obtain necessary bipartisan approval.  Nevertheless, some Democratic and Republican leaders say they will oppose the bill. Understanding the possible political consequences of entering into a deal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Nev., says she won't bring up the matter unless Bush can guarantee enough House Republicans will vote for its passage. Another key Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, says he has ""serious concerns"" about the bill. For the most part, Democrats are upset that the new system would give preference to immigrants with certain skills, regardless of whether they have family ties in the United States.  Meanwhile, despite Bush's views to the contrary, some conservatives are branding the deal as ""amnesty."" U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, put it bluntly: ""What part of illegal does the Senate not understand? Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty.""  Actually, the deal puts a premium on taking a pragmatic approach to a long and growing problem. The United States is not about to round up 12 million illegal immigrants. Neither the enforcement nor legal systems in our country could come close to handling such a task, and such a move would greatly hurt the economy. In many cases, unskilled immigrants are filling jobs Americans do not want; their presence has kept many goods and services, especially the cost of food, at more affordable rates for all Americans than would otherwise be the case.  Enabling illegal immigrants to come forward and begin a path to citizenship -- contingent on paying fees and fines when appropriate -- makes sense. While leaders on both sides are fretting over the potential consequences, few are addressing perhaps the most important concern: Will illegal immigrants come forward to enter the path to legal recognition, or will their fear of being deported be too much to overcome? Keep in mind, even under this bill, the road to permanent residency could take between eight and 13 years.  Nevertheless, negotiators of this deal have set forth some reasonable ways to bring more lawmakers on board to make a sweeping agreement possible. Their efforts should be discussed and debated, but they must not be scuttled or ignored. The nation needs a new strategy on immigration. Continually rejecting fresh approaches is simply not the answer.  ----  On the Web: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com  The Buffalo News on gasoline prices.  May 21.  Congress really should figure out whether the few people who control the extraction, transportation, refining and retailing of petroleum products globally are artificially boosting the price of gasoline. And then they should decide whether to throw those people in jail or give them a medal. Maybe both.  There are two problems with the price of gasoline. One is that it takes more and more money from peoples wallets, both when they buy gas and when they buy anything that was transported from there to here. Companies that sell anything other than gasoline can suffer, too, when people have less money to spend on CDs, BVDs or PB&J because they left it all at the pump.  The other problem with the price of gasoline is that, despite the public outcry and the echoed outrage in the halls of Congress, people keep right on buying it. They drive gas-guzzling SUVs. They buy houses that require 45- or 60-mile commutes, one way, much of it sitting at stop lights with their dirty engines idling, idly looking at all the other cars that hold one commuter each.  Even as it waves good-bye to $3 a gallon, on its way to $4, the U.S. price of gas remains, in both inflation-adjusted and global terms, pretty darn cheap. People must feel that deep down, or they really would buy much less of it. Then demand would slip and the price would come down. Which, occasionally, it does, just enough to ease any political pressure to reverse the monopolistic direction of the industry, just enough to sap any personal incentives to buy more fuel-efficient cars, live in walkable neighborhoods, ride mass transit and generally cut down on our insatiable consumption.  The petroleum industry is so dominated by so few firms that the question of whether the market has been manipulated is self-evident. Of course it has, as much by the governments unwillingness to pass and enforce anti-trust laws as by any treachery among the petro giants.  Sen. Charles E. Schumers call for an investigation into suspected price-fixing by the oil industry is a good idea. We need to understand that price-inflating limits on the supply of gasoline have at least as much to do with deliberate decisions about building and using refineries as they do with hurricanes or environmental laws.  Maybe Schumer can make a deal with Big Oil. Either boost the use of the nations refining capacity from the current 88 percent, and build more capacity, to lower prices. Or just raise those prices to, say $6 a gallon, and keep them there. Keep them there long enough for people to make the calculation that they want more efficient cars, wider-reaching mass transit systems and houses that are in the same ZIP code as their jobs, because neither the public nor the auto industry seems to want to head in that ultimately necessary direction on its own.  Otherwise, the oil industry remains in the role of the very clever drug pusher. Enough to keep us hooked, never enough to kill us. At least, not right away.  ----  On the Web: http://www.buffalonews.com  The Watertown Daily Times on Mideast violence.  May 22.  Renewed violence has gripped the Mideast in recent days as clashes erupted in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.  The Lebanese Army moved against Islamic militants who have been using Palestinian refugee camps to recruit and train fighters. Lebanon is barred from entering the camps under long-standing agreements that give the Palestinian Liberation Organization authority in the camps. But Lebanese soldiers shelled Nahr el-Bared camp that is the base for Fatah al-Islam, a militant Sunni group which has been linked to al-Qaida.  Militants attacked Lebanese army positions outside the camp. Fighting raged for several hours with more than 50 combatants reported killed as well as an unknown number of civilians at the camp near the northern port city of Tripoli.  Although the militants have focused on Israel, they turned their organization, strength and weaponry gained in that struggle against the Lebanese government. The confrontation was described by the Associated Press as an ""unprecedented showdown"" between the army and military groups.  The radical group reportedly has ties to Syria, which has interfered in Lebanese internal politics for years until forced to withdraw thousands of troops that had been in Lebanon. Syria is also suspected of a role in the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik al-Hariri.  In another region, the internal power struggle within the Palestinian movement continued too. More than 50 Palestinians died in the past week in clashes between Fatah and its rival Hamas, who have been fighting each other for power since Hamas won control of the Palestinian government.  Hamas differs philosophically from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas over the stance the Palestinians should take toward Israel. President Abbas favors negotiating a peace settlement while Hamas, a terrorist group, seeks an end to Israel, which has been shelling Hamas sites in the Gaza Strip.  Over the weekend, the two factions reached yet another ceasefire, their fifth since the fighting began.  The fighting is an internal struggle between rival groups but the outcome will have a significant impact on stability and the prospects for peace in the Mideast.  ----  On the Web: http://www.watertowndailytimes.com 7"
"5","Americans neither want nor need this fiasco of an immigration plan AGCR000020070607e35n00010 EDITORIAL Cal Thomas 804 Words 23 May 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  I wish I could believe the president and those senators who claim their agreement on immigration legislation will ""fix"" the problems of open borders and illegal aliens. I can't, because the public has had no input into the measure; the last time Congress ""fixed"" the problem, it got worse; and it appears Democrats and Republicans care more about harvesting votes for their respective parties than doing what's best for their fellow citizens.  The bill would allow for the hiring of 18,000 additional border patrol agents, construction of 370 miles of fence and 200 miles of vehicle barriers, ground-based radar, camera towers and aerial vehicles. Employers would have to electronically verify new hires within 18 months and all existing employees within three years. The priority of border security first, legalization second sounds good.  Only after the border is secured, say the senators and White House, will the guest-worker program kick in. Again, I wish I could believe this, but when it comes to immigration, I don't trust either party. It's a safe bet that once the U.S. government legalizes the illegals, many will not abide by the conditions. What then?  The president can say the Senate measure isn't amnesty, but that doesn't make it something else. The fact is that many of those who broke our laws to get here will be allowed to stay.  A new immigrant category called the ""Z Visa"" will be introduced. Z-1 covers illegal aliens who got here and started work before Jan. 1, 2007. Z-2 is for parents and spouses of illegals who qualify under the Z-1 category. Z-3 is for the children of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.  AS THE HERITAGE Foundation's Brian Darling has written, ""Z Visa"" holders can remain in their ""Z"" status indefinitely, meaning they never have to pursue a ""pathway to citizenship."" They'd also be allowed to get Social Security numbers and benefits from some welfare programs. And, writes Darling, ""there is no cap on the number of amnesty recipients in the draft language."" Z Visa holders can't vote, but who doubts that a liberal judge will rule such a ban unconstitutional? Only in America can one violate the law and then appeal to the law and the Constitution for undeserved rights.  The draft language requires illegals to return ""home"" for a year or two before applying for citizenship, but who will enforce that provision? No president is going to suffer the political fallout from a mass deportation of lawbreakers, especially after they've been on Oprah with their babies, crying their eyes out. Neither am I betting that imposed fines will be paid.  That this bill is hundreds of pages long and was mostly crafted in secret without hearings and without input from the public should also make us wary. So should Sen. Edward Kennedy's enthusiasm for it. Each time Kennedy embraces a Republican, the Republican usually gets his pocket picked. Worse, Republicans don't seem to mind.  RADIO TALK show host Rush Limbaugh predicted last week that if the Senate draft legislation becomes law ""there is an 80 percent chance that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States ... we are doomed in '08."" He predicted this would be ""the last straw as far as the Republican base is concerned in being able to trust Republicans that it elects to represent them.""  Why do our elected leaders care more for noncitizens than they do citizens? There is no constitutional right to come to America; neither is there a right to become a U.S. citizen. Do we let robbers keep the money if they successfully break into a bank? Isn't this the message we have been sending to illegals: if you can get here, you can have all sorts of goodies previously reserved for people who abide by the law?  Former Attorney General Edwin Meese thinks the only way to solve the illegal immigration problem is for lawmakers to ""uphold the principle that the rule of law requires the fair, firm and equitable enforcement of the law."" He would avoid granting amnesty to those who've lived and worked in the United States illegally and ensure that any temporary-worker program is short term.  Meese knows something about the subject. He admits 1986 legislation that attempted to stem the tide of illegal immigration by combining amnesty with increased workplace enforcement of immigration law failed.  The stakes are enormous, for the country and for the future of the Republican Party. It's not worth passing this measure just so both sides can claim ""victory,"" if the victory is a Pyrrhic one.  Tribune Media Services "
"5","Latest immigration bill is outrageous AGCR000020070607e35n0000x EDITORIAL 241 Words 23 May 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Oppose the Senate immigration bill!  I am so disappointed that one of Georgia's senators, Johnny Isakson, participated in and is pushing this farce called the Immigration Reform Bill. This bill will allow uncounted millions of lawbreakers a path to citizenship. If someone breaks the law, then is given what they tried to get by breaking the law, it is called amnesty. They are being rewarded with the objective of their crimes.  This bill does not talk about the need for assimilation, or the need for lawbreakers to be held accountable for their crimes. And do not let the liberals such as Sen. Ted Kennedy fool you; they are lawbreakers. Consider that coming across our border illegally is a misdemeanor; working with falsified papers (usually identity theft) is a felony. Instead of charging them, we will reward them with a Z visa and let them off the hook!  Like most other right-minded Americans (note the lack of a hyphen), I appreciate legal immigration. I just do not want to provide a path to anything, other than their home countries or prison, to those who flaunt our laws and violate our sovereignty. Why do those in Washington, D.C., worry more about the 12-20 million illegal workers in this country than they do the 300 million citizens? I ask: What thinking person could be a liberal, or vote for this bill?  Brian Coffey  Martinez"
"4","IMMIGRATION PROGRESS BNGR000020070523e35n00006 A 406 Words 23 May 2007 Bangor Daily News All 8 English � 2007 Bangor Daily News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  A year ago, President Bush outlined his plans for revamping the country's immigration policy. At the time he said: ""We are a nation of laws. We're also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time.""  The bill currently being debated in the Senate strikes that balance. It does so by strengthening enforcement while creating a way for illegal immigrants to legalize their status.  The bill is not perfect, but it reflects reality.  Legally or illegally, millions of foreigners have taken root here, supplying demands for labor (albeit often at low cost), creating new markets for goods and services, paying taxes and raising families alongside those of us earlier immigrants. Congress should want to control the borders but also to regularize what has already happened, accepting immigration as a benefit rather than just a liability.  On the enforcement side, the bill calls for strengthening fences and other border separations and for an increase in the number of border patrol agents. It also includes fines for employers who hire undocumented workers.  More controversially, the bill would allow those here illegally to apply for permanent residency and would create a guest worker program.  Illegal immigrants in the United States before Jan. 1, 2007, could obtain a ""Z visa,"" which, after paying a $5,000 fine and processing fees, would put them on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first with a guaranteed right to return to the United States.  Critics charge that this amounts to amnesty for the more than 10 million who have entered the country illegally. It is amnesty with hurdles, including working here, paying taxes and learning English.  The bill would also allow 400,000 guest workers, or ""Y visas"" per year. Y visa holders could stay in the United States for two-year increments with a one-year absence in between for a total of six years here. Guest workers could earn points toward green cards, which for the first time would consider an applicant's education and skills, rather than just family connections.  Immigrants have long contributed to America's prosperity. With these changes, Congress can ensure this continues to be so."
"2","PUBLIC FORUM LAD0000020070524e35n00002 Editorial 680 Words 23 May 2007 Los Angeles Daily News VALLEY N12 English � 2007 Los Angeles Daily News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  A viable plan  Re ""A border fix"" (May 19):  Congratulations on a reasonable viewpoint regarding immigration reform. I applaud this forward-thinking and rational plan as perhaps the closest thing to a workable, viable plan that we have seen.  It's truly sad, however, that we must entertain the watering- down of our existing immigration laws. Sad for the many who feel entitled to amnesty simply because the have lived or worked in this country for years, attended schools and taken advantage of higher education, medical care and the like. But illegal immigration is illegal. I question the integrity of those who so willingly break the law.  A question to those demanding amnesty: Will you still love this great country if our safety, Constitution and quality of life are reduced to that of the country you left?  -- Doug Yates  North Hollywood  Something wrong here  My nephew was just transported to Iraq. We found special body armor that can withstand the impact of grenades. The company that manufactures these vests says the military doesn't think they're good enough even though rigorous testing indicates that is not true.  But the rules of the military say our troops aren't allowed to wear them, even if the family springs for the money to purchase them. Something is wrong here.  -- Mimi Chen  Granada Hills  Carter's got nerve  ""I think, as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,"" said former President Jimmy Carter on President George W. Bush.  It is ironic that the man responsible for greasing the skids for the fall of the shah of Iran and ushering in the radical Islamic government in Iran we are having problems with today, with a possible nuclear threat, should call the Bush administration the worst in history.  Lest we forget, Jimmy Carter gave us double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, a hostage crisis that lasted 444 days, long gasoline lines and high unemployment. He was the laughing stock around the world and has nerve calling the Bush administration the ""worst in history.""  -- Armand Vaquer  Tarzana  Yagman's own trial  Re ""Bratton not capable of fixing LAPD"" (Viewpoint, May 20):  I find it appalling that, of all people, Stephen Yagman has the audacity to criticize the Los Angeles Police Department. He should be getting ready to go to jail on his 19-count indictment by the feds for one count for attempting to evade payment of taxes, one count of bankruptcy fraud and 17 counts of money-laundering. A jury was selected on Friday.  -- Monica Harmon  Los Angeles  Yagman v. LAPD  Re ""Bratton not capable of fixing LAPD"" (Viewpoint, May 20):  Stephen Yagman would be out of a paycheck if there were no Los Angeles Police Department. His bread and butter is the city of Los Angeles.  Yagman has been filing ridiculous lawsuits for years against the city and getting big money. He filed the lawsuit against the LAPD for the wrongful deaths of the two bank robbers involved in the North Hollywood shootout. Now he is suing the city again for the May 1 incident. Is his recent opinion piece aimed at tainting the future jury pool?  -- Travis Coyle  Castaic  Job-killing bill  We oppose Senate Bill 48, as amended May 1, which imposes a tax on small employers who can't afford to provide health care coverage to fund health care coverage for those who don't currently purchase it.  On May 15, Sen. Don Perata announced that his proposal to overhaul California's health care system would be funded primarily by a mandatory 7 1/2 percent tax from most businesses. The chamber is concerned that this tax increase on small employers would hurt California businesses and cause the loss of jobs. The revenue from employers identified by the bill is a tax that should require approval by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, although the bill is not designated as such.  -- Leigh Nixon  President  Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce Letters to the editor"
"4","Immigration reform; Base Senate bill's debate on reality, practicality LXHL000020070523e35n00005 Editorial 312 Words 23 May 2007 The Lexington Herald Leader a18 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Lexington Herald Leader. All Rights Reserved.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had a great answer to the complaint that a compromise between Senate leaders and President Bush amounts to amnesty for illegal immigrants.  We already have amnesty, the senior Kentucky senator said on a weekend TV show, referring to porous national borders, an inadequate immigration process and lax enforcement.  Still, Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, a leading opponent to the immigration bill -- which would create a 13-year process to gain citizenship -- argued in a Monday press conference that the bill would ""reward lawbreakers"" with ""a large-scale get-out-of- jail-free pass.""  Yet, those illegal immigrants are not in jail. They are our co-workers, neighbors, employees, service providers and family members. This country does not have the bureaucracy or the desire to punish 12 million illegal immigrants for wanting to live here.  The harsh reality: We need them.  Our aging population and low birth rates will not sustain the benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare, that Americans have come to expect.  The Senate legislation, which includes provisions for reinforcing borders and holding employers more responsible for whom they hire, has considerable flaws.  Plans to start a system of temporary workers who can never be citizens and to give high-skilled workers priority over others -- including the family members of those already here -- conflict with America's history as an immigrant country.  Few groups lobbying for immigration reform are happy with the legislation; neither labor nor business, advocates for immigrants nor supporters of strong border control. While discontent on all sides may indicate an effective compromise, it could also spell defeat.  The debate would be more productive if lawmakers would first acknowledge that the demand to deport millions might be a handy sound bite but is not feasible or in the nation's best interest."
"5","OUR VIEWS // Border farce RVSD000020070608e35n0001x EDITORIAL THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE 363 Words 23 May 2007 The Press-Enterprise B08 English � 2007 The Press-Enterprise. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill offers a reckless approach to accommodating the more than 12 million illegal immigrants in America today. S 1348 is the wrong answer to the nation's immigration dilemma.  Senators on Monday began publicly debating the 320-page bill after three months of closed-door negotiations among a small group of Democrats and Republicans. The coming weeks should give legislators ample opportunity to dismantle this dangerous bill.  As written, S 1348 would undermine national security. In deciding whether to grant an illegal immigrant legal status, the bill would make no distinction between a migrant farm worker from Mexico or a scofflaw from one of 43 ""countries of interest,"" such as Yemen and Pakistan, known as terrorist breeding grounds. The law should account for potential threats from an immigrant's country of origin.  The bill would also weaken U.S. policy against ""catch and release"" by letting most detainees post a $5,000 bond. But the Department of Homeland Security is more likely to find terrorists among illegal immigrants with the financial means to make bail.  The enhanced border security measures that S 1348 proposes are a sham. The bill would authorize the Border Patrol to hire up to 12,000 new agents over the next five years, for example, but appropriates none of the millions of dollars such a hiring spree would require. S 1348 also contains a provision calling for a ""National Strategy for Border Security."" Why would Congress make policy now and strategy later? Perhaps because the enforcement half-measures have more to do with pacifying critics than bolstering the borders.  And the wave of illegal immigrants that would seek legal status under the bill would overwhelm the Homeland Security bureaucracy. Right now, according to the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau often shirks mandated criminal background checks under a crush of 7 million immigrant applications a year. S 1348 would only encourage that risky practice.  Congress would better spend its time weighing a responsible immigration bill. Absent a sound security strategy underpinning U.S. immigration policy, S 1348 radiates political expediency."
"2","LETTERS, FAXES & E-MAIL STJR000020070524e35n0011b EDITORIAL 2073 Words 23 May 2007 The State Journal-Register 7 English � 2007 The State Journal-Register. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Seat belt use best way to reduce fatalities  This week is the beginning of the ""Click It or Ticket"" campaign, a nationwide seat belt enforcement mobilization to crack down on low seat belt use and to reduce highway fatalities. The campaign coordinated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in conjunction with law enforcement agencies and state highway safety offices, will run from May 21 through Memorial Day to June 3.  Regular seat belt use is the single most effective way to protect people and reduce fatalities in motor vehicle crashes. In 2005, 77 percent of passenger vehicle occupants in a serious crash who were buckled up survived the crash, and when worn correctly, seat belts have proven to reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger car occupants by 45 percent - and by 60 percent in pickup trucks, SUVs and minivans.  Yet nearly one in five Americans (19 percent nationally) still fail to regularly wear their seat belts when driving or riding in a motor vehicle.  Danny Hicks  Springfield  IPHCA did a great job on new building  I want to persuade everyone in Springfield, surrounding suburbs and everyone who visits our city to take the opportunity to look closely at the new IPHCA building covering the 400 block of South Ninth Street and directly to the east, or behind, the Lincoln Home site.  Observe what tourists who visit the Lincoln Home site now see as background as they visit the area. For years, the background was a squalled, infested, deteriorating motel. Now the traditional period architecture blends to the home area and I suspect it was a challenge for IPHCA to select that site. I don't see any building in proximity, or to the far west, that compares to it.  There is much work needed to bring the area south of the building in line with it or even in line with the home site. Perhaps someone will follow IPHCA's challenge.  Ed Bryan  Sherman  Coach Elliott plays a key role for Senators  Congratulations to Jim Steinwart and the Springfield High Senators on their city championship. It's a well-deserved accomplishment.  However, some may not know that coach Steinwart has a distinct and, in my opinion, completely unfair advantage. His secret weapon comes in the form of dedicated, unbelievably knowledgeable, hard- working assistant coach named Tim Elliott.  Coach Elliott has been teaching baseball and, more importantly, molding young men for more than a decade now. I've been around the game of baseball my entire life; at no point did I learn more about the game than in the short time I had with coach Elliott at Southeast High School. He is a great coach and great man. Coach Elliott has impacted the lives of hundreds of young men over the years, including mine.  I hope coach Steinwart realizes what a gem he has over there. I also hope he accepts my apology for exposing his secret weapon.  Tanner Fry  Springfield  Wolfowitz scenario has familiar feel to it  I just finished reading a news story with the headline, ""Wolfowitz to resign as World Bank chief."" Seems his crime was giving an inappropriate raise to his girlfriend.  I was thinking, where have I heard this before? Oh yes, right here in Illinois. Senate President Emil Jones gave his wife a $75,000-a-year raise. That is about $1,500 a week, folks. Our great governor also signed off on it. Well, where is the outrage? Where are the cries for his resignation? Why aren't the lawmakers and media screaming for him to resign?  Oh, that's right, he is a Democrat. They aren't held to that standard. Well, folks, I am calling for him to resign immediately.  Daniel DeHoog  Pekin  Why wages in some industries don't rise  There is an immutable law in economics that states that when you have a shortage of labor wages tend to rise and when you have an oversupply of labor wages tend to decline.  We hear constantly from the people who own construction companies, landscaping companies and restaurants that there is a shortage of labor in these industries. Why then have wages remained steady or declined in these industries in the past 25 years?  The reason is that there is an oversupply of labor in these industries. What is causing this surplus? How about a few million illegal Hispanic workers? Think about it. And then think what it must be like to be a non-Hispanic worker in these jobs. How would you like to be making the same wage you made 10 years ago?  The people who run these industries depend on illegal immigration to provide them with a never-ending supply of cheap labor. Remember that the next time you hear them opposing immigration reform.  Darryl E. Fox  Athens  Neighborhood group has new Web site  I would like to personally apologize to the all of the members and residents of the Westwood Forum Neighborhood Association concerning the recent springtime garage sale fiasco.  At our recent general membership meeting, members voted to initiate an annual springtime garage sale. Attendance, as usual, was lackluster with only 20-25 households being present to vote.  Our by laws dictate that those in attendance vote upon motions brought before the board. Thus, it was decided that the spring sale would be held the first Saturday in May 2008. However, another motion was then made from the floor and passed to have a ""kick-off"" sale on May 19. We took what steps we could to notify the 500-plus households of the impromptu event, but still many people were taken by surprise and became somewhat confused to the origin of this event.  And for that, I am very sorry that this matter came upon you as it did. But I ask for your understanding in light of what actually transpired and my obligation to abide by the bylaws that govern our association.  Thus, I have taken it upon myself to purchase, develop and maintain a brand new Web site that all members can access in the future to be kept abreast of matters concerning their neighborhoods. This Web site will not replace the traditional newsletters we distribute, but will serve to compliment the greatly needed additional communication of our association.  I invite all members to visit the new site at http://www.westwoodforum.org and sign our guest book with your ideas, thoughts and suggestions. Again, please accept my personal apologies and rest assured that the fall sale will still be held the first Friday and Saturday in August.  David Lisnek  President  Westwood Forum  Neighborhood Association  Springfield  Lawmakers need to push open primary bill  This is an open letter to those elected officials who stated that they would support an ""open primary"" bill during the last campaign.  Where and what is the status of that bill, i.e., is it locked up in committee never to see the light of day in this session? Or has the self appointed ""king"" of the Senate decided that he does not like the bill and no one else should either?  There are many good legislators who showed support for this bill and should be demanding action now. Don't be afraid that ""king"" Jones will fire you. He can't, but the people certainly can.  Those who showed support for this bill, get the ball moving on this, which the majority of citizens of Illinois showed support when placed on the ballot.  Wm. G. Chestnut  Cantrall  Compensation not likely for Palestinians  In her letter Monday, Sandy Baksys offered an interesting suggestion: that Israel ""compensate Palestinians for their lost property (or) allow them a new homeland not sliced and diced by Israeli settlements - or both.""  Compensation appears unrealistic. The Israeli-Palestinian struggle has caused immeasurable losses for both sides. In 1948, the United Nations proposed to partition the land. The Israelis accepted this proposal. The Palestinians and their allies rejected it, started a war, and lost.  After that, the Palestinians and their allies started four more wars. And the Palestinians are now in their second intifada, sending rockets and suicide bombers, even after Israel withdrew from Gaza. If Israel were to consider compensation for the land the Palestinians lost in 1948, would the Palestinians and their allies consider compensation for the damage from all these wars, from the intifadas, and from the forced expulsion of so many Jews from Arab countries?  But a Palestinian homeland does appear realistic. Israel, the United States and European countries favor a Palestinian homeland. Let's hope that the Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, will stop fighting each other long enough to acknowledge the partial peace agreements that are already in place with Israel, and to move forward, with assistance from the United States and Europe, toward a negotiated and completed peace. This would seem to be in the interest of the Palestinian people.  James A. Lewis  Springfield  Answer to tax credit benefit question  Thank you for the opportunity to answer David Simmons' query as to how the $16,000 figure is calculated when determining the benefit of the tax credit for private/parochial school tuition.  It's fairly simple: The $500 is a tax credit, not a deduction from total income before taxes (as with charitable donations). If Simmons' benefit from the tax credit was ""only"" $3,385, then he effectively hasn't had to pay taxes on a rather large amount of income over the life of the tax credit program.  He chose to pay the additional expense of sending his children to Catholic schools; he cannot claim that he has paid taxes for services never rendered. Just because he chose not to use the public school system does not alleviate his responsibility to the community.  By his logic, if I don't use mass transit, the Prairie Capital Convention Center, the local parks or Lincoln Land Community College, then I should complain about paying for services not rendered. I don't complain about those taxes because I recognize my responsibility as a citizen of Springfield and of Illinois to maintain a system of government that is responsible to all citizens, whether I use all that is available to me or not.  It must be noted that the Catholic school system does use Springfield District 186 in many ways: special needs children in parochial schools use District 186 programs including reading, speech therapy and occupational therapy. So I guess there is a cost to District 186 related to children in parochial schools; the taxes are supporting those programs.  Irvin Smith  Springfield  State must make health care a priority  I am calling for the people and legislators in Illinois to keep health care a priority.  For whatever reason, many people seem to be ignoring the fact that lack of health care is severely damaging our state and our people. We all benefit by making health care affordable to everyone in our communities: those in poverty who don't qualify for Medicaid and can't afford private insurance, those who are at risk for cancer and other chronic diseases, and people like me who have pre- existing conditions.  I feel strongly that everyone should be able to get comprehensive affordable health care and it is time for the state of Illinois to act.  Melissa Pieper  Pleasant Plains  Out of touch  Does letter writer Carolyn Marley have any idea what it is like not to be able to afford insurance?  She pays $18,000 a year in insurance. Some people don't make $18,000 a year in income. What planet is she living on?  June Hefley  Raymond  Segway photo should seal movie deal for us  The picture of a Springfield police officer on a device guaranteed to ensure that they don't expend any more energy than necessary (and thereby stay fit enough to actually chase any miscreants down the street) above a story about why ""The Simpsons Movie"" should be premiered here was a brilliant editorial call and a great boost for the effort.  I would have given him a bag of Mel-O-Creams to hang from the handle bars, but it was nonetheless effective - it just screams, ""Can't you see why you should premiere it here?""  Deborah Barnes  Tallula Caption: Officer Dave Barringer patrols downtown with one of the Segway personal transporters put into service last week by the Springfield Police Department."
"4","Border challenges TMNN000020070524e35n0003b MAIN NEWS 508 Words 23 May 2007 Times Union ONE STAR A10 English � 2007 Times Union (Albany,N.Y.) a division of The Hearst Corporation. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  T he immigration agreement arrived at last week by key senators and the White House was intended to address concerns of conservatives and liberals alike. Instead, it has widened the divide between them - so much so that Congress is unlikely to take any action on immigration before next month. But a delay is welcome. This should be the time for debate and compromise. It is imperative that the full Senate and House produce a better end result than last week's initial attempt at reform.  As expected, conservatives are lambasting the agreement as tantamount to amnesty for the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants. But the criticism is largely unfounded. Illegal immigrants would not be getting a free pass, any more than they did 20 years ago when President Ronald Reagan opened the path to citizenship for 2.7 million illegal immigrants. Back then, illegal immigrants had to pay fines and back taxes, learn English and wait years to become citizens. Under the agreement struck last week, illegal immigrants would have to follow a lengthy path toward permanent residency here, first by paying $5,000 fines and then waiting eight years before applying for resident status. Heads of households would have to leave the country and re-enter legally.  Liberals contend the fines, while less than the White House proposed, are unfair to immigrants who are working for subsistence wages. They have a point. They are also right to criticize the proposed requirement that heads of households go back to their native country before returning here to pursue citizenship. What purpose does that serve, except to disrupt families?  Moreover, future decisions on who will be allowed to enter the United States will be based on such criteria as job skills and education, rather than ties to relatives already here. The criteria seem to fly in the face of the Bush administration's family values agenda.  Both sides should be able to agree on other aspects of the agreement, however. One key provision would crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.  Not surprisingly, many employers - some of whom had a role in crafting last week's agreement - are objecting to the crackdown, just as they did in the 1980s, when Washington began to get tough on illegal hiring.  The best way for Congress to address the employer issue is to drastically expand the guest worker program. Regrettably, the agreement reached last week contains a narrow program that only allows immigrants to come to this country for two years at a time, for a maximum of six years. This program is an open invitation for migrant workers who are close to the six-year limit to stay here illegally. Congress must craft a more expansive, and humane, program that opens the path to citizenship for those who come to the U.S. seeking not just work, but a better life. THE ISSUE: Congress is debating an immigration reform bill. THE STAKES: If the initial effort isn't revised, the problem will only grow worse."
"4","The Storm Over Immigration; For too many, compromise is a dirty word. WP00000020070523e35n0001a Editorial 474 Words 23 May 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A20 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  THE VIRULENCE and breadth of opposition to the Senate immigration bill has kicked up a dust storm of dogma that has obscured the real stakes and potential of the legislation.  Critics on the right howl that the bill offers ""amnesty"" to 12 million illegal immigrants who in fact would face a long, onerous path to earned citizenship. But those critics are loath to acknowledge that deporting 12 million people, including droves of workers on whom the American economy relies, is economically suicidal, pragmatically unfeasible and morally repellent. Critics on the left decry the bill's convoluted system for dealing with future guest workers, without recognizing that it would leave them no worse off than they would be under the admittedly dysfunctional status quo. What critics on all sides overlook, in shrilly focusing on the bill's deficiencies, is that its defeat would leave this country with an immigration dilemma that is growing rapidly and is poisoning political discourse in states and localities from coast to coast.  A clunky compromise, the Senate immigration bill weighs in at well over 300 pages and is more easily dealt with by sound bites (""Amnesty!"") than by analysis. There is no denying that it is full of flaws and that it would establish some rules and procedures that may not work (measures such as kicking out guest workers for a year between three two-year stints of employment and expecting them to stay out), and others that are simply mean-spirited (such as requiring illegal immigrants already here to leave the country and reenter in order to ""reboot"" and legalize their status). Many of the bill's segments and provisions could benefit from debate, scrutiny and revision.  But those who cite the offending sections and insist on the bill's defeat must explain how that would leave the country in a better posture. The practical effect of a defeat would be to leave the country without any resolution to the current non-system of immigration for at least two more years, and possibly for much longer -- an outcome the American public clearly doesn't want.  For years there has been hand-wringing over the death of bipartisanship in Washington politics and over the rise of the politics of uncompromising ideology. In the Senate immigration bill, there is a glimpse of what bipartisanship looks like in the real world -- an ungainly, imperfect hybrid that goes some distance toward tightening border security, clearing the backlog of visa applications, and providing a future for 12 million immigrants already in this country, including many who have been here since childhood. The wiser course is to work for improvements, not to sound the death knell for legislation that holds the promise of a better future. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200705231ED-IMMIGRATION23"
"5","The immigration time-bomb WATI000020070523e35n0000p EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 571 Words 23 May 2007 The Washington Times A18 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Anyone who looks closely at the fiscal implications of the Senate immigration bill owes a debt of thanks to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Rector is light years ahead of everyone else in carefully examining the assumptions of the bill - particularly as they apply to millions of low-skilled illegals (50 to 60 percent of whom are high-school dropouts) who would be permitted to remain indefinitely in the United States.  Heritage Foundation research methods are identical to those used by the National Academy of Science a decade ago in a study, ""The New Americans,"" which found that low-skill immigrants receive far more in government-financed benefits than they pay in taxes. Mr. Rector calculates that this is mostly true of the illegals who would get amnesty under the Senate bill, who will cost taxpayers $2.3 to $2.5 trillion over the next few decades.  In an interview and at a press conference Monday with Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, both Republicans, Mr. Rector made a powerful case that the immigration ""compromise"" now before the Senate lays the groundwork for a vast expansion of the American economic underclass - particularly among the elderly. With it there will be perhaps the largest expansion of government since the Great Society. The amnesty bill promises an explosion in federal, state and local spending on public education, subsidized housing and entitlement programs, and extraordinary new fiscal pressure on three of the fastest-growing federal entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If immigration ""reform"" is enacted in anything remotely resembling the bill before the Senate, staggering tax increases are inevitable in the decades just ahead. The senators responsible for the debacle won't be seen responsible because they will be safely dead. The largest spending and tax increases demanded by this ""reform"" will occur decades from now.  The White House misleads with its claims that the amnesty recipients won't get welfare benefits. For the first decade or so they are in the United States, the adults can't get means-tested welfare benefits but their children could. And after that first decade, the adults get to partake of the welfare state as well. For the next 40 years, notes Mr. Rector, they are eligible ""for every single type"" of these welfare benefits.  ""So the bottom line is that each of these households receives about $30,000 in government benefits, pays about $10,000 in taxes, at a net cost of around $19,000 per year [after rounding]. That's the equivalent of buying each of these households an automobile and every year of their lives as long as they're in the United States."" He easily debunks the myth that amnesty will ""contribute to solving Social Security's actuarial crisis."" Precisely the opposite is true; it is certain to exacerbate that crisis and many of this country's other fiscal problems. ""What we found was that this type of household is in net fiscal deficit - the benefits exceed their taxes - at every year from the point they enter the United States. There's no year where they pay more in taxes, on average, than they take out in benefits."" When these people retire, they pay just $5,000 a year in taxes and get $37,000 a year in benefits. That's some contribution to a solution."
"4","Illegal Immigration ** Compromise federal bill on immigration is the best, pragmatic approach for now XALL000020070525e35o0003t OPINION The Morning Call 671 Words 24 May 2007 The Allentown Morning Call FIFTH A14 English Copyright 2007, Allentown Morning Call. All Rights Reserved.  It's rare when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., reach across the aisle to agree on legislation. But the well-known liberal and conservative senators managed to do just that in a highly complex, 380-page compromise that, if approved by the Senate and House, would represent the most sweeping changes in U.S. immigration law in more than 40 years.  Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez met for three months with a bipartisan group of about 12 senators to address a range of issues related to illegal immigration. ""Nearly everyone agrees that the existing bill is imperfect,"" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the Los Angeles Times for a story this week. ""What we have now is a starting point.""  At last. Immigration law should be the domain of the federal government. But while federal officials have dragged their feet, states and some municipalities -- Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta gained national notoriety for his own efforts; some Allentown residents want to put a referendum on the November ballot -- grew impatient. The local efforts are divisive, not constructive.  Because the compromise legislation is so complex, it will take time to absorb its details so that our representatives on Capitol Hill can cast informed votes. Soon after the procedural vote to begin debate in the Senate this week, Sen. Reid announced that the chamber would postpone final action until June. The House, meanwhile, isn't expected to consider the proposals until later this summer, anyway. The bill is a trade-off, but that's what it took to finally move forward with federal immigration legislation. And, like any good compromise, certain aspects upset each end of the political spectrum.  There are Republicans who don't like the provision that would allow illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. Some Democrats don't like the reduced emphasis on reuniting families while creating a merit-based system to best serve the economy. Yet, there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in this country already. This is a pragmatic approach to a highly complex situation.  Here are some highlights:  A ""Z"" visa would provide immediate work authorization for illegal immigrants who entered the country before Jan. 1, 2007. Applicants would have to pass a background check, pay up to $5,000 in fines and fees, and pass an English proficiency test. Visas would be renewable every four years for $500. Or, a person could apply for a green card, a step toward legal citizenship, after returning to his or her home country -- but only after the current backlog of green cards is cleared.  A ""Y"" visa would be available for up to 400,000 guest workers for two years at a time. The visa could be renewed twice, but workers would have to return home for a year between each stay. A separate program would provide temporary legal status to 1.5 million undocumented agricultural workers in a five-year pilot program.  The government could not issue any visas, however, until after the addition of 6,000 new border-security officers, 370 miles of new border fence, 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 70 surveillance towers.  Family visas would be limited to young children and spouses of immigrants. The number of immigrants admitted on economic merits using a point system would be greatly increased. Of particular importance would be workers with skills for jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics views as the fastest growing, such as software engineers and nurses.  The ultimate goal is to decrease the number of illegal immigrants entering the country and ease the entry of those best able to meet the needs of our labor force. The Senate package is balanced and as fair to all interests as is practicable. Most importantly, it meets Washington's obligation to address this issue. The House should honor the spirit of compromise and pass this."
"2","LETTERS AKDG000020070524e35o0000y Editorial 2324 Words 24 May 2007 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 21 English Copyright (c) 2007 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.  Safest fish raised in America  I am pleased that consumers are noticing the poor quality of the imported food supply. Most Americans know where everything comes from except their food. More amazing is the fact that the Food and Drug Administration is in charge of protecting our food supply, but doing a shameful job.  They say they are acutely understaffed. That's still no excuse to let unsafe food in. The solution is to stop all imports until we know they are safe.  Some restaurants fail to identify fish properly, calling it something other than what it is when served. This must change. Species need to be identified correctly by name and country of origin. We must never group all imports with catfish. Stop calling basa and tra ""Vietnamese catfish."" Call them what they are: basa and tra.  U.S.-raised catfish are grown only in controlled pond environments with fresh, clean water provided by ground wells. U.S. farm-raised catfish are fed a soybean meal-based diet developed by major researchers, of which the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff is a leader. They are fed daily on top of the water by producers using a floating food pellet. U.S. catfish do not scrounge around on the bottom looking for a hand-out. The U.S. catfish industry is regulated by government agencies. No fluoroquinolones, no melamine, no malachite green, just good ole catfish raised safe and sound.  If you want to know more about this great U.S. product, contact the Catfish Farmers of Arkansas, the Catfish Institute or the Catfish Farmers of America. Help the U.S. catfish producer protect you.  REED BREEDLOVE  Portland  Government is profiting  Re the letter from Ray Smith of Siloam Springs: Before blaming Big Oil for the rising cost of gas prices-they deserve some blame-we should look at the larger profiteer, our government.  First, the government has prevented the building of new, state-of-the-art refineries over the last 30 years. Retrofitting does little; it does not address the supply needs. Second, the higher the gas prices go, the more tax dollars the government rakes in.  Take a look at a cost breakdown on gas and you will see that the money earned by the outlets is minuscule, the dollars earned by the refineries are huge, yet the amount the government takes in via FICA, transportation, storage and actual at-the-pump tax is enormous.  Re the detractors of the war in Iraq: While the deaths of more than 3,000 soldiers are a heavy toll on the hearts of all Americans, looking at those numbers misses the larger story. First, a slightly smaller number of U.S. military personnel die each year due to other factors not related to the war in Iraq. This is a dangerous job whether on the front line or back home in training. Second, I believe that if Americans received the full picture, i.e., the accomplishments of our military personnel, from our media, we would have a different outlook on this conflict. Remember the motto, ""If it bleeds, it leads."" A constant barrage of negative stories does affect the average viewer's opinion.  STEVE FRIERY  Rogers  Lower limit would help  Regarding the many accidents that have happened on Interstate 540, has anyone ever considered lowering the speed limit to 60 mph between Springdale north to the end of I-540? To me, this would be a no-brainer.  SUE SCHMIDT  Bella Vista  Add another provision  To prevent one political party from gaining any advantage or being destroyed, the proposed illegal immigrant amnesty bill should include a provision stating that all illegal immigrants, past, present and future, and their descendants will not be allowed to ever vote in any U.S. election.  RICHARD ZEMANN  Little Rock  Invaders aren't wanted  I am fed up with my Hispanic friends' appeals to me to understand the breaking of the immigration laws and comparing it to blacks' historical efforts to free ourselves from the bonds of slavery by breaking the laws of those days. There is little or no comparison.  We never invaded another country with disregard for their borders, laws and citizens. Instead, we remained in our own country and risked our lives to correct the moral ills of our country.  Hispanics and other citizens from countries with no middle class invade the United States and seriously impair our middle class instead of opposing the corruption and moral ills of their countries, establishing a reputable middle class there and pursuing their lives, liberties and happiness there.  Exploiting our social services and benefits and sending most of the wages gained here back to their countries will only benefit the haves and further depress the haves-not.  Similarly, we here in the United States must replace elected officials with new officials who will continue our middle class, which is the only path from havenot to have.  JAMES MITCHELL  Little Rock  Some bicyclists reckless  I took my three sons, ages 3, 6 and 8, for a walk across the Big Dam Bridge on a recent Saturday. I love the Big Dam Bridge. The view is magnificent, and it's a fun family thing to do.  The Big Dam Bridge had a lot of families, kids and pets walking across on a glorious Saturday afternoon, and some bicyclists as well. A bicyclist was racing down the Little Rock side at what I would estimate was approaching 30 mph. She was going flat out. She narrowly missed running my 3-year-old down. She missed him by inches. Had she hit him going at that rate of speed, I shudder to think what the consequences might be.  The Big Dam Bridge is not a racetrack. It is not a place to train for your triathlon. It is not a place to ride recklessly. If you run down a child racing down the Big Dam Bridge and cause a serious injury to the child or yourself, they will be forced to ban all bicyclists from the Big Dam Bridge, and that would be a shame for those who ride responsibly.  It will take only one accident like the near-miss I witnessed to ruin it for everyone. Please slow down on your bicycles while riding across the Big Dam Bridge.  PATRICK HOUSTON  Little Rock  Reasons are abundant  I would like to respond to a letter writer's statement that George Washington Carver was the greatest scientist the United States has ever produced and his question, ""Why do Christians go to church?"" I admire all scientists for their dedication to improving humanity, not just one particular scientist. To think that making peanut products entitled him to be called the greatest scientist the U.S. has ever produced is a real stretch, but if you want to eat peanut butter in the dark, I am OK with that.  Is there only one answer to why Christians go to church? I don't believe so. Some go to be seen. Look at me, I go to church. Some go to socialize. Some go because when they stand up and tell how rotten they have been by doing drugs, drinking too much alcohol or abusing their wives, children and anyone else, they can get a standing ovation from a captive audience of people who love to hear about someone else's problems and praise him for finally waking up to what a lot of other people have been doing all their lives but have never been given one speck of acknowledgment.  There is not just any one reason why anyone would go, but I can't understand why people would pay someone to deceive them. Who killed more people, God or Satan? Not counting the flood, the many plagues and famines, Egyptians' first-born, and Sodom and Gomorrah, and only counting the given numbers, God [killed] 2,270,365 and Satan 10. Maybe the term ""loving God"" is being applied to the wrong Bible character.  TOM GATTIS  Paris  Forgetfulness common  Recently, letter writer John Mathias suggested that Alberto Gonzales is unfit for office because ""he claimed 71 times in Senate testimony to have forgotten important decisions and meetings"" and was disingenuous, less than straightforward, or lacking in mental acuity.  Since Hillary Clinton also was questioned under oath, in 1996, and reportedly replied 99 times that she was ""unable to recall,"" I assume that his standard also disqualifies her for the position she holds as well as the one she is seeking. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Or is this another case where the peons do not understand the meaning of the words used, in this case ""recall""? I am still trying to get the correct definition of ""is"" and ""sexual relations."" I am not saying that Gonzales is the best suited for the position, but it appears that the liberals simply want to fire or force someone in the Bush administration to resign. If this effort fails, they may settle for a janitor.  KEN ZBOYAN  Little Rock  Do more than grumble  Enough is enough. When are these gas prices going to stop rising? The rich keep getting rich and the poor keep getting poor. This is the simple, honest truth. Everyone you talk to says something needs to be done about this, but what can anyone do?  It is not the rich person who is worried, it is the lower-class person and the poor person. The rich folks won't do anything about this, and they have money. We lower-class and poor folks want to do something but don't have the money to do anything.  It is costing the truckers more for fuel to deliver our products to the stores. When we get to the stores to shop, our products have gone up. For one week, just one week, if no one bought gas, truckers stopped making their deliveries, and we stopped shopping at our local stores and did not go to work, then maybe something could be done. But people would say, ""I need diapers for the babies,"" ""We need our medicines,."" ""We need milk,"" ""I will lose my job if I don't go to work."" Well, sad to say, this is true.  Well, it is time for people to stop complaining and do something about this, and this is my mission. My first step is to let people know how one person feels. My next step is going to the governor, the news media and then to the president, and then do whatever I can, even if I have to go to the oil companies.  Maybe nothing can be done, but it can't hurt to try. Maybe even boycott these gas stations. The American people need to stop complaining, get off their duffs and do something about this. This American is going to try.  CATHY C. BOGAN  Searcy  New clinic appreciated  Re the news story on the Lowell subspecialty clinic: My daughter also has an Arnold-Chiari Malformation Type I and bleeding disorder called von Willebrand's disease. We have made at least 10 trips to Little Rock to see her neurosurgeon and to be seen in the Arkansas Children's Hospital emergency room. I hope and pray that Lowell will have some neurosurgeon subclinics for this condition and for bleeding disorders. Lowell is so much easier to drive to than Little Rock. With the cost of gas going up, so will the cost of the trips to Little Rock It also would be nice to get some more information about Arnold-Chiari malformations out to the public. There isn't a whole lot of information about it on the Internet or anywhere else. There are several people in Arkansas who have the same condition, but we have never met. It would be nice to start a support group for the people suffering from Arnold-Chiari and for their families, but I am not sure how to start.  SHELLY FUSHER  Mulberry  Story lacking in appeal  The main story on a recent front page of the Democrat-Gazette, ""Gay couples creating families with kids despite push for ban,"" was appalling. A large picture of two women with a small child accompanied the story. It depicted a loving relationship between the three of them.  What point was reporter Laura Kellams trying to make, a disgusting tribute to motherhood, a promotion for homosexual adoption or a showing of homosexuality at its best?  The story was ripped out of my paper. Surely there are more important subjects and pressing issues with wider appeal than this one. Please hold to a higher standard in reporting.  BEVERLY McDANIEL  Brinkley  Feedback  Suspension troubling  It troubles me, and hopefully you as well, to know that Heifer International has suspended its practice of allowing groups to harvest a rabbit during their Global Village educational experience.  ""Ending hunger, caring for the Earth"" is among the noblest of missions an organization can undertake. This small lesson of raising a rabbit and optionally eating the same rabbit is a powerful natural truth that should continue to be taught.  I encourage everyone to support this great Arkansas organization and let its officials know that they are doing work to be proud of.  DYLAN HOUSE  North Little Rock  One day isn't enough  I've got a solution to high gas prices. We need to pick one oil company and boycott purchasing gas from it for at least three to four months. We should purchase our gas everywhere else but there. That wouldn't hurt our personal consumption. The company would lose billions in revenue and be forced to lower its prices to obtain market share back. The other oil companies would have to follow suit not to lose any market share.  A one-day boycott does not work. This would be an easy message to get out. This will work.  STEVE MONROE  North Little Rock  This article was published 05/24/2007"
"4","EDITORIAL ROUNDUP AGCR000020070614e35o00035 EDITORIAL 681 Words 24 May 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A05 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  * A rational framework  The bipartisan immigration compromise bill in the Senate is being attacked from all sides: from business, from labor, from those who want to wall off our southern border and from those who want to open the borders wide to a flood of newcomers.  It does not make anyone completely happy, but compromises rarely do.  What it does do is provide a rational framework for addressing America's enormous immigration dilemma. It protects certain economic interests while giving the 12 million illegal immigrants already here options less punitive than deportation, persecution or jail.  The plan was hammered out between the White House and key Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate. The Senate is expected to debate it soon. For all its flaws, it is a starting point toward a rational and humane approach to a problem that badly needs one.  - St. Louis Post-Dispatch  * The good and the bad  ... Among the good provisions:  * Nearly all 11 million illegal immigrants would be eligible for the legalization program. They could quickly receive probationary status and work legally.  * Dream Act provisions would allow undocumented students who grew up here to attend college or join the military and earn their legal status.  * ""AgJobs"" provisions would create a guest-worker pilot program for the agriculture industry - supported by farmers and farm- worker advocates.  * Security measures will improve border security and prevent unauthorized work.  Other parts of the bill need improvement:  * High fines and fees ($5,000 at minimum), a requirement to ""touch back"" to the home country and an eight-year delay in applying for residency will discourage legalization.  * A new point system for future immigration radically departs from America's historic family-based system. Employers also question whether the system will be able to calibrate labor demand well enough to provide low-skilled or high-skilled workers - both current problems.  * Requiring employers to reverify all 145 million employees through the government's flawed electronic system is unrealistic, expensive and unnecessary.  * The temporary-worker Y-visa program also is unworkable. Few employers will want to train a worker who must return to their home country after two years, and can only renew the visa after waiting a year.  Critics from all sides are now weighing in. Some say the bill is too onerous. Others call it amnesty for lawbreakers. Let reason and constructive reforms prevail on the Senate floor.  - Miami Herald  * Un-American and ugly  The word ""historic"" will likely be bandied about a lot if Congress passes the immigration reform bill that a bipartisan group of senators negotiated with the White House last week.  The word will be apt. It will entail a historic repudiation of that quintessential American value: that people who come here from other countries to labor to make this country richer and stronger deserve a chance to formally become one of us through legal residency or citizenship.  The guest worker portion of this measure says that only their sweat and toil are worthy. The mostly Latino workers themselves are not.  Ugly is too kind a description.  - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel  * Make this law work  ... We have questions about some parts of this compromise and grave concerns about others. But at its core, this plan recognizes the central crisis of immigration policy: Some 12 million people are in the United States, mostly for honorable reasons, mostly making valuable contributions to their communities - without any realistic way to step out of the shadows and join the American mainstream. ...  Perhaps the most intractable part of the compromise is a shift of immigration preferences away from family reunification and toward economic skills. Congress has moved gradually in this direction for the last decade, and there are arguments on both sides. But this question is so fraught and so complex that it should be detached from the current legislation and set aside for another year.  President Bush deserves credit for brokering this compromise in a tough political climate, and he deserves the fair hearing and hard work that will be required to turn it into a good law.  - Minneapolis Star Tribune"
"4","Expletives don't help the debate CINC000020070525e35o0001o B; Editorial 426 Words 24 May 2007 The Cincinnati Enquirer Final 8 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Cincinnati Enquirer. All Rights Reserved.  Enquirer Editorial  Rep. John Boehner's position on the immigration compromise bill is now perfectly clear.  Clear, but not very constructive.  In a gathering of Republican activists Tuesday night, the West Chester Republican described the proposal put forth by President Bush as ""this piece of (deleted),"" using a crude term that needs no embellishment.  Boehner probably would not have been quite so descriptive to the President's face, and in fact, he has put his opposition more politely, though no less firmly, in other pronouncements.  ""I have significant concerns about parts of the Senate proposal - particularly provisions that would reward illegal immigrants who have consistently broken our laws,"" he said in a release issued Tuesday.  The ""rewards"" Boehner speaks of are provisions in the proposed bill that would provide a path to possible citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States.  But what Boehner characterizes as rewarding, is actually a system of penalties including $5,000 fines and waits of up to 13 years to be eligible for permanent residency status. The proposal would grant a quick legal identifying status to those participating in the procedures. It would also create a guest worker plan, which the Senate limited to 200,000 people annually in an amendment passed Wednesday. Those workers would have temporary visas to work here for two years and then have to return to their home countries for a year before reapplying.  The bill has critics among some Democrats who think its provisions are too harsh and some Republicans who think they aren't tough enough. As we have said before, President Bush deserves credit for pushing for a comprehensive approach to the issue, one that tightens the border and deals with the reality of the 12 million illegal immigrants who are here now.  Boehner insists that securing the borders and full enforcement of existing laws must be the primary consideration of any immigration bill. Pressed on what the congressman wants to do about the 12 million people now in the country, his press secretary, Jessica Towhey, declined to elaborate on his statement.  Mass deportation of such a number is not practical, physically or financially. If Boehner and other critics of the proposal have a better way of dealing with this mass of humanity, it is time to offer it up. Otherwise they need to compromise.  What do you think?  Is the proposed compromise the right answer for immigration? Click on Cincinnati.com Keyword: immigration to join the discussion."
"4","Editorial | Immigration Reform; They're not going away PHLI000020070524e35o0001b EDITORIAL; P-com Opinion 993 Words 24 May 2007 The Philadelphia Inquirer CITY-D A18 English (c) Copyright 2007, Philadelphia Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.  Immigration reform is in trouble, with both Democrats and Republicans taking shots at the latest proposal.  The legislation is flawed, and would benefit from amendments. But it would be an improvement on the unhealthy status quo.  Prospects for this compromise package seem grim unless President Bush makes the fight for it personally and forcefully.  He has shown how insistent he can be in sticking with his Iraq war policy. The nation would be better served if he showed the same stubbornness in fighting for this immigration package, which he helped to devise.  Bush needs to address the American people, maybe several times, to explain just how critical immigrant labor is to several sectors of the U.S. economy, and how pretending that it is not won't make our border problems go away.  He must try to stiffen the spines of wavering politicians who are afraid that a vote for immigration reform could cost them at the polls. He must persuade the legislators to put the nation's best interests above their own.  The president has tried before to corral votes for immigration, but failed. He can't give up now. Negotiation won't resolve every disagreement. But the lawmakers have come too far to do nothing.  There are at least 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country. Most simply walked or motored across our closest neighbors' borders. But many traveled clandestinely from Europe or Asia.  They are not going back home on their own, and no matter what blathering demagogues say on talk shows, this nation has neither the will nor the wallet to round them all up and force them to go home.  It's just more logical to allow the productive and law-abiding among them some path to legal status or citizenship. The new bill does that.  Critics complain that the bill didn't get to the Senate by the traditional route through the Judiciary Committee. But Judiciary members Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.) and Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) were among the 12 senators who worked with the president's surrogates - Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez - to devise the package.  The bill would allow all immigrants who entered the country illegally prior to this year to apply for new ""Z"" visas giving them probationary residency status. Critics call it amnesty, but it's not. To quote Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif): ""Amnesty is absolute forgiveness of transgressions. This bill is not amnesty.""  To receive a green card indicating permanent-residency status, applicants must return to their home country to fill out the paperwork and pay $5,000 in fees and fines. It makes sense to create hoops for people to jump through to get a green card, but $5,000 is an awful lot of money for a restaurant worker or gardener. And where's the incentive for someone from, say, China, to request legal status if she has to go all the way back to that country to apply?  Also created is a ""Y"" visa to be issued to low-skilled ""guest"" workers such as farm laborers. They must apply from their home countries. If accepted, they can stay here two years, then must go home for a year before they can apply for another two-year visa. They can do that up to three times. No doubt, some will try to stay illegally rather than become a human yo-yo. That's why it's vital to crack down on employers who employ undocumented workers.  An attempt to strip the new guest-worker provisions from the bill was defeated Tuesday. But attacks on it will likely continue up to and after Congress' Memorial Day recess.  Under a different program, the legislation would install a point system that gives preference for worker visas to highly skilled, more educated applicants. That makes some sense, but comes at a cost: reducing the number of visas made available to the family members of legal residents. Karen Narasaki of the Asian American Justice Center correctly notes that you defeat the purpose of enticing engineers and scientists to come to America when you tell them their families will have to wait years to join them.  As they deliberate, lawmakers may find it easier to agree on the bill's border enforcement provisions - hiring 18,000 new border patrol guards, erecting 370 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, installing radar and cameras, etc. The legislation requires these steps before the new visa programs can begin.  Business lobbies are complaining about the bill's requirement that companies verify through Homeland Security that their employees are in the country legally. Too bad; that should have been done long ago.  There's no way that every criticism of this package can be calmed. Even as you read this, other complaints are likely being fashioned to scuttle any bill and preserve the untenable status quo. That should not happen.  The Labor Department says at least half of America's nearly two million crop workers are in this country illegally. These are workers upon whom we depend to put food on our tables. It's time to stop pretending they don't exist. It's time to stop treating hard-working gardeners, bus boys, nannies, and maids like criminals who should never get a chance to apply for citizenship.  It's time to install an improved homeland security infrastructure that better monitors who enters this country, what their backgrounds are, and where they work; a system that does a better job of keeping foreign criminals from crossing the border to set up shop here.  For all its flaws, there is much in the proposal before Congress that is good. It should be passed, and potential problem areas should be monitored with an eye to future corrections.  This is one fight where Bush deserves more support than he's been getting."
"4","EDITORIAL - Dubious immigration deal PROV000020070525e35o0000l Editorial 727 Words 24 May 2007 The Providence Journal All B-4 English � 2007 Providence Journal/Evening Bulletin. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The immigration deal in the Senate produces very mixed feelings. Some of it is good, some bad and some not-so-bad (or not-so-good).  The worst feature is the guest-worker program, which would give two-year visas to at least 400,000 unskilled foreigners. The visas could be renewed twice, although the workers would have to leave the country for a year between each two-year stretch. (It would be interesting to see how U.S. officials try to regulate this.)  The proposal would represent a massive increase in the number of low-skilled immigrants.  The bill would provide temporary workers for jobs that are actually permanent, for such businesses as meat processing and restaurants.  It would further drive down the wages, benefits and working conditions of the most vulnerable Americans. There is no labor shortage here. If there were, inflation-adjusted wages for this kind of work would be going up instead of down.  What is being created is a permanent labor underclass. And let us remind all that once the guest workers' visas run out, many will inevitably fade into the illegal population - or Congress will sponsor another special amnesty for people who are already here.  We find the provision offering amnesty for nearly all the 12 million (or more) illegal immigrants somewhat objectionable. Some policy makers have long favored amnesty for immigrants who have been in the United States for a long time. This deal sets the cutoff date at Jan. 1 of this year, which means that people who crashed the border as recently as five months ago are automatically put on the path of citizenship.  As amnesties go, this one is otherwise well designed. It requires illegal immigrants to pay a $5,000 fine and make a touch-back visit in their country of origin. In applying for citizenship they'd have to wait for the 4 million families now in the visa line to pass through, which could take eight years. The deal's boosters keep repeating that these ""penalties"" make this something other than an amnesty, but they are wrong. The people here illegally get to stay, their children remain in American schools and their so-called Z- visas make them immediately eligible for a variety of public benefits.  The agreement does contain several changes for the better. A significant one would be a greatly enhanced system for verifying the legal status of job applicants and stronger enforcement of the workplace rules against hiring undocumented workers. Employers would have to check all workers' Social Security numbers against a national database.  Another improvement is a new merit system that would bring in more skilled immigrants. Under the current law, nearly two-thirds of the immigrants admitted are relatives of people already here. This has created what is called ""chain migration,"" where one person obtains citizenship and then brings in his or her extended family -- and those new entrants get to sponsor other relatives. The result has been a system that tends to favor large numbers of poor and unskilled people over more educated applicants. America, if it is to have an economy that will benefit everyone, needs to draw in more educated people.  The merit system would give extra points for education, job skills and knowledge of English. Some immigrant-rights groups complain that the new rules would hamper family unification, but that's not really so. Any immigrant could still bring in his foreign spouse or young children, and the presence of family in this country would itself provide points in deciding which applicants are chosen.  The agreement also calls for stronger barriers at the border with Mexico. We regret this, but it is necessary. A country without a real border will cease to be a country. And America must stop being the pressure release - an excuse not to reform - for leaders of the generally corrupt governments to the south of us.  Any immigration reform with hopes of passage will involve considerable compromise. As we see it, the amnesty (though overly broad) might be an acceptable tradeoff for tightened workplace enforcement and the promotion of higher-skilled immigration. The guest-worker program, however, is just plain wrong. Let's decide how many immigrants we will accept and what their qualifications should be - without creating a special class of especially vulnerable foreign workers. "
"4","Troubling questions | Immigration deal requires much more work SDU0000020070526e35o0001j OPINION 573 Words 24 May 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune R,E,S,F B.10 English � 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  As they say, the devil is in the details. That is certainly the case with the immigration compromise being debated in the Senate.  It's strange. Usually, the closer one looks at legislation, the clearer it becomes. Not with this compromise. In this case, the closer you look, the more questions arise.  We should say up front that we still welcome this bill as a good start. Americans have spent the last seven years thirsty for a solution to our immigration problem. In that time, all we've been offered are heated rhetoric and unreasonable demands. Everyone agrees there is a problem, and yet few offer realistic solutions. And when a solution does come along, the extremes on the right and the left can't wait to blast away at it without offering an alternative.  And yet it is those of us who see promise in the bill who have to be most committed to addressing the questions it raises and patching up holes in the fabric.  Take the language about so-called border enforcement ""triggers"" that would get the whole thing moving. Now it turns out that the triggers wouldn't apply to the legalization plan for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country. The triggers would only apply to the hundreds of thousands of additional guest workers.  Those workers who are already here would almost immediately be granted temporary legal status and the chance to make their status permanent within eight years. The immigrants wouldn't have to pay back taxes, either, despite earlier claims that this requirement would be in the mix. They would have to learn English, but that requirement wouldn't take effect until after the eight-year probationary period.  There is another bizarre provision in the section dealing with guest workers. It requires workers to come in for two-year stints and then return to their home country for one year before they could reapply for another two-year stint. The idea must be to prevent workers from putting down roots. Good luck with that. The world doesn't work that way. Workers aren't going to leave, especially if they start a family here. And employers are going to hate this rule as well, since they would have to train these workers only to lose them after two years and then go out and find replacements.  Lastly, there are questions about the tamper-proof biometric card that would be issued to guest workers. Ideally, such a card should go to every worker in America, whether they are immigrants or native born. It's hard to see the point otherwise. Under the Senate bill, you'd have a few hundred thousand guest workers caring around these cards. So what? There may be hundreds of thousands of others who aren't eligible still moving through the economy. The idea of the identification was to give employers a helping hand as to who is eligible to work and who isn't. Limiting the card to guest workers isn't much help.  There is much work to be done. And a good amount of confusion to clear up. Senators need to make that a priority. Instead of trying to kill this provision or strike down that one, they should invest their energy in trying to take a good legislative effort and making it much, much better. 1 ILLUSTRATION"
"5","Coming clean on amnesty SFC0000020070524e35o00043 EDITORIAL DEBRA J. SAUNDERS Debra J Saunders 761 Words 24 May 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.7 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  IF U.S. SENATORS cannot level with voters about the immigration legislation they are considering, then the measure deserves to fail.  Not that I expect it to fail. Very powerful forces want the measure, authored by Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jon Kyl, R- Ariz., to become law.  American employers want cheap labor. Poor people across the globe want American jobs. The notion that anyone should have to respect another country's immigration laws has become anachronistic. Both Democratic and Republican party leaders look at the children of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in America -- and they want their future votes.  Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies ( http://www.cis.org), observed that with the Chamber of Commerce and big labor pushing for a comprehensive immigration package, a Senate bill ""should pass.""  But Camarota also noted that despite the big guns' support, some senators seem to be backing away. If senators hear their constituents rag on the bill over Memorial Day weekend, the Kennedy- Kyl compromise could be a goner.  If the measure does fail, one factor will be that proponents did not have enough faith in their message to tell the truth about what their bill would do.  They won't use the word ""amnesty."" President Bush, who supports the bill, won't use the a-word either. Yet ""amnesty"" aptly describes provisions that would grant illegal immigrants the legal right to live and work in America.  Senators who support the measure tell voters that they want to pass the bill because, as one senator put it, ""We need to secure the border."" Ha.Supporters also say they want to squeeze those who hire illegal workers.  Do they think voters are stupid?  Washington does not have to pass new laws to beef up border enforcement or punish law-breaking employers. Those laws exist. To the extent that such laws have not been enforced, the cause is not that laws are not tough enough, but that Washington has lacked the will to enforce them. Consider directives that prohibit some Border Patrol pursuits of fleeing drug smugglers.  Besides, if Washington wants to reward those who have broken immigration law, why pass a new law? If Washington wants to eliminate penalties for illegal immigrants, why not save the taxpayers a few bucks and dump the whole immigration and border control bureaucracy?  Tuesday, Kennedy's office issued a prepared statement in which the senator boasted that his bill would ""say no more worker abuse."" Employers would have to verify that they only hire legal workers. If they don't, they could be fined up to $5,000 for a first offense, and if they re-offend, ""they can even go to jail.""  Two paragraphs later, Kennedy praised undocumented workers because ""they work hard every day"" -- in jobs for which Kennedy just said he would subject their employers to jail time.  Then Kennedy complained about an immigration raid at a New Bedford, Mass., company that ""disrupted the lives of scores of families who had laid down roots in the New Bedford community."" Despite his pro-enforcement claim, clearly Kennedy doesn't want real constraints on illegal immigrants.  What a bonanza for cheapskate companies who don't want to pay competitive wages.  Immigration warrants compromise in Washington. A savvy pact could bring some immigrant families into the America fold and seek a balance in the workforce that protects low-skilled workers and employers. For example, the Senate could vote to allow children who were brought into America illegally before 2007 to become citizens when they reach age 18. After all, it is not a child's fault if he or she is an illegal immigrant.  But this bill is not a compromise. Only one-side -- the anti- illegal immigration side -- makes a considerable concession, while the pro-illegal lobby wins amnesty for illegal immigrants. And still pro-illegal groups complain that illegal immigrants might have to jump through some hoops, such as returning to their home country to apply for entry.  The only concession the pro-illegal immigration crowd makes is to honesty.Proponents say they don't want amnesty, but then squawk at any conditions undocumented adults must meet to win citizenship. They say they want to go after employers, but then protest enforcement actions against those who hire illegal immigrants. And they say they want to secure the border, as they give a green light to people who break border-crossing laws. E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com."
"4","Immigration bill is credible start to a formidable task USAT000020070524e35o00060 NEWS DEBATE 1070 Words 24 May 2007 USA Today FINAL A.12 English � 2007 USA Today. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  If the test of a good legislative compromise is whether it makes both sides angry, the new immigration reform bill in the Senate certainly passes. In the week since the deal was announced, critics on the left have denounced it as inhumane and overly strict; critics on the right say it's much too tolerant of rampant illegality.  The opponents have their points, but they miss a larger one. The idea on the table (or something very much like it) is vastly better than the alternative: Keeping the hopeless mess we have now. Neither extreme has any chance of getting its way.  With support from President Bush and senators spanning the ideological divide from Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to Jon Kyl, R- Ariz., the bill is precisely the sort of creative, bipartisan approach to a major problem that's been lacking in Washington.  That's not to say the proposal doesn't have flaws. To be credible in a way that current law is not, its enforcement mechanisms must be effective, and it's doubtful that can be achieved in the planned 18 months. But the approach is innovative and can be improved in time for the measure to go forward.  The critics should recognize that failure to act would make it likely that nothing could happen until after the 2008 election, if then. The nation can't wait that long. Already, anger at the government's inability to secure the borders and carve out a sensible immigration policy is boiling over in scores of communities. In places from Hazelton, Pa., to Farmers Branch, Texas, local governments have acted on their own to bar illegal immigrants from such basics as renting a place to live. The USA is on track not for a single immigration policy, but 10, or 100 or 1,000, as states, cities and towns seek to make illegals unwelcome in jobs, housing, schools and hospitals -- or alternatively, try to grant their own amnesty.  Meanwhile, the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants - - many of whom are vital to the nation's economy and came here with the tacit approval of a broken system -- lead anxious lives, a traffic stop or an immigration raid away from being deported. Businesses desperate for labor either can't get it or risk suddenly losing it. Communities are disrupted and left with enormous costs.  The Senate proposal meets three tests we have long thought should be the mark of any serious reform:  *Respect for the law. The bill includes an aggressive effort to tighten the borders and police the workplace for illegal workers.  *Economic benefit. An immigrant workforce helps the nation's economy function and grow. The bill provides a temporary-worker program and a new system that places a premium on high-demand skills.  *Realism. It's unrealistic to think that 12 million people, the population of Ohio, could be rounded up, charged and deported. In a nation of immigrants, breaking up families and forcible evictions are contrary to basic values.  Notwithstanding reflexive charges that the bill would provide ""amnesty"" to immigrants who broke the law to get here, poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans approve of providing a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants who work, stay out of trouble, and pay fines and taxes.  That's what the Senate plan would do. Among other things, applicants must work, keep clean criminal records, wait at least 13 years, learn English, pass a civics test, pay fines of $5,000 and thousands more in processing fees. Moreover -- in a sop to hard- liners that the bill would be better off without -- heads of families would have to return to their home countries to apply for permanent U.S. residency.  Is this path to citizenship entirely fair to those who've waited for years, even decades, to immigrate legally? Probably not. But, as Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who helped broker the deal, told us Wednesday, ""This whole thing crashes if we insist on total fairness.""  The lack of effective enforcement made the last major immigration reform bill, in 1986, a sham that helped create the current mess. The plan in the new bill is a sounder one, but it's very hard to see how even well-intentioned officials could do it all -- hire and train thousands of new border agents and civilian workers, build hundreds of miles of border fence, and, most important, create an effective system for checking to see that workers are legal. All this is supposed to happen by the end of next year, at a time when the current system can't even effectively process the giant, decades- old backlog of legal applicants.  But even as the bill stands now, it is so much better than the status quo that members of Congress will have a lot of explaining to do if they let this opportunity pass. Over the Memorial Day recess, when the congressional critics denounce the deal, voters should ask them two questions: If not now, when? And if not this, what?  ---  Tough path or amnesty?  To become U.S. citizens under the immigration bill in the Senate, illegal immigrants would have to follow these steps:  *Register to obtain a probationary visa. Applicants must have a job, a clean criminal record and be able to show they were in the USA before Jan. 1, 2007. Those who fail a background check could be deported.  *Once border and workplace enforcement measures are in place, applicants could apply for ""Z"" visas. Applicants must pay a $1,000 fine (plus $500 for each dependent and substantial processing fees), undergo further background checks, show continued employment and agree to meet English language and civics knowledge requirements. The Z visa is good for four years and could be renewed for a further fee.  *After eight years (assuming the backlog of legal applicants is cleared), holders of Z visas could apply for green cards (legal permanent residency). They must continue to be employed, undergo more background checks, speak English, demonstrate civics knowledge and pay an additional $4,000 fine and more processing fees.  *To complete the process, applicants must return to their home country and apply from there for a green card.  *After obtaining a green card, it takes at least five more years to become a U.S. citizen.  Source: Homeland Security Department"
"5","So much for 'immigration fairness' WATI000020070524e35o0000n EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 517 Words 24 May 2007 The Washington Times A18 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  In the week since the new immigration bill was unveiled, the White House and its allies have embarked on a brazen spin campaign. But some lawyers who have been poring through the more than 300- page bill - a legislative behemoth that could reach nearly 1,000 pages - and what the lawyers have found thus far is troubling.  According some detailed analyses of the legislation circulating among staffers and lobbyists on Capitol Hill, the bill includes provisions that: 1) contradict assertions that those granted amnesty under the bill will have to go ""to the back of the line"" behind prospective immigrants who have followed the rules; 2) belie claims that the bill would ""increase"" penalties for illegally entering or re-entering the United States; 3) could make it easier for some illegal aliens who sexually abuse minors to get amnesty; 4) do not end the policy of ""catch and release"" for illegal aliens coming from countries other than Mexico; and 5) would, contrary to all of the reassurances we regularly hear, enable many illegals to evade payment of back taxes. And this only scratches the surface of what is wrong.  For one thing, the enforcement standards or ""triggers"" that ostensibly will have to be met for amnesty to occur apply only to one of the myriad amnesty programs contained in the bill: the guest- worker program. And the trigger does not require the completion of the U.S. Visit exit system, which is essential to ensuring that future guest workers or other visa recipients do not overstay their visits. In demanding amnesty, advocates often say it is necessary because illegals have deep ""American"" roots. But under this bill, illegals who entered between Jan. 7, 2004 and Jan. 1, 2007 would be given the same amnesty benefits as those who have been living in the United States for decades and have children who were born here. Additionally, people who waited in line to come in the legal way would have to start the process over if they filed their applications after May 1, 2005. So much for the notion of fairness.  Will the legislation end ""catch and release?"" Not exactly. Illegals from countries other than Mexico who are caught at the border could be released on $5,000 bond. Will it increase penalties for re-entering the United States illegally? No. Penalties would remain the same as in current law: six months for a first offense, two years for subsequent ones. Also, aggravated felons who have already pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a child would be eligible for a so-called Z visa under the bill if their crime occurred before it was signed into law. And what about those back taxes? Right now there are contradictory interpretations of how much of a windfall illegals will get: one legal analysis has it that the Senate bill only requires the payment of federal back taxes, but contains no requirement to pay state and local back taxes. But the Bush administration has reportedly agreed to waive federal taxes and penalties as well."
"2","LETTERS AKDG000020070525e35p00010 Editorial 1581 Words 25 May 2007 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 25 English Copyright (c) 2007 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.  Retention a political issue once more Recent news events have sparked several memories.  Close to my high school graduation, I learned that I was one of few youngsters with parental permission to explore and take out books from the library's restricted section located behind the librarian's desk. Why don't the local libraries have a parental permission section?  College retention is once again a politician's call. In the 1970s, our college's academic dean returned from a state Board of Education meeting. Over coffee the next morning, the dean announced to the faculty present that the state board thought we were failing too many students. With my usual alacrity, I offered, ""That's easy. I'll stop failing students."" The dean said nothing.  In the '80s, the board worried about gradeflation-too many high grades. In the '90s, the board worried once again about retention. Our college responded by developing a course for incoming students that included a tour of the campus as well as an introduction to campus life, including all the student policies-except studying. Many college faculty thought teaching incoming students was beneath them.  Mallard Fillmore, the cartoon, raves about too few conservative teachers on the nation's campuses. There is no liberal plot. The fact is, conservatives understand that money is the driving force of this society. Only liberals would be foolish enough to invest all that time, money and effort in earning advanced degrees, and then teach for middle-income wages.  CHARLES H. SWANSON Bella Vista Dangers are increasing Don't call your representatives if you support the proposed legislation to give a pass for the criminal behavior of illegal immigrants. If Mexicans and other Latinos can get here, so can the illegal drugdealer mules and al-Qa'ida supporters. All points of entry-ports, airports and border crossings-must be closed to illegal traffic by the military if necessary.  The economy and jobs will be the least of our problems should this political correctness continue in an effort to garner votes from so-called hard-working, law-abiding, taxpaying immigrants. We do not need more laws that will not be enforced. Enforce the existing laws. Prosecute employers for hiring illegals. Prosecute, imprison and then deport people who possess illegitimate identification. Illegal immigrants who have committed other crimes should be prosecuted, imprisoned and then deported.  This is a disaster about to occur in our country. The flood of illegals will continue. The catch-and-release program only encourages them, and a few cameras or several existing miles of fence are only a sign that our government is not serious and is unwilling to deal with this national security problem.  Much of this immigration issue is being used as a cover to gain access. A number of these people are very dedicated to their goal, using political correctness as a foil. They love death. They commit suicide to kill. They use their children as bombs to kill. If you wish to be part of the silent majority, you do so at the peril of your family and yourself because this illegal immigration issue is too serious to play politics with.  JOHN ARELLANES Jacksonville Criticism isn't justifiable I see lots of criticism aimed at the former president, Jimmy Carter.  Carter ignored rising fuel prices that broke the back of the U.S. economy in the 1970s, unlike the current president, who has consistently come to the rescue of consumers by keeping the price of gasoline constant through turbulent market conditions that historically tend to push prices higher. How fortunate we are to have President Bush, a leader of such vision and statesmanship who has kept America No. 1 in the hearts and minds of the world that stands with us in our current discomfort.  Carter also ignored the opportunity to become entangled in foreign military ventures that would have enriched the power brokers in our country, who stood to profit mightily from another little war. Somehow a Democrat president managed to avoid declaring war between 1976 and 1980. A thank-you to Carter for not sending my friends and family off to die for corporate profits.  JOHN FIELDS Little Rock Philosophy lacks anchor The late Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., a true-blue liberal Democrat, composed a single sentence that describes the life of liberals. From his book, ""The Vital Center"": ""Within the universe of liberalism there is no point at which the spirit can come to rest; nowhere and no moment for the soul to say: In His Will is our peace."" It must be terribly stressful for liberals to have to work so hard to control the lives, paychecks, education, health care, religious expression and eating habits of 300 million citizens. Controlling the lives of so many free-thinking people would be like trying to herd thousands of cats into military formations.  The contradictions in their political philosophy are another area of stress for liberal Democrats. They do not believe in the liberty of individuals as protected by the Constitution. They do not believe in democracy, the doctrine that gives the people, by a majority vote, legal authority to alter the Constitution. Dramatic social and cultural changes are being forced on America by liberal judges, creating warring factions, conflict and chaos.  Those on the political left have no anchor in the real world. They do not respect human nature, the result of divine creation. How can they run the ship of state without an anchor in reality, without compass or rudder to keep them on a peaceful and productive course for present and future generations?  JEWELL CARR Cleveland Law may not be answer I have many diverse Internet buddies, so I receive a wide sampling of offerings. Someone recently sent a firearms refresher course that could have been written by the National Rifle Association.  I don't know what the answer is here. After the Kennedy assassination, I was all for gun control, but over the years all the wackos who have gone on killing sprees seem to have had no problem procuring weapons, so just where exactly is the control?  I don't think all students should be allowed to carry guns, or all teachers for that matter, but perhaps we could institute a high school course of gun safety and ethics that would qualify students to carry them.  The country seems to be on a legislative bender and people expect everything wrong to be rectified with a law. Well, just who is supposed to enforce all these laws? Our overworked and underfunded law enforcement ranks? I think not.  It may well be the underfunding of mental health programs that is allowing the unbalanced elements of our society to live out their morbid fantasies. However, there is the issue of our litigious society, which is only a phone call away from a lawyer delighted to raise slander and libel issues. How many red flags need to be raised before another potential Cho Seung-Hui is directed to therapy instead of the local gun shop?  I have questions. Does anyone have answers?  T.A. SAMPSON Cane Hill Stick to facts of the time Poor ole ""Jimmuh"" Carter. He's sort of like the rest of our generation. We ought to quit telling our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids what heroes we were back in the 1950s or '60s or even the '70s.  At our age, our imaginations often outrun the facts, and the facts about the last half of the decade of the '70s are pretty sad when viewed within the context of the seven decades since the end of World War II. The '70s just weren't a pretty sight.  ""Jimmuh"" must have spent too long up North and forgot the old Southern adage about letting one's mouth overload one's behind, 'cause he sure stepped in it this time. Or maybe he broke out his old leisure suit and got high on the mothballs. Where's Brother Billy when we need him?  JACK DuBOSE Conway Protection not justified Sen. Blanche Lincoln is co-sponsor of the Senate version of a hate crime bill that recently passed the House. Doesn't she believe that we are all created equal and deserve equal protection? Giving more punishment for violating one person than another and giving federal protection to certain classes, as the hate crime bill does, is not equal treatment.  The Republicans made this point when they submitted several amendments to add other classes of people to the proposal, including witnesses in judicial proceedings, members of the armed forces, senior citizens, victims of random acts of violence, law enforcement officers and children, but the Democrats turned them down one by one.  Just which of these groups does Lincoln think needs less protection than homosexuals? The latest hate crime bill expands protection for sexual orientation, and Lincoln voted more than once to add that language to the Senate bill.  The Republicans even tried to add an amendment to define sexual orientation. It was voted down as well. If homosexuals are born with that orientation, wouldn't the same be true for pedophiles? Just recently in Arkansas, one prominent psychiatrist testified that the offender suffered from homosexual pedophilia and was unable to control his actions. Until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, not a sexual orientation. Just how long will it be before pedophilia will be considered sexual orientation?  BOBBY L. HESTER Jonesboro  This article was published 05/25/2007"
"5","You call this reform? Senate makes the worst of a bad situation with immigration bill AGCR000020070601e35p0005t EDITORIAL 529 Words 25 May 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Working Americans may be too busy to take to the streets.  Nonetheless, Congress is beginning to get an earful from Americans who see the Senate immigration bill as a sellout - amnesty for illegal aliens and citizenship for sale, cheap.  And guess who gets stuck holding the bag: Estimates are that the bill will cost American taxpayers trillions to pave the way for more cheap legal labor from Mexico.  Many of the criticisms are probably even less printable than the profane assessment offered by House Minority Leader John Boehner - who is said to have compared the bill to excrement.  Otherwise popular senators such as South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and Georgia's Saxby Chambliss have been roundly booed at home for their support of the bill.  The Senate is getting it from all sides - including those both for and against amnesty.  This all begs the question: Why have a bill at all? Why not just enforce existing laws? Why not secure the border - stop the bleeding, in essence, before trying to decide on surgery?  The guest worker component, for instance, would allow in hundreds of thousands of unskilled nonagricultural workers a year - which labor leaders say would depress wages, and which would lead to an entire underclass of unassimilated working poor.  And consider this Heritage Foundation analysis of taxes paid and benefits received by low-skilled immigrant households in the United States in fiscal year 2004: Low-skilled immigrant households received an average of $30,160 in public benefits while paying only $10,573 in taxes. In other words, other American households supported them to the tune of nearly $20,000 each.  That means each low-skilled immigrant household receives $3 for each dollar it pays in taxes.  ""Over the next 10 years,"" Heritage Foundation analysts Robert Rector and Christine Kim write, ""the net cost (benefits minus taxes) to the taxpayer of low-skill immigrant households will approach $1 trillion.""  Rector is quoted as adding, ""this is the most expensive bill the U.S. taxpayer has ever seen.""  But worst of all, as far as conservatives are concerned, is the bill's amnesty for illegal aliens. It rewards law-breaking and border-hopping, and is a slap in the face to all potential foreign visitors and immigrants who have queued up legally.  ""The prospect of amnesty for illegal immigrants and their families outweighs any tough border initiative that may be in the bill, or the get-tough employment-enforcement provisions,"" says Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate relations for the Heritage Foundation. ""All that will matter, if the bill passes, is that President Bush and presidential wannabe John McCain enabled and are responsible for a historic giveaway - for a program that grants amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who are being rewarded for breaking the law.  ""I can't imagine any self-respecting conservative in America who would not hold this against McCain, Bush, and any other politician who supports this terrible idea.""  This is another ill-considered, unnecessary effort at ""comprehensive"" immigration reform.  How about let's start with securing the border? "
"1"," Editorials XHAD000020070527e35p0000z Main; A 361 Words 25 May 2007 Honolulu Advertiser 18 English (c) Copyright 2007, Honolulu Advertiser. All Rights Reserved.  Gas-gouging bill won't do much to curb price  It's official: The U.S. House of Representatives is against high gas prices.  That collective stamp of the foot may feel satisfying in these days of pain at the pump. But Congress' move this week to pass a bill declaring price-gouging a federal crime ultimately will not do much to drive down the price.  The bill itself is not a done deal. The Senate won't take it up until it deals with immigration legislation next month. Even in the unlikely event the measure makes it into law, making a charge of price-gouging stick is an elusive goal.  It eluded this state, anyway, in the late 1990s, when the administration of then-Gov. Ben Cayetano filed a $2 billion anti-trust lawsuit against divisions of Chevron, Shell, Texaco, Unocal and Tosco. In 1999, however, a $20 million settlement was reached, with the companies admitting to no wrongdoing.  The suit did spotlight the companies' high-profit margins, revelations that fueled the later push for gas pricing controls. In the end, lawmakers abandoned these, too.  The Federal Trade Commission also looked into potential anti-trust violations on a national scale over the years but has concluded that a variety of factors have contributed to spikes in gas prices.  The law seeks to extend the FTC reach by making it illegal for companies to take ""unfair advantage"" or charge ""unconscionably excessive"" prices for gasoline and other fuels.  The trouble with that is that nobody knows precisely what would trigger a criminal charge under such a law.  A more productive use of Congressional time would be to focus on reducing this nation's reliance on fossil fuels. And a commuter resolve to use less gas might moderate prices, although there seems little sign of cutbacks during this long holiday weekend.  In the end, that ""pain at the pump"" remains the best incentive to push consumers toward transportation alternatives - hybrid cars, renewable fuels - that would be kinder to both the environment and the consumer wallet.  Drop-in:  Join the conversation. Post your comments about our editorials at HONOLULUADVERTISER.COM/OPINION"
"4","Get it right on front end Our position: The immigration bill should make sure that employee verification is accurate. ORSE000020070525e35p00014 EDITORIAL OPINION Sable 280 Words 25 May 2007 Orlando Sentinel FINAL A22 English Copyright 2007, Orlando Sentinel Communications. All Rights Reserved.  The Senate's immigration bill offers a balanced opportunity at comprehensive reform, but there is at least one point that needs to be tweaked now: the system to verify that employees are legal.  The bill metes out tough penalties for hiring illegals, as it should, since employers will be given more opportunities to hire legal workers. But employers also are justifiably concerned that the government database, which is required to be upgraded within 18 months after the bill is approved, is unreliable and prone to crashing.  After all, the current database has a 15 percent failure rate for checking a worker's status, and it involves only 16,000 employers. Imagine the electric gridlock when 6 million employers are required to re-verify 145 million workers.  The bill should have guarantees that a system will actually be reliable within 18 months. If not, the deadline for imposing the system should be extended.  A flawed database is not a minor issue. Employers hiring illegal workers risk $5,000 for a first offense, upward to $75,000 and possible jail for repeated violations. Understandably, they are concerned. Why should they be on the hook if the Department of Homeland Security, which will oversee the system, makes a mistake?  The proposed upgrade has a sound premise. It would match workers' documents -- and eventually a new secure biometrics card -- with Homeland Security databases. But it should be user-friendly for big companies and family-owned businesses alike.  Take the time to get it right rather than botch another attempt at immigration reform."
"1","Editorial | High Gas Prices; Ducking harder choices PHLI000020070525e35p0001r EDITORIAL; P-com Opinion 669 Words 25 May 2007 The Philadelphia Inquirer CITY-D A18 English (c) Copyright 2007, Philadelphia Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.  In the spring of 2006, gasoline prices were approaching $3 per gallon, and Democrats seeking to win back Congress blamed the Republicans in charge.  ""The American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber-stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies,"" House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California said at the time. She said Republicans had given the public ""empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices.""  A year later, Democrats control Congress, Pelosi is speaker, and gas prices are at a record nationwide average of $3.23 per gallon of regular unleaded, up from $2.87 a year ago. Some analysts predict gasoline will hit $4 per gallon this summer in many parts of the country.  Should we presume that Democrats are now in cahoots with Big Oil? No. Democrats can't control prices now, just as Republicans weren't responsible for rising gas prices a year ago.  World oil markets largely determine the cost of gasoline, which often climbs as the summer driving season approaches. Industry experts also blame a shortage of refinery capacity for almost weekly increases in retail prices since Jan. 29.  Maybe $4 gasoline will create enough outrage to get Congress to do what it hasn't: Take serious steps to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  Policy makers haven't been nearly aggressive enough in encouraging higher fuel economy in new automobiles, even as sales of light trucks and SUVs reached 50 percent of the U.S. market.  What Congress can do is set long-term goals for reducing gasoline consumption and encourage diversification of fuel supplies. To date, the new Democratic majority has offered a strategy that is equal parts planning and posturing.  Democratic leaders have held hearings into alternative fuels, climate change and hydrogen research; they promise a package of bills by July 4 with incentives to promote alternatives.  But they also are grandstanding, such as the House passing a bill Wednesday to stop oil companies from ""price gouging."" Never mind that a thorough investigation by the Federal Trade Commission after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 found no evidence that companies manipulated prices. The market responded to a devastating storm and limited supply with higher prices.  Though oil companies may not be gouging, they are certainly making enough to forego government charity. The House did vote this year to roll back $14 billion in subsidies to oil companies, but couldn't agree with the Senate on a version that might get past President Bush's veto pen.  The Senate is headed in a smarter direction, trying to raise gas-mileage standards for new vehicles from 25 miles per gallon to 35 m.p.g. by 2020. However, it needs to drop a loophole, inserted in committee, that allows the administration to ignore any target that wouldn't be ""cost-effective"" for automakers.  Senate Democrats' comprehensive energy proposal, waiting for debate upon completion of the immigration bill, also mandates 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other renewable fuels - something the president supports. Biofuels proposals, however, contain few safeguards for the conversion of forests or fallow acres to cornfields. Congress shouldn't jeopardize the land, air or water to produce more energy.  Amidst this debate over the high cost of gas, Washington remains mystically silent about upgrading and investing in fuel-efficient mass transit. Systems such as SEPTA continue to scrounge for money, threaten fare hikes, and plot service cutbacks to close their chronic deficits.  And few politicians speak this unpleasant truth: Even if oil prices fall, the U.S. government should keep pump prices right where they are (or even higher). It should levy a higher gas tax to discourage consumption and to raise desperately needed revenue to repair the nation's crumbling highways and boost struggling mass transit.  Any revenues left over perhaps could help close Social Security's long-term funding woes. Remember them?"
"5","ERASING AMERICA? LATINOS DON'T ENDANGER THE NATION, JUST REPUBLICANS WHO DON'T GET IT PPGZ000020070525e35p0001b EDITORIAL Michael Gerson 803 Words 25 May 2007 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette SOONER B-7 English � 2007 Post Gazette Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  In 1882, Congress passed and President Chester Arthur signed ""The Chinese Exclusion Act."" Today we don't name laws as bluntly as we used to. But anti-immigrant sentiments are very much alive, this time expressed in opposition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.  For a certain kind of conservative, any attempt to grant a legal status to illegal immigrants is as welcome as salsa on their apple pie. One conservative commentator claims that the law is ""going to erase America"" -- an ambition even beyond Ted Kennedy's considerable powers. Another laments that ""white America is in flight"" -- and presumably not just to Jackson Hole and Nantucket for the summer.  At one level, any immigration debate concerns a raw political calculation: Who ends up with more voters? Conservative critics of the Senate bill argue that since most Latinos identify themselves as Democrats, a larger pool of American Latinos will mean that Republicans are voted into irrelevance. Most Republican political strategists respond: That is closer than you think. Given current demographic realities, Republicans cannot rely on their white base alone. If a Republican presidential candidate doesn't get about 40 percent of the Latino vote nationwide, he or she doesn't stand much of a chance on an electoral map where Florida and the Southwest figure prominently. A nativist party will cease to be a national party.  Breaking 40 percent is possible for Republicans. President Bush did it in 2004. Republican momentum among Hispanic voters has been strong in the last decade -- until Rep. Tom Tancredo and his allies began their conflict with the fastest growing group of the electorate.  Conceding Latinos to the Democrats in perpetuity is a stunning failure of political confidence. If the Republican Party cannot find ways to appeal to natural entrepreneurs with strong family values who are focused on education and social mobility, then the GOP is already dead.  But the real passion in this debate is not political, it is cultural -- a fear that American identity is being diluted by Latino migration.  Mr. Tancredo is the lowbrow expression of this fear. Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University, whom Mr. Tancredo calls an intellectual mentor, presents the highbrow version. Mr. Huntington argues that Mexican migration is a threat to American unity and to the ""core"" of our cultural identity. ""America,"" he says, ""was created as a Protestant society just as and for some of the same reasons Pakistan and Israel were created as Muslim and Jewish societies in the 20th century.""  There are many problems with this argument, not least of which is that about a fifth of Hispanics in America are Protestants, mostly evangelical Pentecostals and Baptists. Almost all of President Bush's political gains among Hispanics have come from this group, which gave him 44 percent of their vote in 2000 and 56 percent in 2004. Hispanic Protestants tend to be conservative on social policy. And many conservatives, I'd be willing to bet, would feel more cultural affinity with Hispanic Baptists in their church pews than they would with Mr. Huntington's colleagues in the Harvard faculty lounge.  Yet these are precisely the people that Tancredo Republicans are alienating. Not all Hispanics view immigration favorably, but 100 percent resent being targets of suspicion. When I talked this week with the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez Jr., a prominent Hispanic evangelical, he said of congressional Republicans: ""This is a party closing its door to us, hijacked by extremists.""  ""All I hear,"" he told me, ""from conservative leaders I work with, very socially conservative people, is, 'I can't continue to vote for a party that is exposing threads of bigotry and racism.' ""  Conservatives need to be reminded that Latinos -- Protestant and Catholic -- are, in some ways, different from the mainstream culture. Higher percentages attend church regularly. Higher percentages of Latino immigrants are married; lower percentages are divorced. ""The elephant in the room,"" says Rev. Rodriguez, ""is the Latinoization of America. What are the results? America will be a more religious nation. America will continue to be a nation that promotes family values. Wow, that really turns American culture upside down.""  For Rev. Rodriguez and others, religion adds an element beyond politics and culture to the immigration debate. The Christian faith teaches that our common humanity is more important than our nationality. That all of us, ultimately, are strangers in this world and brothers to the bone; and all in need of amnesty. This belief does not dictate certain policies in a piece of legislation, but it does forbid rage and national chauvinism. And this is worth a reminder as well. Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President Bush, is a columnist for the Washington Post (michaelgerson@cfr.org)."
"5","REWARDS LAWBREAKERS PPGZ000020070525e35p0008f EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR DAVID HOOVER Fombell 161 Words 25 May 2007 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette SOONER B-6 English � 2007 Post Gazette Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The latest immigration ""reform"" (read: amnesty) bill from our House of Lords is little more than a sham. It benefits the big businesses that rely on cheap labor and appeases the Mexamericanada crowd.  Instead of granting amnesty to the 12 million or so illegal aliens in our country, the White House and Senate should be focusing on the real problems -- lax enforcement of existing immigration laws (particularly not vigorously prosecuting employers of illegals) and the federal government's refusal to truly secure our borders.  The public costs of illegal immigration are almost inestimable. The nearly unfettered flow of illegal aliens across our borders places an unsustainable burden on our education, Social Security and health-care systems.  It's time for the American people to send a wake-up call to the White House and our House of Lords -- enforce the existing laws and forget about rewarding millions of lawbreakers with amnesty."
"2","REBUTTAL SEPI000020070526e35p0000f Editorial 1393 Words 25 May 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer FINAL B7 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Seattle Jewish Committee does not appear to exist  Wednesday's guest column by J.L. Greenberg, who allegedly wrote his essay on behalf of the ""Seattle Jewish Committee,"" was an insult to my intelligence. Greenberg's broad-brush ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation were astounding.  Without listing his many outright lies, let me simply sum them up by stating that there is no such entity, legally organized either as a non-profit corporation or a charity, called the Seattle Jewish Committee - even though you state with the authority of your newspaper that he wrote on behalf of that phantom organization.  Looks like Greenberg has put one over on your editorial staff, just as he is trying to manipulate readers' opinions with his emotionally charged parade of misleading and deceptive claims.  Virgil Howard  Seattle  Did writer create his own organization?  There is no connection between the so-called Seattle Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Committee. The AJC is a major Jewish organization, now in its 101st year, and a presence on the Seattle scene for the past 60 years.  Looking through the ""Guide to Jewish Washington,"" published by the JT News, the Seattle Jewish Committee is not even listed, nor is it listed with Washington's secretary of state. I fear that the P-I and its readers have been duped by J.L. Greenberg, who must have created his own organization from thin air in order to give his personal views the appearance of more support and greater validity than they otherwise would have.  Rabbi Anson Laytner  Executive director  Seattle Chapter  American Jewish Committee  Non-violent folks no use to terrorist organizations  ""Terrorist"" organizations do not usually recruit non-violent young women from abroad.  I suggest J.L. Greenberg and anyone who wants to become better informed on this complicated issue read Alice Rothchild's book, ""Broken Promises, Broken Dreams"". The author's many interviews include meetings with leaders of Hamas, who are doctors, lawyers, university professors. Hamas functions partly as a defense organization for Palestinians, defense of their homeland, and, yes, their fighters engage in guerilla warfare - because the battleground is their own streets, markets and homes. But Hamas is also a charitable organization that attempts to bring health facilities, medical aid and other help to civilian victims of the occupation.  There will be many arguments as this struggle unfolds and the best way for us to understand it is to learn as much as possible. This volatile situation in Palestine/Israel can be a fuse for unrest in the whole area, so we must not ignore it. Especially must we examine our own U.S. foreign policy, by which the Israeli military is heavily financed. We paid for that bulldozer that crushed Rachel Corrie.  Anne R. Fitzgerald  Seattle  CLASSROOM VIDEO  P-I reduced to level of petulant children  Have the P-I's editors lost their minds? To provide a link (online) to a puerile, humiliating video accomplishes nothing but reducing you and your institution to the intellectual and moral levels of the petulant children who produced it (Wednesday).  As a teacher in high school and university settings, I can attest to the disruptive nature of personal technology, and the increased vulnerability it creates. For your sake, let us hope your staff rises above your personal example and never exposes an unguarded moment in your professional conduct, a prospect we all now are heir to.  Marc Rousseau  Seattle  Would teacher be ousted for doing what student did?  As for the courts deciding whether or not an embarrassing video of a teacher posted online warrants a student's suspension, I wonder what the attitude would be toward a teacher making such a video about one of the students and posting that?  Angela Wilson  Seattle  DUI  Injured woman took her life in her hands  My compassion meter plummeted when I heard the revelation that Maria Federici had a blood-alcohol level of .124 on the night of her life-changing accident.  Whereas I do not believe that she deserves to be severely maimed for this incident of DUI, it is obvious that she was taking a serious chance with her life and others' as well as breaking the law that night by even being on the road. And it is despicable that she and her attorneys have been suppressing that fact ever since. (How long after the accident was the BAC measured? How high was it at the time of the accident?)  Public compassion has resulted in many favorable appearances by Federici since then, including several reports in the Seattle P-I, and a new law passed in her honor, among others.  How differently we would all feel if we had known then what we know now. That the pain and suffering might have been avoided if Federici had not been driving drunk.  Federici is at least as much at fault for her present condition as anyone. I would say 99.9 percent at fault for the bad decision she made to drive drunk.  Her attorney has chosen money over personal responsibility and we get to watch the public display of this sadly disfigured person paraded in front of any willing camera to receive yet another dose of ill-deserved compassion.  I guess I will not be on the jury in September.  Jerry Galland  Auburn  SPENDING BILL  Looks like Democrats love the war to death  Where is the opposition? The new spending bill out of Congress equates to Democrats loving the war to death.  This government is a complete failure; we are now back to the monarchy. Congress and the courts now seem to be the jesters to the king. They had better hope that they can learn to tell jokes that H.R.H. Bush finds to be funny.  William Alexander  Seattle  Democrats can accept their share of responsibility  The mighty Democrats who took back both the House and the Senate in the last election are in the process of caving in to a man with a 31 percent approval rating (americanresearchgroup.com/). They're trading pretty much nothing for fully funding the illegal war in Iraq. (""Iraq funding bill near after Democrats yield,"" Wednesday's P- I). This makes them equally responsible for the deaths of two or three American soldiers in Iraq per day for the next year. Likewise, this makes them responsible for the mental and physical damage sustained by dozens of American soldiers a day for the next year.  The United States is now in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. The American people do not want us there. The Iraqi government no longer wants us to remain (May 9 P-I).  Congress should continue to send President Bush military budgets that will fully fund our troops, but the funding should only be to withdraw them from harm's way. There is no reason for Congress to subvert the will of the American people as President Bush has been doing. It is now long past time to get out of Iraq.  Ted Coskey  Seattle  SONICS  Change in direction is same-old, same-old  We have seen this before and now we have a bazillion-dollar ballyard and another bunch of losers playing in it. Remember the Mariners and the ""miracle season""? It was a flash in the pan.  Do not buy into this ""incredible change in direction"" for the Sonics. We will be extorted for another overpriced, soon-to-be outdated sports edifice and then the next money-hungry, greedy sports team owner will have his begging hand outstretched and into our pockets.  David Winters  Leavenworth  IMMIGRATION  No one tells us what new bill will cost taxpayers  No one is saying anything about what the amnesty immigration bill is is going to cost taxpayers. The cost, according to heritage.org, is $89 billion. And that $89 billion is for one year. Can we afford this?  Howard Simpson  Ocean Shores  POLL  Unmentioned 40 percent must count for nothing  In his May 10 letter, Herb Thylin castigates the Newsweek poll on President Bush's approval rating. He cites an oversampling of Democrats, 36 percent to 24 percent, to prove that this poll was a ""lie done on purpose to deceive the public.""  Was skipping the other 40 percent who were polled also done on purpose to deceive the public?  Don DeWeese  Seattle LETTERS TO THE EDITOR"
"4","Harvard: EDITORIAL: Reward skilled immigrants UWIR000020070526e35p0001z 557 Words 25 May 2007 U-Wire English (c) 2007 U-Wire. All Rights Reserved.  U-WIRE-05/25/2007-Harvard: EDITORIAL: Reward skilled immigrants (C) 2007 Harvard Crimson Via U-WIRE  Staff Editorial, Harvard Crimson (Harvard)  CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Both Republicans and Democrats agree that our  immigration system is broken, yet nobody seemed to be able to agree on how to fix it -- at least until recently. Almost miraculously, a  bipartisan compromise bill that has survived early challenges has emerged from the Senate. Though tremendously complex, at its heart the bill has several key features: A path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants currently in the country, the improvement of border security, a guest worker program, and a point system that will give skilled workers higher priority in receiving a green card. Although there has been some debate as to the exact formula used, the innovative idea of a system that gives greater weight to skill is a step in the right direction.  If the US wants to maintain its place as a technological and intellectual superpower, giving priority to skilled workers will be very important in the coming years. Scientists and engineers who are citizens of other nations, especially countries such as China, India, and Japan, are attaining better education and training, filling many of the top jobs in their fields, and thus attracting more resources to their countries. If America does not have enough skilled labor to compete, we will continue to lose valuable workers and assets necessary for high quality scientific research and general innovation.  Yet America's current system focuses overwhelmingly on giving green cards to family members of current green card holders and citizens, with family members accounting for 87 percent of green cards given out. Occupational considerations only account for the remaining 13 percent. While maintaining family ties is important, they should be balanced with the America's need for an educated workforce. The new bill does just that, allocating 62 percent of green cards on the basis of family ties and 38 percent on the basis of skills. Though the exact formula may need some fine-tuning, we hope that the final product retains the greater emphasis on skill.  That's not to say the bill is perfect. We do not believe that further emphasis on border security will be productive. The economic, social, and political forces that draw immigrants to the U.S. are tremendous. Securing the border with an eye toward illegal immigration will not remove the forced that draw these immigrants to choose to immigrate illegally, nor will it remove all means of doing so. A greater budget for border security thus amounts to throwing cash down the drain. The government has better things on which to spend money.  A more appropriate means of targeting and reducing or eliminating illegal immigration is the demystification of the process to citizenship. If this process is made less complicated and easier to access, the incentives to immigrate illegally will pale beside the ease of the legal path to citizenship.  Ultimately, however, there must be some process of selecting who will become a permanent resident and eventually a citizen. We believe that a system that puts a higher premium on skills better meets America's demands than the status quo, and we hope that the ultimate bill keeps this crucial feature.  ##30##  Distributed via M2 Communications Ltd - http://www.m2.com"
"5","Loopholes for terrorists and fugitives WATI000020070526e35p0000d EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 548 Words 25 May 2007 The Washington Times A20 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The more you look at the Senate immigration bill, the more troubling loopholes you find. Two of the most pernicious: One would severely damage the government's ability to conduct background checks, while the other would provide amnesty to illegal-alien gang members and absconders.  Section 601 (h)(1) of the bill, titled the ""Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007,"" gives the government only one business day to conduct a background check to determine whether an applicant is a criminal or a terrorist. ""Unless the government can find a reason not to grant it by the end of the next business day after the alien applies, the alien receives a probationary Z visa (good from the time of approval until six months after the date Z visas begin to be approved, however long that may be) that lets him roam through the country and seek employment legally,"" write Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Heritage Foundation scholar Matthew Spalding. It is impossible, of course, to determine in a single day whether someone is a terrorist or a criminal. Although the federal government has computer databases containing the names of terrorists and criminals, the information is hardly comprehensive. Much of it is kept by foreign governments or in the form of paper records that cannot be carefully searched in just 24 hours.  ""The need for effective background checks is real. During the 1986 amnesty, the United States granted legal status to Mahmoud 'The Red' Abouhalima, who fraudulently sought and obtained the amnesty intended for seasonal agricultural workers (even though he was actually employed as a cab driver in New York City.) But his real work was in the field of terrorism,"" Messrs. Kobach and Spalding write in a new Heritage Foundation study explaining how the Senate immigration bill would undermine the rule of law. Abouhalima, they said, ""went on to become a ringleader in the 1993 terrorist attack against the World Trade Center. Using his new legal status of amnesty, he was able to travel abroad for terrorist training.""  Under Section 601(g)(2) of the bill, illegal-alien gang members would be eligible for amnesty merely by signing a ""renunciation of gang affiliation."" This massive loophole would make it so easy for illegal aliens to stay in the country that deporting gang members would no longer be a priority.  Gang-bangers and other criminals, who have been ordered to leave the United States by an immigration judge but defy the ruling, are called absconders. The Senate bill first appears to deny amnesty to absconders in Section 601(d)(1)(B). But Section 601(d)(1)(I) permits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to grant an absconder a Z visa anyway if he can show that being forced to leave the United States ""would result in extreme hardship"" to the alien, his spouse, parent or child. The ""hardship"" provision creates a loophole you can drive a truck through - virtually guaranteeing that this class of fugitive aliens can remain in the United States. As we went to press, Sen. John Cornyn was preparing to offer an amendment to strip from the bill amnesty for absconders and violent gang members."
"2","Immigration debate continues CINC000020070527e35q00015 B; Editorial 967 Words 26 May 2007 The Cincinnati Enquirer Final 6 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Cincinnati Enquirer. All Rights Reserved.  Community conversation  By week's end the Senate compromise bill on immigration had undergone major changes and some pungent description - but no agreement had been reached.  The Senate expects to debate the issue into June, giving every member who wants the chance a turn at offering amendments.  The 400,000 person per year guest worker program that would allow temporary workers two year visas, then require them to go home for at least a year, was cut in half. Commerce Secretary Carlos Guitierrez, said reducing the cap reduces the flexibility our economy needs to hire temporary, low cost labor.  The most spirited comment of the week came not from a senator but from Rep. John Boehner, R-West Chester, who tersely described the proposed bill as ""a piece of (deleted).""  That resulted in a new surge of comments on The Enquirer's message board, some of which you see here. The issue is a hot button in this region, with many people voicing support for Boehner's commentary.  Critics label provisions that would allow illegal immigrants to eventually citizenship as ""amnesty,"" even though the proposal calls for $5000 fines and waits of up to 13 years. The general theme of the criticism is that existing laws should be enforced and illegals deported before considering reforms. A practical solution for dealing with the 12 million illegal immigrants now here, remained largely unaddressed by the critics.  The discussion continues at Cincinnati.Com, Keyword: immigration.  What you say: A few of our readers' comments  What the committee tried to do here seems to make sense:  1. Cut the flow of illegals by increasing security at the borders and by dealing harshly with businesss that use illegals.  2. Recognizing that the 11 million to 12 million illegals that are here must be dealt with and that it is complicated. Giving them a path to work legally and to strive toward citizenship if they have enough desire seems proper. Hopefully, we would deport those that choose to remain illegal.  3. A guest worker program makes sense.  The problem will be in keeping this bill from becomming convoluted by each congress member adding and changing language while listening to the special interest groups.  Let the Senate compromise work.  Gary Crawford, Mainville  Anyone who would risk their life to come somewhere to work (and work hard) should be cut some slack.  Nancy Daugherty, Covington  I would like to see the laws that are already on the books enforced. Employers who hire these illegals should pay fines or eventually go to jail for hiring the illegals.  Once we have the present laws enforced and control of our borders we can start the process of allowing legal immigrants to come and fill our needs.The legal immigrants will be entitled to a working wage, not a substandard or slave wage.  Bill Gable, Amelia  I say send the illegals back to Mexico and control our borders more stringently. This would be more cost effective in the long run. Granting them amnesty will only help deplete the social welfare programs, Social Security and run up health costs even more. I do not want my tax dollars spent on the upkeep of these individuals.  Sandy Gay, Harrison  This nation cannot be a dumping ground for all that want to live or work here. We have immigration laws for those wishing to come here. People wanting to come here must obey our laws. They should get in line just like the law-abiding ones who are applying for citizenship and work permits. Business entities share equal blame for this problem. They should be heavily fined/prosecuted if they hire illegal immigrants. The senators who signed on to the ""comprehensive"" immigration bill are in my mind traitors to this country.  Jerry Barrett, Fairfield  It is good to see a bipartisan compromise from our government, a truly rare feature these days. I do feel that two key components are not adequately addressed in the plan. The first is a database where business can find out who is a citizen. The second issue would be severe financial penalties and jail time for employers and individuals who hire someone not in this database. Until we remove this lucrative cheap labor aspect we will always have illegal immigration. Actually I think many businesses prefer the present system of the illegal employee.  Ed Kubrin, West Chester  There is only one way to stop illegal immigration: Impose harsh penalties on those employing these criminals. When U.S. businesses stop hiring these people, they will stop sneaking under our back fence to come here. If we can do drug screening, police checks etc. on employees, we can certainly check on legitimat/bogus I.D. of prospective employees.  Joe McCabe, Pleasant Ridge  My relatives stood in line at Ellis Island to enter the country legally. Let's kill two birds with one stone ... Make being ""disabled"" in this country a lot more difficult - suddenly we'll have some folks that need jobs. On the positive side, at least these illegals are willing to work.  Eric Jacobsen, Richwood  Fixing our borders by allowing more immigrants in is like trying to save a sinking ship by letting more water in. The first casualty of this debate is now ""common sense."" Americans need to remember how their elected representatives vote on this bill. Never forget ... never forget!  John Belanger, Fairfield  I think this solution is great. Why would you send them back? They deserve to make a living just like anybody else. What the government needs to do is get rid of welfare/food stamps program. I'm not knocking welfare if you need it for a temporary resource, but it's being abused over and over and it's time to end it.  Kim Brown, Fairfield"
"4"," AROUND THE STATE DAIL000020070527e35q0000p Editorial 813 Words 26 May 2007 Daily Press Final A19 English Copyright 2007, Daily Press. All Rights Reserved.  Immigration  Compromises reflect diverse, sometimes competing, views. If everyone agreed, there would be no need to hammer out differences, no need for everyone to make concessions. ... Few items generate as much controversy as immigration.  An immigration reform with any prospect of becoming law inevitably would antagonize activists -- which is precisely what the compromise reached in Washington has done.  The bill beefs up border security and other programs for deterring the entry of illegals; it also offers illegals already in the United States ways to legalize their status. Foes of illegal immigration cheer the emphasis on security but denounce provisions they equate with amnesty for criminals. Supporters of immigrant rights and other self-identified human-rights crusaders applaud amnesty but reject tougher border patrols and greater restrictions on illegals.  Although neither side can prevail in imposing its own agenda, the pro-immigrant side enjoys an edge. While it favors rewriting immigration laws, it does not consider maintaining the status quo intolerable. Hardline factions demand action now and consider every day without tougher laws another day in the nation's decline.  The sides cannot be appeased.  The compromise represents the only hope for reform. It strikes a balance -- which probably will prove its undoing. And even if it passed, the bill would not settle a debate that has raged since, oh, about 1607.  -- Richmond Times-Dispatch  GOP's mixed message  Life just got harder for Democrats hoping to take over the Virginia Senate next year. That's our suspicion, anyway, based on the outcome of last weekend's GOP firehouse primary in the 28th District outside Fredericksburg.  Moderate Richard Stuart knocked off three more conservative candidates, and will carry the party mantle into the fall election for the seat held by retiring Sen. John Chichester for 30 years.  Assuming the party's miffed right wing doesn't stay home in November, the political dynamics of the conservative district will favor Stuart against a solid Democratic candidate, former Del. Albert Pollard Jr. of Lancaster County  That would have been a more dicey prospect had Chichester jumped ship, as he hinted at doing if the party nominated someone too far to the right. ...  Democrats need to pick up four Senate seats in order to be guaranteed of controlling one of the General Assembly's two chambers when redistricting occurs after the 2010 census. The Chichester seat is one of only about a half dozen where they have any realistic prospect of a gain.  As nominating primaries and mass meetings continue over the next few weeks, it's worth noting that they allow a handful of voters to have an oversized impact on Virginia's future.  According to local newspaper accounts, Stuart won with 1,068 votes. ... Democracy hinges on who shows up.  -- The Virginian-Pilot  Toll roads take a toll  Virginia's transportation crisis led many lawmakers to seek creative ways to pay for roads without directly asking taxpayers for the money.  One popular solution with the anti-government crowd is allowing the private sector to operate state highways as toll roads. Such public-private deals, however, usually do not serve the public interest.  The system works in several ways, but it boils down to the state's contracting with a private firm to maintain and operate a highway. Sometimes the company will even build the road. Virginians save money on construction and don't have to pay higher taxes.  Except someone has to pay for the roads and corporate profits, and that turns out to be motorists who pass through tollbooths.  Companies involved in such projects aim to make money; the public good is secondary. That has become evident most recently with Northern Virginia's Dulles Greenway.  Toll Road Investors Partnership II operates the 14-mile road that connects Dulles International Airport to Leesburg. TRIP II wants to increase the toll to $4.80, upsetting at least one congressman.  Virginia's Republican Rep. Frank Wolf has asked the state transportation secretary to seek a delay until the General Assembly can review the situation. It turns out the contract with TRIP II doesn't require toll rates to be ""just, reasonable or affordable"" according to Wolf.  Others in Congress have woken up to the problem, too. Several Democratic leaders last week warned governors that handing control to private companies weakens the federal highway system only to funnel money to businesses.  Such are the pitfalls of blindly accepting that the private sector can do every job better than the state.  When government funding is inadequate, leaders have a few options. They can cut a private deal that winds up costing Virginians more in the end, or they can suck it up and admit the commonwealth needs more revenue today to pay for infrastructure.  One of those makes fiscal sense. The other sells out the public for political expediency and corporate profits.  -- The Roanoke Times *"
"4","Our View: New immigration bill not realistic; Last year's proposal was better, but with the presidential vote coming up, no one will touch it MERCED0020070526e35q00018 opinion 650 Words 26 May 2007 Merced Sun-Star 2 English All content is copyrighted (c) 2007 The Merced Sun-Star and may not be republished, rebroadcast or redistributed without the express written consent of The Sun Star.  It's not news to anyone that the U.S. immigration system is broken. A year ago, in a major effort to fix it, the Senate, with President Bush's support, passed a bipartisan bill on a 62-36 vote. But House Republicans killed the measure. With a new Democratic majority in the House, there appeared to be hope that bill would be resurrected.  Unfortunately, the effort has fallen prey to presidential politics. Presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., have backed away from their support for last year's bill. McCain was a co-author and key negotiator. His change of heart has created a vacuum into which immigration opponents have stepped. Now a dozen senators have pushed forward incoherent mish-mash that will solve very little.  A root cause of the current mess is that legal channels of immigration are few and inadequate to U.S. needs. One result is a huge backlog in family visas for those seeking to join family members. The wait is routinely seven to 10 years and can be as long as 22 years. Another is that employment-based visas don't begin to fill the demand for workers. And in agriculture, the assumption that people will come to this country to work, but not have a family or set down roots, is inhumane and unrealistic.  In these examples, the current law's shortcomings help create and exacerbate illegal immigration.  Last year's Senate bill addressed these underlying causes of illegal immigration. It increased family-based and employment-based visas and created a guest worker program providing a path to citizenship. The bill also dealt with the existing illegal immigrant population -- estimated at 5.4 million men, 3.9 million women and 1.8 million children -- giving them a chance to earn citizenship. It addressed border security, adding fencing and vehicle barriers along the Mexican border, plus 1,000 new Border Patrol officers.  In contrast, the bill that the Senate is debating would bar workers from coming to the United States until we've doubled the Border Patrol from 14,000 agents to 28,000, built more fences and begun an electronic employer verification system. The slogan is, ""enforcement first and workers later."" Tell that to employers.  The proposal would allow temporary ""guest"" workers, but they'd have no path to citizenship. They'd have to leave every two years and stay out of the country for a year. They could work here a maximum of six years. Anyone bringing family would have to have income 150 percent over the poverty line and have health insurance -- effectively shutting out low-wage workers the program is supposed to address. Go figure.  Under the proposal, existing undocumented immigrants who pay fines and back taxes, maintain steady employment, have a clean criminal record and learn English could apply for permanent residence (a ""green card"") after eight years. Fine. But they'd have to return to their home country to submit their application for a green card at an American consulate, pure bureaucratic nonsense.  The proposal would still allow citizens and legal immigrants to bring husband or wife, minor children and parents (and extra visas would be added over the next eight years to eliminate the current backlog). But adult children and brothers and sisters would no longer have an automatic right to immigrate. They'd have to prove that they have skills, education and speak English (thus favoring countries such as India). This radical overhaul of the family-based system deserves hearings -- not a closed-door deal among a dozen senators.  This latest proposal is unworkable and a formula for more illegal immigration. The best bet still is to revive last year's Senate bill."
"2","Letters to the Editor PHLI000020070526e35q00012 EDITORIAL; Inq Opinion & Editorial 790 Words 26 May 2007 The Philadelphia Inquirer CITY-D A14 English (c) Copyright 2007, Philadelphia Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.  Turnpike lease folly  I hope our legislators in Harrisburg have thoroughly thought through this turnpike lease deal, because I have, and here's how I see it playing out:  The state will get about $20 billion to go toward transportation. Smelling this windfall, every union will demand salary and benefit increases. After handouts, waste and fraud, the money will be gone in a few short years.  To rake in profits to satiate investors, turnpike drivers will endure a toll hike every year at the maximum allowed. Over time, they will see the roads deteriorate. Snow- and ice-covered roads will get plowed less frequently, causing more accidents. There will be fewer toll attendants, causing longer backups.  And who will people complain to? Fat cats in a faceless conglomerate. And when you dig a little deeper into that conglomerate, don't be surprised if you find a few legislators with stuffed pockets. But don't worry, you'll have to endure this for only 99 years.  Eric Jensen  Downingtown  Immigration sham  The ""unacceptable status quo"" of which Tamar Jacoby writes (""Immigration bill: A solid compromise,"" commentary, Wednesday) is not a shortcoming of law but a result of lack of will. We already have a fair, workable immigration policy. The laws on the books quite simply are not enforced or obeyed. What gives Jacoby any confidence new laws will be?  The government tried this approach in 1986; the fruit of that disastrous legislation is what we see now. The only part of President Reagan's immigration reform that stuck was the amnesty part; the rest was ignored. The same thing will happen if this bill goes through.  Overnight, more than 10 million illegal immigrants will be decriminalized. The effect on our infrastructure will be enormous - particularly to the Social Security system. Doing nothing would be better than doing more damage.  Build the fence; secure the borders; hammer employers who use illegal immigrants. How could we possibly know our immigration system needs to be ""repaired"" if we never use it?  We should enforce current laws (which we got as a compromise in the last amnesty bill) for a few years to see the overall effect on society. All of the promises being made about the new legislation are identical to what we were told in 1986 - give them amnesty and then we'll get tough.  The politicians' past performance gives me no confidence in their ability to do what is right for our country.  Joe Bauchens  Philadelphia  SEPTA building ads  As a resident of the neighborhood that has the SEPTA building, I didn't have anything against the large Dunkin Donuts ad. It rather gave Market Street a little excitement and flair and reminded me of Times Square.  Let's face it, though Times Square is an advertisement bonanza, it draws tourists and people aplenty. Do I think advertisements are fantastic? No. Do I think they should be monitored and fit into zoning laws? Yes. In this one instance, though, where the money would be going to a city institution that needs all the help it can get, and if the ads are as tastefully done as the Dunkin Donuts ad was, I'd give them the one-year trial.  Steven Blackwood  Philadelphia  No to a tax shift  Let me try to educate our friends in Harrisburg about why Act 1 failed at the polls. It is not because the voters ""were not educated about Act 1"" or ""confused,"" as our politicians say. It is quite the opposite. The voters fully understood the ramifications of Act 1.  Taxpayers do not want a tax shift, they want tax reform. Taxpayers want politicians and the local school boards to learn to live within strict budgets as we taxpayers must do.  Harrisburg must make school boards across the state accountable for their actions. Voter referendums on proposed property tax hikes are a good start. Any change in the tax system that funds schools should be fair. Simply moving the burden from one group to another is not addressing the root cause of Pennsylvania's property tax problem.  Steaven P. Klein  Quakertown  Tax big oil profits  I filled up my tank to the tune of $41.07 for 12 plus gallons of 91 octane gas. I also noted that ExxonMobil reported first-quarter earnings of $9 billion. Record prices and record profits, and the president, Senate and House say nothing. Where is the outrage? Even Richard Nixon established price controls in a similar situation. Why not hit the oil companies with an excess-profit tax and plough the money into companies developing alternative fuel technologies that can be brought to market in five years?  Carl Witonsky  Bryn Mawr"
"4","OUR VIEWS // Put America first RVSD000020070622e35q00009 EDITORIAL THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE 325 Words 26 May 2007 The Press-Enterprise B08 English � 2007 The Press-Enterprise. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Patriotic assimilation needs to be more than an afterthought of immigration law. Making Americans out of newcomers should be at the core of immigration reform. The Senate would do well to pass legislation that makes assimilation a key benchmark on the path to citizenship.  Among the many flaws of S 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, is the lack of a strong policy that instills American customs and principles in would-be citizens. In fact, the word ""assimilation"" appears only once in more than 320 pages of legalese.  An excellent proposal by Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, would correct that oversight. The amendment would codify in federal law the citizen's oath of allegiance to the United States, fund civics education programs and accelerate the citizenship process from five to four years for legal immigrants who prove their fluency in English. Those are all laudable policies.  Polling data point to the clear need for a stronger assimilation ethos. A 2002 Pew Hispanic Center survey found that just 34 percent of Americans of Hispanic descent identified themselves as American first. And a Pew study of Muslim-Americans published this week found that 60 percent consider themselves Muslims first, Americans second.  Being an American has nothing to do with ancestry, race or religion. Assimilation does not mean annihilation of ethnic traditions, customs or languages. But the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that new citizens grasp the commitment they're making. U.S. citizenship requires allegiance to the ideas of liberty and equality under the law. It has everything to do with a mutual loyalty to our Constitution and democratic principles.  As written, S 1348 cheapens America's assimilation ethos by failing to substantively address it. But legislators need to understand that assimilation policy and immigration policy are indivisible. Whatever the fate of comprehensive reform, Congress should adopt the Alexander-Cornyn amendment."
"4","A deal begins at the border ; New benchmarks are needed RMTN000020070526e35q0001l NEWS 519 Words 26 May 2007 Rocky Mountain News FINAL 34 English � 2007 Denver Publishing Company, Rocky Mountain News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  As syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News Wednesday night, ""When you get a public opinion poll that shows  [immigration reform] has less support than the war in Iraq, you know it's got trouble.""  Krauthammer was referring to a Rasmussen Reports telephone poll taken May 21 and 22 which found that only 26 percent of voters support the immigration compromise before the Senate; 48 percent oppose it.  Looking deeper into the survey, the reasons for unease are apparent: Americans do not believe that Washington has the will to clamp down on border crossings.  Without enforcement provisions that can be measured and verified, unlawful crossings are likely to continue without interruption.  Still, the ingredients for an immigration bargain the public will accept are out there, if Congress will pay attention. Rasmussen pollers found ""72 percent of voters say it is Very Important for 'the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.' "" Moreover, ""65 percent of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a 'very long path to citizenship' provided that 'the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English' and that the compromise 'would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country.' ""  These findings essentially agree, by the way, with the more publicized conclusion of a New York Times/CBS poll that 62 percent of Americans believe that illegal immigrants who've been here for two years should be able to apply for legal status. In other words, most Americans do favor slow-motion ""amnesty"" - a reviled word in some quarters. We favor it, too. But the public wants - and we want - a more successful effort to seal the border first. In the Times/CBS poll, 82 percent favored boosting border security.  The public doesn't trust the current legislation in part because the enforcement triggers - more border guards, better fencing and surveillance - don't have to be accompanied by an actual, serious reduction in illegal entries. Before Washington hands out visas to 12-million-plus illegal immigrants, federal officials should be able to prove that illegal crossings have demonstrably declined - say, by 50 percent or more.  The Times/CBS poll also revealed most Americans are comfortable with the idea of guest workers. That's encouraging, too. Yet as the bill now stands, its treatment of temporary seasonal workers - the people who make resorts in Colorado and other tourist havens hum - is worse than the status quo.  There are several problems. The biggest, reports the trade publication Lawn & Landscape Magazine, is that the bill would initially retain a cap on seasonal workers that's already too low: 66,000 nationwide each fiscal year, a quota that's often exhausted before the resort season hits full stride. That figure needs a major upward adjustment.  There are obviously numerous other ways in which the bill could be tweaked - but the point is that plenty of Americans are willing to give a comprehensive deal a chance. But it's got to take their concerns about border security seriously."
"4","Rebuilding Trust Immigration bill won't repeat errors of the past DAL0000020070527e35r0000h POINTS EDITORIALS 875 Words 27 May 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 2P English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  As senators talk to constituents in Memorial Day parades and town hall meetings this week, they'll get an earful about the immigration debate. Polls show that most Americans favor the bill's principles of better border security, tougher worksite enforcement, a new guest worker program and a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants living here now. But many opponents are hopping mad, and for an understandable reason.  For many, it boils down to trust. They don't think the government will be any more resolute in enforcing this law than previous immigration bills, such as the one Ronald Reagan signed in 1986. They are particularly upset that although a fence was promised last year, funding for it has stalled.  The lack of trust is a legitimate issue. Senate supporters of the bill would be wise to take that concern seriously this week as they explain its provisions. There's plenty to learn from constituents about how this proposal should be toughened. But there's also plenty in this legislation to reassure Americans that Washington has already addressed many of their concerns.  Here are three reasons why we see greater resolve in this proposal:  1. Let's start with the fence along the border.  True, only about 70 miles have been built, but there are several reasons to believe 370 additional miles will be built right after passage of the bill.  First, there's no greater wall proponent than the very conservative Sen. Jon Kyl, and the Arizona Republican's a key supporter of this immigration legislation. He's even gone to work on Senate appropriators to make sure money for the wall follows Senate passage of this bill, which includes 300 miles of road barriers. His reputation is on the line, so he's bird-dogging the fence.  Second, the bill's guest-worker program and pathway to citizenship hinge on the new border security measures being up and running. This provides an incentive for even guest-worker advocates to push for better border security. As Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff emphasized last week, the bill requires that 20,000 border agents be on the ground, along with 105 surveillance towers and cameras, plus a long list of other security measures, before the measure's other parts kick in.  2. This is not a repeat of the 1986 reforms.  Today's bill will avoid the failures of 1986 for several reasons. The biggest is the inclusion of a temporary worker program. The 1986 bill didn't have one, and that led to a steady flow of illegal immigrants. With a guest-worker program, we will have legal workers instead of illegal ones coming to work here.  This bill isn't amnesty. In 1986, there was no penalty for being here illegally, and citizenship was granted quickly. The Senate's current plan would require illegal immigrants to pay a fine, undergo a background check and learn English before they can become citizens. And that can only happen once all other applicants now in line are processed. There's nothing automatic about citizenship in this plan.  3. Employers will face a tougher road.  Yes, employers are rarely held accountable today for hiring illegal immigrants. But the legislation's new electronic employer verification system does away with opportunities for document forgery. A worker either has an electronic ID or is sunk. Without a valid ID, forget scoring a job. But it you do - and get caught when your name isn't found on the new database - you're permanently barred.  The ID system also leads to much bigger fines for employers. They'd get socked with a $5,000 fine for every illegal worker. The second time they're caught, it rises to $10,000 and then to $25,000 the third time.  We'd favor a much higher fine on employers. Why not $50,000 per worker? That would get their attention. Likewise, we favor more federal investigators to ensure that employers comply with the new verification system.  One more change the Senate definitely needs to make is to closely match the temporary worker program to the flow of illegal immigrants today. Otherwise, we won't curb the numbers.  No, the proposal isn't perfect. But we hope that clarifying the ways in which it specifically addresses opponents' concerns helps move this debate.  Washington knows questions of trust exist; now senators have the chance to show their resolve and really fix this broken system.  U.S. OPINION  According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, there is broad support among Americans for the major provisions in the immigration bill:  Would you favor or oppose a guest worker program?  Favor: 66%  Oppose: 30%  How should priority be given when admitting immigrants?  Education, job skills and work experience: 51%  Family in the U.S.: 34%  It depends: 5%  Should illegal immigrants get a renewable visa if they pay a fine, have a clean record and pass background check?  Yes: 67%  No: 27%  What should happen to illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for at least two years?  Should be allowed to apply for legal status: 62%  Should be deported: 33%"
"1","Unions against secret ballot LVGS000020070530e35r0000l Commentary 456 Words 27 May 2007 The Las Vegas Review-Journal 2D English � 2007 The Las Vegas Review-Journal. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  All through the congressional battles over Iraq war funding and illegal immigration, big labor leaders have been waiting patiently for Democrats to deliver on one of their 2006 campaign promises. Because unions are disappearing from the private sector, they want Congress to tilt labor law in their favor.  Their number has finally been called in the Senate, which is expected to vote soon on the grossly mislabeled Employee Free Choice Act. The bill, passed by the House three months ago on a 241-185 vote, would essentially do away with secret ballots in organization elections and impose a card check system nationwide.  Of course, a choice is never more free than when made during a secret ballot. The vote is made in an environment free of harassment and free from fear of retribution. There is no need to explain your choice to any side seeking election - you cast your vote and walk away.  It's such a cherished American tradition, not only have congressional Democrats elected their leaders through secret ballot, they've urged other nations to conduct union votes in exactly the same way.  Scripps Howard News Service columnist Deroy Murdock pointed out that on Aug. 29, 2001, 16 House Democrats wrote a letter to Mexican labor officials, urging them ""to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections. We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union that they might not otherwise choose.""  ""Of this letter's eleven signers still in Congress, including EFCA sponsor George Miller, D-Calif., all voted to deny American workers secret ballots,"" Mr. Murdock wrote, pointing out that organized labor still insists on secret ballots to decertify unions.  Under a card check system, however, union members get to confront workers one at a time, make their pitch and ask for a signature that's equivalent to a ""yes"" vote for unionization. If a worker respectfully declines to sign the card, union supporters don't have to leave him alone. They're allowed to keep after the worker, following his vehicle or calling on his home at all hours, until the worker signs the card.  Unions need an environment conducive to intimidation because, as United Food and Commercial Workers President Joe Hansen says about the secret-ballot process: ""We can't win that way anymore.""  That's nonsense. Union leaders need look no further than the Las Vegas Strip to see that they can win secret ballots. On May 12, full- time dealers at Wynn Las Vegas voted 444-149 to be represented by the Transportation Workers Union of America.  Secret ballots are fair. The Senate should abort this monstrosity."
"4","Compromise workers The immigration plan now on the table made for some strange bedfellows. Now it has to pass - and to work on the ground NDAY000020070527e35r0002f OPINION 1271 Words 27 May 2007 Newsday NASSAU AND SUFFOLK A54 English Copyright 2007, Newsday. All Rights Reserved.  The immigration reform proposal roiling the Senate is the fruit of a fragile political compromise that contains the seeds of important change. But while attempting to nurture the sweeping compromise into law, the political imperative - holding the reform coalition together - shouldn't be allowed to trump the pragmatic imperative - delivering reform that will actually work in the world beyond Washington.  Should it lose sight of that, Congress may succeed in enacting legislation, as it did in 1986, but fail to solve the nation's immigration problem.  That would be an important opportunity lost, because the proposal contains key elements of effective reform: Stronger border security, a path to life above ground and eventual citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a guest worker program, and tougher workplace enforcement.  It also reflects the sort of elevated bipartisanship Washington needs to generate big solutions to big problems. The proposal was painstakingly negotiated by President George W. Bush and an eclectic group of senators - Democrats, led by Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Republicans such as Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); liberals and conservatives; friends of immigration and enforcement hard-liners. That's how things should work in Washington.  But the reform framework has drawn bipartisan fire from opponents covering a political spectrum every bit as broad as the one represented by reformers. It weathered initial attacks in the Senate last week. But whether any immigration fix can survive in the current climate, particularly in the less hospitable House, is an intriguing question for those who follow Washington as soap opera.  For the rest of the public - including those in Long Island neighborhoods where day laborers gather in search of work - the key question is whether the reforms would solve the nation's illegal immigration problem.  Defining terms  Some perspective is in order: If ""solving the problem"" means ensuring hermetically sealed borders and a nation free of illegal immigrants, then the answer is no. It's not going to happen. With a situation as big and intractable as illegal immigration, the most that can realistically be expected is reform that will make a bad situation significantly better.  The Senate proposal could achieve that limited objective. But even that could be thwarted if illegal immigrants are required to temporarily return to their home countries, or if the notoriously sluggish immigration bureaucracy is overwhelmed by new responsibilities.  The proposed reform would offer temporary legal status to the 12 million immigrants now here illegally. That's essential. Critics call it amnesty, a free pass for lawbreakers. It isn't. There's no practical way to lock up or deport that many people. Legalization is the only viable option for changing the status quo. The long road offered to permanent residency and citizenship is itself a penalty for entering the United States illegally.  The long and winding road  No one would be allowed to start down that road until border security provisions - fences, virtual and real, and thousands of additional border patrol agents - and a high-tech worker identification verification program are in place.  Then, to get a temporary Z visa, undocumented immigrants would have to acknowledge that they entered the country illegally, pass a criminal background check, and pay taxes and a $1,000 fine. When they eventually applied for permanent residency, Z visa holders would have to pay an additional $4,000 fine, demonstrate English proficiency and regular employment, go to the back of the line of people seeking residency, and establish merit based on education and job skills. All that is expected to take eight to 13 years. That's hardly a free pass.  Then there's the requirement - known as ""reboot"" or ""touchback"" - that people go home to retain or improve their immigration status. For undocumented immigrants already in the United States who are heads of households, that would mean returning to their home countries to apply for permanent resident status.  That's unworkable. If all that's ultimately required is that they spend a day or two in their home countries to submit green-card applications at a U.S. consulate before returning, then what's the point?  Add to that nonsensical hassle and expense the vagaries of foreign governments - which could make the trip home dangerous for some - and the paranoia of illegal immigrants that once outside this country they may not be allowed re-entry, and rebooting could severely limit the number of people willing to try for permanent residency and eventual citizenship. It should be scrapped.  What's workable  The temporary worker program contains a similar impediment. After two years of employment here, guest workers would be required to go home for a year before returning for two more years of employment. Although they would be eligible for a total of three two-year work periods, during that time they would not be on any path to permanent residency.  That would create a whole new pool of illegal immigrants.  About 4 million of the 12 million people illegally here today entered legally on student or tourist visas. They simply stayed after the visas expired. With no functioning system to track who goes and who stays, guest workers who opt to stay illegally could just drop off the government's radar.  The requirement to send them home between stints of employment should be eliminated. And Washington should get up and running the stalled component of the U.S. Visit system intended to track visa holders as they leave the country. At least then enforcement officials would know how many people stay illegally and who they are, the necessary first step to finding and deporting them.  Washington should also beware creating bureaucratic nightmares, such as the employment verification system, that could prove unworkable. The Senate reforms require that employers check the status of every new hire and, eventually, every single worker on their payroll. That's quite a chore in a nation with 137million employees.  Some reliable method of verifying immigration status is crucial. Without that, it would be impossible to fairly hit employers with the heavier fines proposed for illegal hires. But issuing tamper-proof Social Security cards would be a huge undertaking, and the electronic eligibility verification database needed to confirm eligibility for work would be massive. Inaccuracies and errors would be inevitable.  Challenging and correcting the record would be time-consuming and litigious. To have any chance of operating efficiently and effectively, the system would have to be designed and implemented with great care. Getting it right isn't impossible. But it's a tall order for Washington.  Slow the flow  This country has to get a grip on illegal immigration. A nation targeted by terrorists has to control its borders. And 12 million people living here off the books and outside the law is bad for the nation's security, economy and quality of life.  But the goal isn't just to pass legislation. It's to slow the flow of illegal immigrants into the country and dramatically reduce the number already here clandestinely. Unless any legislation enacted is pragmatic in the important particulars, the story of this latest round of immigration reform may be ruefully summed up one day with a phrase borrowed from doctors: The operation was a success, but the patient died. GETTY IMAGES PHOTO - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), center, announces the plan with, from left, Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)."
"4","Bad Driving NYTF000020070527e35r0005q Long Island Weekly Desk; SECT14LI 660 Words 27 May 2007 The New York Times Late Edition - Final 15 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  By accident or design, Suffolk County has come up with a law-enforcement net good at catching just the fish that County Executive Steve Levy wants: Latino immigrants without papers, some of his least-favorite people.  The net is the police department's new policy of arresting drivers caught without licenses or identification. There are lots of unlicensed drivers out there, but those who can show ID usually go home with a summons. The others now get locked up. In Suffolk, particularly in Farmingville and Brentwood, that means Latino illegal immigrants. Newsday examined police records and reported last week that 77 percent of the drivers arrested from April 11, when the policy began, to May 2 were Latino.  That striking disproportion led the Suffolk District Attorney to raise concerns about racial profiling. The department suspended the policy briefly, then reinstated it after giving assurances that officers would apply the rules evenhandedly.  There is no evidence that the police are acting improperly, but there should be no confusion about the environment behind this crackdown. This is Mr. Levy's territory, where harsh policies and tough talk have sent the insistent message that poor Latino immigrants, particularly day laborers, are presumed to be here illegally and are thus unwelcome. The police initiative began, in fact, shortly after the Legislature defeated a harsh anti-loitering bill directed at day laborers in Farmingville. For lawmakers who have tried and failed to get all those Latino men off the streets and sidewalks, a sudden onslaught of driver arrests looks a lot like Plan B.  The immigrants caught in the crackdown were already in a bind. To eat they have to work, to work they have to drive, but since they lack authorization, they can't get licenses or insurance. Unlicensed, uninsured drivers should never get behind the wheel, of course -- not in Suffolk, which leads New York in traffic fatalities -- or anywhere else. County residents can therefore take comfort in knowing that illegal drivers are being taken off the road.  But they should also realize that a crackdown does nothing to attack the dense thickets of perversity in a broken immigration system. Communities like ours embrace hard-line initiatives and hard-line politicians like the unassailably popular Mr. Levy. We scorn illegal immigrants but happily accept the work they do.  The dissonance is considerable, because even those who deplore illegal immigration benefit greatly from it. If you like Mr. Levy's brand of rigid enforcement and don't want to be an immigration hypocrite, then don't support industries that rely on illegal labor. Don't go to restaurants or hotels and don't let any landscapers or nannies near your property until you check everyone's green cards.  And if you like aggressive efforts to arrest immigrant drivers, then don't get upset when you see where they end up afterward: on sidewalks and in parking lots, waiting for rides to work, and packing into houses with other men who lack wheels.  Tackle one form of unruliness and another blossoms. Perverse, isn't it? In a more lawful and rational system, workers would have a way out of the shadows. They could prove they were safe drivers, buy insurance and carry ID. The United States Senate's new immigration bill has provisions to make legalization possible for 12 million people, but ''amnesty'' hawks have viciously trashed that part, echoing the angry mood that is prevalent in Suffolk.  Here's a way to protect the public and promote safe driving: let immigrants get legalized and licensed. And let laborers gather safely at hiring sites off the road, to bring noise and chaos to a minimum.  But hard-liners do not want lawfulness and order on those terms -- not in Suffolk, anyway, where many view hiring sites as something evil. They want to impose order the slow, tortured way, by picking immigrants off, one bad driver at a time. "
"4","EDITORIAL: What the loudest voices won't say POR0000020070529e35r0000j Editorial The Oregonian 514 Words 27 May 2007 The Oregonian Sunrise E4 English � 2007 Oregonian Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  SUMMARY: As members of Congress listen to immigration talk,  they should bear in mind that most Americans support reform  Oregon's members of Congress doubtless will use their Memorial Day break to do a lot of listening to their constituents, and it's likely they'll get an earful on the immigration bill now working its way through the Senate.  The fringes on this issue are polarized and, as is always the case in American politics, they are dominating the discussion. But as members of Congress listen and learn this holiday weekend, there's important new information to consider.  A new poll shows that most Americans have made up their minds about most of the main elements of the immigration-reform package.  And they support them.  In fact, on most of the key provisions of the reform bill, developed in secret consultations between the White House and a bipartisan group of senators, Americans say yes by wide margins. These were the results of a nationwide poll conducted for The New York Times and CBS News, the results of which were released Friday.  Some examples:  * Two-thirds of the poll's respondents favor establishment of a guest-worker program. This provision of the bill has been at the center of the interest-group politics, as evidenced by last week's cut in the number of workers it would allow. With labor groups pushing the point hard, legislators should note that the labor lobby lags far behind the public on this issue.  * Three-fifths of Americans think that illegal aliens who've lived in the United States for more than two years should be given a chance to gain legal status instead of being deported. This one gets the social ideologues wound up. Again, it's clear from the results that the harshest voices don't speak for the majority of Americans, who remain as fair-minded as ever.  * Americans agree with Republican senators about how immigration applications should be prioritized. Skills and education should outweigh family ties on the list of reasons to approve applicants. Slightly more than half took that view. About a third put family ties at the top of their priority list.  One of the striking things about the poll is that support for reform is bipartisan, which may be why the grand-compromise approach the Senate is taking has gotten so much traction. Americans want strong border enforcement (though they're not crazy about a wall) and they want longtime illegal residents to gain normal status. But they don't think it should be free, or extended to those whose crimes extend beyond sneaking across the border.  In any case, the poll results should have a great deal of bearing on how our members of the House and Senate spend their time off this week. They should listen, of course, to their constituents who have strong views. But they should look, too, at the evidence showing that most Americans are ready to embrace changes in the nation's immigration system."
"2","LETTERS, FAXES & E-MAIL STJR000020070531e35r0008r EDITORIAL 1408 Words 27 May 2007 The State Journal-Register 26 English � 2007 The State Journal-Register. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Anybody out there willing to try life of a farmer?  Are you ready for your next package of meat from your grocer to say ""Produced anywhere in the world except in the United States""? We are hearing the terms: factory farm, corporate farm, inhumane, pollution, etc. to describe larger farm operations in recent news outlets. These are terms to create a sensational bias against today's farms and livestock operations.  Your forefathers moved away from the farm to the urban areas to make a better life for many of our families. In the United States, we now have about 1 percent of the population producing the food that we have today. You demand inexpensive, yet high-quality food. You will not pick up the apple with a wormhole in it. Many of us desire the lean-cut pork chop.  Today's farmer provides our food under tough guidelines as outlined by the FDA, EPA (yes, this is pollution control) and USDA, along with other state and local oversight groups.  There are action groups that will paint a bleak picture of how farmers are viewed today. They present rhetoric that is largely unsupported and play your emotional side to support them.  Agriculture needs more farmers. If you are opposed to these large farm operations, I encourage you to do research and start up a small farm to provide local produce and meat. There is an excellent market awaiting you. You will need knowledge of plants, weeds, herbicides, animal husbandry, antibiotics, mechanical skills, financing and marketing, just to name a few of the basics. Be ready for long hours and hard work. Also, be sure to bring some of your savings from town because profits are slim and your volume may be small. There is no retirement package, health insurance or weekends off. If you are not willing to do this, who will? Who do you want to produce your hamburger or vegetable tray for this weekend's cookout? I vote for the American farmer.  When you sit down with your family for the evening meal, remember the farmer who has worked diligently to produce the food you are going to consume.  Paul Rice  Myers-Rice Land Services  Springfield  Durbin part of bid to crack down on visa abuses  Kathleen Parker began her article in Wednesday's edition by commenting: ""Globalization seems like a nice idea - if it did not make people insane."" She points out that a number of customer services are being outsourced to another country. She calls the hiring in other countries of individuals by corporations to perform what can be done here in the States an insult to Americans.  In a spirit of bipartisanship our Sen. Dick Durbin and that of Iowa, Chuck Grassley, recently sent letters to at least 10 Asian Indian firms, which have large staffs that come to work on H1-B visas. One firm has 8,000 guest workers in place under that type of immigration. The purpose of their letter was to determine whether these firms are skirting federal regulations by using the visas to stock their U.S. functions with low-paid Indian nationals  Last month, both senators introduced a visa reform bill to crack down on abuses by foreign firms that fill off-shore jobs. This legislation may be caught up now in the debate over immigration reform; nonetheless, the intent of the bill is to keep foreign companies from using these special, enviable visas to train their workers in the States so they can do that same job when it is off- shored.  Parker will have the vigilant pair to thank for the restoration of human care to communication, if their efforts result in human customer services staffed by our workers. Ironically, Durbin and Grassley suspect that some companies are using the H1-B program to get their workers proficient in none other than customer services, a job which our guest workers can take back to their native land along with the skills acquired to make their caring convincing.  Robert Crowley  Springfield  How about advice on how to beat high gas prices?  I'm a bit with the group of people who believe that the universe gives you what you focus on and believe. Lately, all I hear is ""gas will be $4 by the end of the summer"" and other such comments about the current price of gas.  I was wondering if Fox 55/27 was simply reporting the news or acting as a propaganda machine for the oil companies? Last Monday during the 9 p.m. news program, a report was done on the ""Pain at the Pump."" And, what does the reporter say at the end of the story? Something to the effect of, ""Save those pennies, get used to it, it's only going to get worse."" It sounded like a form of brainwashing the public into accepting the current high prices for gas.  It would be refreshing to see a report on what people can actually do - such as buy a hybrid vehicle, lobby their representatives in the House and Senate, carpool, walk, work closer to home or work from home, and promote and support alternative fuel sources.  Sue Maxon  Springfield  Makes you wonder  Just a note to let everyone know that last Sunday while our local Springfield gas stations were barely squeaking out a profit at $3.45 a gallon, gas in the St Louis area was $2.90 a gallon. Guess 90 miles away the refineries are doing a much better job, you think?  Greg Bouillon  Chatham  Ursuline ready to embark on fundraising campaign  On behalf of the Ursuline Academy Foundation, I would like to thank the hundreds of people who came to Wednesday night's vigil to show their support of Ursuline Academy. This enthusiasm is uplifting and truly legitimatizes the efforts of all of us who pray that we may find a reasonable and responsible solution to our current situation.  Many people wished to contribute at the vigil. Although the foundation did not plan on receiving contributions at that time, we appreciate the support that was shown. However, the amount of money that will be necessary to responsibly consider the short- and long- term needs of operating the academy will not be satisfied by passing the collection basket alone. A serious effort will need to be made for a capital campaign that will establish an endowment for the school. Large contributions will be necessary from the wider community who appreciates the history of the Catholic education that the Ursuline sisters brought to Springfield.  We welcome your contributions at this time and also welcome your pledges of continued support. Many people may wish to see what the outcome may be before making a donation, but I ask you to indicate your willingness to pledge support. Unless we have an idea as to the amount of support we can anticipate from the community, we will not be able to responsibly consider our options. As principal John Stimler has indicated previously, it will take $1.3 million just to see through the 2007-08 school year. That does not take into account any repairs, emergencies or changes that may occur. Tuition and any increases will not be sufficient. Therefore, we ask you to truly consider the value of Ursuline in the community and be ready to pledge now and often.  Some have asked about our intentions, should our efforts not be successful. While we do not want to consider the possibility of not being successful, realistically, we must.  Many contributions have been made in cash and could not be returned. Others have been made by check. However, I know that it is the intention of the foundation that should our efforts not lead to the reopening of Ursuline Academy, then the money, by law, will be distributed for nonprofit purposes in accordance with the foundation's purpose to preserve the heritage of Ursuline Academy while promoting Roman Catholic education in the spirit of the Ursuline Sisters. To that end, possibilities of establishing scholarship funds for Catholic education will be considered if that consideration proves to be necessary.  For those wishing to send contributions or pledges of support, you may send those to:  Ursuline Academy Foundation  P.O. Box 8748  Springfield, IL 62702  Monsignor John R. Ossola  President  Ursuline Academy Foundation Caption: Supporters of Ursuline Academy gather at the school for last Wednesday night's candlelight vigil."
"2","LETTERS AKDG000020070529e35s0006f Editorial 1472 Words 28 May 2007 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 17 English Copyright (c) 2007 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.  Give thanks for heroes As I watched the U.S. flag being folded in the Little Rock Air Force Base chapel, I realized that many may not fully understand the fight our nation is engaged in.  As I watched the flag being folded for Staff Sgt. John Self, one of my Air Force brothers, I was so touched that I wanted to share with you some words about his memorial in a standing-room-only service.  As the people around me were frightened from the popping of the 21-gun salute just outside the chapel, it occurred to me that most Americans may never have even heard this sound.  As men and women dressed in ""full battle rattle,"" ready to defend the nation, wept for their fallen comrade, it occurred to me that many don't know that at any given time the Air Force has 30,000 airmen deployed from home and family, watching over our nation and fighting to the tooth for her defense.  When ""Taps"" was being played, the only concern at that moment was for Self, his family and his friends, not for the rising gas prices or any of the days other trivial matters. When the line of vehicles escorted him to his final resting place in Pontotoc, Miss., there was no partisan debate, only thousands of people with flags waiving and retired vets saluting our fallen hero.  On this Memorial Day, we remember, honor and give thanks to those who died in service to our nation. We are a nation and an Air Force at war. Our airmen stand toe-to-toe daily with the adversaries of democracy, offering themselves as shields for America to keep war from reaching our front door.  DAVID FAGGARD Sherwood Ron Paul is a winner Who won the May 3 Republican debate in California? Paul Harvey said Ronald Reagan did.  According to poll after poll, including MSNBC's, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas was clearly first among the 10 debaters, who included Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney. His theme: smaller, less intrusive, non-interventionist, far less expensive but much more constitutional government.  Receiving 43 percent, Paul finished first in the MSNBC poll that followed the debate, beating Romney by five points and crushing the rest of the field. Other polls showed Paul to be the clear winner. For example, an MSNBC ""live vote"" poll showed that he had 45 percent of the vote from those asked, ""Who stood out most?"" Romney had 22 percent and Giuliani had 16 percent. Paul also received 41 percent for having the best leadership qualities.  An ABC news poll that asked, ""Which Republican came out on top?"" reported that Paul got 86.5 percent.  Paul is loved by Americans who make up the so-called constitutional minority. One of his goals is to get us out of the United Nations. He also would get rid of the income tax, and he staunchly opposes runaway spending under big government. He opposes a foreign policy that we cannot afford.  When Paul is given the opportunity to speak his message of peace and prosperity, he comes across as the clear-cut winner.  GWEN CARPENTER Magnolia Transcript revealed all Hurray! The Democrat-Gazette printed a transcript of Frank Lockwood's skillful interview with former President Jimmy Carter. Instead of sound bites and anti-Carter diatribes, we read an entire, lucid, rational, factual conversation: 25 column inches.  Carter's plain words convey and recap alarming actions of our government. This administration has destroyed or fractured hundreds of years of work to build a world based on reason and a belief in ""do unto others"" within a framework of laws. The meaning was understood by all my neighbors and by all civilizations. And that has been the spirit of our America-until recently.  In my view, George W. Bush was appointed to run for office by an inner circle, set up by that cabal or clique simply to do its bidding. The resulting policies have been devastating. They include: 1. Be a bully. The new doctrine says attack other nations at will.  2. Ignore, circumvent and reverse environmental laws.  3. Trash treaties; e.g., endanger nation by tossing out nuclear treaties.  4. Circumvent the Constitution; e.g., judicial appointments, Patriot Act, signing statements.  5. Buy votes with grants and earmarks for questionable users.  6. Appoint unqualified officeholders. The list is long.  Carter cited facts to make his case, as reported carefully by Lockwood. The above is just my ""old lady in tennis shoes"" list. Now if you would simply print the entire text of the Senate's proposed immigration law.  GWEN MILLAGER Rogers Show a little gratitude I read and reread Cathy Wyatt's account of her accident on Mother's Day with a deer on Chenal Parkway, and while I feel sorry for her, I cannot see how she was disrespected.  She describes herself and her friend as ""attractive mothers"" who live in the known well-to-do section of Chenal. Unfortunately for them, their area of town still is somewhat woodsy and deer live in those woods. The deer came to the road and, to the determent of both Wyatt and said deer, a crash occurred.  Thankfully for her and her beautiful friend, they were not injured and their vehicle was still driveable. However, because the police did not immediately come to her rescue-no emergency personnel were needed to render aid, no police were needed for traffic control, no fire department needed to clean up a gasoline spill or put out a fire and the vehicle didn't need towing-she feels that she was disrespected.  I am in total amazement that Wyatt apparently feels that people who really needed emergency assistance should be pushed aside because she feels she is better than most. I wonder if she couldn't have made a report for the insurance company with the police over the phone, thus eliminating all those 911 calls.  My suggestion is that she be a little more grateful that she wasn't injured, that her children's mother was actually able to be with them on Mother's Day, and a little less absorbed in how beautiful she and her friend are and how mistreated she feels because those 80 drivers who passed by her didn't stop and tell her so.  SANDRA MANNING Little Rock Interim homes needed Many Arkansans have a soft spot for animals, especially dogs and cats. For these animal lovers, it is a heartbreaking thought that animal shelters around our state are overcrowded and animals are euthanized regularly. While we do what we can to help fund and improve care for these animals, there are always more strays than there is room in the shelters.  Several nonprofit groups around the state are working to alleviate this problem through foster care. They work with the local animal shelters and other rescue groups to locate dogs and cats in shelters and advertise these pets on the Internet.  Some foster groups only take animals out of the shelters that someone has already decided to adopt. They place the dog or cat in a foster home for a short period before the new owner takes it home.  With other groups, foster homes keep the dog or cat for a longer period, waiting for someone to adopt them. Sometimes foster families can care for litters of puppies or kittens until they are old enough to be adopted.  Many people want to help the situation of homeless animals in the state. Many would also like to have a dog or cat around but are not sure if they are prepared to commit to caring for that pet for its entire lifespan of a cat or dog.  All in all, there are many reasons to consider becoming a foster home to shelter animals, and anyone interested can certainly find plenty of information on-line or by contacting a local animal shelter.  SARAH PRICKETT Little Rock What do others think?  In a recent edition of the Democrat-Gazette on the front page there was a picture of a man-an Iraqi?-with his hands tied behind him, blindfolded, with a soldier pointing a gun at his head. A few pages later, there was a picture of soldiers with rifles searching a house (probably without permission of the home owner) in Baghdad. How does this affect world opinion of the United States of America?  I read the Democrat-Gazette, The Wall Street Journal, U.S. News and other publications. I believe that in less than five years China and India will be super rich and the U.S.A. will be bankrupt. I also believe that we will be kicked out of Iraq before Christmas.  BEN FRIED Mena  This article was published 05/28/2007 "
"4","Editorials from around Ohio APRS000020070528e35s00c1l By The Associated Press 1345 Words 28 May 2007 17:56 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Having just finished ranking the high-school seniors who applied to their institutions -- delighting some, breaking the hearts of more -- a dozen colleges have decided that they themselves don't want to be ranked, at least not by U.S. News & World Report.  Since 1983, the magazine has ranked the nation's colleges and universities, nationally and regionally ...  Inevitably, some schools are chagrined at being rated in the third or fourth tier. It's sort of like being placed on the waiting list, or worse, being told you're just not good enough.  The most controversial of the U.S. News and World Reports indicators is peer assessment -- how the institutions rank each other.  Now 12 colleges ... say they will no longer rank other colleges and will provide the magazine only with standard, publicly available data. They pledge not to use the rankings in their promotional materials. And they are urging other schools to do the same.  The attempted revolt ... is probably a doomed effort. The magazine's evaluations may not be the bible of high-school students and their parents scouting colleges, but it ranks right up there with the other guides.  Colleges trying to opt out of the rankings should listen to what their own admissions offices tell applicants they've rejected: Dealing with hurt and disappointment is a part of life. There's a school for everyone, even if it is 145th on a list of 145.  http://tinyurl.com/2hhuma  ----------  The (Dover-New Philadelphia) Times-Reporter, May 27  The arrests of six foreign-born ... men accused of plotting to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J., proves once again that terrorism remains a very real threat to the homeland. ...  Many of those who argue against allowing the FBI to have access to terrorism-related intelligence gathered by the military, CIA and National Security Agency claim that the terrorism threat is overblown. ...  The breakup of this alleged terror cell must be highly inconvenient to head-in-the-sand, defeatist Democrats who have been pretending that the war will somehow go away if only we surrender in Iraq. The New Jersey arrests should remind Americans that the struggle in which our nation is engaged is not contained within the borders of Iraq, but instead is one that we must wage globally. ...  On the Net: http://tinyurl.com/ywj7ng  ----------  The Columbus Dispatch, May 27  One could dismiss the Creation Museum ... in northern Kentucky, as a bizarre roadside novelty, a place to which lovers of kitsch make pilgrimages, such as the World's Largest Ball of Twine in Cawker City, Kan. Animatronic dinosaurs hitching a ride on Noah's ark? Funny stuff.  But much is at stake here. This $27 million ""museum"" built on 42 acres just south of Cincinnati might do some real harm to students. ...  Curators from the young-Earth creationist group Answers in Genesis will ignore or conveniently distort the scientific evidence backing evolution and everything astronomers and physicists know about the universe, choosing instead to promote a strictly literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible as the history of humans' origins. And they'll wrap it all in pseudoscientific explanations, making them look and sound official to undiscerning visitors. ...  A slick presentation easily could mislead students about the nature of the scientific method. That's a terrible setback for science education at a time when American students already are far behind their foreign counterparts in this subject.  On the Net: http://tinyurl.com/33yh55  ----------  Zanesville Times Recorder, May 25  The consent decree Attorney General Marc Dann reached with wannabe casino operators is the tragic triumph of campaign contributions over common sense.  On Wednesday, Dann said the state will inspect thousands of so-called ""skill games"" across Ohio to determine which are legal.  Since these machines are designed to look, sound and play like Vegas slot machines, the answer is obvious -- they are illegal gambling devices.  But skill-games operators have spent untold thousands of dollars contesting this common-sense conclusion in courts across Ohio. ...  Dann's signature on such an absurd proposition should not surprise anyone. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, Dann collected $19,525 from gambling interests during his campaign for attorney general. ...  It's clear where Ohio voters stand on these machines. In November, they voted down a ballot issue that would have legalized slot machines at seven locations statewide.  In light of this outrageous deal, it's time for Gov. Ted Strickland and the General Assembly to clarify state law once and for all. Our legislators must develop the backbone to defy well-heeled gambling interests and preserve the will of the people.  On the Net: http://tinyurl.com/2lrfzf  ----------  The (Toledo) Blade, May 25  It's regrettable that so many Toledo Public Schools seniors won't be able to participate in commencement ceremonies next month, but a state requirement to pass all sections of the Ohio Graduation Test is there for a valid reason. ...  School standards must be upheld, even if some students unfortunately fall by the wayside.  The graduation test, which replaced the Ninth Grade Proficiency Test, was mandated by the General Assembly for the senior classes of 2007 and beyond as part of a badly needed effort to beef up secondary education. It was, and is, a serious attempt to give legitimate meaning to a diploma from an Ohio high school. ...  Students who have so far failed a portion of the exam have one more chance this summer to pass, in which case they can receive their diploma. Alternately, they can choose a GED diploma.  Either way, they are not being deprived of a certificate of high school graduation. They just can't walk across the graduation stage. Yes, it's an exciting moment. But it is not an entitlement; it must be earned.  On the Net: http://tinyurl.com/38pdc5  --------  The Lima News, May 22  The compromise measure on immigration the Senate began considering Monday is almost miraculously constructive, considering the differences between the two major parties and polarized opinions among Americans on an issue where emotions run high. ... It's a solid start. ...  Having 12 million illegal aliens in the country is a distressingly high figure that creates numerous social and cultural problems and unwanted expenses. ...  Unions fear the guest-worker program will depress wages, and conservatives see the path toward citizenship as amnesty. Implementing the bill would require a much larger and more expensive bureaucracy. ...  But this is a political compromise within a polarized Congress, and such compromises are never ideal. Those who oppose this approach or something like it -- whether because they view it as unacceptable amnesty or think the requirements are too harsh or the changes in family-oriented policy are too onerous -- are in practice choosing to accept the present situation. That means pretending to have workable laws while winking at those who break them.  On the Net: http://www.limanews.com/story.php?IDnum38845  ----------  The (Martins Ferry) Times Leader, May 22  These are tough times for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. So tough in fact that we believe he should he should toss in the towel and resign his post.  Gonzales has been under fire for months now for his terminating of federal prosecutors.  The Senate Democrats are mounting an effort to have a no-confidence vote staged. ... Speculation is growing on both sides of the aisle that the embattled Attorney General may step down before such a vote occurs.  We feel that would be the right move for Gonzales to make. The no-confidence vote is non-binding in nature, but the ramifications would further erode his ability to carry out his duties. ...  While the Democrats are the driving force for the no-confidence vote, Republicans are also starting to shed their partisanship and speaking out against Gonzales.  It all adds up to what many in both parties feel -- that Gonzales is now too weak to properly and efficiently run his department.  On the Net: http://tinyurl.com/2gvkvu 7"
"2","Opinions: Community conversations FLTY000020070530e35s0003n A; Editorial Compiled by FLORIDA TODAY 945 Words 28 May 2007 Florida Today Final/All A14 English (c) Copyright 2007, Florida Today. All Rights Reserved.  Compiled by FLORIDA TODAY  ______________________________________________________  Poll results  The FLORIDA TODAY editorial page staff poses a daily online poll question with the editorials. Poll results are not scientific and may include multiple votes from a single reader. Here are some of this week's results.  May 20 Should more candidates of different parties run for office in Brevard? 246 voters took part in this poll. Yes: 28% No: 72%  May 21 Should Indian River Lagoon restoration projects be an environmental priority in Florida? 40 voters took part in this poll. Yes: 80% No: 20%  May 22 Should Congress pass a compromise immigration reform bill? 378 voters took part in this poll. Yes: 41% No: 59%  May 23 Would you be afraid to inform law enforcement if you witnessed criminal activity? 182 voters took part in this poll. Yes: 4% No: 96%  May 24 Should Gov. Crist kill the proposed FPL plant near the Everglades because of environmental concerns? 313 voters took part in this poll. Yes: 28% No: 72%  ______________________________________________________  Best of the Web  Many readers take part in online discussions about stories and editorials on floridatoday.com. This is a summary of this week's top comments.  Fighting crime needs united effort  A story and editorial about the ""snitch culture"" in Brevard County's high-crime black neighborhoods was among the most discussed topics the past week, with more than 100 readers commenting and 3,400 viewing the chats.  Many readers said residents must resist fear and report the suspects of violent crimes, which often involve drug dealers. Others said police must do more to gain the trust of people who don't believe authorities will protect them if they come forward.  City councilwoman draws heavy fire  Melbourne City Councilwoman Joanne Corby drew angry comments for her failed attempt to fire Melbourne City Manager Jack Schluckebier.  Readers said she had no right to target Schluckebier, who retained his job with the strong support of six other council members, many city employees and several hundred Melbourne residents.  Jury still out on commissioners  A story about the performance of new County Commissioners Chuck Nelson and Mary Bolin left readers saying it was too early to determine if they will succeed or fail.  The big test will come in how they respond to cuts resulting from major tax reform that state lawmakers are expected to pass in a special legislative session, they said.  County officials have said $76 million may have to be axed, with everything on the table except public safety positions for law enforcement and firefighters.  Opponents angry about immigration  A FLORIDA TODAY editorial that supported the bipartisan compromise in the U.S. Senate on immigration reform was strongly attacked by readers who said illegal workers should not be allowed to stay in the country.  The bill would allow a path to citizenship for illegals already here after strict criteria are met, and only after tougher border security measures are taken. Those include adding a nearly 400-mile section of fence and hiring many more border patrol agents.  NASA brain drain cause for worry  A story about NASA needing to hire a new generation of best and brightest engineers and scientists to return to the moon sparked a lively debate about the kind of people the agency is hiring.  Some readers said NASA must do a better job of getting the word out about the program's goals, while others said home insurance and tax costs along the Space Coast are driving away potentially good recruits.  ______________________________________________________  Citizen blogs  Two members of the Citizens Advisory Panel to FLORIDA TODAY's editorial board offer their thoughts on Space Coast issues.  Sheree Shatsky: Talk to me  Want to witness grassroots at its finest? Watch Central Middle School students network an anti-school uniform campaign quicker than one can say back-to-school-shopping.  I'm thinking e-mail campaigns, text messaging, letters to the editor, phone banks, and bake sale petition-signings mixed with a bit of good old-fashioned political lobbying:  But Mom and Dad, no one, no one wants to wear a dumb uniform. I'll do anything. Anything. Just please, please vote No School Uniform.  Here's an idea. Want the middle-school set to buy into the whole khakis, polo shirt look? Forbid it. Tell them absolutely in no uncertain terms, they simply cannot -- will not -- wear such a conservative outfit to school.  Read Shatsky's blog at floridatoday.com/blogs/talktome  Rick Weick: Driving home the point  After reading another column about lawmakers who would be going into a special session in June to debate the tax issue, I decided to ask my employer for similar schedule.  Maybe I could work for two months and get a few months off? After all, the politicians that I helped get elected have this great schedule.  I decided not to follow through. I've worked long enough to know it wouldn't fly!  So, now let's consider what they have accomplished since they started.  Do we have any agreement on how to solve the property tax challenges? The answer is no. And we may have to wait until the end of the year to make any progress. Governor Charlie, are you watching these guys?  Read Weick's blog at floridatoday.com/blogs/drivinghomethepoint.  ______________________________________________________  BLOW THE WHISTLE!  Report waste, fraud, abuse to: Matt Reed, Investigations Editor at mreed@floridatoday.com or call 321-242-3631  Editor's note  Jeff Parker is taking a few days off. The winners of his weekly cartoon caption contest from his Jeff Parker Toons In blog at floridatoday.com/opinion will return next Monday.  ______________________________________________________"
"4","Immigration reform: Can't wait 'til next year ; A difficult issue this year would likely be impossible in 2008, so now is the time. PTPH000020070528e35s0002t Editorial OUR VIEWS 447 Words 28 May 2007 Portland Press Herald HOLIDAY A8 English � 2007 Portland Press Herald. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The country's lawmakers are moving forward on creating a workable, wide-ranging immigration-reform bill, and that's very good news. A week ago, it seemed as if it might be impossible - again - to make real progress on this hot-button issue.  That, of course, would mirror failed efforts in the past. The urgency to move now and not later is that next year is a presidential election, and let's face it - immigration is such a difficult issue that many political players would likely prefer to steer clear of it in 2008.  Last week, however, the Senate - knowing full well it would provoke a storm of criticism from all sides - agreed to endorse a bill that included a path that would grant legalization to millions of workers now in the country illegally.  These so-called ""Z visas,"" renewable every four years, would be offered to anyone who had entered the country before the first of this year. Critics have assailed the approach as ""amnesty"" - but is it really a free pass without penalty for illegal actions? No.  According to an immigration fact sheet from the White House (it is available online at whitehouse.gov), Z-visa applicants would have to pay a $1,000 fine for heads of households and $500 for each dependent. Processing fees and state impact fees could add up to $2,000 more.  It is important to see this not as ""buying"" a renewable visa, but as actually paying a fine for an illegal act. A continuing argument for more stringent actions against the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country has been a focus on their admittedly illegal means of entering. So yes, the Z-visa standards do impose a penalty, though perhaps not as punitive as some have argued for. But it most certainly is not amnesty.  Additionally, Z-visa applicants also must be employed, pass background checks and agree to meet accelerated English and civics requirements. And it gets even tougher: Z visas are renewable every four years, but there's a $1,500 fee each time.  Critics also say the bill unfairly holds companies responsible if contractors they use hire illegal workers. That may seem harsh - expecting firms to verify how their subcontractors are behaving - but the bill allows companies to avoid penalty if they can show a good faith effort to comply. So you've got toughness on employers, with ""good faith"" wiggle room. That's good.  It appears progress is being made, and that's an accomplishment."
"3","Sweeping Bill Changes Way U.S. Welcomes Immigrants RCHD000020070601e35s0000m Editorial MARSHA MERCER Media General News Service 717 Words 28 May 2007 The Richmond Times-Dispatch Final A11 English � 2007 Richmond Newspapers Incorporated. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Section 776 of the immigration bill is obscure, to say the least.  Senators aren't debating it, bloggers aren't railing about it, and chatterers aren't fulminating over the provision tucked in ""Subtitle F - Other Matters"" under ""Title III - Miscellaneous"" of the mammoth bill.  So here's the story behind one little paragraph in a sweeping bill that could change the way America welcomes immigrants in the 21st century.  The Statue of Liberty has symbolized hope for waves of newcomers - tired, poor, huddled, yearning to breathe free and start a new life.  Section 776 literally would reopen the statue's crown, which has been closed since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How's that for a metaphor for the new normal?  As Congress weighs tightening border security and seeking immigrants who have a better education and job skills, it also will decide whether to permit visitors to trudge once again to the top of the premier symbol of American hope.  The matter of the crown lacks the economic import of picking the right number of guest workers. It isn't as emotionally laden as how to cope with 12 million immigrants here illegally. But as metaphor or practical matter, it illustrates why getting to yes on immigration is so hard. Nothing in the ""Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007"" is simple.  A BIT OF history: the Statue of Liberty was a gift in 1886 from the people of France to commemorate our friendship during the Revolutionary War. It was intended to celebrate the centennial celebration in 1876, but it took a while to raise the money. The French donated money to build the copper edifice, and Americans, prodded by editorials in The World, the newspaper owned by Joseph Pulitzer, contributed for the pedestal.  The colossus in New York harbor was immediately a big hit. The torch has been closed since an act of sabotage during World War I blew up an ammunition dump on a nearby island.  Then came 9/11/01. Liberty Island reopened 100 days later, and visitors returned to the Statue of Liberty on Aug. 3, 2004. Since then, they've taken the views from an outside observation deck at the top of the pedestal, directly under the feet of the statue. The 19-inch, double helix spiral staircase to the crown is off-limits.  Some lawmakers think the closure sends the wrong message and it's time for change. Section 776, ""Public Access to the Statue of Liberty,"" reads: ""No later than 60 days after enactment of this act, the Secretary of Interior shall ensure that all persons who satisfy reasonable and appropriate security measures shall have full access to the public areas of the Statue of Liberty including the crown and the stairs leading to the crown.""  Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is among lawmakers who want to reopen the crown. He says tourists are disappointed at being stopped short of the crown. The Senate agreed to the measure as an amendment to last year's immigration bill, and it's back.  BUT THE National Park Service has kept the crown closed for other reasons. The crown, so to speak, hung heavy. It was a headache.  ""The stairs were never meant for visitors,"" said Darren Boch, a park service spokesman. Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi created the statue originally as a lighthouse, and the stairs were meant for maintenance, Boch said.  Instead, thousands of tourists traipsed up and down. The cramped staircase allowed people to discover claustrophobic tendencies they didn't know they had as they walked up the 354 steps.  After many medical emergencies, the Park Service was considering closing the crown even before 9/11.  And there's really no quick way to evacuate people in an emergency.  When they did get to the crown, visitors found a 6-foot space where they got a brief glimpse out tiny windows while other tourists waited impatiently for their view.  ""They were disappointed,"" Boch said.  People like the observation deck at the base just fine, Boch said.  So, now comes Section 776 to open the staircase and the crown. Is it a good move? And you thought amnesty was hard.  (c) Media General News Service  ILLUSTRATION:PHOTO"
"5","As written, immigration bill 'would have prevented my own parents' AGCR000020070605e35t0008x EDITORIAL Sen. Robert Menendez Guest Columnist 900 Words 29 May 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A05 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  As an American-born son of immigrants, I understand the historic power and promise of our immigration system. I also understand that it is a system that is currently broken and must be changed.  To that end, I spent many hours over the last two months with a core group of colleagues and members of the president's Cabinet as we discussed, debated and negotiated provision after provision for an immigration reform bill. The talks were at times constructive, at times productive, but also at many times frustrating.  Last week some of my colleagues, along with the administration, began to settle on a blueprint for an agreement. Despite my objections, the framework had shifted far to the right of the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with 62 votes last year. I took stock of the situation, the terms of the deal and where they fit in relation to my core principles and made a decision: I could not be on board with the deal being developed.  The basis for the agreement was a proposal the White House unveiled during a closed-door meeting in March. A year ago the administration had joined 23 Republican senators to support compromise reform legislation. This year it put down an anchor far to the right. The talks would naturally be pulled toward the administration's proposal - it's Negotiating 101.  Without question, my colleagues involved in the discussions all brought with them good-faith efforts, commitment and a willingness to listen, even if they were rooted in particular ideologies. But honest, hard work alone does not make for sound or responsible policy. I certainly do not believe it produced a fair or practical comprehensive immigration reform bill in this case.  Our country needs immigration reform that is strong on security and good for the economy, that preserves family values and that is fair, workable and comprehensive in nature. Instead, the result of negotiations was a deal that fails on several of these principles, which are vital for a practical system and for the values of our country.  THE FOREMOST of these is the bedrock principle of family - more specifically, the ability of American citizens or permanent residents to petition for their families to be reunified here. The deal struck changes the fundamental values of our immigration policy by making an advanced degree or skill in a highly technical profession the most important criteria for a visa. This nation has been built by immigrants who came here to achieve success, but the deal tilts toward immigrants whose success stories are already written.  Family reunification will be de-emphasized under this deal, serving to tear families apart. From a moral perspective, this undermines the family values lawmakers so often talk about. Practically speaking, a breakdown of family structure often leads to a breakdown of social stability. I took it to heart when President Bush said ""family values don't end at the Rio Grande,"" but this agreement, like his proposal before it, belies those words.  Under the deal, the unskilled workers who form a cornerstone of our economy by taking jobs most Americans would not are relegated to a truly temporary, Bracero-style worker program with no chance for permanent residency. Reality is that, without a light at the end of the tunnel, many who enter this program will go underground to stay in America, creating yet another class of undocumented workers.  THEN THERE is the proposed pathway to permanent residency for the 12 million undocumented workers in this deal. One has to ask if it is truly a pathway or an unrealistic obstacle course.  The path includes years of waiting, up to $19,000 in fines and fees per family of four and ""touchback"" provisions requiring heads of households to return to their home countries before applying for re-entry. Certainly fines and penalties are necessary, but if they are made prohibitive, millions of undocumented workers may choose to maintain their current status. We would prefer to know who is here to pursue the American Dream and who is here to destroy it.  I said throughout the negotiations that with a massive, complex bill like this one, the devil is in the details. There are a number of details in this deal that would create an unfair and impractical immigration system, undercutting the more sensible provisions.  It is a deal that would have prevented my own parents - a carpenter and a seamstress - from coming to this country. I would like to think that they, like hundreds of millions of other immigrants who have helped build our nation, contributed to the strength and vitality of America.  The story of this legislation is not finished. We still have the historic opportunity over the next few weeks to craft tough, smart and fair immigration reform. It is my intention, through a series of amendments that get to the heart of the issues I have mentioned, to help lead a charge to improve this deal on the Senate floor. I know many of my colleagues are committed to the same issues of practicality, fairness and family values, and I will work with them to turn this unworkable deal into sound policy that we can all support.  (Editor's note: Sen. Robert Menendez is a Democrat from New Jersey.)  McClatchy-Tribune Information Services "
"3","Republican immigrant rage rears head in Georgia, South Carolina AGCR000020070605e35t0008p EDITORIAL Robert Novak 737 Words 29 May 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia were booed at their respective state party conventions May 20 for supporting a compromise immigration bill. Their specific sin was collaborating with the liberal lion of the Senate, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. But behind the catcalls was Republican rage over undocumented foreigners, a sentiment GOP lawmakers must either appease or risk dire consequences.  Why are the party faithful throughout the country so incensed by immigration? When I asked Graham, he quoted from a federal government report on the new arrivals to this country, ""largely unskilled laborers"" and heavily illiterate: ""The new immigration has provoked a widespread feeling of apprehension as to its effect on the economic and social welfare of the country."" The report, by the U.S. Immigration Commission, was dated 1911.  When Graham returned to Washington on Monday as the immigration debate began, he read the 96-year-old quote into the Senate record to demonstrate that fear of foreigners is not new for Americans. This nation of immigrants has greeted successive waves of newcomers with apprehension stoked by demagogues. It has overcome such past xenophobic impulses. But that will be more difficult in an era of Internet bloggers and radio talkers, with the Republican Party in trouble and seeking a unifying issue at the grass roots and with the Democratic Party sensing their adversary's weakness and moving in for the kill.  GRAHAM AND Chambliss, both up for re-election next year, were unprepared for the hostility they encountered at their state party conventions. At Columbia, S.C., delegates erupted in boos when Graham mentioned Teddy Kennedy's name. Chambliss' apparent proximity to Kennedy in a photograph evoked booing at Duluth, Ga. Unaccustomed to such treatment, Chambliss expressed his resentment to Senate colleagues back in Washington. Graham was not happy with his junior South Carolina colleague, Sen. Jim DeMint, for playing to the convention crowd with anti-immigration oratory.  Nor was Graham happy with the performance in Columbia by DeMint's candidate for president, Mitt Romney. The former governor of Massachusetts won cheers by claiming the Senate compromise constitutes ""amnesty"" - the word guaranteed to rouse Republican audiences. Only two years ago, Romney supported a less restrictive bill passed by the Senate on grounds it did not constitute ""amnesty."" Sen. John McCain, who supports the Senate compromise and is Graham's choice for president, said May 21: ""Maybe I should wait a few weeks and see if (Romney's position) changes.""  Nobody can testify better than Rep. Mike Pence, a nationally renowned conservative, how dangerous this issue is for a Republican. In 2006, Pence brought a cascade of abuse on him for proposing an immigration compromise. He held his ground, recalling his Irish immigrant grandfather. But later, he rejected the new Senate compromise as ""amnesty"" though it resembles his own plan.  MANY REPUBLICANS reach for an anti-immigration lifeline because of the party's plight. Burdened with an unpopular president and an unpopular war, the GOP cannot claim to be the party of limited government and controlled spending. But immigrant-bashing divides rather than unites Republicans as the South Carolina and Georgia conventions showed. In a recent closed-door meeting of the House's conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina raised the danger of resembling South Africa's National Party advocating apartheid.  Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, while probing for the compromise's weak spots in Senate debate May 22, warned of ""cultural"" change resulting from a flood of low- income immigrants. That recalls the 1911 report of the U.S. Immigration Commission (headed by an old- fashioned Republican conservative, Sen. William P. Dillingham of Vermont) asserting that the ""proportion of the more serious crimes of homicide, blackmail and robbery ... is greater among the foreign born,"" who also refuse to learn the English language.  In reading part of Dillingham's report into the Senate record, Graham declared that these immigrants who were ""ruining America"" fathered the ""greatest generation."" That immigrant wave included my grandfather, a Russian Imperial army veteran working on the John Deere tractor assembly line in Moline, Ill., as an unskilled, undocumented alien who could not speak English. Refuting Dillingham, he was an American patriot proud of a son who fought with the U.S. infantry through Africa and Italy in World War II.  Creators Syndicate"
"4","Make a Bad Bill Better NYTF000020070529e35t0002e Editorial Desk; SECTA 572 Words 29 May 2007 The New York Times Late Edition - Final 18 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  The great immigration struggle of 2007 has moved from the Senate chamber in Washington to the continent at large. With Congress taking the week off, it's time for constituents to weigh in. You can be sure of this much: The debate will get louder before it gets better.  The problems with the restrictionist provisions of the Senate immigration bill are serious and many. It includes a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants, which is a rare triumph for common sense, but that path is strewn with cruel conditions, including a fine -- $5,000 -- that's too steep and hurdles that are needlessly high, including a ''touchback'' requirement for immigrants to make pilgrimages to their home countries to cleanse themselves of illegality. The bill imposes an untested merit-point system that narrows the channels through which family members can immigrate.  And it calls for hundreds of thousands of guest workers to toil here temporarily in an absurd employment hokey-pokey -- you put your two years in, then one year out, then repeat that twice and go home forever. It would be massive indentured servitude -- colonial times all over again, but without any hope of citizenship for those taking our most difficult and despised jobs.  Those who want this bill to be better are horribly conflicted by it. Their emotions still seem vastly overmatched by the ferocity of the opposition from the restrictionist right, with talk radio lighting up over ''amnesty,'' callers spitting out the words with all the hate they can pour into it.  It is encouraging that the bill survived several attempts by that camp to blow it apart, including an amendment that would have stricken the legalization section outright. The center held last week. But it will take a real effort to make the Senate bill much better, given that a core group of senators are bound to the ungainly architecture of their ''grand bargain'' and that any progress in significantly altering or improving it could unravel the deal.  The Senate bill is repellent in many ways. Its fragrant blossoms are grafted to poisonous roots. But it is also bipartisan, and there lies the kernel of possibility that may ultimately redeem it. A good bill may yet emerge if enough lawmakers -- with encouragement from the White House and Americans at large, whose moderate views on immigration were reflected in a New York Times/CBS News poll published on Friday -- realize that striking hard-line poses matters less than drafting legislation marrying reality, justice and decency. Advocates of comprehensive immigration reform -- which this bill is not -- should not give up the fight.  Americans, meanwhile, should look closely at what they have been offered, and to imagine what a strange country this would be if the bill passed as is, if it morphs into a harsher one, or if it is shot down and we are left with the dismal status quo. We would rattle around in our fortified chunk of North America, bristling at our southern border -- nothing is stopping that process -- as we check our turnstiles carefully for those bright enough to merit entry, bask in the labor of a churning class of serfs, check people's ID's, raid workplaces and fill our detention centers. The antiamnesty fringe will be pleased with itself, but it won't be an America the rest of us will want to brag about."
"1","MAKE A BAD BILL BETTER NYTA000020070530e35t0001t A 62 Words 29 May 2007 The New York Times Abstracts 18 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  Editorial urges Pres Bush and American voters to demand that Senate improve proposed immigration bill; says bill has many restrictionist provisions that will create obstacles to citizenship and cause hardships for guest workers; holds that only hope is for advocates of comprehensive immigration reform to continue fighting for bipartisan legislation that marries reality, justice and decency"
"4","Immigration policy needs give and take PIIN000020070602e35t00008 a; Editorial 256 Words 29 May 2007 Palladium-Item 6 English (c) Copyright 2007, Palladium-Item. All Rights Reserved.  It's time that Congress pass and the president sign an immigration reform bill.  This has never been an easy issue. The debate that has encircled it underscores this nation's inherent divisions on this and countless other issues.  But there has also been compromise among lawmakers not given to past compromise, at least not among one another. And there has been an emerging if begrudging recognition that the whole, in terms of a comprehensive immigration reform law, is more important than its parts, however objectionable.  The bill hatched out of Senate compromise achieves some important objectives that are workable and realistic.  Yes, it creates a path toward citizenship for those millions who have entered the country illegally in search of economic prosperity and political freedom. But contrary to laments from some quarters that this represents surrender, a blanket amnesty, the procedure is lengthy and costly. Many will no doubt choose to return home rather than complete it.  The compromise also puts needed teeth into border enforcement, raising expectations that the virtual hemorrhage of aliens gaining illegal entry can be slowed, if not stopped.  There are economic as well as more recent and urgent national security reasons to get a comprehensive immigration reform law into place.  It's time lawmakers including our own Rep. Mike Pence who had an early and clearer vision on the need for immigration compromise and reform set differences aside and act in the nation's best interests to get a workable bill passed."
"4","SENATE'S IMMIGRATION BILL NOT PERFECT, BUT PRACTICAL PMBP000020070530e35t0002c OPINION 448 Words 29 May 2007 The Palm Beach Post FINAL 10A English Copyright 2007. The Palm Beach Post, All Rights Reserved.  Much of the debate over immigration reform in the Senate has degenerated into testy exchanges over the meaning of ""amnesty.""  Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., one of the lead brokers of the bipartisan bill on the floor, argues that giving legal status to the nation's esimated 12 million illegal immigrants can't be amnesty as long as they are penalized. The bill would require them to pay fines and back taxes, learn English, clear background checks and get into a line for permanent status that's at least 13 years long. ""This,"" Sen. Kennedy says correctly, ""is not amnesty.""  On the other side, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., claims that any proposal that falls short of requiring illegal immigrants to leave the country rewards them for breaking the law. ""This is amnesty, pure and simple,"" Sen. Vitter says. ""What it means is creating a magnet to increase illegal activity into the country."" Strange bedfellows are everywhere in the debate, including the White House. President Bush sides with Sen. Kennedy: ""This bill does not grant amnesty. Amnesty is forgiveness without penalty.""  When polled, Americans consistently have voiced the same opinion. Their overwhelming response is that the senators have the right plan, right in front of them. A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week found that 62 percent of Americans believe that illegal immigrants in the country for two years should be allowed to apply for legal status. Sixty-six percent support a guest-worker program, and 67 percent say that illegal immigrants who have clean records should be allowed renewable visas. Americans also believe that job skills and experience should carry more weight than family connections in deciding who gets admitted into the country.  These are the core principles in the bill brokered by Sen. Kennedy and 11 others from both parties, the so-called ""Gang of 12"" that is trying to keep the deal together. Among them is Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., chairman of the Republican Party and the Senate's only immigrant, from Cuba. Sen. Martinez has put the debate on practical terms with opponents. ""If you don't like this bill,"" he asks, ""then what's your solution?"" In fact, there is no practical alternative. Deporting 12 million people isn't an option.  On Thursday, the Senate may have implicitly accepted the bill by rejecting, with an overwhelming 66-29 vote, an amendment that would have eliminated the legalization plan. Congress is coming to the conclusion that the status quo is unacceptable, and realizing that most of the nation will support an imperfect but promising attempt to solve the illegal immigration problem."
"2","LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SFC0000020070529e35t0003e EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 1183 Words 29 May 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.4 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  4 questions for the presidential candidates  Editor -- Here are four reasonable questions all presidential candidates should answer:  1. If the United States was invaded by foreigners who bombed, killed and crippled many thousands of your countrymen in a war of aggression based on lies, then occupied the nation with soldiers who break down doors in the night, terrorize families and haul people off to unaccountable torture prisons, would you cooperate with the foreigners or join the resistance and fight the occupiers to the death?  2. If an American vehicle in Iraq is struck by a bomb that sets it on fire trapping American soldiers screaming for help and a group of Iraqis gathers to watch, is it likely that they would help the soldiers or cheer, dance with joy and call out ""death to America"" and ""God is great""?  3. The war was sold with lies in violation of international law. Would any ""victory"" mean the triumph of lies and lawbreaking?  4. The majority of Americans and Iraqis want the occupation to end. The Pentagon is building military bases and planning to be in Iraq for decades.What is the use of giving all that money to the military if all they are doing is making enemies for the American people?  JOHN MACKESY  Middletown (Lake County) ---------------------------------------- ---------  Immigration debate  Editor -- Once again Debra J. Saunders has it right and U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy has it wrong (""Coming clean on amnesty,'' May 24). Amnesty, as defined in the dictionary, is, ""an act granting a pardon to a group of individuals.'' This seems clear enough, those who broke our immigration laws in any way, can be given no special treatment.  If Kennedy would put his efforts into enforcing our laws, illegal immigrants would not want to cross our borders.  Let's fine employers who hire illegal immigrants. Hold back benefits such as free medical and schooling and Social Security. Make English our official language -- the only language spoken in our schools and printed on our voting ballots.  We won't have to spend billions on fences, those here will want to go home, and few others, if any, will want to cross the borders illegally. Is that to hard for you to grasp, senator?  H. M. STUMPF Jr.  San Mateo  -- -- --  Editor -- The Sisters of Mercy support amendments to the Senate compromise bill, S. 1348, that will achieve just and humane immigration reform that keeps families together and treats all workers with the dignity they deserve. We are urging senators to vote for the Clinton/Hagel Spouses and Unmarried Children Amendment; Menendez/Hagel Backlog Reduction Amendment and Dodd Parents of U.S. Citizens Amendment.  The Sisters of Mercy in Burlingame join their sisters nationwide in calling and visiting their senators to voice their feelings of urgency about these amendments. While a point system that gives preference to new arrivals with special skills may seem advantageous, it will work to erode the very fabric of our society. Our country has been built on the backs of working immigrant families. Proposals that make it harder to bring families together will only create more desperation among immigrants.  Family reunification must be an element of immigration reform. We urge senators, especially those who have been espousing family values for the last six years, to support immigration policy that values families. Breaking up hard-working immigrant families helps neither for family nor our society. And it is wrong. Support for family is vital to the fabric of our society.  ANNE MURPHY, president  Sisters of Mercy  Burlingame -------------------------------------------------  Politics is personal  Editor -- With the rampant doublespeak going on in politics these days, it's an understandable urge to call politicians for their duplicity. ""Anti-war"" Democrats vote to fund a war they disagree with, Republican moralists are outed as prostitutes and we have a right to expect Ralph Nader to always wear his safety belt!  In his Sunday column (An Editor's Note/ ""The politics of personal resentment,'' May 27), John Diaz seems to question the adage of the early women's movement, that ""the personal is political."" How else can voters determine if candidates have any intention of carrying out their ""promises"" that come from pollsters and focus groups, without judging them by the measuring stick that ""actions do speak louder than words""?  BARRI BOONE  Capitola (Santa Cruz County)  -- -- --  Editor -- How rare it is when a newspaper column changes your opinion. But John Diaz's An Editor's Note, on ""The politics of personal resentment,"" changed mine. Having announced only the night before that I was no longer supporting John Edwards, thanks to Diaz, I'm back on the bus. Strong writing, outstanding thinking -- kudos to Mr. Diaz.  JULES OLDER  San Francisco -------------------------------------------------  Cops using force  Editor -- Thank you and Susan Sward for continuing to perform the function of oversight in the absence of any coming from within the S.F. Police Department (""Witnesses back man's story of stun gun zapping,'' May 25).  We know how guys like this get on the force, but how do they manage to stay? Officer Jesse Serna is praised by former cop and POA business agent Steve Johnson as ""an outstanding officer.'' Serna could not continue performing his thuggery without a ton of complicity.  LONNIE BUTLER  Hercules -------------------------------------------------  Greening Berkeley  Editor -- So, Mayor Tom Bates thinks Berkeley residents are ""willing to make lifestyle changes'' to advance a green agenda (""It won't be easy being green,'' May 24). So why doesn't he put a sales tax increase before the voters to pay for all his ideas? That way everyone living in or visiting Berkeley can do their part to green the city. But no, instead all I've read are plans to stick the homeowners and landlords of Berkeley to pay for the idealism of the few. ""Landlords will be required to provide free bus passes to tenants.'' Homeowners/landlords must pay for ""costly requirements'' such as ""high-efficiency appliances, solar-powered water heaters, insulation in the walls. The costs will be tacked on to property tax bills'' -- as your reporter noted -- ""already ... some of the highest taxes in the state.''  Change is great as long as someone else is paying, because everyone loves a free ride. Mayor Bates, I challenge you to get voter approval to raise the sales tax in Berkeley to pay for your plans. Let's see how much people are willing to pay for their idealism.  JEFF KOSTOS  Berkeley  -- -- --  Editor -- Regarding ""It won't be easy being green'' (May 24): In numerous articles about what we can do to be green, I've yet to see anyone suggesting that we become vegetarians or vegans. According to the U.N. News Center,  ""A new report issued by the United Nations warns that raising cattle for meat and dairy generates more greenhouse gases than all the automobiles in the world.''  If Berkeley is really serious about going on an ""emissions crash diet,'' they can begin with their forks.  COCO HALL  Sausalito GRAPHIC (2); Caption: (1) / Paul Lachine / NewsArt.com, (2) / Lance Jackson / The Chronicle"
"4","Immigration policy needs give and take PIIN000020070602e35t00008 a; Editorial 256 Words 29 May 2007 Palladium-Item 6 English (c) Copyright 2007, Palladium-Item. All Rights Reserved.  It's time that Congress pass and the president sign an immigration reform bill.  This has never been an easy issue. The debate that has encircled it underscores this nation's inherent divisions on this and countless other issues.  But there has also been compromise among lawmakers not given to past compromise, at least not among one another. And there has been an emerging if begrudging recognition that the whole, in terms of a comprehensive immigration reform law, is more important than its parts, however objectionable.  The bill hatched out of Senate compromise achieves some important objectives that are workable and realistic.  Yes, it creates a path toward citizenship for those millions who have entered the country illegally in search of economic prosperity and political freedom. But contrary to laments from some quarters that this represents surrender, a blanket amnesty, the procedure is lengthy and costly. Many will no doubt choose to return home rather than complete it.  The compromise also puts needed teeth into border enforcement, raising expectations that the virtual hemorrhage of aliens gaining illegal entry can be slowed, if not stopped.  There are economic as well as more recent and urgent national security reasons to get a comprehensive immigration reform law into place.  It's time lawmakers including our own Rep. Mike Pence who had an early and clearer vision on the need for immigration compromise and reform set differences aside and act in the nation's best interests to get a workable bill passed."
"5","Immigration disaster looming WATI000020070529e35t0003e EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 673 Words 29 May 2007 The Washington Times A16 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Judging by what took place in the first hours of the Senate immigration debate last week, critics are deluding themselves if they expect lawmakers to improve the bill when debate resumes after the Memorial Day recess. Most of the organized political pressure on the immigration issue is coming from open-borders advocates intent on enabling more illegals to obtain amnesty and bring their relatives to the United States, and from Washington elites on the left and the right who think anyone who doesn't share their permissive philosophy is backward and xenophobic. Unless the American people rise up en masse and tell their senators in no uncertain terms that they cannot accept amnesty, the Senate bill will easily pass - and no one should be surprised if it passes with amendments making it even more harmful to taxpayers and detrimental to hometown safety and homeland security.  Two votes in particular that occurred on Thursday illustrate the problem. Sen. Norm Coleman - a moderate Minnesota Republican who cannot possibly be termed ""anti-immigrant"" or a ""bomb thrower"" - introduced an amendment aimed at closing the notorious ""sanctuary city"" loophole that cities and states are using to avoid compliance with federal immigration law. Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was supposed to guarantee that local law-enforcement officials can communicate with with federal law-enforcement agencies regarding suspected immigration violations. But to get around federal immigration law, localities have instituted ordinances barring local law enforcement from even asking whether someone is lawfully in the United States. Mr. Coleman's amendment would permit law-enforcement officers to ask about a person's immigration status during routine investigations. ""In a post 9-11 world, it is simply unacceptable for communities to ignore federal laws requiring them to share this type of information with federal authorities,"" Mr. Coleman said.  As Mr. Coleman noted, the recent capture of six suspected terrorists, three of them illegals, in the plot to attack Fort Dix, N.J., illustrates the danger of continuing to permit local government to get away with issuing gag orders on local police. The ""Fort Dix 6"" suspects committed numerous traffic violations and had dozens of encounters with law enforcement, but it appears that no one inquired whether they were legally in the country. Authorities didn't know about the six until an alert store clerk told the FBI about their jihadist videos.  With all the talk we've heard for close to six years from politicians on the right and left about the importance of being able to ""connect the dots"" in order to thwart terrorist attacks, Mr. Coleman's amendment should have passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Instead, Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat who lives in a September 10 fantasy world, delivered a long-winded speech asserting in essence that American law enforcement as we know it would collapse if local police cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Absurd as this argument was, Mr. Menendez and Sen. Edward Kennedy defeated Mr. Coleman's amendment by a 49-48 vote, with eight Republicans - Sens. Pete Domenici (New Mexico), Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), Dick Lugar (Indiana), Mel Martinez (Florida), Olympia Snowe (Maine); Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania), George Voinovich (Ohio) and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) - joining 41 Democrats in opposition.  The greatest show of strength by open-borders advocates during Senate debate came when Sens. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, and Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, offered an amendment striking amnesty from the bill. Messrs. DeMint and Vitter sensibly warned that the Senate bill repeats the mistake of the 1986 amnesty. But their amendment was defeated 66-29: Forty-three Democrats voted for legalization, compared to nine voting against it. Disappointingly, twenty-five Republicans, among them prominent lawmakers like Sens. Jon Kyl, John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell, were on the pro-legalization side compared to 20 Republicans who voted no.  Right now, the open-borders side is on the offensive, while border-security proponents face an uphill battle in the Senate."
"5","Editorial Roundup APRS000020070530e35u008q5 By The Associated Press 2942 Words 30 May 2007 16:22 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:  ------  May 26  The Mountain Press, Sevierville, Tenn., on unannounced presidential candidates:  If you need any more indication that we start our presidential elections much too soon, look at the storm over two people who haven't even said they're going to run. ...  Each day mass e-mails are sent out to tell of the latest news about unannounced candidate Fred Thompson. And each day pundits speculate over when and where Al Gore will jump into the Democratic race for president.  It's as if both Thompson and Gore are waiting -- and maybe secretly hoping -- for the current field of candidates to implode, paving the way for a new candidate to emerge as a favorite.  Of course if Thompson and Gore indeed plan to enter the race but don't handle this right, there will be a lot of resentment among faithful in each party. They'll also be behind in fundraising. ...  The early start to the 2008 presidential election has driven a lot of this. But states don't help by bunching the primaries so early in the presidential election year. If we grow tired of it all even before 2008 gets here, then something is wrong with the system.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd1211  ------  May 27  Naples (Fla.) Daily News, on price-gouging:  Americans held a referendum on gasoline prices this Memorial Day weekend and voted by driving out of town in record numbers. Their verdict on prices running $3.10 a gallon and higher: They don't like them but they can live with them as long as gas is readily available.  That should prompt the Senate when it returns from its own holiday to reject a truly bad idea sent its way by the House. This bill seeks to dampen gas prices by criminalizing ""price gouging."" ...  The bill contains penalties of up to $150 million for companies and up to $10 million and 10 years in jail for individuals. ...  But since the Arab oil embargo of 1973, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Energy have investigated more than 30 times, by one count high gasoline prices and have never found any evidence of collusion, manipulation or price fixing.  The culprit always turns out to be supply and demand, aggravated by such factors as hurricanes, refinery fires, market misjudgments and Congress own often-counterproductive efforts to steer the industry in directions it deems desirable.  The price-gouging bill is a backdoor attempt at price controls, which inevitably fail and inevitably hurt consumers in the process. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.naplesnews.com/  ------  May 27  Northwest (Fayetteville) Arkansas Times, on immigration reform:  The more debate we hear, the more skeptical we become that Congress and the president have the capability to solve the political quagmire that an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants represent. ...  At stake is the security of America's borders and the very way this land of immigrants turns foreigners into U.S. citizens. Our economy is a key part of this debate as well. ... President Bush supports the current proposed legislation. ...  But aside from his signature, can he deliver enough votes in Congress to make a difference? ...  On Thursday, the Senate unanimously backed requiring that illegal aliens pay back taxes on earnings collected in the United States while they were illegal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't pleased, saying the legislation would create ""a permanent underclass of people here to work in low-wage, low-skill jobs, but do not have a chance to put down roots."" It's a very good point. And yet the dirty secret of too many American businesses today is that they employ (knowingly or not) illegal aliens who will do anything to stay in this county. ...  As long as illegal immigration is an open spigot, setting limits on legal immigration is an exercise in futility. Control the borders, then we can have a healthy debate over what our nation should do about the millions of illegal immigrants whose migration happened because our government allowed it to happen.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.nwarktimes.com/  ------  May 28  The Cincinnati Post, on college rankings:  Having just finished ranking the high-school seniors who applied to their institutions -- delighting some, breaking the hearts of more -- a dozen colleges have decided that they themselves don't want to be ranked, at least not by U.S. News & World Report. ...  Inevitably, some schools are chagrined at being rated in the third or fourth tier. It's sort of like being placed on the waiting list, or worse, being told you're just not good enough.  The most controversial of the U.S. News and World Reports indicators is peer assessment -- how the institutions rank each other.  Now 12 colleges ... say they will no longer rank other colleges and will provide the magazine only with standard, publicly available data. They pledge not to use the rankings in their promotional materials. And they are urging other schools to do the same.  The attempted revolt ... is probably a doomed effort. The magazine's evaluations may not be the bible of high-school students and their parents scouting colleges, but it ranks right up there with the other guides.  Colleges trying to opt out of the rankings should listen to what their own admissions offices tell applicants they've rejected: Dealing with hurt and disappointment is a part of life. There's a school for everyone, even if it is 145th on a list of 145.  ------  On the Net:  http://tinyurl.com/2hhuma  ----------  May 28  The Greenwood (Miss.) Commonwealth, on price-gouging.:  With gas prices averaging better than $3 a gallon in Mississippi, those who sell fuel don't have a whole lot of public sentiment in their corner.  They make an easy target for a headline-seeking politician in an election year.  Sometimes, though, good politics also makes for good policy.  Such is the case with Attorney General Jim Hood's crackdown on gasoline distributors accused of price-gouging following Hurricane Katrina.  Hood announced that five Mississippi distributors have agreed to pay the state almost $300,000 in combined penalties rather than go to court. The five companies did not acknowledge any wrongdoing following the 2005 killer storm, but the implication of the settlement is clear. A company doesn't fork over that kind of money if it thinks there's nothing to the accusations. ...  Pricing gasoline can be a complicated business, but what the state law says about price-gouging after a natural disaster is not. Companies are not expected to take a loss, but nor are they allowed to jack up their profits to take advantage of others' misery. The distributors can raise their prices to cover the higher prices being charged to them or other new additional costs, but they can't get greedy and add more than that. ...  ------  May 29  The El Paso (Texas) Times, on security problems posed by North Korea and Iran:  For its part, North Korea is dragging its feet on the agreed shutdown of its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, allowing U.N. nuclear inspectors on site, and stopping its production of nuclear weapons, though no one seems to know for sure how extensive that production is. ...  Then there's Iran which, far from stopping its uranium-enrichment program as demanded by the U.N. Security Council, is actually expanding its nuclear activities.  A report from Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency, blamed Tehran for blocking inspection efforts so that the agency could no longer monitor activities and says that they were of a peaceful nature.  Particularly chilling was the IAEA's expression of concern about its ""deteriorating"" understanding of certain parts of Iran's nuclear program. ...  The U.N. is considering increasing sanctions against Iran, which will do absolutely no good. Iran is obviously intent on producing nuclear weapons, and nothing short of force will stop it.  As for North Korea, its intentions are the same, but its methods are slightly different.  Iran and North Korea pose significant security problems for their areas of the world and for the United States. If their nuclear ambitions aren't checked, the world could pay a high price later on.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.elpasotimes.com/  ------  May 29  The Wichita (Kan.) Eagle, on smoking-related illnesses:  Every year in the United States, 440,000 Americans die from smoking-related illnesses. Another 50,000 people die from inhaling secondhand smoke. ...  That's a national epidemic of staggering proportions -- but one that can be brought under control, if state and federal lawmakers heed the institute's call to action...  The report could lend support to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' 2004 proposal to raise state tobacco taxes by 50 cents, to $1.29 a pack, to help cover the state's uninsured. Her plan went nowhere in the Legislature, but Sebelius recently said she might push the tax hike again next year. ...  It's becoming more difficult to ignore the risks. According to a U.S. surgeon general's report last year, nearly 60 percent of kids ages 3 to 11, or about 22 million children, are exposed to secondhand smoke, often in their homes. There is no safe level of smoke, that report noted.  The public debate on tobacco is changing, with the clearer understanding that tobacco is a public health scourge and preventable cause of illness. Health experts now have given lawmakers a clear blueprint for how to reduce those health costs.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.kansas.com/  ------  May 29  Courier-Post of Cherry Hill (N.J.), on the FDA:  Consumers should be able to rely on the Food and Drug Administration to protect them from unsafe medicines.  A Cleveland cardiologist last week published an analysis linking the diabetes drug Avandia with a 43 percent increased risk of heart attacks for patients. Yet, a federal Food and Drug Administration review of the drug several years ago deemed it safe and millions of people have taken the diabetes pill.  The FDA hasn't required the drug maker, GlaxoSmithKline, to put warnings on Avandia's labels. And the drug maker disputes the Cleveland Clinic's study by Dr. Steven Nissen and contends Avandia is safe.  But after apparently missing health problems associated with the painkiller Vioxx and safety questions raised about a FDA-approved, drug-coated heart stent, it appears the federal agency needs its own warning label: Consumers beware. ...  It is clear the FDA cannot always be relied upon to do its job, as the case of Vioxx shows. That drug was pulled from the market by its maker, Merck and Co., in 2004, although Merck had told the FDA three years earlier that Vioxx doubled the rate of cardiovascular problems in patients.  Congress plans hearings on FDA safety issues and the conduct of top agency officials. But lawmakers must go beyond fingerpointing. It is vital the FDA receives the funding and authority to uncover and enforce safety rules.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage  ------  May 24  Daily Star, Beirut, Lebanon, on the root of violence in Lebanon:  The fighting, human suffering, political complications and security threats that emanate from the recent events at Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in North Lebanon cannot be resolved only in Nahr al-Bared. They neither originated nor will end there. They represent a legacy of political and security events in the past half-century that will become a continuing trajectory if they are not addressed in their full regional and global context. ... If there is a single thread that runs through the modern history that has brought us to this point, it is the lingering problem of Palestinian refugees and their unachieved rights, which in turn has expanded over the years to become the wider Arab-Israeli problem.  At the same time, the particular threats and tensions in Lebanon today are widely linked by many people to the often antagonistic relations between Syria and Lebanon. The ongoing UN investigation into the murder of Rafik Hariri and many others in this country in the past two years may shed light on who is responsible for these crimes, and who may be behind the intermittent bombs that terrorize, kill and maim innocent Lebanese. Until then, the Nahr al-Bared crisis must not be allowed to become yet another unresolved political dilemma whose fundamental causes are swept under the rug. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.dailystar.com.lb  ------  May 29  The Hindu, Madras, India, on amendments to Sri Lanka's Citizenship Act:  The readiness shown by the Sri Lanka government to amend the Grant of Citizenship to Persons of Indian Origin Act, 2003 to enable an estimated 28,500 `Ceylon Tamil refugees' living in various camps across Tamil Nadu to get Sri Lankan citizenship is commendable. These poorest of the poor among the refugees, who fled the north-east of the island in 1990 on account of the ethnic conflict, could not become Sri Lankan citizens because of an anomaly in the Citizenship Act as amended in 2003. The legislation stipulates continuous stay in Sri Lanka from 1964 as a condition for the grant of citizenship; and does not provide for those who had to leave the country for reasons beyond their control. ...  In one callous stroke, the Citizenship Act of 1948 rendered nearly 90 per cent of a million-strong population of people of recent Indian origin, overwhelmingly `plantation Tamils,' stateless. The Government of India, which unfortunately compromised on this issue after taking a firm stand initially, must share responsibility with the Sri Lankan state for the long-term injustice done to these hapless people. ... The real breakthrough came with the Indo-Sri Lanka Agreement of July 1987, when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi persuaded President J.R. Jayewardene to agree to confer citizenship on those `stateless' people who remained in Sri Lanka. But bureaucratic resistance to the implementation of what was agreed on as well as some residual legal issues remained. The JVP's progressive initiative to win for the 28,500 `Ceylon Tamil refugees' (possibly a slight underestimate) the citizenship rights they are entitled to should bring to a close an unsavoury historical chapter in the India-Sri Lanka relationship.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.hindu.com/  ------  May 29  The Wall Street Journal Asia, on electoral-fraud charges:  Thailand's generals swept into power last year promising to ferret out ""rampant"" corruption and return power to the people quickly. To that end, today's expected judicial ruling on electoral-fraud charges levied against the country's two biggest political parties sounds like it could clear the path for democracy. Yet it may do just the opposite.  Bangkok's generals justified September's coup in part by charging former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra with corruption. So it made sense to press an existing fraud case against his political party, Thai Rak Thai, announced last June by the attorney general's office. The attorney general alleged that Thai Rak Thai rigged parliamentary elections by hiring small parties to ""run"" against them, splitting the opposition vote and ensuring a victory. The Democrat Party, in contrast, was accused of paying parties not to run. ...  We cannot comment on the merits of the legal case against either party. But the findings of the judicial body will be open to question because the generals disbanded Thailand's constitutional court soon after overthrowing the country's democratically elected government. In its place, they decreed the formation of a nine-member constitutional tribunal. Even though the tribunal is populated with respected jurists, it's unclear if they have been influenced or pressured by the generals -- and so any ruling they make may be viewed by the Thai public as politically motivated, whether that's true or not. ...  King Bhumibol Adulyadej summed the mess up nicely last Thursday, when he spoke to the constitutional tribunal. ""Either way the ruling goes, it will be bad for the country, there will be mistakes,"" he said. How big a mistake, however, is still an open question.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.wsj-asia.com/  --------  May 30  The Independent, London, on politics and television:  Television has become the primary political battleground in Venezuela. At midnight on Sunday, Radio Caracas Television ended its final broadcast -- a consequence of President Hugo Chavez's refusal to renew its public broadcasting licence. RCTV has already been replaced with a new state-funded channel that will, in the President's words, ""better reflect society"". The channel's closure brought some 5,000 anti-Chavez protesters on to the capital's streets. Ugly scenes followed as police tried to scatter them. ...  We should be wary of regarding this as a typical case of autocratic suppression. Venezuela has long been a deeply divided country. And this is reflected in the public debate about broadcasters' rights. Many Venezuelans, like the President, genuinely wanted the closure of the station. ...  Yet the Venezuelan President is quite wrong to suggest that he is bolstering democracy by driving dissenting voices from the airwaves. ...  All governments need media opposition to keep them honest. But it appears that President Chavez does not have much time for this concept.  Ominously, another Venezuelan TV station, Globovision, was accused yesterday - on what appears to be flimsy grounds - of calling for Mr Chavez's assassination. If this growing intolerance of opposition voices is an indication of the shape of things to come, Mr Chavez is taking his country down a dangerous road indeed.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.independent.co.uk/  ------ 7"
"4","WA Editorial Roundup APRS000020070530e35u000pq 1358 Words 30 May 2007 02:55 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Washington state newspapers:  Sunday, May 27  The Tri-City Herald on immigration:  Senate's immigration plan deserves chance  We've said it before, and we'll say it again: No easy answer exists for the immigration crisis facing our country.  We've been over the debate many times. We've called for a reasoned solution. And, now, it looks like the U.S. Senate is working toward one.  Legislation is being considered that would tighten border security, create a guest worker program and provide a process for the estimated 12 million immigrants living illegally in our country to eventually become citizens.  There's no shortage of critics from across the political spectrum.  From the right, the bill means amnesty for illegal aliens. From the left, it means legalizing the exploitation impoverished foreigners.  Neither side has enough clout to prevail. The best that intransigent factions can hope for is a stalemate.  Let's face reality -- the choices are compromise or status quo. More of the same is the worst possible alternative. We're in this mess because current immigration policy doesn't work.  We understand the reluctance to reward lawbreakers, but there's no realistic alternative to providing path toward permanent residency and citizenship.  Even if there were no humanitarian or economic issues to consider, it simply isn't possible to deport 12 million people.  The Senate proposal provides a sound -- if imperfect -- approach.  The law would put the illegal immigrants in a probationary period, providing them with a Z visa after registering with the government and paying a $1,000 fine for heads of households, plus an additional $500 for each dependent.  That money is a fine for breaking the law. There would also be a processing fee of up to $1,500 to take care of the costs of the visa and a $500 state impact assistance fee.  Applicants must have a job, pass background checks and agree to meet accelerated English and civics requirements to get their Z visas.  The Z visas would have to be renewed every four years. To obtain Legal Permanent Resident status, they'll pay another $4,000 fine, additional processing fees and undergo more background checks.  They'll also have to make the application from their home country, go to the back of the line, and demonstrate merit under the new green card points system.  The points system would give marks for education, work skills and English proficiency.  The process could take 8 to 13 years and couldn't be started until other measures of the bill, including tighter border security and a high tech ID program, are put in place.  Guest workers could also find a temporary path to the United States out of the legislation. They would be allowed to work for two years, and then have to return to their home countries for a year. The cycle could be repeated three times.  The Senate plan faces further debate and challenges before it is put to a final vote. President Bush has come out as a strong supporter of the concept.  ""We've been through immigration debates in this country, and they can bring out the worst sometimes in people,"" Bush said.  ""But the question is, will members of Congress rise above politics?""  We think it's worth a shot, too.  While the bill may not be perfect, no solution to this sensitive issue will make all sides happy.  This plan allows people who have made their homes, their families and their livelihoods here to take positive steps toward complying with the laws of the land.  It will also weed out undesirables and those who don't want citizenship and make it harder to sneak into the U.S.  People on probation will be required to maintain a job and stay out of trouble. We know we need the workers. That much has become apparent with crackdowns on illegal workers taking their toll on agricultural operations. (Separate concessions for ag workers are also part of the Senate's package.)  Let's stop stalling and start doing something about it. The Senate is giving us a platform and we need to finally take the leap of faith.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/opinions/story/8924066p-8824163c.html  ------  Tuesday, May 29  The News Tribune on open records:  State's open records law bares its teeth in Spokane  Anyone who doubts the power of the state's open records law ought to take a look to the east at Spokane, where city fathers are learning the lesson the hard way. The city recently agreed to pay $40,000 to an animal-rights organization to settle a lawsuit alleging that the city dragged its feet on releasing animal control complaints requested by Animal Advocates of the Inland Northwest.  An attorney for the group first requested the complaints in 2003. She says it took a couple of years and several more requests for the city to turn over the records. Even then, the attorney wasn't satisfied that she got everything she requested.  The city is not admitting guilt in the settlement, but its assistant city attorney told The Spokesman-Review, ""We could have done a better job."" Obviously.  The settlement comes just seven months after the city forked out an even heftier sum to an online magazine that investigated the city's River Park Square parking garage deal. Spokane agreed to pay $299,000 last October for withholding nearly 90 public documents related to the public-private partnership.  Score two for public disclosure, if not for efficient and cost-effective government. Such wins are rare in comparison to the frustration experienced by individuals, groups and reporters who request public documents. For every government agency that provides ready access, there's another that makes getting public documents a hassle -- or worse, impossible.  Many people don't have the money or determination to press their case in court. But occasionally a public agency gets its knuckles rapped and becomes a cautionary tale. Payouts do more than just compensate citizens who shouldn't have had to go to court to get records that belong to the public. They also ensure that the city will think twice before giving other folks the run-around.  Government also benefits from open-records enforcement. In response to the latest settlement, Spokane is now revising the way it collects and maintains animal-control records, making it easier for the city and the public alike to track what's happening.  The idea that the public's business belongs to the public is more than a nicety. It's the law -- and that law has teeth.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/story/73375.html  ------  Saturday, May 26  The Olympian on stun gun controversy in Tenino:  Stun guns meant for serious law enforcement  Just days after interim police chief Larry Dickerson took over in Tenino, he was handed a case against officer Randy Reynolds.  The case came in the form of a YouTube video of officer Randy Reynolds zapping a man with a stun gun. Reynolds was in uniform, but the two men appear to be engaged in consensual horseplay. The man asked the officer to use the weapon on him.  Dickerson, retired Lacey police chief on temporary assignment in Tenino, said, ""The department does not tolerate that kind of behavior, at least this administration."" The interim chief spoke to the officer and the man in the video.  At week's end, Dickerson issued Reynolds a formal reprimand with a warning that similar misconduct will lead to stronger sanctions up to and including dismissal. The officer was ordered to meet with a stun gun instructor and to review the department's policy on use of that particular weapon.  Every time an officer of the law dons a uniform, he or she represents their community. Use of a stun gun must be confined to law enforcement situations and training, and not be used in horseplay.  Let's hope others learn from officer Reynolds' lapse of judgment.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.theolympian.com/editorials/story/117665.html 7"
"2","Your views Don't reward crime with entitlements CGAZ000020070601e35u0002e 903 Words 30 May 2007 Charleston Gazette P4A English (Copyright 2007)  Brilliant though they were, the Founding Fathers erred egregiously when they omitted congressional term limits from the Constitution. Americans have long recognized the lack of character, integrity and virtue among most politicians.  However, recent years have unveiled an obscene thirst for power amidst this brotherhood of lawmakers. Senate support for the new immigration bill reveals the indecency of these legislators who are willing to undermine the American citizens for the minority vote.  Illegal immigrants flout our rule of law and the arrogant, vote-grabbing policymakers reward criminal behavior with citizenship and entitlements.  Our representatives are willing to release these illegals from their prior unpaid tax obligations, yet the IRS will harass responsible, law-abiding taxpayers for the uncollected nickel.  Many of the children and grandchildren of men who died fighting for our freedom are without health care, but our politicians want us to pay for the health care of people who have entered our country illegally.  We are slowly balkanizing our society as we lose our sense of nationalism, our economy, our liberty and our security. All the while, our elite politicians pat each other on the back for a job well done.  Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation states: ""This is the most expensive bill the U.S. taxpayer has ever seen.""  He estimated the price tag for the bill to be about $2.4 trillion.  The willingness of our pompous lawmakers to pave the way for an unlawful populace is downright scary. Most Americans can now feel the eerie sense of dread.  Ray Bradbury was insightful when he wrote, ""Something wicked this way comes.""  Judy Wagoner  Winfield  W.Va. deserves better  than a coal economy  I am tired of people from the coal industry calling environmental and community rights groups ""outsiders.""  I moved to West Virginia six years ago following eight generations of my family before me, because I wanted to return to my roots and live in this beautiful mountain state.  At the time I didn't know the state was being sabotaged by the coal mafia and our government. Now I live less than a mile away from a mountaintop removal war zone and I hear blasting every day.  I see floods with 2.5 inches of rain, streams running black, children breathing coal dust, people drinking poisoned water from their faucets and God's mountains being raped and pillaged so people can live in extreme comfort and some fat cat coal boss can line his pockets with money by shipping coal overseas.  Our state representatives have led West Virginia into a false mono-economy, saying that coal is the only thing we have and making sure of it by destroying what could be used as tourism.  The fact that anyone thinks they are due the right to have a job that takes away someone else's basic human rights to clean air and water is completely absurd.  My message to the mountain destroyers is this:  I don't know you, I don't like what you are doing.  Calling me a tree-hugger is not an insult, and I certainly don't owe you a job.  If you don't like the Mountain State, then get out and stay out.  Sarah Haltom  Naoma  Gambling does  bring more crime  Gambling in West Virginia will bring more crime to the state. I was born and raised in West Virginia, got married and moved to the Cleveland, Ohio, area when I was 19.  My husband and I retired to Marietta, Ohio, in 1989. There was no gambling then and still is no gambling in Ohio.  I read your paper and other papers online every morning and I'm shocked at how much crime is in West Virginia. It wasn't like that when I was growing up there.  I can't believe the police want gambling in West Virginia so they can get more of a pay raise. I know they have a dangerous job and need to make decent money, but gambling isn't the way.  You will have more people addicted to gambling, more kids going hungry, more divorces and more crime.  Bonnie Bentley  Marietta, Ohio  Call for CPA was  not a personal attack  Marsha Smith's sweeping tirade against me for suggesting that a city treasurer should be a certified public accountant is a bit much.  I have never attacked her personally, nor any other incumbent official, elected or appointed.  My position on professionalism is clear and simple: I think the citizens of South Charleston deserve professional managers.  Qualified engineers should do engineering, while certified public accountants should maintain city accounts, etc.  This is not a personal attack on incumbents, but a goal.  My campaign funding support is modest by any measure. I have raised a total of $8,650. Of that amount, $850 came from five personal friends who live in Charleston.  The largest contribution in this group was for $350.  This is about 10 percent of my total funding and can never be called ""the major source.""  This information is in the public record and can be viewed at South Charleston City Hall.  Whether Smith supports my opponent in the mayoral race did not influence my position on professionalism in City Hall.  Apparently, it may have influenced her decision to write the letter.  Mark A. Wolford  South Charleston  Wolford is the Democratic candidate for mayor of South Charleston."
"1","Congress should focus on energy strategy, not gas prices LXHL000020070530e35u0000e Editorial 660 Words 30 May 2007 The Lexington Herald Leader a9 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Lexington Herald Leader. All Rights Reserved.  In the spring of 2006, gasoline prices were approaching $3 a gallon, and Democrats seeking to win back Congress blamed the Republicans in charge.  ""The American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber-stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies,"" House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California said at the time. She said Republicans had given the public ""empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices.""  A year later, Democrats control Congress, Pelosi is speaker and gas prices are at a record nationwide average of $3.23 a gallon of regular unleaded, up from $2.87 a year ago. Some analysts predict gasoline will hit $4 per gallon this summer in many parts of the country.  Should we presume that Democrats are now in cahoots with Big Oil? No. Democrats can't control prices now, just as Republicans weren't responsible for rising gas prices a year ago.  World oil markets largely determine the cost of gasoline, which often climbs as the summer driving season approaches. Industry experts also blame a shortage of refinery capacity for almost weekly increases in retail prices since Jan. 29.  Maybe $4 gasoline will create enough outrage to get Congress to do what it hasn't: Take serious steps to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  Policy-makers haven't been nearly aggressive enough in encouraging higher fuel economy in new automobiles, even as sales of light trucks and SUVs reached 50 percent of the U.S. market.  What Congress can do is set long-term goals for reducing gasoline consumption and encourage diversification of fuel supplies. To date, the new Democratic majority has offered a strategy that is equal parts planning and posturing.  Democratic leaders have held hearings into alternative fuels, climate change and hydrogen research; they promise a package of bills by July 4 with incentives to promote alternatives.  But they also are grandstanding, such as the House passing a bill Wednesday to stop oil companies from ""price gouging."" Never mind that a thorough investigation by the Federal Trade Commission after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 found no evidence that companies manipulated prices. The market responded to a devastating storm and limited supply with higher prices.  Though oil companies may not be gouging, they are certainly making enough to forego government charity. The House did vote this year to roll back $14 billion in subsidies to oil companies, but couldn't agree with the Senate on a version that might get past President Bush's veto pen.  The Senate is headed in a smarter direction, trying to raise gas-mileage standards for new vehicles from 25 mpg to 35 by 2020. However, it needs to drop a loophole, inserted in committee, that allows the administration to ignore any target that wouldn't be ""cost-effective"" for automakers.  Senate Democrats' comprehensive energy proposal, waiting for debate upon completion of the immigration bill, also mandates 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other renewable fuels -- something the president supports. Biofuels proposals, however, contain few safeguards for the conversion of forests or fallow acres to cornfields. Congress shouldn't jeopardize the land, air or water to produce more energy.  Amid this debate over the high cost of gas, Washington remains mystically silent about upgrading and investing in fuel-efficient mass transit. Systems continue to scrounge for money, threaten fare hikes and plot service cutbacks to close their chronic deficits.  And few politicians speak this unpleasant truth: Even if oil prices fall, the U.S. government should keep pump prices right where they are (or even higher). It should levy a higher gas tax to discourage consumption and to raise desperately needed revenue to repair the nation's crumbling highways and boost struggling mass transit.  Any revenues left over perhaps could help close Social Security's long-term funding woes. Remember them?"
"2","Letters | WHAT TO DO ABOUT ILLEGAL-IMMIGRATION MESS PDN0000020070530e35u0000s EDITORIAL OPINION; DN Opinion 624 Words 30 May 2007 The Philadelphia Daily News 4STAR 20 English (c) Copyright 2007, Philadelphia Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.  LAST WEEK, we asked your opinion of the big immigration bill making its way throught the Senate. Your responses:  The new immigration law reflects the futility of the Dutch boy using his finger to patch a dike already obliterated by years of neglect.  No regulations can correct what is now hopelessly broken. The incredible influx of cheap labor is an obvious wink and a nod by the Bush administration to his strongest benefactors, the business community.  Now we're stuck with billions of taxpayer dollars being spent on millions of migrants and their citizen offspring while the corporate world laughs all the way to the bank. Short of annexing Mexico, which refuses to provide for its own, get ready for a bilingual country.  Mexico has finally accomplished what it couldn't do at the Alamo. It has quietly invaded and conquered the U.S. This new bill is the terms of our surrender!  Anthony J. Frascino, Cherry Hill  The U.S. prides itself on welcoming newcomers and protecting families, but current immigration policies are forcing our most vulnerable populations to wait for years before they can reunite with loved ones.  The legislation before the Senate is a good first step toward reforming the broken system, but improvements are needed to make it more fair and humane.  Local 32BJ's 5,000 members in Philadelphia - many of whom are immigrants - want a smart and practical system for future workers, a path to citizenship for current immigrant workers, security enhancement, civil and workplace rights for all, and an emphasis on family reunification.  Wayne MacManiman, Mid-Atlantic Chairman  Service Employees International, Local 32BJ  The so-called reform bill does nothing to the millions already here taking jobs from citizens. This cheap labor is costing taxpayers through the nose.  In areas where they've settled, crime has gone up.  They're being given medical care when Americans can't get it along with welfare. They'll be allowed to get an education like legal state residents, get tax credits for being at the poverty level and, on top of that, many don't even speak English on top of all that.  The government has sold its own citizenship to corporate greed.  Thomas G. Lutek, Philadelphia  The casual observer knows that the cause and cure of this problem is at the employer level. If we truly want to stem the tide of illegal workers, have the federal government stop issuing taxpayer identification numbers to every illegal immigrant that asks for one.  Ted Lahm  Philadelphia  As the Senate debates improvements to this bill, many are asking why we can't get control over our borders first, before making any other changes to the law?  But we can't depend on enforcement alone. We've tripled the number of border patrol agents, quintupled the enforcement budget and escalated workplace raids and deportations.  The result? People still cross the desert, but in the most remote and dangerous areas. Once here, they are afraid to call the police, take their children for shots or return home because the risks of going back and forth are too great. The undocumented immigrant population has swollen to more than 12 million people. We simply cannot deport our way out of the current immigration mess, nor should we want to.  Obviously we need a new approach.  Only by first making our laws enforceable through legal immigration reforms can we expect to effectively enforce them.  By moving immigrants through legal channels, providing those already here with a path to citizenship and reducing the backlog in family visas, immigration will become manageable, and our efforts at the border and at the workplace more effective.  Meredith Rapkin, Philadelphia"
"1","'Tied at hip' to White House, Justice hurts respect for law USAT000020070530e35u0005z NEWS DEBATE 760 Words 30 May 2007 USA Today FINAL A.12 English � 2007 USA Today. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Daniel Metcalfe worked at the Justice Department for more than three decades -- through seven presidents, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative. But he recently told Legal Times that Alberto Gonzales did something no other attorney general had managed during Metcalfe's long career: In just two years, Gonzales ""shattered"" the department's ""strong tradition of independence"" and left it ""artificially tied at the hip"" to the White House.  Much of the change took place almost imperceptibly, except to insiders such as Metcalfe, who headed the department's Office of Information and Privacy in Washington. But the controversy surrounding the firing of nine federal prosecutors last year has given the public a rare glimpse inside the nation's top law enforcement agency.  The picture isn't pretty. It shows a department run by a cadre of young, underqualified GOP operatives who inserted politics into everything from hiring career lawyers to firing federal prosecutors to choosing how to enforce the law. Such partisanship strikes at the heart of the department's mission -- to prosecute crimes and uphold the law without fear or favor.  While the department has never been entirely insulated from politics, its backbone of career lawyers and 93 U.S. attorneys, whom once appointed are rarely fired, can ensure a high level of independence -- but only if the attorney general and the president keep political meddling in check. Gonzales and President Bush have failed to do this.  Despite bipartisan calls for Gonzales' resignation, he clings to his job, supported by Bush, who says the attorney general hasn't done anything wrong. So far as is known, Gonzales hasn't broken any laws, but to say he has done no wrong is to say that it's fine to treat the Justice Department as an agent of White House political operations. The nation's chief law enforcement officer should be held to a higher standard than that.  Testimony, e-mails, interviews and news accounts reveal a pattern of mismanagement that justifies the extraordinary ""no confidence"" vote on the attorney general planned next month in the Senate:  *Monica Goodling, Gonzales' former senior counselor, admitted last week that she ""crossed the line"" by regularly examining the party affiliations of candidates for jobs as career prosecutors, immigration judges and other non-political slots. That's improper and potentially illegal.  *At least two of the fired U.S. attorneys -- highly regarded David Iglesias of New Mexico and John McKay of Seattle -- ran afoul of the White House for alleged failures to pursue voter fraud aggressively enough. Prosecuting vote fraud can be a legitimate priority. But the White House involvement -- Bush and his political adviser, Karl Rove, passed along complaints from Republicans about prosecutors or missed chances to pursue fraud cases -- makes the pursuit look partisan.  Voter fraud does not appear to be widespread -- and it's certainly not as important as investigating terrorism, organized crime, political and business corruption or other Justice Department priorities. The emphasis on it raises questions about whether Rove was calling the shots as part of a GOP strategy to suppress Democratic turnout in certain key elections. The White House says Rove can provide answers -- if it's done in private, he's not under oath and there's no transcript of his testimony. Congressional investigators are right to reject such absurd conditions.  *Since 2001, when Bush took office, Justice headquarters has loaded up on midlevel political appointees: The number rose from 36 in 1997, President Clinton's fifth year in office, to 56 in Bush's fifth year, according to a study by Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. (The Justice Department says it can't verify those numbers.)  In such a politically charged atmosphere, is it any wonder that Gonzales' then-chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, considered whether U.S. attorneys were ""loyal Bushies"" in deciding which ones to fire? Or that Gonzales, when he was White House counsel, tried to get his hospitalized predecessor, John Ashcroft, to approve a warrantless wiretapping program that top Justice officials thought was illegal?  The non-partisanship that lawyers such as Metcalfe prized must be preserved if the public is to trust the cases the department investigates and the rights it protects. A mountain of evidence suggests this White House doesn't respect the department's independence, and this attorney general isn't up to the job of guarding it.  ---  The Justice Department declined to provide an opposing view to this editorial. PHOTO, B/W, USA TODAY"
"4","U. Minnesota: EDITORIAL: Immigration needs more work UWIR000020070530e35u00036 432 Words 30 May 2007 U-Wire English (c) 2007 U-Wire. All Rights Reserved.  U-WIRE-05/30/2007-U. Minnesota: EDITORIAL: Immigration needs more work (C) 2007 Minnesota Daily Via U-WIRE  Staff Editorial, Minnesota Daily (U. Minnesota)  MINNEAPOLIS -- In the U.S. Senate, the effort to compromise with  modern-day Know-Nothings who shout ""amnesty"" as if it were a vulgarity has brought the immigration overhaul to an unlikely, and to us, unwelcome form.  The legislation will include some common-sense reforms, like increasing border security and doubling the number of Border Patrol agents to 28,000. After security conditions are met, the plan would give most of the estimated 12 million undocumented workers who have already set down roots in the country legal status and a path toward eventual citizenship. The requirements are not easy, including a $5,000 fine and a trip that the head of a household must make back to his or her country of origin. However, compared to the illegal shadows that immigrants must live in today, the prize of citizenship seems worth the effort.  Other elements in the plan, though, are shortsighted and, to be plain, contrary to the spirit of our country. First, it will place a premium on the skills and education people have, rather than on the family ties that have traditionally guided the immigration process. If people are allowed to immigrate, we want them to be able to have their families here and to fully invest their lives in their new country. Immigrants should feel like they are part of where they live -- but if their  husband, wife or children are denied entry, it's hard to see how these people could consider themselves Americans, as opposed to people only working in America.  The ""guest worker"" plan is where we draw our biggest concerns on this legislation. Under the current plan, 200,000 people would be granted temporary visas to work in the country for two years, then return home for one before they could re-enter the country. After three stints of working, all they would have are the meager wages paid during their stay -- no roots and no hope of a better future in the country where  they labored. This would effectively create a permanent underclass of people doing the jobs least desirable to Americans. They deserve the same chance other generations of immigrants had when they came to this country: hope for a better future for themselves and their families. If we want their labor, we owe them at least that much in return.  ##30##  Distributed via M2 Communications Ltd - http://www.m2.com"
"5","Chambliss flip-flops on immigration AGCR000020070626e35v0003g EDITORIAL 324 Words 31 May 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Letter-writer Vicki Simons hit the nail squarely on the head (""Get Lindsey Graham out of the Senate,"" May 28).  Graham, the Republican-in-name-only senator from South Carolina, is not the only political fraud who needs to be ousted from office. We have our own right here in Georgia. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who just last year was dead-set against illegal amnesty bill S. 2611, has now seen the light and is going to support the upcoming bill, S. 1438, better known as the Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act.  He's done better than just lend his support for this irresponsible travesty of legislation. He, with Graham and others, helped negotiate it. I have been a staunch supporter of the senator in the past, but his flip-flop on this issue is enough for me. I wrote to him last year when S. 2611 was being voted on and made this explicitly clear: ""My support for your re-election in 2008 will hinge on this issue and this issue alone, and if you vote yes for S. 2611 you will not have my support when you come up for re- election."" Well, here we are, one year later and Chambliss has pulled the Georgia version of a John Kerry.  I am not going to presume to speak for other conservatives - but for me, I am sick and tired, fed up, disgusted and infuriated that our elected officials, and especially the ones who claim to be conservative, bend over backward to bestow amnesty to the invading criminals of our sovereign nation. I want a representative who is going to put our country first, our sovereignty first, our national security first: Borders, language and culture. Our borders, our language and our culture. The American culture.  These frauds must be held to account, and Saxby Chambliss must be held to account in 2008.  Capt. David B. Caudle  Grovetown"
"1","Editorial | The 2007 Farm Bill; Cultivating saner policy PHLI000020070531e35v0001f EDITORIAL; P-com Opinion 478 Words 31 May 2007 The Philadelphia Inquirer CITY-D A18 English (c) Copyright 2007, Philadelphia Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.  Congress isn't very good at big bills - those phone-book-sized proposals to transform policy on energy, transportation, immigration, or Social Security. It's especially tough when new thinking is required.  In complex bills, everybody wants something. Interest groups ramp up; lobbying is intense. Priorities fall victim to horsetrading. In the end, bills often are drained of meaning, and bloated fiscally. Reform hopes evaporate.  Those dangers lurk as House and Senate subcommittees craft the 2007 farm bill, which must pass by Sept. 30. Too much is at stake for Congress to revert to bad habits this time.  The farm bill covers aid to farmers, fair trade, nutrition for the poor, conservation, agricultural research, energy policy, forestry, and rural development. Predictably, various interests are competing for a cut of a limited pool of money.  What's different this year is the diverse coalition of politicians, farmers, taxpayer groups, environmentalists, and international nongovernmental groups jointly demanding changes to traditional farm subsidies. Ninety percent of farm-subsidy payments are channeled to growers of just five crops: wheat, rice, corn, soybeans and cotton.  That means fruit and vegetable growers in states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey and fecund California get next to nothing. Commercial farms, though just 17 percent of all farms, received 56 percent of the pot in 2004, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The system is unbalanced and unfair.  Current policy distorts international and domestic commodity prices, drives small and family farmers out of the market, favors crops of poor nutritional value, transfers billions in tax dollars to a select few producers, and condones poor land use. That must change.  Over the past year, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, a former governor of Nebraska, toured the country, listened to farmers, and embraced practical reforms.  In January, initial bills focused on improving America's food supply and environmental stewardship.  But beginning work this month, the agriculture committees seem to be plodding down a conventional trail, seemingly oblivious to cries for a radical shift from the 2002 bill.  In contrast, Sen. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.) and Reps. Ron Kind (D., Wisc.) and Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) offer a sensible subsidy overhaul. Their bills replace four major subsidy programs with a ""risk-management account"" controlled by individuals to guard against steep price fluctuations. Farmers also could buy federally subsidized crop insurance.  The program would save $55 billion over 10 years, sponsors estimate. Some money would wisely go toward deficit reduction. The balance should be used to provide more food stamps, expand land conservation, research and commercialize biofuels, and shore up specialty crop markets.  This country needs better farm policy - to provide a farmer safety net, to protect the land, to rectify international trade inequity, to feed the poor. Congress should nurture the good seeds that have been planted."
"1","The 'Law and Order' candidate SFC0000020070531e35v0000s EDITORIAL DEBRA J. SAUNDERS Debra J Saunders 670 Words 31 May 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.7 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  ACTING -- and not necessarily skilled acting -- seems to have become the training ground for Republican politicians with high ambition. The standard cursus honorum for a would-be president typically began with a local office, then in a state legislature, then maybe Congress. The GOP, however, increasingly draws candidates from Hollywood (not the most hospitable environment for conservatives).  While Washington Beltway insiders once showed disdain for America's first actor/President Ronald Reagan, and Our Betters in Europe may sniff at actor/Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, many Republicans like the idea of ""Law and Order"" star and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson running for the White House. ""There are a lot of social conservatives who are waiting on Fred,"" one fan told me. ""We're all a little giddy about it.""  Face it: Being an actor helps. Thompson looks like a president - - he even has been cast in the role. He has the pipes and a magnetic persona. He uses folksy words to combat the disingenuous rhetoric of Washington.  An example: ""We should scrap this 'comprehensive' immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway.""  Works for me.  Thompson has shown that he can be fair. When he chaired the Senate Government Affairs Committee hearings on 1996 presidential campaign-finance abuses, Thompson shined the harsh light of scrutiny on the fundraising excesses of both parties.  When I interviewed Thompson about his committee's report in 1998, he lamented the lack of honesty and respect for the rule of law: ""I've come to the conclusion that people come before congressional committees and have very, very little fear of lying. It's almost come down to the point where under-oath testimony is basically given the same consideration as cocktail party talk.There's no real feeling that, 'now I'm under oath, I've got to tell the truth' anymore.""  Thompson was one of 10 Republican senators to vote against convicting President Bill Clinton after the House impeachment for perjury, but he did vote to convict on the obstruction of justice charge.  Yet Thompson does not come across as fair in a speech defending Scooter Libby, the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. In a recent speech, Thompson called for a presidential pardon on the grounds that, ""when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it.""  That's a problem. I don't want Libby to go to prison. I think it's an outrage that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuted Libby for covering up his actions during Fitzgerald's probe into the leak of a former CIA official's identity -- especially because Fitzgerald never saw fit to prosecute the original leak itself. Still, you can't vote to convict Clinton for obstructing justice, then argue that pardoning Libby would preserve justice.  Thompson's supporters promise an ""unconventional campaign"" that uses free media creatively. They point to Thompson's YouTube video response to film-maker Michael Moore's challenge to a debate -- which siphoned away media attention from the second GOP presidential primary debate of announced candidates for president. He was a no- show, but he won points in the spin game.  Others wonder if the unconventional-campaign spin is an attempt to make a virtue out of Thompson's reputation as a man not willing to work Washington hours.  Former California Republican Party Chairman Duf Sundheim told me, ""I view him as the Wesley Clark of the 2008 campaign."" Sundheim said he thought Thompson could become a serious candidate, but that a much-hyped speech in Orange County, which fell short of expectations, ""leads me to believe he's not ready yet.""  Then again, there was at time when that was what they said about Reagan. E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com."
"3","Wait on S.C. Immigration Measure; Better to let Congress work through immigration reform XSNW000020070601e35v0002g A EDITORIAL 540 Words 31 May 2007 Sun-News TSN 8 English Copyright (c) 2007. Myrtle Beach Sun-News. All rights reserved.  The General Assembly should wait no longer to enact a comprehensive crackdown on illegal immigration in South Carolina, Gov. Mark Sanford said this week. But waiting would actually make sense.  As the governor noted in touting Senate Bill 392 this week, Congress is tackling immigration reform at last. His take on that heated debate, which has pitted South Carolina's U.S. senators against one another, is that its outcome is immaterial. Regardless of what Congress does, Sanford said, ""we have to be very clear about not creating incentives for illegal labor.""  But if Congress adopts the immigration reform approach that President Bush negotiated recently with a bipartisan coalition of senators, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., illegal labor as we know it in South Carolina will disappear. The estimated 56,000 illegal immigrants working in South Carolina and other states would become eligible for temporary guest worker status - moving from the shadows into the light.  That outcome, in short, would knock the props from beneath S.B. 392's key provisions. The bill's requirement that S.C. employers check the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's database to verify that a foreign workers is in the country legally, for instance, would become moot. Foreign workers in the country legally would have tamper-proof federal temporary work permits. Also moot would be the bill's provision denying state-income-tax business expense deductions to employers who hire illegal foreign workers.  U.S. Sen Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and other federal lawmakers view the Bush immigration initiative as an amnesty declaration for the estimated 9 million to 12 million foreigners working in the United States. If their fiercely held view prevails in the Washington debate, the new federal emphasis would become fencing off the border while rounding up and deporting illegal workers. That would also make much of S.B. 392 moot. Employers would be chilled from hiring low-skill workers who look foreign.  None of this is to suggest, however, that the Senate-passed bill, now before the S.C. House Judiciary Committee, has no value. The provision empowering the State Law Enforcement Division to seek federal designation as an immigration law enforcement agency would be useful, no matter how the Washington debate turns out. And if if Congress does nothing - a strong possibility - the bill's other provisions could be useful.  The S.C. Senate has taken great care to avoid the witch-hunt approach that local and state anti-illegal-immigrant laws have taken. The bill doesn't put expensive new mandates on employers and would discourage them from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The bill would discourage and punish identity fraud. And it would discourage private contractors who do business with the state and local governments from knowingly using illegal labor.  If the House doesn't pass the bill this year, it would survive into the 2008 General Assembly session. By January, the outcome of the congressional debate will be clear. If S.B. 392 is still necessary at that time, the House can quickly get it to the governor's desk for his signature and immediate enactment."
"5","Repeating the Errors of Immigration Bills Past WP00000020070531e35v0002e Editorial 199 Words 31 May 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A18 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  Regarding the May 24 news story ""Senate Scales Down Proposed Guest-Worker Program"" and other articles and commentary on immigration:  Anyone who has carefully studied the history of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 during the past 20 years will appreciate that the present bill is flawed. The temporary worker program admitting 200,000 to 600,000 workers a year is unworkable. Theoretically, these workers will go home for one year after working here for two years. Also, they will be allowed to renew their visas only twice. Our experience with ""temporary"" visas, such as tourist visas and others, shows that, once workers are here, they overstay their visas and remain until the next legalization or amnesty. No worker will go home after two years and remain home for one year, and certainly no worker will go home permanently after his or her extensions are up.  This means that 10 years from now there will be 2 million to 6 million more undocumented immigrants in the United States. And there will be agitation for a third legalization or amnesty.  NESTOR ENRIQUE CRUZ  Annandale http://www.washingtonpost.com WP20070531LET-CRUZ31"
"5","Flight 327 WATI000020070531e35v0000j EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 833 Words 31 May 2007 The Washington Times A18 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  President Bush the other day lashed out at opponents of the Senate immigration ""compromise,"" declaring that opponents were ""trying to frighten our citizens."" By the very act of criticizing a bill granting legal status to tens of millions of illegal aliens, he added, critics are attempting ""to scare the American people"" about things they shouldn't worry their little heads about. Back in the real world, there are dangers that should be very alarming to anyone with common sense.  September 11 and thousands of grisly attacks in Iraq and other locations since drive home that civilized people all over the world - Muslim and non-Muslim - are under siege from violent jihadists who would welcome the opportunity to carry out more attacks on American soil. Any immigration proposal - especially one that grants legal status to millions and millions of illegals - could prove catastrophic if we lack the ability to screen out terrorists and criminals who engage in document fraud and other criminal activity to get into the United States, to board airplanes or enter government buildings. And, unfortunately, we are awash in government studies, reports and other data which make clear that nearly six years after September 11, the government bureaucracies that are supposed to keep out terrorists are in many ways as incompetent and dysfunctional as they were before Mohammed Atta and his associates killed nearly 3,000 people that morning.  A newly released report from the inspector general for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security about the government's handling of 13 suspicious passengers on a June 29, 2004, Northwest Airlines flight serves as a reminder of why so many Americans are rightly skeptical of Washington's ability to manage a mass-amnesty program. The report, which details what happened on the flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles, confirms eyewitness accounts describing suspicious behavior on the part of 12 Syrian musicians before and during the flight.  Initially, Homeland Security officials tried to downplay its seriousness and suggested that other passengers had overreacted. But the report corroborates the passengers' accounts and suggests that what took place was a dry run for a terrorist attack - which first was reported by Audrey Hudson of The Washington Times. The report raises disturbing questions about the handling of the case by several agencies: Homeland Security, the Federal Air Marshal Service and the Citizenship and Immigration Services, which will play the lead role in overseeing the amnesty program for illegals.  Of the 13 men, the 12 musicians were traveling on expired Syrian passports and their Lebanese-born promoter was a legal resident of the United States. Said the report: ""Six of the men arrived at the gate together after boarding began, then split up and acted as if they were not acquainted. According to air marshals, the men appeared sweaty and nervous. An air marshal assigned to Flight 327 observed their behavior as 'unusual,' but made no further reports at the time ... During the flight, the men again acted suspiciously Several of the men changed seats, congregated in the aisles, and arose when the fasten seat belt sign was turned on; one passenger moved quickly up the aisle towards the cockpit and, at the last moment, entered the first class lavatory. The passenger remained in the lavatory for 20 minutes... Another man carried a large McDonald's restaurant bag into a lavatory and  made a thumbs-up sign to another man upon returning to his seat"" One man raised his hand to his throat and made a cutting motion. Alarmed fellow passengers complained to flight attendants about the behavior.  When the plane arrived in Los Angeles, all of the men were detained but only two were questioned. A Federal Air Marshal supervisor examined the visas, but did not notice that they had expired 19 days earlier. The incident was not even reported until July 26, 2004 - four days after a story about Flight 327 ran in this newspaper.  What is perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that these travelers were able to board the plane in the first place because just five months earlier the FBI had issued a warning that suicide terrorists were plotting to hijack planes by smuggling bomb kits past security to be assembled in aircraft bathrooms. In April, the FBI issued a warning that terrorists might be trying to enter the country using cultural or sports visas - the very visas used by the Syrian musicians. And even after the scare, Citizenship and Immigration Services extended the Syrian musicians' visas by another week.  Pilots and former air marshals told this newspaper that federal security managers have been concealing information on dry run probes from other federal agencies and that most of our flights today do not have armed pilots or air marshals aboard. And yet the president and ""immigration reform"" supporters on Capitol Hill insist that the dysfunctional bureaucracies responsible for Flight 327 security are up to the task of overseeing mass amnesty for illegals."
"2","No welcome mat FLTY000020070602e3610001y A; Editorial Compiled by FLORIDA TODAY 896 Words 01 June 2007 Florida Today Final/All A10 English (c) Copyright 2007, Florida Today. All Rights Reserved.  Compiled by FLORIDA TODAY  _______________________________________________________  Deport every one of 12 million illegals  Jane Kenny  Titusville  The Senate says the immigration legislation it has proposed is necessary because of the overwhelming number of illegal aliens who are already settled into this country.  Some say it's impossible to deport 12 million illegals.  We Americans can do anything we set our minds to. We are the most hard-working, productive and courageous people in the world.  Don't tell us we can't do it, especially when it concerns the well-being of our nation, our way of life and upholding our laws.  So there are 12 million people in this country illegally. They broke the law and the appropriate penalty for their crime is deportation.  I for one would drive the deportation bus, and hundreds of other American citizen volunteers would do the same.  We'd even raise money to buy the buses if Congress would just say the word. Congress would betray every law-abiding American citizen if it excused more than 12 million illegal aliens.  They broke the law, yet Congress might reward them for it. What happened to the nation founded on the rule of law? Is it now ""mob-rule?""  Does the gang of 12 million illegals now tell Congress what to do?  _______________________________________________________  Immigrants can help support Social Security  Tom Keegan  Melbourne  It has been stated that there will be an eventual breakdown of Social Security as the Baby Boomers retire.  It is said there just won't be enough younger workers coming into the system to make up for the shortage brought on by a large retirement population.  So, why all the talk of cutting back immigration, or not working out a legal way to host more immigrant workers?  Seems to me the real solution to both illegal immigration and a looming Social Security failure is one and the same:  Increase our immigration totals, make it easier for those seeking work in the U.S. to legally stay here, and ensure we have a larger set of workers in the system paying into Social Security.  Twelve million illegals in the country? Sounds like a good start on the numbers needed to sustain growth and support those who were lucky enough to have been born here.  _______________________________________________________  Let aliens serve in Iraq, Afghanistan  Ira Adams  Melbourne  I have a suggestion that would allow those able-bodied male and female illegals desiring a fast path to American citizenship.  Give them the option of serving three years in our military, where they can learn enough English to follow orders, and spend two years in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other hotspots.  When the service is honorably completed, they automatically become U.S. citizens.  Or send them all back to their home countries. Require they stay there until their names came up for temporary work visas, good for one year, with three months back home.  Give preference to doctors, nurses, engineers and so on.  They must also obtain a tamper-proof biometric photo ID, so there's no chance of cheating the system.  Perhaps it's time for Big Brother to regain control of his borders.  Naturally, the Democratically controlled Congress will be reluctant to allow such severe treatment of those poor unlawful aliens.  _______________________________________________________  Florida senators should reject immigration bill  Virgil Casey  Cape Canaveral  For the last 50 years of my life I've watched our America move toward socialism.  Endless government programs spawned by President Johnson's ""Great Society"" continue to destroy family values and work ethics.  The many Washington politicians who have written and passed these welfare programs over the years now see an opportunity to add millions of fresh recipients and voters to their party.  An estimated 12 million illegal aliens, possibly more, are poised to be added in America. Florida Senators Bill Nelson, D-Orlando and Mel Martinez, R-Orlando are all for the inclusion of these illegal aliens.  They are fully aware most American citizens do not agree with ""amnesty"" for illegal aliens.  I ask Senators Nelson and Martinez not to support the current bill in the U.S. Senate.  Do not make criminals into American citizens.  _______________________________________________________  Give hotel jobs to Americans, not aliens  William Ehrig  Titusville  A recent wire-service story about resort hotels seeking immigrant workers from the Philippines, among other places, is outrageous given the scores of unemployed and underemployed American citizens.  The example of a college-educated Filipino, Simeon Andagan, starting at $10.50 an hour as an entry-level housekeeper in Scottsdale, Ariz., and being promoted ""in a few short weeks"" to a salary of $2,000 per month as a housekeeping supervisor should get the attention of my American born co-workers.  Even with college educations, some find it hard to move above $8 to $9 an hour after more than a year in the same positions.  Better yet, talk to the scores of hard-working Americans making a low wage of closer to $7 per hour and those seeking work who would be happy making that rather than nothing.  Having worked in this industry, I can assure you that any arguments of Americans not willing to work such ""entry-level"" jobs at such pay is nonsense.  If resorts need workers as badly as the article states, they should look to a vast and qualified workforce of American-born citizens.  _______________________________________________________"
"4","Imperfect but palatable ; Restricting access to jobs will eliminate a major reason many illegal aliens sneak into United States GRPR000020070604e3610002f Editorial The Grand Rapids Press 533 Words 01 June 2007 The Grand Rapids Press All Editions A6 English � 2007 Grand Rapids Press. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Nobody's claiming the immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate is perfect, because it isn't. The bipartisan measure has folks on both sides of the issue choking on one provision or another. The bill might not be easy for anyone to swallow, but is an opportunity to make some progress on immigration reform.  It balances border security and workplace enforcement with practical ways to deal with current illegal immigrants. The bill adds more border patrol agents, calls for a 370-mile fence and surveillance towers and cameras, expands guest worker programs, creates a pathway to citizenship for many current illegal immigrants and penalizes employers who hire illegal workers.  While most of the attention in the immigration debate has focused on securing the border and how to handle the 11 to 12 million people illegally here, the employee verification portion of the latest bill could be key to stanching illegal immigration, particularly across the U.S.-Mexico border.  America is seen as the land of opportunity by most of the illegal immigrants who flock here. Jobs and employers willing to hire illegal immigrants have been plentiful. Until opportunities for illegal immigrants to find easy employment in America dry up, no amount of border security will keep people from trying to sneak in, if they can't get here legally. Employers are rarely held accountable today for hiring illegals. That must end.  The Senate bill rightly takes aim at employers willing to turn a blind eye to hiring people in this country illegally. The Senate bill would require businesses to use an electronic verification system to check the legal status of workers before hiring them. Employers currently complain there is no way to identify fake documentation. The federal data base should eliminate that excuse. Hiring someone in the country illegally would result in the employer paying a $5,000 fine for every illegal worker. A second offense would net a $10,000 fine and a third would cost $25,000. Larger fines for first offenses -- say $50,000 -- would probably avert second or third offenses. That's something lawmakers ought to consider as they debate and amend the immigration bill.  Some opponents of this immigration measure have decried the pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants as amnesty for lawbreakers. It's not. Illegal immigrants already here would have to pay a fine and back taxes, learn English, pass a criminal background check and go to the back of the citizenship line to legalize their status. That will take no less than 13 years. That's not amnesty.  Tossing out all the illegal immigrants is not a realistic solution. The country has neither the manpower, money nor will to roundup 12 million people and send them packing.  An estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants flow into the United States annually. The country can't continue to absorb unchecked numbers of people. It needs comprehensive immigration reform that's effective and as fair as possible. The Senate bill isn't perfect, but moves the debate closer to reaching a sensible plan."
"4","SOS ; Crossfire dims reform bill's chances OKC0000020070604e36100019 OPINION OUR VIEWS 354 Words 01 June 2007 The Oklahoman CITY 12A English Copyright 2007 The Oklahoman Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.  THE first week of debate over an immigration reform proposal in the U.S. Senate � and in the public square � makes one wonder whether the thing can survive a second. The plan seems stuck in no-man's land, and bills that take fire from all sides seldom survive in Washington.  Reaction was so intense, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ditched original plans to vote on the package last week. Instead, the Senate is using the Memorial Day recess to mull things over. At this point there's little indication more time will improve the proposal's prospects. That's unfortunate. Immigration is a decades-old problem, which with 9/11 has sprouted national security concerns. Action is overdue, but consensus to move such a big piece of legislation isn't there yet. It's a complex and emotional issue � both of which work against a bill covering hundreds of pages, and the grand political coalition that unveiled it.  President Bush supports the legislation's comprehensive scope. But he's swimming against the tide of his party, which favors border security but opposes the bill's way of dealing with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.  While conceding the bill can be improved, we think its approach is correct. Secure the border first, then implement a temporary worker program and try to bring the illegal population into a regular process.  Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says 18,000 border agents, hundreds of miles of fence, ground radar stations, unmanned aerial vehicles and other measures will be in place by the end of 2008, if Congress funds them. Enforcement in the workplace will be stepped up, he says.  The administration believes a secure border, workplace enforcement and a chance to escape the threat of sudden deportation will gradually reduce the resident illegal population, while a controlled temporary worker program will meet the U.S. economy's needs.  It's a basis to go forward. But nothing will happen if the proposal doesn't grow a lot more friends, and fast. EDITORIAL"
"4","Funding immigration ; Oversight agency requires more tax dollars or other revenue to be able to meet its mission PATHAR0020070603e36100006 Editorial Of the Patriot-News 424 Words 01 June 2007 Patriot-News FINAL A10 English � 2007 Patriot News Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The complicated web of immigration reform doesn't need another fly in the ointment. Nevertheless, Congress is going to have to address an administrative and financial mess at the agency responsible for processing and overseeing immigrants.  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is beset with management issues, according to The Washington Post, with a backlog of 1.1 million applications and a funding mechanism that some say actually encourages illegal immigration.  Particularly striking about the Post report is that both liberals and conservatives agree that the agency's primary funding system of fees and fines is a major reason for its problems.  Levies on immigrants fund 90 percent of Citizenship and Immigration's $1.8 billion budget, and the agency for two decades has been increasing them to address backlogs and deficits. It's currently looking at boosting fees by 50 percent on average, with the cost of applying for permanent legal residency almost tripling, from $325 to $905.  Given that many immigrants are working low-paying jobs, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the underground route is a viable alternative. And remember, this besieged agency with 5 million cases annually is also responsible for border enforcement and overseeing companies hiring illegal workers.  It's a vicious cycle. And it wouldn't get better under the bipartisan immigration package now before the Senate, which would triple C&I's caseload. It would get a financial windfall estimated at $10 billion to $15 billion over eight years, but it would come via fines and fees ranging from $1,000 to $5,000.  If current fees are already too steep, and with a significant portion of the new money almost certainly going to have to go to old cases, it's clear how this Catch-22 circle connects.  C&I's critics contend that Congress needs to change the funding mechanism, which would seem to mean dedicated funding out of the federal budget, and also impose strict oversight of the agency's operations. That means either tax dollars or finding wasteful or outdated federal programs from which to transfer money.  Regardless, as much as we hope Congress can fix and improve the current package and not allow this opportunity for a broad immigration bill to elude the nation, it's not going to work if the chief enforcement and oversight agency isn't significantly fixed itself."
"2","LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SFC0000020070601e36100042 EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 1109 Words 01 June 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.10 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Bush is late to the party on immigration  Editor -- Has the president had an epiphany? After six years of abdication of his constitutionally mandated responsibility to protect our borders, he has suddenly proclaimed, ""The first step to comprehensive reform must be to enforce immigration laws at the borders and at work sites across America"" (""Bush begins push for immigration plan,'' May 30).  Is President Bush unaware that such enforcement is already called for in the existing immigration laws, which he has done his best to ignore up to this point? The hypocrisy is overwhelming when he says, ""And my answer to the skeptics is give us a chance to fix this problem.""  You have had your chance, President Bush, and, unfortunately, your credibility on this issue has evaporated. Your lack of border enforcement, even after the 9/11 attacks on our country, has contributed substantially to the problems we now face.  CAROL GAMMETER  San Mateo -----------------------------------------------  Feds move on foster care  Editor -- Regarding ""Census to track foster youth'' (Editorial, May 29):  It is heartening to see that dedication to helping children in our nation's foster-care system crosses party lines. We are grateful to note that Rep. Timothy V. Johnson, R-Ill., joined Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., in introducing a bill in the House to provide federal assistance for relatives who become legal guardians of foster children. As the Chronicle observed, similar bipartisan legislation was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.  Kudos to The Chronicle for pointing out that federal foster-care funding regulations make it harder than necessary for grandparents and other relatives to raise children who have been removed from their parents' homes. If Congress provided flexible and reliable foster-care funding, an estimated 20,000 children nationwide could leave the system for permanent, loving homes with relatives. These children have waited long enough for the families they deserve.  DONNA BUTTS, Executive Director  Generations United  Washington -----------------------------------------------  Respect in death  Editor -- It's heart-breaking to hear of the suicide death of a Saudi Arabian detainee at Guantanamo (""Guantanamo prisoner apparently kills himself,'' May 31).  I was struck by the irony in the U.S. military's official response: ""The remains of the deceased detainee are being treated with the utmost respect.""  What kind of country have we become when we dignify a corpse, but don't give these individuals their basic human rights when alive?  BEVERLY CHERNER  Sausalito -----------------------------------------------  Bush acts on AIDS  Editor -- Who wants to bet that this will be the only letter to appear in The Chronicle that congratulates President Bush for a massive infusion of $30 billion into the fight against AIDS in Africa? Surely his initiative and concern confounds his legions of single-issue critics and churls.  Studies show that America's evangelical Christians donate more to international relief agencies than any other group, and Bush's efforts are emblematic of that. He challenges the ""soft bigotry of low expectations."" While Bush walks the walk, what do you do?  CHARLES SYKES  San Jose -----------------------------------------------  An endless war  Editor -- Why can't we find the truth in the mainstream media? The Demos failure to call President Bush's bluff on the war budget was like a stake in the heart of hope.  We're now discussing how the war will go in 2008 and beyond. What was intellectually clear from the outset has now become the framework of our miserable lives: No matter whether or when we leave Iraq, the unbelievable mayhem will only escalate; and we're not going to leave for years and years and years.  The real goal was the oil, and it will always be the oil. The goal will never be secured, and we'll never leave without securing it. The billionaires aren't paying the price, and they don't care at all about the people who are.  CHRISTIE W. KIEFER  Berkeley -----------------------------------------------  The Oscar goes to ...  Editor -- Is there a bigger waste of money than spending $3.5 million to film the construction of the eastern span of the Bay Bridge (Matier & Ross, ""$3.5 million tab for Bay Bridge -- the movie,'' May 30)? There has to be a better use for our transportation dollars.Superfluous projects such as this should only be approved if they have the potential of generating enough revenue to pay for themselves.  I just don't think anyone would pay to see a film about one of the worst managed and horribly botched public works projects of all time. Where are the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's priorities?  JEFF HARRIS  San Francisco -----------------------------------------------  'Goodbye, Cindy Sheehan'  Editor -- Goodbye, Cindy Sheehan.We all know you hate America. You are not a Gold Star mom, but an embarrassment and a traitor. You'll hug a thug such as Venezuela President Hugo Chavez and put down your own president, calling him ""worse than Osama bin Laden.''  I have no pity for you. Your brave son and other soldiers, who gave all for their country, are rolling over in their graves for giving you the freedom you enjoy today in this great country. You should be ashamed of yourself.  STEVE GORNALL  San Francisco  -- -- --  Editor -- I was amazed at the amount of hate and resentment in Cindy Sheehan's ""Goodbye, America'' piece (Open Forum, May 31). She confirmed my suspicions that the peace movement is motivated primarily by hate.  PETER AIELLO  Oakland  -- -- --  Editor -- Cindy Sheehan's essay, ""Goodbye, America,"" is one more in-your-face proclamation of dismay, disappointment and despair over the seeming demise of our belief in a true democracy for these United States.  Many have called Sheehan a tool of the anti-war movement, an ""attention whore."" Her life has been threatened because she has found this unprovoked war a political dance without honor.  Sheehan's son, killed in Iraq, remains the heart and soul of her opposition to this unwinnable war; to a president who does not listen to ""we, the people,"" and to a country, ours, which tunes in on TV shows without any semblance of intelligence or purpose, but who can't find the time to vote.  Please, what have the thousands of our young troops died for, why are thousands more civilians dying in their own lands? Where are we going? What are our aims in this divided world? How can we find peace again?  TRISH HOOPER  Portola Valley GRAPHIC; Caption: PHOTO: Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan holds a picture of her son, Casey, who was killed in Iraq in 2004. / Lacy Atkins / The Chronicle February 2006, GRAPHIC: / Margaret Scott / NewsArt.com"
"2","READER FORUM NSL0000020070601e36100011 EDITORIAL STAR-LEDGER STAFF 1305 Words 01 June 2007 The Star-Ledger FINAL 18 English (c) 2007 The Star-Ledger. All rights reserved.  Ignoring enforcement Your editorial praising the immigration reform bill ignores the most important element of the problem: enforcement. We have immigration laws now that are not being enforced. We have a bureaucracy that is incapable of keeping track of illegals already here. We have borders that are not secure. We have an economy that turns a blind eye to the situation because it is profitable to do so. What makes you or anyone think that passing thousands of pages of ridiculously complex new laws will change the situation? What is the incentive for illegal immigrants to voluntarily submit to more onerous provisions when they're already successfully ignoring laws?  At best, this legislation represents little more than election-season political posturing. At worst, it will create an even more expensive, even more bloated bureaucracy that will do more of what it's already doing, which is not much.  - Andrew Samet, Roselle Park  Assault on workers The Senate is sacrificing American workers for corporate contributions, not trying to pass immigration legislation. Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez are doing nothing to stop this is blatant anti-labor, pro-business legislation. Senators are devising an employment plan using a global work force to further depress American wages and replace Americans receiving benefits deemed too costly by companies. Cheap labor could be both in-sourced and outsourced.  The government elected by Americans is waging economic class warfare against its own people. Amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal workers and employment for hundreds of thousand of foreign workers through new visas and a ""temporary"" guest worker program would devastate the American work force. Offers of benefits to attract workers will end. Employers will decide what a job pays regardless of the worker's skill or experience. Employees will have no bargaining rights. This is a race to the bottom. Depriving workers of enough monetary means for upward mobility would have catastrophic ramifications for America. Americans must contact their senators or the Senate will legislate millions of Americans into the poverty of Third World workers.  - Florence Davis, Hackettstown  No easy answers Unlike most who write, I don't have the answers - as I'm still troubled formulating the questions.  When my parents and I arrived on these blessed shores, we weren't immigrants - we were refugees. And we tried hard to learn the language and to make a positive impact in our new home.  Many of my neighbors are new to this country. They, too, are trying to make lives for themselves. Yes, it's likely that some may be here in violation of immigration laws.  How do we maintain our historic position as a welcoming land of opportunity and at the same time protect ourselves from terrorists who apparently fit in as ordinary Joes? Locking the door may not be effective, and it's possibly too late. And no rational solution will be couched in extreme terms. Nonetheless, we need an answer. Now.  - Carl Singer, Passaic  Misleading picture Your May 23 headline ""Survey finds U.S. Muslims contented"" is a classic example of a liberal newspaper deciding what we should and should not know. In the first few paragraphs about the Pew Research poll, we read how happy and assimilated American Muslims are. However, we have to read through to the end to learn that only 69 percent of Muslims 18 to 29 years old believe that suicide bombing is never justified. That means 31 percent of young Muslims are either fine with it or not sure.  Worse yet, you omitted the fact that the Pew poll found that 68 percent of U.S. Muslims viewed al Qaeda unfavorably; 32 percent viewed al Qaeda favorably or refused to answer. These are scary numbers, but you chose to whitewash them. Can you picture The Star-Ledger's headline if a poll showed similar views by whites about the Ku Klux Klan?  - Lawrence Frum, Clark  Economic opportunity Alan Blinder (""An ocean of trouble in offshoring,"" May 17) cites certain jobs that cannot be outsourced. Not included in his list are jobs that would be generated by promoting environmental progress. For example, installers of solar panels as well as contractors who do efficiency retrofits cannot be outsourced. New Jersey enjoys the fastest-growing solar energy industry in the country. We should increase the incentives that have given rise to this impressive growth - especially since greater use of solar reduces expensive peak energy demand for all ratepayers.  Also, if we were to make drivers pay their way (as opposed to subsidizing driving through our tax dollars), entrepreneurs would offer innovative types of van services - and the drivers of the vans could not be outsourced.  Energy imports constitute 34 percent of our merchandise trade deficit. If we were to promote efficiency, dollars spent abroad would be diverted to American businesses and workers. From an economic point of view, environmental progress is clearly ""convenient"" on several counts.  - Dan Aronson, Somerville  Protecting jobs Alan Blinder's May 17 article correctly identifies the significant threat to the American economy from the outsourcing of service jobs to low-wage countries. But I take issue with his contention that the only solution to offset the potential loss of 30 million to 40 million of these jobs is to grow the U.S. economy and create jobs that are non-offshorable. The professor feels that ""trade protection won't work,"" apparently even to lessen the potential loss of those 30 million to 40 million jobs until they can be replaced by his new, comparable stay-at-home ones.  - John Shackelford, Mountainside  Convert to activism Recently I viewed the Oscar-winning documentary ""An Inconvenient Truth,"" which depicts in graphic color scenes just what's happening with global warming. A picture is worth a thousand words. The startling images shocked me. If you have not seen this film, I suggest you borrow it from your library, rent or buy it. After viewing this picture, I was charged to become an active proponent in the fight against global warming. The survival of the species and the planet as we know it depends on doing something immediately about the problem.  Why should you become involved? There are two main reasons. First, God created this planet and made us its caretakers for him. We are doing a poor job when statistics show that the U.S. has 5 percent of the world's population but is responsible for almost 25 percent of industrial emissions. It is incumbent on us to reverse this trend. Thus you now see religious groups getting active in the global fight. Second, for the sake of our children and their children, we need to do all we can to solve the problem.  - Joe Kmet, Raritan  What made the terrorists tick Ron Paul's statement during the recent Republican presidential debate concerning the motivation of the 9/11 terrorists has elicited derision from many parts of the political spectrum. It astonishes me that now, 5 1/2 years after the 9/11 attacks, many Americans, particularly our political leaders, cannot admit that the government's foreign policies contributed to the motivations behind those attacks.  To deny this is either ignorance, stupidity or blind obedience to political dogma. To admit it does not justify the attacks. It merely gets to the root of the motive. It would not demean the victims or the heroism of rescue efforts but merely open a much-needed dialogue on the effects of our government's actions in our name.  Paul deserves credit for speaking the truth, knowing he was opening himself up to attack. His participation in these debates has made them significantly more interesting by raising ideas not typically discussed in this political environment. Whether you agree with him or not, his ideas deserve discussion.- John Seel, Belividere"
"4","Don't forget asylum-seekers DN00000020070602e3620000w Deseret Morning News editorial 406 Words 02 June 2007 Deseret Morning News A10 English (c) 2007 Deseret News Publishing Co.  The Senate immigration bill is a good compromise to a difficult situation, but there are parts of that need tweaking. Specifically, the United States needs to make sure it protects legitimate asylum-seekers who's lives would be in jeopardy were they forced to return to their homelands.  In an op-ed published this week in the Washington Post, the director of Georgetown University's asylum law clinic notes that the bill would make it a felony, with a possible 15-year prison sentence, to knowingly use a false passport to enter the country. In most cases, this is entirely appropriate. But, the Georgetown director notes, many people who are being persecuted for religious or political reasons have little choice but to acquire a false passport in order to leave home.  Asylum is a little scrutinized part of the immigration system. The New York Times reported this week on a study by three law professors that shows a wide discrepancy in who gets asylum and who gets sent home. In many cases this seems to depend on the judge who hears the case. For example, some judges scrutinized in the study granted asylum to 88 percent of Colombians who asked for it, while another judge in the same court granted asylum to only 5 percent.  Those results have taken on an added urgency in light of testimony by Monica Goodling, a former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. She admitted she ""crossed the line"" when it came to making political decisions in the hiring of nonpartisan personnel within the Justice Department. The attorney general's office appoints immigration judges.  But the biggest factor in erratic asylum decisions may be the overburdened workload of immigration judges -- a workload that only will increase if the immigration compromise becomes law.  The United States will consider granting asylum to people who reach the United States from countries with repressive regimes. Most come from one of 15 countries, which, in addition to Colombia, include China, Haiti, Russia and Albania. The applicants must demonstrate convincingly that they will face reprisals if forced to return to their homes, but often they have little tangible evidence to offer other than their own testimony.  The granting of asylum fulfills one of this nation's traditional roles as a place of refuge for the world's oppressed and downtrodden. Washington can't afford to ignore this role."
"2","READER FORUM NSL0000020070602e3620004p EDITORIAL STAR-LEDGER STAFF 1321 Words 02 June 2007 The Star-Ledger FINAL 8 English (c) 2007 The Star-Ledger. All rights reserved.  Not our responsibility I can certainly appreciate the fact that people are seeking a better life. People in any nation, not just our immediate neighbors, are entitled to a better life. They need, however, to make a better life within their own nations. This might involve reducing corruption, rampant in many societies, developing entrepreneurial skills or other factors. The United States cannot be responsible for creating a better life for people anywhere in the world who seek one. Let's hope and expect that people can work with their own governments and communities to create the better conditions they are seeking.  - Ellen Rubin, Parsippany  De facto amnesty At first I thought the Senate immigration bill sounded pretty good, but the more I read about it, the less I like it. There should be a drop-dead date in the bill after which anyone who entered the country illegally would be automatically deported. This date should be made retroactive to at least five years and maybe 10 years back.  The provision for class Z visas is something of a joke. Illegals will no longer be illegal but will be allowed to remain here so long as they renew their visas. This is de facto amnesty, which would create a permanent underclass. What will this provision cost taxpayers by the way? And what of illegals who can't or won't get the visas? Will they be deported?  The class Z visas should last for five years. When the five years are up, the illegal goes home. Once home, he can get in line and apply to re-enter this country legally like any other law-abiding citizen in his homeland.  - Paul A. Trouve, Montague  A country in crisis Wall Street says things are just great. The Dow keeps climbing, and brokerage firms and investment banks are drowning in dough.  If things are so good, why can't America find the estimated $700 billion to $1 trillion to fix our crumbling roads and bridges?  Wages are virtually flat, and tens of thousands are being laid off. That's prosperity? Maybe for the paper-shuffling vultures on Wall Street.  America has 12 million to 20 million mostly illiterate and unskilled border crashers working for under-the-table slave wages and living 10 to a room. Some call that pursuing the American dream. It's more like a nightmare.  A recent report by a group of doctors urged that we stop calling the American health care system the best in the world because it isn't anymore. In some respects, it ranks with the Third World but not when it comes to paying for it.  None of the presidential hopefuls seems able to muster the courage to get specific about America's decline and how to fix it. What would happen if no one voted and we denied these political lightweights legitimacy? I bet we'd get some action.  - Carl Kettler, Raritan Township  The costs of warming It seems that to be a conservative like Paul Mulshine, you must be concerned only about how much something will cost in the short term. If the sticker shock of preventing global warming upsets conservatives now, wait until they see the bill in the near future. How would Mulshine feel about paying $10 for a loaf of bread, $20 for a head of lettuce or $100 for a bottle of water? One of the consequences of global warming is rapid water evaporation. This evaporation will lead to droughts, raising the price of food and water.  More devastating would be the combined effects of rising ocean levels and erratic weather due to global warming and melting polar ice caps. A majority of scientists predict that if the effects of global warming continue, major American cities will suffer an even worse fate than New Orleans. Yes, solving the problems of global warming now will be costly, but has Mulshine considered the long-term cost of losing Lower Manhattan, the San Fransisco Bay area, southern Florida and the Outer Banks of North Carolina to a combination of rising ocean levels and a really strong nor'easter, hurricane or tsunami?  - Mitch Friedman, Freehold  Unfounded criticism Paul Mulshine's May 18 attack on President Bush is wildly off the mark. Every American president from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson (who sent the Marines to Africa) to Abraham Lincoln to William McKinley (who invaded Cuba and the Philippines) to Mulshine's favorite, Ronald Reagan, has been an expansionist interventionist.  The bombing of Iraq was one of an endless list of grievances that Osama bin Laden had against Western ""imperialism,"" stretching back more than 500 years to the expulsion of Muslims from Spain. Rudy Giuliani's rebuke of Rep. Ron Paul was well received by a roomful of true Republicans. The rubes were home watching ""American Idol.""  - Richard Goldstein, Somerset  Tainted by their ties John Farmer laments the fact that Tony Blair exits office with an unfairly tarnished reputation because of his association with President Bush. John McCain has gone from one of America's favorite politicians to 20 points behind Rudy Giuliani because of his association with Bush. Colin Powell was once one of the most admired people in America, but he, too, has suffered because of his association with Bush. This reminds me of the old saying ""If you lie down with dogs, you'll get up with fleas.""  - John O'Connor, Cedar Grove  Worst ever? Our country's ""best ex-president,"" Jimmy Carter, recently said that the Bush administration has been ""the worst in history."" I'm sure Carter meant to say ""the worst administration in history since mine.""  - Henry C. Cleffi, Dover  Bogus college ratings Thank you for publishing the essay by Patricia McGuire regarding U.S. News & World Report's ""Best Colleges"" issue.  Recently I was looking at this magazine trying to figure out what the best graduate school would be for my area of interest. I wondered how the magazine evaluated the programs. I discovered that it used opinions gathered from a survey. I was horrified that this was how U.S. News gathered its data and decided never buy or look at this issue again.  I was excited to see McGuire's essay and glad to know that there are people like her who want people to know what a bunch of junk ""Best Colleges"" is. I hope people who might buy this magazine take the time to read how the information is gathered and decide against buying it. As McGuire advised, take the time to visit the school, stay the night, meet the faculty and talk to the students.  - Shannon Green, Kinnelon  An author's fictitious history In her May 18 column, ""Literary lion still roaring and rolling,"" Liz Smith quotes Norman Mailer's views on Christianity and his twisted belief that misguided Christianity (not poor communism, that misunderstood form of totalitarian government) caused the Vietnam War.  My guess is that Smith is in line with Mailer or she wouldn't be giving his outdated writings the publicity she provided without countering them in some form. In fact, she says his views are ""comforting"" and compares them to a ""lion's roar."" I didn't think there were any of these '60s-type liberals left, but perhaps with the big swing to the left in Congress, they are coming out of their hiding spaces.  Mailer seems like a lost soul, so I have no advice for him. But I would recommend that Smith read history and learn about the horrors that communism has perpetrated on millions of human beings. See what Lenin and Marx started, how Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot tortured, starved and murdered millions of millions of innocent men, women and children.  If after reading these accounts, Smith can still praise Mailer's writings, I would say she is a lost soul, too.- Richard J. Santo Jr., Manalapan"
"2","LETTERS, FAXES & E-MAIL STJR000020070604e3620005y EDITORIAL 2159 Words 02 June 2007 The State Journal-Register 8 English � 2007 The State Journal-Register. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Springfield casino would be plus on couple fronts  Politicians in the past have complained there is nothing to do in Springfield but eat, drink and chase members of the opposite or same sex, whichever is applicable. This is the most salient argument for bringing a casino to Springfield.  Gambling could be added to the above to give politicians something to do during their rare recreational periods and the gambling industry could have some of the $19 million given to politicians during the last election recouped.  Bill Klein  Springfield  Who made all this bad stuff possible? Us!  Who is it who gave us terrorism, failed us and let millions of illegal ""aliens"" into this country? Who wants to ignore the immigration laws, reward the lawbreakers with citizenship and give them the same voice as law-abiding citizens?  Who gave us Social Security and then spent the money on pork to enhance their chances to be re-elected? Who gave us dependency on foreign oil? Who gave us an unmanageable income tax system that is frequently used for social engineering? Who gave us a public education system that by most standards is pathetic when compared to other countries?  Who came to serve but then gave themselves a benefit package that is far superior to what the vast majority of Americans have? Who politicized the judicial branch of our government? Who promises us what we want and then ignores their values when they get to Washington? Who gave us tens of thousands of lobbyists in Washington?  Here in Springfield, we get much of the same. Currently, our elected officials are planning to expand gambling in order to obtain revenue to feed their insatiable appetites to spend; it seems there is no end to the reprehensible schemes of those we elect to ""represent"" us. Can anyone believe the Founders envisioned what Americans now accept as normal?  Who is it? In the end, it is us! For those of us who have ever voted for someone seeking more than one term, it is clear that we see either a nave or greedy fool looking back at us when we look in the mirror.  Bob Ruble  Springfield  Legion will invite whoever it pleases  This is in response to the letter Tuesday from Tom Taylor about Springfield American Legion Post 809's hosting of Sen. Dick Durbin on May 25.  I am not speaking for the post, but as a ""paid-up for life"" member of 33 years, a past commander of 10 years, a past 21st District commander and a past Fourth Division chaplain.  What business is it of yours, Mr. Taylor, who we host? We are a private organization and have the right to conduct business and social affairs as we see fit. We can invite whomever we wish, sir - and we do so with the approval of our boards and often at the request of community members who are comprised of our customers, families, friends and associates.  You worry about your house. We are well able to take care or ours.  George Alexander  Springfield  Bigotry has a long tradition in this country  Conservatives are all about maintaining America's traditional family values. And what could be more traditional than bigotry? It's a custom that we're proud to bring with us into the 21st century.  Why, just this year the Oregon Republican Party platform officially supported a movement to deny citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants and legal immigrants who are not citizens. That would directly contradict the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states that ""all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.""  You have to go back to the 1960s to find better examples of race- baiting and political pandering for votes! It's enough to swell a real American's heart with pride.  Robert L. Carnduff  Springfield  U.S. should be using its psychotronic weapons  The mind has no firewall. We need to demand an accountability from the president and Congress: Why have you allowed 3,400-plus American soldiers to die needlessly in Iraq when this war can be fought at a distance using our satellites broadcasting nonlethal subliminal messages that target the enemy's minds and nervous systems?  Not one American soldier needed to have died in Iraq - nor in Afghanistan - with this technology of brain manipulation to control human behavior that exists within America's arsenal - psychotronic weapons. This ""psyops"" technology was used in Desert Storm, causing the enemy to surrender in droves to American forces. It was also used in Haiti, with congressional approval, to influence votes to elect the pro-American candidate.  Informational weapon/informational war - the mind has no firewall. America possesses the weapons technology to entrain the minds of the whole Middle East via satellite delivery system into socially acceptable behavior, creating regional stability and harmony. As well, not one civilian need die by application of America's nonlethal psychotronic weapons arsenal.  So, Mr. President and the Congress, why are you in the business of ""killing fields"" when you know not one American soldier, not any civilians, need die with the existence of this technology and you're not using it? You owe your constituents an accountability. And apparently you all are ignorant of ""The Art of War"" by Chinese Gen. Sun Tzu, circa 500 B.C.  Gregory Thompson  Jacksonville  Police officers should pay for their lawyers  Conflict of interest - the circumstance of a public officeholder, business executive or the like whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence.  How could corporation counsel Jenifer Johnson representing officers Paul Carpenter, Jim Graham and Rickey Davis be a conflict of interest? She is the lawyer hired to represent the city. Police officers are employees of the city. Even if these officers are no longer employed by the city, what they are accused of happened while they were employed by Springfield.  I do not want my taxes used to pay for outside attorneys to represent them. I don't believe the city council has the authority to authorize that payment. Why have a corporation counsel and seven assistant city attorneys if they cannot do the job they are being paid to do? The officers in question should have to pay for their legal representation.  Carline Curtis  Springfield  Alfred Dixon was a kind, compassionate person  My law office is next door to McDonald's on Fifth Street. I had the pleasure of knowing Alfred Dixon.  During the summer months, Alfred would be outside cleaning and mowing the McDonald's parking lot. I am in a wheelchair and whenever he saw me, he was always friendly and inquired whether I needed any assistance.  In the winter months when he was clearing the snow in the McDonald's area, he would make sure my sidewalk was cleared and actually help me to get into my office. He did this on more than one occasion. He was always willing to help in any situation.  He was murdered when walking to work early in the morning as he passed our office. He was a kind and compassionate person. He will be deeply missed.  Matthew Maurer  Springfield  It wouldn't hurt for us to re-examine our lifestyles  Your editorial last Monday titled ""More and bigger is not always better"" was an excellent portrayal of many of today's lifestyles.  In recent weeks, my wife and I have been sorting through her parents' estate. They were a product of the Depression era and wasted nothing. It did take a fair-sized home and garage to store all the stuff they believed they might need someday. They certainly did not waste any money. In short, they were wonderful parents.  On the other side of the equation, I see many young people throw away most everything and waste money like there is no tomorrow. Many waste opportunity after opportunity and only work when they feel like it. They make their parents and grandparents look like faithful stewards.  Thankfully, others make their parents proud. Then there is our generation - the baby boomers. We throw away a few more things. We don't save all our money for the ""rainy day,"" but we worked hard and saved too. Most think they are not too wasteful. Wasteful is a relative term. We do like big houses and big cars.  I know of many empty nesters and retirees who live in a 3,000- or 4,000-square-foot house with four baths. Hey, we've got to have room for our stuff and our parents' stuff, and we need the baths and bedrooms when the kids come home once every year or two. Grown children sometimes come back home to live and bring grandchildren and one has to have space, just in case.  Truthfully, many of us do need to reexamine our lifestyles. Perhaps we really don't need the gas hog SUV and maybe 1,500 square feet with two baths will be enough if the kids come home for a visit next year.  Jim Kinley  Springfield  Obama's foreign, military policy ideas disappoint  Barack Obama just published a long article in Foreign Affairs magazine about his vision for American foreign and military policy. Though I agree with some of Obama's points, I was terribly disappointed with what he did not say.  Not a word about the obligation to adhere to international law or the illegality of preventive wars. Not a word about cutting our $700 billion-per-year Pentagon budget or even opening up the Pentagon's $30 billion secret ""black budget"" to congressional review.  Not a word about closing some of our 737 acknowledged overseas military bases that so antagonize the rest of the world. Not a word about the Geneva Conventions. Not a word about joining the international consensus to ban land mines, depleted uranium munitions and phosphorus bombs, which wreak such havoc on civilian populations.  Not a word about insisting that recipients of U.S. military aid, such as Israel and Colombia, adhere to human rights standards.  It is too bad.  I remember being so impressed with Obama when he was a long-shot candidate for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. I think he has sold out.  Rob Markfield  Springfield  Those killed by smoking should pay one final tax  With smokers being the new evil people in our world - thank you for smoking and paying a lot of taxes, by the way - I have just one more thought four the leaders of our state. At this point, we know smoking kills. Smokers' bodies become a hazardous waste site.  The state of Illinois could and should tax those people who die from smoking no less then $10,000 to be buried or turned into ash - hazardous waste prices. In this way, the state could raise large amounts of money from the dead smokers to help pay off the state's debts.  This is a new source of revenue to pay for lots of stuff. Ten million dollars could be raised with just the death of 1,000 smokers. And 11,000 people die from smoking daily. Do the math, Democratic leaders. The state of Illinois would have all the money to do whatever your heart desires.  Could you please fix the loopholes for high gas and electric prices - NOW.  Mark Camper  Virden  Wild hogs virtually impossible to control  In response to M.S. Butler's letter Thursday regarding the ""Celebration over killing of Hogzilla"": My first response was that perhaps we should concern ourselves with more worthy types of killings, such as abortion or the recent murders in Springfield.  Nonetheless, I'll stick to the original intent of my response. I'm not sure what creatures Butler is referring to as nearing extinction? Don't take my word for it. A quick search on Google will reveal the truth. Every state or region that has introduced wild hogs has quickly found that they can neither control nor stabilize their numbers through hunting means, solely.  Butler speaks of ""the exploitation of the natural world that will degrade our environment."" Give me a break! Perhaps we should have thought about that before we urbanized and cleared every patch of woods possible for commercial and residential ""needs"" - then took it upon ourselves to decide which natural predators were unsavory and needed to be removed.  Hunting these days allows the preservation of what little natural habit remains, as well as the regulation of game animals, not bald eagles or panda bears. Who knows how many hundreds of endangered plants Hogzilla consumed in his lifetime before he became table fare?  Dan Beams  New Berlin  Hard to believe  To the person who stole the Marine flag from my brother's grave at Camp Butler National Cemetery: You must be very proud.  Ken Martin  Springfield Caption: Dixon"
"2","Readers' forum CGAZ000020070621e36k0008k 459 Words 20 June 2007 Charleston Gazette P5A English (Copyright 2007)  Preventing illnesses an idea worth funding  Editor:  Columns by state Sen. Dan Foster and advocate Perry Bryant in the Sunday Gazette-Mail are correct views on improving health care and reducing costs for the future of West Virginia. Their plans are on the right track in many ways, but all state leaders need to take one aspect of health care much more seriously: Prevention.  Dr. Foster alludes to this in his opinion, and the plan Bryant touts specifically addresses the need for more proven, effective, state-funded prevention efforts. As the West Virginians for Affordable Health Care proposal correctly suggests: ""The first step in controlling health-care costs is preventing illness and injury whenever possible. A prime example is tobacco-related illnesses.""  Smoking-related health care and occupational costs in West Virginia total around $2 billion annually. One in every five West Virginia deaths is related to smoking. Increasing the price of tobacco products will not only help people quit and keep many youths from starting, but will also generate millions in additional state revenue. The governor, Legislature and all health advocates throughout the state need to get behind dedicating state funds to already established prevention programs.  Bruce W. Adkins  Nitro  Immigration bill full of pork, problems  Editor:  President Bush and his advisers are once again showing their lack of intellect. Bush went to Congress to jump-start the illegal immigration bill buried in the Senate. This immigration bill is 350 pages long with at least 50 projects of pork for each state - and amnesty to the illegal aliens - and conflicting laws in its many pages.  The pork portion rewards 50 senators who need another library or something equally important. Conflicts in the 350 pages mean that judges will have the power to legislate from the bench and water down the law.  As for illegal immigrants getting amnesty, this means breaking the law is constitutional and the terrorists already here now have citizenship. Terrorists will love Bush and whoever we have sent to Congress who votes for this bill. If and when we catch a terrorist, he is now a citizen and under the protection of the U.S. Constitution. Personally, I would rather send the terrorist back to whatever country he came from. How in the world did we elect so many dysfunctional people to Congress and the presidency?  Duane D. Borchers Sr.  Craigsville  Challenge of GED shown in exam  Editor:  Three cheers for West Virginia's new GED grads.  If you doubt the challenge they have met, find the trial version of the GED exam online and take it. I did just that several years ago, and found new respect for those who choose this means of earning a high school diploma.  Jerry Beasley  Athens"
"3","THE ISSUE: REPUBLICAN STAND ON IMMIGRATION PHX0000020070604e3630003w Opinions 1080 Words 03 June 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser V4 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  The fierce debate over federal immigration reform has produced more than a few strange bedfellows.  Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer in fundamental agreement with Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona over the urgency of border security, for one example. For another, still starker, example: GOP Sen. Jon Kyl and Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy acting in congruence on behalf of their Bible-sized immigration-reform legislation.  But immigration reform today is not defined by alliances, however odd, but by combat, to crib the president's word for it.  Carrying the biblical imagery forward, the Republican Party is split asunder over immigration. Some smart observers -- columnist John Podhoretz, for one -- see the ferocity of the immigration argument as a proxy for the GOP's real overarching woe, the Iraq war.  But the spectacle of a party that seems to be tearing itself to pieces over immigration is too bitter, too unprecedented, to dismiss as blowback from any other issue. It is a spectacle unto itself.  The conservative blogosphere and talk radio, led by Rush Limbaugh, are on fire against the 380-page Senate reform bill. And the focus of their ire is far less the Democratic majority in the Senate, than it is the alleged traitors in their own midst: Kyl, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and, of course, President Bush.  For decades, the twin peaks of conservative intellectual debate have been the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and National Review. Over those years, it has not been uncommon for conservative thinkers in one publication to disagree, even vehemently, with their mostly like-minded kin in the other. But never before has a dispute degenerated into a street fight. We're seeing one now.  In a recently televised editorial board meeting, WSJ's editorial page editor Paul Gigot remarked on immigration reform that he was amazed at ""the degree to which the right isn't even rational about this any more."" The phrase ""foaming at the mouth"" came up.  As one of the leading voices against the proposed legislation, the National Review editors took the criticism personally, and challenged Gigot, et al, to a public rumble ... er, debate. It hasn't happened yet. The knives remain sheathed, but ready.  More seriously, the particular merits and drawbacks of this vast immigration proposal are being lost among Republicans in a wave of real invective.  Among GOP opponents, condemnation of bill supporters as ""sellouts"" to the Democrats, and even ""traitors"" to the conservative ethos, has become common.  In terms of support for the Bush administration, the immigration debate is driving the president's exasperated former supporters toward the exits. Columnist (and former Ronald Reagan speechwriter) Peggy Noonan blames Bush (and his father, to boot) for squandering the Reagan legacy, among other sins.  ""(T)he Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance,"" wrote Noonan.  On the pro-side, the rhetoric is getting personal. And vicious. Graham infamously declared that ""we're gonna tell the bigots to shut up."" And former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson denigrated conservative opponents as ""anti-immigrant"" and motivated by rage and ""national chauvinism."" Bush himself has suggested that anti-Hispanic prejudice may be at the heart of the issue for some opponents.  Fierce ... divisive ... destructive. Can a party -- or for that matter, conservatism generally -- survive this debate? Can they survive George Bush?  The short and self-evident answer is that of course they can. As conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg often observes, cantankerous divisions within a party are wildly undervalued as sign of health. Lockstep agreement on big issues can make a political party stale.  So is there value in the GOP's virulent war within itself over immigration? That depends on what comes of this fight.  It is no surprise that Republicans are peeling away from a major piece of legislation advocated by President Bush. In that sense, Podhoretz is right. Bush's hamstrung administration is so hobbled by scandal and war that it is becoming an easy matter for party faithful to abandon him.  But Bush's preference for immigration reform did not pop out of the ground yesterday. He has advocated essentially this legislation for years, and for lawmakers to pretend they are shocked -- shocked! -- at what it includes is less a matter of debate than of abdication. They are running from the field.  If the Bush administration has abandoned small-government GOP principles these six-plus years, the incipient presidential-contest season is a good time to revive them. If it has squandered the Reagan legacy, it is a good time to revive that too.  But it decidedly is not a good time to allow a critical issue like immigration to be swamped in vicious, personal rhetoric and bitterness over a stumbling administration.  There are ways to argue out immigration reform. And ways not to. The GOP best get to fighting fair and leave the street-fighting to others.  \  ""I have learned some new words from some of my constituents."" -- Sen. Jon Kyl R-Arizona  \  ""Immigration provides a convenient forum for combat."" -- President Bush to the Wall Street Journal  \  ""(They) don't want to do what's right for America."" -- President Bush  On opponents of the immigration reform bill  \  ""I will never vote for another Bush!"" -- Letter on conservative Lucianne.com Web site  \  For the last six years I have daily lunched with my law partners, all of whom are partisan Democrats. I have argued about and defended President Bush for those six years besides voting for the man twice. I've vigorously defended the president, especially his handling of the war on terror, and I've proudly taken all of my partners' best shots about what a lying, incompetent we have for a president. And then yesterday I learn that the president thinks I don't want what's best for America simply because I oppose rewarding illegal aliens with an opportunity to remain legally in this country. -- Letter to 'National Review Online' blogger David Frum  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: Support for President Bush on immigration is vanishing within his own party, and unnecessarily so."
"1","Editorials from throughout Pennsylvania APRS000020070603e363002bk 1260 Words 03 June 2007 08:02 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  HONOR THEIR SACRIFICE, COURAGE  Here at home, we Americans were embroiled in controversy Memorial Day weekend: Should U.S. troops continue to fight and die in Iraq? Are they being used effectively in Afghanistan?  Even as that controversy grows stronger and, yes, more bitter each day, the troops go about their duties. They seek out Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan. They search for al-Qaida operatives in Iraq.  And in the course of those missions, some of them die. We hope it won't be the case, but there is the chance that on this very day, as our nation pays homage to its fallen servicemen and women, more will join the ranks of our honored dead.  For those in uniform, there is no controversy, only the knowledge that they have been called upon to serve their fellow Americans in dangerous, faraway places and the determination to do so to the very best of their abilities.  While we at home argue about how the war is being waged or, sometimes, about whether our soldiers, sailors, aviators and Marines should be in it at all, they do battle for us. Their priorities are their country and their comrades in arms who need them.  On Memorial Day, Americans paused to honor the men and women who have given their lives for their country -- for each and every one of us. We think of the sacrifices they made, simply because they were asked to serve.  We think of their selfless courage and their dedicated patriotism. Often, we stop to ponder just how much we as a nation have lost because they, our very best, never came home.  And we thank God for them -- for men and women to whom Duty, Honor and Country are words spelled with capital letters. Our fervent prayer on Memorial Day was that God will watch over those who continue to serve us. As we ask that, we add a heartfelt prayer of thanksgiving for those already in his keeping.  --The (Altoona) Mirror  STATE LEGISLATORS SHOULD HEED WARNINGS, GIVE LOCAL AMBULANCE COMPANIES CPR  Within the space of three months this spring, several nonprofit ambulance organizations throughout the region revealed a serious need for financial resuscitation. In March, Perkasie Community Ambulance in Bucks County shut down when its financial and management problems proved insurmountable.  Also in March, Jim Thorpe Emergency Medical Service in Carbon County consolidated with nearby Lehighton Ambulance after a period of difficulty in raising money and recruiting volunteers. Supervisors in Upper Saucon Township announced plans to merge ambulance services in Upper Saucon, Lower Milford and Coopersburg to reduce costs.  In April, the Williams Township Emergency Squad in Northampton County announced it will close by June 30, due to a lack of volunteers. Then this month, the Dublin Regional EMS in Upper Bucks closed for financial reasons not long after it was evicted from its headquarters. A chart published with a story Monday cited a number of other ambulance companies throughout this region that have dealt with financial problems and insufficient volunteer recruitments dating to 2001.  Momentum is growing for changes in the way emergency services are funded in this state -- so much so, U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Bucks, held a hearing at Delaware Valley College in Doylestown Township. Many people don't understand that the closest ambulance services to their homes aren't affiliated with local fire departments. Municipalities spend a considerable amount of money on fire and police departments, but state laws don't require them to provide funds for ambulance crews.  The amount of work they do, however, is tremendous. There are nearly 1,000 licensed organizations that treat 1.6 million patients annually. But closings and mergers obviously would mean longer response times, and worse.  How long would it take an ambulance to reach your home? With each passing year, the answer to that question could be more troublesome as financial woes leave more ambulance services with no other options than to close or merge, if they are to stay in operation.  In 2004, a state Senate Commission called for a change in the state borough and municipal codes and Pennsylvania manual so that ""emergency medical services"" would become part of a list of services that municipalities are required to provide.  The Legislature needs to address the issues that have an impact on emergency services. For example, medical insurance reimbursement checks are sent to patients, who then are supposed to forward the money to the ambulance squads. It is easy to see why ambulance services would prefer a law requiring insurance companies to send reimbursements directly to ambulance companies. It's long past time to give ambulance crews CPR.  --The (Allentown) Morning Call  2007 FARM BILL: CULTIVATING SANER POLICY  Congress isn't very good at big bills -- those phone-book-sized proposals to transform policy on energy, transportation, immigration or Social Security. It's especially tough when new thinking is required.  In complex bills, everybody wants something. Interest groups ramp up; lobbying is intense. Priorities fall victim to horsetrading. In the end, bills often are drained of meaning, and bloated fiscally. Reform hopes evaporate.  Those dangers lurk as House and Senate subcommittees craft the 2007 farm bill, which must pass by Sept. 30. Too much is at stake for Congress to revert to bad habits this time.  The farm bill covers aid to farmers, fair trade, nutrition for the poor, conservation, agricultural research, energy policy, forestry and rural development. Predictably, various interests are competing for a cut of a limited pool of money.  What's different this year is the diverse coalition of politicians, farmers, taxpayer groups, environmentalists and international nongovernmental groups jointly demanding changes to traditional farm subsidies. Ninety percent of farm-subsidy payments are channeled to growers of just five crops: wheat, rice, corn, soybeans and cotton.  That means fruit and vegetable growers in states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey and fecund California get next to nothing. Commercial farms, though just 17 percent of all farms, received 56 percent of the pot in 2004, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The system is unbalanced and unfair.  Current policy distorts international and domestic commodity prices, drives small and family farmers out of the market, favors crops of poor nutritional value, transfers billions in tax dollars to a select few producers and condones poor land use. That must change.  Over the past year, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns, a former governor of Nebraska, toured the country, listened to farmers and embraced practical reforms.  In January, initial bills focused on improving America's food supply and environmental stewardship.  But beginning work this month, the agriculture committees seem to be plodding down a conventional trail, seemingly oblivious to cries for a radical shift from the 2002 bill.  In contrast, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Reps. Ron Kind, D.-Wisc., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz, offer a sensible subsidy overhaul. Their bills replace four major subsidy programs with a ""risk-management account"" controlled by individuals to guard against steep price fluctuations. Farmers also could buy federally subsidized crop insurance.  The program would save $55 billion over 10 years, sponsors estimate. Some money would wisely go toward deficit reduction. The balance should be used to provide more food stamps, expand land conservation, research and commercialize biofuels, and shore up specialty crop markets.  This country needs better farm policy -- to provide a farmer safety net, to protect the land, to rectify international trade inequity, to feed the poor. Congress should nurture the good seeds that have been planted.  --The Philadelphia Inquirer 7"
"5","Immigration bill needs repairs BFNW000020070605e3630002x Viewpoints Murray Light SPECIAL TO THE NEWS 674 Words 03 June 2007 Buffalo News Final I3 English � 2007 Buffalo News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Will a comprehensive immigration bill crafted after prolonged debate by a bipartisan group ultimately result in final legislation? It's a question that many hope will be resolved by Congress shortly, now that the Memorial Day recess is over. The outcome is in serious doubt as lawmakers from both parties are anxious to alter the measure that emerged after many weeks of closed-door discussions among Senate leaders and two Cabinet secretaries. The measure that resulted from these talks was more than 300 pages long and is complex, showing the effects of the numerous compromises made to fashion a final proposal.  The president, who reportedly favors the compromise measure, repeatedly has said he wants an immigration law to emerge from the Congress as part of his legacy when he leaves office. Possibly, he could change his mind when the many changes in it finally emerge.  Meanwhile, the outlook for the bill in the House is certainly in doubt, with Democratic leaders in that body saying that dozens of Republican votes would be needed there for passage as the measure now stands. The Senate last week voted overwhelmingly to cut the number of foreign workers who could come to the United States on temporary visas. The controversial guest worker program would be capped at 200,000 a year under the Democratic proposal.  The Bush administration opposed that cutback from the original plan that would have provided for 400,000 visas annually, with an option to increase that number to 600,000 if warranted by market conditions. The Democrats said the temporary work program would create too large a group of second-class citizens and negatively impact the wages of Americans in some industries.  The bill as currently written would create a new immigration system that would secure our borders, provide a legal path for legitimate status for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, halt illegal immigration in the future, reduce the backlog of immigrants who have waited to settle in the United States legally and offer a temporary work force for employers in the future.  The bill would create a new kind of visa, a Z visa for immigrants who were in the United States before Jan. 1 of this year without legal papers. In a two-stage process, the former illegal immigrants, by paying fines and fees of at least $4,500, could complete their applications for the so-called Z visas. After the backlog of legal immigrants is cleared, Z visa holders could apply to become legal residents but would have to pay an additional $4,000 fee. The fines and fees, I believe, are much too high for most illegal aliens.  Another ludicrous restriction that makes no good sense at all would require applicants for permanent residence to return to their home countries. What purpose that would serve has not been adequately explained by the framers of the bill. What would this do to those from distant lands such as China?  Another aspect of the Senate compromise would set up a point system for future immigration that places less emphasis on family ties than has existed in the past. This, too, makes little good sense and is not consistent with American values. The point system would favor high-skill immigrants, but at the same time undermines the traditional family basis of our immigration system.  The proposed measure as it now stands will most certainly undergo needed changes. It would toughen our borders, create a new workplace verification system and bar undocumented workers from getting jobs. These are all pluses that hopefully will remain in the final legislation.  There's no doubt that a wide-ranging new immigration bill is needed and hopefully will succeed in getting through the Congress and win the approval of the president. But there's lots of work needed on the compromise measure, which has too many flaws. As it stands, it is not good legislation.  Murray B. Light is the former editor of The Buffalo News."
"4","EDITORIAL; A deal worth taking LVL0000020070605e3630000c H; Forum 520 Words 03 June 2007 The Courier-Journal Louisville, KY METRO 2 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Courier-Journal. All Rights Reserved.  The compromise immigration bill hammered out in the Senate late last month has drawn fire from both the hard-line right and left. That is a sign that it has at least some good features.  And indeed it does. Among them are that it acknowledges some important realities and provides a basis for action before presidential campaign demagoguery can subsume the issue next year.  There are also serious weaknesses, which could be worsened during negotiations with rigidly anti-immigrant elements in the House.  Still, any reform is apt to be a multi-step process of legislative revision over several years. It is good to get started now.  The best feature of the bill is a demanding but clear blueprint that would allow most of the 12 million illegal immigrants to remain in the country without fear of deportation and give them hope of becoming citizens eventually.  This is the part that riles the right wing ( which misleadingly howls ""amnesty""), but it is the only defensible option.  Many undocumented workers are already making contributions to the economy and their communities. The nation simply won't accept the cruel spectacle of rounding up 12 million people, many of them children and women, and forcibly expelling them.  Many liberals, for their part, are angered that some current preferences for family members of citizens and permanent residents would be eliminated in favor of new ones for educated and skilled applicants.  That criticism seems somewhat off the mark as well. It is legitimate to weigh the social needs of the United States as well as those of immigrants. Plus, purely family-based criteria end up giving preference to some immigrants whose backgrounds contain large numbers of relatives.  Yet, the bill does need more refinement. The current EB-1 visa, for example, which greases the skids for exceptionally skilled or needed ability, would be unwisely eliminated. And a provision making it a felony to try to enter the United States with an unlawful passport could shut the door on desperate immigrants fleeing political or religious persecution.  Probably the worst feature, from any perspective, is the temporary worker program, which would allow new groups of immigrants to come to this country to work for two to six years but would shut off hope of staying.  The best that can be said for this is that it's no worse than what America offers most immigrant workers now. But it still smacks far more of feudalism than of the United States.  Workers who arrive legally, do well and obey the law should certainly be eligible to pursue citizenship.  There is much else, of course, in this 380-page bill, and it will be easy to find other features to applaud or deplore.  But the compromise offers tougher border controls, enforceable immigration quotas and citizenship paths, and strict controls on employers of immigrant workers.  That is roughly the outline of what both President Bush and moderate Democrats and Republicans in Congress have said they wanted.  The Senate measure is hardly perfect, but it is an acceptable start and a deal worth taking."
"1","Legislative Leaderboard Here's our assessment of how key players, with emphasis on North Texas, performed during the 80th session of the Texas Legislature DAL0000020070603e3630000h POINTS EDITORIALS 948 Words 03 June 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 2P English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  THE BIG THREE  Gov. Rick Perry: Antagonized lawmakers early by failing to consult on broad initiatives but eventually made headway. Successes include a ballot proposal for $3 billion in cancer research, greater government transparency and protecting some private investment in toll roads. Projected broader vision.  Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst: With eyes on the 2010 governor's race, provoked some senators to complain that his agenda trumped theirs. Still, got his Senate to produce. Health care, water planning, open government, student loans - all carried the Dewhurst mark. Texans gained.  Speaker Tom Craddick: Almost became a casualty in the House's maelstrom over his autocratic style. Managed the House calendar poorly, with the crucial water bill (passed) and major TXU measure (defeated) crowded into the 11th hour. Repelled political challenges with unseemly power maneuvers. Ripe for overthrow.  THE FULLBACK  Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas: As a new committee chair, handled explosive transportation issues, including a clamor for a toll-road moratorium. Earns points for protecting North Texas projects. Resumed his key role as the Senate's lead advocate for mandatory roll-call voting in the Legislature. Provided leadership for the ill-fated quest for local-option transit elections. Led on homeland security and truck safety measures. Elected to serve as Senate president pro tem for next session. The one that got away: new resources for roadway construction.  ALL-PURPOSE PLAYER  Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas: Secured House approval of mandatory roll-call votes for the Legislature. Covered the spectrum on other solid issues, from driver tests for the elderly, to limits on credit card marketing on campus, to Internet safety classes in schools. As a member of the House budget-writing panel, helped secure resources for local universities. Was strong on the ill-fated effort for a UNT law school. Earned chairmanship of a new panel to study public ed and higher ed funding formulas.  MR. LOCAL  Rep. Fred Hill, R-Richardson: As co-chair of the Dallas-area delegation, invested maximum capital as the region's point man on the rail initiative. Pushed back hard to defeat proposed limits on tax and appraisal caps that would hurt local government. Strong on Dallas' water plan. Owing to the respect of his peers, is a legitimate candidate for House speaker for next session.  EDUCATION IMPRESARIO  Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano: Led the effort to replace the much-reviled TAKS graduation test with promising end-of-course exams, albeit with only semi-tough security provisions. Beefed up incentive pay for teachers. Passed a measure to screen out felons from teacher licensing. The one that got away: limits on galloping tuition increases for university students.  THE MEDICAL UNIT  Sens. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, and Bob Deuell, R-Greenville: Used positions on the Senate's health committee to push for controlling growth in Medicaid costs and offering uninsured Texans a better chance of getting health insurance. This should keep taxpayers from facing ballooning Medicaid costs.  THE ARTICULATOR  Rep. Rafael Anch�a, D-Dallas: Commands the microphone in the raucous House with cool and precision. Was persuasive in keeping fists from flying on immigration and explaining Dallas' water needs. Effective in rebutting the partisan clamor for stringent voter ID measures.  CHANGE AGENTS  Reps. Brian McCall, R-Plano, and Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie: Stirred the political pot early by running for speaker in a welcome challenge to Mr. Craddick's autocratic style. Extracted a pledge from Mr. Craddick to loosen the reins on House members. Legitimate candidates to succeed Mr. Craddick as speaker next session.  AIR AND WATER CAUCUS  Strong on water - Reps. Will Hartnett, R-Dallas, Jodie Laubenberg, R-Parker, with Mr. Branch, Mr. Hill and Mr. Anch�a. Major backup from Helen Giddings, D-Dallas, Jim Jackson, R-Carrollton, and Roberto Alonzo, D-Dallas. In Senate, Ms. Shapiro and Dr. Deuell.  High on better air - Freshman Rep. Allen Vaught, D-Dallas, sophomore Rep. Kirk England, R-Grand Prairie, in addition to major energy from Mr. Anch�a  HIGH MARKS  Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, for rescuing Loop 9 from the toll-road moratorium and championing a new downtown law school  Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Richardson, for the response to the Texas Youth Commission scandal and measures to divert nonviolent felons from prisons  Rep. Helen Giddings, D-Dallas, for measures on dropout prevention and school bus safety  Speaker Tom Craddick, for avoiding incendiary immigration debates (that's Washington's business)  LOW MARKS  Rep. Yvonne Davis, D-Dallas, for raising a technicality that thwarted a new downtown law school  Reps. Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, and Jodie Laubenberg, R-Parker, for badmouthing the rail initiative when it needed crucial Collin County voices  Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, for pressing the voter ID bill so hard that he and Sen. John Whitmire almost came to blows  Gov. Rick Perry, for jetting to Dubai midsession, leaving lawmakers to wonder whether to take his bills seriously  Reps. Linda Harper-Brown, R-Irving, and Terri Hodge, D-Dallas, for angry-dog approaches to legislating  Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, for only belated support for transit issue  Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, for his measure to execute sex offenders against children  BEST OF ROOKIE CLASS  Rep. Diane Patrick, R-Arlington: Gained respect among her peers for her homework and contributions on education issues PHOTO(S): 1. Rick Perry. 2. David Dewhurst. 3. Tom Craddick. 4. John Carona. 5. Dan Branch. 6. Fred Hill. 7. Florence Shapiro. 8. Jane Nelson. 9. Bob Deuell. 10. Rafael Anchia. 11. Brian McCall. 12. Jim Pitts. 13. Royce West. 14. Yvonne Davis. 15. Diane Patrick."
"5","The definition of amnesty ; The Public Pulse GRPR000020070605e3630009s Editorial Special to The Press 269 Words 03 June 2007 The Grand Rapids Press All Editions H2 English � 2007 Grand Rapids Press. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The attempts by President Bush and Congress to persuade the American public that current legislation before the Senate dealing with illegal immigration is not amnesty, falls flat on many levels. The fallacy they want to foist on us is to equate amnesty with the granting of automatic citizenship without any penalties.  That is not the proper definition of amnesty. Amnesty is not having to pay penalties for disobeying the law. I happen to know from personal experience that it's possible to enjoy almost all of the advantages of living and working in the United States without the benefits of citizenship. Illegal immigrants will basically achieve legal status once the current immigration bill passes.  Once declared legal the so called penalties Congress speaks of will not kick in until illegal immigrants want green cards or desire citizenship. If the government really wants to pass laws that are in the best interest of the country, this bill would require all illegal immigrants to pay a $5,000 fine if they do not want to be deported. That money could then be used to protect our Southern border so that a just immigration system could be established.  I also believe an overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to see babies born on U.S. soil to become American citizens unless one or both parents are either legal immigrants or U.S. citizens. Finally, in order to protect American culture, we also need to pass a law making English the official language of this country.  JOHN VanOUDHEUSDEN  Grand Rapids"
"1","Slow ascent ; Centennial year session lacked vision OKC0000020070605e36300016 OPINION OUR VIEWS 608 Words 03 June 2007 The Oklahoman CITY 16A English Copyright 2007 The Oklahoman Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.  EVERYONE got a piece of the rock, but nobody climbed to the mountaintop or even caught sight of it.  The 2007 legislative session, convening in Oklahoma's centennial year, brought forth little in the way of visionary or forward-thinking policy.  So the state's second 100 years will begin as the first ended, with politicians more interested in carving up pieces of the treasury than investing in the future.  Small advances were made, however, and this session may be noted more for what it didn't have instead of what it did. We refer to the unusual lack of rancor in the Senate, evenly split for the first time. Not once did the lieutenant governor have to break a tie. The Senate's Democratic and Republican co-leaders were on the same page on many occasions.  This was not the only new political alliance formed during the session. Gov. Brad Henry, in a sometimes petulant power trip to establish his ""relevancy,"" manned the barricades with House Democrats to stop an early budget agreement.  Henry ended the session with no continued support for his vision of a $1 billion research endowment. In league with the attorney general, trial lawyers and the state treasurer, the governor killed a vital tort reform measure. This veto may have a more profound effect on Oklahoma's future than anything our leaders accomplished this year.  We were glad to see a bill passed that will accelerate income tax cuts. The bill also expands franchise tax exemptions and establishes a back-to-school sales tax holiday. The Legislature showed some foresight by approving $15 million for the Oklahoma Centennial Commission, to help fund projects that'll serve as lasting reminders of the 100th birthday celebration.  The failure to place any additional money in the EDGE endowment was distressing. The Legislature made a $150 million deposit last year, but at this rate it's going to take a long time to reach the $1 billion goal and establish Oklahoma as the ""research capital of the Plains.""  The Corrections Department received little attention. Legislators agreed to spend $1 million on a private audit of the system, and they slightly increased the agency's budget over a year ago. However, DOC is expected to need another $40 million to get through fiscal year 2008. Meantime, a substantive, bipartisan effort to address prison crowding remains elusive.  Lawmakers appeared to do right by the science and technology agency that continues to reap remarkable results. But appearances can be deceiving. Part of the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology's increased budget will simply pass through to universities while some will help pay for a bioenergy center � a worthwhile project that should have been funded without robbing other programs.  To their credit, legislators made the state's premier scholarship program a funding priority and also made more money available for higher education to match private donations to the endowed chairs program. Teachers again got a raise, without strings attached that might require educators to prove whether they're doing a good job. At least the raises will be weighted in favor of veteran teachers.  Henry joined lawmakers in bowing to populist rhetoric over immigration instead of leaving the issue to the federal government, approving a bill that may make matters worse.  Legislative leaders, in characteristic subjective fashion, gave high marks to the session. We were not so impressed. This of all years should have been one in which the future was paramount. Instead of reaching the summit, lawmakers and the governor barely got past base camp. EDITORIAL"
"4","Stick to your (Texas) guns Our position: Congress should recognize that immigration reform has the support of voters. ORSE000020070603e3630003w EDITORIAL OPINION Sable 293 Words 03 June 2007 Orlando Sentinel FINAL A16 English Copyright 2007, Orlando Sentinel Communications. All Rights Reserved.  President George W. Bush is a tough-talking Texan when it comes to immigration reform. He recently warned demagogues to step aside and not distort the truth while the Senate tries to strike a delicate bipartisan compromise.  ""If you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people,"" he said.  Rightfully so, Mr. Bush is trying to stop political bickering that could cause the bill to implode. It's a good fight, and needs to be a fair one, for the best interests of this country.  As much as they love to scream and holler, the demagogues don't reflect the voice of America. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll strongly suggests that Americans want a pragmatic approach to immigration reform. That would not involve trying to bounce 12 million illegal immigrants out of here, as the radical fringe suggests.  Two-thirds (66 percent) favor a guest-worker program and 62 percent say that illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for at least two years should be allowed to apply for legal status.  The bill isn't perfect, but it covers the basics that need urgent attention. It will help bring millions of those undocumented workers out of the shadows, strengthen the U.S.-Mexico border, and demand more accountability from employers, among other provisions.  The strong foundation shouldn't be weakened just to get legislation passed.  Like Mr. Bush, proponents need to stick to their guns on this, and bring resolution to the chaotic mess of current immigration laws."
"5","OUR VIEWS // Border folly RVSD000020070605e36300003 EDITORIAL THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE 440 Words 03 June 2007 The Press-Enterprise D02 English � 2007 The Press-Enterprise. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Supporters of the Senate's immigration reform bill are taking the wrong approach - again. The bill's sheer size should be reason enough to kill it. Congress needs to take on immigration reform piece by piece, rather than try to address the challenge comprehensively.  Backers of S 1348 insist that the comprehensive approach is the only path to reform. ""If you want to kill the bill . . . you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people,"" President Bush said Tuesday.  What ails S 1348 is not ""one little aspect,"" but a collection of flaws. The 320-plus page bill adds up to more of the same defective policies that have undermined America's immigration system for decades. As with previous attempts to overhaul U.S. immigration laws, the bill all but guarantees another influx of illegal immigration by failing to ensure border security.  A piecemeal approach to immigration policy, beginning with border and interior enforcement, would let legislators address defects in current policy more effectively and honestly. Congress should first bolster the Border Patrol by fielding at least 20,000 new agents, which agency officials say they need to supplement the 12,000 agents now on the job. Securing the northern and southern borders, and applying consistent sanctions against employers that hire illegal immigrants, should precede a guest-worker program or discussing the fate of 12 million illegal immigrants.  Instead, the comprehensive approach lets Congress make mischief by misdirection. For example, Title I of S 1348 specifies that illegal immigrants may not receive a new ""Z"" visa until the federal government hires thousands more border agents and builds more than 300 miles of barriers along the southern U.S. border. But language 260 pages later undercuts the earlier provisions by allowing the president to waive those benchmarks.  All-encompassing solutions tend to make for bad law. Earlier comprehensive reforms are why Congress is debating immigration again this year. S 1348 would supposedly fix the unintended effects of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which overhauled the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.  Then, as now, Congress said the bills would curb illegal immigration, set up a fair guest-worker system and ensure rigorous law enforcement. After two decades of expensive failures in the service of compromise, Congress needs to adopt less ambitious, more focused legislation.  Comprehensive reform is meaningless if the federal government cannot meet the most basic responsibilities of border enforcement and national security. Better to have no reform than another comprehensive reform to shelve alongside the failures of 1986 and 1996."
"5","The fight for America's soul SFC0000020070603e3630000t EDITORIAL DEBRA J. SAUNDERS Debra J Saunders 824 Words 03 June 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL E.5 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  ""I'M DEEPLY concerned about America losing its soul. Immigration has been the lifeblood of a lot of our country's history,"" President Bush told McClatchy Newspapers in an exclusive interview last week. ""I am worried that a backlash to newcomers would cause our country to lose its great capacity to assimilate newcomers."" Bush also argued that ""a lot of this immigration debate is driven as a result of Latinos being in our country.""  I'll admit, I've read and heard some shamefully race-tinged arguments against the immigration bill before the U.S. Senate. I've also heard a lot of people who voice legitimate fears about the high- cost of illegal immigration on taxpayer-funded services, as well as how the sheer volume of (presently illegal) immigrants could sabotage their assimilation into the middle class.  I know that those who think as I do are on the losing side of history. You don't grow up in an Irish family in Massachusetts without being steeped in lessons about the hostility heaped upon Irish immigrants and the ""Irish Need Not Apply"" signs.  In two generations, Latino children will be regaled with similar tales about the evil Proposition 187 in 1994, the Minutemen of 2004 and all the other bad people who didn't support liberalizing immigration law. They already hear such stories.  They won't hear about the legal immigrants whose families spent years waiting and slogging through the system to obtain green cards and apply for citizenship. They won't hear how these immigrants react to the federal government giving a pass to those who illegally jumped to the head of the line.  They won't hear that many Americans simply don't understand how America can reward illegal immigration and discourage it at the same time. They know that the last so-called immigration reform bill promised to curb illegal immigration -- but it didn't.  And they worry that the ""comprehensive"" immigration bill sponsored by Sens. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., will cause the estimated population of 12 million illegal immigrants in America to balloon.  The children of today's immigrants won't hear how the influx of cheap labor depresses wages for low-skilled Americans.  And they won't hear about the veiled racism of an illegal- immigration lobby that argues that America needs hard-working illegal immigrants to work the jobs that low-skilled Americans -- read: African Americans and underclass whites -- won't take.  They won't hear about the legitimate concerns about how importing poverty from the Third World might flood America with low-paid workers and whittle the healthy margin of middle-class families in America.  They won't know that some opponents of the immigration bill fear that a libertarian-style push for cheap labor also can undermine the soul of America, if a glut of undereducated workers makes it harder for each newcomer to move up the rungs of the ladder of the American dream.  I can respect why Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are pushing for this immigration bill. They see the future and they want to welcome Latino and other immigrants into the American fold.  They also have heard from employers who warn that they may go out of business, or be forced to pick up stakes and set up shop across the Mexican border. If too many businesses go away, that can't be good for the U.S.economy.  And I can accept a compromise that paves the way to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, if they can convince me that they will keep a handle on the numbers of new residents using public schools and services.  In this term, Bush has beefed up border enforcement and prosecutions of corporations that knowingly hire undocumented workers. Still, Bush is not going to convince me that he will be serious about going after illegal immigrants who do not qualify for legal residence a la Kennedy-Kyl, when he won't recognize where loosening immigration laws might go wrong.  Bush and McCain both make the dishonest argument that the only alternative is to deport every illegal immigrant. Wrong. Any rube can tell you that the most likely alternative is the status quo.  What is more, Bush and McCain do a disservice to imply that racism is the key reason why critics oppose the Kennedy-Kyl bill.  Message to Washington: If you want Americans to approve of an immigration compromise, show some respect. We too care about America's soul -- we value the important legacy of immigrants to America, but nonetheless fear what rewarding illegal immigration might do to this country.  I understand how folks who think as I do will be described in the future, but I do believe we deserve better treatment from George W. Bush today. E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com."
"5","Social Security and immigration WATI000020070604e36300010 EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 468 Words 03 June 2007 The Washington Times B02 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  In fiscal 2001, President Bush used the Social Security lockbox that Al Gore cherished throughout the 2000 presidential campaign. By the end of the current fiscal year, Mr. Bush will have spent more than a trillion dollars in Social Security surpluses over the last five years. And he recently submitted a five-year budget plan (2008- 12) that proposes to spend $1.2 trillion more in Social Security surpluses. Moreover, according to the latest trustees' report, the present value of Social Security's unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years is $4.8 trillion. Redeeming an additional $2 trillion in current trust fund bonds will almost certainly require dipping into general revenues, which would squeeze government operations everywhere else, including national security. Thus, the present value of Social Security's 75-year shortage is $6.8 trillion, and it's rising each year.  In a fiscally catastrophic environment like this, what's another $207 billion? Well, as former Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen once said, ""A billion here, a billion there - pretty soon it adds up to real money."" By several orders of magnitude, a $100 billion here, a hundred billion there . . . So, yes, $207 billion is real money.  Thus, the Bush administration should think twice before about the U.S.-Mexico Social Security totalization agreement, which would have the effect of transferring an estimated $207 billion in Social Security assets by 2040 to 1.6 million Mexican workers and dependents. The majority of those cash benefits would go to Mexicans who worked illegally in the United States. According to a recent study by TREA Senior Citizens League, a Social Security advocacy group, $207 billion represents the price tag of paying Social Security benefits to (a) 827,000 aliens from Mexico who used ""non- work"" Social Security numbers to work illegally in the United States; (b) Mexican citizens who overstayed their visas here and worked illegally; and (c) illegal aliens from Mexico ""who entered the United States illegally on or after Jan. 1, 2004, and worked for at least 18 months,"" provided that immigration amnesty passes and they gain work authorization.  Beyond the Social Security benefits that would be collected by Mexicans who worked here illegally, their dependents ""are also eligible for benefits and could increase the cost of totalized retiree benefits by as much as 50 percent,"" the TREA Senior Citizens League study asserts.  If Mr. Bush goes forward with his intention to sign this agreement, either chamber of Congress has 60 days to reject it. Both bodies should exercise that duty. In the meantime, as the ill- advised immigration ""reform"" bill makes its way through the Senate, the appropriate amendments should be passed to prevent illegal aliens from making Social Security's precarious finances worse than they already are."
"4","Out of the Shadows? AMER000020070610e3640000a Editorial 840 Words 04 June 2007 America 5 Volume 196; Issue 20; ISSN: 00027049 English � 2007 America. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  RAIDS BY FEDERAL AGENTS on five Swift meatpacking plants last December around the country, as well as raids in New Bedford, Mass., in March, called public attention to the fear haunting the lives of undocumented immigrants. As the raids demonstrated, fear of family breakup runs high among the undocumented, with the specter of breadwinners deported and U.S. citizen children left behind in the United States.  In what is seen as a hopeful if flawed sign of possible immigration reform, however, the Senate has introduced a bill aimed at restructuring what has rightly been called our broken immigration system. Whatever the structure of the eventual reform, the U.S. bishops and immigrant advocates in general have outlined the basics of what a humane system of reform should entail. These include a legalization program that allows undocumented persons to earn permanent residency, a program that protects the human rights of foreign-born workers and prevents displacement of U.S. workers and an emphasis on family reunification.  The House has already introduced a bipartisan bill that most advocates see as an acceptable start. The security Through Regularized Immigration and Vibrant Economy Act, known as the Strive Act, provides a path to legalization, protection from exploitation of foreign-born workers and promotion of family reunification. Bishop Gerald Barnes of San Bernadino, Calif., chairman of the bishops' Committee on Migration, has called the Strive Act ""a realistic plan for bringing undocumented immigrants out of the shadows."" But the act also has its shortcomings. Critics note, for example, that Tide II could place refugees fleeing persecution at risk of deportation if they had resorted to false travel documents in order to escape.  Some immigration restrictionists claim that undocumented immigrants take away jobs from U.S. citizens. It cannot be denied that unscrupulous employers sometimes prefer the former because they can pay them less in off-the-book wages than citizen workers would demand. But it is also true that the presence of immigrants, both documented and undocumented, has led to the creation of new jobs. A 2006 study by the Pew Hispanic Center, moreover, found no evidence that more immigration has resulted in increased unemployment among U.S. citizens.  The proposed Senate bill aims at granting legal status to the millions of undocumented persons already here. They could stay and apply for a Z visa, good for four years and renewable, provided applicants pass a background check and pay fines and penalties. The total cost to apply for permanent residence, though, could be as high as $10,000-an exorbitant sum for most undocumented people. And under the so-called touch-back provision, applicants must return to their own countries before applying for legal permanent residence-a perilous step for those fearful of being denied re-entry. A point system for incoming immigrants would focus on job skills, education and proficiency in English. Opponents of this provision consider it unfairly skewed toward skilled workers, sometimes at the cost of family reunification. Too little emphasis, in fact, is placed on family aspects of the bill. For it would virtually wipe out most of the family preference categories and put a cap on the number of parents of citizens who can enter annually. Donald Kerwin, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., told America that such anti-family provisions virtually assure a new flow of undocumented people.  Among other contentious aspects of the Senate bill is a guest worker program for up to 600,000 foreign workers to fill jobs, mainly in agriculture and industry, that could not easily be filled by American workers. Such a program would need strong protections against the kinds of exploitation by unscrupulous employers described in a March report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Close to Slavery. The Senate bill would allow workers to enter on two-year visas, but they would have to go home for a year before reapplying. Many, however, might choose to remain and go underground-another worrisome factor, since the bill offers them no path to citizenship. Under-standably, unions have condemned this provision, fearing that it might be used to depress wages for U.S. citizens.  ANY BIPARTISAN BILL THAT EMERGES from the Senate-and much debate is yet to come-will have to be reconciled with the Strive Act, or whatever bill emerges from the House. If no acceptable reform bill is passed by both houses of Congress this year, the matter may be postponed until after the presidential elections. This is undesirable, because many undocumented persons already here would continue to remain in the shadows, living in fear of detention and deportation. Without comprehensive and humane immigration reform, our broken system will remain broken. That must not be allowed to happen.  Among other contentious aspects of the Senate bill is a guest worker program for up to 600,000 foreign workers to fill jobs, mainly in agriculture and industry, that could not easily be filled by American workers. Copyright America Press Jun 4-Jun 11, 2007"
"1","Rudy Giuliani scores Jersey coup; Fred Thompson picking his team AGCR000020070606e3640001b EDITORIAL Robert Novak 685 Words 04 June 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Supporters of Rudy Giuliani for president are changing New Jersey's longtime proportional representation rules for allocating national convention delegates to winner-take-all, seeking a coup to give the former New York City mayor the lion's share of the state's 52 votes.  A June 14 meeting of New Jersey's Republican State Central Committee is expected to adopt a Feb. 5 presidential primary procedure giving the first-place finisher all three delegates in each of the state's 13 House districts, and the statewide leader all 13 at-large delegates. In the past, delegates were divided among candidates according to their share of the vote (as in 1980, when Ronald Reagan and George Bush split New Jersey).  Giuliani's Jersey coup is engineered by his liberal supporters in the state allied with David Von Savage, conservative Republican chairman of Cape May County (also backing him for president).  THOMPSON'S TEAM: Lawrence Lindsey, George W. Bush's issues adviser in the 1999-2000 run-up to his presidential candidacy, is poised to play a similar role in Fred Thompson's imminent campaign.  A former Harvard economics professor and Federal Reserve governor, Lindsey was National Economics Council director in the Bush administration's first two years. He was fired following the 2002 elections after accurately predicting the cost of the Iraq war.  A footnote: Longtime Washington power broker Tom Korologos, who completed his service as U.S. ambassador to Belgium in February, is also expected to join Thompson's campaign.  RICHARDSON'S COLLAPSE: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's declining prospects for moving up from the lower tier of Democratic presidential candidates hit bottom after Tim Russert's grilling on NBC's Meet the Press on May 27.  As the only sitting governor and Hispanic-American running for president, Richardson earlier this year appeared an excellent prospect for vice president and a presidential dark horse. But the same insiders who were interested in Richardson in January saw him stumbling in May and have fallen away.  He may have been done in by what old hands say may be the worst Meet the Press showing of all time. He seemed unprepared for Russert's questions on Iraq, immigration, gun control and his own record, culminating in his declaring he is simultaneously a Red Sox and a Yankee fan.  Old Richardson-watchers say he has been flying by the seat of his pants his whole career, and this time crashed and burned.  LEWIS TO LEAVE? Republican sources on Capitol Hill and in California say Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee who has been criticized on ethical grounds, will not seek a 16th term next year.  Lewis came under fire last year for pouring millions of dollars worth of earmarks into his heavily Republican southern California district. He has not apologized and vigorously defended himself behind closed doors in the House Republican Conference.  Lewis is one of at least six Republican House members from California who have faced ethical scrutiny, beginning when Duke Cunningham was sent to prison. Most recently, Rep. Ken Calvert, who was sponsored by Lewis for a coveted Appropriations Committee seat, is under attack. He replaced Rep. John Doolittle, another Californian who resigned from the committee because the Justice Department was investigating him.  UNCONFIRMING SENATE: Former Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Texas Republican defeated for re-election last year, remains unconfirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate two and one-half months after President Bush nominated him as U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States. He is one of 85 Bush nominees for substantive government positions who are stuck in the Senate.  They include presidential appointees for deputy secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, under secretary of energy for nuclear development, assistant secretary of agriculture, assistant secretary of commerce, deputy Social Security administrator and  HHS general counsel.  Also unconfirmed are 24 judicial nominees, seven for appeals courts and 17 for district judgeships. All told, the Senate has not acted on 175 Bush nominations.  Creators Syndicate"
"4","WHERE THE NEWSPAPER STANDS DAIL000020070605e3640000b Editorial 1268 Words 04 June 2007 Daily Press Final A10 English Copyright 2007, Daily Press. All Rights Reserved.  Prevention  A bigger NN jail isn't the solution to overcrowding  A consultant who evaluated the Newport News jail called it a ""ticking time bomb."" The biggest problem: It is holding nearly three times more inmates than it was designed for. Packing that many people, some portion of whom have a bent to violence and mayhem, into a tight space is a recipe for explosion. It hasn't happened, thanks to good fortune and, it seems, good management, but the threat is striking.  In this country, jails and prisons are like closets: The more we build, the more we find to put in them. Virginia went on a prison-building jag when former Gov. George Allen convinced the state to take a hard-nosed approach to some crimes and some criminals, and it looks like the state is gearing up for another round of prison construction. Taking a broader perspective, the United States is well out of step with the rest of the world in locking up a disproportionate share of its citizens.  Clearly, building more prisons is not the answer to our problem.  The man in charge of the Newport News jail, Sheriff Gabe Morgan, is realistic, and he's not agitating for more space. But he'll need help from other quarters to defuse his time bomb.  * He'll need help from the courts. Most of the people in his overcrowded jail are awaiting trial. Sometimes, it's a long wait -- averaging nine to 10 months for felonies. Cutting the wait can ease the crowding. Morgan has found a way to keep track of more pre-trial inmates with electronic gadgets. Can we find more ways to use alternatives to incarceration -- like day programs and electronic monitoring -- with more people?  * He'll need more help from the city and state, in the form of increased funding for community mental health services. An awful lot of inmates in his and many jails are there because they're sick. Their mental illness or addiction leads them afoul of the law. When society decided the mentally ill were better served close to the community rather than in large institutions, Virginia didn't step up with sufficient funds for community care. Rather, it defaulted to another kind of institutionalization: The ill are in jails and prisons, not hospitals. Newport News is served by an effective and creative Community Services Board, but it can't develop and deliver services without money.  * He'll need help from the schools. A large proportion of those who are locked up are school failures, and some studies show that the majority of black men who drop out end up incarcerated by their 30s. The obvious solution: more effective efforts to make at-risk children successful at school, and a willingness of the state Board of Education and local educators to face up to their massive, and massively ignored, dropout problem.  * He'll need some rational help from citizens willing to reconsider our drug laws. Nearly one-fourth of the people sent to state prisons are there on drug charges, most just for possession. Does that really make sense -- for society, for them, for anybody?  So far, Morgan's keeping the lid on the time bomb, as did his predecessor. But we can't assume the container can keep the pressure in check forever. We need a relief valve. Society can provide it, by addressing the problems that lead so many people to crime and jail, in Newport News and in communities all across the country. *  Immigration  With no perfect solution, let's step in the right direction  The immigration reform legislation in the U.S. Senate represents a lot of compromise, but not enough to satisfy the critics. So, what's the alternative? Kill it and take a different approach?  How those questions are answered will affect millions of people, and not just immigrants. It will affect life right here in Hampton Roads.  Commentary a quarter-century old predicted ""disastrous long-run consequences of doing nothing"" about America's dysfunctional immigration policies. Welcome to the consequences: a nation witnessing increasing levels of demagoguery emanating from all points.  Take a look at some of the legislation introduced in the General Assembly, and see what mean-spirited looks like. Check the headlines and letters to the editor when an illegal alien commits a highly visible crime, and get a feel for the emotion this issue generates. Try yelling the word ""amnesty"" in a crowded theater, and see what happens.  ""Conservatives"" want illegal immigrants out; but also want them in. The ones who want them out have never run a low-wage, labor-intensive business; the ones who want them in, have.  ""Liberals"" favor loose borders as a way of sharing the wealth or something like that. But others say, no, we have poor people of our own to whom we should look first.  How about new leadership? Not much hope there, with the Democratic and Republican party contenders in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes already rushing to the far wings, trying to appease their partisans.  Everybody has a thread to pull on the immigration bill.  ""If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick out one little aspect out of it,"" President Bush said last week. ""You can use it to frighten people. Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all.""  ""Once and for all"" is probably more than anyone can hope for from this legislation, but will it advance the cause of national security, economic sensibility and human values? Yes, it will. It is a constructive effort, and it ought to be supported.  Of course, there are some -- just tune into talk radio or catch the next campaign flier -- who would keep the wretched status quo for the sake of the political juice it offers. Each time the Virginia General Assembly opens its doors, a raft of punitive bills washes in. And unless a national solution to the problems posed by immigration is found, you can count on ever-greater stridency in Richmond.  Consider this appeal:  ""DEPORT, DEPORT, DEPORT!! Americans are held to laws, illegals should also! Tricia Stall will carry and vote for legislation that will make Virginia the most unfavorable state in the Union for illegal aliens. She is supportive of legislation that will allow state and local agencies to detain and remove illegal immigrants from Virginia.""  That merry message went out last week to people considered likely to vote in a June 12 primary, though it's not made clear how Stall, a candidate for the Republican state Senate nomination against incumbent Marty Williams, will identify ""illegals.""  But this is what we get: A lot of anger and not much thought, not much analysis, not much apparent appreciation for the costs, financial and otherwise, required to pursue the kind of approach implicit in that campaign appeal.  There's a better way. The U.S. Senate bill doesn't hand out amnesty, but it does set up a system for people to find their way to legal status. There's a process. A little more order. And more effort will be made to get a better fix on who's in the country legitimately; and it offers the means to do something about those who are not.  Again, it's a step forward after long years of not stepping up to the issue at all. If we don't take that step, there are others waiting to march in thoroughly awful directions. *"
"2"," FROM OUR READERS | IMMIGRATION POLICY DFP0000020070612e3640000o EDP; EDITORIAL 501 Words 04 June 2007 Detroit Free Press METRO FINAL 12A English (c) Copyright 2007, Detroit Free Press. All Rights Reserved.  Traditionally, America's immigration laws have upheld the value of family and placed priority on keeping families united. In our country today, however, there are hundreds of immigrant families that have been separated for an average of 6-8 years. Many of these families have been separated due to two types of backlogs: an administrative backlog as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services does not have enough resources to handle the workload, and a visa backlog due to the limited number of visas that allow immigrants to enter into our country. Much of a U.S. Senate bill focuses on immigration policy that's based on formal skills or labor market requirements. While this is certainly one component of comprehensive immigration reform, lawmakers must not overlook the important social and economic benefits of immigration policies that seek to help families as well.  It's important to remember that the vast majority of immigrants come to our country because they, like all Americans, want to provide a better life for their families. They work hard and contribute to the economy. Senators must keep in mind that they're talking about real people - people who live in our communities, who have loving families, and who work hard.  We look to the leaders of both parties in the Senate and in the House to exercise the leadership necessary to deliver legislation that will truly be workable. Senators must return to the family-based approach that has always been a cornerstone of our nation's immigration system and ensure that the structure of our nation's immigration policy in the future is better than what we have now.  Noel Saleh  President, Arab Community Center  for Economic and Social Services  (ACCESS), Dearborn  A bottom-line mess  Is it really fair to the American people to expect to pay the medical bills for those illegals who are diseased, psychologically unfit, have children who must attend schools, or are drug smugglers and criminals? Hardly.  Must we always help the bottom-line of major corporations in their hiring of workers when they are paid substandard wages? With both parents working, how will the children fare? Is this what the administration meant by ""family values""? It's a mess.  Does anyone have an iota of doubt that we are leaderless? The only way to turn it around is to elect people who will promise to clean up the mess.  Pietro M. Di Giorgio  Wyandotte  The cost factor  On July 30, fees for immigrants will go up. Whose idea was this? Immigrants don't apply for citizenship, permanent residency or work permits now. What makes our government think that raising the cost is going to make any difference in what an illegal does in this country?  It seems as if all immigrants want the American Dream, but raising the cost is just going to make more illegals break the law.  Robert Denstedt  Canton  DISCLAIMER: THIS ELECTRONIC VERSION MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM THE PRINTED ARTICLE"
"2","Public Pulse GRPR000020070606e3640001w Editorial Special to The Press 1017 Words 04 June 2007 The Grand Rapids Press All Editions A6 English � 2007 Grand Rapids Press. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  DeVos was right  To compare World War II Germany to the Muslim world doesn't require an analogy, but a move up from page A3 to A1 (""Some area Muslims offended by Richard DeVos remarks,"" Press, May 26).  Just because every Muslim isn't a terrorist doesn't mean that a large, disproportionate number of terrorists aren't Muslim. During World War I the stateside animosity toward Germans was so great some cities renamed themselves to disassociate themselves from the enemy! Need proof? Just go to the Berlin Raceway in. . .Marne! All this, and the Germans have yet to blow anything up in our country.  Meanwhile, two New York towers and 3,000 civilians later, our domestic Muslims are crying over the comparison of them to Germans of World War II! The Germans should be the ones upset. Recently the Pew Research Center found that 15 percent of Muslims in America under 30 were not against suicide bombing. If 15 percent of domestic Germans had a similar attitude back in the '40s, I think I'd be writing in German right now. I think it's high time the Muslim community stops whining about people identifying the enemy and start working to defeat the enemy. . .or don't they consider the extremists the enemy?  PHIL MOL/Grand Rapids  A more public venue?  Let me get this straight. The Comstock Park high school choir couldn't sing ""The Lord's Prayer"" during the high school graduation service because the audience would be a ""captive audience."" Then I noticed where the graduation ceremony was held at Sunshine Community Church!  I'd like to know when singing a hymn at church was not allowed. Maybe next year Comstock Park should find a more public venue for their graduation exercises.  CONNIE M. CAVANAUGH  Caledonia  Bad interpretation  The decision of Comstock Park High School to bar its choir from singing ""The Lord's Prayer"" is, unfortunately, based on the way our Constitution is currently interpreted. The Constitution is the law of the land, but it means what the U.S. Supreme Court justices say it means.  The concept of ""separation of church and state"" is foreign to our Constitution; it is a product of judge-made law. Specifically, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states in part: ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .""  The purpose was clearly to encourage the practice of religion and to discourage the imposition of a formal, state-supported religion, such as the Church of England in Great Britain.  Our courts have created ""freedom from religion,"" something that would have shocked even the most irreligious of our founding fathers. The only constitution of which I am aware that includes the concept of ""separation of church and state"" was the constitution of the now-defunct Soviet Union.  I do not chastise the principal of the school; he simply conformed to current law. We need Supreme Court Justices who will simply interpret our Constitution, not add to it.  DENNIS GILLEM/Gaines Township  Borrowed, not balanced  Let's be clear about this: to say that the state budget was ""balanced"" by borrowing money against future revenues is a contradiction in terms. Borrowing is what you do when the budget is not balanced.  Borrowing $400 million means that the state's budget for this year is in deficit to the tune of $400 million. And of course, that doesn't count the money that was promised to cities, universities, arts organizations, and others that simply will not be paid. The deficit should figure in debts that the state will renege.  JOHN TIEMSTRA/Grand Rapids  Out of proportion  As a 2004 graduate of Comstock Park High School, brother of a senior, and friend of many of the graduates and senior leadership, I found the choir hymn hype somewhat ridiculous. Did Pulse authors in the May 26 ""Spotlight on Graduation Hymn"" know all the facts, or were they buying into the separation of church and state nonsense some injected into this issue?  Comstock Park's graduation ceremony has always honored the seniors with a fitting tribute to what they accomplished and an inspirational send-off for their future success. This year, they honored James Chatman, Class of 2007, by dedicating the class gift to his memory.  Senior officer Lauren Perry put it best (""High school seniors wish to put graduation front and center,"" Press, May 26) when ""she encouraged the Class of 2008 to similarly recognize Szymanski when its members graduate next year.""  As for Superintendent Anderson, he could have told the choir that they did a wonderful job performing ""The Lord's Prayer"" at Nick Szymanski's memorial service, and to ask again in 2008, without calling the lawyers. This issue was blown way out of proportion. Graduation at Comstock Park has always been about celebrating and honoring the kids you spent the past 12 years with, and every year a new class gets their chance.  DAVID THOMPSON  Plainfield Township  Nation of laws  The 1986 amnesty bill became the gateway for illegal immigration. What was promised as a one time fix resulted in a public policy nightmare -- which we are doomed to repeat.  We went from about three million illegal immigrants to the now reported 12 million -- what will be the next amount in the years to come.  You would think Congress would learn from the failures of the past. What about the millions of immigrants waiting to come to the U.S. legally. The Senate plan sends the message that these immigrants would be better served by violating our laws, rather than by following them.  Even our own border patrol council opposes this bill. It will only exacerbate the problem -- not solve it. Rewarding criminal behavior has never induced anyone to abide by the law. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants but we are also a nation of laws. We must maintain and defend the laws that govern our land, and no one should be exempt from them.  VICKI STERKEN  Holland Township"
"4","Immigration Sabotage NYTF000020070604e3640002q Editorial Desk; SECTA 416 Words 04 June 2007 The New York Times Late Edition - Final 18 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  The Senate plans to resume debate today on its proposed immigration overhaul, which has withstood more than a week of bombardment from critics right and left. More than 100 amendments are circling, many designed to make the tortuously drafted compromise meaner, narrower and nastier.  The coalition that struck the deal has so far stood firm against efforts to gut its more generous and sensible provisions. While there is so much to do to improve this flawed bill, the senators also must make sure it doesn't get worse. That means beating back a particularly noxious amendment from Senator John Cornyn of Texas.  Its ostensible purpose is to ''close a gaping loophole'' that Mr. Cornyn says would allow terrorists, gang members and sex offenders into the country. But his real target is bigger than that. He had no appetite for the bipartisan compromise and now wants to destroy it by attacking one of its pillars: a path to legal status for an estimated 12 million immigrants.  Mr. Cornyn would do this by significantly expanding the universe of offenses that make someone ineligible for legalization. Some people who used fake identity papers -- a huge portion of the undocumented population -- would be disqualified. The amendment would also expand the definition of ''aggravated felonies,'' an already overbroad category of crimes, to include the act of entering or re-entering the country illegally.  Even more perversely, the amendment applies retroactively. So people who crossed illegally years ago -- even those whose sentences have been suspended -- would be subject to the drastic consequences of being declared ''aggravated felons.'' They would face mandatory detention and deportation under already negligible protections of due process. Under the system Mr. Cornyn wants, someone who comes forward to immigration authorities in good faith and admits using a fake Social Security card could end up not on a path to earned legalization, but arrested and deported, depending on the whims of zealous prosecutors.  Those aren't the only parts of the amendment that could have been drafted by Kafka. A provision to keep out anyone who fails to show ''good moral character'' would give the attorney general broad discretion to bar any and all immigrants. That discretion would not be reviewable, secret evidence would be allowed, and an immigrant could see an application for naturalization denied and never know the reason.  This amendment is so far from the spirit of comprehensive reform that it amounts to legislative sabotage. It deserves to be decisively defeated."
"1","IMMIGRATION SABOTAGE NYTA000020070605e3640001s A 44 Words 04 June 2007 The New York Times Abstracts 18 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  Editorial says Senate, which resumes debate on proposed immigration overhaul, should quickly and decisively defeat Sen John Cornyn's mean-spirited amendment that would significantly expand list of offenses that make illegal immigrant ineligible for legalization, and would be applied retroactively"
"4","Immigrants Equal Growth . . .; Reform isn't just humane. It's self-interest. WP00000020070604e3640001l Editorial 580 Words 04 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A14 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  THE SENATE'S rancorous debate over immigration reform has for the moment muffled an equally contentious dispute about immigrants' economic impact. The quarrel is in some respects a theological one, enlisting think tanks, scholars, researchers and statisticians whose irreconcilable and sometimes ideologically loaded conclusions fuel the broader political battle. Amid the blizzard of data concerning immigrants' effects on wages, welfare and municipal budgets, the essential point is this: The latest wave of immigrants -- legal and illegal, skilled and unskilled -- has stimulated enormous economic activity and wealth generation in this country, and it is implausible that the American economy would fare as well without them.  A recent study using data collected through 2004 found that Hispanics in North Carolina (many of them immigrants, both legal and illegal) contributed $756 million in state taxes while costing about $817 million in public education, corrections and health care. That nets out to a modest $61 million drain on state coffers. But the study, by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, also found that that deficit was dwarfed by the fact that Hispanics contributed more than $9 billion, or some 3 percent, to the state's economy in 2004, an amount projected to double by 2009.  The North Carolina study further found that adults of prime working age (18-44) comprised a much larger portion of Hispanic households than non-Hispanic ones; that the state's 9,000-plus Hispanic-owned businesses were poised for rapid expansion; and the state's exports to Latin America, which account for 70,000 jobs, are booming, thanks partly to the swift growth of the Hispanic population. Little wonder that the study was conducted for the North Carolina Bankers Association; immigrants are good for business. Similar studies in Arkansas, Texas and elsewhere have arrived at like-minded conclusions.  The flip side is that immigrants are said to add to the poverty rolls, strain public services and, in some high-immigrant states such as California, increase the tax burden on non-immigrant households. But even here the evidence is mixed. Since most immigrants come when they are young and working (55 percent of Hispanics in the North Carolina study were 18 to 44), they tend not to collect Social Security or Medicare for many years -- even while paying into the systems with payroll taxes, in many cases with phony Social Security numbers (meaning they will contribute but not collect). In fact, illegal immigrants do not get federal welfare benefits of any kind. At the same time they often pay income tax (through paycheck withholdings) and sales tax, thereby helping directly or indirectly to underwrite transportation, health care, education and other services. And while immigrants surely have contributed to some extent to the ranks of the poor, that was also true of previous waves of immigrants; the point is, most of those immigrants didn't stay poor.  Most members of Congress realize that deporting 12 million illegal immigrants is a non-starter. But the real reason to find a humane solution that will enable those immigrants to stay legally and work toward citizenship, and to construct some workable system by which future newcomers can come and work, is that they make important contributions to the vibrancy of America's economy and social fabric. That's been true of immigrants throughout the nation's history and remains so today. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200706041ED-IMMIGRATION4"
"5","Political debacle looming WATI000020070604e36400062 EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 727 Words 04 June 2007 The Washington Times A16 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  With the Senate returning today to take up the immigration amnesty bill, there is no sugar-coating the ugly reality: The bill before the Senate contains massive loopholes that will make it easier for terrorists and criminals to enter and remain in the United States. It will facilitate the migration of much of Mexico's illegal-alien underclass to the United States, resulting in trillions of dollars in additional federal, state and local spending on welfare programs and other public services along with considerable tax increases over the next three decades or so to pay for it all - tax increases that will largely take effect after most of the current membership of the Senate is dead.  While Senate Democrats thus far have remained largely united in favor of amnesty and open borders, Republicans are sending a muddled, confused message of their own. The fact that Republican senators on May 24 voted 25-20 against a commonsense amendment introduced by Sens. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, and Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, stripping amnesty from the immigration bill (the Senate as a whole voted 66-29 against the amendment) sends a message of disdain to core conservative Republican voters - members of the Republican ""base"" who were an essential component of the coalition that that won seven of the last 10 presidential elections. President Bush added fuel to the fire last week by accusing critics of the Senate immigration bill of trying to ""frighten people"" into opposing it.  The president has sent his message, and in response the Republican grass-roots are sending one of their own to the president and Republican supporters of the ""reform"" bill currently before the Senate: If the GOP leadership continues down the road of supporting open borders and amnesty, it can kiss their support good-bye. This newspaper reported on Friday that the Republican National Committee, hit by a 40 percent falloff in small-donor contributions resulting from anger over the Senate immigration bill, fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors. In recent weeks, two Republican lawmakers who support the Senate bill, Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were booed by activists in their home states. (Mr. DeMint, by contrast, has constituents coming up to him in line at the grocery store to thank him for opposing Mr. Bush on the issue.) Rep. Tom Tancredo tells us that any Republican senator who votes for the bill deserves a primary challenge and has offered to come into any state to campaign against these incumbents. This kind of scenario is anything but desirable - but bad votes have real-world political consequences, and any senator who votes for this bill needs to take these realities into account.  Perhaps the one bright spot is that a number of conservative Republican senators who support the bill have made statements suggesting that they want to give themselves ""wiggle room"" to vote against it if the Senate's open-borders majority acts to make the legislation even more objectionable - a virtual certainty given the current composition of that chamber. Two of the worst ideas could be voted on as early as tomorrow. One, Senate Amendment 1183, introduced by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat; along with Sens. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican, and Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat; would perpetuate and expand the current destructive practice of ""chain migration"" - that is allowing someone who has already immigrated to the United States to bring many of his relatives into the United States - regardless of whether these people can support themselves. Senate Amendment 1194, introduced by Mr. Menendez along with Mrs. Clinton; Sen. Chris Dodd, Connecticut Democrat; and Sens. Barack Obama and Dick Durbin, Illinois Democrats; and Mr. Hagel would reduce the ""backlog"" of family- sponsored immigration applicants by increasing the number of green cards beyond the 600,000 additional ones agreed to by negotiators of the ""compromise"" - who included Mr. Menendez.  Do not be surprised if these amendments are accepted by Sen. Edward Kennedy - the Massachusetts Democrat whose fingerprints are all over the bill - and are rammed through the Senate. Then those Republicans who had thought they could vote with Messrs. Bush and Kennedy and spin their way out of trouble with their angry constituents by talking tough about ""enforcement"" will have an even more difficult political decision to make."
"4","THE ISSUE: IMMIGRATION REFORM PHX0000020070606e3650005y Opinions 511 Words 05 June 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser B4 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  The phrase ""illegal immigration"" is rarely spoken these days.  It is shouted in anger.  Those who do speak calmly on the topic commit a courageous act merely by helping to tamp down the rhetoric.  Those in Congress who dared to look for a solution came from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum to compromise and take big political risks. What they did isn't perfect or finished. But the process they used is the best our system has to offer.  But no act of national heroism goes unpunished. Supporters of compromise immigration legislation in the Senate are branded as peddlers of amnesty and contributors to the breakdown of law and order.  Enough.  The shouting voices do not speak for a nation that remains conflicted, yet rational, about illegal immigration and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes the fact that 12 million people live in the shadows of our great country. Nobody -- except a smuggler -- could like our chaotic southern border.  Most Americans understand that our broken immigration system lured illegal workers, and our economy now relies on them.  A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday said that 52 percent of Americans would support giving the current population of undocumented immigrants the right to stay if they meet certain requirements and pay a fine. Only 44 percent opposed that type of earned legalization, which is being mischaracterized as amnesty.  Previous polls have found similar results.  Yet Sen. John McCain has been slammed by his fellow GOP presidential wannabes -- notably Mitt Romney -- for supporting immigration reform that calls for just such a legalization program.  McCain's response, in a speech Monday to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, is worth repeating.  ""Pandering for votes on this issue, while offering no solution to the problem, amounts to doing nothing,"" McCain said. ""And doing nothing is silent amnesty.""  The status quo is not an option, but McCain explained its appeal.  ""Problems are left unsolved year after year because we fear the political consequences of seriously addressing them or value their utility as political attacks in our campaigns,"" he said.  McCain challenged those who criticize the Senate compromise to offer an alternative. Tonight's debate in New Hampshire is a good opportunity to do that.  To be realistic, a solution has to recognize the need to control the borders, the impracticality of deporting 12 million people, the importance of migrant workers to our economy and this nation's ideals of fairness and respect for human rights.  Shouting is easier. But this issue demands more than noise pollution.  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: Criticized for his support of the Senate's immigration compromise, Arizona Sen. John McCain has called on his fellow GOP presidential hopefuls to come up with an alternative."
"2","Your views CGAZ000020070607e3650000j 1019 Words 05 June 2007 Charleston Gazette P4A English (Copyright 2007)  Double standard  on legislative trips?  The Daily Mail's May 31 news story, ""Half of state Senate jetting to Puerto Rico,"" and June 1 editorial, ""Tax-paid vacations for the Legislature,"" seemed to apply a double standard - unless the Daily Mail also objected to having West Virginia host the 2006 Spring National Committee and Task Force Meetings of the Council of State Governments, which I'm sure helped bolster your state's hospitality industry.  I was among the council's National Committee members who supported your Senate president's efforts to stage last year's meeting at the Mountain State's Greenbrier Resort.  I see no reason why Puerto Rico should be deemed any less suitable as a conference venue.  The United States territory of Puerto Rico is not only a longstanding member of the Council of State Governments, but has provided it with both a president and a chairman during the past decade.  We look forward to hosting a stimulating and productive conclave for fellow council members from West Virginia and elsewhere so we can share common concerns and good ideas that will benefit constituents from the Appalachians to the Caribbean.  Kenneth D. McClintock  San Juan, Puerto Rico  McClintock is president of the Senate of Puerto Rico.  The questions we  need to be asking  I pause at the notion that we as Americans ever knew what our politicians were doing on our behalf. They were elected to serve and not to rule.  They stand in front of TV cameras and microphones and espouse their catalog of what's bad in America and how to fix the issues. Then we see the actions of their words after the elections.  We hear those elected say, ""Congress has blocked my effort."" This is always a pat answer.  To say we knew what our politicians do up front and in their closed-door meetings is a stretch of anyone's imagination. Cases in point:  n Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  n Why did Jack Ruby kill Lee Harvey Oswald?  n Why can't we buy medicine from Canada?  n Why do we continue to send foreign aid to dictators?  n We can send men into space with our dollars, but we can't develop an effective fuel cell for cars.  We will always know the truth of a person's motives by the results they produce. The answer to the question is yes, we do know.  Will we change? When men and women of good conscience do nothing, we are country of complacence, and the results of our action will be our judge.  Michael Downs  St. Albans  Are ordinary people  second-class victims?  What does it say to American citizens when stiffer sentences are handed down to people who commit crimes against a government employee?  A recent example is where two people murdered a federal drug informant and our legal system swiftly imposes the death penalty because it was classified as a felony murder.  But a West Virginia corrections officer brutally murders his wife, a former correctional officer, and their 20-year-old stepdaughter - and the legal system wastes time and money on senseless hearings and medical treatment for the murderer.  Are those of us who are not government employees second-class citizens?  When there's no doubt of guilt of a heinous murder, the legal system should stop lining their pockets, stop wasting the taxpayers' money, and impose the same sentence the murderers imposed on their victims.  Or send them to a remote island with those who wish to rehabilitate them so they can live in harmony with each other.  Richard Hill  Charleston  Table games  will bring poverty  The owners of Tri-State Racetrack & Gaming Center are spending an enormous amount of money to influence our elected officials and all the voters to vote in their favor.  Bringing table gambling into West Virginia will cause even more people to become destitute and dependent on public assistance, food stamps and homeless shelters.  Our state is already burdened by the many people living in poverty, with thousands living in hopeless despair.  All additional revenues and taxes cannot make up for the horrendous losses families and the state of West Virginia will experience due to even more gambling addiction.  All eligible voters need to vote conscientiously and with good judgment, and vote no to table gambling. Gambling is an addiction just like drug or alcohol addiction, causing increases in all crimes and violence.  The promises of a thousand well-paying jobs are just that - promises. However, Tri-State owners have not promised any kind of help for the destitute families or treatment facilities for addicted gamblers.  Remember, gambling establishments are only interested in profits, not in the welfare of our West Virginian men, women and children.  Marianne Sydenstricker  Charleston  Better get serious  about policing DUIs  An article in the May 30 Daily Mail stated:  ""An illegal immigrant living in Boone County has been sentenced to up to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to causing a fatal car accident that killed a 4-year-old boy.  ""Christian Javier Sanchez-Rubio, 23, of Whitesville entered his plea during a hearing Monday at the Boone County Courthouse in Madison. Circuit Judge William Thompson handed down the maximum 10-year-sentence, but Sanchez-Rubio will be eligible for parole.""  I live in California, ground zero for illegal immigration and illegal alien crime. Many offenders flee to Mexico as soon as they are paroled, come back with a different identity, and start driving drunk all over again.  West Virginia needs to change its sentence mandates to make drunk driving punishable for much more than 10 years - and no parole.  With the influx of lawless invaders, not only West Virginia, but all states, need to make drunk driving sentencing tougher. Illegal aliens think nothing of thumbing their noses at our driving laws. Otherwise, they would not dare to take a chance at being deported for being here illegally and breaking our laws.  How many more Americans must die for legislators to crack down on the invaders of our country?  Haydee Pavia  Laguna Woods, Calif."
"2","PUBLIC FORUM LAD0000020070607e3650001l Editorial 1243 Words 05 June 2007 Los Angeles Daily News VALLEY N10 English � 2007 Los Angeles Daily News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Less porn  Re ""Porn in the Valley"" (June 3):  Your near-full-paper ad on porn in the Valley was a little much. Did you mean to extol porn or condemn it or just report on it? As it turned out, it looked like an advertisement for porn -- no condemnation that I could see.  The world would be better off with less porn and less of your providing a media for the advertising of it. We know it is here; we just need to have some political will and effort to rid the world of it.  -- Bob Sharp  Arleta  Distracting  Re ""Driven to distraction"" (Viewpoint, June 3):  In Sunday's Viewpoint, you printed Jonathan Dobrer's insightful article about America's addiction to cheap, mindless, instant gratification. Lo and behold, you also carried three entire pages (including the front page) telling us everything we didn't need to know about the porn industry in the Valley, with a promise of more articles on the way. Go figure ...  -- Jennifer Rabuchin  Burbank  Telling the difference  Pornography in the Valley and possible HIV epidemic -- you call that real news? We can't get you to report on Rep. Howard Berman not even bothering to vote one way or the other for the Iraq funding bill. Now, that was real news. Can't you tell the difference?  No wonder newspaper readership is going down. We are forced to look elsewhere for the real news. You need to clean up your act, Daily News!  -- Karen Jackson  Valley Village  JFK Airport plot  Re ""Muslims in America"" (Viewpoint, June 3):  Ironically, the same day that Hussam Ayloush's commentary appeared in the Daily News, deflecting criticism of Muslim American support for terrorism, a plot by Muslims to blow up the JFK Airport in New York City was foiled. Ayloush can protest all he wants, but we Americans can see it is not blond, blue-eyed Norwegians who seek the destruction of the ""infidels.""  -- Shari Goodman  Calabasas  Immigration bill  As the costs ($1.3 trillion), the amnesty and impunity of Bush's immigration bill become more apparent to the citizens, George Bush displays impudent and petulant behavior by calling opponents ""fearmongers."" After 40 years of ""delegation government,"" the voters and citizenry are now awake. Bush and the Senate and Congress truly don't know how to adjust.  The alarms are being sounded. The truth is in the air. No North American Union for us! Isn't that what you have been after now, really?  -- Thomas Wierzbicki  Van Nuys  Thin blue morale  Re ""Crowd pleaser"" (Our Opinions, June 1):  The troika, consisting of the Daily News, our mayor, and the LAPD chief, seems focused in the wrong direction: punish the cops and ignore those who started the May 1 riot. Is an intensive manhunt for the riot perpetrators in progress? That would usually be the highest priority.  But, the Daily News has not mentioned it so can we assume that the perpetrators are not being sought? In the interest of fair reporting, the Daily News should now interview a significant number of officers to determine how low the troika has caused the morale of our thin blue line to drop.  -- Dominick Odorizzi  Northridge  Weakest generation  Re ""Patient, government differ in TB accounts"" (June 2):  The man who has drug-resistant TB is a selfish liar. He says he didn't know he was infectious and didn't think he was doing anything wrong. He took a plane to Canada and drove into the U.S. by car. If he thought all was well he would have just gotten a direct flight home. These are not the actions of a man that has no clue he is contagious. These are the actions of a man that knows he is doing something wrong and doesn't care how many he puts at risk as long as he is treated and saved. As soon as he is cured, he belongs in jail.  Welcome to modern, excuse-laden, anything-goes liberal America. Truly the weakest generation.  -- Craig S. Hawley  Reseda  Bratton's cop-out  Re ""LAPD gets new unit on crowds"" (May 31):  The article said the police chief acknowledged failures in the department. Chief Bratton also stated, ""I cannot minimize the deficiency of our department and some of its officers.""  Is the chief telling the citizens of Los Angeles it took him five years before he realized the (problem) deficiency within the department? It appears to me that the chief is not tuned in to what's happening on his watch. And know Chief Bratton wants five more years.  -- Mort Sherman  Woodland Hills  Must be tough  Because of the tremendous impact that journalists (through the power of video editing) could have on their careers and personal lives, the policemen that roughed up some newspeople in MacArthur Park must be brain-dead.  Anyone who wears a face-covering of any kind should be detained and checked out. And any parent who takes their child to an event with a potential for violence should be turned over to Children's Services. Way to back up the good guys, Chief Bratton. It must be tough riding on Antonio's political coattails. Best to avoid a mirror for a while.  -- Bill Fleming  Burbank  Deserved it  I was totally shocked by seeing that 47 percent of respondents to your poll question ""Would you regulate the use of your fireplace if it helped clean up our air?"" answered ""No.""  I think if our species disappears, we will have deserved it. I cannot begin to comprehend the shortsightedness of people. I walk my dog daily in my neighborhood and see my neighbors putting in new water-guzzling rose bushes and sod lawns, oblivious to our looming water shortage. These are the same folks who buy gas-guzzling cars. Come on, folks ... it's time to begin thinking ""sustainable"" ... getting our needs met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. If we poison our air and deplete our water, what legacy have we left our children and their children?  -- Alan Pollack  Woodland Hills  Few flags  This past Memorial Day very few flags were flying and especially at places of business that make their living in America, I would like to commend the 76 station at Parthenia and Balboa streets for their patriotic display.  In your June 2 article on a random girl in a Volvo saving the life of James Woods, why could not Woods or Lauren Francis, or the truck driver, get a 911 call through? Does anyone know?  -- Gloria J. Aguilar  Northridge  Benching Kobe  Re ""A time out,""""Misbehavin,"" and ""Let Kobe go"" (Your Opinions, June 1):  Ya all got it all wrong, well, except John Andersen who only has it partly right when he states ""Bench him for a season.""  I personally think that Kobe should be kept for the remaining four years on his contract and be relegated to the bench for the entire time. That way the players who play as a team can carry the team. I'd rather see four years of losses than Jerry giving in to this spoiled brat.  -- Richard M. Stuber  Sun Valley  No right or wrong  A dispute over states' rights polarized the Continental Congress and split the nation into warring political parties. Since that time we're never right or wrong. We're either Republican or Democrat.  -- Fred Coble  North Hills Letters to the editor"
"4","Slugfests | Candidates should make differences clear SDU0000020070607e365002c2 OPINION 515 Words 05 June 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune F B.6 English � 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Let's get ready to rumble. Rival candidates are engaging each other in the 2008 presidential campaign and, if you need proof of that, look no further than a pair of CNN-sponsored debates from New Hampshire.  Democrats mixed it up on Sunday over Iraq and things got testy between Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards after Edwards criticized Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton for not being more outspoken in opposition to the war. Obama pointed out he has opposed the war from the beginning and jabbed back that Edwards was ""4 1/2 years late on this issue.""  The Republicans get into the ring tonight, and you can expect a flurry of punches between two candidates who are angling for a second-place perch behind the current front-runner in the polls, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are slugging it out mano a mano over the immigration issue.  In a speech yesterday to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, McCain took aim at critics of the Senate compromise bill that he helped craft, citing one critic in particular. And while McCain didn't mention Romney by name, his campaign made clear it was Romney he was criticizing.  ""To want the office so badly that you would intentionally make our country's problems worse might prove you can read a poll or take a cheap shot, but it hardly demonstrates presidential leadership,"" McCain told the group.  And then he said this to loud applause: ""I will never conduct my campaign in such a way that it makes our country's most difficult challenges harder to solve. I hope you will hold all candidates to that same standard. Pandering for votes on this issue, while offering no solution to the problem, amounts to doing nothing. And doing nothing is silent amnesty.""  Romney immediately hit back, insisting that ""the immigration approach proposed by Sens. McCain and Kennedy falls short of a workable solution to an important problem.""  There are partisans who might argue that the candidates in either party should spend less time attacking one another and more time drawing out differences between their views and those of the opposing party. In fact, Sen. Clinton tried to make a similar point in Sunday's debate, insisting that the differences among Democrats were minor compared with what separates them from Republicans.  Don't believe it. Whether it's Republicans on immigration or Democrats on Iraq, there are some important, night-and-day differences in how these presidential candidates see the world. And now is the time to make those differences clear. And if that means slugging it out, then all the better. How else are voters supposed to know which candidates deserve their support and which don't?  Besides, passion is good. Candidates should be passionate in their beliefs and, when necessary, critical of what others believe. They can do both without resorting to posturing and personal attacks. And when they do, our politics are better for it."
"4","Leadership by Evasion; On immigration, GOP presidential candidates duck and dodge. WP00000020070605e36500016 Editorial 606 Words 05 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A16 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  IT HAS BECOME fashionable, among some leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, to use the immigration bill now before the Senate for target practice, harping on its supposed inadequacies to the delight of nativists in the party base. The strategy comes with a correlate, which is to avoid proposing any better approach that would address the nub of the problem: 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. On immigration, leadership by evasion is becoming the Republicans' stock in trade.  The leading candidate for evader in chief is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who seemed to favor the immigration bill before he opposed it. Eighteen months ago, he said the idea that illegal immigrants should register with the government, pay taxes, work for a number of years and pay a fee before being allowed to apply for citizenship struck him as ""reasonable."" Now he makes political hay by blasting the Senate bill, which includes just such an arduous route to eventual citizenship, as ""amnesty"" -- a bald-faced distortion but a crowd-pleaser for many primary voters.  So what would Mr. Romney suggest doing about the 12 million, a few of whom apparently did landscaping work on the grounds of his expansive Massachusetts home? Well, nothing, really. ""I'm not a legislator, at least not currently,"" he boldly told reporters in Florida last month, ""so I'm not going to give you legislative language.""  Rudy Giuliani is an even more egregious flip-flop artist; unlike Mr. Romney, who as governor cut illegal immigrants in Massachusetts no slack, the former New York mayor was a champion of their cause. He once forbade police and other officials in New York from asking immigrants about their legal status, and he pushed for creating an agency that would help illegal immigrants navigate the system. But as a presidential candidate, he has taken a much more cramped view, emphasizing the importance of tracking everyone who enters the country and dismissing the Senate bill as a ""hodgepodge."" As for the 12 million illegal immigrants, Mr. Giuliani -- who once said bluntly, and realistically, that most are here to stay -- is vague.  Even putative Republican candidate Fred Thompson has gotten into the duck-and-dodge act on immigration. Last year the former senator from Tennessee said sensibly that mass deportation ""is not going to happen."" Now he says ""we should scrap this bill and the whole debate"" until the nation's borders are secured. Never mind that the Senate bill would tighten the borders significantly.  Among the party's leading candidates, the honest voice on the issue belongs to Sen. John McCain, whose rivals have treated him as a punching bag for his troubles. In an impassioned speech yesterday, Mr. McCain, a longtime leading advocate for serious immigration reform, pointed out that the current non-system of immigration has become a festering national sore, and that to do nothing is to sidestep responsibility. Candidates who object to the Senate bill need ""the responsibility and courage to propose another way,"" he said.  Pathetically, none has. Instead, a number of Senate Republicans hope to kill the bill by trying to affix various poisonous amendments to it, including one that would provide legal grounds for labeling millions of immigrants as aggravated felons and deporting them, and others that would sock illegal immigrants with tax burdens so heavy that most would never dare step on the path toward legalization. Their strategy is not to fix immigration; it's merely to pander and to leave in place an unworkable status quo. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200706051ED-IMMIGRATION5"
"4","U. Pittsburgh: EDITORIAL: Immigration bill messy but vital UWIR000020070606e36600033 605 Words 06 June 2007 U-Wire English (c) 2007 U-Wire. All Rights Reserved.  U-WIRE-06/06/2007-U. Pittsburgh: EDITORIAL: Immigration bill messy but vital (C) 2007 The Pitt News Via U-WIRE  Staff Editorial, The Pitt News (U. Pittsburgh)  PITTSBURGH -- Immigration and political activists from all sides of the  issue can finally agree on one thing: The immigration bill that is currently under debate in the Senate is bloated, inefficient and hard to stomach.  The bipartisan bill, which was chiefly drafted by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., attempts to strike a compromise between the strongly pro- and anti-immigration factions both in Congress and around the country - and to no avail.  Both sides of the aisle have spoken out against the lofty measure, proposing a handful - actually, a truckload might be more like it - of amendments that attempt to soften or beef up certain portions of the legislation.  As it stands, the legislation aims to tighten border security, establishing a guest worker program that would issue some 200,000 visas a year to temporary workers and grant an opportunity for citizenship to the 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in our country, according to the Associated Press. The bill would also establish a point system for selecting future immigrants, giving priority to applicants with an education and fluency in English.  The bill itself - we won't even start on the amendments - poses several inherent problems, the first and most pressing being its point system provision. This system, which is based off of similar programs in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, will allow the U.S. government, under the jurisdiction of Congress, to decide who is most fit to immigrate into our country, placing point values on applicants' fulfillment of job skills and education (which accounts for the largest number of points), English-language proficiency and family ties.  It's like we're engaged in a giant game of Red Rover, with Congress on one side declaring ""Red Rover, Red Rover, we call the smart ones over.""  The point system essentially operates under the assumption that well-educated immigrants will be able to make long-term economic contributions to the United States.  But this mindset, while optimistic, ignores the market forces that are controlling our economy today. There is currently a great demand for unskilled labor in our country, more so than for white-collar positions. And ultimately, allowing more educated immigrants into the United States will create competition with our own educated class. Under this system, educated immigrants and college-educated U.S. citizens - that's us, and you, most likely - will be displaced into working-class jobs.  The immigration bill does propose some positive-step measures, most importantly the portion that would grant citizenship opportunities to the millions of illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.  We are concerned, however, that the application process will be too time consuming and expensive. The bill requires applicants to pay at least $5,000 in fines, as well as submit to a lengthy background check and a trip home - another expense. While it is fair that illegal immigrants pay some price for their actions, this measure might not offer any incentives for applying for citizenship at all.  As many problems as this bill poses, we can't help but acknowledge its one fundamental strength: It is an immigration bill - addressing immigration. As simplistic as this sounds, our government has failed to address the immigration problem for years, and while compromise sometimes yields messy results, it is better than doing nothing at all.  ##30##  Distributed via M2 Communications Ltd - http://www.m2.com"
"5","CBO's misleading immigration $ numbers WATI000020070606e3660003e EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 473 Words 06 June 2007 The Washington Times A16 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The new Congressional Budget Office report on the Senate immigration bill is a textbook illustration of how advocates of massive new spending programs (and the tax increases that will be inevitable to pay for them) hide the true cost: Taking advantage of the fact that the the CBO only looks at the budgetary impact for over a 10-year period, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Republican supporters drew up a bill where - you guessed it - the real spending binge begins in year 11.  CBO found that during the first decade, the immigration bill would increase discretionary spending by $43 billion, while new workers would provide $48 billion worth of additional revenue to the government. (Over the next few days, these numbers will be repeated endlessly on radio and television and in Senate debate by advocates of the ""compromise"" bill.) But these numbers could hardly be more misleading, because with the exception of the earned-income tax credit and one smaller welfare program, illegal aliens granted amnesty under the bill do not become eligible to benefit from federally funded means-tested welfare programs until 2018 and beyond, while CBO's figures cover the years 2008-2017. After 10 years, amnesty beneficiaries become eligible for nearly 60 taxpayer- subsidized programs ranging from food stamps to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.  Roughly 9 million adult illegal immigrants will be given amnesty under the bill; 7 to 8 million of them will live to retirement age. When this occurs, 30 to 35 years from now, they will receive from the taxpayer an average of $17,000 a year in benefits above and beyond the taxes they pay. When amnesty recipients retire, the situation becomes much worse for the taxpayer: these people will pay approximately $5,000 a year in taxes and receive approximately $37,000 in benefits. The total net cost of the amnesty over the next three to four decades will be approximately $2.5 trillion, estimates Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector, who has done pioneering work in analyzing the effect of low-skilled immigrants on taxpayers.  None of this be a surprise, given the low level of employment skills these people bring to the United States. ""This is a group that is 50 to 60 percent high-school dropouts,"" Mr. Rector tells us. ""They will never pay substantial taxes in the U.S. system. But you're making every one of them, from the very beginning, eligible for Social Security and Medicare. And the worst thing about this is that the fiscal cost is going to come smashing into the Social Security and Medicare systems at the very time they are already going bankrupt.""  In sum, when it comes to the true cost of the Senate bill, CBO's numbers have little to do with fiscal reality."
"1","Letters to the Editor CHSM000020070606e3670000a EDITORIAL 989 Words 07 June 2007 The Christian Science Monitor ALL 8 English � 2007 Christian Science Monitor. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  On Chavez and freedom of speech Thank you for Bart Jones's June 4 Opinion piece, ""Chavez is no enemy of free speech."" I have been following this story for a while, and it is good to hear the other side of it. People have been trying to discredit Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for allowing the license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) to expire, but in my opinion, Mr. Chavez did not go far enough. The owners of that TV station should have been tried and put in jail for implicitly supporting the 2002 coup against Chavez. Also, I would agree that they went beyond their authority as broadcasters, and the matter is no longer a question of free speech. Freedom of speech and the press was never designed to institute violence. None should be allowed the cover of free speech when his actions are suppressing the voice of millions. Judes Belony Bethlehem, Pa. Regarding Bart Jones's Opinion piece on Venezuela's President Chavez and free speech: Perhaps Mr.  Jones should move to Caracas and while there, he should write some positive things about the current US administration. Then he can criticize the Venezuelan government. I feel pretty certain that Jones would be threatened and possibly shut down if he continued to write stories that the government didn't like. Walk a mile in Venezuelans' shoes. The really rich are doing well. The Venezuelan middle class (university teachers, policemen, engineers), which has a considerably lower median income than the US middle class, is being targeted for being intellectually active enough to criticize. The poor are either too afraid to speak out, or they are enjoying some of the government's giveaways. But even they get the short end of the stick when the government is not putting on a show. Just go to a government- subsidized Mercal grocery store and see the food shortages - in a country with some of the world's largest oil reserves. I didn't like Marcel Granier, the chief of RCTV. But Mr. Granier had backbone, and he had the gall to stand up for real free speech. Of course Chavez is not an enemy of free speech - as long as it's his own free speech. Anybody else's speech - that's not so free. Manuel Espinoza Portland, Ore. Fight wildfires at night The May 30 article, ""Six weeks later, Georgia fires still raging,"" had an all too familiar ring to it. Living in the West, we read similar statements every time there's a large fire that armies of firefighters are powerless to stop. (When a fire is very large, attempts to suppress it are often so ineffective that you can't tell that any attempts were made at all.) The problem is the outmoded methods used to fight fires. News media seem to concentrate on the worst of the fire - usually late in the afternoon when it is impossible to make much difference. Instead, concentrate on what the fire is doing at night - usually not much. It is then that suppression should be done. An attractive approach is to use drones to image the fire in infrared (which ""sees"" through the smoke), allowing the fire boss to guide night- flying aircraft to specific GPS drop locations. In the 14 hours from 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., planes flying at 10-minute intervals can put up to 2 acre-feet of water on a fire, which should be more than enough to totally suppress it in just one night. One wonders why we don't do this since the military easily has this capability. But as long as we continue our outdated methods, wildfires will continue to be uncontrollable. Charles Keller  Los Alamos, N.M. Humanitarian aid, more than money, will help Africa The June 1 article, ""Blair's parting drive to aid Africa,"" didn't directly discuss World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) policies, which have a dark side. These agencies offer African debtor nations the option of relieving their enormous debts in exchange for economic adjustments. These Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) include privatizing industries and cutting public spending. These adjustments impact the working classes the most, through the loss of health and education benefits. Privatized industry enables employers to exploit workers for lower wages as they struggle to eke out a living. The World Bank and IMF may have good intentions, but their policies only lead these nations into greater predicaments. Rather than promising meaningless aid checks to these countries, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the other G-8 leaders should emphasize humanitarian aid as their primary form of assistance to Africa. Naomi Latorraca Monona, Wis. A Marshall Plan for Mexico Regarding David Kirkham's June 5 Opinion piece, ""Enduring lessons of the Marshall Plan"": I have been trying to get an idea noticed for several years without success. Instead of the Senate immigration bill that is now being considered (which will cost an untold amount of money in just a few years and will ultimately change just about everything about America), why not institute a ""Marshall Plan II"" for Mexico and Central America to entice the illegals back home and give them a better life in their own country? This makes a lot of sense to me. How about to you? Lou Linxwiler Mesa, Ariz. The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number. Any letter accepted may appear in print or on our website, http://www.csmonitor.com. Mail letters to Readers Write and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to (617) 450-2317, or e-mail to Op-Ed. (c) Copyright 2007. The Christian Science Monitor"
"4","American Culture Immigration bill ensures customs are passed on DAL0000020070607e3670000y EDITORIALS EDITORIALS 350 Words 07 June 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 18A English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  What worries some Americans about all this immigration talk in Washington is that new waves of immigrants could so change our culture that America no longer seems recognizable. The worry is a legitimate one. Our country has always churned with change, but none of us want to lose sight of our history, ideals and customs.  Given the red-hot rhetoric surrounding the Senate's immigration bill, you may not think the proposal responds to those worries. It does, though, and in a constructive way. For example, the legislation would:  *Require every immigrant who qualifies as a permanent legal resident to learn English and take civics classes before they become citizens.  The bill is very detailed about what's included in those civics classes. Immigrants must learn about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, major court decisions and the civil rights movement, among other parts of our national story.  They likewise must know about the founding fathers, various elected officials, scientists, inventors, equal-rights activists, entrepreneurs and artists. All of that would require a working proficiency in English, too.  *Let the Department of Homeland Security constantly review and update the nationalization test and assist immigrants who want to become citizens.  We hope a large part of the money devoted to helping immigrants assimilate goes to nonprofits, churches and other nongovernment organizations. Mediating institutions, like small churches, often are in a better position to reach immigrants than the feds.  *Put on the Internet a curriculum designed to teach English to those who don't know it. Nonprofits and other local groups could download it and train immigrants in English. Today, the curriculum can be expensive to purchase.  There's value in preserving America's heritage, including the use of English. The immigration bill being fought in Washington embraces that value, which is one more reason for the Senate to pass the legislation. It will ensure that our customs are passed on to future immigrants."
"4","Look who's talking Our position: It's Reid, not the Republicans, now trying to torpedo immigration reform. ORSE000020070607e3670001o EDITORIAL OPINION Sable 277 Words 07 June 2007 Orlando Sentinel FINAL A12 English Copyright 2007, Orlando Sentinel Communications. All Rights Reserved.  U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is accusing Republicans of trying to torpedo a comprehensive immigration bill. But it is Mr. Reid who is bringing the heavy partisan muscle to the debate.  Threatening to pull the bill if he doesn't get enough votes to limit the debate appears to be nothing more than party politics. Mr. Reid says there are other important matters to discuss, including a vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  Important to whom, Mr. Reid? Democrats, perhaps?  Immigration is one of the most critical issues facing this country. That's reason enough not to cut short a healthy debate. Although the current bill isn't perfect and involves complex layers, it has potential for bipartisan compromise.  Mr. Reid's threats will only embolden the opponents to scream louder and increase the chances of killing the bill. That shouldn't even be a consideration. If legislation isn't passed over the next few months, the immigration problem will continue to fester for another two years because of the focus on elections.  Do Americans really want to let this argument rage on for another two years? Polls strongly suggest otherwise. The majority of folks favor comprehensive immigration reform.  Better political leadership can be heard in the words of presidential candidate John McCain, who is lashing out at his Republican rivals who are trying to implode the bill.  Mr. McCain realizes immigration reform is for the greater good of the country. It seems the same cannot be said for Mr. Reid."
"4","INACTION EQUALS AMNESTY PMBP000020070608e3670003o OPINION 201 Words 07 June 2007 The Palm Beach Post FINAL 12A English Copyright 2007. The Palm Beach Post, All Rights Reserved.  When it comes to immigration, the 10 Republican presidential candidates fall neatly into two camps.  In Camp 1 is John McCain, who supports the Senate's reform bill. In Camp 2 are the other nine, who have no feasible plan for fixing the immigration mess but oppose Sen. McCain because he does.  Rudy Giuliani complains nebulously about a missing ""unifying purpose"" in the bipartisan bill. Mitt Romney says giving illegal immigrants a chance at legal status ""just isn't fair."" What would be fair, he doesn't say. Tom Tancredo, whose only issue is immigration, wants to deport the 12 million illegals on behalf of Americans who want to be tomato pickers and hotel maids.  All 10 oppose amnesty but their definitions of it vary. ""For us to do nothing is silent and de facto amnesty,"" Sen. McCain said. Maintaining the status quo ensures that illegal immigrants won't be fined, assessed back taxes or be forced to register. Senate Republicans are threatening to filibuster today if Majority Leader Harry Reid tries to call for a vote. A filibuster would preserve the status quo, and with it the silent and de facto amnesty the country must end."
"4","IMMIGRATION REFORM: CAN THE THEATRICS SEPI000020070608e3670000a Editorial 261 Words 07 June 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer FINAL B6 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The challenges of coming up with an immigration reform bill cannot be underestimated. But the status quo is so dysfunctional that it is worth the time of Congress and President Bush to keep forging ahead.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he would try to win a limit on the amount of debate on the bill, with a threat to put the issue aside if Republicans don't go along. That's the dictatorial way Republicans prefer for strong-arming legislation. Particularly because the proposal has lacked committee review, considerable floor debate and voting on amendments is required.  On Wednesday, Reid began sounding more interested in avoiding a showdown and continuing work on the bill. That's good. There is no reason to delay taking a shot at improving the system.  As Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez observes, there are 12 million people here without legal status. Parents of school children, with U.S. citizenship, can be swept up in raids and deported, leaving behind schoolchildren with U.S. citizenship. The economy lacks enough legal workers. And federal agents are going after housekeepers and gardeners when the real threat comes from drug dealers and terrorists.  The current bill is anything but perfect. Amendments could make it more humane, or harsher and less workable. But Bush and members of Congress in both parties have come a long way toward viable reform. They should keep working as quickly as possible on a bill that, with some improvement, could become an example of bipartisan cooperation. P-I EDITORIALS"
"4","Pass the Immigration Bill; Hope for 12 million people -- if the center holds WP00000020070607e3670001z Editorial 544 Words 07 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A26 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  THERE WAS a revealing moment Tuesday when the Republican presidential contenders were taking turns bad-mouthing the Senate immigration bill. Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, evidently sensing a twofer target -- the bill as well as Washington's evil ways -- allowed that the immigration bill is (gasp!) a compromise. Or as Mr. Giuliani put it, ""a typical Washington mess.""  Well, yes and no. The bill, which faces a crucial vote as early as today, is indeed a compromise -- a ""grand bargain,"" in the words of its Senate sponsors, in which each side gave something to get something. That's what has made it such an easy mark for critics. But Mr. Giuliani is wrong to think the immigration deal is ""typical"" in any way; in fact, the Bush administration has presided over a ravenously partisan era in which precious little bipartisan compromise has occurred on major domestic issues. The immigration bill is the exception that lends hope to the proposition that seeking cooperation, conciliation and the middle ground is still possible in American politics.  The bill is not worthwhile merely because it is a compromise but rather because it addresses the colossal and corrosive problem of 12 million illegal immigrants who have become an integral part of the American labor force. No one seriously believes they will be rounded up and deported en masse, yet too many opponents of the bill evidently prefer the status quo -- immigrants in the shadows; employers ignoring the law; preoccupied and embittered state and local officials in whose laps the problem has been dumped -- to the reasonable resolution the bill offers: an arduous but navigable route to citizenship. Wrestling that problem to the ground would be an enormous achievement, and so would measures in the Senate bill that would tighten the border and create systems by which employers could verify the legal status of the workers they hire.  Everyone has a beef with this bill, and so do we. Ours is the cumbersome, unrealistic and unseemly regimen it would establish for future guest workers. They would be admitted in numbers plainly inadequate to meet the nation's demand -- 200,000 a year, about half the number being absorbed by the economy -- and under rules seemingly designed to be violated. By allowing these workers to stay for only six years, broken into two-year segments that can be renewed only if a worker leaves the country for a year between stints, the Senate is ensuring that over time it will create a new class of hopeless and mired illegal immigrants.  With luck, and providing the bill survives Senate action in the coming days, that flaw will be massaged out of the bill either in the House or in negotiations between the two houses. But even if not, the bill leaves those workers no worse off than they are now; in the future, at least some of them would be able to come legally.  The immigration bill is, fundamentally, an agreement that has marginalized the extremes of both parties for the sake of dealing with a very large problem. The question now for the Senate is: Will the center hold? http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200706071ED-IMMIGRATION7"
"3","You heard it here . . . BHLD000020070609e3680001x EDITORIAL 166 Words 08 June 2007 Boston Herald All Editions 21 English � 2007 Boston Herald Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  During a marathon debate on the Senate floor over the immigration bill, some senators grew testy. (Case in point: a heated exchange between Barack Obama and Lindsey Graham.) But yesterday there was at least a brief outbreak of that old Senate civility as Trent Lott (R- Miss.) lauded our own Ted Kennedy:  Lott: So Senator Kennedy, I appreciate the legislative leadership . . . I know it's not easy, you know, your own colleagues and those of us over here have been beating you up. . . . You're a nice poster child. Thank you very much for what you do. But I'll tell you one thing I've learned the hard way, when it comes to legislating, when you're dealing with Senator Kennedy, you better bring your lunch because you're going to get educated, you're going to learn a lot and you're going to get a result. Hopefully it's going to be a good one. Good luck, Senator . . ."
"5","EDITORIALS Alien Felons Deserve The Boot INVDAI0020070608e3680000f ISSUES & INSIGHTS 636 Words 08 June 2007 Investor's Business Daily NATIONAL A12 English (c) 2007 Investor's Business Daily  Immigration: Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy don't think being a criminal should be a bar to the American dream. We have enough crime. Do we really need to import more of it?  Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, didn't think so, so he offered an amendment Wednesday to the immigration bill grinding its way through the Senate excluding felons, including those ordered to be deported, from the ""path to citizenship.""  McCain is alone among GOP presidential aspirants opposed to Cornyn's amendment, which failed 51-46. McCain instead supported a measure offered by Kennedy, one backed by Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, that would bar a more limited set of criminals. It passed 66-32.  Cornyn's amendment would have permanently barred from legalization all convicted felons, including members of terrorist organizations, violent gang members, sex offenders, repeat drunk drivers, sex offenders and those convicted of felony identity theft.  As Cornyn explained it on Redstate.com:  ""We have enough trouble policing our own citizenry. Legalizing convicted felons, who have already shown disdain for our justice system, simply exacerbates the problem.""  Kennedy objected and accused Cornyn of classifying ""an array of common, garden-variety immigration offenses as crimes that would make them ineligible for the program.""  What exactly is a ""garden-variety"" immigration offense?  Kennedy whined that the Cornyn amendment ""says if you . . . have been ordered out of the country by immigration authorities, but if you failed to leave or came back, you're ineligible.""  And your point is? They were ordered deported for a reason, senator. In fact, there are more than 630,000 fugitive aliens who have been ordered deported on the streets of America -- doing what, nobody knows.  The defeat of Cornyn's amendment came on the same day U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced that 124 gang members had been arrested in Southern California over the past three months as part of a nationwide operation aimed at those who come across our southern border to commit crimes such as murder, robbery and drug smuggling. Los Angeles is home to more than 400 gangs that were blamed for more than half of the city's 478 murders last year.  As the Manhattan Institute's Heather MacDonald has pointed out, the problem of criminal illegal aliens is particularly acute in California. At one point, she noted, in Los Angeles 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide were for illegal aliens, as were up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants.  Why identity theft should not be a bar to legalization in an age of terrorism is beyond us. Aside from the national security implications, identity theft cost 8.9 million victims in 2006 some $56.6 billion. That averages out to $6,383 per victim. The perpetrator is allowed to buy citizenship for less than that.  The federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program reimburses states and local jurisdictions for costs incurred for the jailing of criminal aliens. SCAAP program data for fiscal 2003 estimated the illegal alien population to be about 3.1% of the U.S. population.  Deportable criminal illegal aliens were estimated to be 4.5% of the U.S. prison population. A 2005 Government Accounting Office study involving 55,322 illegal immigrants incarcerated in federal, state and local facilities in 2003 found that they had been arrested an average of eight times each with 49% previously being convicted of a felony.  For some illegal aliens, crime pays, and so do we. The thought crossed our minds that three of the Fort Dix Six who were illegal aliens, before they were caught plotting to kill as many American soldiers as they could, could have been put on the McCain-Kennedy ""path to citizenship."""
"4","Borderline votes RNOB000020070608e3680000w Editorial/Opinion 734 Words 08 June 2007 The News & Observer Final A16 English Copyright (c) 2007 by The News & Observer Pub. Co.  Monday's tragic crossover wreck on Interstate 40, caused by an illegal immigrant, reminds us all what a mess immigration is in, here and nationwide.  Three days after the crash, the driver of an SUV that crossed the unprotected median near the Wade Avenue split on Raleigh's west side, killing George Smith of Cary, had not been conclusively identified. The man, apparently from Mexico, is either Michael De Latorre or Ricardo Contreras, depending on whether you ask the state Highway Patrol or federal immigration authorities. De Latorre/Contreras offered a driver's license as ID, but, to say the least, it can't be relied upon.  So -- another drunken driving fatality involving a Hispanic immigrant, one who, authorities said, is in the country illegally. There have been all too many such tragedies. No wonder the clamor for tight enforcement of immigration laws, deportations and, above all, an effective barrier on America's southern border.  Such measures, by absolutely no coincidence, are front and center in Washington this week. The U.S. Senate is voting on a comprehensive immigration bill, a shaky accord between senators on the left (most notably Democrat Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts) and right (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona is the bill's co-sponsor).  The compromise covers immigration policy from A to Z. Its many provisions are complex and easy to oversimplify. But in outline, it addresses border security (resources, fencing, barriers and detection, and an electronic worker registry that employers would have to use before hiring someone). It puts more weight on admitting (legal) immigrants with education and well-developed skills, and less on favoring those with family ties here. It sets up a guest worker program sought by businesses.  A difficult path  Most controversially, it establishes a new ""Z visa"" for illegal immigrants already here. If those illegals jump through certain hoops -- pay fines, show English proficiency and so forth -- after several years they could gain ""green card"" status putting them on a path to citizenship.  That last part, some say, is amnesty -- a reward for crossing illegally.  The argument has the sound of an exaggeration. Opponents downplay the difficulties of the visa and citizenship process -- the path to citizenship would be a long one, starting at the back of the line. And they overlook advantages of moving illegals out of the underworld of fake IDs in which these workers do some of the hardest jobs this country offers.  President Bush, a Texan well-versed on immigration, nailed it when he said ""This bill isn't amnesty....This bill is one that says we recognize that you're here illegally and there's a consequence for it."" Bush said amnesty talk tries to frighten Americans.  Scare talk is out there -- along with sincere laments about the burdens illegal immigration places on public services and safety -- and senators are feeling the heat. No wonder some have been peeling away from the bill on specific votes, with the effect of strengthening enforcement provisions and designating English as our ""national language."" Fine-tuning is fine if it nets vital votes, but too much of it and the pro-bill coalition falls apart.  Chances for progress  That would please opponents who would rather rant against Hispanics and demand enforcement of existing laws than recognize the balance of forces that has stymied progress. Their reward will be no action, and more of the governmental paralysis everyone decries. With so many interests involved, a wide-ranging reform, imperfect but trending in the right direction, is the only progress possible. This compromise, or something close to it, is Congress' big chance.  A chance, too, for greater safety on the roads of North Carolina, which is among the states most affected by illegal immigration.  No, a drunken driver in a possibly stolen vehicle won't suddenly start abiding by traffic laws if he gets legal status. Vigorous law enforcement on the highways must continue in any event to counter the threat posed by dangerous rogue drivers.  Yet with a wide new web of immigration measures -- including beefed-up borders (so people deported for traffic offenses can't come right back) and verified identification (which would also prohibit serious criminals from living here), North Carolina could bring newly legalized immigrants into the driver licensing and auto insurance processes. That could be a jump start for highway safety, with the potential to save lives."
"4","Good starting point ORSE000020070608e3680001c EDITORIAL Friday Forum Today's topic: What to do about immigration policy? Readers debate what moves they think Congress should make. The politics of immigration 225 Words 08 June 2007 Orlando Sentinel FINAL A19 English Copyright 2007, Orlando Sentinel Communications. All Rights Reserved.  The immigration-reform bill currently being considered by the Senate is a good starting point, but I would suggest three changes:  First, the restrictions on bringing brothers and sisters (and their immediate families) should apply only to illegal immigrants.  Legal immigrants already have waiting periods to obtain green cards, and then five years to obtain citizenship, before they can apply to bring in brothers and sisters. Allowing legal immigrants to continue to do so would give a powerful additional incentive (and reward) for following the legal route, without opening the floodgates to tens of millions of relatives of illegal immigrants.  Second, preferences for workers with special skills should be allowed only if employers can demonstrate that insufficient U.S. workers are available at the prevailing U.S. salaries and benefits for those levels of skill. Otherwise, salaries and benefits for U.S. workers will be undercut, and U.S. student numbers in those fields will drop further.  Finally, guest-worker programs should require decent wages, living and working conditions, so as not to exploit the guest workers, and also to minimize the number of guest workers by attracting U.S. workers as well.  Frank Kujawa  Winter Park"
"5","Questions, no answers ORSE000020070608e3680001b EDITORIAL Friday Forum Today's topic: What to do about immigration policy? Readers debate what moves they think Congress should make. The politics of immigration 291 Words 08 June 2007 Orlando Sentinel FINAL A19 English Copyright 2007, Orlando Sentinel Communications. All Rights Reserved.  When I consider the proposed immigration bill currently in the Senate, I come up with only questions, not answers.  1. Should we believe and trust that this bill will secure our borders when there have been ample chances to accomplish this in the five-plus years since the terrorist attack of 9-11?  2. Is a government that has been able to build only 2 miles of border fence in the past year capable of securing our borders?  3. What will the cost be to the American people of implementing this massive project and providing benefits to additional millions in the future?  4. The Senate bill would allow the current illegal immigrants to bring in family members. What will the true number be of people given legal status by this bill?  5. How can our government possibly do accurate security checks on millions of people in the required 24 hours when information from other countries is involved?  6. Everyone will change to legal status the day after the bill is signed. If so, why would they submit to a $5,000 fine, return to their homeland or submit to a background check?  7. What happens during the 18 months after the bill is signed, before the border is secured (MAYBE)?  Certain senators and President Bush need to stop the spin and quit accusing citizens of being un-American and/or afraid of diversity if they disagree with this bill and start telling the real story of cost, numbers and mechanics of implementation so we can make an informed decision.  Claudia Platt  Altamonte Springs"
"2","LETTERS, FAXES & E-MAIL STJR000020070611e3680000b EDITORIAL 1874 Words 08 June 2007 The State Journal-Register 7 English � 2007 The State Journal-Register. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  More gambling would come with high price  In the overtime session, legislators are looking to gambling as a ""quick fix"" to balance the budget and get out of town. The Senate passed a massive gambling expansion bill that would increase the number of gambling positions in Illinois fivefold.  I was surprised when one of your readers suggested that legislators should ""go to Nevada to see how they run their state."" The governor of Nevada said, ""Our revenue system is broken because it has relied on regressive and unstable taxes."" He noted in his State of the State address in 2003 that three out of every four tax dollars are collected from sales and gaming taxes, which are vulnerable in the economy. Faced with a $704 million budget deficit, some Nevada lawmakers recommended taxing brothels.  Nevada ranks near the bottom in per pupil spending on education and ranks No. 1 in gambling addiction, divorce and high school dropouts. Nevada also ranks near the top for bankruptcies, alcohol- related deaths and crime. Is this what we want in Illinois?  For the state to get millions of dollars in new revenue from more casinos, slot machines and Internet betting on horses, Illinois residents will have to lose billions of dollars gambling. The price is too high!  Kimberly Disney  Springfield  Give Ameren a 20% hike over 10 years  I've been watching very closely on what's been going on, and I'd like to present something to you concerning the Ameren rate increase.  I would like to recommend a 5 percent increase over two years and before the two years is up, approximately six months before, look at what we need to do for the next two to three years. Maybe another 5 percent increase could be looked at. With this in mind, I think we could look at a total rate increase over 10 years of 20 percent. I feel we could live with this rate increase over 10 years.  I also feel that if anything needs to be frozen or rolled back at this time, it's the salaries that were just voted on and passed for our state officials. I have a lot of respect for Rep. Raymond Poe and the way he has represented the citizens of Illinois. I would like to challenge all of our legislators, along with Gov. Rod Blagojevich, to step up to the plate and work together on the issues that face this great state of Illinois, and remember the people are the ones that elected you to the positions that you are holding today. You are to represent them and work for the common good. Our Founding Fathers stepped up to the plate and went through a lot to bring our country to where it is today and I would like to see it continue.  Let's bring common sense back into government and let the people be heard. I'd like to challenge everyone who reads this letter to let your voices be heard. We elected each and every one of the officials to represent us, so let them know how you fee and don't give up.  Johnie West Sr.  Nokomis  More than one side to smoking issue  My three older sisters and my husband died from the result of smoking. So I am leaning toward the passage of the statewide smoking ban.  The smoking ban will take another right to choose from people. It will take income away from tobacco farmers. People who make smoking products and smoke shop owners will lose. It will lessen the income of people who own taverns.  It seems everything has more than one side.  Betty Hughes  Springfield  Take the challenge to find out who God is  Shame on Ted Rall's editorial taking a slam at Christianity during his spin writing of troop support! Reference to the Creation Museum in Kentucky being ""a striking symbol of willful idiocy"" is indeed a dangerous remark. What if his ignorant rhetoric had been toward Muslims and their beliefs in their ancient Babylonian moon god, Allah - there would be a cry of outrage!  For those of us who believe biblical Scripture, Jehovah God making the Earth in six days isn't a stretch and making the Earth any age he wanted isn't unreasonable. Why would it be? He could have created the Earth in six trillion years or six nanoseconds; there is no time with him. The mountains could have been 6 million, 6 thousand or 6 years old when he created them. Adam and Eve weren't children in the Garden of Eden, they were grown. To reference the Book of Job, Chapter 26, verse 7, probably written around first century B.C., ""God stretches out heaven over empty space and hangs the Earth upon nothing"" - did you ever wonder how the ancient writer knew this except by divine revelation?  Quantum physics, dark energy, light years, our very existence - these are gifts continuously being explored and analyzed, given to us by our creator who wants nothing more than to share these glories with us.  The United States was founded on his Word. Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet fasted and prayed for days on end to him at the close of the Civil War. Take the challenge to find out who he truly is! Who understands and loves you better than God, your maker?  Linda Flemming  Springfield  Training cat to be on tether is a good idea  Thank you, Pat McGarry, for writing such a kind and good alternative to allowing a pet cat some freedom to enjoy being outdoors safely.  We think training a cat to be on a tether is a good idea - for owner and pet - and if we get another cat in the future, we will follow your advice. We regret we had to learn this lesson the hard way. Thank you for writing in defense of all cat lovers.  Sharon Brannan  and Susan Fricke  Springfield  Residents of New Orleans still need help  Recently, Jerald Jacobs had in his letter the following: ""I happen to think we have already spent too much money on a city on the gulf built below sea level."" I am shocked at the lack of empathy and lack of compassion!  Much money has been allocated to New Orleans but little has been distributed to persons in need. I am sure graft will be found at national, state and local levels but what recipient of federal monies can throw stones? I would encourage Jacobs to spend a month in New Orleans and offer his nonfederal help so his statements could be informed.  The current residents of New Orleans did not locate their city any more than those suffering from our local tornadoes and floods. The Army Corp of Engineers rechanneled the Mississippi River years ago from the Atchafalaya River to the current coarse with improperly built levees. They wanted New Orleans to be a part and it is. It is one of four large Gulf of Mexico ports, the loss of which would profoundly impact our economy.  New Orleans has contributed to the culture, music, education and friendliness to our country. My hope is that all our citizens would see those people as neighbors in need of help. I ""know what it means to miss New Orleans.""  Aretha Rathmell  Springfield  A_scary experience at Canadian border  I would like to add to Nancy Eller's recent letter a quirky event regarding immigration law.  During the Depression, my folks lost everything as so many others did. Without a home and with four young boys to raise, my parents decided to go to Canada, where my mother's family lived. I was born there. My father was born and raised in Petersburg. My mother was born in Montreal, Canada, and was in the process of becoming a naturalized U. S. citizen.  When my parents inquired about my status (we returned to Springfield when I was 6 months old) the judge told them I would become a ""citizen"" if my mother completed her naturalization process before my eighth birthday.  I was the child of a natural-born citizen of the U. S. and a natural- born citizen of Canada. According to what I learned in the school system in Springfield, I should have had dual citizenship.  However, I was required to go through the process and obtain naturalization papers after a very frightening experience of being taken from a bus at the border and not allowed to return to Springfield after visiting my Canadian relatives at the ripe old age of 14. I have never attempted to cross the border without those papers in hand since that time.  Margaret Pickering  Springfield  Not happy with Durbin, Obama votes  On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate voted on an amendment (SA No. 1184) to the immigration bill to ""deny benefits and admission to the U.S."" to those people who are ""sex offenders, firearms offense, domestic violence, stalking, crimes against children, gang members and those convicted of 3 DUIs.""  Both Sens. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama voted no. This amendment attempted to keep out the worst people but our senators prefer to welcome them - that is the only assumption I can deduce.  Where is the outrage? Amnesty for everyone even if you are a danger to society. I guess the United States will allow anyone to immigrate here, including the criminal element. I find these two votes unacceptable, and I hope others see this too.  Tony Salvatore  Springfield  Striking resemblance  Is it just me, or as the General Assembly's current session progresses, are Rod Blagojevich, Emil Jones and Michael Madigan looking more and more like Larry, Moe and Curly?  Ed Hoffman  Springfield  Stockholders suffered; 'the Donald' did OK  Recently, the picture of Donald Trump along with the project picture of his proposed high-rise building scheduled for Chicago were in The State Journal-Register.  Recently, ""the Donald"" and Rosie O'Donnell engaged in an argument and the subject was, ""Did the Donald go bankrupt?"" or words to that effect. The Donald stated he did not.  At the time of the bankruptcy of Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, I believe the president and CEO of the organization was Donald Trump. I held stock in that organization. I lost every cent I had invested except 0.01 ... that is one cent, and I have the check from my broker to prove it. The check made out to me carried the caption ""proceeds of redemption of trump hotels and casi."" (Apparently, the broker ran out of ink and could not spell casino.)  Fortunately, I had only a few hundred dollars invested, BUT a penny return is not very good.  The question is, did ""the Don"" become bankrupt or not? It was the stockholders who suffered. He may have cashed in prior to the bankruptcy; very likely he came out ahead of the game. Needless to say, I refuse to cash the $0.01 check from my broker. Hopefully, my action will not interfere with their bookkeeping.  Jim Rice  Girard Caption: Donald Trump was in Chicago recently to talk about the progress of his 92-story Trump International Hotel & Tower, which is under construction behind him."
"4","Amnesty? What amnesty? Critics substitute fear for facts USAT000020070608e3680003e NEWS 597 Words 08 June 2007 USA Today FINAL A.14 English � 2007 USA Today. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Opponents of the immigration compromise that stalled in the Senate on Thursday night have wield the word ""amnesty"" like a club, as if repeating it over and over constitutes rational argument.  Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., displays the word prominently on his presidential campaign website and describes amnesty variously as a ""travesty"" and a ""catastrophe."" CNN's Lou Dobbs invokes the word so often (six times in the introduction of his Wednesday broadcast alone) you'd think his anchor seat was under imminent threat from border-jumping TV hosts.  Such is the politics of fear, and if it is deplorable, it is also effective.  Although polls show that most Americans support giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, the bipartisan immigration bill was on life support after Senate leaders pulled it off the floor in the face of relentless opposition. Never mind that what it offers is not amnesty at all. Never mind either that defeating it -- thereby retaining the current system -- means that the 12 million illegal entrants already here will stay. It's fear that counts, not reason.  This is what the critics call amnesty:  Over time, illegal immigrants would have to pay fines and fees of more than $9,000 (plus thousands more for each family member). They'd have to prove they're working and have no significant criminal record. They'd have to learn English and American civics. And, if they want legal permanent residence, they'd have to return to their home country to apply for it there. Getting a green card would take at least eight years, citizenship at least 13.  Some amnesty.  In a perfect world, it might be reasonable to say that everyone here illegally should be deported. Lawbreaking, obviously, cannot be ignored. But if that were possible at all -- which is very dubious - - the cost would run far into the billions.  And for what?  Most immigrants work hard. They came to make better futures for themselves and their families. They have put down roots and are vital to the American economy. Even small crackdowns produce wails from employers who can't find replacement workers.  Ask detractors to stop braying ""amnesty"" for a minute and offer an alternative, and the response is too often the sort of non- answer Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave during Tuesday's GOP debate on CNN. Romney proposed ""to enforce the law ... that was passed in 1986.""  Alas, that ship has sailed. It's simply not feasible to go back two decades to start over -- or to suddenly make it so difficult for illegals to work here that at least 12 million people magically self- deport, leaving restaurants, hotels and millions of small businesses with a crippling labor shortage.  The critics should instead focus their efforts on a more legitimate goal: Making sure this reform includes both the means and the funding to keep millions more illegal immigrants from coming. If the federal government follows through aggressively -- a big if, given the abject failure of the 1986 bill's enforcement provisions - - the nation could get control over its borders and its workplaces.  The time to keep 12 million illegals who are here now out of the country was long ago. Maintaining the status quo is, as Sen. John McCain and others have said, simply a matter of ""silent amnesty.""  ---  This is the third in an occasional series of editorials about this year's immigration debate. View the previous editorials at blogs.usatoday.com/oped/immigration_editorial. PHOTO, B/W, Brian Albert Broom, AP"
"5","The amnesty bill WATI000020070608e3680000n EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 466 Words 08 June 2007 The Washington Times A20 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  As we went to press, the Senate was continuing to debate the ""compromise"" illegal immigrant amnesty bill, and was preparing to vote on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's amendment cutting off debate. Following are some of the most irresponsible votes cast by the Senate thus far which serve to illustrate the Bush administration's and the Senate majority's approach to immigration policy:  * Granting amnesty to illegal-alien absconders. On Wednesday, the Senate voted to grant amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who had already been caught and ordered deported but remain in the United States in violation of a court order - something that improves their chances for amnesty (an opportunity they forfeit if they obey the law and leave the United States). It defeated by a 51- 46 margin an amendment offered by Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, that would have barred these illegal aliens from remaining in the United States. The Texas Republican very sensibly argued that these people had shown contempt for the law and should be sent home. Ten Republicans - Sens. Larry Craig (Idaho); Pete Domenici (N.M.); Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.); Dick Lugar (Ind.); Mel Martinez (Fla.); John McCain (Ariz.); Jon Kyl (Ariz.); Arlen Specter (Pa.) and George Voinovich (Ohio) voted against Mr. Cornyn's amendment.  * Refusing to implement basic border security and interior enforcement measures. The Senate yesterday voted down by a 54-42 margin an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn which would have required the Department of Homeland Security to certify that essential measures were enacted before illegal aliens could be granted visas under the bill. The Oklahoma Republican's commonsense proposal would have required the Department of Homeland Security to certify that statutorily required border fencing was in place and that sanctuary cities (jurisdictions which in general refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities) are prohibited. In addition to Mr. Kyl, Republicans who helped kill Mr. Coburn's amendment included Messrs. Lugar; Martinez; Brownback; and Specter.  * Refusing to require that a system to determine whether an alien had left the country be in place before amnesty could take effect. On Wednesday, the Senate by a 49 to 48 margin voted to kill an amendment by Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, that would have required the US-VISIT entry-exit system to be in place before the bill's guest-worker and amnesty provisions could take effect. Messrs. Kyl, McCain and Martinez were among the Republicans who provided the margin of defeat for the Vitter amendment.  * Keeping amnesty in the bill. On May 24, the Senate voted 66 to 29 against an amendment by Mr. Vitter and Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, to remove amnesty for 12 to 20 million illegal aliens from the bill."
"2","SATURDAY MAILBOX BSUN000020070610e36900019 EDITORIAL SATURDAY MAILBOX 3504 Words 09 June 2007 The Baltimore Sun Final 10A English Copyright 2007, The Baltimore Sun. All Rights Reserved.  Jonathan Paul of the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front pleaded guilty in the 1997 burning of the Cavel West slaughterhouse (above) in Redmond, Ore.  Circumcision curbs spread of HIV/AIDS\ As a native of Nigeria and a doctor working for an international health organization affiliated with the Johns Hopkins University, I was very encouraged to read Michael Gerson's column supporting male circumcision as a tool to prevent HIV and AIDS in Africa (""Fight AIDS in Africa with circumcision,"" Opinion * Commentary, June 4).  JHPIEGO has been working to promote safe, comprehensive male circumcision services since 2003, when it began working with Zambia's Ministry of Health to improve the quality of and access to male circumcision and male reproductive health services in that country.  In March of this year, citing results from three clinical trials that found that male circumcision reduces female-to-male HIV transmission by 60 percent, the World Health Organization and UNAIDS recommended that countries with a high prevalence of HIV begin offering free or subsidized circumcisions.  For those of us working in Africa, our immediate concern is about how to move quickly from research to practice.  We need to provide safe, pain-free and affordable male circumcision services.  We also need to make it clear to men and their communities that this procedure does not provide 100 percent protection - and that they will also need to take other steps to reduce their risk.  Still, male circumcision can become be an entry point to offering other male reproductive health services, such as encouraging safer sex and screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.  Mr. Gerson is correct when he says, ""When it comes to AIDS, circumcision is the kindest cut.""  Let's seize the opportunity to rapidly scale up male circumcision services and get men more involved in HIV prevention and reproductive health.  Dr. Emmanuel Oladipo Otolorin  Abuja, Nigeria\ The writer is country director for Nigeria for JHPIEGO.\ \ Make energy sellers accountable again  Thomas A. Firey's flawed assumptions about energy are akin to those that led to our state's failed deregulation plan in the first place (""'BGE ratepayers, behold the man,"" Opinion * Commentary, June 1).  Mr. Firey attributes the lower rates in states with regulated energy prices to their reliance on cheaper energy sources.  However, Maryland relies on much the same cheap sources of energy.  We need to take steps now to restore accountability to the electricity market.  The Public Service Commission must require the utility companies to develop long-term plans to ensure reliable electric service at the least possible cost and develop a plan for public power in Maryland.  Fundamentally, we also need to use energy more wisely.  New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer recently announced that his state would reduce energy use by 15 percent from forecast levels by 2015 through improved energy efficiency.  I call on Gov. Martin O'Malley to pledge a 20 percent reduction in Maryland's energy use by 2020 through efficiency and conservation.  Johanna E. Neumann  Baltimore\ The writer is a policy advocate for the Maryland Public Interest Research Group.\ \ O'Malley's PSC works just like the old one  Does Fred Mason, the president of the Maryland and District of Columbia AFL-CIO, actually believe that Gov. Martin O'Malley's Public Service Commission will do any better for consumers than former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s did, in light of the fact that Constellation Energy gave large contributions to both the O'Malley and Ehrlich gubernatorial campaigns (""BGE rates arrive quietly,"" June 1)?  It is unfortunate that liberal groups such as the Maryland Public Interest Research Group, the AFL-CIO and Progressive Maryland seem more concerned with staying on the good side of Mr. O'Malley than in truly fighting for the right of ratepayers to have a regulated or publicly owned market.  Aren't citizens tired of such behavior from folks who are supposed to be on our side?  Cindy Sheehan recently spoke of her sense of betrayal by the national Democratic Party concerning the war.  On the energy deregulation issue, we are seeing this very same kind of betrayal by Democratic Party leaders and followers on the state level.  Brandy Baker  Baltimore\ The writer is a member of the Maryland Coalition to Stop the Rate Hikes and a former Green Party candidate for state delegate.\ \ ABATE is working to make roads safer  The Sun's editorial ""Collision course"" (May 31) suggests that instead of trying to modify the state's mandatory motorcycle helmet law, groups such as ABATE of Maryland should be ""pushing for programs to make the roads safer.""  Statements such as this one perpetuate the misguided notion that ABATE members are only ""the helmet guys.""  However, in fact, ABATE:  Was instrumental in the formation of Maryland's Motorcycle Safety Program, has fought to keep it viable and strongly suggests that all motorcyclists in the state take the course.  Has had some of its board members work with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration assessment of the Maryland Motorcycle Safety Program.  Has members on the State Highway Administration's Highway Safety Task Force.  Has its own Motorcycle Awareness Program.  Lobbied very strongly for House and Senate bills in this year's General Assembly session that would have increased the penalty for violating the right of way of any user of state roads.  We would also note that although May was proclaimed by the governor as Motorcycle Awareness Month, we saw no mention of that fact in The Sun or signboards or public announcements about this posted by the state.  ABATE's goals are to protect the rights of motorcyclists, improve them where possible and make Maryland as safe as possible for motorcyclists.  Steven P. Strohmier Dundalk  Neal Ackerson Annapolis\ The writers are, respectively, the legislative representative of the Baltimore chapter and the state director for ABATE (A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments) of Maryland Inc.\ \ Whites also victims of racial hatred  In ""Racial oppression is a one-way street"" (Opinion * Commentary, June 3), columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. states that it amazes him when ""white people put on the victim hat.""  And then he complains of the ""mewling noises from that subset of my white countrymen who feel put upon by big, bad racial minorities.""  This apparently is his level of compassion for the victims of ""five blacks, one a woman"" who carjacked, kidnapped and raped a young white couple whose only crime was driving while white (to put a twist on the normal statement).  As if that wasn't enough, these attackers sprayed cleaning fluid in the woman's mouth and suffocated her in a trash can and shot the man and set him afire.  Unabashed, Mr. Pitts dismisses ""a constellation of white supremacists and conservative bloggers"" and complains about the media ""pulling out all the stops when crime is white on black, as in the Duke lacrosse case.""  Mr. Pitts needs to be careful - or he may show himself to be a racist.  The case he described involving the white couple was indeed a hate crime - and hate crimes can be committed by members of any race.  This was not a simple mugging and taking of a wallet and purse. This crime involved cold-blooded, intentional, extended enjoyment of the suffering of people of another race.  Mr. Pitts concludes with four words addressed to ""any other white Americans who feel themselves similarly victimized: Cry me a river.""  Well, I have four words for Mr. Pitts: ""Go promote racial understanding.""  R. Hendrix  Severna Park\ \ Immigration reform harmful to families  The point system involved in the Senate's immigration bill is dangerous and unethical (""Immigrant advocates stage protest,"" June 3).  From the perspective of ethics, there are two basic justifications for allowing immigrants to enter a Western liberal democracy: family reunification and political asylum.  But this bill provides for little of the former type of immigration and none of the latter.  While the basic principle of a point system is praiseworthy - as an effort to quantify our inconsistent, backlogged and potentially arbitrary system - the distribution of points proposed under this plan is ethically horrifying.  It belittles the importance of family and of exigencies such as conflict-riddled environments while emphasizing what a few elitists perceive as our national interests.  The bill's narrow definition of the family ignores the varied and important roles in child-rearing and group decision-making that the extended family plays in most societies.  Compassion and our nation's assumed mantle as a beacon of multicultural democracy suggest that we should have an immigration system that understands the concept of family from the perspective of those the system will affect.  Under a better approach, a more ethical and fair point system could be applied to those seeking employment visas, while potential immigrants seeking entry on the basis of family reunion or asylum could continue to be reviewed separately - and compassionately.  Mike Lebson  Halethorpe\ The writer is an instructor in political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.\ \ Limit our waste, not newcomers  In response to the letter ""Immigrants strain natural resources"" (May 25), I would suggest that instead of regulating poor immigrants, we should rein in the buying habits of the greedy middle- and upper-class Americans who drive SUVs, live in ""McMansions"" and consume massive amounts of red meat.  Those practices have a much more negative effect on our natural resources and the environment than the presence of poor immigrants does.  SUVs drain our oil supply, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and help enable Americans to live far from central cities and thus chew up more forests and open space.  And McMansions, in addition to being inefficient energy and water users, are also often built at the cost of forests and natural habitat.  Finally, our style of meat consumption is extremely bad for the environment not only because of the open space used to raise farm animals but also because of the pollution caused by factory farming and the energy and water used to feed millions of cows and chickens.  Perhaps we need to impose quotas on McMansions, SUVs and meat consumption before we add new restrictions on immigration.  Paul Day  Baltimore\ \ Large-car drivers display selfishness  What the writer of the letter ""Small-car drivers should pay more"" (June 2) is really saying is that he values his own safety above the safety of others and the welfare of the environment.  According to the writer's logic, we should all be driving huge behemoths because people like him have chosen to do so and have put my safety at risk by their choice.  By this logic, in order to defend myself from injury by large-car drivers (who tend to drive more carelessly because of their sense of invulnerability), I should also buy a large car.  By similar logic, people whose neighbors put in a swimming pool should pay the cost of a fence to keep their children from wandering over into the neighbor's yard and falling into the pool.  In short, by the writer's logic, anyone who, for his or her own pleasure or convenience, makes a legal choice that diminishes the safety and comfort of others should not be held responsible for the effects of this choice on others; rather, those others must bear the costs.  If only the effects of global warming were selective so that only the people who make choices like those of this letter writer were the ones to suffer.  Unfortunately, the people most likely to suffer are those who can't buy any cars at all.  Elizabeth Fixsen  Savage\ \ Canceling field trips unfair to students  In response to the article ""Kids, parents angry over canceled trips"" (May 23), I would say: And Baltimoreans wonder why students don't behave better?  How can one set an example of citizenship and honorable behavior when students receive such unfair treatment?  It isn't a matter of who or what is to blame for the canceled trips; such a blame game matters little to students who can't celebrate what is a milestone for many students - completing the eighth grade.  A new set of guidelines for justifying field trips has been adopted by the school system for legitimate reasons.  But when the school system cancels a ""rite of passage"" trip at the last moment - after months of happy expectation on the part of the students - that is punitive and unfair.  Many of these students have spent years in city schools without adequate funding for basic necessities such as safe drinking water (or sometimes any drinking water, for that matter), uneven sanitary conditions, lack of textbooks and, most important, lack of adequate teaching staff to accommodate all traditional subject areas and allow art, music, gym and other electives to have a significant place in children's lives.  These field trips are such a small and easy pleasure to give students and show that we value the dedication of those who chose to stay in school.  As a Baltimore citizen, I am disgusted to read about such a mean-spirited decision that reflects our inability to treasure our city's youths and value who they are.  Susan Patz  Baltimore\ The writer is a community volunteer who teaches in the city schools.\ \ Pastor's new gender no harm to church  Some pastors within the Baltimore-Washington Conference of the United Methodist Church have called into question the ability of my pastor to serve as a leader of the UMC because my pastor has become a man (""Legal ruling sought on church post,"" May 26).  The Rev. Drew Phoenix was my pastor at Rodgers Forge UMC as the Rev. Ann Gordon. When Pastor Ann left Rodgers Forge UMC, my family ultimately followed her to St. John's Church in Baltimore, a reconciling UMC congregation.  Later, when Pastor Ann announced that she was in the process of changing from female to male, we were supportive.  This change in our pastor's gender didn't change the way our services were conducted - only the gender of the pastor who led them.  It didn't cause our church to do fewer good works; it meant that we were simply led by a man, not a woman, in these works.  As Pastor Drew's change became widely known within the congregation, we all noticed that he seemed more at ease with himself.  He was always an empathetic, effective and easy-to-talk-with pastor; now he is a pastor who is empathetic, effective, easy to talk with - and male.  To me, the issue of whether a transgender person should be eligible for reappointment as a minister is a nonstarter.  It is preposterous to suggest that the fact that the pastor in question has undergone a change in gender is enough to make him (or her) less qualified to be an open-minded, open-hearted leader.  Our pastor is the most open-hearted, open-minded human being you'd care to meet.  He is no less an effective, compassionate leader and pastor as a transgender male than he was as a woman.  In fact, being able to be who he felt he was all of his life may have made him a better pastor.  Lexa Newman  Baltimore\ \ Transit policy adds to city's congestion  As a volunteer with a Maryland state agency, I come downtown frequently.  The agency will reimburse me for $12 per visit for parking in one of two designated lots.  However, the Metro subway is very convenient to the building housing the agency. And because of my commitment to public transportation, I choose to commute on the Metro.  But the agency is not funded to reimburse me for the $3.50 per day cost for a Metro fare.  The result of this counter-intuitive reimbursement policy is that some volunteers who might use public transportation elect instead to drive.  The results of this policy include:  Exorbitant costs to the state for parking reimbursement.  More cars downtown, and therefore more air pollution.  Increased profits for private parking lots.  A lack of public policy support for the important public transportation system.  Bernice Seiden  Baltimore\ \ Let drugmakers pay for access to doctors  The media, the public, legislators and academic medical leaders apparently deplore any liaison between drug companies and practicing physicians (""Drugmakers woo med students,"" June 3).  They all seem to agree that it is reprehensible for drug companies to ply doctors with luncheons, dinners, trips and gifts, big and small, and that such bribes brainwash doctors into biased and unethical prescribing habits.  But no one, including the would-be reformers, seems to be exempt from the giant pharmaceutical industry's reach.  The public is influenced by direct marketing, TV ads and free samples. The industry has a big presence on Capitol Hill, and federal and state legislators are quite susceptible to the monetary enticements it holds out.  As for academic medicine, despite all its posturing, it cannot divorce itself from the drug companies that sponsor a lot of the clinical studies undertaken by academia.  Academic institutions, in their turn, funnel important basic science research and biotechnology discoveries to the pharmaceutical companies.  However, the public and the media should be aware by now that doctors do not have the freedom to prescribe any medicines they want to.  In their efforts to contain costs, the insurance and hospital industries have interfered heavily in this area by compiling formulary lists of preferred drugs.  No two formularies are the same, and doctors can go crazy trying to figure out a prescription formula that will work for each patient with minimum side effects and maximum health benefits, while simultaneously taking into account cost-effectiveness and insurance strictures.  Doctors are powerless and feel squeezed among all these competing factions.  Slaves to managed care, chafing under piles of paperwork, we are also squeezed for time, and most of us are therefore unwilling to give away their time to pharmaceutical representatives.  And why should we?  If the pharmaceutical industry wants access to doctors, it must pay for that access. Hence the filet mignon and the cheesecake in the upscale Capital Grille.  To the sanctimonious saps in academic medicine and elsewhere, I say: Relax.  Let us make merry once in a while. That way, we may manage to live long and keep on being slaves.  Neither patients nor the fat-cat pharmaceutical industry will be worse off for our merriment.  Dr. Usha Nellore  Bel Air\ The writer is a practicing endocrinologist.\ \ Animal activists can be terrorists\ As a physician, I must take strong issue with the opinion expressed by Caroline Paul in her column ""My brother, the `terrorist'? Yes, according to the government"" (Opinion  Commentary, June 3) that members of Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) are not terrorists, and ""have never hurt or intended to hurt a single human being.""  First, a number of bombings carried out by ALF members have indeed targeted the homes and cars of people involved in animal research and testing and their families, and in at least one case, people - including children - were present in a bombed home, although fortunately nobody was killed.  Second, a major target of ALF attacks has been medical research laboratories using experimental animals. In one such attack, mice carrying cryptosporidium, an infectious agent potentially deadly to humans with impaired immune systems (such as cancer and AIDS patients) were ""liberated"" into the surrounding community.  Furthermore, these attacks have interrupted or halted years of research aimed at saving human lives.  And indeed, if ALF were in fact able to achieve its stated goal of permanently stopping all medical research involving animals, the ultimate effect on human life would far exceed the death toll extracted by the terrorists responsible for the atrocities that took place on Sept. 11, 2001.  Dr. Mark Haas  Timonium\ The writer is a professor of pathology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.  Caroline Paul shouldn't expect much sympathy for her arson-happy sibling.  There are, of course, differences between domestic and international terrorism, but both meet a sensible definition of the word.  Al-Qaida knocked down American buildings because it doesn't like the idea of America, and its goal is to scare us into changing our international habits and priorities.  Jonathan Paul burned down a slaughterhouse building because he didn't like the idea of slaughterhouses.  He announced his handiwork under the name of the Animal Liberation Front, whose goal is to scare ranchers and medical researchers into changing their domestic habits and priorities.  Clearly, some Americans agree with the goals of animal-rights and environmental militants, just as some (incredibly) still agree with al-Qaida's mission.  But using arson and other violence to scare people into granting your political objectives is certainly terrorism.  If it isn't, we all need new dictionaries.  David Martosko  Washington\ The writer is director of research for the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group representing a food industry coalition that has been sharply critical of the animal rights movement. PHOTO(S)"
"4","An amnesty for lousy politics BSTNGB0020070612e36900016 Editorial Boston Globe 459 Words 09 June 2007 The Boston Globe 3 A.10 English � 2007 New York Times Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  TWELVE MILLION illegal immigrants were living and working inside US borders before Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy presented their bipartisan immigration reform bill last month, and 12 million are here now. How can the ""amnesty"" opponents in the Senate who helped derail the bill Thursday possibly call that a victory?  Granted, the bill was a sprawling compromise proposal that tried to cobble together concerns for national security and for social justice. It had something in it for everyone to oppose, whether it was the costly border security fence, the guest worker program for illegals, or the shift away from family unification as the top priority of legal immigration. Amendments adopted in the early hours of debate made it even more unpalatable. But the bill was the best hope for Congress to do what the American people elect them to do: solve the big challenges facing the country.  Supporters yesterday refused to call the measure dead and said a workable solution is still within reach later in the session. But it is hard to see how the bill will fare any better as it gets closer to the vortex of the presidential campaign.  This week's GOP debate in New Hampshire was dominated by grandstanding attacks on the legislation and on McCain, whose finest moment came in defending the proposal and the thousands of immigrants whose names are etched into the Vietnam Memorial. Nativist shriekers, such as Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, even want to halt all legal immigration until such time as ""we no longer have to press 1 for English"" on the telephone. Rudy Giuliani mocked the ""400 pages"" of the legislation and called it ""a Washington mess."" Increasingly, rational debate becomes the first casualty of politics.  What the bill needed was strong executive leadership, and President Bush, who is trying to stake a legacy claim to immigration reform, could not provide it. Hobbled by historically low favorability ratings and an earlier-than-usual lame duck status, Bush's hope of redeeming his administration's failures with a comprehensive immigration law dim further with every day he sits in the White House. And yet it would be a terrible abdication to wait until 2009 to grapple with the problem under a new president.  Last week the Globe published the pictures of all 41 Boston high school valedictorians. Fully 21 of the 41 are foreign-born: from Uganda, Vietnam, Albania, China, Haiti, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Grenada, Cape Verde, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica. It is conceivable that one or more are children of parents who are here illegally. Their stories of hard work and hope speak to the best of what America is. Their dreams cannot be deferred while politicians dither."
"4","Editorial ; Let's not give up on immigration bill BHLD000020070609e3690003v EDITORIAL 378 Words 09 June 2007 Boston Herald All Editions 18 English � 2007 Boston Herald Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Senate leaders pulled the plug on the compromise immigration reform bill Thursday after days of debate. And frankly as this run- up to the 2008 election approaches, its prospects appear dimmer and dimmer.  More Republicans than Democrats have walked away from it this time, allowing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to place the blame for defeat at President Bush's doorstep. But really now, there's plenty of posturing on both sides of the aisle as one after another member of the Senate rose to offer ""amendments"" each of which had the potential to be a deal killer for the other side.  No, the bill is far from perfect. It is full of the kind of quirkiness that speaks volumes about how dreadfully crafted our current immigration system already is. It is easy to criticize, but those pressed to come up with an alternative - especially for dealing with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants currently living within our borders - have pretty much taken a pass on anything constructive.  Think about that for a moment - do we really evacuate 12 million or more human beings? That's about twice the population of Massachusetts.  Yesterday Sen. Edward M. Kennedy appeared on Capitol Hill with other co-sponsors of the bipartisan effort to say, ""We are not giving up. We are not giving in."" But Kennedy knows that the window of opportunity is closing fast.  ""The United States Senate, I believe, is a chemical place. There's a flow to activity here,"" he added. ""The tide comes in and goes out. And once in a while, the stars get lined up correctly, and we move ahead. That moment can't be manufactured. And it always takes more time than you think.""  But that time is now. To waste this opportunity, to see the human sorrow that results - as we did not long ago in New Bedford - would be tragic. We and the nation are grateful for Kennedy's leadership on the issue. We are also bewildered at the apparent opposition (at least on a test vote Thursday on cutting off debate) of the Republican senators from Maine and New Hampshire.  Surely common sense demands a solution - and the sooner the better. "
"3","Paris revisited TRIB000020070609e3690004r News 435 Words 09 June 2007 Chicago Tribune Chicago 22 English Copyright 2007, Chicago Tribune. All Rights Reserved.  On Feb. 19, the Associated Press quietly began a noble experiment -- a ban on stories about Paris Hilton. AP reporters took a pass on her 26th birthday celebrations in Las Vegas and Beverly Hills, ignored her visit to Puerto Rico to promote her line of personal fragrances and got scooped by the tabloids when she ditched her pet kinkajou. Nobody complained.  Then on Feb. 27, the bimbo heiress was ticketed for driving on a suspended license -- an offense that could (and did) lead to hard time in the Los Angeles County slammer. Cold, hard news judgment forced the AP to resume its coverage.  Here on the Tribune's editorial page, we're under no obligation to worry about celebrity news, yet this is our second Paris Hilton piece in less than a month. What's up with that? Surely there are weightier subjects begging for persuasive analysis. We began our day, in fact, pondering the fallout from the collapse of the immigration reform bill on the floor of U.S. Senate. The ""grand bargain"" struck between the White House and leaders from both parties was felled by a voting strategy in which (we think we have this right) Republicans voted for a bill they hate in order to get Democrats to help kill it. It's our job to figure out whose fault that was, but Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) probably said it all: ""The Democrats were wrong, but the Republicans were wronger."" So let's talk about Paris Hilton.  She spent three days behind bars before the sheriff sent her home on house arrest with an undisclosed medical problem. The judge ordered her back to court; the sheriff gave her permission to do the hearing by phone; the judge sent a squad car to haul her to court in handcuffs; and back to jail she went, in tears.  The weighty question is, was Paris mollycoddled because she's a celebrity or penalized for being rich and famous? The sheriff says a typical non-violent offender serves less than 10 percent of his or her sentence, and house arrest and phone-in court dates are the norm. Good points. But the judge didn't throw the book at Paris Hilton because she's Paris Hilton; he did it because she'd been caught violating probation -- twice -- and she didn't seem to be getting the message. So the sheriff is right, but the judge is righter. This is sooooooooooooo much easier to solve than immigration reform. And on a Saturday morning, which would you rather read about?  We thought so. Editorial"
"1","Passport snags trip up travelers CINC000020070612e36900018 B; Editorial 948 Words 09 June 2007 The Cincinnati Enquirer Final 6 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Cincinnati Enquirer. All Rights Reserved.  Community Conversation Getting a U.S. passport has turned into a nightmare for would-be travelers in Greater Cincinnati and across the nation. Many applicants are waiting months for their passports because of a surge in applications caused by a new rule requiring passports for travel to and from Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean, which went into effect Jan. 23. The waiting time to receive passports, normally a few weeks, now is pegged at 15 weeks or more.  Vacations, honeymoons, education-related travel and other trips have been ruined. Responses from readers (at right) to Friday's Enquirer story by Malia Rulon reflect some of the anger and frustration behind this issue.  The U.S. State Department's decision Friday to relax the rules for now - letting Americans fly without passports to Canada and Mexico, provided they have a State Department receipt showing they have applied for one - will help those passengers. But that's cold comfort to all those who need passports to travel elsewhere, to Europe for example, but also are caught in the delay.  The backlog should ease in coming months, officials say, but those planning to travel abroad will have to exercise patience and plan well in advance. If you're driving across the border to Canada or Mexico next year, you'll need a passport because of a new rule to go into effect in January 2008 - so start applying soon.  The issue does raise questions about government's efficiency and flexibility to respond to changing conditions, and about how much we can expect it to handle. How can Washington deal with tracking 12 million illegal immigrants and enhancing border security if it can't handle an expected surge in passport applications? What does this say about our homeland security issues, our ability to respond to disasters and prevent terrorist acts?  Officials claimed this week that the passport surge, on pace to reach 17 million this year, is much larger than anticipated. That's nonsense. In April 2006, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Frank E. Moss told the Senate that an additional 6 million people would need passports in 2007 for travel to Mexico and Canada. The department processed 13 million passports last year, so 17 million total is well within the projected increase.  The passport office increased its staffing, added a new processing center and expanded its private sector resources, but evidently didn't have the processes and proper training in place to avoid a chaotic pile-up of applications. Area lawmakers report a large increase in constituent pleas for help with passports, but they have no real way of sorting through this mess, either.  Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, offered an amendment to now-stalled immigration bill to allow Western Hemisphere travel with a birth certificate or driver's license instead of a passport. That's a stopgap. We really need a complete rethinking of how and why passports are issued.  About 70 million Americans hold valid passports. That's less than a fourth of the population. In an era marked by a global economy and intertwined influences, it's vital for Americans to experience other nations, languages and cultures. Government should encourage freedom of movement, not discourage it with bureaucratic obstacles.  And as a passport is the most commonly used proof of American citizenship, shouldn't all American citizens be issued passports - not just those who can afford the $100 or more per person to apply? Could the less expensive, credit-card-sized ""passport card"" being planned for land travel across borders become such a universal proof? The current passport snafu gives us a chance to look at these larger questions.  Caught in a bind: Tales from the passport office  This week we asked readers to relate their passport experiences. Some responses appear here. If you'd like to read all the comments or add your own opinions on the issue, check our discussion board at Cincinnati.Com, Keyword: Conversation.  My wife has been waiting 13 weeks. I applied 10 days after her, March 19. It doesn't look like I will get mine in time for the trip, June 18. I have not been successful at talking to a customer service representative no matter what time of day. They created the requirement, they gave me bad information in which to make decisions, they do not provide a means to resolve the problem they created.  Steve Richardson  Oxford  My daughter was to leave for Italy on Thursday. We applied for her passport in February. We were told it would take six to eight weeks. If we had been told that it would take considerably longer, we would have expedited. It was only through the efforts of Jackie, a staffer at Sen. Jim Bunning's office, that we received her passport Wednesday.  Annette Restle  Crestview Hills  I ordered my passport four months ago, only to find out Thursday that it, along with my birth certificate, was sent to someone in North Carolina. A stranger. Thank God the person was honest. What kind of security is this?  Mike Vagedes  Florence  Where have people been? Anyone should have known about this requirement for a long time. If you snooze, you lose! I got my passport more than a year ago, just in case.  Bruce Davie  Union Township, Clermont County  The biggest frustration of all was the lack of staffing at the Chicago Passport Agency. Out of 10 customer service windows, never at any time were there more than three tellers waiting on customers. Same problem with the room where you pick up your processed passports at the end of the day.  Karen Stegeman  Anderson Township  Richardson"
"4","EDITORIAL Renew immigration efforts The issue is too important to be delayed indefinitely in the U.S. Senate. We urge compromise. DNVR000020070611e3690000t RMN 452 Words 09 June 2007 Denver Post Final A.31 English � 2007 Denver Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The immigration bill that has stalled in the U.S. Senate is not dead, which is good news.  But saving it requires a measure of fortitude and courage that some in the Senate have lacked in recent days. That's the bad news.  Lawmakers from both parties must renew their efforts for a compromise. If not, Americans could be stuck with a broken immigration system for several more years, which is unacceptable.  We need a law that goes beyond fence-building and acknowledges the economic realities of our growing immigrant workforce.  We are a nation of laws, as opponents of the bill point out. But the laws aren't being enforced; employers are not verifying the IDs of people who work for them, for example. The compromise bill would remedy that with a new employee verification system. That's where the last major reform effort in 1986 failed.  What stalled this past week was not perfect legislation, but it met the needs of U.S. employers while creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. It would require fraud-proof documents with biometric identifiers, add 1,000 new Immigration and Custom Enforcement employees, and reimburse state and local communities that detain criminals, along with other provisions.  It's far from a free pass for those who came here illegally, requiring them to pay penalties and fees while undergoing a background check and learning English.  'If we're going to have a system that works, we need to enforce our immigration laws,' Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar said Friday, noting that many of the 12 million people believed to be here illegally entered legally but have overstayed their visas.  Salazar said he and other bill supporters will work with President Bush when he returns from Europe to bring staunch adversaries to their senses. Then he and other reform backers will work on amendments that 'will get the bill over the finish line,' he said. Salazar said that opponents refused to make their amendments public, so it became virtually impossible to find common ground.  Senate President Harry Reid pulled the bill temporarily after failing to get the needed vote to stop debate and vote on the bill, which meant opponents could continue to try to water down the proposal.  Lawmakers should keep in mind that the vast majority of Americans favor a guest-worker program.  We urge them to use this timeout to let tempers cool so they can come back to the table for an honest and open debate about reasonable methods to fix our broken system and create a workable one."
"4","Fight for reform FLTY000020070613e36900033 A; Editorial Florida Today Editorial 220 Words 09 June 2007 Florida Today Final/All A12 English (c) Copyright 2007, Florida Today. All Rights Reserved.  Florida Today Editorial  A shot at real immigration reform stalled in the Senate on Thursday when a bipartisan group of lawmakers couldn't come close to the 60 votes needed to end debate and had to set the legislation aside.  We hope that's a temporary setback and lawmakers figure out a way to bring the bill to a final vote -- and pass it.  The White House-backed bill is flawed, but it's the best opportunity the nation has to address the issue. It also represents the kind of cooperative effort between Republicans and Democrats desperately lacking in Washington.  But hard core conservatives continue to block the proposal, offering up no feasible alternative.  Arizona senator and GOP presidential contender John McCain has got their number when he says their intransigence amounts to ""silent amnesty"" for illegal immigrants.  ""The choice is between doing something imperfect but effective and achievable and doing nothing,"" says McCain.  That's why the Bush administration should conduct a full court press to end the Senate stalemate and gain support for the bill.  Or watch it die.  And with it the last best hope for stemming a crisis that can be solved only if lawmakers put aside pandering for votes and work in good faith for reasonable compromise."
"4","Who needs reform?; Senators evidently like current immigration mess just fine. FBEE000020070612e3690001j LOCAL NEWS THE FRESNO BEE 465 Words 09 June 2007 The Fresno Bee FINAL B8 English Copyright 2007. The Fresno Bee. All Rights Reserved.  Now we know how a majority of U.S. senators feel about our immigration mess: They like it just fine.  Thursday's refusal to cut off debate on the compromise legislation to reform the nation's immigration laws was a vote for the status quo. The vote came largely along partisan lines -- 37 Democrats, seven Republicans and one independent voted to break the filibuster; 38 Republicans, 11 Democrats and one independent voted against cloture.  After the vote, senators in both parties engaged in one of their favorite pastimes: finger-pointing. Democrats largely blamed President Bush, who sought the legislation as a significant achievement in an otherwise undistinguished second term. Republicans blamed Democratic leaders in the Senate for what they called heavy-handed treatment of Republican concerns about the legislation.  The upshot is that we'll continue to have porous borders, 12 million or more illegal immigrants will remain in limbo and, in the absence of a guest-worker program that makes sense, we'll have labor shortages in such vital sectors as agriculture.  That's just fine with many senators, including most Republicans, who don't want this problem solved -- or even addressed seriously -- because it would rob them of their principal campaign issue. You can't tap into voter anger over immigration issues if you make the issues go away.  In some respects, Thursday's vote was no surprise. The compromise had been springing leaks for several days. A telling blow came late Thursday when the Senate voted to end a new guest-worker program after five years. That was done by Democrats at the behest of their allies in labor, but had support from some Republicans who knew the vote would be the kiss of death for the compromise.  Efforts to breathe life into the legislation continued late into the night, but to no avail. Leaders in both parties were clearly upset by the renegades in their own ranks on both sides, but their leadership -- if that's the right word -- failed in the end.  Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he would try to resurrect the legislation in coming weeks, but the odds are long against success. The Senate has demonstrated once again that -- as with so many major issues, such as health care and Social Security -- the ability to reach compromise in the halls of Congress is just a fading memory. And, as always, special interests on both sides of the aisle are content to preserve a status quo that suits their purposes. Who cares if it's bad for the nation?  Tell us what you think. Comment on this editorial by going to http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion, then click on the editorial. EDITORIALS"
"2","Immigration bill's technicalities LATM000020070609e3690003m Main News; Editorial Pages Desk 460 Words 09 June 2007 Los Angeles Times Home Edition A-20 English Copyright 2007 The Los Angeles Times  Re ""Skills versus families,"" editorial, June 2  This editorial hits the target in stating that the authors of the immigration reform bill are correct that the United States should ""be more welcoming of high-skilled and entrepreneurial foreigners,"" not just reunifying families. After all, the entrepreneurial spirit of these immigrants is what fuels our country and creates diversity. By increasing the number of visas and establishing a point system, we would allow those who otherwise do not have family here, yet have the skills that the United States needs, to settle and work here. However, it's appalling that politicians such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would propose to penalize companies for bringing the best and the brightest of the world to these shores. The bill can do without the Sanders amendment and must be kept as is.  EDEL CARRASCO  La Mirada  *  Supporters of the H-1B visa program claim that there is a tech-worker shortage; that they need to import highly skilled information technology and other technical talent from abroad to fill American jobs.  So if any of that is true, how could they possibly object to paying an extra $1,200 a year for each of these ""highly skilled"" workers? Is there a shortage or not? The answer, of course, is that there's no shortage. H-1B is about displacing Americans and lowering wages, not innovation.  The Sanders amendment is one of the few bright spots in a truly mediocre immigration bill.  Instead of removing a tiny fee increase in the H-1B outsourcing visa, the Senate should be striking the H-1B cap increases.  MIKE GOLLUB  Mountain View, Calif.  *  With college costs soaring and corporations claiming that they cannot find enough qualified Americans to fill skilled jobs, The Times' opposition to my immigration bill amendment was puzzling. Passed by the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 59 to 35, the measure would provide scholarships of up to $15,000 a year for American students pursuing advanced degrees in math, science, medicine and nursing. The scholarships would be funded from a new $3,500 fee on corporations that use the H-1B visa program to hire professional workers from abroad, often paying them substantially lower salaries than their American counterparts.  The great economic crisis facing the United States is the shrinking of the middle class and the loss of millions of good-paying jobs. In my view, we must do everything that we can to reverse that trend and make sure that, to as great a degree as possible, good-paying professional jobs in this country are filled by Americans, not by people brought in from other countries by corporate interests.  SEN. BERNIE SANDERS  (I-Vt.)"
"4","A Failure of Leadership NYTF000020070609e3690001w Editorial Desk; SECTA 506 Words 09 June 2007 The New York Times Late Edition - Final 14 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  The immigration compromise collapsed on the floor of the Senate Thursday night. Many of its hard-line foes are celebrating, but their glee is vindictive and hollow. They have blocked one avenue to an immigration overhaul while offering nothing better, thwarting bipartisanship to satisfy their reflexive loathing for amnesty, which they define as anything that helps illegal immigrants get right with the law.  The tragedy is that the compromise bill was written to bring these restrictionists along, with punitive, detestable provisions that many supporters of comprehensive reform agreed to endorse for the sake of a ''grand bargain.'' The bill was badly flawed but fixable, as long as there was the possibility of leadership and courage in Congress.  But obstruction happened. Republican amendments, designed to shred the compromise, happened.  Jeff Sessions wanted to deprive legalized immigrants -- yes, legal residents -- of the earned income tax credit, a path out of poverty for millions.  John Cornyn wanted to strip confidentiality protections for immigrants who apply for legal status, making them too frightened to leave the shadows.  Jim DeMint just wanted to kill the bill, so he voted for a volatile amendment whose substance he disagreed with. ''If it hurts the bill, I'm for it,'' he said.  Leadership was desperately needed to stop Republicans from dragging the bill off one of its pillars -- the one that would put 12 million people on a path to legal status. It didn't show up. Republicans who should have been holding their party and the deal together -- President Bush, minority leader Mitch McConnell, Senator John Kyl -- failed utterly.  The anti-immigrant hard-core -- no amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty ever -- must not be allowed to hold the nation hostage. Like nativists of generations past, they think the country is being Latinized, and they fear it. The country is changing, but the way it always has, absorbing newcomers, shaping and being shaped by them, inexorably turning them, their children and grandchildren into Americans. Globalization has accelerated and complicated that upheaval, and decades of federal dithering have made things messy and chaotic.  Restoring order will be wrenchingly difficult, but it must be done. The country cannot leave an unlawful, chaotic system to fester, with legal immigration channels clogged, families split apart, crops rotting and state and local governments dreaming up ways to punish 12 million people whose identities are unknown to the authorities, and who aren't leaving, no matter what Congress does. We cannot simply fortify a wall while continuing to extract cheap labor from cowering workers who risk death to get here. Inaction on immigration carries a brutally high price, but those on the phobic right are willing to mortgage their country's future to pay it.  A core group of lawmakers has shown a greater faith in their country than that. They must keep fighting, knowing that on the central principles -- restoring the rule of law, enhancing security, easing the pressure on the border and giving immigrants hope -- Americans are with them."
"4","EDITORIAL - A collapse in confidence POR0000020070612e3690000k Editorial The Oregonian 523 Words 09 June 2007 The Oregonian Sunrise B4 English � 2007 Oregonian Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  SUMMARY: The Senate demonstrates, once again, its ability to shrink from the tough job of immigration reform  When Randy Bowles realized recently that some Oregon strawberries will rot in the fields this June for lack of strawberry pickers, he made a radical suggestion.  Maybe he and his colleagues at Norpac Foods Inc. should get out from behind their desks and help with the harvest. Whether strawberries rot or get picked is not an academic question for Norpac, a cooperative of 225 growers, based in Stayton, that manufactures Norpac Oregon Berry Topping.  As of Friday, admittedly, Bowles' colleagues hadn't exactly embraced his proposal. Still, it showed admirable hustle on his part, and a willingness to think outside his office walls. If only the U.S. Senate were approaching comprehensive immigration reform with a similar urgency.  On Thursday, the most promising reform effort in 21 years suffered a crushing collapse. An attempt to cut off debate and bring the bill to a quick vote fell 15 votes short, amidst gloomy predictions that it wouldn't be revived again. But it should be.  This was the bill that had been hailed as the ""grand bargain,"" what Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., had called a last gasp for immigration reform. There was plenty to criticize in the bill, but it included provisions for a temporary worker program and legalization for illegal immigrants after the payment of fines and fees. A nationwide poll released last month showed Americans support these ideas.  Two-thirds of the respondents supported a guest-worker program (they're no more eager than Bowles is to see fruit rotting on the vines). And three-fifths said illegal immigrants should be able to earn their way to legal status.  What happened Thursday was a resounding failure for everyone involved, and everyone was involved. This was a failure for President Bush, who supported the reforms but apparently failed to push hard enough for them, for Democrats and for Republicans.  It was a crushing disappointment for average Americans, too; for the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants; and for a host of businesses --restaurateurs, hoteliers, nursery owners, growers, butchers and food processors, whose economic livelihoods depend, in no small part, on the United States crafting a more sensible policy on immigration.  Five years ago, Norpac used a taste test to convert International House of Pancakes to using a strawberry syrup made with Oregon strawberries. ""Strawberries to IHOP is like ketchup is to McDonald's,"" Bowles explained Friday.  ""To a salesman, it doesn't get much better than this. And if we can get the pickers, you will see Norpac expand our Oregon strawberry use."" But can Oregon berry growers get the pickers? That's a big if, which got bigger this week.  Only the extremes won in this collapse, only the dysfunctional status quo that is hurting our economy. To be sure, the issue is not going to go away, but the strawberries, and the economic opportunities they represent, are going to go away.  Or, to be more precise, some this year are going to rot."
"4","Running scared Our position: It's disappointing to see immigration reform on life support. ORSE000020070609e3690000u EDITORIAL OPINION Sable 267 Words 09 June 2007 Orlando Sentinel FINAL A16 English Copyright 2007, Orlando Sentinel Communications. All Rights Reserved.  If comprehensive immigration reform were a patient, it would be on life support.  There is ""always hope,"" as an advocate of the legislation suggested, but the odds are likely that this bill is going to get buried in the quagmire of party politics for at least a year, maybe two.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the bill after not enough votes were secured to limit the debate, which brings everyone to more-urgent talking points.  You got what you wanted, opponents. Now what? Do you have any plausible solutions to offer?  With Congress soon focused on elections, the chance of getting back to the bill likely disappears.  This should be considered unacceptable for the majority of Americans, who are in favor of immigration reform.  It's also insulting to the bipartisan group of senators who met privately for three months, trying to broker a compromise. That included Florida Republican Mel Martinez, whose approval ratings have plunged to an all-time low because of his strong involvement.  But his involvement in this is what leadership is all about, not cherry-picking an issue everyone can agree on without any crossfire. And as head of the Republican Party, he showed admirable strength in taking on his own party, obsessed with securing borders.  But that's exactly the point of this bill. Borders had to be secured before the other components came into play.  It's called bipartisan compromise, a noble concept that vanished this week in the nonsense of political rhetoric."
"2","LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SFC0000020070609e3690000o EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 2260 Words 09 June 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.4 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Culture of silence in SFPD  Editor -- Why did it take stories in The Chronicle before a brutal thug of a police officer was taken off the streets of San Francisco by Police Chief Heather Fong (""Police officer noted for use of force is off of street duty,"" June 7)? As your articles make clear, ample evidence has long been available to the chief to assess officers, such as Jesse Serna, who have overstepped their bounds.  Furthermore, in every incident you have described, several officers were participating in the acts of violence. Shouldn't there be a serious examination, not only of whom also was involved in these incidents, but of whether there is a culture of support and silence within the SFPD? These recently exposed incidents not only call into question the competence of the police chief, but as well, the competence of the mayor who appointed her and whom, it is worth noting, was endorsed for election by the Police Officers' Association.  ALAN COLLINS  San Francisco ------------------------------------------  A thing of the past  Editor -- In response to David Scott Carlick's tirade about The Chronicle's concerns over privacy issues and the Web (Letters, ""Fear mongering over online privacy,"" June 7): The Chronicle has been championing privacy issues on several fronts for a number of years.  As much as I admire their efforts, I think concerns today over lack of privacy on the Web or anywhere else is a little like worrying about the horses after the barn has burned down.  I do most of my general research for my marketing company on the Internet; and most other heavy Internet users have accepted the fact that our privacy is pretty much a thing of the past. The world knows all about each of us and there is very little that Venture Partners, or anyone else for that matter, can do about it. What every citizen needs to do is recognize this and watch what you do or say online.  JOHN CHASE  Alameda ------------------------------------------  Injustice  Editor -- Our governor gets to drive illegally and smuggle Cuban cigars, and there is a good likelihood that Scooter Libby won't see much jail time, if any.  But a 17-year-old boy is serving 10 years in prison for consensual oral sex with a peer.  Why is this acceptable?  JEREMY SNITKIN  Novato ------------------------------------------  Why Paris?  Editor -- To Jesse Hamlin -- Explain to me two things: Why should we care about Paris Hilton? Why did you devote almost an entire page to her in Friday's Chron?  Really, in a world with so many problems, but also so many inspiring souls to explore, I really don't understand why you are expending your talent and energy here. I know you often cover music, particularly jazz, and have written some wonderful, uplifting stories, greatly needed now in this crazed time of our history.  LYNN ADLER, partner  Ideas in Motion  Berkeley ------------------------------------------  Jake recall is misguided  Editor -- I've never written the phrase, ""It's an outrage,"" before, but that's exactly what the assault against Supervisor Jake McGoldrick is. It's an unthinkable and unspeakable assault on the democratic system. I've been an activist for 39 years, and I have never seen anything so cruel with the exception, of course, of the election of President Bush.  This absurd recall campaign against McGoldrick is spearheaded by someone who ran against McGoldrick and lost and other dissenters who are mad because McGoldrick wants a park that is car-free. Big whoop, not worthy of the pain of a recall. Jake was elected because the public wanted him to express his opinions. I, too, want the park free of cars on Saturday. This is a fine stance, most San Franciscan's share Jake's position.  McGoldrick's done an excellent job, working tirelessly for all. I suggest that these misguided souls apologize to McGoldrick, his staff, his friends and everyone in our city, and drop the recall.  LANI SILVER  San Francisco ------------------------------------------  Chinatown campus flap  Editor -- Your June 2 article, ""Chinatown campus opponents criticized,"" did not give a balanced picture about the proposed City College Chinatown/North Beach campus. Many months ago, the North Beach Merchants Association joined a coalition of concerned citizens and community groups, all of whom have been consistent supporters of a City College campus. Nonetheless, we are outraged that the college tried to cram, with no community input, an oversized, 17-story building on our Chinatown/North Beach/Jackson Square historic communities.  Our coalition has designed a reasonable compromise that would provide more class space, the same amount of lab space, an auditorium not provided in the City College plan, parking and, at the same time, substantially reduce the height and visual impact of the college's proposal. We are also disturbed that City College has used community groups, which as we understand it, are under contract with the college, to fight back against our coalition's very reasonable suggestions. These paid ""agents"" include the Chinese for Affirmative Action and the Chinese Progressive Association.  In summary, there is no choice but to come up with a reasonable compromise -- then let us proceed to build a new campus without further delay.  TONY GANTNER, past president  and counsel  North Beach Merchants Association  San Francisco ------------------------------------------  GM is fighting back  Editor -- Michael Taylor's review of the GMC Acadia (""GM's Big Wagon,"" June 1) did an excellent job of evaluating the Acadia and describing it in a way that would help potential customers decide if it fits their needs. So we were understandably disappointed to see several urban myths about GM casually tossed into the review, as if they were well-established fact.  For starters, GM is hardly ""on the ropes."" GM is growing strongly outside of North America, and continues to make significant progress in its North American turnaround. This progress has been well- documented and widely reported. So while we have more work to do, it simply isn't fair or accurate to describe GM as ""gasping for air.""  We also have made it very clear that we have no plans to eliminate additional brands. We have a well-articulated strategy for grouping our specialty brands into retail channels, and for reducing and, ultimately, eliminating model overlap. This will allow us to achieve economies of scale while competing in a rapidly fragmenting marketplace.  Finally, complaining that the GMC Acadia, Saturn Outlook and Buick Enclave share underlying components simply ignores the way today's auto business operates. All major carmakers share architectures across different products and brands. It allows us to improve quality and provide more value to the customer.The key is executing products that are appropriate to each brand. We think that, in the case of the Acadia, Outlook and Enclave, the excellent reviews and strong initial sales suggest that we have succeeded.  TOM WILKINSON  Director, News Relations  General Motors Corp.  Detroit ----------------------------------------------  Have black audiences abandoned jazz?  Editor -- Contrary to your recent article's assertion (""Blacks in jazz decry exclusion,'' June 1), there is no groundswell of jazz fans outraged over alleged discrimination against black musicians. These attacks are being driven by the usual KPFA crowd. They are wrong on so many levels, it is hard to know where to start.  To say that blacks are discriminated against in society is right, as are women, gays, etc. To assert that jazz is one of those areas where blacks encounter discrimination is so at odds with the truth that it is mind-boggling.It is one of the tiny corners of the world where that is not the case.  Judging someone's musical ability in jazz based on their skin color is false, racist, boring and old, but it rears its ugly head once in a while.Sadly, this political agenda is being used to damage one of the true heroes of the Bay Area jazz scene, Susan Muscarella, who has done more for this music than 10 of her critics combined. She has been unfairly and crudely maligned by a small group of frustrated and untalented far-left reverse racists. Their behavior is shameful and disingenuous and they should stop.  JOSEPH ROBINSON  Berkeley  -- -- --  Editor -- The African-American community initially had the moral high ground in Yoshigate, but many artists kept on chattering in interviews and the truth slipped out. I essentially heard comments such as, ""Whites are copycats"" and ""Some of the people who play at Yoshi's have no significance in music history."" A KCSM deejay vowed to play more authentic music -- read here, ""The old black standards.""  People are now ranting about Diane Shuur (white and blind) and Nora Jones(Indian and white) not having the qualifications or chops to play black music.  Whatever you think about them, it's obvious they can play music just fine.Insulting lovers of the art form is just knee-jerk frustration.  The African-American community abandoned ""jazz"" years ago, and went off to check out R&B, rock and roll, rap and hip-hop. What's left is a virtuoso-intellectual fan base of mostly white middle- class listeners, with probably a high percentage of Cal professors in the audience. There's no conspiracy in jazz; the parents just abandoned the baby years ago.  JUSTIN LEE  Berkeley  -- -- --  Editor -- Ridiculous! This should read ""blacks have abandoned jazz!"" Although there is still a sprinkling of black musicians, there is no black audience any more. At major festivals such as Sacramento, out of the 200,000 some fans, there are, at most, a few hundred blacks. Last year, at the day I attended the San Jose festival, I did not see a single black person in the audience at any of the venues.  I have never heard of any people that have so completely abandoned their beautiful musical heritage and in favor of what? Some guy mumbling bad rhymes to the beat of a drum? It's not even music!  JOHN D. Van DYKE  San Mateo  -- -- --  Editor -- It is hoped this is the last word regarding Yoshi's jazz album. They had all white musicians and Ken Burns' ""History of Jazz"" had nearly all blacks, so what's the big deal? It's all jazz, isn't it?  MARLENE INMAN  Sutter Creek (Amador County) ------------------------------------ -----------------  Amnesty sham  Editor -- I taught mathematics on the east side of San Jose for 31 years. Sometimes my students were more than 60 percent Latino. These people are hard-working, wonderful people who want what any good parent wants for their children, then Congress comes up with this sham.  Shame on them. Republicans and Democrats alike have been complicit and culpable in this situation for decades as long as it served them and now they're against amnesty! That's ludicrous! These 12 million hard-working people, most with families or family ties, do not deserve to be shrugged off this way.  Congress, get out of your bubble, tighten the laws and stop illegal immigration and allow these families who are here now to stay and earn their citizenship while they support the country they are already supporting in many ways.  DENNIS RICHARDSON  San Jose -----------------------------------------------------  Revitalizing our national parks  Editor -- I enjoyed your front-page feature article on Donna and Peter Thomas' retracing of John Muir's 1868 route to Yosemite (""In John Muir's footsteps,'' June 4). I wish them well in their effort to revive an interest in this historic route.  Your beautiful photograph was the exact view that our family saw in the summer of 1929 after my father purchased Sunset magazine in 1928. We stayed at the Ahwahnee Hotel the second year it was opened. The Great Depression came in the fall of that year, and we did a lot of camping in the beautiful valley after that. I later worked in Yosemite during the Depression, packing in the back country and calling the fire fall on my days off.  An effort by the National Park Service to sign and maintain the historic Muir route would require funding, as well as additional staff time, and, unfortunately, funding for some of the basic services at our parks has been cut in recent years, with national parks suffering from a funding deficit in excess of $800 million annually.  We need to put rangers back into our parks to protect and maintain park resources, such as the extensive system of trails at Yosemite. We also need rangers to educate and inspire us when we visit great parks such as Yosemite.The administration has requested a much-needed increase of more than $200 million for the operations of the national parks as the nation prepares to mark the 100th birthday of our parks.  Thanks to U.S. Reps. Barbara Lee and Michael Honda, and other park champions, the House Appropriations Committee exceeded the administration's request, reversing proposed cuts to funds needed to purchase threatened lands.We now look to the U.S. Senate, which begins reviewing the parks' budget this month, to provide the same kind of leadership as the House. In less than 10 years, we will celebrate the centennial of our National Park System when Interior Secretary Franklin Lane was in office and the first National Park Service director, Stephen Mather, both from San Francisco, founded the NPS in 1916. For many political, social and environmental reasons, now is the time to make national parks a truly national priority.  BILL LANE, retired publisher  Sunset magazine  Menlo Park GRAPHIC (2), PHOTO; Caption: GRAPHICS: (1) / Paul Lachine / NewsArt.com, (2) / Lance Jackson / The Chronicle, PHOTO: / Michael Maloney / The Chronicle"
"4","OUR VIEW: IMMIGRATION BILL STALLED; WELL WORTH ANOTHER TRY SFNM000020070612e3690005o EDITORIAL 626 Words 09 June 2007 The Santa Fe New Mexican A-7 English � 2007 The Santa Fe New Mexican. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  So immigration reform, headed just days ago for fast-track consideration in the Senate, has been shunted onto a siding -- but not before Capitol Hill chauvinists and TV jingoists played up patently phony claims that immigrants are bad for the economy, bring in leprosy and other such accusations.  In spite of all the hatemongering, dents were being hammered out of a promising proposal from Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona and Democrat Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. Emerging as a key player was New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman, who sought to erase a proposal making people leave the country before they'd be considered for ""legal"" status. Things were moving well, if slowly.  But then Majority Leader Harry Reid got a case of the hurry-ups: This bill's being debated to death, he decreed -- even though the debate was producing an increasingly sensible bill. He called for a vote on cloture,  which is needed to stop filibustering that's allowed in the Senate. That happened Thursday night.  Cloture takes 60 votes -- and even though there's been a bipartisan spirit guiding this bill, the product of months and months of negotiations, Reid could do no better than 45 votes. It might not have hurt for the Nevada Democrat to have asked President Bush to lean on fellow elephants, but Reid didn't bother, and Bush, who tended to like this legislation, wasn't volunteering; wasn't even in the country when the vote came up.  Reid had threatened to pull the bill from consideration if he couldn't get cloture. His bluff had been called, and, per his power, he took it off the floor.  It isn't dead -- and, weary as Reid may be with the bill, there's a good chance he'll trot it out again this summer.  Before he does, he should check signals with Kyl, Kennedy and the majority and minority whip organizations -- the senators who do the actual round-ups and arm-twisting to get bills approved or defeated. And he'd better be ready to show more patience than he did this week. His fears that the bill was being filibustered weren't well grounded -- and he must remember that he's a weak-majority leader.  The bill amounts to a compromise -- and probably everyone in the Senate has some reason to grumble about it. But as New Mexico Republican Pete Domenici noted just a few days ago, it isn't the ""amnesty"" that its opponents are calling it; there are penalties to be paid, and hoops to be jumped through by those of the 15 or so million illegal immigrants who'd like to stay here.  Properly considered, this measure might, at long last, provide our country with the workforce we need, while pulling those laborers out of the shadows where they can be mistreated.  These people, as The Wall Street Journal notes with authority, are net contributors to Social Security, and contribute to our economy at many levels.  We're a more productive nation thanks to them -- and we should be a more inspired populace for their presence among us. In fact, this corner could be tempted to advocate a do-nothing approach to immigration, were it not for the injustices rampant in the status quo -- and our nation's ongoing dependence on the rule of law.  The political posturing of the past year against illegals, including their insistence that rule-volators shouldn't be rewared, will continue to tinge the issue. But there's time and talent for overcoming the demagogues' objections before it returns to the Senate floor. Lots of that talent lies with Sens. Bingaman and Domenici. We urge them to put persuasion to work. "
"5","Where, now, on immigration? WATI000020070610e3690002v EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 804 Words 09 June 2007 The Washington Times A12 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The collapse on Thursday of the amnesty bill pushed by the White House and the Senate Democratic leadership is certainly welcome news. It shows that, even with Big Labor, Big Business and scores of powerful politicians pressing for an open-borders bill that endangers national security and public safety and could bankrupt public treasuries, the American people, when alerted to the mischief afoot on Capitol Hill, can stop it in its tracks. Clearly opponents of the bill were aided by the heavy-handed approach taken by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose efforts to set arbitrary deadlines for ramming the legislation through backfired and drove away Republican supporters.  But even with Mr. Reid's bullying and incompetence as a legislative tactician, he could have succeeded in shutting off debate if it hadn't been for the fact that Americans said no en masse to open borders and policies that encourage people to come to this country and remain here in violation of our laws - e-mailing, telephoning, faxing, and, in general, bombarding their senators with messages of opposition to the bill. That, combined with the fact that the staunchest advocates of mass amnesty (in particular, Sen. Bob Menendez and the AFL-CIO) overplayed their hand by piling on with even more generous incentives for poor residents of Mexico to take up residence in the United States eventually made it impossible to move forward, causing Mr. Reid to throw in the towel ( at least for now) on Thursday night.  But this is no time for critics of the open-borders approach to celebrate or to rest on their laurels, because our current immigration policy is a mess. We have between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens in the United States, and we have barely started building a border fence. ""Workplace enforcement"" of laws barring illegal aliens from holding jobs in the United States is a joke - virtually nonexistent except when the administration decides it is time for a good photo op to show that it is ""getting tough"" on wayward employers.  While the Bush administration deserves a large share of the blame for Thursday's legislative debacle, Mr. Reid's failings as majority leader are even more egregious. On Thursday, he came up embarrassingly short in three attempts to cut off debate - failing by 27, 26 and finally 15 votes on a bill he claimed was one of his top legislative priorities. But right after the final vote Thursday night, Mr. Reid rushed to the microphones to give the media his propaganda spin: that he is a virtuous fighter for ""reform"" and that Mr. Bush and the Republicans are the real villains. ""The headline is going to be 'Democrats vote for the bill, Republicans vote against it, the president fails again,'"" Mr. Reid said. But in the end, 11 of Mr. Reid's fellow Democrats - among them Sens. Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, Jay Rockefeller and Mark Pryor, who are up for re- election next year - joined Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and 38 Republicans (many of whom were supporters of the immigration bill) in voting against the majority leader's efforts to cut off debate: On the final roll-call Thursday, Mr. Reid could only muster 45 votes to end debate, 15 short of the 60 needed.  Indeed, Mr. Reid did such a poor job that one can legitimately question whether he really wanted to pass the bill or was simply trying to engineer failure and blame the Republicans for it. On Thursday night, Republicans were in the process of cutting down the number of amendments filed from more than 200 to a list containing less than 20, and they told Mr. Reid that the list could have been ready within a few days. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican who has in general indicated support for the bill, said he believed that Republican opponents would have eventually given in if Mr. Reid had allowed them a few days to work out an agreement on which amendments could be offered. But Mr. Reid yanked the bill from the floor.  We think the reason Mr. Reid behaved this way is the fact that the issue is a political loser for open-borders types: Pollster Scott Rasmussen's last national telephone poll found, to cite one notable example, that just 23 percent of Americans supported the legislation, and that only 16 percent thought the Senate bill would achieve what is necessary to fix immigration, and that is to secure the border and reduce illegal immigration.  The demise of the Senate bill offers an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and come up with a serious immigration bill that first focuses on securing the border - not with triggers but with bricks and mortar - and workplace enforcement."
"4","TOO HEAVY A LIFT BSUN000020070610e36a00041 EDITORIAL 380 Words 10 June 2007 The Baltimore Sun Final 26A English Copyright 2007, The Baltimore Sun. All Rights Reserved.  Last week's collapse of the painstakingly crafted immigration legislation offers a classic illustration of why the hard work doesn't seem to get done in Washington anymore.  There's no reward for political courage; no incentive to compromise; no overriding sense that accomplishment is not just a goal but a responsibility. For too many lawmakers, obstructing a sweeping proposal is far preferable to supporting one that may be unpopular with voters or interest groups.  That the Senate's so-called grand bargain should have met this swift end is particularly tragic because doing nothing about the nation's broken immigration system is perhaps the worst possible outcome.  Twelve million people are here but not here, struggling to maneuver around ever-tightening laws and vulnerable to the worst possible exploitation. Huge segments of the economy, particularly agriculture, have grown dependent on migrant labor and are increasingly destabilized by the inability to depend on workers showing up because they can't get visas or are afraid of being caught without them. And the U.S.-Mexican border, for all the talk of fences, remains a sieve, and a messy, environmentally damaged one at that. Desperately poor people determined to create a better life for their families are cruelly enticed to take enormous risks because there seems no other alternative - and often they get through.  Reviving the Senate bill depends on two unlikely allies: President Bush, who made a thoughtful pitch for the measure in a radio address taped for airing yesterday, but whose influence is waning even within his party, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose clumsy attempts to bully that balky body made a very difficult job harder. Together, though, the two could be formidable. They could run interference for the bipartisan band of centrists that worked for months to shape a compromise that was widely predicted to win Senate approval.  No one claimed that bill was perfect. There is no perfect answer to this problem, nor will there be a one-time fix. Figuring out how to control the borders to effectively and humanely manage the flow of immigrants is an ongoing proposition that will require constant readjustment even after legislation is enacted.  First, though, this bit of hard work must get done."
"5","Letters CHRT000020070612e36a00005 A; Editorial 723 Words 10 June 2007 Chronicle-Tribune 6 English (c) Copyright 2007, Chronicle-Tribune. All Rights Reserved.  Immigration bill will not solve anything  Please allow me to offer some insights the authors of this amnesty bill have neglected to bring to your attention.  First of all, according to the U.S. Border Control ( http://www.usbc.org), it's 20 million illegal aliens, not 12 million.  And it appears that this bill would allow these 20 million to bring in their immediate family members - parents, children, brothers and sisters, and, of course, a spouse. This means that, at a bare minimum, it is necessary to multiply the figure.  The truth is that this legislation is opening the door to 200 million people, the vast majority of whom are uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking Mexicans, with no love or loyalty for the United States.  Our entire population is only 300 million. What could the Senate be thinking?  Why isn't this true number being used in the debates? Why would anybody wish to import a huge, permanent underclass of uneducated, unskilled people when our government seems incapable of helping Americans who are stuck at the bottom rung of the opportunity ladder?  Have you reviewed the statistics concerning the behavior of the illegal aliens who are already here?  Specifically, have you read the crime statistics: the number of felons per 1,000 illegal aliens; the number of pedophiles, rapists, drunk drivers, murderers, identity thieves and drug smugglers, whose numbers are now clogging our prison system to overflowing.  I understand that the bill plans to weed out all of these criminals and, I presume, terrorists during the 24-hour period allocated for a background check. Twenty-four hours?  How could the bill's authors allocate only 24 hours to determine whether the applicant has a criminal record, either here or in Mexico; has a deportation order; owes back taxes; has stolen social security numbers; has TB; is dodging DWI violations or child molestation charges?  Be honest. Our government can't even do easy stuff in 24 hours. How could someone vote for a bill that claims to be able to do something as important and as difficult as a thorough background check on a foreign national in 24 hours?  This bill was conceived, in secret, by a dozen open border advocates without even the benefit of the committee process. Like all the failures of the past, it creates the illusion that it will accomplish both enforcement and amnesty simultaneously, while its true purpose is amnesty for uncounted tens of millions.  The real solution to our immigration problems is enforcement. We need a few high profile cases, where company CEOs who hire illegals are thrown into jail and fined millions of dollars. That will dry up the job market. And without jobs, many illegal aliens will simply go home. No muss. No fuss.  If the government were able (and willing) to create working versions of an employee eligibility verification system, and a visa entry-exit system, our immigration problem will vanish very quickly and permanently. That our government has failed to take these simple steps points to the real intent of our elected officials and what we can expect from the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty.  Why are you even debating a bill whose formula is a proven failure? Don't you care about our national security or our nation's sovereignty? Don't you think we have enough problems in this country without importing 200 million more problems? Don't you worry that our Social Security Trust Fund will go bankrupt overnight when all of these people begin to line up for benefits?  By voting this bill down or substituting an ""enforcement only"" bill as an amendment, you could prevent the destruction of our great nation. You can save our language, culture and American way of life for future generations.  Passage of the Kennedy-Bush Amnesty could cause many elected officials to be voted out of office. But, sadly, it would be too late for America.  Save America. Put patriotism ahead of petty politics. Vote against any and all bills that seek to combine enforcement and amnesty. Eighty percent of your constituents will respect you for your actions. Pass an enforcement-only bill now, give it time to succeed, and you will find it much easier to pass an amnesty for any illegal aliens still residing in the U.S.  Penny Stuart, Greenwood"
"4","Back to Work, Senate Keep working on border bill, for America's sake DAL0000020070610e36a0000v POINTS EDITORIALS 356 Words 10 June 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 2P English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen? No, let's legislate. Let's vote. - GOP Sen. Trent Lott  Mr. Lott spoke for many Americans when he expressed his exasperation after the Senate's immigration bill stalled out Thursday night. The bill was pulled down over a disagreement about how many amendments the Senate should consider.  Getting bogged down in a procedural quagmire, however, misses the larger picture - by a wide margin. Polls consistently show Americans want a comprehensive plan that deals realistically with the fact that 12 million immigrants live here illegally and another 400,000 arrive each year.  We emphasize ""comprehensive"" because some advocate a piecemeal approach. Secure the border first, and then come back to a temporary worker program or tougher employer standards or a shot at citizenship for immigrants.  The problem is, that approach guarantees no solution. There isn't enough support in Congress for only a wall along the border, only a guest-worker program, only a citizenship plan or only greater oversight of employers.  But if the Senate takes a breath and tries to find the right balance, it still can pass a comprehensive bill. It's all about horse-trading among the bill's various parts.  For example, Republicans say they want the same number of amendments as considered in last year's immigration debate. Fine. That leaves room for another 10 to 12 amendments, which the Senate could manage without interrupting the rest of its work schedule.  If senators punt now, Americans realistically would have to wait two to three years for an answer. That's unacceptable because many Americans are hopping mad that laws are being broken. Migrants are pouring across our borders illegally. Farmers are watching fruit die on the vine. Immigrants are dying in the desert.  There are problems at every pressure point, which is why the Senate must calm down and get back to work on its immigration bill. There's a compelling reason - and enough time - to find the answer."
"4","Nothing to cheer about FWST000020070610e36a00023 E Star-Telegram 187 Words 10 June 2007 The Fort Worth Star-Telegram Tarrant 2 English Copyright (c) 2007 The Fort-Worth Star-Telegram. All rights reserved.  No one should trumpet the meltdown of immigration reform in the Senate as a positive development -- although GOPUSA.com called it a ""victory for the grassroots"" and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps claims that its lobbying efforts to kill the bill ""paid off.""  One hundred elected officials in what is supposed to be the country's most thoughtful and deliberative body can't find a sliver of agreement on even one aspect of this admittedly thorny issue?  That's nothing to celebrate.  Americans have been demanding progress on the immigration front for years, with little response. Law-abiding employers are tired of watching unscrupulous companies flout existing law. Legal immigrants and native-born workers want their livelihoods protected from illegal competition. Taxpayers don't understand why lawmakers can't focus on stopping the flow of additional illegals into the country even if they can't agree on what to do about the 12 million illegals already here.  The failure of the Senate to work out a compromise is a failure for all Americans. No one should be happy about it."
"4","DEATH OF A DEAL NYPO000020070612e36a0001i Editorial 402 Words 10 June 2007 New York Post 28 English (c) 2007 N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.  The immigration-reform deal - announced to much fanfare last month - seemingly collapsed this week when the bill failed a key procedural vote in the Senate.  The measure represented a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws: It would impact businesses, national security and the economy.  But passage of such a complex bill required hands-on, unambigious leadership from the White House.  This was lacking.  For a variety of reasons - most prominently, Iraq - President Bush has little remaining political clout to bring to bear.  It must have been galling, but he was unable even to respond effectively to opposition from members of his own party - who were deeply troubled over such issues as:  Amnesty: Even with the imposition of fees and fines, offering the estimated 12 million illegals now within the country a ""Z-visa"" as a first step on a path to citizenship was perceived by many as a de facto amnesty.  Border security: Even though ""pathway to citizenship"" provisions were not to take effect until border-security and high-tech employee-verification improvements were in place, opponents remained skeptical.  Opposition to the bill also had an element of anti-Mexican sensibility. It wasn't just that immigrants were coming to ""take American jobs"" or were willing to work as ""cheap labor"" - but that a certain type of immigrant was coming in.  It's sad that such sentiments still exist, but politicians are foolish if they think they can just ignore them.  Meanwhile, many liberals thought many of the bill's measures were too strict - and were also disinclined to fight for any Bush-endorsed legislation.  In the current political dynamic - including the already-furious presidential contest - it is unlikely that the bill will have another shot at getting through the Senate.  To say nothing of the House.  And that's unfortunate.  For all of its admitted drawbacks, the bill made a reasonable attempt to address a real problem.  The status quo is not viable. Having untold millions of illegals in the country is not good from either a national-security or social-policy perspective.  In the interim, the White House should work to complete construction of the 700-mile enhanced security fence on the U.S. southwestern border.  The completion of that fence could assuage some of the concerns of the bill's opponents - perhaps creating the chance for a more successful debate next time."
"1","EXPOSED! HOW A SINGLE SENATOR CAN SECRETLY STOP AN OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR EFFORT TO MAKE CONGRESS LESS SECRETIVE PPGZ000020070610e36a0003e EDITORIAL Charles N. Davis 722 Words 10 June 2007 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette FIVE STAR J-1 English � 2007 Post Gazette Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Congress, apparently content to explore ever new depths in public disapproval, is on the verge of having a single member derail the most meaningful reform in years of the federal Freedom of Information Act.  How, you ask, when overwhelming majorities support the legislation in both the House and Senate?  The secret hold, of course. Ever heard of the secret hold? It's a beauty -- a real relic of the stuffed shirts of yesteryear, of smoke- filled rooms and fat cats with stogies guffawing over the latest bamboozle of the taxpaying schmucks. Think country clubs, secret handshakes and bizarre rituals.  Members of the Society of Professional Journalists, the nation's largest journalism-advocacy organization, used the power of the blogosphere to find out whose legislative bludgeon was buried in the back of open government. We called every senator, one by one, until at last -- when it became clear he could hide no longer -- Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., came blinking and grimacing into the sunlight and admitted that it was he who had placed a secret hold ... on a bill that addresses secrecy in government.  You can't make this stuff up.  This is how it works in Washington, kids: Sen. Kyl -- this year's Secrecy Champion -- has several as-yet-unspecified objections to the Freedom of Information Reform Act, a truly wonderful bill that would significantly improve one of the strongest tools Americans have to supervise the inner workings of government and to hold elected officials accountable.  The bill has plenty of bipartisan support. It is the product of tireless work and advocacy by many open government and press freedom groups and fine legislative craftsmanship by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. John Cornyn, R- Texas. The U.S. House of Representatives in March approved a version of the bill with 80 Republicans joining 228 Democrats to produce a vote of 308-117.  The Senate Judiciary Committee then unanimously sent the measure forward to the full Senate for a vote.  In your civics book, this would be the moment where our senators hold a public debate on the merits and demerits of the legislation at hand, then vote. The votes are then counted, and if the senators who support the bill outnumber those who oppose it, well, you get the idea.  But no, not when senators can use an archaic parliamentary parlor trick to stop a bill dead in its tracks merely by telling their party's Senate leader or secretary that they wish it so. In this case, Sen. Kyl -- who routinely charts a brave course on the immigration debate and can often be counted on to reason rather than bloviate -- slipped in the hold.  The practice of honoring secret holds has no basis in law and no support in Senate rules. It's a good-'ol-boy creation and another of the seemingly endless perks of the Senate, where the rules always seem to benefit its members far more than the pesky public.  Oh, I know what's coming: the inevitable blathering about the world's greatest deliberative body and its need for timeless soul- searching and ""candor"" and how terribly hard legislating can be. We'll hear all about collegiality and efficiency and the grand traditions that make the Senate ""special.""  Spare me. Tear down the whole argument in favor of secret holds, and it comes down to cowardice: It allows a senator to cower behind anonymity while signaling his or her dislike for a piece of legislation. More to the point, it takes what would be a single losing vote on the floor of the Senate and converts it, magically, into stoppage of legislation.  That's awesome power with absolutely no accountability.  Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who discloses his holds as a matter of practice, introduced an amendment in 2006 to force all senators to identify themselves when placing a hold on a bill. That proposal has gone nowhere fast.  Are you surprised? Charles N. Davis is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists Freedom of Information Commitee and the executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri School of Journalism (daviscn@missouri.edu)."
"4","Avoiding immigration obligation PTPH000020070610e36a0008e Insight Washington Politics Bart Jansen Washington D.C. correspondent 959 Words 10 June 2007 Portland Press Herald FINAL C2 English � 2007 Portland Press Herald. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The immigration debate revealed something deeply troubling about Congress and the federal government.  Not allegations of amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. Not the biggest crime wave in history, if viewed that way. Not the fear that undocumented workers suffer living in the legal shadows, or the discrimination they face.  What it revealed was the government's inability to cope with the greatest challenges confronting the United States.  ""This is one of the biggest issues facing the country and the question is, do we have the courage, tenacity and the ability to get anything done anymore?"" asked Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. ""If we cannot do this, we ought to vote to dissolve the Congress and go home and wait for the next election. Can we do anything anymore?""  PROCEDURAL ISSUES STALL DEBATE  The problem isn't just that an unpopular amendment got approved or that a piece of legislation got killed. The problem is that the Senate, in rejecting a limit Thursday to debate, stalemated about just being able to cope with the measure.  After the collapse, even some people who advocated reform - but opposed the bill - said a remedy might have to wait.  ""I think we need to wait until after the election,"" said John Connors, president of Maine Council 31000 of the advocacy group League of United Latin American Citizens. ""Right now, it's all about politics.""  The only consensus is that the current system is broken. That is what spurred a bipartisan group of senators to negotiate the compromise legislation with President Bush.  But conservatives, particularly from border states, are frustrated with people sneaking into the country. These critics demand better fencing and more patrols to keep people out.  Others more sympathetic toward immigration seek to legalize millions of people already living and working in the country who lack legal documentation.  Frustration is what led to the first major attempt at compromise since the last immigration reform in 1986.  For enforcement, the bill called for 14,000 more border agents and 370 miles of new fencing.  For immigration, 567,000 additional visas would be issued over the next eight years, to reduce a backlog. People with relatives in the United States have been favored in the past; now, applicants who pay fines and learn English would be rewarded for any education and work skills.  And the bill would have created a new visa for temporary workers; the number of such visas was reduced from 400,000 to 600,000 per year to 200,000 by an amendment.  ""The American people expect us to legislate,"" said Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. ""As has been mentioned many times, our borders are broken, the immigration system is broken, people are living in fear and terror. There needs to be enforcement of the law and there needs to be fairness.""  HIATUS 'A SLAP IN THE FACE'  The bill divided Republicans, Democrats and even Hispanic groups.  The Maine Immigrant Rights Coalition, an advocacy group, urged support for the legislation, delivering postcards last month to Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine.  ""Immigrant workers and families are desperate for real reform,"" said the coalition's Rafael Galvez. ""They want their leaders to lead, to solve tough problems on a bipartisan basis and to produce results, not excuses.""  Blanca Santiago, a spokeswoman for the group, said it isn't giving up on winning approval of legislation this year.  Although Southern states are expected to be affected more by the legislation, Santiago argued that immigration policy is also important in Maine, for workers who harvest blueberries or broccoli or who work in the seafood industry.  ""We're very disappointed,"" Santiago said. ""This basically is just a slap in the face. We're feeling this is just not OK.""  She acknowledged that the bill is flawed, but she said the issue is too important for immigrants and for the finances of rural states to be ignored.  ""It's not dead,"" she said. ""We're not going to take no for an answer.""  But Connors, the Maine leader of LULAC, the Hispanic advocacy group, called the bill ""trash."" His concerns include the provision linking admission to skills and education, rather than family ties, and the program allowing 200,000 guest workers, which he considers an invitation to abuse.  ""It's more about union-busting and job-busting rather than bringing people here to work,"" Connors said.  SENATORS VOW TO FORGE AHEAD  The debate left scars all around.  ""In my 15 years, I've never received more hate or more racist phone calls or press,"" said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. ""It should not end, because if it ends, it means we are of faint heart and we are not willing to carry out our responsibility, which is to produce a bill.""  Kennedy described the ebb and flow of legislation in the chamber. Tuesday's stalemate led to aggressive voting on Wednesday, before the collapse on Thursday.  Republican critics of the legislation blocked debate for six hours while negotiating what amendments might be allowed.  Ultimately, the Senate voted Thursday 45-50 not to end debate, which fell far short of the 60 votes needed to complete legislation. Snowe and Collins each opposed limiting debate.  Supporters of the legislation vowed Friday to negotiate which amendments would be allowed during a tidy debate that could be completed within two or three weeks. The alternative is impasse.  ""If we're not willing to give and take based on principle, America's best days are behind us,"" said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C.  Washington D.C. Correspondent Bart Jansen can be contacted at (202) 488-1119 or at:  bjansen@pressherald.com "
"4","Getting to No; Senators from both parties torpedoed the immigration compromise. Here's who will pay the price. WP00000020070610e36a00080 Editorial 671 Words 10 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL B06 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  HAVING DERAILED immigration reform favored by a clear majority of Americans, the Senate may want to consider the effects of its resolute inaction.  Proponents say that they have not given up. But assume, for a moment, that efforts to repair the nation's broken immigration system will not be revived for at least two years. Given current trends, that means 800,000 to 1 million additional immigrants will enter the country illegally or overstay their visas, drawn by the great magnet of the American economy to fill jobs that most Americans won't do. That will swell the number of undocumented aliens, now estimated at 12 million, to nearly 13 million. Between 800 and 1,000 other people, mostly Mexicans and Central Americans, are likely to die trying to enter the country in the absence of the legal channels for immigration that the Senate bill would have established.  That tragedy will be compounded by another: the anguish of several million American citizens and legal permanent residents whose fervent hope to be reunited with their relatives will continue to be frustrated by a years-long backlog in visa applications. The Senate bill would have shrunk the backlog and eased the pain for some of those families, who now wait a minimum of five to seven years for their family members to be issued U.S. visas.  Meanwhile, border security will continue to be laughably inadequate. The Senate bill would have added thousands of border patrol agents and several hundred miles of fencing, but that, too, is dead for the time being. Elsewhere, immigrants who entered the country as young children, including college students and members of the armed forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, will get no fast track to permanent resident status as the Senate bill would have provided. And employers in factories, farms and service industries will continue to roll the dice whenever they hire foreign-born workers, unable to easily verify their legal status or be certain that the workers will not be arrested and deported by federal officials.  In towns, cities and states, politics will become increasingly poisoned by venomous debates over how to deal with immigrants, given the federal government's failure to act. Under pressure from constituents, state and local officials will increasingly be at each other's throats over measures to restrict how, where, when and under what circumstances immigrants can gather, live, study, drive and work. Already overburdened state and local police forces will be enlisted in the effort, diverting them from more serious crime problems.  Let's not forget the likely political fallout of the Senate's failure as voters assess a Republican Party whose elected officials have too often demonstrated hostility to Hispanics, among the fastest-growing segments of the electorate, as well as the Democrats' failure to parlay their control of both houses of Congress into resolving a festering domestic problem.  There's plenty of blame to go around. Blame George W. Bush, a president whose self-inflicted wounds have left him too politically incapacitated to deliver his own party. Blame Republicans like Jim DeMint of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, senators more focused on generating sound bites and 30-second attack ads than on solving the nation's immigration problems. And blame Democratic senators such as James Webb of Virginia, who ducked the hard vote while hiding behind a phony compromise proposal that had no chance. Although it was Republican senators who bear primary responsibility for killing off immigration reform, all of them conspired to reinforce and justify the public's disdain for politics as usual. They abdicated their responsibility to deal with one of the nation's knottiest problems and perpetuated a system rife with injustice, illogic and inhumanity. Having been offered the best chance in a generation to make a fix on immigration, the Senate blew it. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200706101ED-IMMIGRATION10"
"5","Senate stalls on reform CINP000020070612e36b0000h 404 Words 11 June 2007 The Cincinnati Post Cincinnati A.12 English � 2007 Cincinnati Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Last month, a bipartisan group of senators emerged from weeks of meetings to announce a ""grand bargain"" on immigration reform. Their fellow senators didn't find it so grand, and the chamber fell 15 votes short the other day of even agreeing to bring the bill to a final vote.  The defeat was an embarrassing rebuff for President Bush, made more so because it was administered by his own party. It was a victory only for those who are comfortable with the status quo on immigration for another couple of years.  The longer reform remains in limbo the less likely it is to pass before the 2008 election. And the Senate isn't even the biggest hurdle; immigration reform is much more controversial in the House.  For the moment, U.S. immigration policy consists of building more walls and barriers and hiring more border agents. But even support for that is likely to wane without the help of lawmakers who favored border barricades only as part of an ultimate broader reform.  The problem with the reform bill is that it has something for everybody to dislike, especially the path to citizenship -- denounced by conservatives as ""amnesty"" -- for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants here now.  Maybe, as the critics charge, it does reward illegality, but they offer no other solution other than the wishful hope that if the feds badger those 12 million enough they'll eventually give up and go home. And there's no practical or humane way to deport, to use a popular comparison, a population the size of Ohio's.  Some Republicans complained that they were not given enough time to amend the bill to their liking. Perhaps so, but the Senate voted on over 40 amendments, and GOP Whip Trent Lott complained that the bill would ""die of endless amendments.""  There's something to that. Some amendments were offered in hopes that they would be deal killers. An agreement to halve the number of temporary workers to 200,000 and end the program after five years cost employer support.  Immigration reform failed last year under a Republican-run Congress, and now it has failed again under a Democratic-run Congress. Bush is urging Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid to try again, and Reid has indicated he may do so. Perhaps the third time will be a charm, but don't bet on it. Editorial"
"4","Congress fails again DYRC000020070611e36b00003 OPINION01 296 Words 11 June 2007 Daily Record English (c) Copyright 2007, Daily Record. All Rights Reserved.  On a column on this page, Ruben Navarrette Jr. quotes U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., talking about ""silent amnesty.""That is what we have now in regard to illegal immigration.  As Congress does nothing, the status quo remains. Nothing will change. The compromise immigration reform proposal devised by competing interests in the U.S. Senate fell apart last week. That was a shame.  Equally shameful were the critics on both the left and right who opposed it for various reasons. Somehow, the traditional notion that compromise is needed to bridge varying interests no longer holds.  The key part of the failed compromise would have established a way for illegal workers now toiling in the United States to achieve legal status. They would not have been given a free ride. They would have had to prove they were working, pay for a Z-visa, and show that they did not have a criminal background.  Critics called that ""amnesty."" In truth, labels are meaningless. Whatever you call it, the idea was a good one, simply because it would have changed the status quo. Those who opposed it are good with fiery rhetoric, but they offer nothing but hollow solutions. Illegal workers are not going to be deported en masse. The now derailed compromise was at least an attempt to change the landscape.  Now that it failed, what do we have? Technically, we still have two widely different bills on the table, but no meaningful way of putting them together. And there is no change in what illegal workers do every day. Hence, ""silent amnesty.""The status quo continues.  Leadership can be described as doing what's right for tomorrow, even if it is unpopular today. We don't see that from Congress."
"4","Editorials XHAD000020070613e36b00020 A; Main 355 Words 11 June 2007 Honolulu Advertiser 8 English (c) Copyright 2007, Honolulu Advertiser. All Rights Reserved.  Get the job done on immigration reform  After watching chances for passing a bipartisan immigration bill crumble, along with his opportunity to tuck a major accomplishment into his legacy folder, President Bush is turning up the heat.  And it's about time.  Bush plans to meet with Republican senators tomorrow to try to salvage support for the sweeping immigration reform bill, after it failed to secure the votes needed to move to a final vote.  With no fewer than 30 amendments still percolating in the Senate, getting the measure passed will clearly be no easy feat. Senators on both sides of the political aisle will have to give up more than they may be comfortable with.  But after enduring a failing system, which for decades has forced millions of illegal immigrants into the shadows and separated many hardworking families, Congress owes it to taxpayers to come up with sensible immigration reform.  To be sure, the bill is not perfect. But it does rightly address some key areas. Some of the elements that should be preserved include adding some 6,000 agents to Border Patrol forces to deal with our porous borders, and addressing the mind-numbing backlog of nearly 5 million applicants seeking to reunite with families, who in many cases have been waiting more than 20 years.  Now the tough part. Democrats should continue to push for some key fixes. For example, fees for visa applicants are far too high, topping $6,000 in some cases. That's much too steep for many immigrants working in painfully low-paying jobs.  Perhaps the biggest challenge will be in retooling the selection criteria for coveted green cards. The bill shifts the focus from family reunification to a meritocracy-based system. There must be a better balance in that regard. Too many families have been pulled apart by the system.  With nearly 12 million immigrants waiting in the wings and after decades political failures, it's time for members of Congress to roll up their sleeves and work together. Taxpayers deserve sensible immigration reform. Further delays and partisan bickering just won't cut it."
"4","EDITORIAL DEATH FROM DETAILS LAWMAKERS FAIL THE COUNTRY AGAIN ON IMMIGRATION REFORM LAD0000020070613e36b00015 Editorial 324 Words 11 June 2007 Los Angeles Daily News VALLEY N12 English � 2007 Los Angeles Daily News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  THE thing that finally killed comprehensive immigration reform legislation last week was not the conflicting philosophies of the two sides. No, what did in the Senate's immigration bill was a disagreement about how many years the bill's temporary guest-worker provision would run.  That is an oversimplification of one of the many amendments blocking the passage of the bill in the Senate, to be sure. But it certainly characterizes how the nation's lawmakers, unable to find consensus on their larger difference, allowed desperately needed reform to fail in its final hours because of mere details.  Right now it's about solving a massive problem posed by illegal immigration, not about any of those small details. It's about getting a mechanism in place that can be tinkered with as needed down the road.  Opponents of the bill, primarily the more conservative Republicans, might feel they've won something from this battle over legislation they characterized as ""amnesty"" because it included a path to citizenship for the millions who already participate in the U.S. economy.  But what have they won for themselves and the country? Another year of a broken immigration system with neither carrot nor stick, and so many deficiencies that it puts both the legal and illegal residents at risk every day.  For their parts, the architects of support for the bipartisan bill, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., promised to keep working for reform. And President George W. Bush is urging the Senate to reopen debate. But more talk isn't likely to force a compromise. That will take muscle.  We need immigration reform now, not more debate over immigration reform. And every day that lawmakers quibble over the details is yet another day they are failing the entire country in solving the country's single most pressing domestic need."
"4","EVEN IF CONGRESS WAITS, IMMIGRATION ISSUE WON'T PMBP000020070612e36b00019 OPINION 464 Words 11 June 2007 The Palm Beach Post FINAL 10A English Copyright 2007. The Palm Beach Post, All Rights Reserved.  Comprehensive immigration reform is one of the most complex and politically contentious issues Congress has faced in, oh, the 21 years since the last major immigration bill. But postponing action for perhaps another two years isn't just unacceptable; it's self-defeating.  The bipartisan Senate bill went on the shelf Friday after supporters got only 45 votes of the 60 they needed to end debate. The likelihood of bringing the bill back fades as next year's election nears and campaigns of both parties begin to worry more about voting blocs than doing the unpopular work the nation needs. If not this year, reform efforts probably will have to wait until 2009, when there's a new Congress and a new occupant in the White House. That would keep the 12 million illegal immigrants already here in limbo and leave local and state governments stuck dealing every day with the mess Washington won't clean up.  Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outsmarted himself by forcing a vote to end debate without having the votes to win. Sen. Reid criticized President Bush for not working harder on a bill the White House supports. That's buck-passing. Mr. Bush was at the Group of Eight summit in Germany on Friday, but with his approval rating sliding to new lows, his potential influence would have been marginal even if he had been in Washington.  If Sen. Reid can't keep moderates from his own party in line, it's hard to believe that the president could do better with the other side. This was supposed to be the president's top domestic priority and a chance to salvage something to enhance an otherwise dismal legacy. Leadership from the White House seems essential to brokering a compromise, but Sen. Reid knows that President Bush has demonstrated little of that in his six-plus years.  A recent poll by the Pew Research Center showed how vulnerable the issue is to political distortion. When the word amnesty wasn't used, 62 percent of Republican respondents said they approved of allowing illegal immigrants who are here a chance at citizenship if they have jobs. But add the word amnesty with the same conditions, and only 47 percent of Republicans approved. Strong majorities on both sides of the issue are opposed to amnesty but can't agree on what it is. Two things polls consistently show are that Americans want tougher border security and are willing to give illegal immigrants legal status as part of the deal to get it.  If Congress isn't up to dealing with the toughest issues, who needs Congress? Sen. Reid should keep bringing the bill back until there's some courage in the Capitol."
"4","NO QUITTING THE SENATE MUST RETURN TO IMMIGRATION REFORM PPGZ000020070611e36b0002m EDITORIAL 600 Words 11 June 2007 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette SOONER B-6 English � 2007 Post Gazette Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  When juries can't reach a verdict in important trials, judges often instruct them to try again and keep on going until it's clearly hopeless. When the U.S. Senate debates one of the nation's thorniest issues without reaching a consensus, its members give up and point fingers at each other.  That is the sorry state of immigration reform, which last week dissolved into mutual recriminations and no action after two weeks of debate. It has been characterized as a significant setback for President Bush, who supported the effort. But that's the wrong way to look at it; the president's loss is also the nation's.  As we have observed before, immigration reform is not a luxury; it is a necessity. To have 12 million illegal immigrants permanently living in the shadows -- and who can't all realistically be deported -- makes no sense as social policy.  A wise course has long been understood to have two components: sealing the borders to stop the flow of further illegal aliens and normalizing the legal status of those already here so that legitimacy can engender civic duty and responsibility in these newly minted stakeholders.  The compromise worked out in May had the essential elements but, as always, the devil is in the details. There is something for everyone to dislike here, each according to his or her political inclinations.  Some liberals resent a proposed new employment-based point system that gives weight to skills and education in green-card applications at the expense of family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.  Many conservatives reject the whole idea of amnesty. Despite the fines and inconveniences that come with putting illegal immigrants on the road to citizenship, many on the right are implacably opposed to an amnesty that rewards people who have broken the law.  That group is probably the biggest political problem, because talk-show hosts and others have demagogued the issue almost to death.  In this climate, myths have prospered. For example, to hear some tell it, illegal aliens commit a disproportionate amount of crime (in fact, according to a new study by the Immigration Policy Center, incarceration rates for immigrants are lower than for native-born residents).  Some of the feelings raised by immigration are ugly, almost as if the issue has become racism's last socially acceptable outlet.  But the American people also have decent concerns -- they remember the last amnesty in 1986 and note that it did not cure the problem. That might be somewhere to start in breathing new life into this proposal: Make sure that nobody is given a visa until the flow of immigrants is stanched.  This is not a lost cause. Most Americans are compassionate and are not blind to the plight of millions. They understand that these people have broken the law to seek a better life for themselves and their families -- they also know that a sovereign nation can't allow that to go on further. On reflection, they may be persuaded that it's not the worst crime, not something that a sensible, finely tuned amnesty can't cover.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada blamed President Bush's lack of leadership for this failure, but it was the Democrats who, ignoring Republican pleas for more time, pressed ahead to end the debate and schedule a final vote -- only to come up 15 votes short. Mr. Reid and the Senate need to go back to work on this and not quit until they are done."
"4","Irreconcilable differences ; Immigration reform may have to wait until after election RMTN000020070611e36b00011 NEWS 534 Words 11 June 2007 Rocky Mountain News FINAL 30 English � 2007 Denver Publishing Company, Rocky Mountain News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Immigration reform is dead for now, and the ""no amnesty"" activists - who really mean ""no path to citizenship ever for anyone who illegally crossed the border at any time"" - are understandably gloating. As it happens, however, they didn't succeed alone.  They had plenty of help from those on the opposite side of the spectrum who were equally unwilling to compromise even when it was the only hope of reaching a deal.  Given the relative strengths of those opposing forces, immigration reform may have to wait until after next year's presidential election.  For us, a defining moment of the Senate debate occurred Wednesday when that chamber rejected an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn, R- Texas, to bar illegal immigrants who had been ordered deported for a variety of offenses from becoming citizens. The defeat of such an amendment is simply baffling. Yet it is typical of what became a pattern of resistance to efforts to improve the bill through common- sense adjustments.  Proponents of a comprehensive package made other major mistakes as well. To begin with, they seemed to go out of their way to raise suspicions and to offend those who disagreed with them.  First, they tried to rush this immensely complex piece of legislation through Congress as if it were no more controversial than a resolution praising fallen soldiers. Many Americans naturally suspected their motives and were insulted by the haste.  Then, when the going got tough, the bill's architects began to question the motives of opponents. In the case of President Bush, that meant insulting his own political base. His remark that critics ""don't want to do what's right for America"" electrified the opposition, making it more determined than ever. (Bush was undoubtedly tired of critics questioning his motives, but that's hardly sufficient excuse.)  Republican Sen. John McCain, a bill sponsor, was just as scathing. He characterized opponents as people who ""would intentionally make our country's problems worse . . .""  We agree with opponents that enforcement got short shrift in the bill and that probationary visas would have been granted with indefensible haste. We also submit that there needs to be a time out, say, of a couple of years between a crackdown on the border and a move to regularize the status of illegal immigrants who are already here to make sure that enforcement won't be a 1986-type farce.  Such a deal would still rile die-hard Tancredo-ites, who refuse to acknowledge that many illegals have sunk deep roots and are assets to the economy. Most are not going home no matter how much anyone might wish. That's why we believe it is neither rational nor humane to keep them in a twilight zone forever by equating any path to citizenship with an amnesty for undeserving criminals.  The defeat of the immigration reform package no doubt represents a triumph of popular sentiment. But it is also safe to say that the public does not like the status quo. And yet it is hard to see how any meaningful immigration bill can pass Congress given the present balance of political power."
"4","All is not lost | Immigration reform still possible this session SDU0000020070613e36b005ne OPINION BORDER CITY. ONE IN AN OCCASIONAL SERIES ON IMMIGRATION ISSUES. 571 Words 11 June 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune F B.6 English � 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The center may have collapsed in the Senate debate but there is still hope for a solution to America's illegal immigration problem, if for no other reason than because there remains one thing on which all sides agree: Doing nothing is simply not an option.  For Congress to chicken out on fixing this problem would amount to what Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., astutely calls ""silent amnesty."" It would also put off solving a serious problem that is never going to get any easier and may actually get more difficult as time goes on.  At first glance, it looks as if the two ends of the political spectrum -- on the right and the left -- triumphed in their campaigns to defeat this compromise. After all, the deal was opposed by both the right wing Federation for American Immigration Reform and the left wing League of United Latin American Citizens. Now each is probably celebrating and claiming credit for stalling the bill. Maintaining the status quo, and then railing against it, helps rally the faithful and expand membership rolls. This helps explain why the special interests have no interest in fixing the problem.  But did the extremes really derail this bill? A closer look at the Senate proceedings reveals that the deal killer was neither the path to legalization for illegal immigrants, which angered the right, nor the merit-based point system for legal immigrants, which angered the left. Rather, it was the guest-worker plan, and that suggests the credit (or from our view, the blame) for the derailing belongs to the entity that opposes this element most vehemently: organized labor.  No matter what you may hear about how it was Republicans who sidetracked this legislation, don't believe it. It was Democrats who sacked this bill. And that raises the question of whether we can ever have immigration reform as long as Democrats are in control of Congress and organized labor is in control of the Democratic Party.  We would like to think all is not lost, and there is still hope for immigration reform in this session. But first there needs to be a series of good-faith efforts by the architects of the Senate bill to plug the holes in that legislation. The senators need to show through their actions that they understand one thing -- that, for many Americans, border security is the first priority, not the only priority, to be sure, but the first one.  There also needs to be a full hearing, no matter how long it takes. It never sat well with us that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was eager to rush through the bill in a way that limited debate and amendments. And given that it was Reid who pulled the plug and removed the bill from consideration, one has to wonder what he was up to. Whatever it is, you can be sure it's no good and that he'll try to put the blame for it off on the GOP.  Regardless of what party they belong to, lawmakers are supposed to be problem solvers. But when they put partisanship before principle, make the perfect the enemy of the good, and push off the toughest issues onto future generations, well, then they become the problem that needs solving."
"4","How to improve immigration bill SFC0000020070611e36b0000l EDITORIAL EDITORIALS 521 Words 11 June 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.4 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  THE FAILURE of the U.S. Senate last week to approve immigration reform legislation should not provide an excuse for Congress to abandon the issue.  The ""grand bargain"" approved by lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle had enough good ideas in it to provide a framework for Congress and the White House to continue to work to fix our broken immigration system.  But there are at least five practical defects in the reform plan the Senate debated that we think should be rectified before Congress takes up the issue again.  -- ""Touch back"" provision. The Senate legislation required heads of households to return to their country of origin -- the so called ""touch back"" provision -- in order to get their green card, which according to proponents would be a mere formality. But the provision is completely impractical. U.S.consulates are not set up to handle millions of new visa applications in a timely fashion. Heads of households would have to leave their jobs here, abandon their families, with no guarantees when or even if they'd be able to return. Millions of illegal immigrants would be discouraged from applying for legalization because of this one provision alone.  -- Excessive fees. Legalization for illegal immigrations shouldn't be easy or cheap. But the fees that the Senate legislation would have loaded onto the backs of illegal immigrants are excessive -- $5,000 for a green card alone.The fee structure must be modified so that it accomplishes what it was intended to do: provide an appropriate penalty for being in the U.S. illegally, while still encouraging illegal immigrants to legalize.  -- Employment visas. The Senate legislation would have provided a large number of ""employment based"" visas, using a new ""point system"" to establish who gets a visa and who doesn't. But employers would have to choose from the pool of visa holders that the federal government had chosen under the point system.Any new ""employment based"" visa system must provide enough flexibility for employers to hire foreign workers that meet their needs.  -- Temporary visas. The ""grand bargain"" proposed offering six- year temporary visas -- but the visa holders would have had to return every two years to their home country and stay there for a year before returning. Forcing employees to leave for a year after two years on the job would be incredibly disruptive to the workplace -- and would encourage workers to stay in the U.S. illegally. Instead, temporary worker visas should be able to stay here continuously for six years -- with strong incentives to return to their country of origin at the end of that period.  -- Border enforcement. The legalization provisions in the Senate legislation would have gone into effect only when the border had been brought ""under control."" This provision would have potentially allowed for indefinite postponement of the most important aspects of the immigration reforms.Enforcement and legalization provisions should be implemented simultaneously.  Before resuming the immigration debate -- assuming it does resume -- lawmakers must fix the ""grand bargain"" on immigration so that it does not produce yet another immigration policy failure."
"2","LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SFC0000020070611e36b0000o EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 1172 Words 11 June 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.4 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Immigration bill defeat a sweet victory  Editor -- The defeat of the reprehensible Senate amnesty bill was a great victory for American democracy (""Immigrant bill killed in divided Senate,'' June 8). The citizens want immigration to be legal, controlled and reduced, and the legislation accomplished none of those aims. When Americans found out the extent of the Senate's treachery, the fury was heard around the nation.  Created in secret without the normal sunlight of the committee process, the bill expressed the unworthy desires of business elites for a supply of cheap labor.  The well-being of the American people was little considered by some, such as Sen. Ted Kennedy, who worked obsessively to reward lawbreaking illegal immigrants with massive taxpayer-funded benefits.  Congratulations to Sen. Barbara Boxer for supporting American workers' rights against the exploitation that open borders have brought.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein remains inexcusably dim with her strawman complaint that authorities can't round up 12 million foreigners. A strong regimen of workplace enforcement would convince illegal workers to go home on their own dime, the same way they came.  The victory is particularly sweet because it shows that representative government has not been entirely quashed by the big money of powerful elites.  BRENDA WALKER  Berkeley  ------------------------------------------------------  SFFD backs toxins bill  Editor -- Thanks to The Chronicle for the editorial educating the public regarding Assembly Bill 706, authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno (""Safety first,'' June 6). This most important piece of legislation proposes to ban two toxic fire retardants. The San Francisco Fire Department is aligned with San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 in vigorously supporting this bill in an effort to reduce toxins in our environment.  A huge priority in the San Francisco Fire Department is to educate the public regarding the importance of functioning smoke detectors in our homes.The San Francisco Fire Department will provide a free smoke detector and/or replacement batteries to any citizen of San Francisco. We provide this service as a result of grant funding and donations by various organizations. To receive a smoke detector or if interested in donating to this cause, call (415) 558-3300, or stop by SFFD headquarters at 698 Second St. (at Townsend Street).  BARBARA SCHULTHEIS  Fire Marshal  San Francisco Fire Department  ------------------------------------------------------  Pet bill is draconian  Editor -- Regarding your June 8 article, ""Bill to require pet sterilization finds favor with many owners"": AB1634, the so-called Pet Sterilization Bill, which has just barely passed the state Assembly and is headed to the state Senate, is an ill-conceived, draconian piece of legislation, which will prove disastrous to the state's purebred dog breeders and fanciers.  As the new owner of a beautiful, loving Havanese dog, I have become acquainted with this vibrant and caring community of responsible dog fanciers, whose passion is developing and showing a particular breed. These are small, middle-class family breeders who live primarily in rural areas of the state and cannot afford or may not qualify for the exemption in this bill. They should not be penalized for the irresponsibility of urban dog owners, who will continue to flout the law, regardless.  The American Kennel Club vigorously opposes this bill.  KATHRYN ROTHBERG  Mill Valley  ------------------------------------------------------  Ed Jew's 'election'  Editor -- Thank you for Editorial Page Editor John Diaz's June 10 column, ""Now, how did this guy get elected?"" It has been three long weeks since the horror of the FBI raids hit the news with remarkably little public discussion about the elephant in the District 4 living room. Yes, instant-runoff voting is to blame; yes, political affiliation and residential gamesmanship were employed; and yes, Mr. Jew does not deserve to be in office.District 4 residents, not just the small businesses, need representation in City Hall. We don't have it now, and will not, until someone new is appointed to fill the seat while we get ready to ""elect'' the next supervisor.  NANCY WUERFEL  San Francisco  ------------------------------------------------------  Students in Normandy  Editor -- I noted with great interest your coverage of the D- Day commemoration (""Dog tag gives closure to Normandy victim's kin,'' June 7). In fact, there are 57 fifth-grade San Francisco students in Normandy who took part in the commemoration as official guests of the French villages that surround Omaha Beach.  These students are in France as part of the French American International School's mission to prepare its graduates for a world in which the ability to think critically and communicate across cultures is of paramount importance.  The story of the gentleman from Virginia and his granddaughter was nice, but one does not have to look far to find students actively participating in history and its modern-day implications.  DAVID FIERBERG  Events and  Communications Manager  French American  International School  ------------------------------------------------------  Confidential  Editor -- Confidential to Jerry Nachman (""Swedish pancake heresy,'' Letters, June 7), you can get great Swedish pancakes just down the Peninsula at the Millbrae Pancake House. My friend Fezzo swears by them. Bon appetit.  VINNY VANCE  South San Francisco  ------------------------------------------------------  Disharmony  Editor -- As a gay person, I was saddened to read Debra J. Saunders' June 7 column (""Disharmony: The new tolerance,'' June 7). Her piece encouraged people such as me to stick to our own kind (with our own ""niche"" dating services), and she painted the desire for gays to enter the mainstream as a hostile act, aimed at tearing down organizations that don't want us.  It's logical to feel that way, if you see people like me as a threat. But I'm just a person who happens to be attracted to people of the same gender.It's wearying to watch commercials, such as the ones eHarmony airs, where the owner looks squarely into the camera and asserts that he'll find me a match.Knowing that eHarmony excludes gays, I have to separate myself from what I'm seeing.  We gay people have to separate ourselves a lot, more than straight people will ever know. So to me, the lawsuit against eHarmony seems constructive, rather than an attack on tolerance. If Saunders walked in my shoes, she might feel the same way.  PHILIP L. RUTH  San Francisco  -- -- --  Editor -- Regarding ""EHarmony accused of discrimination"" (June 2):  Should Linda Carlson's lawsuit move forward, should she win, businesses all over the world would be in serious trouble. Short people could sue big and tall shops, thin women could sue plus- sized stores, vegetarians could line up to sue burger joints, the list of possibilities is endless.  Suing a business for not offering a service that we desire does not discrimination make. Surely all people have the right to search for love in whatever way they deem fit. But businesses have that same right in the way that they choose to run their companies. If we start taking away businesses rights, individual rights won't be far behind.  JOHN MERCHANT, board chair  California Citizens  Against Lawsuit Abuse  San Francisco GRAPHIC (2); Caption: (1) Paul Lachine / NewsArt.com, (2) Jon Krause / NewsArt.com"
"4","Federal Immigration Policy ** Senate, White House must rise above emotional tide over illegal immigration XALL000020070613e36c00037 OPINION The Morning Call 492 Words 12 June 2007 The Allentown Morning Call FIFTH A8 English Copyright 2007, Allentown Morning Call. All Rights Reserved.  No one should be more disappointed than Pennsylvanians that the U.S. Senate failed last week to approve an immigration bill -- any immigration bill at all. Washington's long paralysis on this subject, after all, has led to unfortunate local efforts at hometown relief -- Hazleton's landlord and employer ordinance last year and a debate led in Allentown by one member of City Council to get city police to ""do something.""  In both cases, well-intentioned elected local officials acted because illegal immigration, whether or not Congress deals with it, really is a problem. Washington's embarrassment is that leaders at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have been unable to craft a law that balances all interests and to find the political wherewithal to cast the votes needed to adopt it.  Put another way, neither the White House nor the Senate leadership has made solving the problem of illegal immigration a goal in itself. So, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced that he was pulling the bill from the floor, he challenged President Bush, who favors adoption of the current bill, to take charge. It was partly a partisan attack, partly straightforward analysis. Of 48 Senate Republicans, 38 voted against the White House on Thursday.  President Bush at the time was in Europe, but he's back home now. He is scheduled today to have lunch on Capitol Hill with Republican members. On Sunday, Sen. Reid said that if the Republicans can agree on a number of amendments and agree to limit debate, he will bring the bill back. Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., one of the caucus's bill supporters on Sunday predicted a bill will be passed before the Fourth of July. He also expressed frustration with his colleagues.  What happened to them was documented in news stories over the weekend. An unprecedented flood of calls, e-mail and letters to Senate offices was encouraged by conservative radio commentators and enabled by the Internet. Almost all of it opposed the bill and almost all of it argued that the bill amounts to ""amnesty"" for many of the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.  In fact, the bill requires fines and spells out legal steps that immigrants must take to stay here. That hardly fits the definition of amnesty, but precision in reason was not the goal of the anti-bill campaign. Rather, the goal was an emotional response. So far, it has worked.  President Bush and members of the Senate must get beyond that. It is a classic burden of national office to balance sometimes-opposite pulls of one's own wisdom and conscience with the wishes of constituents. When the stakes are high -- as they are regarding the economic and national security threats posed by illegal immigration -- the call to leadership over political safety is heightened."
"4","GO BACK TO WORK, SENATORS PHX0000020070613e36c0005k Opinions 592 Words 12 June 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser B4 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  Immigration reform is the most important domestic policy issue facing the nation.  Today, it hangs on President Bush's ability to make skeptical Senate Republicans believe him when he says: ""Trust me, I'm here to help.""  He's asking them to curb their opposition to the bipartisan immigration bill that was pulled from the floor by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who says he won't bring it back unless Republicans agree to limit the number of amendments they offer.  That's a hard sell even for a popular president, and Bush is not popular.  Some say comprehensive immigration reform is unpopular, too. Restrictionists organized an effective campaign against the bill. They cheered when it was pulled.  Yet most Americans understand that an out-of-control border and a shadow population of 12 million illegal immigrants constitute a national emergency.  Doing nothing is an endorsement of a dangerous status quo.  The bill dubbed the ""grand bargain"" beefs up border security, provides a mechanism for the 12 million to become legalized and creates a guest-worker program with an employee verification system. It is the product of compromise and cooperation among senators from the far right and the far left.  It has flaws.  It makes a radical shift from family-based to work-based immigration policies. It would effectively deny new guest workers the chance to remain and become citizens. These are significant issues, and they should be debated. But not endlessly, and not with the goal of disabling the bill.  If Congress does not act before the 2008 presidential campaign heats up, reform is unlikely until the next president takes office.  Reid's move to pull the bill from the floor despite last week's Senate vote to let the debate continue gives those who oppose reform an excuse for walking away from this problem.  Congressional candidates who will run for re-election in 2008 would rather not have to explain why they voted for something radio talk shows condemn as ""amnesty.""  What's more, years of federal failure to secure the borders or enforce sanctions against those who hire undocumented workers makes skepticism look like the wise choice.  Critics have a point when they say the feds failed to enforce employer sanctions that were put in place by the 1986 immigration reform. The easy way out is to do what every Congress since then has done: Shirk responsibility to fix that law, which could not be enforced because it did not include an enforceable employee verification system and it did not provide for labor needs.  Successive Congresses have silently endorsed the de facto amnesty that descends when an illegal immigrant finds a willing employer on this side of the line.  This Congress needs to recognize the nation's labor needs. It needs to accept the value of the contributions being made by the current undocumented workforce. It needs to create a workable employment eligibility system.  Senators need to go back to work on this bill.  Not for the sake of George Bush or Harry Reid.  For the sake of fixing a national crisis.  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his colleagues should help fix a national crisis. "
"2","LETTERS AKDG000020070612e36c0005n Editorial 1350 Words 12 June 2007 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 13 English Copyright (c) 2007 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.  Take down the `feeder'  I bought a bird feeder and filled it with seed and hung it on the ceiling of the deck. In no time at all, we had hundreds of birds eating the flow of free food.  Then the poop came, all over the deck floor, on the chairs and table. Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive-bomb me and try to peck at me. They would sit on the feeder and squawk and demand that I fill it when it got low on food.  I couldn't sit on my deck anymore. I took down the feeder and the birds left. I cleaned up the poop and was able to sit on the deck like it used to be, quiet, and no one demanding his rights to a free meal.  You know, our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free education. Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly, our taxes went up to pay for all the free services. Two, three and four families living in one house. You have to wait hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor.  You have to press 1 at the bank to read English. People are waving flags of other countries in our streets, demanding more rights and free liberties. Maybe it is time for our government to take down the feeder.  JOHN FREY  Berryville  Many locals back board  I noticed that 90 percent of the letters supporting Dr. Roy Brooks are from people who live in other towns. They have no children in the Little Rock School District who are being affected by the actions taken by the School Board, yet they feel compelled to comment and even to echo editorial statements like ""We have only begun to fight."" I guess they will fight from Camden, Pine Bluff, Conway and Jonesboro.  These people know nothing of which they speak and really need to just shut up.  Are you receiving any letters from people who actually live in Little Rock and have a dog in this fight? How many support Brooks' actions? Most LRSD constituents, i.e., voters, support Dr. Katherine Mitchell 100 percent because we are the ones who live here and it is our children who are being affected by Brooks' actions.  Even our small children are being adversely affected by shifting them into alternative schools for the slightest socalled infraction. I have been told that there are kindergarten boys in alternative school for things as silly as forgetting to bring a pencil to school or for laughing at a picture. Everything is deemed inappropriate behavior. This is insanity at its worst.  If Brooks stays here, we will not have to worry about test scores of black boys. None will be left to test. Good riddance to Brooks.  SARA CARMICHAEL  Little Rock  Contradictions available  Letter writer Donald E. Clem claims to have identified the creator of the universe-a brilliant discovery to be sure. I think he has mistakenly identified Yahweh, the God of the Bible, as the creator.  Historical research scholars Gerald Massey, Northrop Frye and A.B. Kuhn [showed] that Yahweh was just one of many gods and goddesses the Semitic peoples worshipped down through their history, all borrowed and eventually all discarded, with the exception of Yahweh. He was a cruel, vindictive Canaanite deity who, with the help of priests and scribes, would become the loving God who is the Judeo-Christian tradition of today.  Creation is a process, not an act, and Yahweh was not even a myth when time began. The creation story is borrowed mythology and has been perverted and literalized by Hebrew scribes.  Christians are convinced of the Bible's originality and, being delusional, refuse to make a sincere examination of the evidence available and, with their capacity for intellectual dishonesty, anything can be proved to their satisfaction, even if it contravenes their reason.  Many have requested a list of contradictions, but it seems strange that those who demand proof of the contradictions are the ones who have read them the most, yet cannot discern what they have read.  Here is a Web site, answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm, which is only one of many showing the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible.  AL CASE  Paris  Regulate against abuse  Your picture of volunteers helping a three-hooved horse to a veterinary clinic for treatment touched my heart. It is time for Arkansas to enact laws more fairly matching the punishment for animal abusers to the horrific treatment they inflict on their dependent animals.  The Arkansas Farm Bureau and its constituents have used their power and money to oppose this movement through several legislative sessions. Their reason for opposition is beyond my comprehension.  The news also included a mule that was dragged behind a vehicle until its hooves were almost worn off. This is the second case of this type recently. I wonder what the owners thought they were teaching these animals and how they justified the pain inflicted.  Growing up in the country, I was exposed to my father's teachings of the caring responsibilities of horse and pet ownership and the resulting reward of their faithful service, companionship and devotion. There are many regulations that could be imposed to minimize cases of neglect, misuse and abuse of animals. Registration and licensing fees would be a good beginning. Restriction of the number of animals harbored at one residence might help reduce neglect. Spaying and neutering requirements would reduce the number of animals that have to be euthanized or shipped to the Northeast, where neutering and spaying laws are enforced. There must be other concerned citizens out there who feel the same pain when reading about incidents of abuse or neglect. These animals also are God's creatures and deserve better treatment at our hands. Please help.  PATRICIA DRAPER  Hot Springs  Representation is poor  Just how well is Sen. Blanche Lincoln representing the values of Arkansans? She just voted to keep the section of the immigration bill that allows immediate legal status for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens. Mark Pryor voted to drop it.  Lincoln is also a Senate co-sponsor of the hate crime bill that passed the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. Three of Arkansas' four representatives voted against the bill: Mike Ross, Marion Berry and John Boozman. Our state Legislature has voted against a hate crime bill nine times.  Lincoln in 2006 received an 89 percent rating from the largest gay and lesbian organization in the country, Human Rights Campaign, a rating much higher than our four representatives. Berry and Boozman received a zero, Ross 25 percent and Vic Snyder 75 percent. Lincoln's rating with HRC increased from 57 percent in 2002 to 89 percent in 2006. She also received a 75 percent rating from the ACLU in 2006, up from 43 percent in 2000. In contrast, Boozman had an 18 percent rating.  According to National Review, the ACLU defended the North American Man-Boy Love Association after two convicted pedophiles accessed information on NAMBLA's Web site and used it to seduce, rape and murder a 10-year-old boy, then sued the city of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park, calling them a religious group. Just how many Arkansans would vote like Lincoln, 75 percent of the time with the ACLU and 89 percent with the Human Rights Campaign?  IRIS STEVENS  Jonesboro  Purchase has a purpose  I purchase and drink bottled water for two reasons: (1) I do not want to ingest fluoride and (2) tap water where I live just doesn't taste good.  Ironically, I attribute my ability to discern bottled water from tap water to good dental hygiene and brushing after each meal with toothpaste containing fluoride.  To me, it makes perfect sense to let my local leaders worry about getting the streets paved and building parks and leave the water to the Culligan man.  ROBERT S. SEAY  Bentonville  This article was published 06/12/2007"
"4","Excerpts from editorials in Florida newspapers APRS000020070612e36c009nn By The Associated Press 1673 Words 12 June 2007 14:45 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Here are excerpts from editorials in newspapers in Florida:  ------  June 11  The (Lakeland) Ledger, on how the U.S. should lead on greenhouse gas emissions:  President Bush is right: Any serious plan for counteracting global warming should include not only the United States and Europe, but two of the globe's most populous and polluting nations -- China and India.  But late last week in Germany, Bush missed an opportunity to make America part of an international coalition capable of providing China and India economic incentives to reduce ""greenhouse gas"" emissions.  Germany had proposed that the Group of Eight, the world's major economic powers, pursue specific, long-term targets for reducing the emissions -- primarily carbon dioxide -- that are believed to contribute to global warming. Bush would agree to only a watered-down declaration that said the United States would ""seriously consider"" mandatory reductions.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who wanted all the G-8 members to commit to emission-reduction mandates, nevertheless declared a compromise summit declaration a ""huge success"" and a ""turning point."" But she was also forced to abandon a proposal to cut greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.  To say the vague language approved last week marked a turning point was an exaggeration. But the agreement does represent progress -- especially since Bush only recently signaled his willingness to engage in international discussions on the topic.  Environmental groups criticized the G-8 declaration as inadequate. But Americans shouldn't assume the myth that tree huggers are the only proponents of both mandatory reductions in emissions and U.S. participation.  For example, The Economist -- a London-based magazine that strongly supports free-market policies -- recently called for the U.S. to participate in international agreements to ""make the polluter pay by putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions.""  The Economist said America's involvement matters, ""not just because it is the world's biggest polluter, but also because without its participation, the biggest polluters of the future -- China and India -- will not do anything.""  Bush has long said he believes that the private sector and technology can help slow global warming and reduce its impacts. Most scientists seem to agree, but even ardent advocates of free-market policies recognize that the private sector is less likely to adequately and rapidly invest in solutions without incentives and leadership from the United States.  ------  June 11  The Palm Beach Post, on how postponing the immigration bill means a setback for the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S.:  Comprehensive immigration reform is one of the most complex and politically contentious issues Congress has faced in, oh, the 21 years since the last major immigration bill. But postponing action for perhaps another two years isn't just unacceptable; it's self-defeating.  The bipartisan Senate bill went on the shelf Friday after supporters got only 45 votes of the 60 they needed to end debate. The likelihood of bringing the bill back fades as next year's election nears and campaigns of both parties begin to worry more about voting blocs than doing the unpopular work the nation needs. If not this year, reform efforts probably will have to wait until 2009, when there's a new Congress and a new occupant in the White House. That would keep the 12 million illegal immigrants already here in limbo and leave local and state governments stuck dealing every day with the mess Washington won't clean up.  Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outsmarted himself by forcing a vote to end debate without having the votes to win. Sen. Reid criticized President Bush for not working harder on a bill the White House supports. That's buck-passing. Mr. Bush was at the Group of Eight summit in Germany on Friday, but with his approval rating sliding to new lows, his potential influence would have been marginal even if he had been in Washington.  If Sen. Reid can't keep moderates from his own party in line, it's hard to believe that the president could do better with the other side. This was supposed to be the president's top domestic priority and a chance to salvage something to enhance an otherwise dismal legacy. Leadership from the White House seems essential to brokering a compromise, but Sen. Reid knows that President Bush has demonstrated little of that in his six-plus years.  A recent poll by the Pew Research Center showed how vulnerable the issue is to political distortion. When the word amnesty wasn't used, 62 percent of Republican respondents said they approved of allowing illegal immigrants who are here a chance at citizenship if they have jobs. But add the word amnesty with the same conditions, and only 47 percent of Republicans approved. Strong majorities on both sides of the issue are opposed to amnesty but can't agree on what it is. Two things polls consistently show are that Americans want tougher border security and are willing to give illegal immigrants legal status as part of the deal to get it.  If Congress isn't up to dealing with the toughest issues, who needs Congress? Sen. Reid should keep bringing the bill back until there's some courage in the Capitol.  ------  June 11  (Melbourne) Florida Today, on how Democratic and GOP presidential candidates will work together on the Iraq war in the post-Bush era:  The one thing certain about the Iraq war is that more blood will be spilled as failure is compounded by more failure.  That was seen with grim clarity again Thursday when Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, picked by President Bush to serve as the White House's new war czar, told Congress in confirmation hearings the troop surge isn't working.  And that more violence can be expected to rage over the next year.  As stated by Bush, the surge's goal was to stem the bloodshed and give the Iraqi government breathing room to start reconciling its deep Shiite-Sunni-Kurd divisions in several key ways.  But Luke said the Iraqis have shown ""very little progress"" toward the political healing necessary to slow the slaughter, and if that doesn't change, ""we're not likely to see much difference in the security situation"" a year from now.  Meanwhile, the war's futility has reached another tragic milestone on Main Street, USA:  More than 3,500 American troops have now been killed, with the surge causing the rising death toll. Nearly 26,000 have been wounded.  Against this backdrop, the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates continue to stiff the American public by not giving them the straight answers needed about to how to address the long-term ramifications of this disaster.  The Democrats are calling for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, which makes sense and which a solid majority of Americans back, while the Republicans just keep parroting ""stay the course"" rhetoric.  But none of the candidates are looking beyond sound bites to the immensely difficult task of trying to stabilize the region and rebuild U.S. respect and credibility in the Middle East in the post-Bush era.  That must include serious talks with Syria and Iran, whose major influence in Iraq and the region can no longer be ignored, and an honest recognition that only Iraqis can determine their own fate, no matter how painful the process.  An intelligent plan to accomplish that was drawn in January by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Study Group, which the White House promptly ignored in favor of the now failing surge, guaranteeing no change in policy while Bush is in office.  That puts the enormous responsibility of charting the future in the hands of the candidates, all of whom are so far failing the test.  For the good of the nation -- and Iraq and the Middle East -- that must change immediately with candid talk about what really lies ahead.  ------  June 10  The Daytona Beach News-Journal, on voters finding conflicting issues on stem cell research in two ballot proposals:  When Floridians go to the polls in November 2008, they may see two conflicting issues: A proposed constitutional amendment banning embryonic stem cell research that uses state money, and a separate proposed constitutional amendment requiring the state to spend $200 million on just such research.  The Florida Supreme Court recently approved wording of both proposals, and to get to the next step -- the ballot -- supporters of each will need more than 600,000 signatures from registered voters. If that happens, what are the scenarios?  If the ban alone passes, nothing much changes. The state hasn't committed to embryonic stem-cell funding. But it would prohibit future funding.  If both proposals fail, the Legislature wouldn't be compelled to spend $200 million over 10 years on stem-cell research, but legislators still would be free to commit to such research if they can muster the necessary votes.  If both proposals pass, that would put state government in an unusual position. Legal experts aren't clear what would happen next. There is no law to guide legislators, no legal precedent to guide courts. Most likely, the Florida Supreme Court would have to sort things out with lawyers from both sides.  If the only pro-research issue passes, the funding would provide only a small pot. The money proposed -- $20 million a year -- isn't significant relative to stem-cell research's costly demands. California voters in 2004 approved spending $300 million a year for 10 years on embryonic stem-cell research. If Florida is to be a leader in the field, $20 million a year won't do it.  Perhaps the more important issue at this point is to get a clear view from the electorate: ""yes"" or ""no"" on embryonic stem-cell research. The proposed constitutional amendments, should they make it to the ballot, will accomplish that.  The News-Journal has consistently favored an enthusiastic ""yes"" to research. It favors voters' right to weigh in just as enthusiastically. 7"
"4","Don't let immigration bill be job America won't do CHI0000020070612e36c0000w Editorials The Chicago Sun-Times 487 Words 12 June 2007 Chicago Sun-Times Final 25 English � 2007 Chicago Sun Times. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The scary thing about the repeated failures of President Bush and Congress to push through that urgently needed, long-discussed, continually nitpicked immigration reform is that each time it is swatted down, nativists bent on making life miserable for the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country are increasingly feeling their oats. The longer members of Congress dicker over amendments and technicalities and voting procedures, the more the basic elements of the measure -- tougher border security and a path to citizenship -- get lost in the political haze.  This was never the sexiest issue for mainstream Americans, even those whose lives are directly affected by it through their reliance on low-wage immigrant workers. But from the day the president first proposed his guest worker program to last November when Democrats took control of Congress, Americans were thought to be open to comprehensive reform. Now, apparently, whatever sympathy was stirred up by the heartfelt statements of legal and illegal immigrants at mass rallies in various cities is fading. A Gallup Poll reveals of those Americans who have an opinion on the immigration bill -- and at this stage, most don't -- three to one are against it. ""Amnesty"" has become even more of a loaded buzz word than it was: Most Americans polled don't want people they see as violating the law getting anything resembling a free pass.  Bush, who has been roundly criticized for his failure to line up reluctant Republicans behind the bill, one of the major items left on his agenda, said the legislation was ""temporarily derailed"" following its late-hour crash last week and vowed to get it passed. Democrats say they are keen on renewing efforts to push it through, following a questionable decision by their majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, to pull the bill rather than give Republicans more time to settle on what amendments to debate.  With the window of time for this legislation shutting -- there is no chance of acting on it once the presidential race heats up -- it is incumbent on Bush to use whatever clout he has left to line up Republicans behind it and for Reid to get it back on the Senate agenda. The more unproductive talk there is about the bill, the more tired people will become with it. Perhaps someone needs to engage Americans on an emotional level, to call into account the compassion for the underdog this country has always been known for. ""Sometimes there are big problems that have to be addressed, and there's no political gain in it and maybe even political loss,"" said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, a key conservative Republican supporter of the bill. ""You've got to do it, nonetheless."" We can only hope he's right in predicting it will be done before the Senate's July 4 recess."
"4","Pass immigration reform DN00000020070612e36c0000p Deseret Morning News editorial 385 Words 12 June 2007 Deseret Morning News A18 English (c) 2007 Deseret News Publishing Co.  If Congress fails to pass the immigration reform bill pending in the Senate, it may have squandered its last chance to bring order and sense to the growing illegal immigrant problem for years to come.  The tenuous compromise worked out among Republicans and Democrats nearly unraveled completely last week, but Senate leaders remain hopeful they can still salvage the bill and gain enough votes for passage. If they don't, the nation will have to continue its contradictory and inhumane policy of punishing and deporting people who come here to fill the demands of a soaring economy. Regardless of border fences and tough talk, the ranks of the undocumented will continue to grow, as will animosity toward the United States in nations south of the border -- nations that are turning leftward in part because of what they perceive to be hatreds and broken promises from this country.  The United States has expended a lot of effort in recent years to work out free-trade agreements with Latin countries. Border fences and deportations are seen by many as examples of U.S. hypocrisy.  The Senate compromise is not perfect. That's the nature of a compromise. But it would create a guest-worker system that would allow productive workers to stay here and fill jobs. It creates a path to citizenship and imposes a stiff financial fee on illegals who wish to stay. Also, it would tighten the border, which is important in this age of terrorism.  People who work hard and contribute would be given a way to come here and better their lives. Others would be deported. People wishing to become citizens would need to return to their lands and get in line. People who call this ""amnesty"" are just looking for a provocative word to lob like a grenade.  The only alternative to this bill is to continue the current system, arresting a few people here and there with no regard for whether or not they are contributing as hard workers. Even hard-core immigration opponents need to acknowledge it would be impossible to round up an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants for deportation.  We hope the wrangling last week that led to a Senate deadlock was a temporary political setback. This bill needs to pass."
"5","US immigration Build credibility before trying to revive 'grand bargain'. FTFT000020070612e36c00026 LEADER 442 Words 12 June 2007 Financial Times London Ed1 Page 12 English (c) 2007 The Financial Times Limited. All rights reserved  Last week's collapse of the Senate's ""grand bargain"" on American immigration was not, as one might think, a case of pragmatic centrism defeated by extremist refusal to compromise. To be sure, the measure mixed punitive and liberal elements, so anti-immigrant and pro-immigrant lobbies both disliked it. But moderates were not much more impressed, nor was the country at large. Even the bill's main sponsors - Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain - seemed doubtful. It was a compromise that offended almost everybody.  The law may yet be revived but do not bet on it. The status quo is bad but not intolerable: ""better no reform than this reform"" is something many of the law's critics could agree to. The US has at least 12m illegal immigrants and the number continues to surge. At the same time critical skills are in short supply, a deficit that employers are in effect forbidden to remedy by recruiting abroad. In social and econ-omic terms, the current system has failed. But the problems are chronic not acute and sadly theline of least resistance is to let things be.  Rather than trying to revive the grand bargain, a wiser course may now be to dismantle it and strive for a series of smaller ones. The failed bill hinged on a promise to police illegal immigration more effectively; with that in place, the status of most existing illegal workers was to have been regularised (and a long path to citizenship opened up) and there would have been new opportunities for lawful temporary workers and immigrants with skills. That first assurance, however, was not believed. The country had reason to be sceptical because it has been promised a secure border many times before. This needs to be addressed.  In curbing illegal immigration, border measures are probably less important than supervision of employers. If this can be achieved at moderate cost through electronic verification of workers' status, as the bill promised, then let that measure move forward on its own. When the country sees signs that it is working, resistance to the more liberal elements of the failed law will soften. One of those signs will be labour shortages and worsening economic disruption. This, it seems, is the price that must be paid for Washington's lack of credibility.  Another candidate for immediate action is easier entry of highly skilled workers. America's present reluctance to hire the world's best and brightest is self-defeating and absurd. Fixing this is politically feasible. These useful steps should not await a resurrected grand bargain. 20070612L112.040"
"4","REVIVE IMMIGRATION BILL HFCT000020070612e36c0004d EDITORIAL 291 Words 12 June 2007 The Hartford Courant STATEWIDE A18 English Copyright 2007, The Hartford Courant. All Rights Reserved.  As flawed and cumbersome as the compromise bill to overhaul immigration policy was, it had a firmer grasp on reality than the current system does. Today's immigration policy presumes that the United States can deport all 12 million illegal immigrants without upsetting the economy.  The U.S. Senate on Thursday allowed the overhaul measure to fall prey to shameful partisanship. Doing nothing to change immigration policy only threatens to further divide the country into two societies -- one of which exists outside the law and yet is too vital to the nation's financial system to dismiss.  It is therefore encouraging that President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada are leading efforts to have the bill taken up again later in the year.  The proposal had provided illegal immigrants a 13-year path to citizenship. Penalties for bypassing the path were high fines and fees. The legislation set stiff conditions, such as a requirement that those seeking legal permanent residence had to return to their native countries and apply for it there.  Employers would have benefited from a broadened temporary-workers program. And, to appease conservatives, the legislation also incorporated provisions for beefing up border security.  Unfortunately, a combination of forces -- recalcitrant conservative Republicans, halfhearted lobbying by the White House and typical Democratic divisiveness -- caused the bill to fall 15 votes short of the 60 needed to end Senate debate and allow a vote on the measure's merits.  Polls show that a considerable majority of Americans think that illegal immigrants who have been in the United States at least two years and have good records should be permitted to apply for legal status.  Congress must take another shot at passing the immigration bill."
"1","Power switch; If they don't run out of steam, Senate Democrats have a chance to finally pass a serious energy package. LATM000020070612e36c0002h Main News; Editorial Pages Desk 371 Words 12 June 2007 Los Angeles Times Home Edition A-20 English Copyright 2007 The Los Angeles Times  AFTER BEING BATTERED on immigration reform last week, congressional Democrats could use a win. They have a chance for a big one this week as the Senate takes up a comprehensive energy package that could be the most environmentally responsible move from the federal government in six years under President Bush. Or it could be buried under a pile of harmful amendments.  Splits in the Democratic majority were enough to torpedo immigration reform, and there's considerable danger the same could happen on energy. Bills cobbled together into a package by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) aim at tightening automotive fuel standards, increasing production of renewable fuels and improving energy efficiency in buildings and appliances, among other things. But some of these initiatives were already defanged before passing through committee, and senators from both parties are lining up with amendments that would pull teeth from the rest.  The bill's most important provisions are aimed at improving the mileage of U.S. automotive fleets from an average of 25 miles per gallon to 35 mpg by 2020. But the auto industry successfully weakened the bill by pushing the inclusion of an ""offramp"" that lets federal regulators put off the improvements if they're deemed not to be cost-effective. Amendments are expected this week to make the bill even friendlier to Detroit.  Meanwhile, the bill's call for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels a year by 2022 could be undermined by representatives of coal states who want liquid-coal fuel to be allowed in the mix. Liquid coal is an environmental catastrophe, emitting double the greenhouse gases of gasoline.  There is one highly beneficial amendment in the works: a requirement to be introduced by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) that the nation get 15% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Twenty-four states already have renewable-power mandates, and a federal standard would be a dramatic step toward curbing global warming. As for most of the other amendments, senators should make like a wind turbine and blow them away."
"4","Stagnation RNOB000020070612e36c00012 Editorial/Opinion 665 Words 12 June 2007 The News & Observer Final A10 English Copyright (c) 2007 by The News & Observer Pub. Co.  President Bush plans to be in an arm-twisting, and maybe a sweet-talking, mood today when he'll continue to push an immigration reform bill on Capitol Hill. No such compromise measure is perfect, but the truth is that the bipartisan bill that was pulled from the Senate floor Thursday night would have meant real and important progress. But opponents, baiting supporters with inflammatory words such as ""amnesty,"" wanted to mess with reform the way a shade-tree mechanic wants to tinker with your car when it's running pretty well.  North Carolina's Senator Dole, unfortunately, has been one of those. She doesn't want illegal immigrants to have a reasonable and more rapid chance to become legal, she has said, until borders are secure. No ""amnesty,"" says she.  Certainly border security ought to be part of any immigration reform -- and it is, as a matter of fact.  The bill that vanished like a magician's rabbit from the Senate floor, despite Bush's backing, included more border patrol agents and more money for a fence along the border with Mexico. No one disputes the notion that security has to be part of any immigration reform.  But reality has to be part of reform, too, and those who seem to want to believe that people who are in this country illegally are not a vital part of the workforce in many states -- including North Carolina -- are kidding themselves. In the case of Sen. Dole, that's all the more serious, because she has a vote in the Senate.  As a News & Observer story over the weekend noted, farmers in this part of the country have to employ migrant workers, many of them probably illegal, to get the crops in. That's a major concern indeed in a state such as North Carolina, with a large agricultural sector and many crops that depend on hand-harvesting.  Under the current confused and flaccid immigration enforcement policies, farmers have become used to hiring these workers and dependent upon them, so their stake in reaching a rational immigration policy is enormous. Meanwhile, doing nothing on immigration reform means that many migrants will continue to fear being deported and be forced to live underground (and that some farmers can exploit them). They'll be exploited also by those who help them get into the country illegally.  And here's the thing: most of those who have reached the United States aren't going anywhere. Even some of the most conservative opponents of reform have to acknowledge that it's seriously misguided to think this country is prepared just to get rid of 12 million illegal immigrants, many of them families.  The immigration reform still before Congress, if just barely alive, would allow illegal immigrant farm workers now within our borders to apply for temporary visas, in some cases to apply for permanent legal status and to get work permits for their spouses. As for those who want to come to here to work, a simpler guest worker system would be set up, including quicker background checks. Overall, the reform would not amount to a blanket amnesty, and it still wouldn't be a breeze to attain residency status -- there are fines and various requirements to be met.  And so what happens if nothing happens? Well, it's rather like a wound that festers and won't clear up on its own. Illegal workers outside the country will still try to come here, hoping to improve their lives, and ones inside the country will continue their secret-but-not-really-secret lives. Employers who have exploited the workers, taking advantage of their vulnerability, will continue to do.  Those who have treated workers fairly will have uncertain labor forces. And politicians will continue to wink at the problem of illegal immigration. Congress owes it to the American people and to the immigrants both legal and illegal to face the challenge honestly and to do something -- now."
"4","A test of our willU.S. society is conflicted on immigration, but lawmakers should not give up. OMHA000020070612e36c0009b Editorial 704 Words 12 June 2007 Omaha World-Herald Iowa;Metro;Midlands;Nebraska;Sunrise 06B English � 2007 Omaha World-Herald. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  When immigration legislation ran aground -- again -- last week, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a comment that advertises how Congress -- and perhaps American society as a whole -- lacks the will to solve key domestic problems  After one amendment soured Democratic support and a subsequent vote failed to break a filibuster, Reid, D-Nev., declared: ""What else can I do?""  Your job, Senator. You and your colleagues, in both parties and in both houses, aren't being paid to repeatedly duck the difficult issues  The next election is some 500 days away, and in that time, this divisive issue will only get hotter. And if Congress cannot hammer out a measure most can live with, no matter how long it takes this congressional session, prospects appear bleak that policy-makers can summon the will to address other daunting challenges: Health care. Social Security. Medicare. Medicaid  This is no way to run a country. * * *  That said, it's all too evident that Americans remain deeply conflicted over the five prime immigration issues that President Bush has outlined and which need to be resolved together:  Secure the border  Hold employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants  Create a temporary-worker program  Resolve the status of illegal immigrants already here  Help newcomers assimilate into our society  These concepts can, of course, spur sharp divisions of opinion. Some Americans insist that a 2,000-mile-long wall along the Mexican border is feasible as well as mandatory, for example, while others recoil at any restraints on entry  On the temporary-worker issue, Americans are split over forming, in essence, a successor to the mid-20th-century bracero program for Mexican migrant workers. Americans differ over whether rounding up 12 million illegals is doable or delusional, justice or injustice  Americans clash, too, over the speed of Latino adaptation to the Anglo culture. Latinos, mainly Mexicans, have moved back and forth across the border for generations. Some stayed here and sank deep roots. Some made and sent home money, went home, came back. So it is now as well  Since America first ostensibly imposed a limit on Mexican immigration eight decades ago, the idea of stanching the cross- border flow has been more theoretical than real. Could it be that Americans, despite their rhetoric, prefer the fiction?  Consider what Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat backing the Senate bill, told the New York Times about opposition tactics (emphasis added): ""It's a lot easier to yell one word, 'amnesty,' and it takes a little more to explain, 'No, it's not, and if you don't do anything, you have a silent amnesty.'""  Are Americans no longer capable of making a good start toward solving an issue, then coming back with refinements? Have they forgotten the occasional necessity of accepting something they aren't thrilled with to get something they desire?  Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippian who holds the No. 2 leadership position among Senate Republicans, was right last week when he said that if Congress can't work to resolve the illegal immigration issue, what is Congress even there for in the first place?  And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of the grand bargainers, has rightly cited an old adage that Congress needs to heed on so many issues: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. * * *  Nebraskans generally follow that adage in local and state issues. In almost every controversy during this year's session of the one- house, nonpartisan Legislature, many senators sought solutions acceptable to most. On the pivotal Omaha schools issue, lawmakers were set to stay on the floor as long as needed  By contrast, many U.S. senators seem to prefer surrender whenever a filibuster survives a minimal number of attempts to defeat it. House leaders, regardless of which party controls the chamber, also are adept at using the rules to avoid extended debate on tough issues  Failure of the immigration bill to rise from the ashes would only make more Americans ask why they send people to Washington. It isn't to enjoy the perks. It's to get things done."
"4","Resurrect immigration reform PRJS000020070627e36c000vj EDITORIAL 393 Words 12 June 2007 Peoria Journal Star All A4 English � 2007 Peoria Journal Star. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  In killing the immigration bill on a procedural technicality last week, the U.S. Senate essentially voted for maintaining the status quo of an unsecured border and at least 12 million illegals running around unchecked. This is better?  Once the word ""amnesty"" began to dominate national debate, the compromise immigration bill was doomed, with law-and-order Republicans in particular unable to get behind any measure that, in their view, would reward criminals. That position is not without merit, but sometimes you have to be pragmatic, too. Right now there is no law and no order and no way to deport 12 million people. GOP senator and presidential candidate John McCain is right, this is ""silent amnesty.""  To be fair, this bill did get shot at from the left as well as the right, with Democrats having a difficult time stomaching the reduced emphasis on family unification in a guest-worker program and others objecting to effectively putting citizenship up for sale. To be sure, the bill had its flaws.  But no bill is perfect, no law a totally finished product at its inception. Nothing would have prevented legislators from coming back and patching the leaks in this vessel later. Again the political extremes, this time rowing in tandem, crushed the common-sense middle.  The measure's defeat - delivered by 38 dissenting Republicans, 11 no-thank-you Democrats and one independent - spells continued bad news for President Bush, who championed it. Clearly, this repudiation reinforces a diminished Oval Office, with 18 months to go. Second, it may hand the sizeable Hispanic vote to Democrats, who are viewed as less hostile on this issue, in the next election and beyond.  All of which should be secondary to trying to pass responsible reforms regarding an out-of-control immigration problem with national security implications. As a result of last week's squashing, there won't be 18,000 more border patrol agents. There won't be 370 miles of additional fencing. If undocumented immigrants drive down American wages, nothing has been done to ameliorate that. A program that tried to address the competitive needs of U.S.- based, high-tech industry for higher-skilled workers is history.  Congress had a chance to move the immigration ball forward here. Doing nothing is really a retreat, and should not have been an option."
"4","Editorial | Immigration Reform; Don't blow it PHLI000020070612e36c00018 EDITORIAL; P-com Opinion 492 Words 12 June 2007 The Philadelphia Inquirer CITY-D A22 English (c) Copyright 2007, Philadelphia Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.  Lazarus was raised from the dead, so it's not impossible for immigration reform to be revived. But if not a miracle, it will take a herculean effort to get a bill passed.  Whatever labor is exerted to move this nation past status quo on immigration will be worth it.  There are at least 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country. It makes no sense to leave them in that status when a mechanism can be employed to have them pay fines and fees so they can legally work and pay taxes in the United States.  It would be easy to blame xenophobic conservatives for Congress' failure to pass an immigration bill. But liberal lawmakers, too, are cowering in the face of opposition from their traditional constituencies, who fear the bill's impact.  Just last week, National Urban League president Marc H. Morial said that the civil rights organization was opposed to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Morial said any new temporary worker visas should be combined with a requirement that current black, white, Hispanic, Asian or Native American workers be given first rights to available jobs.  A number of unions as well as the Urban League want current labor and minimum-wage laws extended to temporary workers. They also want workers with temporary visas to be eligible for housing and health benefits.  Other liberal groups have criticized the bill for reducing the number of family-related visas. South Asian Leaders of Tomorrow said giving priority to persons based on their education or technical skills would reduce visas for South Asian immigrants.  On the other side of the coin, conservative lawmakers who might bend on immigration are being warned to think again. For example, two possible Democratic challengers to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.) are said to be gaining traction by running to the right of him on immigration.  Fear of election backlash certainly was evident Thursday, when the immigration bill fell 15 votes short of the 60 needed to end debate in the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said he was open to bringing the bill back to the floor later, but he clearly sounded defeated.  Now, Democrats are pointing fingers at Republicans and Republicans are pointing at Democrats. President Bush has joined the fray, accusing the Democratic leadership of letting its preoccupation with ousting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales derail immigration reform.  America can't afford for Bush to join the blame game. He has stood tall for immigration reform to this point; he must persist. Bush said he would visit Capitol Hill today to lobby Senate Republicans. The president needs to work with Reid, also, to garner enough votes.  Reasonable amendments can be made, but immigration reform should not be allowed to die. It will, unless members of Congress can look beyond their personal ambitions for reelection and do what's best for the nation. "
"4","Give immigration package its due PGHK000020070613e36c0000j A; OPINION 579 Words 12 June 2007 Poughkeepsie Journal 6A English (c) Copyright 2007, Poughkeepsie Journal. All Rights Reserved.  Opponents of a sweeping immigration bill are kidding themselves if they equate blockage of this legislation with victory.  The country's immigration policies are broken; federal officials have every imperative to make comprehensive fixes, ones that address security issues, business concerns and a host of other matters.  Reputable studies estimate there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, and more are coming each day. Any sound-minded legislation must include vigorous steps to tighten the country's borders. But there also needs to be a realistic plan for dealing with the illegal immigrants already here.  A bi-partisan group of U.S. senators recently offered such a plan; it would put millions of illegal immigrants on a rather lengthy road to legal recognition while plowing considerable resources into bolstering border security. The plan is not perfect, but it should have been the starting point for more discussion and public hearings. Instead, procedural matters have blocked the bill in the Senate. And the House of Representatives is waiting to see what the Senate does next.  President Bush - who admirably has been seeking a compromise for years - was scheduled to make a rare trip to Capitol Hill today to push for the deal.  The president faces quite a challenge from members of his own party; some Republican leaders equate provisions of the bill to granting amnesty for illegal immigrants. But that assertion ignores key features of the bill. Yes, it would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but they would have to pay fines and fees and pass a background check to receive a temporary visa. Obtaining permanent residency would take between eight and 13 years. A separate temporary worker program also would be established to allow up to 200,000 guest-workers per year to enter on two-year visas. But these programs could not be implemented unless the government makes good on another promise: adding 20,000 border agents and nearly 700 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers along the Mexican border, in addition to starting a new worker-verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers.  These are serious, get-tough measures that shouldn't be lost in the discussion about the bill's merits.  Compromise is necessary  Some Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, have taken issue with other aspects of the bill, saying it doesn't do enough to keep immigrant families together. Others maintain expanding foreign ""guest workers"" numbers will come at the expense of American jobs. Yet, many businesses, especially those in the service industry, say they are having trouble finding permanent workers in the hotel and restaurant industries in particular. While recognizing disparity in its ranks, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the bill, recognizing it as a necessary compromise that would do much more good than harm.  The senators negotiating this deal have offered a fair template, and the bill deserves a better fate than being killed by amendments or ignored. Bush is making an earnest attempt to jump-start talks with his visit today. Nobody said immigration reform was going to be easy. The Senate owes the country a better effort toward compromise than it has shown so far.  On the Web  To read the bill, go to http://www.thomas.gov and type in ""S 1348"" under ""search bill text"" To reach your federal lawmakers, visit http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com and click under ""your voice."""
"4","High stakes | Bid to revive immigration bill must succeed SDU0000020070614e36c0041s OPINION 516 Words 12 June 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune F B.6 English � 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  It can't be over. Not like this. Along with many Americans, we find it inconceivable that, after many months of debate and dozens of bills and amendments, immigration reform in Congress would die such a bizarre death.  In the end, there were few fireworks and no firefight. The Senate's bipartisan immigration compromise now seems in danger of simply expiring. Worked out by senators with the blessing of the White House, the bill is in jeopardy because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., jumped the gun and pulled it from consideration, just as the two sides seemed to be coming together over the amendment process.  That's strange. If we didn't know better we might think Reid doesn't really want an immigration bill, at least not as much as he wants a weapon to use against Republicans in the 2008 elections.  Be that as it may, the Bush administration is not ready to throw in the towel, and Americans can be grateful for that. The plan is for an all-out effort, led by President Bush himself, to revive the bill over the next few days. The White House insists the legislation can be approved with just a few more days of debate. In fact, White House spokesman Tony Snow described the bill as ""alive and well.""  That may be overselling it a bit. Snow's assessment of the situation seems awfully optimistic. The bill may be alive, but clearly it's not well. The way to improve its health is to do what Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., suggested. You simply gather the key Senate Republicans in a room and get them to whittle down to a reasonable number the amendments they would like to offer. Then you get the list to Democrats and secure enough time to give every one of those amendments a full and fair hearing.  Right away, the dividing lines would be drawn, and the Senate would split into two easily discernible camps. Not Democrat versus Republican. Not those who support this particular bill versus those who oppose it. Rather, the camps would be split between those who want to do something on immigration reform versus those who don't. Then we'll know who in the Senate wants solutions and who wants sound bites, who knows how to lead and who is content to block progress.  Here's the good news. We believe there are enough members in the first camp to overcome the resistance of those in the second. If we're wrong about that, there will be no immigration reform this year or for many years to come. And if that comes to pass, it will be time to worry because we will have something that is just as worrisome as a broken border -- a broken Congress.  The stakes are too high to turn back now. Failure is not an option. The status quo is not acceptable. This bill must pass, and the White House and Congress have to see that it does."
"1","`In shambles' | Gonzales cannot escape his flawed record SDU0000020070614e36c0041r OPINION 467 Words 12 June 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune F B.6 English � 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  With the Senate's ""no confidence"" resolution failing on procedural grounds, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may feel he now can put his deeply flawed record behind him and move on. Regrettably for the Justice Department, which has seen its reputation for nonpartisan stewardship shattered under Gonzales, there is nothing the attorney general can do to escape the taint he himself has created.  But don't expect either Gonzales or President Bush to recognize this reality.  Attempting to dismiss the rare Senate proceedings, the attorney general spent yesterday at a conference in Miami, declaring: ""I'm not focusing on what the Senate is doing."" From Bulgaria, President Bush similarly spurned the Senate resolution as ""meaningless"" and making no difference whatsoever in ""the determination about who serves in my government.""  So, Gonzales likely will run out the next 18 months as one of the least effective attorneys general ever. And the president likely will stand behind Gonzales regardless of his failings and the damage he does to the American justice system. In the end, the history of the Bush administration will be marred by the abuses that fueled the Senate's ""no confidence"" vote.  David Iglesias, one of eight U.S. attorneys fired by Gonzales for largely political reasons, echoed the overwhelming consensus in a meeting yesterday with the Union-Tribune editorial board: ""He's in charge of a crippled department....(which) is dysfunctional now."" San Diego U.S. Attorney Carol Lam also was ousted, in a case that ""stinks to high heaven,"" Iglesias said.  The procedural motion to end debate and vote on the resolution attracted a majority of senators, 53, but fell short of the 60 required under the Senate's rules to cut off a filibuster. Significantly, seven Republican senators joined Democrats in voting against Gonzales, despite heavy pressure from the White House to back the attorney general.  It is hardly ""meaningless"" when the senior GOP senator on the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, condemns the attorney general's record. ""There is no doubt in my mind that there is no confidence residing in Attorney General Gonzales,"" said Specter. He accurately described the Justice Department as ""in shambles.""  In fact, throughout the Senate's deliberations it was hard to find any senator who would defend Gonzales' record. Republicans decried the ""no confidence"" vote as politically motivated, as indeed it was, but virtually no one, Republican or Democrat, praised Gonzales.  An effective attorney general is essential on a range of critical issues -- from achieving immigration reform to prosecuting terrorists. But the president appears stubbornly content to complete the remainder of his tenure with a crippled AG. Is it any wonder so many Americans are eager to move on to a new administration? 1 DRAWING; Caption: Tim Brinton"
"1","Protecting incompetence SFC0000020070612e36c0000v EDITORIAL EDITORIALS 358 Words 12 June 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.6 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  THE U.S. SENATE should consider passing a motion of no confidence in itself.  Its inability to pass a nonbinding resolution of no confidence in U.S.Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, following its failure to move closer to ending the war in Iraq or to approve immigration legislation, is threatening to reduce the chamber to irrelevancy.  Some 38 senators apparently feel that incompetence by a high government official -- an attorney general, at that -- is acceptable. What seems clear is that rather than being an objective, nonpartisan enforcer of the law, Gonzales has been more dedicated to carrying out the political agenda of his boss in the White House. His recent ""explanations"" for why he fired nine U.S.attorneys was one of the most cynical displays of stonewalling and dissembling we have seen on Capitol Hill in a long time.  On the Senate floor, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Gonzales' responsibility to uphold the law should have trumped political considerations.Instead, Gonzales has treated ""the Department of Justice as a political arm of the White House,"" Feinstein noted.  There can be no other explanation for why Gonzales promoted youthful Republican partisans, such as Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson. to high positions in the department.  Goodling, at least, has admitted under oath that she ""may have gone too far'' in asking political questions of applicants for career positions.Gonzales is still miles from full disclosure about his relationship to the White House, and to President Bush's political strategist-in-chief Karl Rove.  Speaking in Bulgaria, the last stop on his European trip, the president scoffed at the no-confidence resolution as ""political.""  ""This process has been drug out a long time,"" the president said.  Bush apparently believes that by repeatedly declaring his confidence in his abject attorney general that the cloud of distrust that hangs over Gonzales will dissipate like the fog over San Francisco Bay.  It won't, and it shouldn't. It shouldn't take a vote of no confidence by the Senate to persuade Gonzales to resign, or for Bush to tell him it is time to go."
"4","The System at Work WP00000020070612e36c0002m Editorial E. J. Dionne Jr. 781 Words 12 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A25 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  We have become political hypochondriacs. We seem eager to declare that ""the system"" has come down with some dread disease, to proclaim that an ideological ""center"" blessed by the heavens no longer exists, and woe unto us. An imperfect immigration bill is pulled from the Senate floor, and you'd think the Capitol dome had caved in.  It's all nonsense, but it is not harmless nonsense. The tendency to blame the system is a convenient way of leaving no one accountable. Those who offer this argument can sound sage without having to grapple with the specifics of any piece of legislation. There is the unspoken assumption that wisdom always lies in the political middle, no matter how unsavory the recipe served up by a given group of self-proclaimed centrists might be.  And when Republicans and Democrats are battling each other with particular ferocity, there is always a call for the appearance of an above-the-battle savior who will seize the presidency as an independent. This messiah, it is said, will transcend such ""petty"" concerns as philosophy or ideology.  Finally, those who attack the system don't actually want to change it much. For example, there's a very good case for abolishing the U.S. Senate. It often distorts the popular will since senators representing 18 percent of the population can cast a majority of the Senate's votes. And as Sen. John McCain said over the weekend, ""The Senate works in a way that relatively small numbers can block legislation.""  But many of the system-blamers in fact love Senate rules that, in principle, push senators toward the middle in seeking solutions. So they actually like the system more than they let on.  As it happens, I wish the immigration bill's supporters had gotten it through -- not because I think this is great legislation but because some bill has to get out of the Senate so real discussions on a final proposal can begin.  Notice how tepid that paragraph is. The truth is that most supporters of this bill find a lot of things in it they don't like. The guest-worker program, in particular, strikes me as terribly flawed. The bill's opponents, on the other hand, absolutely hate it because they see it as an effective amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants. And, boy, did those opponents mobilize. In well-functioning democracies, mobilized minorities often defeat unenthusiastic majorities.  And some ""centrist"" compromises are more coherent and politically salable than others. Neither side on the immigration issue has the popular support to get exactly what it wants. So a bill aimed at creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is full of grudging concessions to the anti-immigration side. These have the effect of demobilizing the very groups that support the underlying principles of this bill. That's not a system problem. It just happens that immigration is a hard issue that arouses real passion.  Typically, advocates of the system-breakdown theory move quickly from immigration to the failure of President Bush's Social Security proposals. Why, they ask, can't the system ""fix"" entitlements?  The simple truth is that a majority of Americans (I'm one of them) came to oppose Bush's privatization ideas. That reflected both a principled stand and a practical judgment. From our perspective, a proposal to cut benefits and create private accounts was radical, not centrist.  An authentically ""centrist"" solution to this problem would involve some modest benefit cuts and some modest tax increases. It will happen someday. But for now, conservatives don't want to support any tax increases. I think the conservatives are wrong, and they'd argue that they're principled. What we have here is a political disagreement, not a system problem. We have these things called elections to settle political disagreements.  Is Washington a mess? In many ways it is. The simplest explanation has to do with some bad choices made by President Bush. He started a misguided war that is now sapping his influence; he has treated Democrats as if they were infected with tuberculosis and Republicans in Congress as if they were his valets. No wonder he's having trouble pushing through a bill whose main opponents are his own ideological allies.  Maybe you would place blame elsewhere. But please identify some real people or real political forces and not just some faceless entity that you call the system. Please be specific, bearing in mind that when hypochondriacs misdiagnose vague ailments they don't have, they often miss the real ones.  postchat@aol.com http://www.washingtonpost.com WP20070612OP-DIONNE12"
"1","Misplaced Confidence; Alberto Gonzales survives a Senate vote as new evidence of his own partisan politics emerges. WP00000020070612e36c00016 Editorial 484 Words 12 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A24 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  ""THIS PROCESS has been drug out a long time, which says to me it's political,"" President Bush said yesterday. ""There's no wrongdoing. . . . And therefore, I ascribe this lengthy series of news stories and hearings as political.""  Mr. Bush's disappointing remarks came in the context of the Senate's no-confidence vote yesterday on his attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales. Not surprisingly, the measure failed to get the necessary 60 votes. There was, certainly, more than an element of political grandstanding in the no-confidence tactic. But that should not obscure two fundamental points: First, the president's apparently unshakable confidence in his attorney general is sadly misplaced. Second, the disturbing behavior uncovered in the investigation of the firing of U.S. attorneys cannot be dismissed as mere partisan politics, as much as the president would like to do so. Partisan politics was at work, yes, but in Mr. Bush's Justice Department -- in the hiring of career lawyers and the selection of immigration judges -- and, with the involvement of the White House, in the ouster of at least some of the prosecutors.  Mr. Gonzales was the wrong choice to become the nation's chief law enforcement officer, and his conduct on the job has only served to underscore his unfitness. He has been unwilling or unable to describe how almost one-tenth of the U.S. attorneys under his purview were chosen for firing. Circumstantial evidence in several cases points to their refusal to bring voter fraud or corruption prosecutions being pushed by GOP partisans. Last week, Bradley J. Schlozman, who temporarily replaced a fired U.S. attorney in Kansas City, testified that he brought a voter fraud case against a Democratic-leaning group five days before the 2006 election, despite a Justice Department guideline cautioning against doing so in the midst of a campaign. Monday's account by The Post's Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen about the hiring of immigration judges offered another troubling example of the department's politicization; the judges are civil service employees, but at least one-third of those appointed since 2004 have GOP ties and half lacked immigration law experience.  As to the matter of whether, as Mr. Bush says, ""this process has been drug out,"" we'd suggest that Mr. Bush's White House bears a significant share of the blame. White House officials appear to have been involved in instigating and implementing the firings. But White House counsel Fred F. Fielding has offered to make officials available for congressional interviews only behind closed doors, not under oath, and without a transcript being made. If Mr. Bush is tired of ""this lengthy series of news stories and hearings,"" he could help lawmakers get to the bottom of what happened. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200706122ED-JUSTICE12"
"5","A serious approach WATI000020070612e36c0000n EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 789 Words 12 June 2007 The Washington Times A16 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The recent Senate debate over immigration reform provides a textbook illustration of how not to approach the issue in a reasonable, responsible way: Avoid the messy process of holding committee hearings. Bring together a cabal of lawmakers and staff (""masters of the universe,"" as Sen. Jeff Sessions, an opponent of the bill, called them) to negotiate the substance of the bill. Have committee staff cobble together language behind closed doors and make it available at 2 a.m. Saturday just two days before debate, ensuring that senators could not possibly have time to read and understand the bill before debate begins.  Then, if you're Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, set arbitrary and unreasonable deadlines for Senate passage of a massive bill running hundreds of pages in length and containingnumerous provisions that weakenborder security and public safety. And then, when Republican leaders attempt to meet you more than halfway andconsolidate the number of amendments to be debated from several hundred to 20 or less, pull the bill from the floor and complain to the media that President Bush and the Republicans are to blame.  From what we've seen thus far, unless massive public pressure is brought to bear, we are unlikelyto achieve a genuineimmigration reform bill that focuses on securing the border during the final 19 months of the Bush administration. One reason is philosophical: Since thestart of the Bushpresidency, the administration has placed a higher priority on appeasing illegal aliens and their coddlers than on securing our porous border. Enforcement of laws barring employers from hiring illegalswas virtually nonexistent until it became necessary to illustrate that the White House was serious about making a deal on immigration.  The Republican Party is deeply divided onimmigration. The overwhelming majority of House Republicans are opposed to the administration's approach, but Republican senators split 25-20 in aMay 24 vote in favor of keeping amnesty in the immigration bill. The overwhelming majority of House and Senate Democrats line up squarely in the pro-amnesty, pro-open borders camp, a point illustrated by vote after voteduring the recent Senate debate - during which most of the criticism from Democrats like Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd suggested that the bill was insufficiently generous.  The reality is that a bad bill would have passed the Senate if it hadn't been for massive protests from Americans who flooded their members with e-mails and telephone calls in opposition. But support for amnesty and open borders hasn't gone away. Mr. Bush and Sen. Ted Kennedy want to try again, as do such interest groups as the AFL- CIO, the Chamber of Commerce and the National Council of La Raza, which receives funds from billionaire George Soros' Open Society Institute.  Yet the American people have a very different view. Pollster Scott Rasmussen found that just 16percent of Americans thought theSenate bill would achieve what is necessary to fix immigration - that is, to secure the border and curb illegal immigration. Support for Sen. John McCain's presidential candidacy is falling, and Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida finds his popularity headed south as well in reaction to his leadership role in supporting the failed Senate bill. Republican pollsters are looking at data which show that among Republican voters, approval of the president handling of immigration issues has fallen from 61 percent to 45 percent in recent months (even as approval for his handling of Iraq has gone from 63 percent to 67 percent).Among a broad cross-section of the public, new data suggest that: by a 3-1 margin, voters believe that illegals weaken the economy; by a margin of nearly 6-1, they believe that the government is not doing enough on border security; and by a margin of nearly 3-1, they believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported for being in the United States illegally.  Starting this week, The Washington Times editorial page willbegin to examine in detail proposals to handle the immigration problem with a particular focus on securing the border andending the employment magnet that draws illegal aliens to this country. We will examine some of the most promising ideas - among them border fences, strengthening the border patrol, bolstering state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, dealing with criminal aliens and coming up with a serious effort to penalize employers that hire illegals. And we will alsocritique some of the false solutions to the problem - everything from mass amnesty to guaranteeing a college education to illegals. The best thing Congress and the administration can do would be to throw the Senate bill in the trash and take a fresh look at ways to make our borders secure."
"4","Editorial Roundup APRS000020070613e36d00ckz By The Associated Press 3387 Words 13 June 2007 18:16 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:  ------  June 7  Chicago Tribune, on pardoning Libby:  Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis ""Scooter"" Libby, was sentenced Tuesday to 30 months in prison for perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents. That left many of his friends gasping and has them pressing for President Bush to pardon Libby.  That shouldn't happen.  During his sentencing Tuesday, Libby neither acknowledged his crime nor expressed remorse. Instead, he asked U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to ""consider, along with the jury verdict, my whole life."" The judge received more than 150 statements from Libby friends and colleagues pleading for leniency. ...  But by his actions, Libby undermined the very system to which he dedicated his life. ...  A question for those who seek to spare Libby from prison for lying under oath -- what did you have to say when President Bill Clinton faced impeachment for lying under oath? Most likely, you wanted Clinton punished.  Thirty months (and a $250,000 fine) is a stiff sentence for Libby. He has a legal process to appeal. But Bush should steer clear of this matter. First, because he has a conflict of interest -- Libby was serving the political interests of the administration when he committed his crimes. Second, because a pardon would be as indefensible as some of the pardons Clinton issued as he exited the White House. ...  ------  On the Net: http://www.chicagotribune.com.  ------  June 9  The Daily News (Longview, Wash.), on passport regulations:  The federal government is temporarily suspending its new travel restriction that since January has required citizens flying to and from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda to show passports. The Bush administration announced Friday that now until the end of September travelers will be allowed to re-enter the United States with a State Department receipt showing they've applied for a passport.  Public outrage caused the administration to blink on this ill-considered post-9/11 security requirement. Despite having years to prepare, the State Department simply was not ready to process the flood of passport applications that began to pour in several months ago from citizens with summer traveling plans. The backlog of applications reportedly numbers in the millions. New applicants are being told they'll have to wait 14 or more weeks. ...  For some citizens, though, the relief came too late. Jana Beilstein of Spokane told the Los Angeles Times that she was forced to cancel a $4,000 cruise her husband had bought for the 25th wedding anniversary. ...  Indeed, a little foresight on the part of the government -- adding staff to handle the inevitable flood of passport applications -- probably could have saved Beilstein and any number of others a considerable amount of money. But nothing less than a permanent suspension of this passport rule can head off the greater economic costs that will begin to accrue a couple of years from now, when the passports are required for land and sea border crossings. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.tdn.com/articles/2007/06/10/editorial/editorial.txt  ------  June 10  The (Charleston, S.C.) Post and Courier, on U.S. missile shield:  Russian President Vladimir Putin's counter-proposal to the planned U.S. missile shield in Europe has the merit of averting a head-on collision between Moscow and Washington, but it does not go to the heart of the matter. It is not at all clear that Mr. Putin is seriously taking up President Bush's invitation to cooperate in defending Europe from a potential nuclear missile strike from Iran or some other rogue state. His offer to share a radar site in Azerbaijan may prove to be merely a bargaining ploy or even a red herring. ...  For his part, President Bush reserved judgment, saying that President Putin's ""interesting"" offer would be one of the subjects in a ""serious set of strategic discussions"" when the two leaders meet at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, next month. ...  In an interview Friday with The Associated Press, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, ""One does not choose sites for missile defense out of the blue. It's geometry and geography as to how you intercept a missile ... We have to see whether Azerbaijan makes any sense in the context of missile defense."" ...  Secretary Rice emphasized that discussions in NATO and with the Czech Republic and Poland will continue. That is the wisest course. When President Bush hosts the Russian president in Kennebunkport, it should be easier to tell whether President Putin wants to cooperate in defending Europe from rogue states armed with nuclear missiles or is merely advancing Kremlin interests.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.charleston.net/news  ------  June 11  The (Lakeland) Ledger, on global warming:  President Bush is right: Any serious plan for counteracting global warming should include not only the United States and Europe, but two of the globe's most populous and polluting nations -- China and India. ...  Germany had proposed that the Group of Eight, the world's major economic powers, pursue specific, long-term targets for reducing the emissions -- primarily carbon dioxide -- that are believed to contribute to global warming. Bush would agree to only a watered-down declaration that said the United States would ""seriously consider"" mandatory reductions. ...  Environmental groups criticized the G-8 declaration as inadequate. But Americans shouldn't assume the myth that tree huggers are the only proponents of both mandatory reductions in emissions and U.S. participation.  For example, The Economist -- a London-based magazine that strongly supports free-market policies -- recently called for the U.S. to participate in international agreements to ""make the polluter pay by putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions."" ...  Bush has long said he believes that the private sector and technology can help slow global warming and reduce its impacts. Most scientists seem to agree, but even ardent advocates of free-market policies recognize that the private sector is less likely to adequately and rapidly invest in solutions without incentives and leadership from the United States.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.theledger.com  ------  June 11  The Rocky Mountain News, Denver, on immigration reforms:  Immigration reform is dead for now, and the ""no amnesty"" activists -- who really mean ""no path to citizenship ever for anyone who illegally crossed the border at any time"" -- are understandably gloating. As it happens, however, they didn't succeed alone.  They had plenty of help from those on the opposite side of the spectrum who were equally unwilling to compromise even when it was the only hope of reaching a deal.  ...  We agree with opponents that enforcement got short shrift in the bill and that probationary visas would have been granted with indefensible haste. We also submit that there needs to be a time out, say, of a couple of years between a crackdown on the border and a move to regularize the status of illegal immigrants who are already here to make sure that enforcement won't be a 1986-type farce.  Such a deal would still rile die-hard Tancredo-ites, who refuse to acknowledge that many illegals have sunk deep roots and are assets to the economy. Most are not going home no matter how much anyone might wish. That's why we believe it is neither rational nor humane to keep them in a twilight zone forever by equating any path to citizenship with an amnesty for undeserving criminals.  The defeat of the immigration reform package no doubt represents a triumph of popular sentiment. But it is also safe to say that the public does not like the status quo. And yet it is hard to see how any meaningful immigration bill can pass Congress given the present balance of political power.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.rockymountainnews.com  ------  June 12  Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader, on US Surgeon General candidate Dr. James Holsinger:  There's a lot of heat over the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger to be the next United States Surgeon General. ...  We've learned a lot about his religious views, but know little about how, if at all, they will affect his decisions as a public health administrator.  Holsinger has come under scrutiny and fire for his record on gay and lesbian issues while an official in the United Methodist Church.  A 1991 paper he wrote for a church committee studying homosexuality argued that gay sex is biologically unnatural and unhealthy. ...  All of these are troubling, and doubly so in someone who might be entrusted, as the surgeon general's web site says, ""with advancing the health of the nation.""  Before Holsinger's church record was unearthed following the nomination, the only report on his views on sexuality and health arose when, as chancellor of the University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, he defended a session on lesbian health issues at a UK conference, in the face of criticism from angry legislators and conservative groups.  But the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee doesn't have to decide whether it likes all Holsinger's opinions.  The criticisms have arisen from his private service as a church leader. To answer the question about whether he will value the health of a gay person as dearly as that of a heterosexual, the committee must look to his extensive record as a public health administrator. ...  ------  On the Net: http://www.kentucky.com  ------  June 12  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, on Genarlow Wilson ruling:  ... On Monday, a Monroe County judge ordered (Genarlow) Wilson's release, ruling that a mandatory 10-year prison sentence was a cruel and unusual punishment for consensual oral sex between teenagers. The announcement was greeted by tears and joy from Wilson's mother and attorney, and from thousands of supporters around the country outraged by such a clear case of injustice.  But that jubilation proved short-lived. Within an hour of the judge's decision, word came that Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker would appeal the judge's ruling to the state Supreme Court. It's unclear now whether Wilson will be freed during the appeal process.  ""This is wrong,"" said attorney B. J. Bernstein as she read the notice of Baker's appeal. ...  It's not just wrong, it's a senseless outrage. ... Because of a strange and unanticipated glitch in state law that treated oral sex as far more heinous than intercourse, Wilson was charged with aggravated child molestation.  That glitch has since been fixed by the General Assembly, which made the conduct committed by Wilson a mere misdemeanor with a maximum jail term of 12 months.  But Baker argues that Wilson was convicted under the old law and his sentence should stand.  How are the citizens of Georgia helped by making a teenager with no prior record remain in prison for a decade because of a poorly drawn law? ...  ------  On the Net: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2007/06/12/edwilson0612.html  ------  June 12  Poughkeepsie (N.Y.) Journal, on immigration reforms:  Opponents of a sweeping immigration bill are kidding themselves if they equate blockage of this legislation with victory. ...  Any sound-minded legislation must include vigorous steps to tighten the country's borders. But there also needs to be a realistic plan for dealing with the illegal immigrants already here.  A bipartisan group of U.S. senators recently offered such a plan; it would put millions of illegal immigrants on a rather lengthy road to legal recognition while plowing considerable resources into bolstering border security. The plan is not perfect, but it should have been the starting point for more discussion and public hearings. Instead, procedural matters have blocked the bill in the Senate. And the House of Representatives is waiting to see what the Senate does next.  President Bush -- who admirably has been seeking a compromise for years -- was scheduled to make a rare trip to Capitol Hill today to push for the deal.  The president faces quite a challenge from members of his own party; some Republican leaders equate provisions of the bill to granting amnesty for illegal immigrants. But that assertion ignores key features of the bill. ...  Some Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, have taken issue with other aspects of the bill, saying it doesn't do enough to keep immigrant families together. ...  The senators negotiating this deal have offered a fair template, and the bill deserves a better fate than being killed by amendments or ignored. ...  ------  On the Net: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com  ------  June 9  Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, on G-8 global warming discussions:  The principal topic at the recent Group of Eight (G-8) summit held in Heiligendamm, Germany, was neither currencies nor conflict. Instead, the leaders of the world's richest industrial nations focussed on global warming, which threatens all of mankind. They recognized the seriousness of the threat and agreed to take urgent, concerted actions to deal with it.  The United States had turned its back on the Kyoto treaty and was reluctant before the meeting in Heiligendamm to embrace any numerical target. The fact that the United States was eventually persuaded into accepting a reference to the emissions target in the G-8 joint statement has great significance.  The G-8 communique also clearly reaffirmed the U.N. role as the primary arena for climate diplomacy.  The G-8's success in extracting Washington's commitment to working under the U.N. framework has huge implications for future negotiations in the post-Bush era. What emerged from the gathering in Heiligendamm puts the onus on Japan to make sure that next year's G-8 summit in Hokkaido produces a comprehensive vision for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.  The post-Kyoto treaty needs to bind major developing countries like China and India to specific obligations to trim their greenhouse emissions. The U.S. agreement to take part in negotiations to develop a new climate pact has opened up the possibility that China and India will also make concessions.  ------  On the Net: http://www.asahi.com/english/  ------  June 10  The Observer, London, on G-8 Summit:  When they met two years ago at Gleneagles, leaders of the G8 pledged $50bn in development aid for Africa. They promised treatment to all Africans suffering from HIV/Aids by the end of the decade. Last week, at their summit in Germany, the leaders said they would get treatment to 5 million people with the disease, around half the total number of victims. They restated the 2005 aid pledge, a tacit acknowledgment that they had failed to honour their original commitment. It is easy to be sceptical. Poverty was not made history at Gleneagles.  But that doesn't mean this year's meeting was failure. ...  Leaders of the industrialised world might only have grasped the importance of acting on those issues once they saw that it served their long-term interests, but that is still progress. ...  Seen from that perspective, it is remarkable how global aid issues have crossed over, in a few years, from protesters' placards on one side of the security cordon to the formal agenda of politicians on the other side. The Gleneagles meeting might have raised hopes that were unrealistic, but it changed the culture of G8 summitry for the better. Tony Blair deserves some credit for that.  Credit is due also to German Chancellor Angela Merkel for forging something like consensus on climate change last week. At the start of the summit, George W Bush was hostile to Ms Merkel's ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions and opposed to any future deal on the environment that would be run under UN auspices. Now, in principle at least, he has signed up for both. The hard work on global emissions cuts has yet to come. ... But a significant barrier - Mr Bush's phobia of anything that looked like the Kyoto protocol - has been removed. ...  Seen from the perspective of Gleneagles, and the high hopes of the anti-poverty campaign, last week's summit was a disappointment. But it is worth pausing for historical perspective, remembering how the world's economic power brokers used to do business. That longer view gives real grounds for optimism.  ------  On the Net: http://observer.guardian.co.uk  ------  June 13  The Hindu, Madras, India, on missile defense:  Russia's proposal to the United States that it relocate the `early warning' infrastructure of the planned missile interceptors from Poland and the Czech Republic to Azerbaijan has underscored two things: the hollowness of Washington's strategic rationale for missile defence as well as the deep divisions within the G8's ranks on fundamental issues of security. On the sidelines of the Heiligendamm summit, President Vladimir Putin told President George Bush that if the idea behind placing radars and interceptor batteries on the Russian border was really to protect Europe from Iranian missiles, the powerful Russian-operated Qabala radar station in Azerbaijan would do the job much better. ... Mr. Bush and his advisers were taken aback by this dramatic proposal and promised to mull over it and come back to the Russian leader as soon as possible. But judging from the chorus of `expert' opinion on the subject, it is already evident that Washington is looking for ways to reject the Russian offer as unsuitable on grounds of the `geometry of intercept.'  Whether in Europe or Asia, the Bush administration's missile defence programme has nothing to do with a threat from Iran, North Korea, or any other state. The idea is to convert the strategic superiority the United States sees itself enjoying over Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union into a superiority that is overwhelming, and to neutralise China's deterrent vis-a-vis the continental U.S. But missile defence is self-defeating, like the arms races that preceded it. In order to neutralise the potential effect of America's missile interceptors, Russia has tested a new class of missiles and will soon be ready to deploy them. China too is looking to do the same thing in rocketry by playing catch up with the U.S. and Russia in the realm of anti-satellite weaponry. ... Missile defences do not engender strategic stability, especially in a nuclearised environment. The Indian government needs to correct its dubious posture on missile defence in light of these factors.  ------  On the Net: http://www.hindu.com/  ------  June 13  Dagens Nyheter, Stockholm, Sweden, on US politics:  Senator Barack Obama is a shining star in the US political heaven. He is young, charismatic, and dedicated. He offers promise of something new and exciting. ... But his success has been somewhat shaken of late. ... Obama has been criticized for being unclear, and image more than substance has put him in the spotlight. On one point, he has been almost more than clear. He is against the war in Iraq, and never misses an opportunity to point out that he -- in contrast to his main rivals Hillary Clinton and John Edwards -- never supported the American invasion.  But what are his other foreign policies? How would a Barack Obama-led U.S. act on the world stage?  Some answers are in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs, where the Illinois senator outlined his vision.  And after too many years with George W. Bush in the White House, and too many years of American attempts to break down the world order it helped to build, Obama's article lends hope of a new, sensitive and decisive U.S.  He wants to see a ""responsible"" end to the American presence in Iraq and to direct focus on the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. ... The whole article breathes a clear dissociation from the Bush administration's world view. ... By now we only know too well where an exaggerated American belief on one-sided measures has led the world.  But imagine a U.S., in less than two years, with a president who actually believes in cooperation, whose first instinct is not to act on his own and who is not met by massive protests as soon as he lands in an allied country.  It would be a needed change, not the least for a world that, good or bad, still depends on American leadership.  ------  On the Net: http://www.dn.se  ------ 7"
"4","Sampling of editorials from upstate New York APRS000020070613e36d007vq 2381 Words 13 June 2007 12:55 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  The Times Union of Albany on energy in New York.  June 11.  New York should be setting an example for the nation by embracing clean, renewable energy as the fuel of the future. Instead, the Legislature is bogged down in a debate over how best to accommodate technologies at hand. That's looking backward.  At issue is the so-called Article X siting law, which establishes the ground rules for bringing new power plants on line in New York. The Senate and Assembly have passed separate bills, and a conference committee is attempting to reconcile differences between the two versions. But the debate has bogged down over coal and nuclear power. It should focus on the need to encourage clean energy, such as solar and wind power and biofuels.  To his credit, Gov. Spitzer has seized the moment by calling for $295 million for clean, renewable energy projects. He wants more emphasis on wind power, and a 15 percent reduction in electricity consumption by 2015.  Yet legislators are under pressure from energy producers to act soon -- not by 2025 -- or else take the blame for leaving the state vulnerable to sudden unexpected surges in demand and the brownouts and blackouts that will occur if those demands cannot be met. The lawmakers should not be cowed, however. Yes, the state needs additional power supplies, and, yes, it's unrealistic to assume that alternative energy sources can meet the demands of today. But that should not come at the expense of future priorities.  While green energy accounts for only a small percentage of the state's energy needs now, that could change dramatically if New York were to attract rich infusions of research and investment funds. The key to attracting that money is to signal that New York is committed to making renewable energy the fuel of the future.  Instead, lawmakers are sparring over coal and nuclear power plants. There's no question that technological advances have made coal less of a polluter than in the past. But even the best technology -- coal fusion -- is still years away from being commercially viable. Then there's the fact that no matter what technology is involved, coal is a nonrenewable fossil fuel. For these reasons, any coal-fired plant should be subject to very tough new environmental regulations, as Assembly Democrats propose.  Nuclear power poses none of the pollution and greenhouse gas problems of fossil fuels, of course. But it has problems of its own. For one thing, it is hugely expensive. For another, it produces radioactive waste that must either be stored on site or trucked to storage facilities in the state or elsewhere. Does New York want to add to this waste by increasing reliance on nuclear power?  Finally, there's the question of safety. While proponents of nuclear power insist that these plants can be operated safely, and point to Three Mile Island as an example of how built-in safety measures prevented a disaster, that is no answer to the larger problem of how to evacuate nearby communities in case of a nuclear plant accident. In a densely populated states like New York, that's a huge problem. And it's the reason legislators should relegate nuclear power to the lower ranks of energy sources.  ----  On the Web: http://www.timesunion.com  The Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester on state ballot access.  June 8.  The surprise decision by Republican presidential hopefuls Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain to take themselves out of the Iowa straw poll -- basically a meaningless popularity contest meant to give the winner a national media buzz -- may presage a rebellion by candidates against twisted primary rules.  That would be a good thing, especially if New York takes note. It's important that primary ballot access in this state be as amenable as possible to all aspirants. Without that, the state's hopes that it be a major player on mega-primary day -- next Feb. 5 -- could be lessened.  Any requirement for petitions should be replaced with the simple stipulation that a candidate has achieved some national credibility in polls. That would eliminate the fringe hopefuls but allow the second-tier candidates in each race a chance to compete.  State Republicans took this step in 2003. Democrats, however, still mandate the collection of petition signatures. The mandate isn't especially onerous, except that primary candidates in both parties will have a lot of states to worry about on mega-primary day. The states that are as open as possible about ballot access will likely have the most competitive races.  New York's ballot access has improved vastly since 2000, when Republican John McCain complained mightily that he would have to spend $700,000 to collect petition signatures in every congressional district, as was then required. That rule served the interests of the endorsed candidate -- then George Bush -- because the party would do the petition legwork while the challenger would have to find his or her own gatherers.  Republicans eased their ballot rules to open the gates to more candidates. The Democrats, long better in this regard than the GOP, now are the tougher case. Hillary Clinton surely will be the state party's designee. But the voters need to see and hear her test her views against Barack Obama, John Edwards and others. Ballot access should reflect this need.  New York moved its primary date to be a player in the presidential sweepstakes.  But it's important that, in both parties, all candidates have a chance to compete.  ----  On the Web: http://www.democratandchronicle.com  The Buffalo News on Lewis Libby's sentencing.  June 8.  When a federal prosecutor asks you what you know about a possible violation of federal law, you had better tell him. If you lie, and get caught at it, you face big trouble. Even if -- no, especially if -- you are a big shot working for an even bigger shot in the White House itself. Thats the message properly given by the guilty verdict against I. Lewis Libby, former chief of staff to the vice president and now a convicted felon.  It does seem, however, that a very valid point about the rule of law could have been made without going to the extreme of sending a previously law-abiding, highly accomplished citizen off to prison for 30 months and fining him $250,000. Thats on top of the implosion of his career, emotional pain loaded onto his family and what must be millions in legal fees he now owes.  The fact that the possible crime that Libby misled the feds about -- outing a covert CIA operative in revenge for someone daring to question administration spin on the dangers of pre-invasion Iraq -- was never pinned on anyone does not excuse what Libby did. But it does ratchet down the severity of the offense.  Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald certainly left no stone unturned in his valid quest for the source of the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. Valid because the CIA feared that one of its prized assets had been compromised just to lash out at a former ambassador -- Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson -- who had publicly questioned the White House claim that Saddam Hussein had been shopping around Africa for the stuff to make nuclear bombs with.  Under oath, Libby said not only that he hadn't done it, but that he couldn't have done it because he didn't know about Plame's relationship to Wilson until a reporter told him. The evidence that his statements were not true, and made to cover up a White House campaign to misuse classified information to discredit a political critic, was enough to convince a jury that Libby had put an unwarranted obstacle in the path to the truth.  But the prison sentence of 2 1/2 years handed down by Judge Reggie B. Walton does strike us as over the top, and not necessary to warn future White House employees that there is a price to be paid when those hired to carry out the laws are caught subverting them.  A pardon from President Bush would have a very dirty smell to it, especially if it were to come before the appeals process had been exhausted. If, however, Libby's lawyers keep their boy out of prison until the end of Bush's term, he might grant his former loyalist one of those exit pardons that some presidents give when they just don't have to care any more. Because, by then, most of the rest of us won't, either.  ----  On the Web: http://www.buffalonews.com  The Poughkeepsie Journal on immigration reforms.  June 12.  Opponents of a sweeping immigration bill are kidding themselves if they equate blockage of this legislation with victory.  The country's immigration policies are broken; federal officials have every imperative to make comprehensive fixes, ones that address security issues, business concerns and a host of other matters.  Reputable studies estimate there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, and more are coming each day. Any sound-minded legislation must include vigorous steps to tighten the country's borders. But there also needs to be a realistic plan for dealing with the illegal immigrants already here.  A bipartisan group of U.S. senators recently offered such a plan; it would put millions of illegal immigrants on a rather lengthy road to legal recognition while plowing considerable resources into bolstering border security. The plan is not perfect, but it should have been the starting point for more discussion and public hearings. Instead, procedural matters have blocked the bill in the Senate. And the House of Representatives is waiting to see what the Senate does next.  President Bush -- who admirably has been seeking a compromise for years -- was scheduled to make a rare trip to Capitol Hill today to push for the deal.  The president faces quite a challenge from members of his own party; some Republican leaders equate provisions of the bill to granting amnesty for illegal immigrants. But that assertion ignores key features of the bill. Yes, it would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but they would have to pay fines and fees and pass a background check to receive a temporary visa. Obtaining permanent residency would take between eight and 13 years. A separate temporary worker program also would be established to allow up to 200,000 guest-workers per year to enter on two-year visas. But these programs could not be implemented unless the government makes good on another promise: adding 20,000 border agents and nearly 700 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers along the Mexican border, in addition to starting a new worker-verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers.  These are serious, get-tough measures that shouldn't be lost in the discussion about the bill's merits.  Some Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, have taken issue with other aspects of the bill, saying it doesn't do enough to keep immigrant families together. Others maintain expanding foreign ""guest workers"" numbers will come at the expense of American jobs. Yet, many businesses, especially those in the service industry, say they are having trouble finding permanent workers in the hotel and restaurant industries in particular. While recognizing disparity in its ranks, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the bill, recognizing it as a necessary compromise that would do much more good than harm.  The senators negotiating this deal have offered a fair template, and the bill deserves a better fate than being killed by amendments or ignored. Bush is making an earnest attempt to jump-start talks with his visit today. Nobody said immigration reform was going to be easy. The Senate owes the country a better effort toward compromise than it has shown so far.  ----  On the Web: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com  The Leader-Herald of Gloversville on federal disaster aid.  June 8.  Federal funding to help victims of natural disasters is limited. While American taxpayers are, by and large, compassionate people, most realize that federal disaster aid has to have restrictions.  State officials in Louisiana have been thumbing their noses at specific limits involving federal aid to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.  A Senate subcommittee has been looking into a major shortfall in federal aid for hurricane victims in Louisiana. It seems that the government's Road Home grant program to aid homeowners is about $3 billion short of meeting needs.  But recently, lawmakers were told that nearly enough money would have been available had Louisiana state officials followed the rules. The limit was made clear to officials in all five states where Road Home money was provided: Homeowners could be helped to repair damage caused by flooding, in view of the fact that some of it occurred because of failures in levees maintained by the federal government. Wind damage was not to be covered. Officials in four states -- Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Texas -- complied with that limit.  Those in Louisiana did not. They handed out $2.7 billion in grants to cover wind damage.  Louisiana officials are, of course, blaming Washington for the shortfall -- despite ample evidence that the restriction was made clear.  It's too bad that there isn't enough money to help the Louisiana flood victims -- but that is not the fault of the federal government, and it certainly is not the fault of taxpayers who provided enough money to take care of the program.  Members of Congress representing Louisiana may be tempted to seek an additional appropriation for the program. That would be understandable; the lawmakers are eager to help thousands of their constituents who were, in effect, shortchanged by state government.  But no additional appropriation should be provided to cover the state's mishandling of funds. Louisiana officials need to be held accountable for what appears to have been an intentional plan to rip off U.S. taxpayers. To do otherwise would be to send a message that in the future, state officials are free to spend disaster relief funds however they please. The federal government -- and, again, taxpayers -- cannot afford to do that.  ----  On the Web: http://www.leaderherald.com 7"
"1","Graham has defected on immigration AGCR000020070618e36d0000f EDITORIAL 161 Words 13 June 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  It looks like South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham may have caught a bad case of Potomac Poisoning, judging from the debate on the immigration bill that he cosponsored with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) offered an amendment to disqualify from citizenship criminals sentenced to one year or more in prison, and those repeatedly convicted of felonies.  According to one observer who was present in the Senate gallery, it would have had the effect of making gang members and terrorists ineligible for citizenship.  On June 6, the Cornyn amendment failed by a vote of 51-46. Guess who voted against the Cornyn amendment and in favor of the weaker Kennedy amendment, which passed 66-32? Lindsey Graham!  If you happen to be in Edgefield and hear a strange whirring sound, don't be surprised. It's just Ol' Strom Thurmond spinning in his grave.  Henry Summerall Jr.  Wagener, S.C."
"4","Stop slithering TRIB000020070613e36d00032 News 494 Words 13 June 2007 Chicago Tribune Chicago 24 English Copyright 2007, Chicago Tribune. All Rights Reserved.  Last week's showdown over the Senate's immigration bill pitted the lawmakers who wanted to talk the measure to death against the ones who wanted their colleagues to shut up and vote. Nobody won.  In an ill-advised game of chicken, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had warned members that unless they voted to limit debate to 30 more hours, he'd pull the bill from the floor. They didn't and he did. That was good news only for the handful of hard-liners who'd rather live with the current dysfunctional immigration system than compromise on a solution. We like to think most senators -- like most Americans -- want this problem solved. And in fact, now both parties are working to revive the bill, with Reid agreeing to resume debate if Republican leaders can bring their recalcitrant members to heel.  Maybe they got word of the new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, which showed just 27 percent of the public approve of how Congress is doing its job, the lowest approval rating in more than a decade.  The immigration bill is a fragile bargain struck during two months of closed-door negotiations between the White House and leaders from both parties. Everyone at the table found parts of it bitterly distasteful, but they emerged with a bill that would genuinely accomplish things. It offers more border security, more workplace enforcement, more legal workers to address the nation's labor shortage and a realistic plan to legalize the 12 million undocumented workers who already live here.  When it hit the Senate floor two weeks ago, its sponsors pledged to stand firmly together against any amendments designed to torpedo the bill. That meant some of them had to vote against measures they'd supported or even authored during last year's immigration debate. Compromise, they agreed, was the greater good.  Others were not so flexible. When it became clear they didn't have the votes to remove the hated legalization plan, some Republicans tried to erode support for the bill by weakening popular provisions such as a guest worker program or by piling on measures some Democrats found harshly punitive.  Reid and others accused Republicans of trying to debate the bill to death or kill it outright by adding poisonous amendments. Some Republicans cheerfully copped to the charges. ""I've been trying to kill it since the beginning,"" said Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.).  But others said they just needed more time and were incensed that Reid wanted to shut down the debate. So they called him on it. Insisting that ""more amendments are legitimately pending,"" Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) voted against ending debate but chided his Republican colleagues for trying to sabotage the bill with endless talk. ""Are we going to slither away from this issue and hope for some epiphany to happen?"" he said. ""No. Let's legislate. Let's vote."" That's more like it. Editorial"
"1","A lack of confidence CINP000020070614e36d00009 308 Words 13 June 2007 The Cincinnati Post Cincinnati A.10 English � 2007 Cincinnati Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Yes, the Senate Democrats' attempt to pass a resolution of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was a political stunt, and the Senate did have better things to do with its time.  The resolution both failed to pass and failed in its purpose of embarrassing Gonzales into resigning or President Bush into firing him. After the vote, Bush said he would determine who serves in his government and Gonzales vowed to stay for the duration.  Nonetheless, the vote on the nation's embattled chief legal officer was a harbinger of tougher times to come for Gonzales.  The resolution failed on a procedural vote, 53 to 38, seven short of the 60 needed to end debate. The seven Republicans who voted yea, including two newly announced in favor of Gonzales' departure, were a good indication that the resolution would have passed had it come to a vote. Republican senators against the resolution conspicuously did not defend the attorney general, but attacked the process.  Gonzales left the White House to become attorney general, having considerable baggage stemming from memos on torture and expansive presidential powers to eavesdrop. He handled the firing of eight U.S. attorneys poorly, claiming 64 times before a Senate inquiry that he didn't recall the circumstances of those firings. Now he faces additional inquiries about political considerations in the hiring and promotion of career Justice employees and the appointment of immigration judges strong on Republican credentials but weak on immigration law.  While common in parliamentary countries where such resolutions can force a resignation, no-confidence votes are not part of the American political process. It wouldn't have mattered had it passed. But with senior Republicans like Arlen Specter saying, ""There is no confidence in the attorney general on this side of the aisle,"" no vote was necessary. Editorial"
"4","EDITORIAL Bush's leadership key to immigration reform The president needs to persuade enough skeptical Republicans and several Democrats to come together and resurrect the bill that stalled last week. DNVR000020070613e36d0005t Denver & The West 459 Words 13 June 2007 Denver Post Final B.6 English � 2007 Denver Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  President Bush made a rare visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday - as a lame duck president trying to salvage his top domestic priority.  His work is cut out for him.  Failure on immigration reform could mean Bush's name will be forever linked in history books mostly with the bungled war in Iraq, and the prospects for an overhaul will fade until after he leaves office.  He needs to exert strong leadership and deliver the necessary votes to pass the legislation. Doing nothing will equate to what Sen. John McCain calls 'silent amnesty.'  The president's goal on Tuesday was to persuade enough skeptical Republicans - there are 38 of them, to be exact - to get behind a new system that prevents employers from hiring undocumented workers, creates a pathway to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants and tightens U.S. borders. Eleven Democrats also need some persuading.  Bush, with cellar-level approval ratings, doesn't have a lot of political capital to expend, but he needs to convince nervous senators that they're not that far apart on comprehensive immigration reform. He could use some help from Senate leader Harry Reid, too, who last week derided the measure as 'the president's bill.' They need to present a unified front.  The bill stalled last week when a majority of Republicans blocked a largely Democratic effort to fast-track it through the Senate. A procedural vote to end debate failed three times. In Congress, that's usually a death sentence. But Bush vowed to resurrect it.  He'll need to convince lawmakers that the current bill is not the 1986 law that granted 3 million people amnesty and promised to solve the immigration problem but never cracked down on businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers.  'The American people were sold a bill of goods' in 1986, said Sen. John Cornyn, R- Texas. 'It didn't work. We got an amnesty, and we got no enforcement. That is why people are so distrustful now.'  U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar is, commendably, working with Bush to try to get the measure passed.  On his way home from Europe, Bush called Salazar, along with Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., two other bill sponsors, to discuss amendments to the legislation.  A majority of lawmakers support the bulk of the legislation. We remain hopeful that they can find a compromise on the remaining provisions.  The July 4 recess is fast approaching. It ought to be the Senate's goal to approve the bill before Independence Day."
"1","Not in the Constitution OMHA000020070613e36d000e7 Editorial 289 Words 13 June 2007 Omaha World-Herald Iowa;Metro;Midlands;Nebraska;Sunrise 06B English � 2007 Omaha World-Herald. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Regardless of one's opinion on the actions and job performance of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the ""no-confidence resolution"" that received 53 yes votes and 38 no votes in the Senate this week was a frivolous exercise irrelevant to the federal Constitution  The United States does not operate on a parliamentary system based on no-confidence votes (even though Richard M. Nixon used that misleading rationale to explain his justified resignation in 1974). Such a procedure is used in political systems in which governments are assembled through parliamentary majorities -- usually with the chief executive coming from the legislature and in many cases using multi-party coalitions. Under such a system, governments can fall abruptly  That has never been the American way of governance  The point isn't to deny that many senators believe sincerely and fervently that the country would be best served by Gonzales' resignation. But senators have chosen a wrongheaded tactic  Moreoever, the Senate's vote this week stemmed in considerable measure from the partisan machinations of Sen. Charles Schumer, D- N.Y., head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee  Schumer is openly promoting a variety of opportunistic congressional maneuvers to try to maximize the political damage to President Bush before the 2008 elections -- as if the meager political standing of Bush (already hobbled by the Iraq War, the president's lame-duck status, his anemic public support and the controversy over the immigration bill) could dwindle much further  If no-confidence votes were the guiding principle for the federal government, this country would be having new elections this year not just for president but also for the entire Congress, given the abysmal level of polling support for both."
"1","CONSIDER THIS SYRC000020070614e36d0001l Editorial 522 Words 13 June 2007 The Post Standard/Herald-Journal Final A12 English Copyright, 2007, Syracuse Newspapers, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Distributed by NewsBank, Inc.  Bush's popularity soars  At home, President Bush's popularity numbers have sunk into the 30s. Asked in May to rate the worst president since World War II, a whopping 34 percent of respondents named Bush - double the number for Richard Nixon.  With this in mind, the president's buoyancy this week seems surprising. Vowing to revive an immigration bill currently on life support, he jauntily told reporters: ""I'll see you at the bill signing.""  Why the insouciance? Maybe because Bush spent Sunday being treated like a demi-god - in Albania.  The first sitting president to visit this former Communist redoubt was lauded by Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha as ""the greatest and most distinguished guest we have ever had in all times."" When Bush hopped out of his limo to work the crowd in the town of Fusche Kruje, he was kissed and manhandled like a rock star, amid chants of ""BOOSH-Y! BOOSH-Y!""  No wonder the president is feeling his oats. Who knows - he may even propose increasing immigration - from Albania.  AIDS vanity plates  Of the hundreds of vanity license plates available in New York state, not one of them covers the subject of AIDS.  But state legislators are in a position to change that - and quickly.  Assemblyman Bill Magnarelli, D-Syracuse, introduced a bill in January to begin offering such plates. Drivers would pay $25 a year for the plate, plus a $43 initial fee that is standard for most vanity plates. The proceeds would go to the state Department of Health AIDS Institute to help transport people with HIV to and from their medical appointments.  That's a wise effort and a good use of such funds. An estimated 38.6 million people worldwide are now living with AIDS.  The bill is in the Assembly Transportation Committee and deserves approval. It's one more way of raising awareness and dollars.  News flash: Plane lands!  It's not news when a plane lands safely, so the saying goes. But an Air Force jet whose pilot managed to make a safe landing near Fairbanks, Alaska, after a mid-air collision with another military fighter on Monday does have the makings of a remarkable story. Not only that: The pilot of the other jet ejected before it crashed and survived without serious injuries.  The loss of a $27-million F-15C is a big blow. Of course the crash never should have happened, and its cause is under investigation. But the near-miraculous story of human survival is worth celebrating.  Catching on?  ""It's a completely new approach. It will take time for leaders to recognize it's a different way to do business, leading to convergence on tough issues. The first time they came screaming and shouting. The second time they didn't. Now the only question is: What's on the agenda for next week?""  Gov. Eliot Spitzer, speaking about the weekly leaders' meetings. The public sessions where the agenda for the legislative session is aired include the governor, the majority and minority leaders of the state Senate and Assembly, and legislative committee leaders."
"5","OUR VIEWS // Border 101 RVSD000020070614e36d00031 EDITORIAL THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE 346 Words 13 June 2007 The Press-Enterprise B10 English � 2007 The Press-Enterprise. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The Senate did well last week to effectively drop S 1348, the hopelessly compromised comprehensive immigration reform bill. But rather than revive the legislation, as President Bush and some senators vowed this weekend, Congress needs to finally embrace reform that places border security and law enforcement first.  Bush met with Republican senators Tuesday, imploring them to keep debating the bill. But this bill - which offers reform without vigorous border security - is no solution because it would maintain the status quo and likely require another ""comprehensive"" fix in 10 years.  A sure sign of S 1348's impending doom was the Senate's rejection Wednesday night of a common-sense amendment by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Cornyn's proposal would have barred felons - including illegal immigrants under court order to leave the United States - from enjoying any future legal status. Voting down Cornyn's and other pro-enforcement amendments signaled a narrow view of reform.  Any enforcement provisions in S 1348 simply lack substance. Although the legislation calls for hiring 18,000 new Border Patrol agents and building more than 300 miles of permanent and virtual fencing within the next two years, the bill would provide no funding to meet those goals. But federal immigration officials say they need at least 20,000 agents and those barriers whether or not Congress approves a reform bill this year.  Similarly, legislators need to craft a workable means of enforcing consistent sanctions against employers who flout the law - before Congress debates a guest-worker program. Federal law already forbids employers from hiring people in the country illegally. But unless Congress provides the means of enforcing those laws - more border agents, federal prosecutors and judges - there is little point in discussing the weak new penalties and sanctions in S 1348.  Above all, Congress needs to take the time to discuss border security honestly, without the rancor and evasiveness of the previous weeks' debates. Border security should be the first goal. Reaching that goal should be a bipartisan initiative. Everything else is secondary."
"3","With a Whimper RCHD000020070615e36d0001x Editorial 179 Words 13 June 2007 The Richmond Times-Dispatch Final A12 English � 2007 Richmond Newspapers Incorporated. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The compromise immigration package enjoys the support of Edward Kennedy and George Bush. The legislation collapsed on the Senate floor with a whimper. It may revive, but few expect the reform to become law.  Political commentators have tried to explain the sudden failure. On yesterday's Op/Ed page, the normally perceptive Fred Barnes cited Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Jim DeMint as principal impediments. Although he described Reid's role with tougher adjectives, Barnes seemed to spend more time on DeMint's contribution to the compromise's humilitation.  Sometimes analysts analyze too much. The bill lost for the simple reason that the citizenry despised it. And the citizenry despised it because the reform contained provisions construed as offering amnesty to the 12 million or so illegals already here. Experts and literary theorists argued that the bill didn't really offer amnesty, at least in the blanket sense. The public wasn't buying.  And it won't buy anything it equates with amnesty. For better or for worse, that part of the debate is closed."
"2","LETTERS, FAXES & E-MAIL STJR000020070614e36d0008z EDITORIAL 1559 Words 13 June 2007 The State Journal-Register 7 English � 2007 The State Journal-Register. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Blagojevich's tactics are a slap in the face  Why would a top state official not take advantage of an historic and free residence in the seat of the state government?  Is it politically or fiscally responsible to commute to Chicago on the taxpayers' dime while expounding on the need to tax businesses (which will ultimately fall on the people) for seemingly under or unpaid taxes?  This is a slap in the face of people of this state. How many of us would love to have this opportunity to live rent-free in a safe and historic place?  Michael H. Abrams  Springfield  More money alone not fix for homeless issue  I am writing in response to a recent letter by Brian Jackson. Once again, demagogy at its finest.  In typical fashion, he insults Ronald Reagan, calls anyone who doesn't agree with him ""mean-spirited,"" calls himself ""compassionate"" (presumably because he wants to spend other people's money), chastises the ""religious right"" for being hypocrites, and falsely attributes a paraphrased line from a movie to an American president. (""Greed is good""? That's Gordon Gekko in ""Wall Street."")  To say that a person who wants to work can't work because they don't have a legal address is an excuse. If given the choice between working or homelessness and/or starvation, a resourceful person would ""come up with"" an address. Is Jackson saying the homeless are not creative or resourceful? How mean-spirited. How is it that 12 million illegal immigrants can figure out how to find employment when they need to come up with more than just an address?  Jackson also seems to long for the good old days when the mentally ill were institutionalized. What a humanitarian!  I think it's easy for people like Jackson to be compassionate when it's not his money. I think the rest of us expect to see results. This isn't about aesthetics or sweeping people under the rug; it's about return on investment. Many people who agree with me give generously to charities, volunteer our time for good causes, and even support our government in helping those who can't help themselves.  Yet even with all of this, we still have people who fall through the cracks. It's hard not to wonder why. Throwing more money at a problem rarely works.  Jason Race  Springfield  Sees some benefits in how Fox covers news  David Bauder's Associated Press report in the Monday State Journal-Register cited the ""Project for Excellence in Journalism"" critique of the ideology-driven news agenda evident on the Fox News Channel.  Although the article tended to treat the Fox agenda in the pejorative, from my conservative viewpoint I see it as benevolent for several reasons:  1.) It seems to distill the many conflicting news reports, data and alleged facts into one simple, understandable text for God- fearing, patriotic Americans;  2.) It reinforces my long-held and immutable beliefs in the righteousness of a system of political and financial management that is sure to incur God's favor;  3.) It makes a sharp distinction between real American patriotism and the egregious alien ideologies plaguing me and many of my fellow citizens;  4.) Most importantly, it relieves me of the tedious and often onerous responsibility of having to think for myself.  God bless America!  Tom Reynolds  Springfield  Do something to slow down truck drivers  I could relate to the Police Beat item on Friday, where a semi truck rammed into a car and caused a four-car pile up on Illinois Route 29.  We were on Interstate 72 east of Knight's Action Park where the bridge was being worked on. We were sitting at the bridge, about seven cars in line ahead of us, when a semi came barreling down the highway behind us. He saw he could not stop in time to not hit us and swerved at the last minute and went into the closed left lane and stopped right at the barricade for the bridge.  My husband said the truck driver was not going to stop because as he got closer to us he had both hands on the wheel and the expression on his face was one of crisis. Had he hit us, I am sure we would not be here today, and possibly caused major accidents in the cars stopped in front of us.  How could the truck driver not have seen the cars as mentioned in the article, or us, when for about a mile it said to veer to the right-hand lane and had a construction zone speed limit of 45 mph? We were stopped with our brake lights on.  Something has to be done to stop these truck drivers from speeding and for them to pay attention to what is going on on the road before more people are killed or critically injured.  Diane Norvell  Springfield  Try to make healthy lifestyles accessible  Your editorial board is, of course, correct in linking obesity to a plethora of life-threatening medical conditions (""Living off the fat of our land,"" June 4). But its wholesale attack on the self- esteem of overweight people is likely to do much more harm than good.  Do you think most overweight people enjoy having to buy airplane seat-belt extenders or industrial-strength toilet seats? Do ""morbidly obese"" people delight in having to order their extra large clothes from a specialty catalog, as you suggest? In the vast majority of cases, no.  Accepting one's body (and its size) isn't about embracing the health dangers of being fat; it's about caring for one's self - enough, hopefully, to stick to good nutrition and a healthy exercise routine.  Making fun of someone's size has rarely motivated someone to make real lifestyle changes; it is more likely to lead to apathy, feelings of worthlessness, eating disorders, unhealthy blitz dieting or use of dangerous experimental diet drugs, continued overeating and/or even suicide attempts.  Health isn't just physical; it's also mental and emotional, and irresponsible attacks on overweight people (including some who, for whatever reason, simply cannot lose enough weight to suit your standards) undermine overall health.  Rather than guilt-tripping the overweight and obese, we ought to be thinking of ways to make healthy lifestyles more accessible - for instance, more training for doctors in the field of nutrition, cheaper and more accessible fresh produce, safe sidewalks and playgrounds in neighborhoods, and healthier school lunches.  Telling fat people to go get thin, then washing our hands of any responsibility toward them, is easy. But it's not right. We are all God's wonderful creations, and we are all worthwhile, regardless of our weight.  Katharine Eastvold  Springfield  Saddened by death of Susan Singer  I was shocked and saddened to learn Susan O. Singer was killed recently by a hit-and-run driver.  I first met Susan last summer. About once a week she, her husband David and a friend would rummage through the alley Dumpster off our back yard. We struck up a conversation and over the ensuing year began to know each other a little. She always showed a genuine concern for me as well as my husband.  Just last month, Susan and I sat on our swing and enjoyed a cup of coffee together. We talked girl talk and she laughed and cried. She spoke of her twins. She enjoyed our garden. We found ways to have a common ground. Once, she even prayed for me.  She was gentle and had a very tender heart. I will miss her very much.  Nancy Stilwell  Springfield  DUI offenders don't deserve any freebies  ""But the legislation (Senate Bill 300) also calls for setting up a fund that would provide devices for (DUI) offenders who cannot afford them (breath alcohol ignition interlock devices).""  Gag, puke and then throw up some more.  DUI offenders can afford to buy the booze to get drunk; they also have a car, which is probably uninsured. Then many of these drunks go out and kill some innocents.  Governor, sign SB 300 into law and line item veto the freebie. (It sucks.)  Chuck Klyber  Springfield  Good reason to worry  Thanks to Darryl E. Fox for finally bringing up the scariest facet of the illegal immigration problem (tuberculosis).  Just one little addition - the majority of the aliens work handling our food!  Marilyn A. Freeman  Cantrall  Can't change stripes  ""Mission accomplished"" was declared 1,500 days ago, more than 3,500 Americans have been killed in Iraq, and George W. Bush is still a liar.  Steve Denton  Leland Grove  National search doesn't guarantee success  In response to Tuesday's editorial cartoon: I think if Chris Britt would have done a little research he would have found that the previous search for a chief was done nationally in the mid-1990s. That chief served for eight years.  Of the current problems facing the SPD, 90 percent of those are a direct result of that chief and the previous administration.  As for the current issue of the public grilling the proposed chief, I believe that is why we elect aldermen. People with questions or concerns should contact their respective alderman and make sure that their concerns are addressed.  David Wesselman  Springfield Caption: Singer"
"4","Labor Blues; Be careful what you wish for on immigration reform XSNW000020070613e36d0000o A EDITORIAL 607 Words 13 June 2007 Sun-News TSN 10 English Copyright (c) 2007. Myrtle Beach Sun-News. All rights reserved.  Wholesale deportation of foreign workers with questionable documentation could hit the rest of us where it hurts most - smack dab in the wallet. If it were logistically possible to deport the estimated 206,000 N.C. and 36,000 S.C. illegal immigrants, the negative economic impact on the legal residents of both states would be considerable. (Figures provided by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.)  Readers who doubt that should consider the recent Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer story about the problems N.C. farmers are likely to have this year harvesting labor-intensive crops: sweet potatoes, tobacco, cucumbers, Christmas trees. Those farmers were hoping Congress would create a system that guaranteed them a reliable supply of affordable agricultural labor during those critical few weeks when their crops must be picked - or else rot in the field. That effort fell apart in the U.S. Senate last week.  The News & Observer related the story of one Nash County, N.C., farmer who lost 30 percent of his cucumber crop last year because his labor supplier couldn't line up enough foreign laborers to get his crop in on time. He and other farmers with labor shortage problems attribute the worker shortage to intensified federal enforcement raids.  Now that there is no immediate prospect of a new agriculture worker program, the farmers are anticipating another bad year, laborwise. Some say they're scaling back planting to reflect the tight labor situation. Couple the situation in North Carolina with similar problems in other farm states, especially Colorado, Texas and California, and it becomes a virtual certainty that the inexpensive produce we know and love will become more expensive.  The conventional reply to such tales of woe is that heavy users of foreign labor should pay wages high enough to attract domestic workers. How many readers really believe that even at, say, $10 an hour, U.S.-born workers would show up in numbers sufficient to harvest labor-intensive crops in the Carolinas and elsewhere in the nation? There really are some jobs Americans don't want to do.  Those jobs include some in our communities, where, as a story in The Sun News on Sunday made clear, farming isn't as big a part of the local economy as it used to be. Here, the labor-intensive work tends to be concentrated in landscaping, construction, restaurants, hotels and other businesses that perform low-skill work for tourists and retirees. U.S.-born workers, especially construction workers, no doubt would fill some of the local jobs that foreign workers do - for higher wages, which is just fine, though that would drive up the cost of new houses.  But - again - would higher wages lure domestic workers to push mowers, trim hedges, mulch garden beds, bus tables, wash dishes and clean hotel rooms? Doubtful. Labor shortages in those areas would drive up the costs of affordable services that local folks take for granted.  The point here is not to lament the collapse of the Senate immigration-reform effort - though Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is right to hope that effort is revived. The worst-imaginable outcome of the immigration debate is stalemate that results in continued enforcement under current law.  Nor is the point here to savage those who equate guest-worker programs with amnesty. Legalizing workers who sneaked into the country is, indeed, a daunting proposition.  The point is that readers should be careful what they wish for on immigration reform. If they get it, they might be shocked at what it costs them."
"4","Immigration reform hopes held hostage by Senate few TUCC000020070614e36d0000n Citizen Voices; B 562 Words 13 June 2007 The Tucson Citizen 1B English (c) Copyright 2007, The Tucson Citizen. All Rights Reserved.  But for a few more senators demonstrating common sense and courage, the United States might make extraordinary progress on immigration reform.  As the Senate's compromise bill teetered on the brink Tuesday, President Bush met with Republican senators to urge support.  Arizona Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain, both Republicans, are among those pushing hard for this critical piece of legislation.  Alas, the bill has been abandoned by the extremes. Some right-wing senators consider it amnesty. Some left-wing senators don't like creation of a guest worker program, saying it creates a permanent underclass.  At this pivotal point in U.S. history, leaders unwilling to resolve the overwhelming problem of illegal immigration might as well acknowledge the realities of the current situation:  ∫ Without better enforcement, our borders are open.  ∫ Without a guest worker program, employers will continue to hire illegally, and more immigrants will continue to come here illegally.  ∫ Without both of the components cited above, senators must admit that the immigrant death toll in the Arizona desert will continue to climb.  ∫ Unless this minority exerts leadership, it also should acknowledge that border state and local governments such as ours will continue to be unfairly burdened with the costs of a shirked federal responsibility.  ∫ And without some reasonable management of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., the stubborn senators should accede that they're unwilling to enable our government to identify, tax and track those living in the shadows.  The Senate's compromise bill is just that - a compromise. To Kyl, McCain and Bush's credit, they have worked with philosophical opposites in trying to do what's best for America.  Bipartisan cooperation has been as rare as hen's teeth during the six years of the Bush administration.  Americans have clamored for less divisiveness and for leaders to work together in the nation's best interests.  Americans also have beseeched their government to control illegal immigration and empower employers with legal means to procure unskilled and seasonal labor.  Now that the spirit of compromise and cooperation finally is being manifested, a handful of obstinate senators stymie any progress.  Surrender to alarmists screaming ""Amnesty!"" is nothing more than an abdication of responsibility by those elected to lead, not follow. And a guest worker program is an essential aspect of comprehensive reform.  Senators must not be cowed by oversimplification of this complex and multifaceted issue.  At stake are the security, prosperity and very character of this nation.  �  Violence from south a threat  Deadly shootouts between drug cartels and law enforcement have become all too common just south of our border with Mexico.  Last month, about 50 gunmen came to Cananea, Son., and killed seven people, including five police officers, before authorities chased them and killed 16.  Some Mexican violence has spilled across the border, giving southern Arizonans every reason to be fearful.  The volatile situation underscores the need for stronger border enforcement by way of both manpower and increased high-tech security devices.  The immigration reform bill now stalled in the Senate would add thousands of border agents, hundreds of miles of vehicle barriers and fencing, and more camera towers.  As Arizona continues to bear the brunt of illegal immigration, we urge Congress to act. "
"1","Atypical Evangelical; A GOP Hopeful's Unexpected Notes WP00000020070613e36d0002l Editorial Ruth Marcus 842 Words 13 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A21 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  The presidential candidate was talking about the threat of outsourcing and the immorality of corporate chief executives getting huge bonuses while workers' pension plans go bust.  ""When CEOs are making 500 times the average wage of their worker, how can you justify that?"" he asked. ""I think a president ought to call out companies . . . in which the CEO leads his company into bankruptcy . . . and gets a $100 million bonus while the workers down below end up losing their jobs and have worked 20 and 30 years for pensions and they're gone. . . . That's immoral. . . . And that's not free enterprise; that's theft.""  Standard presidential primary fare, perhaps, except that the candidate speaking was a Republican, and a conservative Christian one at that: former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee . A long shot for his party's nomination, certainly, yet Huckabee, a Baptist minister, is not the cartoon Christian conservative of popular imagining.  He's got, as he put it, ""the purity of credentials,"" but Huckabee's menu of social conservatism offers more choices than implacable opposition to abortion and gay rights.  ""Being a conservative is also about having a much broader agenda than the very narrowly focused one that sometimes conservatives are either accused of or -- frankly -- can be guilty of,"" Huckabee said last week at a luncheon hosted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.  Huckabee, 51, has the air of the nice neighbor who wanders by to discuss your crabgrass problem. ""I'm a conservative,"" he said, ""but I'm not mad at anybody about it.""  I am not now and never will be a Huckabee voter. There may not be a single major issue on which we agree, from stem cell research to Guantanamo detainees, from tax policy to immigration reform. This is, after all, a man who believes schools should teach creationism (alongside evolution) but not contraception. He has spoken of the need to ""take this nation back for Christ"" -- though he says, ""I'd probably phrase it a little differently today.""  But listening to Huckabee, I was struck by his interest in the bread-and-butter issues getting short shrift, especially from Republican candidates, in an Iraq-dominated campaign.  Not that you could tell from debates, when Huckabee tends to get so many God questions that, as he notes, you'd think he was running for Senate chaplain, not president.  ""I'm happy to give my answer . . . but I'm thinking, you know, tonight, all over America, there were families sitting down to dinner, and I doubt that any of them . . . said, 'I wonder what the next president will think about evolution,' "" said Huckabee.  ""Here is what I think they talked about: How are we going to afford gasoline at $3-plus a gallon? What is going to happen if our kid breaks his arm in the playground at school? Can we pay for the doctor bills and also pay the rent at the first of the month? Will we be able to save enough money for our kids to go to college, and if they do, are we going to be so in debt that it will take every dime of our life savings to get them a higher education? Families are wondering, if Dad loses his job this Friday and gets the pink slip, and his job goes to China, and he is 50-plus years old, where is he going to go to work?""  This sounds more like John Edwards 's Two Americas than like any of the Republican front-runners.  Huckabee traces his pragmatic conservatism to his 101/2 years as governor -- a job in which ""you can't afford the luxury of being an ideologue."" One of his signature accomplishments was ARKids First, a program -- passed before the similar Clinton administration initiative -- to provide health insurance for low-income children not eligible for Medicaid.  None of this will matter if Huckabee can't scrape up enough money to keep his campaign afloat. His first-quarter take was a pitiful $544,879. He's at 5 percent in the latest New Hampshire poll -- and that was up from the pre-debate 1 percent.  After the lunch, I happened to see one of Huckabee's fellow former governors and marathon running buddy, Iowa Democrat Tom Vilsack.  ""I've always thought he was the dark horse in the race,"" said Vilsack, who dropped out of the campaign for lack of funds. If Huckabee can avoid that fate, Vilsack said, ""I think there is room for Mike Huckabee"" in Iowa, where evangelicals ""are pretty serious caucus-goers.""  President Huckabee would not be my choice. But a Republican field with candidate Huckabee in it is a more interesting place -- if, that is, anyone pays attention to something besides whether he thinks humans descended from apes.  Subscribe to the podcast of this column at http://www.washingtonpost.com/podcast. The writer's e-mail address is marcusr@washpost.com. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP20070613OP-MARCUS13"
"5","Immigration fantasy land WATI000020070613e36d0000d EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 541 Words 13 June 2007 The Washington Times A16 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  President Bush seems to have learned all the wrong lessons from the collapse last week of the Senate immigration bill. Instead of going back to the drawing board and coming up with an immigration bill that actually improves border security, the president went to Capitol Hill yesterday in an effort to revive the ""compromise"" pushed by Sens. Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican. To get an idea of how surreal immigration politics have become on Capitol Hill, Mr. Bush has been receiving and acting upon some unsolicited political advice from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ( whose poll numbers are even lower than the president's).  On Monday, Mr. Bush received his marching orders from Mr. Reid: Mr. President, the Democratic Party has done everything it can do to help you push an open-borders immigration bill through the Senate. You can kiss ""immigration reform"" good-bye if you don't secure the necessary Republican support. In effect, Mr. Reid is demanding that Mr. Bush (whose job-approval rating yesterday was just 36 percent, according to Rasmussen Reports) pressure 15 additional Senate Republicans into committing political suicide by voting to cut off debate on amendments to a bill that would grant amnesty to between 12 and 20 million illegals. The bill also would grant illegal aliens who belong to gangs legal status if they sign a statement renouncing gang activity, and it would give legal status to suspected terrorists and illegal aliens who abscond from the law following deportation orders. Also, aliens who fail to register as sex offenders, aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking or crimes against children and aliens convicted of at least three DUIs would be given a stay-out-of-jail free card. And this is only a partial listing of what is wrong with the bill.  Aside from the substantive problems with the legislation, we see no evidence that Americans are clamoring for a bill that throws open the borders to virtually everyone who is already here illegally. Mr. Reid pulled the measure from the Senate floor after Americans deluged their senators with criticism of the bill and demanded its defeat. A wealth of public-opinion data from the highly respected pollster Scott Rasmussen shows that just 23 percent of Americans support the Senate legislation. According to Mr. Rasmussen, support for the immigration bill has taken a political toll on support for Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, who makes no secret of his willingness to work with Mr. Kennedy to push the legislation through the Senate. For most of this year, Mr. McCain was second in the Republican presidential polls. Since the immigration debate began, however, he has fallen to fourth place, with support from 11 percent of the voters, down from 17 percent last month. Nor is the immigration issue helping him in Arizona, where Mr. McCain won re- election in 2004 with 77 percent of the vote. Today he is viewed favorably by just 47 percent of voters (and 51 percent rate him unfavorably).  Republicans are deluding themselves if they think that passing Mr. Kennedy's open-borders bill will somehow benefit them politically - no matter what the focus groups and political spinmeisters tell them."
"4","IMMIGRATION IMPASSE XWSJ000020070614e36d00006 A Editorial 477 Words 13 June 2007 Winston-Salem Journal METRO 10 English (c) Copyright 2007 Piedmont Publishing Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  The apparent defeat of the Senate compromise on immigration reform ensures that all interests in the contentious issue lose and that matters will only get worse.  The right didn't want anything that smacked of amnesty for the 12 million illegal immigrants already here, so there won't be a guest-worker program or any orderly transition for these foreigners living among us. The immigrants may not get amnesty and citizenship, but they also won't go home.  The left didn't like the tough standards proposed for gaining permanent legal residency and, eventually, citizenship. So, now the left will watch as the 12 million really become the permanent underclass they fear - people hiding from the law and failing to participate in the benefits of American society.  Conservatives want more fences at the border and more crackdowns on illegal workers here. But the bill that would have started those initiatives probably died when the Senate was unable to limit debate.  Labor says the illegals should go home because they depress wages. But they're not going home, and, as long as they continue to live and work here illegally, the employers who would exploit their vulnerable situation will continue to pay them less and, thus, depress wages.  So, while the polls show that the broad middle of the American electorate wants a fair and compassionate immigration-reform package, one that recognizes the reality of 12 million foreigners among us but that also stems the flood of new immigrants, the two narrow ends of the political spectrum have won again.  Conservatives played to the right. Liberals and labor played to the left. Everyone screamed and shouted, except the silent majority that only answered a few pollsters. And in the end, the problem goes unresolved.  But why should we be surprised? Washington has been gridlocked over immigration for years. President Bush proposed numerous plans but never really flexed his muscle with his own party. It remains to be seen if his lunch with Republican senators yesterday will make any difference.  Congressional Democrats, now in charge, were unable to deliver their votes, either.  So, we'll likely end up with more third-class illegal residents among us. Farmers will find it hard to pick their crops, and other businesses will struggle to find the appropriate labor.  The politicians of the right and left know there can be no total victory for either side on this issue. Neither will ever get all it wants. The American people know that, too, and they want compromise, but our senators have thus far refused to compromise.  The result is that everyone loses, and the issue goes unresolved. And in the next few weeks, political donors on both sides will receive fundraising letters that proclaim victory for defeating this bill and promise vigilance for defeating the next attempt at compromise, too."
"4","THE ISSUE: IMMIGRATION REFORM TACTICS PHX0000020070615e36e0000w Opinions 689 Words 14 June 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser B4 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  Comedy Central's The Daily Show should explore why Harry Reid is playing chicken with the immigration bill.  It may be to stick a finger in George Bush's eye.  It may be some Machiavellian scheme to prolong a crisis that brings out the restrictionist wing of the GOP and drives Latino voters into the arms of Democratic candidates.  It may be pure stupidity, fealty to labor unions or a burning desire to prove he has more umph than Ted Kennedy.  It could be all of these petty reasons.  We don't care.  (But if this is how the Democrats lead, we're not surprised that Reid's poll numbers are lower than Bush's.)  What we do care about is a national crisis and a fleeting opportunity to do something about it. We're old-fashioned enough to think the majority leader of the U.S. Senate should care about that, too.  America's tragically broken immigration system needs fixing now.  The best opportunity to do that is with the compromise immigration legislation that Harry Reid is holding hostage.  He may have had reason to pull the bill from the floor last week. There were efforts to amend the bill to death, by lawmakers who declared that to be their purpose. A cooling off period wasn't an entirely bad idea.  But setting unrealistically high demands for bringing the bill back is an entirely bad idea.  Reid has said he wants a promise of support of 25 Republicans before he'll reopen debate.  That's unreasonable.  He calls this the ""president's bill.""  That's dead wrong.  This bill was crafted by senators from the left and the right who were willing to put their political lives in peril for the sake of reaching a solution to the nation's most pressing domestic issue. If Ted Kennedy and Jon Kyl can work together, who is Harry Reid to hold out for a greater show of good will?  We know who he is not: He is not the kind of leader the nation needs.  A leader would recognize that time is running out to pass immigration reform. A leader would understand that both Republican and Democratic senators deserve to have their say on a reasonable number of amendments.  A leader would see that this compromise isn't perfect, but it's one giant leap better than the status quo.  If the hard-line restrictionists doom this bill with layers of punitive requirements, then let them do it on the floor of the Senate.  If the labor-union lackeys destroy the compromise by eviscerating the guest-worker program, then let them do it on the floor of the Senate.  There are 12 million people living in the shadows of a great nation. That cannot continue.  There are municipalities enacting mean-spirited measures that put fear in the hearts of decent people. That cannot continue.  There are criminal smugglers growing richer and more violent by the day because border enhancements only raise the price of passage. They don't stop the demand for migrant labor. That cannot continue.  A legitimate national rage is rising, and with it, a very illegitimate appeal to bigotry by a racist few. That cannot continue.  Harry Reid needs to put this bill back on the floor of the Senate. If it fails because of ill will or killer amendments, the nation will see who was responsible.  If it fails because one man kept it from being debated, the nation will also know who killed America's best chance at comprehensive immigration reform.  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: Harry Reid needs to put this bill back on the floor of the Senate. If it fails because of ill will or killer amendments, the nation will see who was responsible."
"4","NA GEN Editorial Roundup APRS000020070614e36e00boa 1788 Words 14 June 2007 17:12 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  ------  Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, Kentucky, on US Surgeon General candidate Dr. James Holsinger:  There's a lot of heat over the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger to be the next United States Surgeon General. ...  We've learned a lot about his religious views, but know little about how, if at all, they will affect his decisions as a public health administrator.  Holsinger has come under scrutiny and fire for his record on gay and lesbian issues while an official in the United Methodist Church.  A 1991 paper he wrote for a church committee studying homosexuality argued that gay sex is biologically unnatural and unhealthy. ...  All of these are troubling, and doubly so in someone who might be entrusted, as the surgeon general's web site says, ""with advancing the health of the nation.""  Before Holsinger's church record was unearthed following the nomination, the only report on his views on sexuality and health arose when, as chancellor of the University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, he defended a session on lesbian health issues at a UK conference, in the face of criticism from angry legislators and conservative groups.  But the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee doesn't have to decide whether it likes all Holsinger's opinions.  The criticisms have arisen from his private service as a church leader. To answer the question about whether he will value the health of a gay person as dearly as that of a heterosexual, the committee must look to his extensive record as a public health administrator. ...  ------  On the Net: http://www.kentucky.com  ------  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta, Georgia, on Genarlow Wilson ruling:  ... On Monday, a Monroe County judge ordered (Genarlow) Wilson's release, ruling that a mandatory 10-year prison sentence was a cruel and unusual punishment for consensual oral sex between teenagers. The announcement was greeted by tears and joy from Wilson's mother and attorney, and from thousands of supporters around the country outraged by such a clear case of injustice.  But that jubilation proved short-lived. Within an hour of the judge's decision, word came that Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker would appeal the judge's ruling to the state Supreme Court. It's unclear now whether Wilson will be freed during the appeal process.  ""This is wrong,"" said attorney B. J. Bernstein as she read the notice of Baker's appeal. ...  It's not just wrong, it's a senseless outrage. ... Because of a strange and unanticipated glitch in state law that treated oral sex as far more heinous than intercourse, Wilson was charged with aggravated child molestation.  That glitch has since been fixed by the General Assembly, which made the conduct committed by Wilson a mere misdemeanor with a maximum jail term of 12 months.  But Baker argues that Wilson was convicted under the old law and his sentence should stand.  How are the citizens of Georgia helped by making a teenager with no prior record remain in prison for a decade because of a poorly drawn law? ...  ------  On the Net: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2007/06/12/edwil on0 612.html  ------  Poughkeepsie Journal, Poughkeepsie, New York, on immigration reforms:  Opponents of a sweeping immigration bill are kidding themselves if they equate blockage of this legislation with victory. ...  Any sound-minded legislation must include vigorous steps to tighten the country's borders. But there also needs to be a realistic plan for dealing with the illegal immigrants already here.  A bipartisan group of U.S. senators recently offered such a plan; it would put millions of illegal immigrants on a rather lengthy road to legal recognition while plowing considerable resources into bolstering border security. The plan is not perfect, but it should have been the starting point for more discussion and public hearings. Instead, procedural matters have blocked the bill in the Senate. And the House of Representatives is waiting to see what the Senate does next.  President Bush -- who admirably has been seeking a compromise for years -- was scheduled to make a rare trip to Capitol Hill today to push for the deal.  The president faces quite a challenge from members of his own party; some Republican leaders equate provisions of the bill to granting amnesty for illegal immigrants. But that assertion ignores key features of the bill. ...  Some Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, have taken issue with other aspects of the bill, saying it doesn't do enough to keep immigrant families together. ...  The senators negotiating this deal have offered a fair template, and the bill deserves a better fate than being killed by amendments or ignored. ...  ------  On the Net: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com  ------  Chicago Tribune, on pardoning Libby:  Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Lewis ""Scooter"" Libby, was sentenced Tuesday to 30 months in prison for perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to FBI agents. That left many of his friends gasping and has them pressing for President Bush to pardon Libby.  That shouldn't happen.  During his sentencing Tuesday, Libby neither acknowledged his crime nor expressed remorse. Instead, he asked U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to ""consider, along with the jury verdict, my whole life."" The judge received more than 150 statements from Libby friends and colleagues pleading for leniency. ...  But by his actions, Libby undermined the very system to which he dedicated his life. ...  A question for those who seek to spare Libby from prison for lying under oath -- what did you have to say when President Bill Clinton faced impeachment for lying under oath? Most likely, you wanted Clinton punished.  Thirty months (and a $250,000 fine) is a stiff sentence for Libby. He has a legal process to appeal. But Bush should steer clear of this matter. First, because he has a conflict of interest -- Libby was serving the political interests of the administration when he committed his crimes. Second, because a pardon would be as indefensible as some of the pardons Clinton issued as he exited the White House. ...  ------  On the Net: http://www.chicagotribune.com.  ------  The Daily News, Longview, Washington, on passport regulations:  The federal government is temporarily suspending its new travel restriction that since January has required citizens flying to and from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda to show passports. The Bush administration announced Friday that now until the end of September travelers will be allowed to re-enter the United States with a State Department receipt showing they've applied for a passport.  Public outrage caused the administration to blink on this ill-considered post-9/11 security requirement. Despite having years to prepare, the State Department simply was not ready to process the flood of passport applications that began to pour in several months ago from citizens with summer traveling plans. The backlog of applications reportedly numbers in the millions. New applicants are being told they'll have to wait 14 or more weeks. ...  For some citizens, though, the relief came too late. Jana Beilstein of Spokane told the Los Angeles Times that she was forced to cancel a $4,000 cruise her husband had bought for the 25th wedding anniversary. ...  Indeed, a little foresight on the part of the government -- adding staff to handle the inevitable flood of passport applications -- probably could have saved Beilstein and any number of others a considerable amount of money. But nothing less than a permanent suspension of this passport rule can head off the greater economic costs that will begin to accrue a couple of years from now, when the passports are required for land and sea border crossings. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.tdn.com/articles/2007/06/10/editorial/editorial.txt  ------  The Charleston Post and Courier, Charleston, South Carolina, on U.S. missile shield:  Russian President Vladimir Putin's counter-proposal to the planned U.S. missile shield in Europe has the merit of averting a head-on collision between Moscow and Washington, but it does not go to the heart of the matter. It is not at all clear that Mr. Putin is seriously taking up President Bush's invitation to cooperate in defending Europe from a potential nuclear missile strike from Iran or some other rogue state. His offer to share a radar site in Azerbaijan may prove to be merely a bargaining ploy or even a red herring. ...  For his part, President Bush reserved judgment, saying that President Putin's ""interesting"" offer would be one of the subjects in a ""serious set of strategic discussions"" when the two leaders meet at the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, next month. ...  In an interview Friday with The Associated Press, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, ""One does not choose sites for missile defense out of the blue. It's geometry and geography as to how you intercept a missile ... We have to see whether Azerbaijan makes any sense in the context of missile defense."" ...  Secretary Rice emphasized that discussions in NATO and with the Czech Republic and Poland will continue. That is the wisest course. When President Bush hosts the Russian president in Kennebunkport, it should be easier to tell whether President Putin wants to cooperate in defending Europe from rogue states armed with nuclear missiles or is merely advancing Kremlin interests.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.charleston.net/news  ------  The Ledger, Lakeland, Florida, on global warming:  President Bush is right: Any serious plan for counteracting global warming should include not only the United States and Europe, but two of the globe's most populous and polluting nations -- China and India. ...  Germany had proposed that the Group of Eight, the world's major economic powers, pursue specific, long-term targets for reducing the emissions -- primarily carbon dioxide -- that are believed to contribute to global warming. Bush would agree to only a watered-down declaration that said the United States would ""seriously consider"" mandatory reductions. ...  Environmental groups criticized the G-8 declaration as inadequate. But Americans shouldn't assume the myth that tree huggers are the only proponents of both mandatory reductions in emissions and U.S. participation.  For example, The Economist -- a London-based magazine that strongly supports free-market policies -- recently called for the U.S. to participate in international agreements to ""make the polluter pay by putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions."" ...  Bush has long said he believes that the private sector and technology can help slow global warming and reduce its impacts. Most scientists seem to agree, but even ardent advocates of free-market policies recognize that the private sector is less likely to adequately and rapidly invest in solutions without incentives and leadership from the United States.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.theledger.com 7"
"5","Major provisions of minor import SFC0000020070614e36e0000t EDITORIAL DEBRA J. SAUNDERS Debra J Saunders 751 Words 14 June 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.7 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  THERE'S a way in which journalists insert how they think Americans should stand on an issue, and you see it in stories on the Kennedy-Kyl immigration bill that tanked so spectacularly in Washington last week. Many newspapers reported that opinion polls showed that voters supported ""major provisions"" of the measure -- usually without mentioning that polls also found that more voters opposed the bill than supported it.  That fact gets in the way of the pet media narrative: Popular pro- immigrant bill torpedoed by what the Los Angeles Times called a ""vocal minority."" A Sunday New York Times story explained how grassroots conservatives toppled the measure, even though: ""Public opinion polls, including a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted last month, showed broad support among Americans for the bill's major provisions.""  What a crock. If this bill were popular, then Washington would have passed it in a heartbeat. If the bill were popular among Democrats, as bill supporters suggest, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be pushing for another vote, instead of daring President Bush to champion the measure.  And here's something the New York Times story forgot to mention: Its poll also found that 69 percent of Americans think illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported.  No story there, I see.  Pollster Scott Rasmussen found that 50 percent of voters opposed the immigration bill; only 23 percent approved of it.  ""The immigration bill failed because a broad cross-section of the American people is opposed to it,"" Rasmussen wrote. ""Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters are opposed. Men are opposed. So are women. The young don't like it; neither do the no-longer-young. White Americans are opposed. Americans of color are opposed.""  While most Americans may support giving illegal immigrants the ability to become citizens if they work and have no criminal record -- a major provision cited in widely reported polls -- what voters really want is less illegal immigration and stronger border enforcement. Rasmussen found that only 16 percent of voters believed the Kennedy-Kyl bill would do that.  Rasmussen summed up the public attitude, as: ""What difference does it make what rules we have, if anyone can walk in anyhow?""  Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a supporter of the failed immigration bill, was in San Francisco Tuesday. At a press conference, McCain repeated the vocal-minority versus silent- majority argument, when he said, ""A majority of Americans support our proposal.""  And: ""I understand there's a very intense minority, that this is their No.1 emotional issue. I wish we could have more rational, more dignified dialogue on this issue throughout the country.""  When I asked McCain if he meant to imply that bill opponents are irrational and emotional, he answered, ""I didn't mean to imply that at all.""  I am not the first person to wonder if Bush, McCain and Democrats who support Kennedy-Kyl would have stood a better chance of getting an immigration bill passed if they simply had called the bill an ""amnesty"" measure and made their case to the American people.  McCain would have none of that. He repeated his argument that the Kennedy-Kyl bill is not an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants -- because they would have to return to their country of origin, learn English and pay a fine. The status quo, he added, represents ""silent amnesty"" as it allows an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to stay in America anyway.  Points well taken, except ""silent amnesty"" does not confer citizenship. As former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said at the last GOP debate, ""It's simply not fair to say those people get put ahead in the line of all the people who've been waiting legally to come to this country.""  Besides, the Senate began work on this bill with the goal of legalizing illegal immigrants -- not with an eye toward beefing up border enforcement.  And voters know that.  Wednesday, CNN's Jack Cafferty repeated the bogus narrative: ""A new poll shows a majority of Americans support allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens if they pay fines learn English and meet other requirements. How will this affect the stalled immigration bill?""  The answer is: It will have no effect whatsoever, because Washington pols know what many journalists cannot begin to grasp. American voters don't want this bill. They want less, not more, illegal immigration. E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com."
"1","Side Remarks TSPI000020070620e36e0002c A; Editorial 383 Words 14 June 2007 The Star Press 6 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Star Press, Munice. All Rights Reserved.  Mayor hobbled by home improvement  Mayor Dan Canan apparently took a fall last weekend, causing him to miss a couple of days at Muncie City Hall this week.  Side Remarks saw the mayor on Wednesday wearing a boot brace and using a cane, walking out of his office.  Canan was working in his garage last Saturday when he slipped off of a ladder, breaking a bone in his foot.  ""They said it does not need to be repaired,"" said Canan. ""It will heal back.""  It could be four to six weeks before Canan is fully recovered, no longer needing the brace and cane. After nearly 12 years as Muncie mayor, Canan has hardly ever missed a day because of illness or injury.  ""It could have been a lot worse,"" the mayor lamented, adding he would not be dancing soon.  Canan did have a busy schedule Wednesday, presiding over a ribbon-cutting ceremony and later attending a closed meeting at the Muncie-Delaware County Chamber of Commerce to discuss plans for a greenspace on land recently bought by the city from Ball Stores heir Frank Petty for $447,500, about four times the assessed market value for the old parking lot.  Side Remarks was told to leave the meeting of chamber members, consultants and others looking over the plans. Canan later said the design plans were only conceptual, although the city is paying consultants to draw them.  ""It was a nothing meeting of some individuals looking at ideas,"" Canan said.  Pence gets support from The Governator  Republican Congressman Mike Pence got some high profile support for his media shield law from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week.  Schwarzenegger applauded Pence's efforts to protect the principals of a free press. adding his voice to chorus of ""widespread and bipartisan support"" for this legislation.  ""Without the ability to ensure the anonymity of their sources, journalists cannot tell the stories that must be told,"" said Schwarzenegger, in a letter to Pence.  Pence's press spokesman, Matt Lloyd, made sure Indiana media knew of the governor's support.  Pence was on Capital Hill last week, joining other Republican House members speaking against embryonic stem cell research bill that passed the House and calling for compromise on immigration reform that stalled in the Senate."
"5","Spinning the immigration pole WATI000020070614e36e0000q EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 647 Words 14 June 2007 The Washington Times A18 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  As the debate over the Senate immigration bill has intensified in recent weeks, both the New York Times and The Washington Post have struggled to keep their pro-open-borders editorial views out of the news section. Ten days ago - just 72 hours before the immigration ""compromise"" disintegrated on the Senate floor - The Post ran a front-page piece titled ""Backers of Immigration Bill More Optimistic."" The Post quoted Republican supporters of the bill expressing confidence that ""the voices of opposition, especially from conservatives, represent a small segment of public opinion,"" and that the number of anti-amnesty phone calls to congressional offices was leveling off.  To illustrate how supposedly insignificant conservative open- borders foes really are, Post correspondent Jonathan Weisman pointed to a new ABC News/Washington Post Poll, which found that by a 52 percent to 44 percent margin, Americans favored giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States ""the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements."" Judging from the questions that appear on the Post Web site, surveyors apparently didn't tell respondents that illegal-alien advocates are unhappy about the idea of fining people who had broken the law and are lobbying to get the fines waived or reduced.  Nor did they mention that, as a result of lobbying by the Bush administration, a requirement that illegals pay back taxes was stricken from the bill, or that the federal agency responsible for seeing to it that amnesty beneficiaries meet these requirements, U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services, is plagued by disorganization and incompetence. But if people conducting the survey had bothered to provide readers with such necessary contextual information, we suspect that the ABC News/Washington Post polling team would have found poll respondents to have been much more skeptical about the immigration bill.  But the strangest example of how to spin polling data in favor of the open-borders side thus far has come from an usual political tag team: on the left, the editors and writers responsible for the New York Times' news coverage of the illegal-immigration debate, and, on the right, conservative writer and talk-show host Michael Medved. Late last month, the New York Times ran a front-page, above-the- fold story about a New York Times/CBS News poll, which purported to show that there is ""broad support"" among Democrats, Republicans and independents alike for major provisions of the Senate immigration bill including a guest-worker program and granting legal status to illegal aliens. At the time, we questioned the wording of several of the questions in the NYT/CBS poll, and noted that the NYT story buried contradictory data, including the fact that 75 percent of respondents favored higher fines and increased enforcement directed at employers who knowingly hire illegals. We noted that Rasmussen Reports had just released data showing that by a 2-1 margin, Americans believe it is more important to gain control of the nation's borders than to ""legalize the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States.""  According to Mr. Medved, both polls really show that there is ""massive support"" for a path to ""earned legalization"" with ""strict and demanding conditions."" In a column on Townhall.Com, Mr. Medved launched into a searing attack on ""hysterical"" denunciations of amnesty on talk radio, and erroneously asserted that under the Senate bill ""none"" of the changes in status for today's illegal aliens would be possible unless certain conditions were met. In fact, the granting of legal status to some 12 million to 20 million illegals already in the United States would begin immediately after passage of the bill. Regardless of how the data are spun, that fact spells amnesty, regardless whether one's politics stand to the left or the right of the pole."
"4","We need comprehensive immigration reform AGCR000020070616e36f0001o EDITORIAL Michael Chertoff and Carlos Gutierrez Guest Columnists 784 Words 15 June 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A05 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The Senate's inability to move forward on a bipartisan immigration reform bill preserves a broken system with ineffective and insufficient laws. Maintaining the status quo is unacceptable and would be a serious setback to those of us who are charged with securing our homeland and advancing our nation's competitiveness.  Effective immigration enforcement requires the right tools and resources - precisely what the new bill would give us. By denying our law enforcement critical assistance, the current system impedes their brave efforts to protect our country.  The strongest magnet drawing illegal aliens across the border is the ease with which they can find employment. All that's needed is a fake driver's license and a bogus Social Security card, both of which can be bought on a street corner for about $200. Current law facilitates this state of affairs. It does not guard against cases of identity theft or phony driver's licenses.  Unfortunately, some employers have built illegal labor into their business model, partly because the minimum penalty for a civil violation is just $275. Plenty of cities charge more when they unboot a car with too many parking tickets.  THE SENATE bill would end this outrage. It would require more secure, tamper-resistant identification in order to get a job. What's more, employers would have to use an online network to ask agencies whether they in fact issued the ID that the worker has presented, bringing a halt to fabricated ID's. To stop identity theft, the network would even display to the employer a copy of the photo that should be on the ID, ending photo-substitution fraud as well.  The bill would raise civil penalties for employers who make a practice of violating the law to as high as $75,000 for each illegal worker they hire. That would take the profit out of hiring illegal workers for the small but unacceptable number of businesses that treat fines as simply a cost of doing business. Putting an end to this practice will also help stop deplorable workplace exploitation that a system of illegal labor fosters.  These tools are essential to effective enforcement. All of them will be denied to us if the bill does not pass.  But that's not all.  Today, in order to find a handful of dangerous aliens - criminals, terrorists and gang members - DHS must sort through a crowd of illegal maids and gardeners. Bringing the majority of illegal aliens out of the shadows will help us track down the dangerous ones.  Even after these aliens are found, removing them is a complicated, lengthy process that can take months or even years. If the aliens are not detained, many of them abscond and have to be tracked down at great expense. Detaining just one alien costs the government close to $35,000 a year.  Supporters of the Senate bill have a solution that is both clever and just. They want the 12 million illegal immigrants to pay the enforcement costs.  EVERY ALIEN who steps out of the shadows and applies for legal status will have to pay both a processing fee - up to $1,500 - and a penalty as high as $1,000. The fee will pay for the background and criminal checks needed to separate murderers from maids, gang members from gardeners, terrorists from truck drivers. And under amendments introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl with wide support, $4.4 billion of the penalties will be transferred to immigration enforcement agencies to strengthen our border and improve interior enforcement.  In addition to not being tough enough, the current immigration system fails to advance America's place in the global economy. In the midst of fierce worldwide competition for brains and talent, today's dysfunctional immigration system is driven primarily by a person's family connection to the United States. We can do better, and the Senate bill includes a historic proposal to balance family relationships with attracting the skilled and educated workforce we need to maintain our status as an economic superpower.  Opponents of the immigration bill insist we don't need such solutions. They say we should simply enforce the status quo. But they should seriously reconsider their position  Without these solutions, how can we effectively target the most dangerous people? And how can we ensure America's immigration system serves our national interest?  Clearly, the way to better enforcement and a more competitive America is to pass the Senate bill.  (Editor's note: The writers are, respectively, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the secretary of the Department of Commerce.)  McClatchy-Tribune Information Services"
"1","EDITORIAL; Serving justice or self? LVL0000020070616e36f0000q A; Forum 423 Words 15 June 2007 The Courier-Journal Louisville, KY metro 10 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Courier-Journal. All Rights Reserved.  It is only natural for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to serve as a partisan henchman, but when does it become necessary to forgo impish politics and actually serve with the interest of the country in mind?  Sen. McConnell was successful this week in building a strong enough GOP bloc to avoid a Senate no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. (A motion to end debate passed, 53-38, but required 60 votes.) Or at least he built the illusion of a Republican bloc, because what spoke volumes was the lengths to which Republican senators resorted in order not to defend Mr. Gonzalez. Sometimes what isn't said is all that anyone needs to hear.  Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, called the Democrats' push to force Mr. Gonzales from office ""political theater"" while Sen. McConnell attacked them for wasting time on ""a meaningless resolution.""  Although President Bush stood by his man, not a word was uttered in the Senate in defense of Mr. Gonzales' leadership at the Department of Justice. Why? Because Mr. Gonzales is indefensible.  What has been lost amidst the Republican claims this has been nothing but ""political theater"" is that Mr. Gonzales' ethical backbone has become even weaker in recent weeks. While he insists he's forgotten nearly every executive decision on his watch over the last year, he has been accused of trying to force his predecessor, John Ashcroft, to support illegal secretive wiretappings that Mr. Ashcroft considered unconstitutional. Former Gonzales aides Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson have resigned for their roles in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, all Bush appointees who refused to follow the partisan and legally shaky objectives of the White House.  And just this week, The Washington Post reported, due to Gonzales' hiring practices, the country's newest immigration judges are underqualified GOP partisans. Former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor, Karl Rove's former top political lieutenant, were subpoenaed by the Senate in order to find out why the White House was meddling in the work of federal prosecutors.  Almost as disturbing as Mr. Bush's loyalty to Mr. Gonzales is Sen. McConnell's characterization of all this as ""meaningless."" Mr. Gonzales should have been removed from the Justice Department months ago, though it now appears he could make it through 2008, just like his boss, with very little support or moral clout. And the Republicans' silent support does nothing but undermine those who actually want the Justice Department to dispense justice."
"1","EDITORIAL Have we given up on leaders? DNVR000020070615e36f0000q Denver & The West 431 Words 15 June 2007 Denver Post Final B.6 English � 2007 Denver Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  It's hard to fathom anyone could be more unpopular than President Bush, whose approval rating is hovering just below 30 percent. But Congress is, according to a new poll.  Their sagging popularity is a gauge of the public mood, with Congress and the president continuing to wrestle over immigration and Iraq. It's a critical time for both, as Bush tries to revive his comprehensive immigration reform bill and Democrats deal with their first major energy bill. And lest we forget summer in Iraq, it's the time during which the success or failure of the 'surge' will be judged.  An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 23 percent approved of the job Congress is doing, while 64 percent said they disapproved. Bush's approval rating fell to 29 percent from 35 percent in April.  Some Americans might wonder at what point the ability to govern is lost. We don't have a parliamentary system of government where, if it loses a vote of confidence, a new election is held and the government gets kicked out of office.  While polls here can be viewed as a vote of 'no confidence' of sorts, they merely gauge sentiment on an issue at a certain point in time. Analysts say poll ratings don't undermine the ability of Congress and the president to govern, despite the perception. But they could impact how they govern and whether they continue to do so when an election rolls around. Last October, Congress' ratings hovered around 16 percent just before Republicans lost control of the body.  University of Colorado political scientist Scott Adler said polls gauge the political landscape and whether Congress and the president are doing what constituents are demanding. Historically, Congress has gotten lousy ratings from the public, he said.  Bush's May 1 veto of Democratic legislation calling for a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq led the public to view the new Congress as ineffective. Its failure so far on immigration hasn't helped.  Polls aren't alone in shaping public debate. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are vowing to revive the battle over Iraq policy with the White House in response to liberal bloggers, who want Congress to end the war. Reid admitted bloggers have been 'driving the debate' on Iraq.  The new majority has time to prove its mettle, the legislative battles will continue and polls will continue to shift, but democracy will be best served if Americans continue to speak out."
"1","NO CONFIDENCE IN MR. GONZALES HFCT000020070615e36f0006z EDITORIAL 382 Words 15 June 2007 The Hartford Courant STATEWIDE A10 English Copyright 2007, The Hartford Courant. All Rights Reserved.  Senate Democrats may have lost the fight over the vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. For the Bush administration, however, victory has to taste a little sour. Even among Republicans who dismissed the vote as a political stunt (and Sen. Joseph Lieberman as well), few rose to Mr. Gonzales' defense.  And, really, why would they? Judging by his own testimony and events during his tenure at the Department of Justice, Mr. Gonzales is either an ultra-stealthy uber-toady for the Bush administration who judged federal prosecutors and agency staff by a political litmus test, or he was so far out of the loop as to be irrelevant.  When Mr. Gonzales and his top staff weren't changing their stories or misleading Congress about the reasons for firing prosecutors (several of whom were probing prominent Republicans for public corruption), Mr. Gonzales was treating senators to his porous recall.  Mr. Gonzales admitted approving the firings of two federal prosecutors without knowing why. He abruptly reversed his explanation for firing a third.  At least 50 times during five hours of testimony on the firings before the Judiciary Committee, he told senators he couldn't remember.  Recently, a former aide of Mr. Gonzales' told members of Congress she did consider political allegiance while filling lower-level nonpolitical jobs at the department.  On Thursday, the Justice Department announced it is investigating whether Mr. Gonzales tried to influence that aide's testimony -- which would be a serious offense. The department's inspector general and the Office of Professional Responsibility are looking into whether laws were broken in the politicized hiring of career prosecutors and immigration judges.  To date, four members of Mr. Gonzales' inner circle have resigned or are planning to.  An internal report by the FBI, another agency within Mr. Gonzales' purview, recently found more than 1,000 instances in which employees broke the law or agency rules while collecting sensitive data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions.  Mr. Bush and his supporters in the Senate won the political battle by blocking a vote of no confidence. But they're still a long way from making a convincing case that Mr. Gonzales is capable of running an impartial and vigorous Department of Justice."
"2","ENFORCE LAWS AND BUILD FENCE MBEE000020070616e36f00018 LOCAL NEWS 114 Words 15 June 2007 The Modesto Bee ALL B6 English Copyright 2007. The Modesto Bee. All Rights Reserved.  In response to ""Lack of reform is 'silent amnesty' "" (June 11, Page B-7) by Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Reform is not needed at this point, but could be a possibility in the future. If we enforce immigration laws from President Reagan's administration and build the 700-plus-mile fence, which was already approved by the Senate and the House and signed into law by the president last year, we would not only secure our borders, we would also have control over illegal immigration. And if lack of reform is amnesty, why, everyone is happy, right?  FRANK LENOIR Modesto OPINIONS LETTERS FROM OUR READERS (BRADENTON (FLA.) HERALD)"
"2","LETTERS PGHK000020070616e36f0000t A; OPINION 775 Words 15 June 2007 Poughkeepsie Journal 12A English (c) Copyright 2007, Poughkeepsie Journal. All Rights Reserved.  Graduating classes show differences in teaching  Two recent college graduations caught my interest this week, causing me to ponder how educational institutions foster intellectual curiosity. Given that the goal of higher education is to engage in a quest for the truth and to employ critical thinking skills, consider the following:  At the University of Massachusetts, Andrew Card, President Bush's former chief of staff, was booed loudly by students and faculty alike. Protesters were angered Card lied to the American people in the early days of the Iraq war, and the university's decision to recognize him with an honorary degree showed cynical disregard for intellectual integrity.  By contrast, Dick Cheney received standing ovations at the graduation ceremony at West Point, stating ""We're fighting a war over there because the enemy attacked us first,"" and we are fighting a war in Iraq because that is where the enemy has massed. Never mind that no Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and al-Qaida was not in Iraq until the U.S. invaded, leading to a groundswell of anti-U.S. occupation sentiment. The West Point graduation speech was based on a Bush administration fairy tale, nothing more.  Which institution of higher learning prepared their students to use intellectual curiosity, seek truth and prepare their graduating class to better deal with the complex issues facing our nation and world today?  Which of the two graduating classes were the better educated?  Joyce Morse  Staatsburg  Immigration bill hurts respect for law, wages  Recently, I called Congressman John Hall's office in Washington to express my opposition to, and indignation at, the proposed immigration bill introduced in the Senate. I was taken aback and miffed by the question asked of me by the aide. She asked me why I was against this bill.  I was taken aback and miffed because I thought the reasons would be obvious to any fair-minded and nonpartisan person. So here are some reasons: This bill will have the effect of degrading American incomes. Indeed, that is why business wants this bill. Business wants to cheapen American wage scales.  As soon as the illegal aliens are legitimate, they will be eligible for welfare programs in their sundry forms and for registration into the Social Security/Medicare program. The cost will be inordinate to the benefit. These costs have been well documented.  We will be importing lawlessness. The illegal aliens broke the law to get here. Gazillions have assumed bogus identities with illegal documents. Corruption and bribery are the modus operandi in Mexico, and those same attitudes and behaviors are emigrating here. Also emigrating here is MS-13 (a violent Central American gang).  In closing, there are those who would call me a xenophobe and/or know-nothing. In reply, my daughter-in-law is from Japan. My three grandsons are Amerasians.  I urge you to call your congresspeople. President Bush, Senators Kennedy and McCain, et al. are still stumping for this bill.  Manfred J. Hochmuth  Poughkeepsie  Children, groups team to gather cereal boxes  Every summer, children lack access to school-based free breakfast programs. Families need breakfast food. Daily breakfast has potential physical and mental health benefits for everyone.  On May 6, 721 cereal boxes were collected and ultimately delivered to Dutchess Outreach and Hudson River Housing during our annual county-wide ""Cereal Counts!"" drive. One hundred seventy-three more have been donated since.  Thanks to friends of all ages and Dutchess County offices, faith organizations, schools, youth groups, businesses and groceries named and unnamed who donated cereal. Included: the Dutchess County Executive Office; Departments of Health, Veterans Affairs, Planning and Development, Offices of Probation, of Public Works, of Highway and Transportation; Sheriff's Office; Vassar Temple, Saint Augustine Church, Temple Beth El, Shomrei Israel; Wimpheimer Nursery/Vassar College; JCCDC Nursery School; Community Hebrew School; Ralph Schwartz Freedom tae kwon do class, the Rhinebeck High National Honor Society chapters; Hannaford; Super Stop and Shop; Mother Earth and Price Chopper.  Thanks Max, Adam, Gayle, Emily, Ben, Evan, Jordan, Alex, Lewis, Jacob and other children who worked on Cereal Counts! Connecting children with social action is so worthwhile. Finally, Cereal Counts! was also supported well by the Cunneen-Hackett Arts Center; the DC Jewish Community Center; Jewish Federation/Jewish Family Services; Tom Sipos, Joe Daily and others at Clear Channel Radio; David Zeneski/UHaul; David Samson; Sheri Raften; My Brother Bobby's Salsa; and American Signs.  Famed anthropologist Margaret Mead said, ""Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."" Thanks, Dutchess County.  Nancy Samson  Poughkeepsie"
"2","READER FORUM NSL0000020070615e36f00015 EDITORIAL 1322 Words 15 June 2007 The Star-Ledger FINAL 22 English (c) 2007 The Star-Ledger. All rights reserved.  Indiscriminate blame In his June 3 column, ""Global warming and cold drinks,"" Paul Mulshine makes no distinctions between the ""global warming crowd,"" the ""ethanol crowd,"" ""giant agribusiness"" and ""tree huggers"" when he blames them collectively for causing the cost of beer to go up.  Environmentalists would never hug the CEOs of giant agribusiness because we know full well the harm they do to family farmers, subsistence-level farmers in poor countries, the food supply and the environment. It's Mulshine who is shamefully clueless.  Countries like Brazil don't use corn to produce ethanol. They use sugar cane (a more efficient source of fermentable carbohydrates than corn and much easier to grow and process). The U.S. imposes trade restrictions on importing Brazilian ethanol. Don't blame environmentalists for the cost of beer. Blame giant agribusiness.  Mulshine sloppily claims nuclear power doesn't produce carbon dioxide. is emitted in all phases of the nuclear cycle, particularly in uranium mining, milling and power plant construction. If the whole fuel cycle is taken into account, nuclear power emits four to five times as much as renewable energy sources.  Reading Mulshine's columns can give you a hangover.  - Larry Siegel, Plainsboro  The sun makes sense Kudos for John Farmer Jr.'s May 20 column concerning the sun's contributions to global warming. If Earth is heating up substantially (and that's a big if), it makes more sense that the sun is to blame rather than ""greenhouse gases."" Earth has been cooling and heating for millennia, and to think mere humans can do anything to substantially change climate is ludicrous. This is not to say that we should not continue to reduce pollution, though with a timetable that will not put humanity back into caves.  According to Farmer, Harvard astrophysicists conclude that the global warming observed over the past century is not unusual and is the result of natural climate change. David Whitehouse in his book ""The Sun: A Biography"" says U.N. scientists ""used obsolete data, made incorrect calculations, associated data sets with incorrect geographical locations, used incorrect statistics and in some cases underestimated the errors.""  Clearly there is an agenda here that is dangerous to our economy. Clearer heads must prevail. We are wasting time and money when we have much more serious problems facing us. I suggest we send Al Gore to the sun to check things out.  - Mike Magera, Mountainside  Prepare and adapt Your front-page coverage on possible changes in New Jersey due to global warming was typical of the alarmist rhetoric from ""environmentalists."" While I agree that Environment New Jersey's platform of pollution reduction is important and that we should be weaning ourselves from fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, true environmentalists would admit that the world was once much warmer that it is today and that it was also much colder. Glaciers covered Manhattan in the recent geologic past. We should be preparing for a future in which New Jersey looks different than it does today, but we should realize that New Jersey is different today from what it was 4,000 years ago and that the Earth is a dynamic planet.  As much as we want things to stay the same, the planet changes, and we must accept those changes and adapt to them as best we can. Global warming may have no man-made connections, and there is no way to prove that today's climate models are correct. Rather than sound alarms, we should prepare for changes that may be coming no matter what we do to stop them.  - Martin J. Moskovitz, West Orange  Out of touch Many say President Bush is out of touch with the American people when it comes to the war in Iraq, but the same can be said for Senate Democratic leaders when it comes to immigration reform. The overwhelming majority of citizens want to see something done to remove those trespassing in our country. The bill backed by Ted Kennedy and Bush would allow undocumented aliens to remain in the U.S. for up to four years. Americans know amnesty when they see it, and they know it doesn't work.  The inability of Harry Reid to end debate in the Senate on this sellout to special interests is a small victory for those of us concerned about fairness, security and the rule of law. Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez should heed their constituents. I suggest they talk to a few voters who have had their Social Security cards stolen by illegals and have been victims of identity theft as a result. (I have.) It may give them new insight on this issue.  - William Reiche, Wharton  Porous borders With the reporting of terror plots against Fort Dix and JFK Airport, will America wake up and heed the warnings that our borders must be protected? While Washingtonians struggle over guest worker programs and amnesty, have they lost sight of the fact that these giveaway programs would not only benefit Mexican migrant workers but every other person from any place who wants access to America for any reason, including perpetrating terror on the American people? Our law enforcement officials deserve major thanks from every American for their ability to infiltrate and put down these two terror plots. However, the ability of a tuberculosis carrier to travel at will while on a watch list should send shivers down the spines of elected officials - that is, of course, if they have spines.  - Kurt Van Anglen, Westfield  No comparison I'm getting tired of people, such as columnist Mark DiIonno, comparing the Italian and millions of other European immigrants who came to this country years ago to the immigrants pouring into this country now. Everyone needs to visit Ellis Island and see what our ancestors went through to be part of America. It's a real eye opener, enough to make you cry. They came here legally. Most people seem to forget that one little word: legally.  - Maureen Sciaretta, Bernardsville  The spitting image Does making millions of dollars playing professional baseball give you the right to be a pig? While watching a game the other night, I had to turn away from the screen several times as players who were chewing tobacco spit in the dugout, on the field and wherever else they chose. The dugout looked like a pigsty, with garbage all over the floor.  If the players aren't spitting tobacco, they are grabbing themselves or spitting out their gum. Kids look up to these men, and chewing tobacco is just not a good image to portray. Now I see that my nephew spits all the time. I asked him why and he named a baseball player who does it. That's why my nephew does it. A-Rod in one year makes more than the entire Devil Rays team. No one is worth the money he gets.  - Howard R. Hill, Newton  This hero is no America hater For the past four years, I have been reading letters from intolerant right-wingers who label all their fellow citizens who disagree with them as being less American than they are. Very often they are from blowhards who have never served in uniform and have a totally fantasized idea of what military service is like. I was therefore surprised to read in Frank Choloski's diatribe about Memorial Day the inclusion of Rep. John Murtha in his list of ""America-hating yellow bellies."" How any veteran (with or without combat experience) can call a 37-year Marine with a Bronze Star, two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal gutless is jaw-dropping. Choloski's emotional letter contains more than just a little bit of misdirected anger. I would like to see the country support our troops by removing their incompetent commander in chief from the chain of command.  - James Crawford, Red Bank"
"4","Whose Immigration Bill, Mr. Reid? WP00000020070615e36f0002d Editorial 120 Words 15 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A20 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) was quick to blame President Bush for the defeat of immigration reform, saying, ""It's his bill"" [""Immigration Overhaul Bill Stalls in Senate,"" front page, June 8].  Mr. Reid himself sponsored S. 1348 and was joined by Democratic Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), Robert Menendez (N.J.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.). Eleven Democrats broke ranks with Mr. Reid, and he pulled the bill from the floor.  It is too common today to blame others for one's own failures. And Mr. Reid's title would have us believe he is a leader.  TOM MORIARTY JR.  Burtonsville http://www.washingtonpost.com WP20070615LET-MORIARTY15"
"5","Immigration laws on the books WATI000020070615e36f0000h EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 759 Words 15 June 2007 The Washington Times A16 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  A point often lost in the debate over border security and illegal immigration is that many of the laws necessary to fix the problem are already on the books, but federal authorities have decided for political reasons not to enforce them. When Ronald Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, there were supposed to have been three major provisions of that immigration ""compromise"": amnesty for the 3 million to 4 million illegal aliens then estimated to be in the country; enforcement of our existing immigration laws in the future; and sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens. The federal government kept its promise on amnesty, which explains why we have between 12 million and 20 million illegals in the country. However, it failed abysmally when it came to enforcing existing laws and enforcement of sanctions against employers.  Today - more than two decades after Mr. Reagan signed that 1986 bill into law and almost six years after 19 foreign terrorists carried out the September 11 attacks - immigration enforcement is an empty promise. It has become a nice talking point for the White House and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, but a catch phrase that has little to do with what happens in the real world. The federal government, for example, is required to implement a system to record the departure of every alien leaving the United States. Washington is supposed to be working in tandem with state and local police to detain and remove illegal aliens that they encounter in the course of doing their jobs. All databases maintained by federal immigration authorities are supposed to be fully integrated. The federal government is required to have fully operational equipment at ports of entry to the United States that permits biometric identifiers (i.e. unchangeable physical characteristics such as fingerprints and iris scans) to be compared to passports, visas and travel documents. Yet, none of these essential law enforcement tasks has been completed.  During last week's debate on the Senate immigration bill, Sens. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, and Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, introduced a commonsense amendment stipulating that before illegals can receive amnesty, federal, state and local government must ensure that they are compliant with existing laws requiring that the border be secured and that persons illegally here be arrested and taken into custody. That amendment was defeated by a 54-42 margin, just hours before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the immigration bill from the floor.  Following are some of the laws Messrs. Coburn and DeMint would require the government to enforce before implementing amnesty:  * Find out who is leaving the United States. Under Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, the federal government is supposed to have in place a system to record the departure of every alien leaving the United States. The system would also match records of departure with records of arrival in the United States through the US-VISIT program. This is absolutely essential, because the Senate bill creates a new temporary-worker program - even though we currently have no way to monitor whether these ""temporary"" workers have actually left the country. The visa exit system created under the 1996 law was supposed to have been implemented by Sept. 30, 1998. The deadline was extended to March 30, 2001 - but the exit portion has never been implemented.  * End ""sanctuary"" policies that prevent many state and local police from enforcing border security. Today, there are approximately 15,000 employees in the entire Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, the primary agency responsible for finding and detaining millions of persons here illegally. There are, by comparison, approximately 700,000 state and local law enforcement officials, but in urban centers like New York and San Francisco they are barred from cooperating with federal law enforcement authorities - in violation of Section 642 of the 1996 IIRIRA.  * Integrate databases as required by Section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. If databases are not integrated, it increases the risks that information about criminal or terrorist activity may not be conveyed to immigration or law enforcement authorities when they encounter someone trying to enter the United States or in the routine course of their work. This problem must be fixed before putting out the welcome mat for tens of millions of people who first broke the law to enter the country and continue to break our laws by staying here illegally."
"5","Current bill isn't really about immigration XALL000020070617e36g0002i OPINION By John F. Brinson, Special to The Morning Call -- Freelance 803 Words 16 June 2007 The Allentown Morning Call SECOND A12 English Copyright 2007, Allentown Morning Call. All Rights Reserved.  ANOTHER VIEW  The U.S. Senate is trying to push through a bill that masquerades as immigration reform, but is nothing of the sort. It is in fact a crude attempt to convince the American people that the government can fix an unbelievably huge problem created by our government's own incompetence and unwillingness to enforce the law. Congress cannot solve this problem by giving amnesty to all the illegal aliens in this country.  And, no matter how it's loaded with tough-sounding requirements, it is amnesty for lawbreakers. (Become legal in 24 hours after registration, free lawyers, permanent visas, amnesty for gang members, no back taxes, free college tuition, amnesty for people already deported, eligibility for all welfare benefits including SSI ($623 per month per eligible person) and the Earned Income Tax Credit (i.e., for low-income people.) That's potentially 40-50 million more people eligible for welfare. (See below.)  The Immigration Reform Bill has little to do with immigration. It is mainly about turning 12-15 million illegal aliens into American citizens by setting up a system of requirements that everyone knows the illegals will ignore and the Congress will not enforce. The results would be: 1. Massive growth in the federal government to manage the amnesty provisions; 2. A monstrous increase in entitlement spending and the taxes to support it; and 3. An unprecedented flood of new immigrants, swelling the number from 12-15 million now to 40-50 million in the next 10 years. Faced with the certain inability to enforce this plan, Congress would do what it always does -- change the rules or drop the requirements altogether.  Here's what we should do: First, close the Mexican border (don't tell me we can't build a fence), and tighten the Canadian border to shut off the flood of illegal aliens. We have enough illegal aliens, we do not need more. We should do absolutely nothing about the illegals already here until we secure our borders. Nothing whatsoever. Anything beyond closing the borders would invite an invasion of illegals trying to get in before it's too late.  No new laws are needed, just a president with the determination to do his duty. This is a national security issue, not an immigration issue. Illegal aliens are not immigrants. If they want to become immigrants, they need to go through the legal process, and that means going to the back of the line. There are millions of people who want to come to America, have submitted applications and are patiently waiting. Many are highly educated professionals and skilled workers we should welcome with open arms. But, they can't get in because of outdated family chain rules and quotas and bureaucratic incompetence. How could the INS possibly cope with 15 million illegals plus their families? Impossible!  We should expand our quotas for legal immigrants from all parts of the world. Our economy is the largest in the world by far, and we need good people here. That is the type of true immigration reform we need, not the farce being perpetrated by George Bush and the U.S. Senate.  We should demand that Congress insist that the president secure our borders now. Until that is done, take no further action. When that is done, then pass a law requiring registration and documentation of all illegals. (Those who do not register would face certain deportation when they are discovered by employers, welfare agencies, or law enforcement.) Then, pass a law that issues one-year, renewable work visas to all illegals who have registered truthfully. (Renewable only if employed and not on welfare; otherwise, deportable.) Then, if these temporary workers want to be Americans, they will have to go home and apply for citizenship.  True immigration reform should abolish the 1965 ""family chain"" law, a wrong-headed policy that has resulted in immigration quotas being trumped by rules saying that if one person gets citizenship, he can bring his entire extended family with him, blocking qualified legal immigrants. This is why I believe there would be at least 40-50 million new immigrants who are family members of the 12-15 million illegal aliens here now.  We need more legal immigrants. We need reasonable and expanded quotas for all countries. We need better-qualified immigrants. We need immigrants who want to be Americans; immigrants who swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution; immigrants who start on the right foot by obeying our laws. There are millions of such people. Let's reform and expand our immigration laws for legals, not for lawbreakers.  John F. Brinson of Weisenberg Township owns Lehigh Valley Racquet and Fitness Centers and employs about 225 people. "
"1","EDITORIALS No confidence Is this Congress or Parliament? AKDG000020070618e36g0000q Editorial 1370 Words 16 June 2007 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 18 English Copyright (c) 2007 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.  WHERE DO these people think they are, the House of Commons? This past week the U.S. Senate, sometimes laughingly referred to as the World's Greatest Deliberative Body, considered a motion of no confidence in the country's attorney general.  To what end? There is no constitutional provision in this country for a vote of no confidence. It's a parliamentary, not congressional, maneuver. And should remain so. Let's leave it to the Brits-like cricket, haggis and toad-in-a-hole.  In a parliamentary system, a government that loses a vote of no confidence is toppled and may even have to face new elections.  Here our chief executive serves for a fixed term-four years, for all you civics students out there-and the members of his Cabinet, including the attorney general, and, yes, all those federal prosecutors who just got fired, serve at his pleasure. Not at the pleasure of the U.S. Senate.  It is a small point, perhaps, and one that may be lost in all the partisan posturing these high-decibel days in Congress, but it's a point worth keeping in mind. It lends perspective. Like knowing a little history.  So what was the point of this motion of no confidence?  The short answer: none at all.  The news stories kept referring to the vote as ""symbolic."" It would have been a way to signal the Senate's displeasure with the current attorney general. A particularly pretentious way. Like putting on an English accent. Like the ones you hear these days on tonier office receptionists and NPR. Trendy bunch, these senators.  Why not just pass a good ol', all-American resolution of censure? That's what the Whigs did to Andrew Jackson-before the Jacksonians came back in the next election and expunged the resolution from the Senate journal in a boisterous ceremony. Resolutions of censure can backfire.  LAST WEEK'S vote of no confidence stalled; it fell seven votes short of the 60 required to end debate. Which didn't stop Charles Schumer, the senior senator and nudnik from New York, from claiming the no-confidence vote had passed, though it didn't, because the motion to end debate on it got 53 votes, a majority. That's how Chuck Schumer thinks, or at least talks. As he put it, trickily: ""When a majority of the Senate votes no confidence in a cabinet officer, it says a lot."" Uh huh. What it says, or would have said if the motion had actually passed, is that the opposition party is in control of the Senate and throwing its weight around. Which is what opposition parties do. It's a sign the American system is alive and kicking. But that still doesn't make it a parliamentary system.  And if the vote of no confidence had actually passed? The effect would have been the same: nothing at all. Symbolic votes are just that, only symbolic.  It's the president of the United States, currently one George W. Bush, who gets to pick the members of his Cabinet, including the attorney general. Here's what he had to say about the Senate's action or lack of same last week: ""They can have their votes of no confidence, but it isn't going to make the determination about who serves in my government."" Linguistic note: In his typical (awful) way with words, the president tends to use the terms administration and government interchangeably, but that's a whole other problem. The problem with the Senate, at least this week, is that it seems to have confused itself with a European parliament.  There is no shortage of paeans to the Constitution of the United States in senatorial speeches, but any senators who think it contains a provision for a vote of no confidence might need to study it some more.  Some senators seem to think it's their confidence in a Cabinet officer-or lack of it-that should determine whether he continues to serve. They are, to put it mildly, dead wrong.  No doubt about it, Alberto Gonzales wouldn't win any popularity contests in the U.S. Senate-or in the country. For that matter, neither would George W. Bush. But maybe that's one reason the founders settled on a fixed term for the president of the United States, so that the executive branch wouldn't come to resemble a revolving door, with its chief officials leaving office whenever their popularity waned. The founders took pains to separate the executive and legislative branches of government, rather than allow one to dismantle the other.  We, too, have lost our confidence in Alberto Gonzales, not that he ever had it as attorney general. See our editorial, ""They don't know it . . . / But they're going to miss John Ashcroft,"" of February 8, 2005. Sure enough, nothing seems to have increased approval of Mr. Ashcroft's conduct in the attorney general's office as much as his leaving it, or at least his having been succeeded by Alberto Gonzales.  General Gonzales tore it with us even before he was General Gonzales when, as White House counsel, he approved that notorious torture memo and its basic thesis: ""Legal doctrines could render specific conduct, otherwise criminal, not unlawful. See discussion of Commander-in-Chief Authority . . ."" What a curious, Nixonian approach to the law, namely: If a president does it, it's not illegal. But it's an approach that won't pass constitutional inspection.  And yet Alberto Gonzales wound up approving a memo that could have been initialed by Kurt Waldheim, or any other cog in an unfeeling, unthinking machine. He would have served the president better if he had run screaming from the room on being confronted by a cool, professional, lawyer-like memo analyzing the permissible limits of . . . torture. Instead, he okayed the thing.  We haven't had much confidence in him since, but it is not up to us to determine whether Alberto Gonzales should continue to serve as attorney general of the United States. Nor is it up to the United States Senate. The Constitution leaves that decision to the president of the United States.  HERE IS WHAT Trent Lott, the Mississippi senator, told his colleagues as they solemnly debated a parliamentary vote of no confidence: ""This is a non-binding, irrelevant resolution proving what? Nothing."" And then he added: ""Maybe we should be considering a vote of no confidence on the Senate or in the Congress for malfunction and an inability to produce anything."" A decent immigration bill, for example.  Expressions of no confidence, like resolutions of censure, can backfire. And at last report, Congress was doing even more poorly than the president in the polls. The Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll just reported that Congress' approval rating had fallen ""to its lowest level in more than a decade""-27 percent, which was down from 36 percent in January. Compare that showing with the president's 34 percent approval rating, which is no great shakes, either, but it's better than Congress'.  At this point, even if Alberto Gonzales has proven a better presidential crony than attorney general, his boss would be making a major political mistake to throw him overboard. Because then would come congressional hearings on his successor, which the president's critics would turn into another circus. Alberto Gonzales would prove just an appetizer for the president's constant critics in the Senate.  The Senate is already inviting a constitutional confrontation with the executive branch by issuing subpoenas for former White House officials like presidential counsel Harriet Miers and political director Sara Taylor-the kind of subpoenas a long list of presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Harry Truman have stoutly resisted. And for good reason. For the power to subpoena is the power to destroy, and once the executive branch submits to such inquisitions, its independence is compromised. It becomes answerable to the legislative branch, which is not how the American system is supposed to work. As opposed to a parliamentary system. No wonder the American people are losing confidence in this Congress.  This article was published 06/16/2007"
"5","Jim Whitehead stands strong on war AGCR000020070617e36g0001c EDITORIAL 316 Words 16 June 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  After reading the letter to the editor ""War's importance lost on candidate"" (May 29), I felt that letter writer Robert W. Thomas had never tried to get in touch with congressional candidate Jim Whitehead.  The former state senator has an open-door policy, there was a debate at Augusta State and there were meetings throughout Georgia's 10th U.S. House District.  Mr. Whitehead has always stated that we must win the war in Iraq; that getting our soldiers home is his first duty after we win the war; that our troops must get the best equipment when they need it; and when veterans come home, they should be able to get the best medical help at the best hospitals in Augusta.  Mr. Whitehead will fight to get all the funding that is needed for Fort Gordon, the VA hospitals and Savannah River Site. He was chairman of the state Senate's Homeland Security and Public Safety committees. He knows what it takes - the cost of life, the cost of medical needs and the equipment needed in homeland security.  We can't wait. He already has faced some of the same problems we face nationally in homeland security. He knows what it takes to keep our country strong. He wants to do all he can to assist the people who are sacrificing their lives to keep our country free.  We must win the wars in Iraq, on terrorism and against any radical nation that believes it can come to America and attack us, and get by with it.  Regarding immigration, Mr. Whitehead wants to go to Washington and get this nation to enforce the laws already on the books. He knows that, despite changing words, titles and charts, the proposed immigration bill is still amnesty. If it smells like a rat, it is a rat.  Bobby Bragg  Augusta"
"4","Hits and Misses DAL0000020070616e36g0000x EDITORIALS EDITORIALS 403 Words 16 June 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 20A English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  Hits  A couple of steps closer to a more secure border  In responding to conservative Republicans' concerns about securing the border, the president pledged Thursday to billions of dollars upfront to improve security along the border. The money would go for the fence approved last year, plus more agents, cameras and various other technologies to slow the flow of illegal immigrants. That's a good move. Just as important, senators have also agreed to debate another 22 amendments to the Senate's immigration bill - 11 on each side of the aisle - and that should bring the bill back to the floor.  The right message: Aim higher in higher ed  Texans should be ashamed that the state lags behind other large states in the number of top-tier universities. That was the message in a passionate speech Dallas Federal Reserve Bank president Richard Fisher delivered this week to the Rotary Club of Dallas. And he's right. Dallas, especially, should be on the elite higher education map, but it will take a lot of political will to get there. We need more intellectual leaders like Mr. Fisher to continue to beat this drum.  Don't sugar-coat the truth about obesity  The term ""overweight"" doesn't begin to describe the problem confronting a bulging cross-section of America's youth. American Medical Association experts said doctors should stop sugar-coating the problem with touchy-feely language. About 17 percent of U.S. children qualify as ""obese,"" and doctors need to tell it like it is, the experts said. Further kudos go to Kellogg Inc. for pledging to stop targeting kids with advertisements for sugary breakfast items. At least someone is confronting this weighty issue.  Misses  That idiotic pants suit  Roy Pearson's name should go down in tort-reform infamy. He's the District of Columbia judge who has been in the plaintiff's chair this week, gleefully ruining the lives of two Korean immigrant dry cleaners over a lost pair of pants. Judge Pearson, who is suing the Chung family for $54 million, wept on the stand this week when testifying about how the cleaners violated their ""satisfaction guaranteed"" promise. One of his witnesses compared the alleged rudeness of the shop owners to Nazis. The trial judge is expected to render her decision next week. Rhetorically, at least, we hope she takes this litigious loon to the cleaners."
"4","A second chance; The immigration reform bill is back. Senators need to accept this `grand bargain' as a good deal for America. LATM000020070616e36g0003m Main News; Editorial Pages Desk 555 Words 16 June 2007 Los Angeles Times Home Edition A-22 English Copyright 2007 The Los Angeles Times  NUDGED BY A re-energized President Bush, Senate leaders have agreed to resurrect the immigration reform bill yanked from the calendar last week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The deal, sweetened by Bush's agreement to fast-track $4.4 billion for improved border security, is good news -- not because it allows Bush and Reid to rehabilitate themselves but because it revives a vital initiative.  In agreeing to reopen debate on the bill, with senators from each party offering a manageable number of amendments, Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have essentially turned back the clock to a time before Reid recklessly moved to cut off debate, a gambit that backfired. Now as then, however, the legislation must survive amendments that could upset a delicate compromise that would legalize illegal immigrants now living and working in this country, strengthen border security and put more emphasis on skills in admitting both legal immigrants and temporary workers.  Particularly noxious is an amendment expected to be introduced by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) that would needlessly complicate the bill's legalization provisions. It would require all adults who are in this country illegally to leave the United States within two years of receiving a probationary version of a ""Z visa."" They would then have to remain outside the United States until a regular Z visa was issued.  As the bill is now written, only heads of households would have to ""touch back"" to a foreign country, and only if they wanted to trade their Z visas for a green card and the possibility of U.S. citizenship. Inserting another step in the initial legalization process would defeat the bill's purpose of expeditiously bringing illegal immigrants out of the shadows. Unfortunately, that advantage of the compromise is viewed as a flaw by opponents. Because it isn't punitive and disruptive enough, it qualifies as abhorrent ""amnesty.""  Unlike Hutchison, his home-state senator, Bush recognizes that comprehensive reform must include both meaningful legalization and better border security. Superficially, there seems to be a contradiction between those objectives, one that opponents of reform gleefully exploit. How, they ask, can disapproval of illegal immigration in the future -- the rationale for better border security -- be reconciled with legalization on any terms for those who crossed the border illegally in the past?  Squaring that circle is not only possible but necessary to enact comprehensive reform. Bush supports legalization of illegal immigrants already here because, as he said in a speech this week, it's impractical to think ""we could just kick them out of the country."" In the same speech, he pointed to progress in securing the border, including the fact that ""last year we apprehended and sent home more than about 1.1 million people entering our country illegally."" For political as well as practical reasons, border security in the future must be linked to legalization of those who crossed the border -- yes, illegally -- in the past. That's why the bill is called a ""grand bargain."" Now that it has been given a second chance, the Senate should recognize that it's a good bargain for America."
"4","The Scarlet Letter NYTF000020070616e36g00022 Editorial Desk; SECTA 549 Words 16 June 2007 The New York Times Late Edition - Final 12 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  By this time next week, the left-for-dead Senate immigration bill should be up off the slab, lurching toward a final vote. It almost died when Republicans tried to weigh it down with too many harsh amendments. But now it's coming back, thanks to some late attention from President Bush, a rush to repackage it as a super-heavy-duty enforcement measure -- with $4.4 billion to be thrown at the border right away, as a good-faith gesture to the anti-amnesty crowd -- and a deal to limit the amendments from both parties to only a couple dozen.  Congress's struggle with immigration reform has been a horror movie, with one false ending after another, and there is still no telling what the monster will look like when the lights finally come up. People who have been watching through their fingers are right to be worried; the bill was harsh and has gotten harsher, a reflection of the rigidity of those who have vowed to kill any reform they consider amnesty.  Keep a close eye this week on the amendments that make the short list for the coming debate. This will be the main opportunity for senators who were not involved in the ''grand bargain'' to shape -- or eviscerate -- the bill to their liking. Details were fluid into last night, but at least five of the possible amendments seem manifestly awful.  Kay Bailey Hutchison has an amendment to send applicants for legalization on a ''touchback'' trip abroad before getting their Z visas, a new hurdle sure to discourage participation in the program. John Ensign would prevent those who paid into Social Security as illegal immigrants from ever getting that money back, and cut off their young children from death benefits. Norm Coleman would require that all state and local laws that forbid government employees to ask people's immigration status be stricken before other provisions of the bill take effect. Christopher Bond would simply forbid holders of Z visas from ever getting green cards.  And Lindsey Graham, who has spoken movingly about the need for reasonable, decent treatment of immigrants, especially immigrant families, has been trying to take the debate back to the dark days of Representative Jim Sensenbrenner's anti-immigrant bill, with an amendment that would turn people who overstay their visas into criminals subject to minimum 60-day prison sentences.  It seems likely that Mr. Graham, who is one of the ''grand bargainers'' and is up for re-election next year, has been burned by the uproar on the hard right and feels the need to act tough, lest he be saddled -- as Representative Steve King of Iowa has urged -- with the scarlet letter A, for amnesty.  That is a shame, because Mr. Graham knows as well as anyone that the only workable immigration reform will be one that values being smart over being reflexively tough. It will be one that combines enforcement at the border and in the workplace with a path to legal status, even citizenship, for the immigrants already here, and a lawful and orderly flow of future workers. That's the dream, anyway. Congress had a bill like that once, a while back, but the dream is in great danger of slipping away."
"4","Still breathing | Senate must now deliver on immigration reform SDU0000020070618e36g0053o OPINION 384 Words 16 June 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune R,E,S,F B.8 English � 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  It seems those rumors about the death of immigration reform were a bit premature. Thanks to a dramatic intervention by President Bush, and some intense negotiating by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the stalled immigration bill has been revived. Debate on the bill will resume on the Senate floor as early as the end of next week.  Thank goodness. All the heated rhetoric aside, our broken immigration system needs fixing. And it's the responsibility of Congress to put up solutions and not simply create more problems.  What broke the logjam? Common sense. Republicans had insisted there wasn't enough time devoted to hearing amendments and that border enforcement needed to be the first priority before any discussion of guest workers or granting legal status to 12 million illegal immigrants. So an accord was reached to consider about 20 amendments, including one that would provide $4.4 billion for border security and work-site enforcement.  Critics of the bill got what they wanted. And so you would think they would be pleased. Nope. CNN's Lou Dobbs, a leading opponent, quickly blasted the agreement as a ""bribe."" That's silly.  Some people are never happy. Dobbs has said all along that he wants border security to be the top priority, and when Congress complies, he still finds room to complain. Could it be that all the talk about border security was just a smoke screen and that the real concern all along was legal status for the 12 million illegal immigrants?  If so, that's too bad. Critics had plenty of opportunities to come up with a reasonable answer to what should be done with these people and they couldn't do it. Now that provision granting legal status is in the mix, along with guest workers and border enforcement. It all makes for the most comprehensive immigration legislation in the past two decades. No one will get everything they want, but everyone will get something they require. That's the mark of good legislation.  Reid and McConnell deserve a tremendous amount of credit for getting us this far. Now the Senate has to take us the rest of the way by approving this bill."
"4","GOP could save immigration reform BFNW000020070619e36h0002a Viewpoints Murray Light 608 Words 17 June 2007 Buffalo News Final I3 English � 2007 Buffalo News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid has initiated action that could lead to reviving the stalled immigration measure that all responsible members of Congress and President Bush would like to see come back to life. The last major overhaul of the nation's immigration law was passed in 1986 and unfortunately it failed to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States.  Now, after months of negotiations to fashion a bill that allegedly would be approved by the Senate, it went down to defeat as 38 of the 48 Senate Republicans voted against the measure even though it had the support of a Republican president. This came on what is known as a procedural vote that would have garnered many more Republican votes if the president had not surrendered his prestige in the preceding months with his stance on the war in Iraq. The balance of power in Washington has shifted away from the president.  Reid, who controls the Senate agenda, furious at the vote, pulled the bill following the vote, noting that the Republicans could not agree among themselves on amendments to the bill they wanted debated in exchange for a final, definitive vote. Republican supporters of the measure joined its opponents, saying they needed more time to debate their amendments.  Based on comments of GOP senators, the immigration bill likely could be approved if provisions they say would provide amnesty for the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States were eliminated. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and others involved in drafting the bill deny that it would provide amnesty for illegal immigrants. They cite the fact that the bill would allow some of those who entered the country illegally an opportunity to achieve legal status by paying fines (which, as I have previously written, relatively few would be able to afford) and meeting other conditions.  While Reid's action was initially viewed as effectively killing the immigration measure, it did serve to increase the pressure on those who definitely feel the need for Congress to pass it. Reid has said that he is willing to try again to get passage if the Republicans would agree to define the number of amendments they want to have considered and are willing to put a limit on debate time.  I have never been totally enamored of the bill that emerged from committee and I outlined many of my reservations in my June 3 column. I cannot imagine that all of my objections can or will be ironed out when and if the Senate takes the measure up again. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the current immigration mess must be dealt with. The principal problems that I see are the result of the extensive compromises that had to be made to even get the bill this far. Hopefully some of the more odious and patently ridiculous measures in the bill will be eliminated as the refinement process, if it is undertaken, does indeed take place. The Democrats have to use some of their muscle to achieve the needed changes.  As this newspaper said in a recent editorial, ""inaction on immigration carries a brutally high price."" I totally agree with that conclusion and hopefully enough votes can be secured to get passage of much-needed legislation, as flawed as it is. It would at least take us on the path as The News editorial stated of ""restoring the rule of law, enhancing security, easing the pressure on the border and giving immigrants hope.""  Murray B. Light is the former editor of The Buffalo News."
"1","Our view: Passport mess: Tax dollars buy delay, confusion CPGN000020070629e36h0001o Editorial 507 Words 17 June 2007 The Capital (Annapolis) A8 English Copyright (c) 2007 The Capital (Annapolis). Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.  Advocates of the immigration reform package now before the U.S. Senate might have an easier time if most Americans believed that increased spending on border security would actually lead to more secure borders. Advocates of national health plans would find more support if more Americans believed that deeper federal involvement in this sector would make health care easier and cheaper.  Unfortunately, the general opinion of the federal government's efficiency and common sense is quite low - and with reason. Look at this year's passport mess.  It all started with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, a 2004 federal law that grew out of suggestions by the 9-11 Commission. Starting in January, citizens returning by air from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean were required to present passports. At least for now, the same requirement is supposed to be imposed on land and sea travelers starting this coming January.  There is just one little hitch: The State Department, which issues passports, somehow didn't anticipate that there would be an enormous increase in demand once Americans heard about the new rules. And the agency apparently didn't make any plans to expedite processing of the travel documents.  A story on Friday showed what happened. It focused on the typical case of an Annapolis businessman who ordered a passport in March, but is still having to drop plans for a foreign trip this month because his passport hasn't arrived. He couldn't even schedule time for an in-person appointment at a processing center - after spending five hours on the phone trying.  The usual four-to-six-week wait for a new or renewed passport has now lengthened, according to the State Department's Web site, to 10 to 12 weeks - and travel experts warn that delays of up to 16 weeks should be expected.  Meanwhile, many thousands of Americans are having to cancel expensive vacations, and are letting their congressmen know how they feel about it.  Last week, in a belated concession to reality, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security temporarily lifted the North American passport requirement. Through September, Americans returning by air from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean can make do with a government-issued photo ID and a receipt showing they have applied for a passport.  And although the Department of Homeland Security remains gung-ho for enforcing all of the new rules this January, furious congressmen are pushing legislation to put off the regulations until at least 2009.  No one at the State Department seemed capable of the simple deduction that the new rules might prompt millions of additional Americans to apply for passports. And in an age of computerized records, why should passports take six weeks - let alone 16 - to process?  If they wonder who makes Americans cynical about government, and reluctant to give it more power or trust it with more tax money, federal officials don't have to look any further than the washroom mirror."
"1","U.S. attorneys used as political pawns LXHL000020070617e36h00004 Editorial CARTOON TO THE EDITOR By Ron Formisano CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST 830 Words 17 June 2007 The Lexington Herald Leader d3 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Lexington Herald Leader. All Rights Reserved.  It's easy to loss sight of why a protracted scandal continues over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.  Last December, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales oversaw the firing following a plan hatched in a Republican White House to fire otherwise competent federal prosecutors, all Republicans, who were not using their offices to help Republicans win elections.  U.S. attorneys are supposed to administer the law without regard to political considerations. The individuals fired were good Republicans and conscientious public servants. But they refused to go along with Karl Rove's strategy of turning the Justice Department into a branch of the Republican campaign machine.  Gonzales and his deputies blundered when they claimed that the attorneys were fired for poor performance, when all but one of them were highly regarded and had received excellent recent evaluations.  The six defended their records, and former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey said the six he knew well were highly competent and deserved to stay in office.  A Republican friend of mine thinks the Democrats in Congress have created a tempest in a teapot.  But these firings were not politics as usual. So what was unusual?  (By the way, an April poll showed 67 percent believed the prosecutors were fired for political reasons, about eight in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of independents and 53 percent of Republicans. Those numbers have probably gone up since.)  First, the White House slipped into the post-9/11 Patriot Act a provision allowing the president to make interim appointments of U.S. attorneys without confirmation. Previously, presidents made such appointments at the beginning of their terms, and, yes, they could then appoint or dismiss at their pleasure. This provision of the Patriot Act, after the scandal broke, was overwhelmingly rescinded by Senate Democrats and Republicans.  Although historically when a president enters office, all the U.S. attorneys leave, firings have been rare. Richard Nixon fired one, Jimmy Carter one (for political reasons) and Bill Clinton one.  Gonzales, following a Bush-Rove partisan electoral strategy, removed David Iglesias of New Mexico at the urging of Sen. Pete Domenici, Rep. Heather Wilson and other New Mexico Republicans because Iglesias would not rush into phony voter fraud charges against Democrats in time for the November 2006 election. Wilson was in a tight re-election race and barely won.  U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego had put corrupt Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham in jail and was conducting investigations putting other officials and party donors at risk. U.S. Attorney John McKay of Seattle had followed the Bush-Gonzales party line on immigration and weapons enforcement but appears to have balked at trumping up ""voter fraud"" charges. Comey called him ""one of the best.""  There is abundant evidence that political considerations caused the other firings and that the White House was directly involved in some of them. One attorney not fired got with the Rove-Gonzales program and launched an investigation of Sen. Bob Menedez, D-N.J., who nevertheless won his hotly contested election.  Two larger perspectives apply. When Bush took office in 2001, he and Rove decided that the Republicans needed to cut into two mostly Democratic groups: African-Americans and Hispanics. Falling short of that goal, the alternative to conversion was intimidation through trumping up fraud charges aimed at campaigns to register those groups, as well as Native Americans.  The second angle also appeared early in the Bush-Rove regime. Remember John Dilulio Jr., who headed the president's faith-based initiative for a time but resigned, stating that everything in the White House was run by the ""political arm,"" by the ""Mayberry Machiavellis""?  Dilulio's take was seconded not long after by Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, a Washington veteran who had worked for Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.  O'Neill, whom old friend Dick Cheney called in December 2002 to tell him to pack, reported in his 2004 book, The Price of Loyalty , that the president sometimes discussed politics and perception with him, rarely policy. At most meetings, O'Neill said, he sensed that an agenda and conclusion had been pre-arranged by Rove and the political wing.  The Democrats want to drag this out, of course, but the country would be better served if they issued a blistering report calling Gonzales a liar and drawing conclusions from the already-abundant evidence of White House involvement. Then move on.  Bush will not fire Gonzales because the incompetent but totally loyal ""Fredo"" (as Bush calls him) is the first line of defense for Rove et al.  Whatever happens, there may be a good outcome. Some observers speculate that this chilling episode in power politics may lead to drawing a more independent line between the White House and U.S. attorneys.  Ron Formisano of Lexington is a history professor at the University of Kentucky. "
"4","EDITORIAL - Trade futility for rationality POR0000020070619e36h0001a Editorial The Oregonian 660 Words 17 June 2007 The Oregonian Sunrise E4 English � 2007 Oregonian Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  SUMMARY: It would be possible to slow illegal immigration to a trickle if all employers were instantly verifying IDs  OK, that's 167 down.  Last week's raid at a Portland produce-processing plant and related offices, which netted 167 undocumented workers, means there are only 11,999,833 to go. That's how many illegal aliens still live in America, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates. That's how many still need to be rounded up and sent home.  In case you didn't hear, it took 160 federal agents to conduct last week's raid, or nearly one agent for every undocumented worker apprehended. At that ratio, it appears that we could put this whole illegal immigration problem behind us if we could just muster an armada of, say, 11,999,833 federal agents.  Forgive the sarcasm. But last week's raid, and recent ones around the country, have invited it. These raids may be designed to crack down on employers, at least symbolically, but they do an even better job of illustrating the futility of cracking down. (Not only is the current illegal population huge, but the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that it is growing by 500,000 a year.)  And yet perhaps these raids, devastating as they are to the illegal workers and their families, do underscore the need to trade in a futile approach for a more rational one. In this vein, the Senate's revival of a comprehensive reform package last week was terrific news.  The bill collapsed two weeks ago under a ludicrous volley of amendments. On Thursday, however, Senate leaders reached a deal to limit amendments, and thereby resuscitate the bill.  President Bush helped to revive it, too. The administration, which so often goes for a buy-now-pay-later approach, this time pledged $4.4 billion toward enforcement in advance, some of which would go towards expanding and refining a high-tech verification system for employers to instantly determine a worker's legal status.  This is the single key to shutting down illegal immigration. This is what was lacking in the immigration reform of 20 years ago. Now that this kind of technology is available --and with a carefully paced expansion, investment and refinement --it could change everything. Instead of workers being uprooted in a patchwork of raids, they wouldn't be able to get jobs in the first place.  People come to the United States to work, whether to slice pineapple in miserable conditions for $7 an hour in Portland; process chickens; manufacture carpets; slaughter beef or do baby- sitting, landscaping, dishwashing or dry-wall jobs. When work dries up or goes elsewhere, workers go, too.  As many economists have noted, the quickest way to slow illegal immigration would be if those jobs no longer existed, if we found ourselves in a recession or a depression. That would punish all of us --consumers, employers and citizens who have benefited from illegal immigration. But surely, this is not what critics of the Senate's comprehensive reform effort really want to see.  Nothing, aside from a booming economy south of the border, would do more to change the dynamics of illegal immigration than wide, consistent use of a high-tech verification system. And yet our economy is so dependent on these illegal workers --they make up one of 20 workers and one of five in low-wage jobs --that there is no quick and easy way to extricate them, painlessly, from our economy without hurting many key industries. That's why a guest-worker program is also badly needed, and a path to legalization for the 12 million people already here.  Comprehensive reform --stronger borders, single IDs with employer verification, dealing with illegals here already --would strengthen the United States. It would cushion our transition from an economy dependent on illegal labor to one that works more transparently, actually welcoming the workers that it needs."
"4","GET ON WITH IMMIGRATION REFORM PPGZ000020070617e36h0001m EDITORIAL Dan Eichenlaub 644 Words 17 June 2007 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette TWO STAR F-5 English � 2007 Post Gazette Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Over the last several years, the immigration debate has sparked more heat than light. Just like a family debate around the dinner table, the loudest voices, not the most informed, have too often dominated the discussion. As usual in Washington, the result is a stalemate.  But immigration remains too important an issue to leave unresolved. On that point alone, everyone agrees, regardless of their political persuasion. That's why the recent compromise engineered by liberals such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., conservatives like Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and independent voices like our own Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is a measure worth supporting.  The operative word here is compromise -- a valued part of our nation's political tradition too often ignored in a Washington too divided by partisanship over the last several years. As Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., noted recently, politicians looking to smash the immigration compromise without first devising a workable alternative ""are not doing this country a service.""  The immigration compromise is complex and comprehensive. It is comprehensive because the Senate proposal addresses almost all of the issues affecting the millions of workers who have entered the nation illegally over the years.  But let's be clear on one central concern: This is not an amnesty bill. Its goal is to stop illegal immigration but without derailing our local and national economies or denying our heritage. As President Bush recently stated, the compromise would produce an immigration system that enforces realistic laws while upholding the American tradition of welcoming those who share our values and our love of freedom.  Yes, the legislation is complicated and the devil is indeed in the details. But the compromise does address the need for enforcement while including a temporary work program that is absolutely necessary for the survival of our agricultural economy.  Labor shortages are real. As I stated in testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee last year, there simply are not enough native-born, available American workers to fully staff and grow my business or other agriculture-related businesses in Pennsylvania.  My company hires for hot, physically demanding seasonal work. Entry-level agricultural and manual jobs are, quite frankly, not the ambition of most young Americans. The lack of a workable agricultural labor program combined with overaggressive immigration enforcement constitutes a clear and present danger to the survival of Pennsylvania farms and the businesses they serve, including mine.  Timing is crucial. Farms and farm-dependant businesses like mine need help now. The existing H-2A visa program is complicated, expensive, unresponsive and plagued by expensive litigation. The H- 2B visa program, which I use, is coming apart at the seams and completely failed many Pennsylvania businesses that were depending on H-2B workers this year. Most important, the fixation on arrival and departure dates of immigrant workers makes no sense in agriculture, where planting and harvesting times are influenced more by the weather than the dictates of bureaucrats in Washington.  For farms and farm-dependent businesses to survive in Allegheny County and the rest of Pennsylvania, Washington must act on immigration reform. The Senate compromise reached by pragmatists in both parties provides a workable solution to the nation's immigration problems. Without immigration reform, one of the nation's biggest problems will continue to fester as hardworking people are separated from jobs and families, and as America's economy and competitiveness suffer.  I believe the nation's farming communities will suffer the most if Congress fails to find a solution. But all Americans would be punished if we continue with an immigration policy that exports farms and imports foods. We must move forward and the Senate compromise is the appropriate first step. Dan Eichenlaub is president of Eichenlaub, Inc., a landscape contractor serving Western Pennsylvania since 1974 ( www.eichenlaub.com)."
"2","TOLLS: DON'T PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST SEPI000020070618e36h0004v Editorial 1800 Words 17 June 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer FINAL C5 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  With all the talk of putting tolls on state Route 520 years in advance of the new Evergreen Point Bridge actually being built, one need only look at the front page of the local section in the Seattle P-I on Wednesday for a primary reason why there should be concerns about paying tolls for something that does not exist.  The picture shows one of the many ""unused"" ramps that the state Department of Transportation seems to build for no reason. The ramp is what is left of the abandon project the R.H. Thompson Expressway. I am sure that the taxpayers of Washington state paid dearly to build this abandoned ramp, and others that used to exist along I-5.  So now the state is asking us to pay for something that it says ""will"" be built, but may never, at least not in my lifetime, exist. At least with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, those who are having to pay the tolls, actually have something to drive on. It would be like buying a new car, and paying for it for the next five years, but not actually getting to drive it until it is paid for. Maybe the state has some nice oceanfront property in Yakima it wants to sell.  Ron Hopper  Carnation  ZOO GARAGE  Proposed location would  add to neighborhood mess  Regarding the controversy over the proposed garage for Woodland Park Zoo, I do not understand why officials picked the proposed location, off Phinney Avenue North, instead of in the south parking lot.  The entrance to that lot is at North 50th Street and Fremont Avenue North, giving easier access than funneling traffic onto Phinney Avenue North and creating more neighborhood congestion and noise. It would also help if the interchange between Aurora Avenue North and North 50th Street could be improved.  I also read that opponents to the garage suggest that people can park on nearby streets. I would think that that is exactly what nearby residents fear.  I believe that greater parking capacity at the zoo is needed. True, it would not help discourage people from driving, but I think that the inevitable transition to less driving is going to take several years, and in the meantime there are many people that can't reasonably get to the zoo unless they can drive.  Bob Fleming  Seattle  ELECTIONS  Caucus doesn't allow  all voices to be heard  Would someone please explain to me why we even bother to have elections, which truly show what the people want, when the caucuses are what decide who we're supporting? I would attend a caucus, but I have no transportation. The way I vote by absentee ballot gives me a voice; the caucus does not.  It's starting to look more and more as if `we the people' and our opinions do not matter. Just look at what happened in Florida and in our own state in the last elections.  Suzanne C. Stauffer  Seattle  `MY GOVERNMENT'  Bush's statement sums  up reasons for his failures  In response to a Senate vote of no confidence on U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, President Bush said, ""They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government.""  ""My government,"" indeed!  This statement from this failed president sums up the reasons for his many failures. He doesn't understand or understands and doesn't care that it's not his government. In a democracy the government doesn't belong to the president, but to the people. I'm fearful that the don't care proposition is true. Bush just doesn't care. Unfortunately, this lack of care has had profound impact on this government that we the people own.  David Kannas  Seattle  THE '60s  Cultural happenings  tilted toward better world  Regarding Andrew Gumbel's June 10 guest column, James Joyce once wrote, ""History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake."" In some ways, those who participated in the multifarious cultural happenings of 1967 and a few years thereafter were manifesting, consciously and unconsciously, Joyce's sentiments. The brief but joyous explosion of heady celebration was not simply an episode of unrestricted hedonism. The best artistic and political aspirations of the '60s were grounded in a deep and genuine desire to create a better society in which racism, poverty and war would become vestigial remnants of a less enlightened time. And out of that worn, cramped, and bloodied chrysalis of a world would come a revitalizing order of hope and understanding - a new world in which peace and sanity would supplant the twin false gods of greed and war. Indeed it was an exhilarating vision and it faded all too quickly.  The inspiration of the civil rights movement and those who sacrificed everything to bring this nation closer to racial parity is not to be minimized or forgotten. Nor should the example of the great anti-war movement of that day be lost to the present as we confront another murderous and mindless war. The environmental movement's roots go back to the '60s, and nobody can rationally gainsay the immediate relevance of that movement's agenda to our own precarious time.  Joe Martin  Seattle  SEATTLE CENTER  Selling space for ads  takes away quiet place  Only months ago you might have found yourself enjoying an unhurried moment on the Seattle Center grounds. The character of experience changed suddenly when the Seattle Center's directors decided to sell off the visual space of the public grounds for a global company's efforts to push the consumption of one of its products.  The negative effects of stimulating consumption of the advertised product motivated me to ask people to sign two petitions I wrote. For a day and a half, I gathered signatures to ask for specific changes in the Center's advertising policy.  Without my asking, people volunteered their varied opinions on the use of park land for advertising. The ad's defenders mirrored the reception I might receive if I were a North Korean speaking against hanging a large portrait of Kim Jung Il.  No state ideology in this country requires us to sell or surrender public and semi-public spaces to private advertisers (or to other forms of propaganda). We have a right to preserve the value in experiencing parts of our environments without a need to erect psychological guards against slick in-your-face ads.  The alleged benevolence of advertisers probably fails scrutiny when we compare ad revenues with the added social costs of the consumption the ads intend to stimulate. The deal between the Seattle Center and Toyota leaves all of us holding the bag for the harm caused by any added overconsumption.  The Seattle Center's directors already have shown their willingness to eliminate a welcome respite from pressures to consume. They also don't concern themselves with the imposed costs of the consumption they promote.  Bill Carr  Seattle  HORSEY CARTOON  Republicans not to blame  for faulty amnesty bill  I take umberage with David Horsey's Tuesday cartoon. Horsey paints the defeat of the ""amnesty"" bill as the ""fault"" of right- wing Republicans. Wrong. Many in this country (by birth of legal immigration) consider illegal immigrants, who present a major drain on America's financial entitlement programs, illegal.  Why should those who come here illegally, pay no income tax, use forged and false Social Security cards, drain millions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury, keep Americans who need financial help from receiving that help because the coffers have been sucked dry, illegally? Does ""illegal"" no longer mean ""illegal""?  Do you feel it justified to encourage millions more to ""jump the fence"" with amnesty waiting? Does obeying the law no longer hold meaning?  Many friends and colleagues have immigrated to the U.S., legally. My father immigrated legally. My father-in-law immigrated legally. Passing an ""amnesty"" bill for those who have come here illegally would be to make a mockery of all those immigrants who obeyed the law.  Perhaps you should rethink who that ""road kill"" would represent, were a law to be passed making the word ""illegal"" mean ""legal.""  The words George Orwell - doublespeak and doublethink - come to mind.  Spencer Lehmann  Seattle  Cartoons help get us  through Bush's tenure  David Horsey is criticized by Art Francis who wants him ""called on"" by editors for his drawings of President Bush. Humor is one way people deal with pain and suffering in this world. I dealt with the nightmare of Bush taking the election in 2000 by clipping political cartoons and taping them in scrapbooks. All Horsey's cartoons are saved along with a few by other cartoonists to be viewed by future generations. Cartoons are good therapy. I hope they get me through the nightmare.  Lois Logan Horn  Seattle  SURPLUS SCHOOL SITES  Neighbors should be  careful what they ask for  Your Monday editorial supporting the purchase of surplus school sites to add to our inventory of parks and open space is a disservice to the neighborhoods that surround those parcels. I am certain that many of them would endorse creating public parks and open space in their communities, and I have no doubt that the city would like to sell another parks levy based on that premise. In the end, however, they should be wary of what they might get in the deal.  More likely, the school buildings would be declared historical landmarks, and would be converted to housing for the homeless, administrative offices for the city, and for rent to various civic organizations. The gymnasium could be converted into an indoor skate- park for teens, while the covered court area might become the regional all-weather off-leash dog park. The rest of the parcel would probably be developed as year-round all-season athletic fields, with high intensity lighting, bleachers, public address systems, locker facilities and parking.  After watching the city parcel out the jewel of Magnuson Park to every special-interest group in the region every neighborhood should look upon promises of ""parks and open space"" with a high degree of suspicion. In the end, you might be better off with another condo complex.  John Figge  Seattle  BUSH AND CONGRESS  Will didn't get message  of the November vote  The headline of George Will's Thursday column (""Democrats don't let Bush achieve anything"") had me howling with laughter before even reading the column. Where was Will anytime before last November's election that heralded ""Republicans let Bush have everything he wants""? Poor whiny George! How soon he forgets that the public threw out the GOP rubber-stamp Congress.  James A. Young  Seattle LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Drawing"
"4","The 'Grand Bargain': Round II; Upfront cash and an eye on the big picture may grease the skids for immigration reform. WP00000020070617e36h0007o Editorial 526 Words 17 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL B06 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  GIVE CREDIT to the advocates of broad immigration reform and to President Bush for helping to revive what looked like moribund legislation in the Senate. Now comes the hard work of securing approval in both houses of Congress for a bill so sweeping that it contains something for everyone to dislike.  Backers in the administration and the Senate are repackaging the bill as a law enforcement measure, amending it to provide $4.4 billion in guaranteed, upfront funding for tighter border security, expanded detention facilities and a crackdown on employers who hire illegal workers. That may be a shrewd way to win over some skeptical Republican senators who were instrumental in shelving the bill just over a week ago, and it's a justified move toward making the nation's border less porous.  At the same time, keeping the bill's broader purpose in mind is critical. Trying to seal the border without recognizing the reality that the U.S. economy relies on immigrant labor is a recipe for failure. Immigrants account for one-seventh of the American workforce; undocumented ones represent about 5 percent of all employees nationally. A large majority of workers who entered the country illegally or who overstayed their visas did so not only for the chance of living better lives and supporting loved ones at home but because the great engine of this country's commerce and industry needs them to do jobs that are shunned by most native-born Americans, whose education levels have risen steadily. The idea apparently cherished by anti-immigrant hard-liners -- that undocumented workers can be deported, hounded and policed into invisibility -- is a pipe dream.  On top of the economic facts, there are political ones. Just as everyone loathes some facet of the immigration bill, practically everyone wants something from it, too. Advocates of security-first, who want a border crackdown and an employee verification system before addressing existing and future immigrants, may be correct that many reformers care more about legalization for the nation's 12 million undocumented aliens. But the legalization-first crowd is right that the problem of undocumented immigrants will only mushroom, regardless of new fencing and agents at the border; after all, 40 percent of illegal immigrants enter the country on a valid visa. The immigration bill's ""grand bargain"" builds on those twin realities -- the need to secure the borders and to accommodate immigrant workers drawn by the American job market.  If the Senate bill can overcome the barrage of procedural obstacles still certain to impede its progress, it may emerge with any number of toxic features, which this page will identify and oppose. Ditto whatever bill may be taken up by the House. With luck the worst bits can be redacted or defanged in House-Senate negotiations. But the big-picture goals of border security, employment verification, and legalization for existing and future immigrants remain worth the fight, if only because they promise an improvement on an intolerable status quo. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200706171ED-IMMIGRATION17"
"4","State editorial roundup APRS000020070618e36i004v3 By The Associated Press 2539 Words 18 June 2007 15:10 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  A sampling of editorial opinion around Texas:  June 18  The Dallas Morning News on Scooter Libby and a pardon:  Judge Reggie Walton received scores of letters from friends of Scooter Libby, pleading with the jurist to have mercy on the former top White House staffer, who was convicted of lying under oath in the Valerie Plame investigation. In their account, Mr. Libby is a faithful friend, a doting father, an avid reader, a sparkling conversationalist and so on all of which were meant to persuade the judge not to break a butterfly on a wheel by sending Mr. Libby to jail.  They failed.  Judge Walton ruled late last week that Mr. Libby must report to prison while appealing his conviction. This is just. As the judge wrote, ""I just think blue-collar criminals are entitled to the same kind of justice as white-collar criminals.""  Precisely. Mr. Libby may well be a fine fellow, but even fine fellows can break the law. When President Bill Clinton lied under oath, conservatives were quick to point out that the integrity of our entire system of justice depends on witnesses telling the truth. Though many on the right believe the Plame inquiry was groundless, one doesn't have the right to perjure oneself with impunity because one believes the investigation to be illegitimate.  President Bush is now under pressure to pardon Mr. Libby to spare him prison. He should resist. In a letter to the judge, Joseph Bottum, editor of the theological journal First Things, pleads that sending Mr. Libby to jail would cause ""damage to the political health of the republic"" by unjustly punishing a good man who only sought to serve his country. To the contrary, letting Mr. Libby avoid paying for his crime would only increase cynicism about elite privilege in American public life.  Judge Walton recognizes that. So should Mr. Bush.  ------  June 18  Fort Worth Star-Telegram on Texas and water:  Water is precious, as Texans who suffered through the 1950s Drought From Hell can attest. But gigantic new reservoirs are pricey. The estimated cost of the proposed Marvin Nichols Reservoir in Northeast Texas, which would provide water for the Dallas-Fort Worth area by 2030, is a staggering $2.16 billion.  Precisely because water is precious and reservoirs are costly, fast-growing North Central Texas should greatly expand conservation and reuse to help ensure an ample long-term supply. That's important because the population of a 16-county metropolitan area -- including Dallas, Tarrant, Denton and Collin counties -- is projected to roughly double to more than 13 million residents by 2060.  Even if conservation and reuse are significantly expanded, the 62,000-acre Nichols reservoir probably will be needed. But stepped-up conservation and reuse could at least delay the need for building Nichols or buying other new supplies of water.  In May, the Legislature passed a major water bill that included Nichols as a prospective future water source. Opponents of Nichols said that Dallas and Fort Worth, which have higher consumption rates than other big Texas cities, should focus on conservation and reuse rather than building a reservoir that would submerge vast chunks of hardwood bottomlands and destroy wildlife habitat.  Regardless of your take on Nichols, one thing should be clear: We must stop wasting water, as we often do in countless ways, including inefficient and excessive irrigation of lawns and by using more water than needed for bathing, washing clothes and cleaning dishes.  North Central Texas cities and water districts need to establish stronger conservation and reuse programs, provide more incentives for both and better educate the general public about why they are important.  Fort Worth has changed residential billing rates so that high-volume users pay more per gallon for consumption above specified levels. The city also is requiring that new sprinkler systems have sensors that shut them down when it rains or freezes.  Numerous cities have banned irrigation of lawns from hours such as 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. during warm-weather months. They also are educating residents about lawn irrigation techniques that waste less water and are recommending more drought-resistant landscaping.  The Tarrant Regional Water District, which supplies Fort Worth, Arlington and other Tarrant cities, is proposing tougher restrictions on water usage during dry spells.  The district also has begun a successful program under which Trinity River water that has been used in the D-FW area, treated at area sewage plants and sent downstream is filtered through cleansing wetlands bordering the district's Richland-Chambers Reservoir in East Texas. The water then goes into the reservoir and can be pumped back to Tarrant County cities for treatment and consumption.  Cities also can expand programs to reuse water for purposes such as irrigating parks and golf courses.  On Tuesday, Fort Worth Water Department officials informed City Council members that they expect to propose a variety of measures to encourage greater conservation. The Star-Telegram recently reported that the city's system is plagued by an excess of leaky pipes that waste water and by faulty, aged meters that cause inaccurate billing.  The Austin City Council recently approved a variety of aggressive conservation measures to be implemented over the next several years to curb consumption by homeowners, commercial laundries, car washes and other water users. Higher standards will be required for everything from sprinkler systems to plumbing fixtures.  Austin already gives residents free low-flow shower heads, helps pay for low-flow toilets and provides $100 rebates for water- and energy-saving washers. The city even sells rain barrels at discounted prices. San Antonio and El Paso provide some similar conservation incentives.  Under a long-term water plan adopted in 2006 for 16 D-FW area counties, an estimated 28 percent of the region's needs would be met by a variety of conservation and reuse strategies.  It would be great if the region could exceed that goal for conservation and reuse. As we said, water is precious.  ------  June 18  Austin American-Statesman on the Senate and immigration issues:  The announcement that the U.S. Senate is going to kickstart talks on the failed immigration bill is welcome news. A divided senate failed to reach anything approaching compromise on the bill earlier this month even though illegal immigration is a hot-button topic all over the country.  Estimates are that 12 million illegal immigrants live and work in the United States. Even those most sympathetic to the reasons behind that immigration would have to concede that the huge number adds up to a compromised border.  Though that 12 million figure alone shouldn't drive policy, such a sizeable presence of illegal immigrants should spur Congress into action. So far, however, the number gets tossed about, outrage is expressed and speeches are made but nothing gets done.  The second wind on immigration legislation comes after the Bush Administration committed $4.4 billion to increase border security. If that's what it takes to move the agenda, then so be it. However, the forces behind illegal immigration are so powerful that enforcement alone is not going to fix the problem.  Economies in Central and South American countries that don't produce enough domestic jobs spur immigration. An evolving world economy is a factor in immigration, as is the demand in the United States for cheap labor.  Any immigration fix is going to have to take all those factors into account. We have been consistent in our call for border security. A nation that cannot secure its own borders can't consider itself truly sovereign. However, we also recognize that building walls and adding border patrol agents won't stop people desperate for the work this country promises.  Employers are part of the solution, but again, sound-good solutions have implications. Turning small business owners into border patrol agents isn't the answer either.  A guest-worker program in the broadest of strokes may not be a complete cure, but is an improvement. If workers are issued tamper-proof identification and matched with jobs in the United States, employers and workers would be better off.  As it stands now, immigrants and employers are subject to abuse by an inconsistent, patched-together immigration policy in need of mending. We should recognize, however, that bold new approaches or even stepped up old ones are going to spawn a bigger bureaucracy to identify those targeted by the legislation, now and in the future. Someone is going to have to keep track of all the comings and goings.  We can and should have this discussion, and the news that the immigration bill is going to get another look is at least a start.  President Bush is absolutely right when he says the status quo on immigration is unacceptable. Congress has an opportunity, as well as a duty, to redefine that status quo.  ------  June 18  Houston Chronicle on orbital neglect:  A one-of-a-kind weather satellite, QuikScat, provides meteorologists with a continuous stream of data to measure the strength and course of hurricanes. Although the craft is already five years beyond its expected operating life and crippled by equipment failures, no replacement is scheduled before 2016.  Launched in 1999, QuikScat has enabled forecasters to improve their ability to accurately forecast the threat of a storm and give local emergency planners critical time to evacuate people from harm's way. Using a device called a scatterometer, the spacecraft can measure wind speeds and direction over vast swaths of ocean by bouncing microwave signals off the surface and then measuring their energy changes. The satellite is now functioning using a backup transmitter and could die before this hurricane season peaks.  National Hurricane Center director Bill Proenza says the loss of the satellite would likely shave 10 percent off the accuracy of two-day hurricane forecasts and 16 percent off three-day predictions. That would greatly increase the uncertainty over a storm's path and make more difficult the crucial decisions on coastline evacuation.  Given the devastation wrought by an increasing active hurricane cycle over the past decade and the risk created by continued population growth and development along vulnerable coastlines, one might expect QuikScat's replacement to be a top priority. Until recently, it has been ignored.  After Proenza took over the Hurricane Center helm, he has spoken forcefully on the waste of public dollars and the threatened loss of QuickScat. Lawmakers have been listening. In May Houston-area Congressman Nick Lampson requested that NASA and NOAA officials provide contingency plans for a replacement. U.S. senators from four hurricane-prone states are co-sponsoring a bill authorizing $375 million for the design and construction of a new satellite with updated capabilities for monitoring storms. Companion legislation has also been introduced in the House of Representatives. The bills would also require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to annually report on the status of its weather satellites.  Congress should swiftly enact the Improved Hurricane Tracking and Forecasting Act, and NASA and NOAA officials should expedite the construction and launch of a new QuikScat. The sooner it is up and working, the safer our coastal communities will be.  ------  June 16  San Antonio Express-News on Alberto Gonzales:  If you could translate rhetoric into vision, congressmen would be the most effective public servants in the country.  But, sometimes, the rhetoric becomes the vision, the words more important than the policy they are meant to describe.  Senators were at their rhetorical best or worst the other day, when the topic du jour was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  The Republicans blocked a no-confidence vote on Gonzales, who is embroiled in a controversy over whether he allowed politics to taint the judicial system.  It was an important issue the sanctity of the justice system should rise above partisan politics but it generated more than the usual amount of bloviating.  The topper came from Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who condemned Democrats for playing politics while pretending to soar above it.  ""This is beneath the dignity of the Senate,"" he said, according to the Associated Press.  Beneath the dignity of the Senate? Excuse us. This is the same august body in which Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, delivered a rambling discourse on the Internet, saying, ""It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes.""  In any case, Lott did transcend his own verbiage for one shimmering moment.  ""Maybe we should be considering a vote of no confidence on the Senate or on the Congress for malfunction and an inability to produce anything,"" he said.  ------  June 15  The Odessa American on rubberized waste:  After a simple low-tech boat blew a hole in the USS Cole, at harbor in Yemen in 2000, killing 17 sailors and blowing a 40-foot hole in the Navy destroyer, Pentagon officials vowed to prevent such an attack in the future. The idea the Naval Criminal Investigative Service came up with was to manufacture floating rubberized rings, complete with underwater sensors to detect intrusion, that could be used to shield ships worldwide.  So the NCIS, along with the General Services Administration, which awards and oversees federal contracts, began the process of procuring such items. But $100 million and almost seven years later, only a few barriers have been delivered, those that have been are more expensive than necessary, and, as a 2004 GSA report noted, ""Navy officials advised us that the barriers were prone to leaks, can deflate completely, and that defects caused barrier gates to remain open.""  The GSA told a House subcommittee last week that its investigation of irregularities in the contracting process is ongoing and criminal charges are possible.  For whatever reason in this case, the sometimes time-consuming process of competitive bidding was bypassed and the NCIS instructed the GSA to give the contract to a small technology firm Northern NEF in Colorado Springs, Colo., that had never worked on a boat-barrier project but had done some contracts for the Pentagon. The firm was small enough that under a special small-business program it could get federal contracts of less than $3 million without undergoing competitive bidding.  Northern NEF was instructed to hire P-Con Consulting, run by a man who already worked as a security consultant to NCIS, to deal directly with the actual manufacturers. P-Con received $3.6 million, though its unclear what the firm actually did.  Northern NEF submitted at least 30 invoices for less than $3 million between September 2001 and February 2003, in apparent violation of federal contracting regulations that prohibit splitting up payments to avoid competition limits.  This might be an especially egregious example, but government contracts are inherently subject to abuse.  Those letting them are using the taxpayers money, not their own money or money for which they have personal responsibility.  Requiring competitive bidding is one safeguard, but it can be cumbersome, is hardly foolproof and can be skirted.  If prosecution is appropriate here it could be a deterrent to future abuse. Perhaps the rules on competitive bidding need to be tightened.  Oversight obviously needs to be improved. Unfortunately, however, waste and abuse are likely to be a feature of government contracts as long as government contracts exist. 7"
"4","Fence isn't the only link in this chain AGCR000020070621e36i0001x EDITORIAL William McKenzie Guest Columnist 741 Words 18 June 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A05 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  We need to squelch a myth that goes like this:  If Congress would only secure the border, the House and Senate could return later to those elusive parts of the immigration puzzle: better oversight of employers, a guest-worker program and a shot at citizenship for illegal workers.  On the surface, that sounds reasonable, especially now that the Senate's immigration debate either hit a dead end or a detour. Start with one foot, then the other.  But that reasoning is flawed, mightily so, and here are four reasons:  First, there's no political interest.  The myth's advocates suffer from wishful thinking or absolute conceit. The fact is, there is very limited support for such a narrow answer as only securing the border.  A SENATE Republican staffer I spoke with recently emphasized that point, saying a border bill could not pass by itself. Border hawks would back it, but too many senators oppose that as the only solution.  Texas Sen. Kay Hutchison echoed this view in a conference call Friday. She estimated that about 80 percent of the Senate still wants a comprehensive bill.  So those who think Congress is in the mood to pass a security- only bill and go home misread the situation. They are daydreaming - or talking only to people like themselves.  Second, don't believe last year's vote.  Yes, Congress approved a border fence last year. Go-slow advocates among conservatives think that proves Washington could just build the fence now and deal with the other stuff later.  Nice try, but that vote was misleading. The fence bill was approved only after it became clear that a Republican-led House wouldn't negotiate a final immigration bill - and Republicans needed a campaign issue.  What's more, reluctant supporters favored a fence because they knew Washington would get back to immigration after the November election. President Bush said as much when he signed the bill. The fence was never part of a go-slow approach.  Third, go-slow doesn't solve the problem.  Not until Congress also passes a temporary worker program, one that turns illegal workers into legal ones, will illegal immigration subside. Without a legalization program, immigrants will come through, around or over a fence to get a good-paying job. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and border politicians from both parties have said this so often they must be sick of hearing themselves.  There's fallacious reasoning in the wall/security-only approach, too. Advocates demand a secure border before moving to a guest- worker program or some other part of the puzzle. But there's no way we can secure the border without legalizing the flow of workers.  Fourth, go-slow replays the early civil rights debate.  If history is an indication, the go-slow movement will never get America to the promised land. Look at the civil rights debate.  Even moderates like President Dwight Eisenhower only wanted to take it so far. (Texan Kasey Pipes captures this history in Ike's Final Battle, his book describing the 1957 Little Rock desegregation crisis.) Worse were Southern pols like Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus, who insisted the unrest over civil rights must simmer down before they would desegregate the schools.  The problem is, Faubus' crowd never intended to give black children a chance to attend school with white children. Not until Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Johnson forced the issue did anything change.  THE SAME phenomenon could be at play in the immigration debate. Go-slowers want the border secured before they will consider dealing with the 12 million illegal immigrants living here and the 400,000 coming over each year. To them, it's a matter of trust because, short of that, they doubt the border ever will be tightened up.  But you can't blame people on the other side of this debate, including the illegal immigrants working their tails off to better their families' lives, from being skeptical that a guest-worker program and a shot at citizenship ever will arrive. Not if history is a guide.  The unpleasant truth is, we won't solve this problem without completely knocking down the old ways of doing business. That was true in the 1960s, and it is true today.  (Editor's note: The writer is an editorial columnist for The Dallas Morning News.)  McClatchy-Tribune Information Services "
"4","Get back to work; Immigration reform deserves another chance in Senate CLTO000020070618e36i0000q Asection EDITORIALS 461 Words 18 June 2007 Charlotte Observer (NC) 1st 10A English Copyright 2007 The Charlotte Observer. All rights reserved.  Today, tens of thousands of workers in North and South Carolina will go to work at jobs they hold illegally. The work they do, in many cases, is hard, tedious or dangerous -- yet essential to the employers and communities that depend on it.  Members of the U.S. Senate will return to work today, too, to face this mandate: Bring an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws back to the Senate floor -- one that secures borders, provides an adequate number of guest workers and offers immigrants here illegally a path to citizenship if they meet certain conditions.  That's a tall order. The Senate has been in this spot before. There is scant consensus. Yet every day that Washington fails to act, the problem of illegal immigration grows worse.  Late last week bipartisan negotiators whittled down hundreds of amendments to a controversial immigration reform bill to a package of 11 amendments from Republicans and another 11 from Democrats. Senate leaders say the legislation has enough votes to get it back to the floor and push it to a final vote.  The details of the amendments are not set. But the bill would link new border controls and a crackdown on employers who hire illegal immigrants with provisions to grant legal status to some of the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country. It would also provide resources to clear the backlog of hundreds of thousands of immigration applications and shift the emphasis of future immigration from family ties to job skills and higher education levels.  This legislation is a step, not a solution. Yet the issue deserves more than the abrupt end it met June 7 when it was yanked from the floor.  For starters, the bill addresses the forecast of a critical worker shortage in the United States created by low employment in the United States and the retirement of 77 million baby boomers.  It also acknowledges it's impractical to deport some 12 million illegal immigrants or to create a class of permanent residents who have no responsibilities or rights.  The latest version also gives people confidence borders will be secured, thanks to a crucial amendment offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. His proposal would immediately devote $4.4 billion in fees raised by the legislation to border surveillance and workplace checks.  The Carolinas' three other senators -- Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., ought to show similar leadership. So far, each prefers rhetoric about granting ""amnesty"" -- a misnomer -- to reasonable compromise on a critical issue.  This bill is a solid start on a complex issue. It deserves another chance. "
"4","Back in the saddle CINP000020070619e36i00008 323 Words 18 June 2007 The Cincinnati Post Cincinnati A.10 English � 2007 Cincinnati Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  President Bush won a much-needed victory in the Senate this past week.  After the immigration reform bill was pulled from the floor and given up for dead when supporters couldn't break a filibuster, the controversial measure has been resurrected. Senate leaders promise a vote before the July Fourth recess and perhaps as early as this week.  Democratic and Republican Senate leaders and the White House say they are confident they have the votes to end any more filibusters and pass the bill.  Bush, with the advantage of compliant Congresses for most of his presidency, has generally kept aloof from the hands-on work of passing legislation, but he returned from the G-8 Summit in Europe and went right to work, visiting the GOP caucus's weekly luncheon for the first time since 2001.  In the Senate, the key was an agreement between the leadership and the bipartisan negotiators to limit the number of proposed amendments to 11 each from the Democrats and the Republicans. That removed the threat of killing the bill by endless amendments, and reportedly there were hundreds pending.  The White House, in turn, agreed to advance $4.4 billion for enhanced border security from general funds, the money to be recouped from the fees contained in the reform bill. That placated senators who believe the border should be secured before any further immigration reforms are acted on.  Having Bush, GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell and Whip Trent Lott backing the compromise gives political cover to wavering Republicans who, in Lott's words, ""are being pounded by these talk- radio people who don't even know what's in the bill.""  Regardless of how one feels about the actual measure, this is how the legislative process should work. Everybody has had a say and now it's time to get to work. The adversarial process is not the same as endless bickering. Editorial"
"4","SAVE IMMIGRATION BILL, IF IT'S STILL WORTH SAVING PMBP000020070620e36i0003c OPINION 396 Words 18 June 2007 The Palm Beach Post FINAL 10A English Copyright 2007. The Palm Beach Post, All Rights Reserved.  Seeking votes for his nearly doomed immigration reforms, President Bush went up to Capitol Hill last Tuesday to drop in on the weekly policy luncheon held by Republican senators. The many Republicans who rail against ""amnesty for illegals"" continued to treat his ideas as if they'd just swum across the Rio Grande.  Which two days later set up the strange spectacle of Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., for once looking more like a friend to the president than staunch Republicans such as Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sen. Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., unexpectedly announced that the Senate would take up the immigration bill, probably before the July 4 recess.  The bill's survival is a good thing, though it's an open question whether any bill that can survive the upcoming frenzy of amendments still would be a good enough bill to deserve continued support from the coalition of business interests and immigrant advocates that pushed reform this far. The Senate already did considerable damage by amending the bill to terminate a central provision -- a guest worker program -- after just five years. That timeline ruins the certainty both businesses and prospective workers need.  The biggest danger is that GOP senators will load up the bill with unworkable requirements -- such as an amendment that would force workers living illegally in America to leave the country and return legally. That would perpetuate the underground system we've got now.  The only way to bring the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants into the light -- which is crucial for security and for ensuring a fair economic system -- is to give them a path to legal status. That should include fines, payment of taxes due and a requirement to learn English. Making them all go home and come back is as impractical as the call to deport them all. Most polls show that a majority of Americans support such a policy.  After the luncheon, President Bush promised to add more than $4 billion to improve enforcement and border security. He didn't provide enough details to tell whether the idea makes fiscal or practical sense. It obviously makes political sense for the president trying to give immigration hardliners in his own party some cover if they decide to jump over to his side of the fence."
"5"," PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE / Bordering on futility SFC0000020070618e36i0000m EDITORIAL CALIFORNIA CULTURES Louis Freedberg 771 Words 18 June 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL D.4 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  FORGET ABOUT trying to control mass movements of people from a committee room in Washington.  Movements of people are among the most ineluctable forces on the planet.Trying to control mass migration by coming up with legislation based on a zillion political compromises may be the most futile of efforts.  But that's exactly what's happening.  In South Africa, where I grew up, I watched as the hopelessly ineffective ""pass law"" system set up by the white minority regime tried unsuccessfully to control the flow of blacks into white areas.  Hundreds of thousands of South African citizens were harassed, hounded, arrested, jailed and deported to parts of the country that had been designated ""independent"" black ""homelands.""  Yet the flow of blacks to urban areas continued -- because the lure of jobs or earning even a few cents each day in the townships overrode the absolute lack of economic prospects in the rural areas.  By the end of the 1980s, there were some 12 million black South Africans living in legally designated ""white areas"" under insane laws such as the Group Areas Act.  Arguably, it was the failure of the regime to stop the movement of people into ""white"" areas that showed the hopelessness of trying to enforce racial segregation -- and helped convince the white minority leaders to release Nelson Mandela and negotiate the end of apartheid.  Later, I spent time reporting on the Mozambique-South Africa border, where the regime had erected an elaborate electrified fence, along the edge of Kruger National Park, to keep out illegal immigrants. Border agents would regularly find the corpses of migrants mauled by lions as they tried to cross through the park. Yet, despite these obvious dangers, immigrants managed get past hungry lions and over the fence into South Africa.  If the heavy hand of a police state, an electrified fence and marauding lions couldn't stop the flow of people, the notion that the United States can control the movements of people around the globe -- people pushed from their homes by wars and famines, and pulled by the desire to thrive economically -- by passing incoherent legislation patched together in Washington seems ridiculous.  The bill being discussed in the Senate isn't based on a well- thought out vision of immigration patterns. Rather it is a cobbled- together abomination, based on political horse-trading of the crassest kind.  On one side are those who fantasize that millions of immigrants can somehow be forced to return to their home countries -- and that border controls will be able to keep them out.  On the other side are those who believe that it is almost impossible to stop people moving -- especially across common borders -- and the best way to do handle the flow is to try to manage it.  Driving the process is the need to satisfy completely different political agendas. It's no wonder that every time ""landmark"" immigration legislation emerges from Washington, it ends up having consequences exactly the opposite of what Congress intended.  Here's just one example: The tightening of controls on the border began in the 1990s, and it was suppose supposed to deter illegal immigration. But the border controls had just the opposite effect. Immigrants, who in the past might have gone home, chose to stay in the United States because of the costs and dangers of crossing the border on their return.  And rather than returning to their home countries to be with their families, they helped smuggle their families to be with them in the United States -- illegally. Border controls actually added to the illegal immigrant population rather than diminished it.  That explains, in part, why there are now an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States -- compared to the 3 million or so before the border measures were instituted.  So what is President Bush now proposing? To spend another $4.4 billion on a failed border fortification policy as an inducement to get the anti-legalization crowd back to the negotiating table in Washington.  The only way to seal our borders would be to build a 2,000-mile concrete Berlin Wall, defended by armed guards ready to shoot. Not even the most rabid anti-immigrationist has suggested that.  As a reporter, I've sat on the border watching illegal immigrants plot their strategies to cross, in full view of Border Patrol agents. I've climbed over -- and under -- the steel border fence built to keep them out.  Somehow they find a way. Freedberg is a Chronicle editorial writer. E-mail him at lfreedberg@sfchronicle.com."
"4","Long waits, onerous rules invite immigrants to break law USAT000020070618e36i0002v NEWS DEBATE 660 Words 18 June 2007 USA Today FINAL A.10 English � 2007 USA Today. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  In 1989, Mohamad Abdo and his family, living in Lebanon, took their first step toward a dream of living in the USA. A relative, already here, petitioned for the family to join him.  Then they all waited. And waited and waited.  First came the inevitable delay caused by quotas that limit family immigration. Ten years passed before they even got permission to apply for visas.  Then the real frustrations started. For the next four years, they lived a paperwork nightmare as their application bounced around the immigration bureaucracy. In 2003, the Abdos finally were told they could come to the USA as permanent residents, with just one catch: Their eldest son, Raed, who was 8 years old when the process began, would have to stay behind. Because he had just turned 21, he no longer qualified to immigrate with them as a minor.  Welcome to the legal immigration system -- a Byzantine world of bureaucratic bungling and unconscionable waits for those who try to play by the rules.  Unless you have a relative here, or a job waiting for you, or you're granted political asylum, there's virtually no legal way in. And if you do have a connection, you'll probably wait for a long, long time. Some people have stood on line for more than 20 years.  Small wonder so many people just skip the process and enter the country illegally, or come here on temporary visas and then stay. For all the screaming about illegal immigration, now focused on a bill in the U.S. Senate, the truth is that legal immigration is so difficult that it gives normally law-abiding people potent incentives to cheat. No immigration reform will work unless that changes.  Of those who choose the legal route, by far the largest group is people such as the Abdos, who have relatives here. At the moment, the waiting list is more than 4 million people long, allocated by country.  The Senate compromise attempts to deal with this by promising to clear the backlog within eight years. Until then, no green cards would be given to people now here illegally.  That's not entirely fair. It's still a long wait, and in the interim, immigrants here illegally could get safe harbor while those seeking legal entry wait outside. But it's at least a start. The 12 million people here illegally aren't going to be rounded up and deported in any case.  The Senate could do better, though. The bill fails to address the nonsensical age-21 glitch leaving Abdo and his family in Memphis and his now-adult son in war-torn Lebanon.  More broadly, it does nothing to help legal residents bring their children and spouses here more quickly, which is heartless. Nuclear families should be able to stay together.  An even larger question is whether the glacial immigration system is capable of trimming the backlog. The money is supposed to come later.  As Congress tries to fix the immigration mess, it needs to remember that any system of legal immigration as onerous and time- consuming as the current one is doomed to undermine respect for the law and encourage even greater levels of illegal immigration. And that people such as the Abdos, who've followed the rules, deserve fair treatment and an opportunity to realize their dreams.  ---  This is the fourth in an occasional series of editorials about this year's immigration debate. View the previous editorials at blogs.usatoday.com/oped/immigration_editorial.  TEXT OF INFO BOX BEGINS HERE  Languishing in lines  Depending on their origin, spouses and minor children of legal U.S. residents, eligible this month for visas to become legal residents, have waited:  *Mexico -- six years.  *Other -- five years.  Siblings of U.S. citizens, eligible this month, have waited:  *Philippines -- 22 years.  *Mexico -- 13 years.  *Other -- 11 years.  Source: State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs"
"4","Kansas editorials APRS000020070619e36j00ffp By The Associated Press 1627 Words 19 June 2007 20:37 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Kansas newspapers:  ------  June 18  The Wichita Eagle, on state teacher shortage:  Kansas' teacher shortage is becoming more than a problem -- in many districts, it's a full-blown crisis that is undermining our children's education.  The Kansas State Board of Education's approval last week of more flexible teacher licensure requirements is admittedly a less-than-desirable stopgap measure.  But in a crisis, a stopgap is sometimes needed.  Long term, though, what's needed is a more aggressive, comprehensive strategy of recruitment and retention.  Kansas' teacher licensing standards have prohibited teachers certified to teach biology at the secondary level. ...  In an ideal world, that's how it should be.  But the teacher situation in Kansas is far from ideal. ...  Under the revised rules, science teachers could teach outside their certification if they passed the competency exam in that subject, and any teacher could add other endorsement by taking 50 percent of the course work and passing the test.  There are valid worries about going down this path. ...  But granting districts some flexibility to meet the teacher crisis appears necessary in the near term. ...  It was reassuring that a wide range of stakeholders, from school superintendents to department staff to teacher representatives, testified to the board that the changes wouldn't damage the quality of instruction.  To further that end, Kansas must put more effort into attracting a larger pool of talented teachers and bringing down the high rate of new teachers dropping out.  It also should do more to offer credible paths of alternative certification for mid-life career changers.  Board member Carol Rupe of Wichita called the changes the ""first step"" in removing barriers that have kept districts from having good teachers.  It is just that -- a first step. And if there's no follow-up, the problems will persist.  ------  June 18  The Hutchinson News, on migrant workers:  Kansas farmers witness the problem firsthand.  A bipartisan group of U.S. senators, who have joined forces with President Bush, want to solve the problem.  The problem? Migrant farm workers who face increasing threats of deportation.  Migrants, both documented and undocumented, form the backbone of the farm labor work force in southwest Kansas and other parts of the country.  In southwest Kansas they work at feedlots, meatpacking plants, dairies and large-scale farms. ...  But stepped-up efforts in recent years and national fury over the number of illegal immigrants in the United States -- recently estimated at 12 million -- has unsteadied a previously steady work force of farm laborers.  Though some shortsighted Americans still hold unrealistic expectations of deporting 12 million people, many others -- including Kansas farmers -- believe there are better solutions. ...  Some solutions are wrapped in a controversial immigration bill that recently died and then was resurrected in the U.S. Senate.  The bill's supporters include the American Farm Bureau, which is pushing a plan that allows growers to employ workers from a pool of 900,000 farm workers who lack proper documentation.  Farmers, like other employers, prefer a documented work force. But that takes time. ...  The issue of migrant labor is just one thread that has weaved itself into the fabric of this country's immigration problems.  But it is a thread that leads directly to the Kansas farm economy.  That alone demands realistic solutions from state and national leaders -- not mass deportations -- to shore up the backbone of this state's farm labor work force.  ------  June 15  The Ottawa Herald, on Kansans reacting to Greensburg tornado:  Kansans have done a good job of reaching out to help their neighbors in tornado-ravaged Greensburg.  So much money has been donated to the American Red Cross ... that the organization said the public can quit sending money.  People, clearly, are still in need though.  Fortunately Kansans, as with the traditional barn-raising events, are accustomed to looking after their own.  A neighboring bank that is familiar with Greensburg residents and those who need help the most still is accepting donations to go directly to those who didn't have insurance or other means to recover and recuperate from the tragedy.  Schools, governmental entities, organizations, businesses, churches and others raised money, sent personnel, donated equipment and went to Greensburg to help residents with their recovery efforts.  The president, governor, emergency preparedness leaders and so many others went on site to help with the clean up effort. ...  Tornado victims with insurance will bounce back quicker than those without.  Individuals without insurance may feel as though they have nowhere to turn, but that isn't the case.  A group is being formed to distribute funds to those who may fall through the gaps. ...  Recovery will take years to complete.  Most assuredly, Kansans' traditional support for each other during good times and bad won't wane.  ----  June 15  Lawrence Journal-World, on nominations for Kansas Board of Regents:  Congratulations to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on her nominations for the Kansas Board of Regents.  It appears the governor is intent on following through on her recent observation that she had not given sufficient attention to higher education in Kansas.  Based on the biographies of those she has nominated to this critically important body, the governor is expecting the Board of Regents to take a closer and more critical look at the state's six universities, 19 community colleges and five vocational-technical schools. ...  State legislators are likely to have much greater respect and acceptance of the board's recommendations concerning state funding if those serving as regents merit lawmakers' respect.  Unfortunately, during the past several years, the regents have not distinguished themselves in terms of their oversight of the higher education system.  It is doubtful that any current chancellor or president has really had any reason to worry about whether the regents were monitoring his or her performance or might ask for a certain chancellor or president to step aside. ...  The image of the Board of Regents has slipped significantly in recent years.  Too many were appointed because of their previous political help to a governor (financial or otherwise) or for other personal reasons. ...  Sebelius' nominations for the Board of Regents are a promising first step, and it is hoped she will continue to demand better performance from the state universities and those who lead those schools.  If she can sustain her current level of interest and concern, she will leave the state's system of higher education far stronger than it was when she took office in 2003.  ----  June 14  The Topeka Capital-Journal, on automated phone calls:  After the bruising run-up to the 2006 election, the last thing we wanted was more political robocalling.  Thanks loads, then, to the National Republican Congressional Committee for giving us just that.  Or, to remove any trace of sarcasm, inflicting it on us.  The NRCC recently began making robocalls -- slang for automated phone calls -- as part of an attack campaign against Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kan. ...  ... We think most Kansans would agree that the robocalling needs to go -- at least for now.  Listen, we knew Republicans would go after Boyda to reclaim the seat she won from former Rep. Jim Ryun.  That's fine. But after last fall's bitter election campaigns, we thought we deserved a break from fierce campaigning.  The mudslinging and name-calling between Boyda and Ryun, as well as Kansas attorney general candidates Paul Morrison and Phill Kline, prompted some observers to rate the overall campaign season as the nastiest in state history. ...  But now, even though our calendars show it will be 17 months before the 2008 congressional elections, the rhetoric already is rising. ...  Fortunately for voters, there has been some movement to rein in the invasive practice of robocalling.  Federal law already requires the sponsors of automated calls for congressional elections to be identified at the start of the call, and a state law will go into effect on July 1 to establish the same requirement for elections in Kansas.  The next step would be to make the no-call registry apply to political campaigning. ...  ----  June 9  The Garden City Telegram, on Kansas Democrats:  Local Democrats are riding their party's wave of success.  In a region that's heavily Republican, the opening of a new Democratic Party office in Garden City has generated enthusiasm among those in the minority party.  The party's new office ... opened recently amid optimism from local Democrats who look to make gains in a strong GOP area and state.  Kansas Democratic Party representatives know it won't be easy. ...  Democrats snatched control of Congress in the last election, and President Bush continues to fade in popularity.  In Kansas, the division between GOP social conservatives and moderates has helped the Democratic Party make inroads.  A number of Kansas Republicans recently defected with success -- Attorney General Paul Morrison and Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson are among former Republicans who became Democrats.  In looking to the future, goals of the local Democratic Party office include at least 1,500 new registered voters in the run-up to the 2008 election, and getting Democrats to the polls.  Another goal has to be recruiting more candidates to challenge Republicans and give western Kansas voters a choice.  That said, whether the Democratic Party can loosen the GOP grip in the region remains to be seen.  The Democrats' efforts should at least shake things up in an area that promises to remain solidly Republican, but would benefit from a mix of candidates and viewpoints from both parties that would raise the level of discourse on issues, to the benefit of all.  Debate among office holders and those they represent is essential and healthy. ...  Democrats and Republicans alike should at least be able to agree on that. 7"
"4","Recent editorials from New Jersey newspapers APRS000020070619e36j00gxo 1499 Words 19 June 2007 22:42 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Sunday's Star-Ledger of Newark on the Mideast:  In Iraq, Lebanon and now in the Gaza Strip, what is unfolding is a case study in what happens to states, or nonstates, with weak governments: They fall prey to opportunistic players. The key player here is Iran, which supports insurgents in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank and especially Gaza.  What's demoralizing is the degree to which the United States has aggravated tensions in the Middle East rather than dissipated them. The invasion of Iraq not only has created a huge weak state but also has weakened the ability of the United States to project power, giving Iran an unchecked path to regional dominance and a free pass on its nuclear weapons aspirations.  Certainly the chaos throughout the region can be seen as the complete failure of the administration's ambitious plan to transform the region into a seedbed of tolerance and democracy. The region has indeed been transformed -- into a bloody battle between secularists and Islamists, between religious groups, between ethnicities. And Iran has been the chief beneficiary.  Had the White House followed the invasion of Iraq with a sound day-after plan and had it remained engaged with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- had it used tools of diplomacy as vigorously as the tools of war -- perhaps its muscular intervention in the region would have shaken it up in the way intended.  Instead, it has helped create a failed state in Iraq and anarchy in Gaza, has emboldened radical Islamists and has strengthened the arguments of those who say that a region as chaotic as the Middle East needs strongmen, not democracy.  Hamas' ability to squash Fatah in Gaza last week had everything to do with the fact that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah have been seen as ineffective. In fact, they have been. This is partly because of long-standing corruption and ineptitude in the Palestinian Authority, but it's also partly because the United States -- and Israel -- failed to give Abbas the support he needed at several crucial points.  The first point was after the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. At that time, the World Bank warned that unless Gaza be came economically viable, it would collapse. The second point was after Hamas' win in last year's election, when the United States and other countries cut off aid and didn't balk when Israel began withholding revenues from the Palestinian Authority. Gaza then spiraled downhill.  Many fear that the Palestinian Authority no longer has the power to negotiate as the representative voice of Palestinians and that any peace process is remoter than ever. Chalk it up to another entry in the ""how not to do foreign policy"" book that's the White House's work in progress.  ------  On the Net: http://www.nj.com  Sunday's Herald News of West Paterson on renewed enthusiasm for an immigration reform bill:  Late last week, following a visit to Capitol Hill by President Bush, there was renewed enthusiasm for an Immigration Reform bill that had been abandoned by Senate leaders a couple of weeks back. Now, if you believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the comprehensive legislation may yet be revived and adopted by the Fourth of July break.  This would be welcome news on many fronts, and in many parts of this nation where the failure of leaders in Washington to lead on immigration has left a vacuum to be filled, sometimes with reason, sometimes by overworked and ill-trained local law enforcement officers, and too often, by the poisoned language of xenophobia.  It is long past time for this Congress to get serious about the issue, to bring unity and sanity to the debate on how to deal with roughly 12 million undocumented immigrants already in this country, and how to correctly process those millions more who now seek to enter it.  The problem is felt acutely in New Jersey, where estimates place the number of unregistered immigrants at between 400,000 and 500,000.  Look around most anywhere and we find them. We hire them to clip our hedges and to paint our homes. And, as a lawsuit involving two Dunkin' Donuts franchises in the state clearly shows, we allow them to pour our morning coffee. If the Dunkin' Donuts case -- in which the stores are accused of failing to screen immigrants for proper work documents -- illuminates anything, it is to show just how deeply the undocumented population has become entwined in the fabric of daily American life.  Let's face it, 12 million undocumented immigrants didn't show up in this country while no one was looking. They came because they were welcomed, even enticed to come here, by U.S. companies big and small, by general contractors, produce pickers, poultry processors and yes, even the folks who run the deli around the corner. All were offering jobs, often at steeply depressed wages, but still better jobs and better opportunity than these immigrants might find back in Mexico or Guatemala or Nicaragua.  One of the better planks of the current immigration bill is that it would require all U.S. companies, through the Department of Homeland Security, to do a much better job of verifying immigration status of potential employees. This part won't work, however, unless everyone plays by the same rules, unless everyone obeys the same set of laws.  Otherwise we'll have more of the same, confusion and unfruitful rhetoric and a hodgepodge of legal wrangling with no clearly defined precedent.  The current bill, imperfect as it might be, would remedy much of that. It includes a guest-worker program, a means to legalize millions of immigrants who have lived here longest, and a point system for status based on job skills and education.  Like almost all worthwhile legislation that makes it through Congress, there are flaws. It could require, for instance, tougher border security. It should seek to afford a reasonable transition to regulation for small businesses that have all these years been allowed, with a wink and a nod, to employ the undocumented.  It is time at last to act, before the political window closes, time to engage in thoughtful, substantive debate.  Members of Congress most often legislate with constituents in mind. Sometimes, however, they need to be statesmanlike, to act in the interest of the nation at-large. This is one of those times.  President Bush has stood up on this one, in the face of opposition from his own party. He has done so because he realizes immigration reform is an issue of vital importance for national security, for economic stability, both now and into the future.  He knows also that the longer it lingers, the longer it hangs in the wind to be thrashed about on talk radio and in blogland, the more complicated and divisive it will become.  This country does not need any more of that. It cannot afford it.  ------  On the Net: http://www.northjersey.com  Tuesday's Asbury Park Press of Neptune on the settlement of a lawsuit filed by editors of Ocean County College's student newspaper:  Ocean County College has settled a lawsuit filed by editors of the student newspaper in 2005 against President Jon H. Larson's administration alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. The most important part of the settlement is the promise the community college will not practice prior restraint -- censorship -- of the newspaper.  The silver lining in this dark cloud the past two years is that OCC unwittingly taught Viking News former staff members Scott Coppola, Alberto D. Morales and Douglas Rush and their peers more about fundamental principles of law and journalism than other students learn in theory. The Student Press Law Center and other professional organizations provided them invaluable tools, too.  The settlement reads: ""Ocean County College supports the free speech rights of students and employees and a student press free from prior review, prior restraint, or censorship as well as recognizes all student media as limited public forums. ... Ocean County College encourages its student journalists to be independent thinkers, and it encourages all members of the college community to express their views.""  The settlement also permanently reinstates newswriting professor and Viking News adviser Karen Bosley, whose reassignment in 2005 was temporarily stayed by a judge last summer. The Viking News' success during her 36-year tenure, including more than 40 awards since 1998, and the astounding support of professional organizations attest to the outstanding job she has done with student journalists.  Bosley knew the difficulties of trying to teach journalism in a climate where respect for the fundamental principles of journalism in America weren't valued. ""There are a lot of students in this country that don't understand the rights and responsibilities of the free press,"" Bosley said. Now, OCC students know it well.  ------  On the Net: http://www.app.com 7"
"5","Why they push immigration reform AGCR000020070620e36j0000w EDITORIAL 315 Words 19 June 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Why are some elected officials pushing so hard for immigration reform with a U.S. Senate bill written in secrecy? What is behind the sudden urgency?  One reason to do something with secrecy and urgency is to complete it before anyone discovers the dangers, scams, etc. There is a simple reason the insiders (controllers of the private, New York-based Council on Foreign Relations) are pushing so hard for a new immigration reform bill: It is to saddle our nation with a complex monstrosity of immigration laws that cannot be administered or enforced. They want to make sure our borders are never secured.  The insiders want open borders because it is a necessary piece of their grand plan to merge the United States, Mexico and Canada into a North American Union, a key step to merge North and South America into an American union similar to the European Union. Another piece of this grand plan for the NAU is the Security and Prosperity Partnership, and the NAFTA Superhighway which would run from Lazaro Cardenas on Mexico's west coast to Canada with branches throughout the United States.  The CFR Insiders has its members (e.g., Sens. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and John McCain and Vice President Dick Cheney) to support CFR goals. These members influence nonmembers (e.g., Sen. Lindsey Graham) to also support its goals. Dr. Robert Pastor, architect of the SPP, referred to his plan as ""Building a North American Community"" in testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2005. Pastor is a veteran activist with the Institute for Policy Studies, which is a Marxist nerve center historically tied to the Russian KGB and Cuban DGI.  Until our borders are secured - which can be done with current laws - do not accept their promises and snake oil.  Elton T. Booth  North Augusta, S.C."
"5","They're listening Now President Bush needs to listen to the people about immigration reform AGCR000020070620e36j0000r EDITORIAL 435 Words 19 June 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English � 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  ""Words are inadequate to express my outrage and disgust over this betrayal of our country.""  - Hubert Baker  Letter to the editor, June 5, 2007  Hubert Baker, as it turns out, spoke for a lot of people.  And some powerful people have been listening.  Initially, Georgia's two U.S. senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, were so torqued about the immigration reform bill that they co-authored a guest column that ran on these pages May 27 touting its potential.  By June 8, Chambliss and Isakson were against proceeding to a vote on the bill.  And now, they've sent a letter to the president imploring him to simply secure the border first.  People such as Hubert Baker, of Aiken, S.C., must have gotten their attention.  Baker's passionate letter capsulizes the anger many Americans feel toward the Senate immigration bill and its ""path to citizenship"" for 12 to 20 million illegal aliens.  ""President Bush and a cabal of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are crafting legislation granting the invading horde amnesty, welcoming their families in as well - the total approaching 40 million to 60 million,"" Baker wrote - adding that senators favoring the bill ""apparently are selling their souls to business for the potage of cheap labor.""  Apparently Chambliss and Isakson are not among them.  In their letter to President Bush, the senators say Georgians have made it clear to them that Americans simply do not trust the federal government to secure the border - unless that is the first thing that happens.  That lack of trust is well-founded, owing to the government's failure to abide by its promise to secure the borders way back in 1986.  And the current bill? It would reduce the length of the proposed 700-mile border fence.  ""Understandably, the lack of credibility the federal government has on this issue gives merit to the skepticism of many about future immigration reform,"" the two senators wrote Bush.  The president ""could alleviate many of the fears of our constituents by calling for an emergency supplemental bill to fully fund the border and interior security initiatives"" at the government's disposal, they said. ""Such a move would show your commitment to securing the border first and to stopping the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into our nation. It will also work toward restoring the credibility of the federal government on this critical issue.""  Sens. Chambliss and Isakson have listened to the people.  Now it's time for the president to listen to them."
"4","Editorial ; Without action, nightmare goes on BHLD000020070620e36j00014 EDITORIAL 282 Words 19 June 2007 Boston Herald All Editions 22 English � 2007 Boston Herald Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  At the risk of extreme understatement, this immigration reform stuff is tricky business. But in remarks to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce yesterday Sen. Ted Kennedy drilled down to one of the most compelling reasons for rejecting the status quo and reviving the bipartisan Senate bill that seeks to overhaul the current system:  National security.  ""Just look what has happened with Great Britain, with the isolated communities,"" Kennedy said. ""Look what has happened in France. Look what has happened in Germany. Look where the cells are in terms of al-Qaeda. They're all with different communities, which have failed to assimilate individuals.""  True, the focus of the rabid reform opponents HAS been on securing our borders, and with good reason. President Bush, in fact, is hoping his pledge of $4.4 billion for stepped-up border enforcement will convince members of his own party to compromise on the broader bill.  But we keep coming back to the impossibility of deporting the 12 million or so illegal immigrants already living WITHIN those borders.  ""When you have 400,000 people that are crossing the border every year and you don't know who they are, and you have 12.5 million in this country and we don't know exactly who they are . . . that is a national security issue,"" Kennedy said. ""It is a national security problem.""  Doing nothing, as Sen. John McCain rightly insists, is de facto amnesty. And as Kennedy noted yesterday, a marginalized immigrant population is a breeding ground for homegrown terrorists.  That's not a chance any member of the Senate - nor any one of us - should be willing to take."
"1","Americans divided over Democrats CGAZ000020070621e36j00054 792 Words 19 June 2007 Charleston Gazette P4A English (Copyright 2007)  THERE'S the brand, and then there's the product. At the moment, the Democratic brand is pretty good while the Republican brand is badly scarred. But when it comes to product, Democrats still have a lot of development work to do. As they toil away, Republicans will be working just as hard to soil the Democratic name.  It's been clear for months that large majorities of Americans have given up on the Republicans. They've turned decisively against President Bush and, in principle, want him replaced in 2008 by a Democrat.  But there's a major gap between the desired outcome and the will to bring it about. The electorate is more pro-Democratic in theory than in practice. And Democratic congressional leaders will have a hellish time changing that, given their narrow margins and President Bush's possession of a veto pen.  Do not envy House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid their supposed power. It would be easier to manage Bush's former baseball team, the Texas Rangers (26 wins, 43 losses as of Tuesday morning). Expectations for the Rangers are a lot lower.  Expectations are part of the Democrats' problem. Over the last month or so, congressional Democrats have hemorrhaged support from both ends of the electoral coalition that backed them last November. And both ends had high hopes.  Democrats won in 2006 because they mobilized their large and angry base in opposition to President Bush and the Iraq War - and because they won over moderates and independents. These voters were frustrated by Bush's performance, unhappy with their economic circumstances, and angry at the corruption in the last Republican Congress.  Managing this coalition was never going to be easy, and it hasn't been. Anti-war Democrats are upset that Congress can't simply end American engagement in Iraq and want Democrats to push their power to the limit.  Middle-of-the-road voters who backed the Democrats don't much like the war, but they also looked to the party of Reid and Pelosi to get things done on political reform, health care, energy, the environment and the economy. Yet the ways of Congress are slow, especially when Republicans have no interest in Democratic success, and when President Bush - with the exception of an immigration bill - mostly opposes what Democrats would put on his desk. The Democrats can brag about a minimum wage increase. They also passed budget measures on time, a real achievement, but not one that most voters notice.  As a result, a large divide has opened up between attitudes toward the Democratic Party in general and Congress in particular. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken June 8-11 found that 42 percent of voters had a positive view of the Democratic Party and 35 percent a negative view. For Republicans, the numbers were 28 percent positive, 49 percent negative. The old Whigs might do better.  But only 23 percent of Americans approved of Congress' job performance, down 8 points from April; 64 percent disapproved.  Such numbers have brought forth a torrent of memos from Democrats who know they need to use the summer to make progress on the domestic front before the expected donnybrook over Iraq this fall.  The immigration bill is not particularly helpful to Democrats since it is consuming the limited media attention that comes Congress' way - and since immigration reform was not part of the Democrats' core 2006 promises. Here, the interest of congressional Democrats may collide with Bush's, since immigration is his main domestic priority. Democrats need visible action on other fronts.  The Democrats' worries about the presidential race are less immediate. But it's striking that while the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed the public preferring a Democrat to a Republican for president in 2008 by a margin of 52-31 when no specific candidates were listed, public polls have shown much smaller leads - or occasionally, even small deficits - for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when they were matched individually against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. Although Clinton, Obama and John Edwards still do well against lesser-known Republican presidential candidates, the performance gap troubles many in the party.  Given how tarnished the Republican brand is, the GOP's best strategy is to bring Democrats down with them into the murky depths of public disapproval. This might build support for a third-party candidate in 2008 - which could help Republicans win by splitting the anti-Bush, anti-system vote. It's still early, but not too early for Democrats to worry about this prospect and to brace themselves for some ugly politics for the rest of the year.  Dionne is a columnist for The Washington Post."
"4","EDITORIAL; Action or more 'disaster' LVL0000020070620e36j0001n A; Forum 410 Words 19 June 2007 The Courier-Journal Louisville, KY METRO 8 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Courier-Journal. All Rights Reserved.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says he doesn't know whether the recently revived immigration reform bill will pass.  ""It's a mixed picture,"" he said Sunday on ""Face the Nation."" ""There are good things in the bill, and not so good things in the bill.""  No kidding.  In an issue as complex and emotional as immigration, no legislative overhaul is going to please everybody. And, indeed, it will be hard to find anyone who is happy about everything in the measure.  But in their dismay about one provision or another, many of Sen. McConnell's colleagues seem to have lost sight of a key consideration:  Congressional inaction would perpetuate the current system, which Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona rightly terms ""a disaster.""  Gov. Napolitano, a Democrat, is no wobbly-kneed liberal out of touch with coarse realities. She supervised prosecution of more than 6,000 immigration felonies as a U.S. attorney, declared a state of emergency on Arizona's border with Mexico and asked for help from the National Guard.  But it is precisely that front-line experience, she wrote in The Washington Post, that underlies her understanding that for 20 years the federal government has not enforced the 1986 immigration law against illegal immigrants or against employers who hire them.  She calls it ""silent amnesty,"" and says it will continue without a new approach to deal with immigrants who are already here and with those who want to come.  (Another consideration is that if Congress ducks immigration this year, an issue around which demagogues swarm will land squarely in the 2008 presidential race. And won't that be uplifting?)  Of all the sticking points in the immigration debate, the most contentious remains a phony one: ""amnesty"" (actually, a rigorous path to citizenship) for many of the approximately 12 million undocumented aliens now in the United States.  Ironically, the Senate bill that hard-liners want to block would provide funds for hundreds of miles of fence and thousands of new border patrol agents. But opponents of the bill are willing to forego the boost for tighter borders in a wholly unrealistic dream that millions of illegal immigrants will be expelled.  Whatever else the bill does, good or bad, it recognizes both the need for greater border security and the American economy's requirement of a supply of low-wage workers.  The Senate must not just kick this crisis down the road."
"4","Immigration reform It's now or maybe never, so make it now NDAY000020070619e36j0003l OPINION 340 Words 19 June 2007 Newsday NASSAU AND SUFFOLK A36 English Copyright 2007, Newsday. All Rights Reserved.  If not now, when? Immigration reform survived a near-death experience recently, and proponents will try again this week to move it through the recalcitrant Senate. It won't be easy, but the alternative - letting reform die - would be tragic.  Here's the thing: The choice isn't between some immaculate solution to the illegal immigration problem versus the messy, bipartisan compromise stitched together by the White House and Senate reformers. The choice for the nation is between that imperfect reform and the intolerable status quo.  If Congress can't find a way, right now, to address the problems of porous borders - 12 million people in the country illegally and a growing, exploitable underground workforce - it won't try again anytime soon. The result? More frustrating years saddled with unenforceable laws and millions of additional undocumented immigrants who will run, ride and fly into the country to live and work in the shadows.  President George W. Bush put his bully pulpit to good use last week to keep the wobbly reform effort alive. His agreement to pump another $4.4 billion into border security helped, too. But when the Senate rejoins the debate Thursday, it will have precious little time to find common ground before July 4, its latest self-imposed deadline.  It will have to hack through a thicket of 22 amendments in search of a balance of tighter border security, tougher work-place policing, a realistic path to citizenship, and a pragmatic guest worker program that will fly politically and work effectively on the ground. That means avoiding killer amendments, such as one that would require all undocumented immigrants to leave the United States to apply for permanent residency, while providing no guarantee of permission to return. That's a risk too many illegal immigrants are sure to avoid by simply remaining underground.  Congress has a real opportunity here to enact pragmatic, enforceable immigration laws. But the opportunity is fleeting. It shouldn't be missed."
"1","Dragging Down the Democrats WP00000020070619e36j0002n Editorial E. J. Dionne Jr. 807 Words 19 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A17 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  There's the brand, and then there's the product. At the moment, the Democratic brand is pretty good while the Republican brand is badly scarred. But when it comes to product, Democrats still have a lot of development work to do. As they toil away, Republicans will be working just as hard to soil the Democratic name.  It's been clear for months that large majorities of Americans have given up on the Republicans. They've turned decisively against President Bush and, in principle, want him replaced in 2008 by a Democrat.  But there's a major gap between the desired outcome and the will to bring it about. The electorate is more pro-Democratic in theory than in practice. And Democratic congressional leaders will have a hellish time changing that, given their narrow margins of control and President Bush's possession of a veto pen.  Do not envy House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid their supposed power. It would be easier to manage Bush's former baseball team, the Texas Rangers (26 wins, 43 losses as of this morning). Expectations for the Rangers are a lot lower.  Expectations are part of the Democrats' problem. Over the past month or so, congressional Democrats have hemorrhaged support from both ends of the electoral coalition that backed them last November. And both ends had high hopes.  Democrats won in 2006 because they mobilized their large and angry base in opposition to President Bush and the Iraq war -- and because they won over moderates and independents. These voters were frustrated by Bush's performance, unhappy with their economic circumstances and angry at the corruption in the last Republican Congress.  Managing this coalition was never going to be easy, and it hasn't been. Antiwar Democrats are upset that Congress can't simply end American engagement in Iraq and want Democrats to push their power to the limit.  Middle-of-the-road voters who backed the Democrats don't much like the war, but they also looked to the party of Reid and Pelosi to get things done on political reform, health care, energy, the environment and the economy. Yet the ways of Congress are slow, especially when Republicans have no interest in Democratic success and when President Bush -- with the exception of an immigration bill -- mostly opposes what Democrats would put on his desk. The Democrats can brag about a minimum wage increase. They also passed budget measures on time, a real achievement, but not one that most voters notice.  As a result, a large divide has opened up between attitudes toward the Democratic Party in general and Congress in particular. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll taken June 8-11 found that 42 percent of voters had a positive view of the Democratic Party and 35 percent a negative view. For Republicans, the numbers were 28 percent positive, 49 percent negative. The old Whigs might do better.  But only 23 percent of Americans approved of Congress's job performance, down 8 points from April; 64 percent disapproved in this month's poll.  Such numbers have brought forth a torrent of memos from Democrats who know they need to use the summer to make progress on the domestic front before the expected donnybrook over Iraq this fall.  The immigration bill is not particularly helpful to Democrats, since it is consuming the limited media attention that comes Congress's way -- and since immigration reform was not part of the Democrats' core 2006 promises. Here, the interest of congressional Democrats may collide with Bush's, since immigration is his main domestic priority. Democrats need visible action on other fronts.  The Democrats' worries about the presidential race are less immediate. But it's striking that while the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed the public preferring a Democrat to a Republican for president in 2008 by 52 percent to 31 percent when no specific candidates were listed, public polls have shown much smaller leads -- or occasionally, even small deficits -- for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when they were matched individually against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain . Although Clinton, Obama and John Edwards still do well against lesser-known Republican presidential candidates, the performance gap troubles many in the party.  Given how tarnished the Republican brand is, the GOP's best strategy is to bring Democrats down with them into the murky depths of public disapproval. This might build support for a third-party candidate in 2008 -- which could help Republicans win by splitting the anti-Bush, anti-system vote. It's still early, but not too early for Democrats to worry about this prospect and to brace themselves for some ugly politics for the rest of the year.  postchat@aol.com http://www.washingtonpost.com WP20070619OP-DIONNE19"
"5","Amnesty at all costs WATI000020070619e36j00037 EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 766 Words 19 June 2007 The Washington Times A16 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Thanks to a devil's bargain between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the fancifully named ""comprehensive"" immigration bill will be on the Senate agenda once more. In the bargain, Mr. McConnell traded a limit on the number of amendments for Mr. Reid's placing the bill back on the schedule. Some trade. Some bargain.  In a climate where President Bush has signaled to Democrats that he will sign any immigration bill which crosses his desk, we suppose it makes a perverse political logic to give the amnesty forces a way to shut off debate while giving them one more chance to ram their disastrous bill through the Senate. But in this immigration fantasy land, security never comes first, ""comprehensive"" means a rushed hodgepodge of poorly understood provisions and the flow of illegal aliens will stop as if by magic. In other words, amnesty at all costs. People who favor commonsensical, piecemeal immigration reform have come to learn that neither party is the party of common sense.  Thanks to the ""bargain,"" we're now set for another Washington ""do something"" moment, in which the White House and Congress proffer a cure worse than the disease. Here's a novel idea: Let's demand the senators at least describe the bill accurately. This would mean that senators not only need to know what the bill contains, but also to level with the public about the bill, starting with the most important fact. This bill amounts to a rerun of the 1986 amnesty, except with new buzzwords and new phony promises to enforce the law on the border. Second, the leadership in both parties take responsibility for it. Third, concede that the need for a ""comprehensive"" bill is a convenient and fraudulent fabrication.  This is a tall order. But let's start with Mr. McConnell, who, were he so inclined, could engineer the Republican minority and a handful of Democratic dissenters into a powerful voice for reasonable immigration reform. He has not. Instead, he waffles and avoids the inconvenient.  On ""Face the Nation"" Sunday, no doubt realizing his precarious position, Mr. McConnell said, ""There are good things in the bill, and not-so-good things in the bill."" He started with the bad: The ""Z"" visa. He then ticked off several supposed ""goods"": an end to the visa lottery; an end to so-called chain migration of family members, and a new pot of money for border security. He didn't mention the fact that only a small proportion of the illegal aliens whose status would be changed by this bill are affected by the ""goods."" Of the many millions who would be legalized, he said nothing. Of doubts that the government would actually enforce the law on the border, he said nothing. Of the certainty that today's illegals would be replaced by a new illegal population once today's illegals are amnestied, he said nothing. The McConnell pitch fails the veracity test.  Then there's Mr. Reid, whose disingenuousness is best summed in his remark of two weeks ago: ""This is the president's bill, and we are doing our very best to see if we can help the president."" The headline Mr. Reid suggested in case the bill fails: ""The president fails again."" Mr. Reid seems to think presidents write and pass legislation. Mr. Reid wants to appear genuinely committed to this bill while preparing to lay blame on an unpopular president if it fails. We're not persuaded that Mr. Reid actually supports the bill, as he claims to. Mickey Kaus of Slate magazine noticed his pat on the back for Sen. Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat and an opponent of the legislation as he offered a ""poison pill"" amendment to kill the bill. Mr. Reid thus expacts to come out smelling OK however this legislation evolves. But some of us smell the cynicism.  Finally, consider President Bush. In a signal instance of the ""do something"" mindset, Mr. Bush argues that the ""status quo is unacceptable."" We're glad to hear Mr. Bush agree with that after all these years, but his view is the inverse of sense. Mr. Bush is desperate for a domestic policy ""victory."" He dealt away his party's hand by signaling that he would sign any bill. He now questions the motives of critics within his own party, suggesting that critics are bigots and nativists, when all that ordinary citizens want is the opportunity to see what is being rushed into law. "
"4","Editorial Roundup APRS000020070620e36k00cnm By The Associated Press 3049 Words 20 June 2007 17:10 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:  June 17  Chicago Tribune, on the surge:  The ""surge"" is a success.  The ""surge"" is a failure.  Come September, it is likely that you'll be hearing both verdicts from politicians, analysts and your neighbors. And it's likely that evidence in Iraq will support either conclusion. That's because success and failure hinge on definitions and expectations -- how much better or worse is Baghdad? -- not to mention rough statistics and anecdotes that tell at best only a sliver of the story.  Those who see success will probably point to subsiding violence in some parts of Baghdad and the undeniably positive alliances with Sunni tribesmen in Anbar province against Al Qaeda. Those who discern failure will find rising numbers of sectarian killings, suicide car bombings and an Iraqi parliament frustratingly unable or unwilling to set aside sectarian agendas to build a minimally functioning democracy.  There are few things more perilous than predicting events in Iraq. But absent a huge change in momentum, it seems likely that no matter what the statistics and arguments, September will bring political pressure for another shift in American strategy.  The ""surge"" has shown that more troops can bring a measure of security to some neighborhoods in Baghdad. But it has also shown the limits of such forces in the absence of effective Iraqi political leadership. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.chicagotribune.com.  ------  June 17  The Kentucky Enquirer, Fort Mitchell, Ky., on American's foreign language skills:  More than 200 million Chinese elementary and secondary students are studying English, a required course in all primary schools. Meanwhile, just 24,000 American students are studying Chinese.  As American companies fight to retain their dominant spot in tough global markets, the language imbalance could prove to be as big an economic issue as the trade imbalance.  But besides impeding commerce, the lack of foreign language skills adds to cultural ignorance and hinders communication just as the U.S. faces strained relations around the globe.  The seriousness -- and growing implications -- of America's pitiful foreign language program is evidenced by the Bush administration's 2006 creation of the National Security Language Initiative. The program has sent more than $80 million into U.S. schools for targeted study. ...  The languages the Bush administration says are critical to national security and economic development -- Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, Russian and Korean -- combined enroll less than 1 percent of U.S. high school students. ...  Schools will respond to higher state requirements and increased parental demand for foreign language offerings, but there's a critical role for American businesses as well. Offering targeted financial support for teacher recruitment and training, curriculum and testing development, and language enrichment programs would be a great way to help grow a bilingual and culturally sensitive work force....  ------  On the Net:  http://news.enquirer.com  ------  June 18  The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo., on the resignation of North Carolina District Attorney Michael Nifong:  Friday saw the welcome resignation of Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong, who was under investigation by the North Carolina State Bar for ethics violations stemming from dubious charges of rape and sexual assault brought against three members of Duke University's lacrosse team.  It remains to be seen if Nifong's license to practice law will be pulled. But his ethics trial and resignation is at least a rare and welcome moment of accountability for a public employee who seems to have abused his power in ways calculated to advance his political campaign and encourage the polarization of a community.  Although it is far too early to tell whether it will serve as a warning to other prosecutors in the country who are sometimes tempted to abuse their power, it suggests a certain self-correcting mechanism that still abides in the American justice system. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.gazette.com  ------  June 16  The Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times, on FEMA storm aid:  The Federal Emergency Management Agency says it paid too much to Gulf Coast hurricane victims -- about $485 million.  The agency has been trying to recover the money from people it says should not have been assisted, according to USA Today.  The other day, a federal judge in New Orleans told the agency to stop hounding storm victims for money until it can better explain to people what they owe. ...  Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said: ""FEMA should aggressively pursue cases of fraud and misuse of funds, but I think they have to keep that effort separate from harassing taxpaying, hardworking storm survivors to pay back money FEMA either put in their hands or encouraged them to take.""  That is certainly true. People on the Gulf Coast are having a hard enough time rebuilding and recovering from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. The last thing they need is the government demanding they return money the agency paid them after the storms.  Even if FEMA overpaid people, did the agency inform them that the money might have to be returned? Would it have made a difference?  People in distress are going to use funds provided them by government, private agencies or caring individuals. That is what the money is for.  It is unconscionable for the government to return many months or years after a natural disaster and ask a storm victim to give back the money. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.watertowndailytimes.com  ------  June 17  Herald News, West Paterson, N.J., on the immigration reform bill:  Late last week, following a visit to Capitol Hill by President Bush, there was renewed enthusiasm for an Immigration Reform bill that had been abandoned by Senate leaders a couple of weeks back. Now, if you believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the comprehensive legislation may yet be revived and adopted by the Fourth of July break. ...  One of the better planks of the current immigration bill is that it would require all U.S. companies, through the Department of Homeland Security, to do a much better job of verifying immigration status of potential employees. This part won't work, however, unless everyone plays by the same rules, unless everyone obeys the same set of laws.  Otherwise we'll have more of the same, confusion and unfruitful rhetoric and a hodgepodge of legal wrangling with no clearly defined precedent. ...  President Bush has stood up on this one, in the face of opposition from his own party. He has done so because he realizes immigration reform is an issue of vital importance for national security, for economic stability, both now and into the future.  He knows also that the longer it lingers, the longer it hangs in the wind to be thrashed about on talk radio and in blogland, the more complicated and divisive it will become.  This country does not need any more of that. It cannot afford it.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.northjersey.com  ------  June 18  The Montrose (Colo.) Daily Press, on a no-confidence vote for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:  A no-confidence vote for Alberto Gonzales is long overdue.  But our Congress just couldn't do it. In fact, members of Congress couldn't even agree to debate a non-binding resolution of no confidence in our embattled Attorney General. Pathetic. And, predictably, partisan.  The majority of Republicans, with the help of a few Democrats and one Independent, sunk the resolution, despite their criticism of Gonzales, who is suspected of firing nine U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons. Gonzales' defenders contend the fuss itself is what's purely political.  It is true U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and that George Bush's administration was hardly the first to fire any. But it seems just as certain several of the most recent slate of terminees were targeted for reasons other than poor performance, as contended.  ... Alberto Gonzales has done little during his tenure but erode American liberties and steadily advance unwarranted increases in executive power. In the latest flap, he has done nothing but obfuscate through convenient ""memory lapses,"" some of which make one wonder whether he even knows how to do his job. To date, five members of his department have resigned, most recently Mike Elston, a fella whom some of the ousted attorneys accuse of trying to compel their silence.  A vote of no confidence is the least of what Gonzales deserves. Not all symbolism is empty.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.montrosepress.com/articles/2007/06/18/opinion/op1.txt  ------  June 19  The Herald, Rock Hill, S.C., on the Duke lacrosse case:  Among the most frustrating aspects of the Duke lacrosse case was that the weakness of the prosecution's case was evident practically from the start. If Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong had been more restrained in pursuing the case, three young men might not have been traumatized, a travesty of justice might have been avoided -- and Nifong might still be district attorney. ...  Nifong, during the hearing on his disbarment last week, continued to suggest that something illegal had occurred at the party. His obstinacy and his apparent inability to accept the fallout from his actions undoubtedly played against him in the hearing. ...  The three young men were the real victims in this case. But they were not the only ones.  Duke University, which reached an undisclosed financial settlement with the players, saw its campus torn apart by this inflammatory case and its reputation sullied as a result of its overreaction to the accusations. Justice also was a victim in this case, done in by what has aptly been described by prosecutors as Nifong's ""tragic rush to accuse."" ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.heraldonline.com/opinions/  ------  June 18  South Bend (Ind.) Tribune, on the FDA:  Diethylene glycol is a poisonous solvent used, among other things, in some antifreeze. It has the sweet taste and consistency of glycerin and provides a cheap -- if deadly -- substitute.  Just last month, the Food and Drug Administration said it had no reason to believe the toxic, fraudulent glycerin had gotten -- or would get -- into the United States. But this month, the agency found diethylene glycol in toothpaste sold in the United States.  It is to the FDA's credit that it identified the tainted toothpaste. The agency earlier had urged U.S. manufacturers to be especially vigilant is checking imported glycerin for diethylene glycol. And now consumers themselves have been asked to take a role by discarding products in a high-risk category.  Raising the warning level is, of course, the right thing to do. But consumer vigilance never will be enough, especially in a global marketplace that draws many thousands of product ingredients from halfway around the world.  If the food safety bureaucracy isn't adequate to get the job done, then it should be expanded and improved. Congress should make sure that the FDA has the clout and presence necessary to perform at the highest level of national interest.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.southbendtribune.com  ------  June 19  Winnipeg Free Press, Winnipeg, Canada, on Aghanistan:  A report on the murder of a Canadian aid worker in Afghanistan last summer should give serious pause for reflection to Canadians who think that this country's combat role there should be ended and replaced by aid and reconstruction work.  Mike Frastacky, a Vancouver carpenter, was building a school in northern Afghanistan when he was killed by anti-government forces -- hauled from his bed, tied up and shot three times after the terrorist leader gave the order, ""Kill the infidel.""  A report on the incident by Afghan security investigators reveals that the killers were terrorists affiliated with the Taliban or its extreme Islamist ally Hezb-e Islami, and that his death was a planned, political murder rather than a random act of violence. He was killed because he was doing reconstruction.  This is the threat that every aid and reconstruction worker in Afghanistan lives with on a daily basis, and their situation seems likely to become more dangerous rather than less as the Taliban becomes increasingly violent in its efforts to regain power. ...  These events emphasize the importance of a continued combat role for Canada and its NATO allies in the Afghan war. ...  Maintaining Canada's will to fight that war, however, is certain to grow more difficult as casualties mount. ...  There are indications that the terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan are experiencing increasing difficulties in finding recruits among Afghans themselves and have been replenishing their ranks with Chechens, Uzbeks and Arabs, veterans of various Asian wars and jihads. That may be an extension of the war, but it is not one that should discourage Canada. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/  ------  June 20  Daily Telegraph, London, on response to the knighthood of Salman Rushdie:  Pakistani protests over the presentation of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie were escalating yesterday to ever-more shrill and offensive heights. Incited by demagogic remarks from some of Pakistan's hard-line politicians, crowds in the streets of Islamabad were burning effigies of the Queen while the Senate, Pakistan's upper house of parliament, approved a unanimous resolution demanding that Britain withdraw the honour from the author of a ""blasphemous book"". The Pakistani legislature may be thought to be within its rights to express what it describes as its ""annoyance over blatant disregard for the sentiments of Muslims."" But it is of another order entirely for the religious affairs minister of Pakistan, a country that regards itself as an ally of the West in the war on terror, to incite violence within the United Kingdom.  Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq may have been forced to ""clarify"" his inflammatory suggestion that suicide bombing was an appropriate response to the Rushdie knighthood, but the Pakistan government has, as yet, offered no official condemnation of his statement. Nor, apparently, has the British Government called for one. The Conservative MP Paul Goodman, whose constituency of High Wycombe has a high proportion of Muslim voters, has accused the Government of failing to get to grips with incitement to terrorism. He believes that an immediate condemnation from Pakistan should be demanded. Even allowing for the diplomatic delicacy of dealing with an ally, it seems peculiarly feeble to limit our response to these ugly threats to an expression of ""deep concern"" from Britain's high commissioner. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk  ------  June 20  Ha'aretz, Tel-Aviv, Israel, on the Erez crossing:  Many Israelis are watching the television news these days with feelings of powerlessness and shame. They see hundreds of haunted and frightened women and children crowding into the corridor of the Erez crossing and asking to be allowed to flee Gaza through Israel to the West Bank in order to save their lives. But the defense establishment sees something else: It sees wanted terrorists about to blow themselves up and Iranian agents. The defense establishment apparently has its own vision, which does not let emotional or humanitarian considerations confuse it or cause it to change its rigidly made-up mind. The pictures at the Erez crossing remind any person who still tries not to forget harsh scenes of locked, sealed gates from the previous century.  ... The fear that dangerous Hamas operatives might infiltrate into the West Bank is not baseless. But the Shin Bet security service presumably knows how to properly screen those seeking to pass - if that is what Jerusalem decides to do. In the dark days before the Holocaust, it was similarly argued, not without justification, that the German and Austrian refugees fleeing for their lives could include moles seeking to assimilate into the countries through which they passed and sabotage them. It must be hoped that Israel's first, cruel and unreasonable response to the disturbing scenes on the Gaza border will not be its last word. Ministers Daniel Friedmann and Gideon Ezra, the latter of whom has great security experience, have both spoken out in favor of a wiser and more humane policy.  From time to time, Israel dispatches rescue expeditions to disaster areas - the work of nature or of man. ... All these expeditions were organized by the beautiful Israel. It is unclear, unreasonable and inhumane that here of all places, right in our backyard, Israel should insist on revealing its closed, ugly face. Let the gates be opened immediately, and Israel will appear as it should be.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/872876.html  ------  This Day, Lagos, Nigeria, on Africa and the G8:  The G8 Summit held in Heiligendamm, Germany last week lived up to its profile: Leaders of all the member countries were present with the usual pomp. And for Africa, it was yet another time to receive more promises from the world's most industrialised nations. But if the continent must overcome its peculiar challenges, it should be prepared to rise above its beggarly tendencies and reshape its own destiny.  This point was made by President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda at the pre-Summit meeting of African leaders in London when he reminded his audience about the centrality of power to development. ...  No doubt, Africa's plight is comparable to anaemia, acute one at that. But in trying to boost its capacity to meet its enormous needs and also compete globally, it must rely less on the hand-outs and pledges of other blocs. There are enough bases for this stance. The rich, Western nations have often been criticised for being partly responsible for most of Africa's protracted woes, like poverty, wars, debt crisis and perpetual trade deficit. While it would be unfair to put the entire blame for Africa's underdevelopment on other continents, considering the place of inept, corrupt leadership in the tragedy, the G8 members have not demonstrated adequate commitment to the cause of freeing Africa from its shackles. ...  It therefore means that instead of prevaricating or taking timid actions, African leaders should show enough reasons why the rest of the world should take the continent seriously. They can do so by sticking to the tenets of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) which emphasize proven dedication to self-enhancement as basis for external assistance. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id80958  ------ 7"
"1","EDITORIAL: An energy bill with no juice KRTGL00020070620e36k0002v The Boston Globe McClatchy-Tribune Regional News 502 Words 20 June 2007 The Boston Globe (MCT) English Distributed by McClatchy - Tribune Information Services  Jun. 20--If voters last fall hoped that putting Democrats in charge of Congress would guarantee a progressive energy policy, they had better keep the pressure on over the next few days. The Senate this week is poised to approve a bill that would switch some tax breaks from the oil and gas industries to producers of renewable energy, but the package could also include a new standard for auto fuel efficiency that is barely worth the name. In addition, a requirement that utilities get at least 15 percent of their power from renewable sources could fall victim to a filibuster.  The troubled state of this bill points up the difficulty of addressing complex and controversial issues such as energy or immigration when neither the president nor either party in Congress is in a position to provide strong leadership. The Democrats cannot present a united front on this issue because too many represent states, like Michigan, that are dependent on the US auto industry, which fears stringent mileage standards.  Never mind that if Congress had raised the standard over the years and included SUVs in it, Detroit would have been able to compete with foreign automakers by translating the industry's engineering improvements into better mileage and not greater acceleration and towing power. Until the recent spike in fuel prices, the overall fuel efficiency of US cars had actually fallen as consumers gravitated to gas-guzzling SUVs.  In the current bill, one provision would raise the current 27.5 miles per gallon standard to 35 by 2020, but would allow the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration to set a lower standard if this were found not to be cost effective. The two Democratic senators from Michigan, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, favor an even weaker measure with nonbinding goals. The National Academy of Sciences has determined that a 37 miles per gallon requirement is feasible, safe, and cost effective.  The requirement that utilities get 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020 is ambitious but, combined with the bill's tax credits for the renewable industry, could steer power generation in this country toward solar, wind and tidal turbines, and biofuels. However, the measure faces a filibuster threat from Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, who failed in his attempt to get new nuclear units and advanced coal generators included as within the 15 percent.  Without a significantly stronger mileage standard for autos and the 15 percent requirement for renewable power, the Senate bill would make little progress in weaning Americans from their addiction to oil or reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases. Voters will have a right to feel cheated if last fall's change in congressional leadership does not result in real changes in energy policy.  -----  To see more of The Boston Globe, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.boston.com/globe.  Copyright (c) 2007, The Boston Globe"
"3","Mexico's hand in illegal immigration CHSM000020070619e36k0000c EDITORIAL 565 Words 20 June 2007 The Christian Science Monitor ALL 8 English � 2007 Christian Science Monitor. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The Senate takes up ""comprehensive"" immigration reform again this week. But the meat's still missing in this burrito. As Mexico's ambassador to Washington warns, even the ""rosiest, peachiest"" reform in the US won't end the flow of poor migrants. Reform must also take place in Mexico.  And begun it has.  For the past seven months, Mexico has been at war with itself, literally. A new president, Felipe Calderon, has dispatched 24,000 troops into battle with the most corrosive influence in Mexico's economy: powerful drug cartels.  These violent syndicates, which mainly transport drugs into the US, have exploded in the past decade. They've escalated crime and political corruption, hindering creation of well-paying jobs for would-be migrants. At election time, they provide cash for many campaigns.  This domestic war, which resembles the Iraq war in tactics and killing rates, was Mr. Calderon's opening gambit for wholesale reform. It is widely popular but faces an uncertain future. The cartels are fighting back with gruesome murders. And the Army, one of the few respected institutions in Mexico, is not good at policing, a task it must do to root out local drug networks. Some of its elite soldiers have joined the cartels.  Still, the war gives Calderon enough public support to conduct a quiet and pragmatic battle with the ruling opposition in the legislature. In March, he was able to win reform of state pensions. This week, he will propose tax hikes to reduce the government's risky reliance on oil-export revenues. And he was helped this month by a Supreme Court ruling that struck a blow at the broadcasting giant Televisa, one of many monopolies controlled by powerful, vested interests.  Opening up these key parts of the economy - telecommunications, oil, cement, and electricity - to fair competition under the law would be Calderon's greatest legacy. It would build on two other major reforms: the opening of Mexico's markets since the mid-1990s through NAFTA and the establishment of real democracy with the end of one-party rule in 2000.  Any reforms would do little to stem migration, however, unless they reach the poorest regions in the south, such as Chiapas and Michoacan. These areas are the main source of migrants to the US, and a better economy there would help keep valuable workers in Mexico. Among his reforms, Calderon has offered help to young entrepreneurs and launched job-training programs.  How can the US help? For one, effective border enforcement would keep more Mexicans in Mexico where they can contribute to the economy. The US can also better crack down on the flow of arms to Mexico's cartels and the flow of drugs into the US.  Mexico doesn't require a mini-Marshall plan from the US, as some suggest - the kind that Colombia has received to fight off its drug cartels. That $5 billion project entailed the use of American troops to help the war against Colombian rebels. Mexico hardly needs GIs on its soil. And as one of the world's 15 largest economies and an oil exporter, it doesn't need money - just reform.  The US Congress should see its immigration reform in the larger picture of Mexico's needs. The ultimate solution truly lies south of the border.(c) Copyright 2007. The Christian Science Monitor "
"4","EDITORIAL Another shot at immigration DNVR000020070620e36k0000a Denver & The West 604 Words 20 June 2007 Denver Post Final B.6 English � 2007 Denver Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The U.S. Senate will get another chance this week to do what's right for America and create a sensible, comprehensive solution to illegal immigration.  There are at least 12 million reasons why it deserves another chance, and why a more secure border also is needed.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the legislation from consideration earlier this month after it bogged down and failed to clear a procedural hurdle. He was fearful 'killer' amendments would scuttle it, but now he hopes to have something passed by the July 4 recess.  Hundreds of possible amendments have been whittled down to 22, with agreement from both sides. Hopefully, the bill won't get snarled in another procedural thicket and can be put to a final vote.  The revived bill includes a provision, agreed to in principle by Senate leaders and with the support of President Bush, that would boost funding for border security and workplace enforcement by $4.4 billion. But opponents still object to provisions that offer a path to legalization for millions of undocumented immigrants, an understandable sentiment.  We hope lawmakers can now see their way past the politics and try to come up with a way to fix this country's broken immigration system. A guest-worker program that allows employers to fill jobs with legal employees would eliminate the dangerous human smuggling and border crossings and alleviate such related crimes as identity theft that now occur as a way of filling jobs.  We now have a system that practically begs for people - businesses and willing workers - to break the law. Any new law must include some type of fraud-proof ID for all non-citizens seeking work. Would-be employees now can present any of 27 kinds of documents to prove their legal status, which makes it hard for employers to tell who is legal and who is not.  Colorado congressman and presidential aspirant Tom Tancredo had hoped the immigration-reform legislation was down for the count. Tancredo has called the immigration bill a 'horrendous piece of legislation' and warned that if it gets to the House, 'it is in serious trouble.'  Tancredo won a small victory Friday when the House approved his amendment to the Homeland Security funding bill to withhold emergency aid from U.S. 'sanctuary cities' that shelter illegal immigrants. Tancredo is basing his campaign for president on 'securing our borders and fighting amnesty.' Tancredo's amendment targets cities like Boulder and Denver, which he claims welcome illegal immigrants.  Colorado passed a law last year that requires law enforcement to report to federal authorities when illegals are arrested or cited for crimes. Problem is, the federal authorities rarely do anything about it and those arrested are often released.  Ironically, Tancredo's amendment provides proof of why we need a comprehensive immigration-reform law. Right now, we have a patchwork of laws across the country and they're not working.  'Each day our nation fails to act, the problem only grows worse,' Bush said last week.  The fact that we need to fix the problems with illegal workers in this country is obvious by the intense behind-the-scenes lobbying to revive the immigration bill. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business and the Business Roundtable, to name just a few, have all lobbied to resurrect the bill.  We need to find a way to hook up willing American employers with those willing workers under a legal system like a guest-  worker program, while protecting the current American workforce."
"1","EDITORIAL Army should rethink area expansion plans If the Senate goes along with a House freeze of funds for expanding the Pinon Canyon site, the Army should use the time to reconsider its approach. DNVR000020070620e36k00009 Denver & The West 464 Words 20 June 2007 Denver Post Final B.6 English � 2007 Denver Post. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The U.S. Army's effort to expand its Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site will be on hold for at least a year if the Senate goes along with a House vote freezing any use of funds for that purpose.  The Army should use the timeout to re-engage local leaders and revamp its approach to the project.  The House voted 383-34 to back an amendment by Reps. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, and John Salazar, D-Manassa, barring the military from using any of the money in its 2008 budget for any actions related to expanding its land holdings in southeastern Colorado. Unless the Senate reverses the House action, the Army couldn't even begin the environmental impact studies necessary to pave the way for the expansion.  The Senate is unlikely to consider the issue for several weeks, since it is currently weighing in on energy and then is braced for what is likely to be a rancorous debate over immigration. (See editorial below.) But the lopsided House vote and the skepticism voiced by Colorado's junior senator, Ken Salazar, bodes ill for the Army's chances in the upper chamber. Colorado's senior senator, Republican Wayne Allard, has said he hopes the Army can avoid politically unpopular condemnation proceedings.  Politics aside, the federal government is understandably reluctant to totally rule out using its eminent domain powers on a subject as critical as national defense. That's why the House amendment drafted by Musgrave sidestepped the condemnation issue by simply forbidding the Army from using money for anything connected to the expansion.  At the other end of the spectrum, some Army critics have sought to ban it from buying from even willing sellers. But forbidding ranch families who may have worked their land for generations from selling to the highest bidder could send their property values plummeting. That is surely at least as great an infringement on their property rights as telling them that they must sell.  The Army would be wise to use the breathing spell handed it by passage of the Musgrave/Salazar amendment to meet anew with state and local leaders and try for a better resolution of this issue. It's already thankfully ruled out the Picket Wire Canyon area south of the existing site that hosts thousands of dinosaur tracks, prehistoric Indian pictographs and other artifacts, as well as the environmentally fragile Comanche National Grasslands. Now the Army needs to assure community leaders that its expansion plans won't deal a fatal blow to southeastern Colorado's agriculture and economy."
"4","A bad idea on immigration Our position: Forcing workers to return home before getting legal status won't work. ORSE000020070620e36k0000q EDITORIAL OPINION Sable 278 Words 20 June 2007 Orlando Sentinel FINAL A10 English Copyright 2007, Orlando Sentinel Communications. All Rights Reserved.  Horse trading among lawmakers is common as the U.S. Senate tries to revive a stagnant immigration reform bill. But once you give merit to ideas that don't make sense, the process becomes downright impractical.  That's the problem with a proposal by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who wants to require all heads of households of illegal immigrant families to return home before gaining legal status to work. Under the current proposal, only those seeking green cards -- permanent residency -- would have to return home temporarily.  It's the real-life version of Monopoly -- making millions of undocumented workers go home to apply for a ""Get Out of Jail Free"" card. But this seems a silly game meant to appease hard-liners.  And for what, really? Opponents are just as likely to vote against the bill no matter what form it takes over the next week.  The bill already has checks and balances in place. They would require undocumented workers to pay a $1,000 fine and pass a background check. That's fair enough. And because there is a penalty, it's not ""amnesty.""  Making people go through more hoops -- strictly for symbolic reasons -- will only add a layer of distrust. Undocumented workers will likely fear they may never get back to the United States if they voluntarily step forward. So they'll stay hidden in the shadows.  Do hard-liners really want to make the situation worse?  The immigration debate needs to focus on reasonable alternatives, not bad bargains like this one."
"2","LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SFC0000020070620e36k0003o EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 1162 Words 20 June 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.8 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Partitioning Iraq would be a disaster  Editor -- The Democrats want to partition Iraq, and believe that will solve things. Gen. David Petraeus says the U.S. military presence in Iraq -- for a decade more or longer -- will bring some kind of stability (he cited Northern Ireland's troubles).  What the Democrats seem to have forgotten is that partitioning generally hasn't worked well in the modern era, e.g. Israel and Palestine (the partition that never was); and that while British troops were in Northern Ireland for a decade, it was not the soldiers or their presence that won the peace.  GREGORY MAIER  Concord -----------------------------------------  'Gobsmacked'  Editor -- Is it just me, or is there anyone else out there who isn't, as my Irish friend would say, ""gobsmacked,"" by the daily criminal acts being uncovered within the Bush administration?  The malfeasance and criminality of this administration boggles the mind, the latest illegal act being the destruction of e-mails sent outside official channels (RNC e-mail accounts being used for official business) in flagrant violation of the Presidential Records Act; the act which mandates the retention of records concerning the governance of the United States, and done with the apparent tacit consent of -- ta-da -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  What is the matter with these people? Do they act on the belief that this country is their private fiefdom and we are their serfs to be used as pawns in their deadly games?  I don't think this country can survive 18 more months of this administration.  GAIL HENIGMAN  San Francisco -----------------------------------------  Dreading the future  Editor -- The wave of immigration across our southern border differs in several fundamental respects from earlier waves: (1) it is illegal; (2) the numbers involved dwarf all past numbers in both absolute and relative terms; and (3) the great majority of immigrants come from one linguistic and cultural bloc. In the past, enormous pressure was placed by society on immigrants to assimilate.  Today, by contrast, the opposite is true. There are numerous powerful disincentives to assimilation (e.g., bilingual ballots; bilingual education; press one for English, oprima el ocho para espanol; affirmative action; bilingual signs). The politicians, businessmen and media/educational elites responsible for these disincentives -- so eager are they to win votes, exploit cheap labor and ""celebrate diversity"" -- show little or no inclination to remove them.  We are headed toward a bilingual, bicultural state and the dissolution of the common culture. Who, besides the anti-American zealots of the ""progressive"" left, can contemplate such a future with anything but dread?  BOB KANTOR  Palo Alto -----------------------------------------  Single-payer option  Editor -- The June 17 editorial, ""Healthier options,"" failed to mention state Sen. Sheila Kuehl's single-payer health-care bill, SB840. It is a truly universal health-care bill. It is again moving through the state Legislature. It passed both the Assembly and Senate last year, but when it reached the governor's desk, he mistakenly referred to it as ""socialized medicine,"" and vetoed it.  Californians deserve to have true reform of its health-care system, and Sen. Kuehl's bill would bring it to us. It will save billions of dollars in administrative costs and profits that now go to insurance companies, and will bring complete health-care services to every California resident -- at less cost than now.  I agree with your sub-headline, ""Don't squander the chance for significant reform in California."" The way to do it is to support SB840, officially titled ""California Universal Healthcare Act.""  JEAN D. JACKSON  Oakland -----------------------------------------  Crummier commutes  Editor -- ""The good news is, there is help on the way,"" said Bijan Sartipi, Caltrans district director. ""We have a project for every spot on the list"" (""Crummiest commutes,"" June 19).  Right. Imagine the widened Caldecott tunnel. Thousands of cars that had backed up at the tunnel will now back up at the 580/24 interchange. Widen I-80 so people can wait longer at the Bay Bridge toll plaza. That bridge isn't going to be getting any more lanes even when the new span is finished in 2013.  The promise of congestion-free commutes bears new development, sprawling suburbs and more borrowing to build. What that promise delivers are more places to store cars as they inch their way to work.  GREG BAYOL  Daly City -----------------------------------------  Muslims can date  Editor -- Your June 18 front-page article on the new magazine ""Muslim Girl"" helps perpetuate one of the stereotypes that the article was designed to combat (""Teen magazine addresses challenges of being Muslim girl in United States'').  Your reporter states, ""Islam doesn't allow dating,"" but only fundamentalists interpret the Quran this way. It would be like saying, ""Christianity doesn't believe in evolution,"" which also only applies to fundamentalists.  SUE KAYTON  Menlo Park -----------------------------------------  The portable Chron  Editor -- Hurrah for letter-writer Davi Gainer (""A paper in the hand,"" Letters, June 18)! He expressed my sentiments exactly.  I have been a daily Chronicle subscriber for more than 40 years, and have no desire to read the ""paper"" by peering at my laptop screen. Long live the ever-portable Chronicle -- printed on paper and delivered to my door.  ROBIN MITCHELL  San Francisco -----------------------------------------  Single-gender schooling  Editor -- Your June 18 article (""Single-gender education gains ground as boys lag'') gives some numbers showing a gender gap, but gives no data demonstrating that single-gender education would either narrow the gap or improve the achievement of boys. It doesn't follow that because boys learn differently than girls, single- gender classes will improve boys achievement.  My anecdotal experience teaching both coed and all-boys chemistry classes is that having girls in the class improves the achievement of the boys. The girls tend to support the learning of the boys even as the teacher gives the boys more attention.  In the all-boys classes, the boys spend a great deal of their energy establishing their social position rather than on the task at hand. I expect that single-gender classes for both sexes will decrease the achievement of the boys and increase the achievement of the girls.  DAVID HODUL  Oakland  -- -- --  Editor -- Your story on gender-segregated education while timely and informative, ultimately does nothing but pander to the right-wing forces gripping our once-great nation.  As a gay man and graduate of the public education system, I have to wonder what supporters of boys-only or girls-only schools expect prepubescent and adolescent gay, lesbian, bisexual, questioning, transgender and intersexual students to do, once forced into such rigid, single-gender settings.  It goes without saying that even heterosexual boys and girls may suffer from being forced apart, but my heart breaks knowing that this regressive trend may worsen things for youth who don't fit outdated, stereotypical concepts of masculine and feminine, and who are already on the edge because of it.  MYKEL CARDOZA  San Francisco GRAPHIC (2); Caption: (1) / Lance Jackson / The Chronicle, (2) / John Overmyer / NewsArt.com"
"5","The wobbly Republicans WATI000020070620e36k0003e EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 721 Words 20 June 2007 The Washington Times A18 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring the immigration ""compromise"" bill back to the floor for debate as early as tomorrow, and Mr. Reid wants to ram something he can plausibly spin as ""reform"" through the Senate by the the Fourth of July. But Mr. Reid, President Bush, Sen. Ted Kennedy and the Democratic and Republican politicians supporting this bill have a little problem called the American people, who are speaking by phone, fax and e- mail in one voice: Give us a bill that actually improves border security. Americans are rejecting the hodgepodge of restatements of existing policies and some genuinely harmful provisions that sound like they were concocted by Mr. Kennedy's Senate staff in conjunction with the ACLU.  Earlier this month, Mr. Reid and the president came up more than a dozen votes short of getting the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate on the immigration bill. It's clear that, in terms of stopping a very bad bill, Senate Democrats are a lost cause. Aside from a few Democrats from Southern and border states (including lawmakers like Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who are up for re-election next year), the Democrats either support the bill or believe it is insufficiently generous. The fate of the bill lies with Senate Republicans, who are divided into three categories: 1) Staunch opponents of amnesty and open borders; 2) supporters of the same; 3) a large bloc of wavering Republicans who are coming under intense pressure from Mr. Bush (29 percent popularity rating and all) to ignore their constituents and vote for the bill.  Some Republican lawmakers who should know better are resorting to buffoonery and slurs in an effort to ensure their colleagues know their place and remain on the open-borders plantation. Sen. Trent Lott, for example, has heaped praise on Mr. Kennedy's work for passage of the bill, suggested that Senate Republican critics of the legislation are ""mice,"" and indicated that talk-radio critics of the bill are a problem that will need to be ""dealt with"" in some way. With his own poll numbers slipping in South Carolina, Sen. Lindsey Graham suggests that critics of the bill are nativist bigots. ""We've been down this road before. No Catholics, no Jews. Irish need not apply That's not the America I want,"" he told ABC Television's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. ""I want an America that enforces its laws, but also respects its culture, and respects people. We can make this a win-win for America if we're courageous.""  But there is nothing ""courageous"" about enacting a bill that endangers national security and public safety. Yesterday, Kris Kobach, who served as Attorney General John Ashcroft's top adviser on immigration matters, published a Heritage Foundation paper outlining in detail how Mr. Graham's ""win-win"" bill will make it easier for for illegal aliens - including three of the six men arrested for the terrorist plot to bomb JFK Airport in New York - to conceal themselves and operate inside the United States. To cite just a few of many examples of how terrorists will benefit from the Senate immigration bill cited by Mr. Kobach: ""With his newly acquired legal status, a terrorist can operate with a great deal more freedom, secure in the knowledge that a traffic violation will not lead to deportation. He can also exit and re-enter the country, allowing him access to international terrorist networks. The Senate immigration bill literally opens up a world of possibilities for illegal alien terrorists.""  The bill can be stopped. Following are 17 Republican senators identified by the group Numbers USA as possibly being willing to switch and vote for cloture in exchange for giving the Senate a chance to vote down one of their amendments: Lamar Alexander (Tennessee); Robert Bennett (Utah); Saxby Chambliss (Georgia); Thad Cochran (Mississippi); Norm Coleman (Minnesota); Susan Collins (Maine); Larry Craig (Idaho); Pete Domenici (New Mexico); Judd Gregg (New Hampshire); Orrin Hatch (Utah); Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas); Johnny Isakson (Georgia); Jon Kyl (Arizona); Trent Lott (Mississippi); Mitch McConnell (Kentucky.); Lisa Murkowski (Alaska); Olympia Snowe (Maine); Ted Stevens (Alaska); and John Warner (Virginia). These lawmakers will likely decide the fate of the amnesty bill in the Senate."
"4","McCain's fighting stance BSTNGB0020070621e36l00055 Editorial Boston Globe 477 Words 21 June 2007 The Boston Globe 3 A.8 English � 2007 New York Times Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  `WE DON'T have 12 million pairs of handcuffs in this country,"" Senator John McCain said, explaining again why the immigrants who are here illegally can't simply be deported, and why, instead, Congress needs to pass comprehensive immigration reform. McCain, an Arizona Republican, spoke about the immigration bill's chances in a meeting with Globe editors on Monday.  McCain is soaked in the immigration issue. This has become a burden on his presidential ambitions, for he is fighting an ugly nativist streak in his own party. But he has made a principled stand on an issue that, he said, goes to the heart of ""what kind of nation we are.""  The immigration bill, which is based on the pillars of legislation McCain co-sponsored with Edward Kennedy, was derailed in the Senate by hostile amendments earlier this month. McCain is hopeful that it can be revived, but wary of ""killer amendments,"" such as a proposal to jail people for being in the country illegally.  ""It's a matter of national security. You can't have 12 million people washing around,"" It's also a humanitarian issue, McCain added, since the 12 million lack legal protection and are easily exploited. Illegal workers have little recourse when denied their pay.  McCain spoke movingly of the hundreds of people who die trying to sneak across the desert. He pointed out that heat prostration is one of the worst ways to die. In Senate testimony last year, he named some of the dead. Maria Hernandez Perez, almost 2 years old, had thick brown hair and eyes the color of chocolate. Kelia Velazquez- Gonzalez, 16, carried a Bible in her backpack. John Doe, an unidentified man, died with a rosary encircling his neck and his eyes wide open.  But simply securing the southern border isn't the answer, because 40 percent of those who are now here illegally came on visas that expired.  That's why the country needs immigration reform, so it can improve border security and create more rational ways to pull illegal immigrants out of the shadows, normalizing their status so they can contribute to the economy in the full and legal light of day.  Some of the reaction McCain has encountered, fanned by talk show hosts and the Internet, has been brutal. McCain is a Vietnam war hero, yet people showed up at a fund-raiser with signs branding him a traitor. It's the kind of virulent opposition that McCain finds ""so disappointing.""  But virulence will not solve the problem. Congress and the president need to act, creating laws that build more legal avenues for immigrants, laws that clear up the contradictions between relying on immigrant labor but still running workplace raids, and laws that respect the tradition and future of the United States as a nation of immigrants."
"1","An energy bill with no juice BSTNGB0020070620e36k0004x Editorial Boston Globe 469 Words 20 June 2007 The Boston Globe 3 A.10 English � 2007 New York Times Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  IF VOTERS last fall hoped that putting Democrats in charge of Congress would guarantee a progressive energy policy, they had better keep the pressure on over the next few days. The Senate this week is poised to approve a bill that would switch some tax breaks from the oil and gas industries to producers of renewable energy, but the package could also include a new standard for auto fuel efficiency that is barely worth the name. In addition, a requirement that utilities get at least 15 percent of their power from renewable sources could fall victim to a filibuster.  The troubled state of this bill points up the difficulty of addressing complex and controversial issues such as energy or immigration when neither the president nor either party in Congress is in a position to provide strong leadership. The Democrats cannot present a united front on this issue because too many represent states, like Michigan, that are dependent on the US auto industry, which fears stringent mileage standards.  Never mind that if Congress had raised the standard over the years and included SUVs in it, Detroit would have been able to compete with foreign automakers by translating the industry's engineering improvements into better mileage and not greater acceleration and towing power. Until the recent spike in fuel prices, the overall fuel efficiency of US cars had actually fallen as consumers gravitated to gas-guzzling SUVs.  In the current bill, one provision would raise the current 27.5 miles per gallon standard to 35 by 2020, but would allow the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration to set a lower standard if this were found not to be cost effective. The two Democratic senators from Michigan, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, favor an even weaker measure with nonbinding goals. The National Academy of Sciences has determined that a 37 miles per gallon requirement is feasible, safe, and cost effective.  The requirement that utilities get 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020 is ambitious but, combined with the bill's tax credits for the renewable industry, could steer power generation in this country toward solar, wind and tidal turbines, and biofuels. However, the measure faces a filibuster threat from Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, who failed in his attempt to get new nuclear units and advanced coal generators included as within the 15 percent.  Without a significantly stronger mileage standard for autos and the 15 percent requirement for renewable power, the Senate bill would make little progress in weaning Americans from their addiction to oil or reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases. Voters will have a right to feel cheated if last fall's change in congressional leadership does not result in real changes in energy policy."
"4","EDITORIAL: Respecting the rule of law POR0000020070622e36l00020 Editorial The Oregonian 638 Words 21 June 2007 The Oregonian Sunrise B6 English � 2007 Oregonian Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  SUMMARY: Of course, illegal immigrants have no right to stay here, but the real question is what is right for American society  Last week's raid on a Portland produce-processing plant was a reminder of how Oregonians slice the issue of illegal immigration. Many choke on that first word: ""illegal.""  They can't get past it. And, ironically, that raises the odds that we'll wind up stuck with the corrupt status quo, in which one out of 20 workers (and one out of five in some lower-wage occupations) is illegal. Where does that leave us?  Exactly nowhere.  A Senate effort to reform the system collapsed two weeks ago, done in both by public distaste for any formulation that smacks of amnesty and by a ridiculous weight of amendments. Now the effort has been revived, but it's precarious. This effort, too, has a fair chance of collapsing.  Raids such as the one in Portland last week separate Americans roughly into two camps, the prosecutors and the defense attorneys. The defense attorneys tiptoe around the illegality of undocumented workers. The prosecutors, in contrast, insist flatly that illegal immigrants have broken the law. And they're right.  Illegal immigration cannot be justified by virtue of the difficulties that illegal immigrants flee from, the lengths to which they go to get here or their contribution --invaluable as it may be - -to our economy. Although they have every right to be treated humanely, they do not have the right to stay. The United States has every right to control its borders.  And yet it would be impossible to remove our illegal population, and disastrous to try. Imagine trying to extract the estimated 100,000 illegal workers in Oregon alone. As David J. Fidanque of the American Civil Liberties Union noted Tuesday, the detention camps that would be needed to accomplish deportation on such a scale would rival Japanese internment camps. Such a mission, before it was through, would not only become an international scandal but would horrify the very Oregonians who set it in motion.  Extraction of illegal workers from our economy would punish not only them and their families, but also the industries, consumers and communities who depend on them.  The alternative is to give the 12 million people here illegally an incentive to come forward. It wouldn't be easy, but by undergoing background checks, patiently waiting in line and paying what could be as much as half a year's income for a family of four, undocumented workers under the proposed Senate bill could qualify for a ""Z"" visa, with hope for renewal. The Senate bill would also beef up enforcement and create a guest-worker program.  This complete reboot of our system, coupled with high-tech enforcement, has the potential to restore integrity and transparency, and synchronize America with its high ideals. If anything, the process called for in the Senate bill is too onerous. Anything too cumbersome will create incentives for illegal immigrants to dive deeper underground, stay there --and stay illegal.  Opponents of reform along the lines of the Senate bill like to complain that it would undercut respect for the rule of law. But no law --except maybe the law of supply and demand --governs illegal immigration now. Instead, corruption runs from the south side of the Rio Grande to, as we are beginning to discover, the inner circles of the U.S. economy. Preserving the status quo is no way to restore respect for the law. Neither is the contemplation of some kind of jihad directed toward illegal immigrants whose lives have taken root here.  The current situation must change. Not only does it promote illegality, but it indicts us all, enlisting us as beneficiaries, co- conspirators, aiders and abettors and accomplices. "
"5","EDITORIAL - Immigration 'bargain'? PROV000020070622e36l0001j Editorial 585 Words 21 June 2007 The Providence Journal All B-4 English � 2007 Providence Journal/Evening Bulletin. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  President Bush made an unusual visit to Capitol Hill last week to support the little-loved ""grand bargain"" on immigration. Most objection in the Senate has come from fellow Republicans who regard instant amnesty for 12 million or more illegal immigrants with a wary eye.  Let us throw out a few considerations. The first is that there's been too little information on the costs to taxpayers of legalizing many millions of mostly unskilled workers, who would instantly be eligible for a variety of public benefits.  For example, how would the plan affect spending on the Earned Income Tax Credit? This is a federal program that returns money to low-income workers, in effect subsidizing their pay. It is a worthy program, but one that would be strained if huge numbers of legalized people suddenly qualify for it. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the credit would cost U.S. taxpayers $20 billion in the first 10 years after the proposed amnesty went into effect.  The Heritage Foundation has come up with a projected cost of retirement benefits for this group, including Medicare, of $2.6 trillion. We can't assess the accuracy of that number, but it is a large one. Let's hear other projections.  Mr. Bush had been marketing an amnesty directed toward people who have been in America a long time and pay their back taxes. But the bill sets the deadline date at Jan. 1 of this year - less than seven months ago - and although it calls for $5,000 fines, it totally drops the requirement for paying back taxes.  We are not averse to the idea of an amnesty, but it must be paired with a genuine commitment to stopping future illegal immigration. That was to be the deal on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The amnesty came off without a hitch, but the sanctions against the employers who hire illegal workers were ignored. Instead of requiring firms to check an applicant's eligibility against a national database, the law let them simply accept identification documents that looked plausible.  A huge market in counterfeit and stolen identities bloomed, in effect gutting the law. Making matters worse, President Bush virtually abandoned all efforts to go after employers who blatantly employed illegal workers. The new bill is supposed to overcome that flaw - it does require that IDs be checked against a computerized registry - but given the pathetic history of early immigration- policy ""reform'' and the opposition of low-paying employers to these new rules, we can't help but be skeptical.  Wouldn't it make sense to boost everyone's confidence by first enforcing the law on the books? Add to that a database requirement and let's see what happens.  America already admits legally about three-quarter of a million immigrants every year. We question adding so-called temporary workers to the total. First, we would fully expect large numbers of these ""temporary'' guest workers to simply overstay their visas, as happens now. (Who can blame them?) So the temporary-worker program must realistically be regarded as adding to the permanent numbers.  We are also troubled by the notion of an indentured-servant-like class of worker. Temporary workers can be exploited by their employers and they'd further depress the wages of unskilled Americans and legal immigrants.  Americans need a lot more serious analysis of the grand bargain before they sign on. It may not be much of a bargain at all. "
"4","Still salvageable | Immigration bill should pass if right fixes made SDU0000020070623e36l008vv OPINION 574 Words 21 June 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune R,E,S,F B.10 English � 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., plans to bring the compromise immigration bill back to the Senate floor as early as tomorrow for more discussion, scrutiny and, we hope, improvements.  This is progress. The legislation certainly isn't perfect, but it has become clear that nothing Congress comes up with will be. It is a good start, however. It has something for everyone, and yet no one gets everything. As we've said many times, doing nothing is unacceptable.  It is also encouraging that this particular bill has bipartisan support and that it aims for a comprehensive approach instead of the piecemeal alternative that some critics prefer. It's not good enough for Congress to tackle enforcement first and the rest, well, when it gets around to it -- if it gets around to it.  Unfortunately, in the House 100 Republicans and a handful of Democrats seem intent on traveling once more down this dead-end road. They are led by Reps. Peter King, R-N.Y., Lamar Smith, R- Texas, and Brian Bilbray, R-Oceanside. Apparently, these lawmakers don't recall what happened 11 years ago when Congress approved, and President Clinton signed, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That law increased the ranks of the Border Patrol and increased penalties for violations of immigration law. But it did nothing to take pressure off the border. The result? The illegal immigrant population grew from about 8 million then to 12 million now.  We hope the Senate will act more comprehensively and set a better example. In that chamber, one of the remaining obstacles is the question of exactly how many amendments will be debated. As of now, it looks like Republicans and Democrats will each have the chance to make a dozen proposed changes.  Those fixes are crucial. If done right, the legislation should pass and deservedly so. If not, the legislation could stall again and it would deserve that fate as well.  Here are three things the Senate should do:  * Rewrite the bill so the border enforcement ""triggers"" that supposedly get the whole thing moving apply not just to the plan to bring in guest workers (as it does now) but also to the proposal to grant legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States.  * Change the language on guest workers to put an end to this nonsense about requiring workers to come in for two-year stints and then return to their home country for one year before they could reapply for another two-year stint, and to make the program for seasonal workers, especially in agricultural.  * Most important of all, create a tamper-proof biometric card that would be issued not just to guest workers but eventually to every worker in America, even the native-born, so that employers know whom they can hire and whom they can't.  Another idea worth considering is the amendment by Sen. James Webb, D-Va., to limit the scope of the Z-visa program, which provides the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Webb doesn't think it's fair that anyone who has been in the country since the beginning of the year should qualify, and he would limit the program to people who have been here for at least four years. That sounds perfectly reasonable.  The point is, this bill is salvageable. The status quo isn't."
"2","READER FORUM NSL0000020070621e36l0006f EDITORIAL STAR-LEDGER STAFF 1345 Words 21 June 2007 The Star-Ledger FINAL 18 English (c) 2007 The Star-Ledger. All rights reserved.  Intransigence on aliens I attended Rep. Bill Pascrell's Verona forum and was grossly disappointed. His position on illegal immigration is like that of too many other impotent politicians. He said there is no way to deport 12 million illegal aliens. Republican Sen. John McCain said the same thing the night before. You don't have to deport 12 million illegals to solve the problem.  A few simple things can be done: Prevent money transfers out of the country by requiring employers to ask for proof of citizenship. End all government aid to illegals - no schooling, no free medical care. End all sanctuary city arrangements. Taking these steps will motivate millions of illegals to exit our country and stop future millions from coming.  Republicans side with business, which wants cheap labor. Democrats want cheap votes through their massive entitlement programs. The average person is caught in the middle, forced to bear an unfair burden for this mess. Don't believe politicians who say they can't do anything about illegals. They just don't want to. Would the government do nothing if 12 million people refused to pay their income taxes? Everyone knows the answer.  - Gary Sudol, West Orange  Politics over security I enjoyed Tom Moran's June 13 column on the Senate's attempted immigration putsch. It's clear from Sen. Robert Menendez's involvement and his statements regarding ""family vs. skills"" immigration policy that he is more concerned with building his constituent power base than he is with border security. It would be interesting to hear Sen. Frank Lautenberg answer the same questions. I bet he would be inclined to recruit Asian techies over illiterate Mexican laborers.  This bill was doomed from the start. You can't throw everything into one pot, shake it up and expect it to work. The Star-Ledger, like other news outlets, is writing about the backlog mess with the new passport requirement for citizens. How can anyone believe that our government can accomplish the tasks and background checks set out in this legislation? This bill should be deconstructed, examined, debated openly and carefully implemented in stages. Or maybe it should be buried. Either way, the consequences are much too important to be rushed through by a cadre of politicians who want to get this off the table so it doesn't become the central issue in 2008.  - James Nihill, Alexandria Township  Never to amnesty Columnist Gregory Rodriguez reminds us that ""amnesty"" means forgetting and forgiving and claims it is an American tradition, so we should extend it to illegal aliens, whom he calls ""illegal immigrants."" They aren't. Immigrants are those who have come here legally.  Rodriguez cites cases in which a president granted amnesty to various groups. He wants us to believe this sets a precedent that applies to illegals. But in all the cases he cites, amnesty was granted to citizens who had acted out of conscience.  Illegal aliens aren't citizens and are definitely not acting in accordance with conscience. They come here for money. They send much of it back to their home countries. The amount that leaves our country, never to return, is enormous: billions each year. Do we grant these noncitizens amnesty? Never.  There is a cost-effective way to remove this cancer. Prosecute and penalize employers heavily enough to force them to fire illegal employees and hire citizens in their place. Illegal aliens will have no option but to leave, employers will absorb the extra costs, more citizens will find jobs and those billions will stay here.  - John Ryon, Edison  Unaffordable burden Gregory Rodriguez cherishes our immigrant heritage, as do I. It is true that a skills-based immigration system in the 19th and early 20th century would have denied our ancestors entry to America. But there is one big catch. Those immigrants were on their own. Since then, the government has imposed the income tax and launched huge transfer programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Sooner or later, we likely will have nationalized health care for the 50 million uninsured Americans. Most of this is or will be funded by the middle class. Can we afford to add upwards of 50 million low-skill immigrants, including family, overnight? I think not.  - M.A. Moore, Chatham  End the toll problem Your editorial on the proposed bulldozing of tollbooths at the George Washington Bridge and the Holland and Lincoln tunnels was informative. But eliminating tollbooths without eliminating tolls wouldn't solve all problems associated with tolls. The toll collection process is very expensive. Some estimates suggest half the money collected goes for collection costs. The E-ZPass system alone cost about $500 million. Eliminating tolls would halve the revenue requirement.  Drivers are already burdened with traffic regulations. I have received more than a dozen E-ZPass violation notices because of faulty sensors. This has resulted in a time-consuming corrections process since I was found guilty until I proved my innocence. Moreover, the estimate that it could take the Port Authority five years to install an all-electronic toll system is outrageous.  Eliminating tolls wouldn't mean drivers are getting a free ride. They are already paying gasoline taxes that are not used for toll roads. Funding could come from an increase in the gasoline tax (which hasn't gone up in 20 years). The road funding system would become more efficient, and there would be a greater incentive to switch to fuel-efficient cars.  - Bob Ahlers, Lakewood  Stars out of line Concerning your June 11 article ""College asks stargazers for financial assistance,"" I think Union County College spokesman Georgia Hartnett should check the college catalog and course schedules and see how many astronomy classes are held in the campus observatory. On page 120 of the 2007 catalog, the course description for ""Astronomy of the Solar System"" and ""Astronomy Beyond the Solar System"" says that ""experiments are carried out in the William Miller Sperry Observatory.""  I have taken both courses held at the observatory. I have spent many late nights completing lab work inside the observatory. To say that the college does not use the observatory is nonsense. I think the college is trying to force Amateur Astronomers Inc. out of the building so the college can use it for extra classroom space. AAI Inc. is an asset to Union County and Union County College. A lot of the work it does is volunteer work. I hope that an agreement can be made between these two organizations for the sake of students and residents.  - Patrick J. Sawyer, Cranford  Hypocrisy on smoking Regarding the newest smoking ban being considered by legislators, I have only one question. If smoking near someone is so bad that laws must be created to stop it, why am I still allowed to smoke? If secondhand smoke is as harmful as it is made out to be, smoking must be even worse for smokers. I don't see any bills being considered for smokers' benefit, such as making smoking illegal or forcing tobacco companies to ""sanitize"" their products so they are no longer a health hazard.  The amount of tax revenue collected by New Jersey on tobacco products must be astronomical. You can go to Delaware and get a carton of brand-name cigarettes for about $30 but must pay almost $60 here. The difference is taxes. In 2004, approximately $800 million in tobacco taxes was collected. The figure must surely be more than $1 billion a year by now. If cigarettes became illegal, the state would lose that revenue. If cigarettes were no longer available, I would probably live a longer, healthier life. If nonsmokers are valuable enough to enact laws for, what about us smokers?  - Dan De Filippo, Belleville  Risky listening I guess nobody noticed. On your June 11 front page is an article about how unsafe Heelys are. The article next to it, ""Podcast U.,"" mentions listening to lectures while riding a bike or driving a forklift. Doesn't that sound unsafe?  - Gary T. Boyer, Branchburg /nm"
"2","LETTERS AKDG000020070622e36m0000z Editorial 1523 Words 22 June 2007 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 19 English Copyright (c) 2007 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.  Analogies don't hold up to analysis  Oh, how clever. Your recent editorial eagerly equated our current occupation of Iraq with four other wars: our fight against the British for American independence, our challenge to preserve the Union and Germany's two attempts to take over Europe. Who knew that Operation Iraqi Freedom was in league with these other noble conflicts?  You creatively show how President Bush's backward logic is exactly like that of George Washington's, Abraham Lincoln's, Woodrow Wilson's and Franklin D. Roosevelt's. How could we have ever doubted his foreign-policy genius?  Now can you explain what we are fighting so nobly for that puts the Iraqi encounter in the same company with the missions above? At first it was to assure that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and we accomplished that. Then it was to topple a terrible dictator and bring democracy to the country, both done. So why do we stay? Isn't it time to just declare victory and head on home?  Ultimately, you build your case with sleight-of-hand analogies that do not hold up. You show how our current debacle is going as badly as some wars in the past, but in what way does this war equal the others' accomplishments? Not only is Bush nothing like the above-mentioned presidents, but his leadership is not even as sage as that of King George III, who knew when to get the heck out of a foreign country that did not want him shoving his form of government down its throats.  GREGORY HOLT  North Little Rock  Join `donors' rebellion'  The U.S. Senate just defeated an 800-page immigration bill that would legalize 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens almost immediately. That would mean that all the laws that cities, states or counties have passed to curb illegal immigration would be moot because there would be no illegal aliens.  The Republican Party bureaucracy wants the bill for their big-business supporters who want cheap labor paid for by the hard-working citizens who pay the taxes to support medical care, welfare and Social Security for the illegal aliens. The Democratic Party bureaucracy wants the bill in order to gain 12 million to 20 million more voters.  But the voters in both parties oppose the bill. Only 23 percent of the voters in the nation approved of the bill, according to a Rasmussen poll.  I am inviting voters of both parties to join the ""grass-roots donors' rebellion."" According to The Washington Times, the Republican National Committee, hit by the rebellion over the Bush/Kennedy immigration bill, had about a 40 percent falloff in small-donor contributions. The solicitors said that 99 percent of the donors opposed the immigration bill.  That seems to be the only way we can reclaim both our parties from the bureaucrats. Send this message to elected officials and candidates: ""No more donations until you support protecting taxpayers by curbing illegal immigration, building the fence, punishing businesses for hiring illegal aliens and enforcing our present laws."" Also, send this message back in every request for donations that you receive by mail or telephone.  DEBBIE PELLEY  Jonesboro  Reading program helps  An exciting innovation in the teaching of reading recently took place in Indianapolis' Diggs Elementary School. An organization known as Indiana Fever donated 200 books to that school. The books are for use in the school's accelerated reading program. This program is known as Read to Achieve.  In Read to Achieve, the school's accelerated reading students will read books and take quizzes to earn book dollars to purchase books for the school library. Everyone benefits. Students are driven to read more and the school receives much-needed grants to further develop its library collection.  As an educator, I am always excited to learn of these new and worthwhile innovations.  LESLIE PUTMAN  El Dorado  Pursuit of truth is good  Non-intelligent design is not science, it is a philosophical presupposition.  Scientists do investigate physical things: their properties, designs and systems. The factual evidence studied can be interpreted according to various preconceived ideas, each with some religious overtones and underpinnings. Scientists are human beings who can worship themselves, demonic spirits, the creator God or the created order of material things, angels, mankind or other creatures, planets, ancestors, and even mankind's intellectual inventions. Anything can become a god.  In honest intellectual inquiry, when the scientific method is employed in observation, testing, evaluation and application, the scientific fallacies are exposed. These errors should be discarded. Certainly, information known to be false or misleading should not be perpetuated through textbooks, classroom instruction and institutional displays or government funding.  The free exchange of ideas and information and evidence is good for the pursuit of truth in any discipline, science included. But indoctrination in a single world view cannot abide truth because it will be divisive. Thus some institutions chastise faculty or students who with independent scientific or professional study and thought challenge the status quo. Should we as a nation consider the challenging data and tolerate intellectual freedom? Is it really better to manipulate union by consensus rooted in partial truth? Utopian goals may themselves be deceiving if the imposed foundations are deception. Can Americans stand the light of day?  PATTY LOU DILLAHA  Little Rock  Pardon an inevitability  Will Goober pardon Scooter? It is practically a foregone conclusion. The New York Times ran a column by Frank Rich several weeks ago that said there was no way he wouldn't get pardoned because he knew too much and would spill the beans if he was left to molder in prison.  BRENT BADDERS  Conway  Words were prophetic  During Ronald Reagan's years in the presidency, he was often viewed by much of the media as shallow, just a movie actor, Teflon, an intellectual lightweight. After his tenure, world events began to unfold indicating that he had more insight than at first thought. He is now generally regarded as the man who won the Cold War. As more of his writings appear in print, he is gaining even more respect nationally and worldwide.  Along this line, I just finished reading ""The Reagan Diaries."" Under the date of Dec. 24, 1983, he made the most insightful and prophetic statement I have ever seen. He said that there was ""one cloud in the sky. I'll keep it to myself-the threat worldwide by the Iranian fanatics to loose terror on everything American."" Almost 20 years before 9/11, he had the understanding to see it coming. Amazing.  MARY BOWERS JAY  Fayetteville  Enforce the existing law  I believe citizens have the right and duty to know immigration laws and demand enforcement, such as Section 1325 of Title 8, which states that any alien who enters the United States other than at a port of entry shall be subject to civil and criminal penalties, fines and imprisonment.  Section 1324a says that all officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws shall have authority to make arrests for violation of any provision of the section; no special training is required. Section 1644 says that no local ordinance, rule or measure shall stop law enforcement officers from enforcement of this section.  Title 19 USC 1459 states that any individual who is guilty of illegal entry is liable for a civil penalty of $5,000 for the first violation and $10,000 for each subsequent violation. In addition to being liable for a civil penalty, any individual who intentionally violates the law any is, upon conviction, liable for a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both.  In my opinion, these laws clearly state the penalties for illegally entering our country and for aiding, abetting, hiring, sheltering or transporting illegals. Our problem is blatant non-enforcement, nothing else.  BARBARA McCUTCHEN  Fort Smith  Make poverty a priority  I know most people are not focusing on the election in 2008 as of yet, but it's time that Americans start looking closely at all candidates.  There is a new grass-roots movement and it's called ONE Vote '08. We are making ending extreme poverty, raising awareness of AIDS and HIV, and getting the medicine to cure malaria and tuberculosis to those in need a priority.  It is time for the American public to stop being complacent and let their voices be heard. We as ONE can end the extreme chaos that is happening in Africa. When O.J. Simpson wanted to write a book, Americans stood together and said, ""No."" The book was never published. When Don Imus said his derogatory remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team, Americans stood together and he was fired. It is time we stood as one and helped our world.  So as you are looking at each candidate, please look at how they want to help end extreme poverty. Make sure your candidate is on the ONE in '08 team. Remember, ONE voice can and will make a difference.  BRENDA HILDEBRANDT  Ward  This article was published 06/22/2007"
"1","WHERE THE NEWSPAPER STANDS DAIL000020070623e36m0000t Editorial 1252 Words 22 June 2007 Daily Press Final A12 English Copyright 2007, Daily Press. All Rights Reserved.  Campaign agenda  What's on the table between now and Election Day?  As the editorial below notes, there'll be some competition at the polls this November. Every seat in the state Senate and House of Delegates will be up for grabs. It's unfortunate that not every seat will be contested, and that some ""contests"" will be in name only. They will be wipeouts, with voters given no meaningful choice.  Still, there will be some good contests, meaning some districts will have no shoo-in. The candidates will have to work for their win, talk to the voters, listen to them, persuade them. There will have to be an exchange of ideas, a frank discussion. Which is a good thing, because nothing takes ""representative"" out of representative democracy more quickly than the lack of a choice when you go to the polls. If the decision has already been made about who will represent you, it hardly matters whether it was made by indifference or political gerrymandering. The fact is, you've lost your ability to affect the outcome.  So, quieting the applause for the existence of competition, what is it that candidates will compete over?  Let's try to answer that question without ever using the words transportation or highways or roads, because readers of this page surely know transportation will be one of the topics of discussion this fall. But what other subjects should voters be focusing on, the more effectively to challenge their would-be representatives? Here are a few suggestions:  * Taxes, broadly speaking. If you look at the measurement of tax burden in Virginia, it is not high compared with other states. It's in the middle, up or down depending on the parameters. But that is no answer to voters who say their taxes are too high. Question: If a homeowner in Newport News is screaming about the high tax on his house, is he likely to pause and say, ""And I think the solution is for the state to allow a local income tax""? When pigs fly.  It would be a wonderful thing if this election could more clearly focus in the electorate's eye the connection between state and local taxes. Members of the General Assembly don't like to talk about that, because they take advantage of their power to essentially force increases in local taxes by their decisions in Richmond. Frankly, voters could trade up by replacing some of the delegates and senators for some of the men and women who sit on their boards of supervisors and city councils. There is a responsibility to governing that requires more than saying ""no"" to every need, and it surely requires more than pushing the tough choices down to the next level.  * Waste and fraud. Really, this is a subset of the taxes category. Let's offer this as a point of debate: Those who say they can cut your taxes, or hold them steady, by going after waste and fraud are saying the same thing that candidates have been saying for at least the past three decades and probably the last 3,000 years. Ladies and gentlemen of the electorate: You have repeatedly -- say it again, repeatedly -- elected politicians who have failed to eliminate waste and fraud. What does this suggest? Let's posit an answer: The voters are dupes if they think that waste and fraud contribute significantly to their tax bill. Yes, yes, there's waste and fraud. But one voter's waste is another voter's blueberry pie. That's why taxes are high: Lots of people want their blueberry pie, whether it's in the form of teacher salaries, support for the arts, highway spending, environmental protection, college construction, health care for the poor, etc., etc. You name it. If you want to take a serious run at taxes, you have to take a serious run at what government does. Ask it to do less, and you'll cut taxes. Meanwhile, rational people, regardless of their disagreements over what government ought to do, want it done effectively and efficiently. Let prosecutors and attorneys general go after waste and fraud. The DNA of legislators is such that they will contribute to it, not stop it.  * Education. One hardly knows where to begin here, so let's settle for two points.  First: More children are dropping out before they get a high school diploma than the educational establishment has been willing to acknowledge. Left unattended, this problem will have devastating consequences.  Second: The evidence of the value of reaching children early could hardly be clearer. We have limited resources; let's put them to work where they'll do the most good. That suggests increasing our emphasis on helping the very youngest, for whom that help is likely to mean the difference between a good life and failure.  These are three broad issues. There will be plenty of more specific issues, such as smoking bans, payday loan restrictions and gun control. And immigration and mental health will likely prompt a raft of legislation, much of it shortsighted and mean-spirited.  So don't fret, there'll be a lot to talk about in addition to transportation and highways. It will be up to voters to help keep the conversations honest. *  Surprises  1st District Democrats call a primary to pick a nominee  It's something of a surprise that there will be a Democratic candidate to challenge Republican Tricia Stall in November's election for Virginia's 1st District Senate seat. It's a Republican-leaning district, and it's often the case that there's no competition once the dominant party has settled on a nominee.  It's something of a surprise that there's actually competition within the Democratic Party for the nomination. John Miller, well known in the community through his work on television, for community groups and in politics, and Ross Mugler, the commissioner of revenue in Hampton, both want the nomination.  And here's yet another surprise: The nominee is going to be selected in a firehouse primary on July 7. It will be open to all registered voters in the district, although those participating in the ""unassembled caucus"" will be asked to sign a form saying he or she is a Democrat and pledging not to support any candidate opposed to the party's nominee.  All this competition is a good thing, a healthy thing, a welcome thing.  It would be even better if there were a little more time before the primary, as surely there'd be some benefit for the candidates in actually talking and listening to the voters for more than two weeks.  But whatever the schedule, these men have records to weigh: Mugler as an elected official and Miller as a former candidate and active member of the community. So all those who feel they can vote in a Democratic primary need to turn out. Whatever the results, the outcome promises a competitive campaign in the fall, one in which the Democratic and Republican nominees will have the opportunity to draw clear distinctions about where they want to go and how they want to get there.  The ""where"" and the ""how"" are both important. You can't have something of value without paying for it *  NEWS TO USE  The 1st District includes all of Poquoson and parts of Hampton, Newport vote, call your registrar.  Hampton: 727-6218  Newport News: 926-8683  Poquoson: 868-3070  York County: 890-3440"
"4","Editorial roundup XFWJ000020070622e36m0001q A 544 Words 22 June 2007 Fort Wayne Journal Gazette Regional 11 English (c) Copyright 2007, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.  Require employers to verify immigrants  Herald News West Paterson, N.J.  One of the better planks of the current immigration bill is that it would require all U.S. companies, through the Department of Homeland Security, to do a much better job of verifying immigration status of potential employees. President Bush has stood up on this one, in the face of opposition from his own party.  He has done so because he realizes an immigration overhaul is an issue of vital importance for national security, for economic stability, both now and into the future.  No confidence left for Gonzales in job  Montrose (Colo.) Daily Press  A no-confidence vote for Alberto Gonzales is long overdue. But our Congress just couldn�t do it.  The majority of Republicans, with the help of a few Democrats and one independent, sunk the resolution, despite their criticism of Gonzales, who is suspected of firing nine U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons.  Gonzales has done little during his tenure but erode American liberties and steadily advance unwarranted increases in executive power.  In the latest flap, he has done nothing but obfuscate through convenient �memory lapses,� some of which make one wonder whether he even knows how to do his job.  A vote of no confidence is the least of what Gonzales deserves. Not all symbolism is empty.  Expect �surge result� to be debatable  Chicago Tribune  The �surge� is a success.  The �surge� is a failure.  Come September, it is likely that you�ll be hearing both verdicts from politicians, analysts and your neighbors. And it�s likely that evidence in Iraq will support either conclusion. That�s because success and failure hinge on definitions and expectations � how much better or worse is Baghdad? � not to mention rough statistics and anecdotes that tell at best only a sliver of the story.  There are few things more perilous than predicting events in Iraq. But absent a huge change in momentum, it seems likely that no matter what the statistics and arguments, September will bring political pressure for another shift in American strategy.  The �surge� has shown that more troops can bring a measure of security to some neighborhoods in Baghdad. But it has also shown the limits of such forces in the absence of effective Iraqi political leadership.  British condemnation, not meekness, needed  London Daily Telegraph  Pakistani protests over the presentation of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie have escalated to ever-more shrill and offensive heights. Incited by demagogic remarks from some of Pakistan�s hard-line politicians, crowds in the streets of Islamabad were burning effigies of the queen while the Senate, Pakistan�s upper house of parliament, approved a unanimous resolution demanding that Britain withdraw the honor from the author of a �blasphemous book.�  Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq may have been forced to �clarify� his inflammatory suggestion that suicide bombing was an appropriate response to the Rushdie knighthood, but the Pakistan government has, as yet, offered no official condemnation of his statement. Nor, apparently, has the British government called for one. Even allowing for the diplomatic delicacy of dealing with an ally, it seems peculiarly feeble to limit our response to these ugly threats to an expression of �deep concern� from Britain�s high commissioner."
"1","HOME DEPOT AMENDMENT NYTA000020070623e36m00034 A 56 Words 22 June 2007 The New York Times Abstracts 20 English Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.  Editorial says amendment Sen Johnny Isakson of Georgia inserted into Senate immigration bill at behest of Home Depot, a campaign contributor, would free Home Depot and other big home-improvement stores from having to provide rudimentary shelter for day laborers; calls this extraordinary intrusion of federal power into local land use matter"
"4","Make borders bill's priority PGHK000020070627e36m0001v A; OPINION 562 Words 22 June 2007 Poughkeepsie Journal 12A English (c) Copyright 2007, Poughkeepsie Journal. All Rights Reserved.  If front-loading spending on border enforcement gets a sweeping immigration bill passed, Congress should, by all means, do it.  Security should come first. But a comprehensive immigration bill is still needed; any agreement that fails to address what the United States should do with the more than 12 million illegal immigrants in the country would be a complete failure.  A bipartisan group of U.S. senators seemingly broke a yearslong impasse recently, offering a plan that would put millions of illegal immigrants on the road to legal recognition while greatly enhancing border security. But procedural matters have blocked key votes on the bill. These technical maneuvers have come about largely because some Republican leaders equate provisions of the bill to granting amnesty for illegal immigrants. Some Democratic leaders, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, are opposed to other components of the bill, most notably the family reunification language. They are concerned the bill would put a premium on allowing into this country immigrants with certain job skills at the expense of those wishing to enter to be with family members already here.  The Senate should be working through these issues, not impeding vigorous discussions and votes on key amendments. Procedural rules necessitate a 60-vote supermajority to pass the bill; the first time around, only 50 senators supported the effort to advance the bill, including New York's Democratic senators - Clinton and Charles Schumer - and just seven Republicans.  To his credit, President Bush has pushed for the bill's passage and met last week with a group of Republican senators, urging them to give the bill a second chance. The president said he would back efforts to expedite about $4.4 billion in funding to secure the nation's borders and enforce laws prohibiting companies from hiring illegal workers.  Years for permanent residency  Even without this concession, opponents of the bill should realize most enforcement aspects of the bill would occur before the great majority of illegal immigrants could gain citizenship. In fact, obtaining permanent residency would take between eight and 13 years after the law took effect. And they would have to pay fines and fees and pass a background check to receive a temporary visa. The bill also would allow up to 200,000 guest-workers per year to enter on two-year visas.  The sweeping measure doesn't shortchange enforcement. It would add 20,000 border agents and nearly 700 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers along the Mexican border, as well as create a new worker-verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers. That last part is critical to getting illegal aliens and businesses in this country to take the right path.  While authorities have conducted a number of high-profile sweeps of businesses employing illegal workers, they would have to increase the number dramatically to make a difference. And while some businesses brazenly break the law, others are victims themselves of widespread document fraud. The bill must make it clear illegal aliens found guilty of unrelated criminal offenses will be swiftly deported. And it should include a binding commitment to spend the necessary money on enforcement first. Proponents of the bill should concede this point to get what they are after: A comprehensive law aimed at addressing a massive problem that will only get worse without changes in policy. "
"2","LETTERS PGHK000020070627e36m0001u A; OPINION 1540 Words 22 June 2007 Poughkeepsie Journal 12A English (c) Copyright 2007, Poughkeepsie Journal. All Rights Reserved.  Letter writer distorts column on HMOs  Edward R. Etting's May 24 letter criticizes my ""Valley Views"" column about Health Maintenance Organizations contributing to the fiscal crisis of New York's hospitals.  First, he omits the fact hospital administrators have no choice but to agree to the meager terms of reimbursement ""negotiated"" with HMOs. They realize their facilities must be approved for third-party reimbursement for patient care or face bankruptcy altogether. Hence, there is neither equality nor integrity in the agreements reached between hospitals and HMOs.  Second, he argues my conclusion about the Berger commission's plan for the privatization of community hospitals is ""conspiracy theory."" All I did is take the commission's own report at face value: It actually calls for the privatization (in effect, corporate takeover) of the three SUNY hospitals in Syracuse, Brooklyn and Stony Brook, with the Syracuse unit immediately so targeted. With Stephen Berger's active leadership in General Electric's acquisition of Hartford General Insurance, my conclusion regarding the prospects of HMOs acquiring troubled hospitals is mundane and realistic, not speculative or conspiratorial.  Space limitations do not allow for detailed corrections of all the distortions in Mr. Etting's broadside. I do hope readers still clinging to the belief HMOs are somehow concerned with health maintenance will at least consider the opposite possibility: that HMOs are concerned with profit maintenance even when the health of patients and the economic viability of community hospitals are put at grave risk.  Irwin Sperber  Gardiner  Church needs to adapt, but Mass still comforts  Returning to the Catholic Church after an almost 40 year ""vacation,"" I had no idea what to expect. I knew there had been a ""Vatican II"" and the Church now had a Polish Pope fighting Eastern Bloc Communism with a zeal that put most Western politicians to shame.  First time I heard Mass in English - yeah, I'd been away that long - I was stunned. There was much more communal singing, including ""Amazing Grace,"" and a handshake ritual where we wished each other peace. This was a far cry from the church of my youth, with yardstick-wielding monsignors who'd rap your knuckles for just looking at them the wrong way.  While I continue to have problems with some of Rome's ""man-made"" rules, I'm proud to be part of the Archdiocese of New York, now celebrating 200 years of service, especially to the immigrants from Ireland and Italy who came ashore at Castle Gardens and the legendary Ellis Island.  We're so mainstream now, we forgot the Catholic Church was once seen as a parish, with our incense, statues, beads and elaborately garbed priests.  I would have no problems taking the Eucharist or Last Rites from a female priest. Our clergy should marry. The church should look beyond a parishoner's sexual orientation. Abuse scandals should continue to be yanked from under their slimy rocks. In a world where we are wallowing in blood, disease and starvation, the Mass gives me solace. We all need solace. It's a gift Jesus gave us, regardless of denomination.  Larry Robinson  Wappingers Falls  Work made league's fundraiser a success  On behalf of the Beacon Girls Softball League, I would like to thank all the sponsors, supporters and participants for their involvement in the third annual ""Day of Golf"" tournament, held May 4. Apple Greens Golf Course hosted the tournament, which was followed by a dinner at the Knights of Columbus in Beacon.  This event is a major fundraiser and a critical source of support for the softball league. It provides operating funds for the program and helps to minimize funds required from both parents and taxpayers. Contributions came in the form of tee-sign sponsorship, team entry fees and raffle prize donations. While sponsors and participants are too numerous to name, the support from each and every individual is deeply appreciated.  I would sincerely like to thank everyone who worked at the event, donated funds and prizes, and came out to play a great ""Day of Golf.""  Robert Palisi  Chairman, Day of Golf Tournament  Beacon  Legislation would help, not harm, workers  I would like to respond to a letter to the editor from Roger C. Verdesi of Beacon (""Loss of secret balloting harms union members,"" June 1). Some facts about the Employee Free Choice Act: The legislation has bi-partisan support in the 110th Congress. Sixty million Americans would join a union if given the chance. The act would give workers a fair chance to improve their lives by allowing them to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation and providing mediation and arbitration for first contract disputes. It would also establish stronger penalties for employers who violate employee rights when they are seeking to form a union and during first contract negotiation. These are just some of the reasons why workers would want this legislation passed. However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Right To Work Committee, Grover Norquist and others are opposed to a worker having a choice. Why?  Ron Mangeri  Poughquag  Politicians, act in best interest of citizens first  Who are our president, Congress and Senate representing? True leaders write the laws and enforce same for the benefit of the ""American Citizens,"" not ignore them in favor of an illegal community, no matter what their mindset or character. How can they write laws, when they don't know what illegal means? Republican or Democrat, they are bent on destroying the fabric we were made from, only to obtain a block of votes. They only represent themselves or special interest groups that further their power driven causes.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid programs are trouble, but they are hell-bent on destroying it through their current Immigration Bill with initial amnesty for up to 20 million illegal immigrants financed by Social Security. If our leaders renounce elitist benefits, they have installed for themselves and put themselves in the Social Security system. They would love solve the problems of Social Security and immigration post haste.  They spit about enforcing our borders, yet their actions in the past are just the opposite. No fences are needed if they would stop rewarding illegal behavior by enforcing existing laws. They should take a course on bird feeding. Feed the birds and they will come, stop feeding them and they will go away.  Until that time, any sane and logical conclusion is they don't give a damn. American citizens are doomed to carry this burden on their shoulders. Write your leaders to stop this insanity. With enough input they may even consider you as a block of votes.  Thomas Walsh  Poughkeepsie  Residents, companies helped clean E. Fishkill  I would like to thank the East Fishkill residents who helped with Clean Sweep May 19.  There were about 30 people including adults, teens and young members of our community who worked hard at picking up litter and trash that had been tossed along the roadside. The workers were assisted by the East Fishkill Recreation employees.  I would also like to thank the following organizations that sponsored our event by providing breakfast and lunch for the workers and defraying the cost of Clean Sweep. They are East Fishkill Provisions, Hopewell Hot Bagels and Royal Carting.  Finally, I would like to thank the employees from Frontier Communications for hanging the American flags in town. We appreciate their continuous help in displaying our flags and holiday decorations. It is these organizations and the many volunteers that make East Fishkill a great place to live.  Peter J. Cassidy, East Fishkill Town Council  LOOP buses provide much-needed service  I can't argue with Ms. Cicman's complaint in her letter to the editor (""Near-empty LOOP buses waste tax dollars,"" June 1) that running buses with few or no passengers is wasteful. If true, then it is wasteful.  Providing good public transportation in the county is both a necessity and a problem. When I served on several county regulatory boards, this was an important issue. Creating routes and schedules to most effectively meet the diverse needs of our residents who use this service is challenging. Apart from the Route 9 corridor, Dutchess County is pretty spread out.  I do not believe you can live in a community and just expect to pay for the services you and your family might use. By that logic, why should I have to pay school taxes to educate other people's children since I have none in the system? Or why should I be taxed to fix roads in an area where I never drive? I am not complaining because whatever services I help to provide for others, I may one day need myself; and if I do not, then I have a compassion for those who do.  Finally, Ms. Cicman's reference to buses being used as a ""personal limo for a few people who only have to pay one dollar"" was most offensive. I have a close, much-loved relative who has been disabled since early adulthood who rides those buses. I can assure you my loved one does not think of those much-needed bus rides as a $1 ride in a limo.  Julie Renda, Poughkeepsie "
"2","LETTERS, FAXES & E-MAIL STJR000020070625e36m0003q EDITORIAL 1678 Words 22 June 2007 The State Journal-Register 7 English � 2007 The State Journal-Register. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Governor should pay transportation costs  Why are the taxpayers paying for the governor's transportation to and from Chicago? If the governor does not want to use the beautiful mansion the taxpayers of Illinois have provided for him, then he should pay the $5,800 it takes to get him to Springfield and back.  Maybe Mayor Tim Davlin should talk with the governor about putting the homeless in the mansion or a least storing their belongings. Just my opinion!  Cherie O'Neill  Springfield  We need to get governor's attention  Given the General Assembly and the governor's inability to pass a budget in a timely fashion, I propose the following:  1. The governor is allowed only three round trips to Chicago. The cost of all other trips must be borne by him.  2. The governor is docked one-day's pay for every day after May 31 that the budget is not passed.  The above would give some relief to the hard-working people of Illinois, including state workers, and health-care providers.  Elisabeth Langford  Springfield  Hopes for help in search for lost dog  I read with great sadness about the little dog that was taken from a good home recently. A bulldog, I believe.  I have been searching frantically almost three weeks for a 3- year-old, all-black lab mix and hound. He looks just like a lab but is stout and smaller. Big brown eyes and drooping ears. ""JR"" is the sweetest dog.  He escaped from a fenced yard at 6 a.m. on May 30th. I have tried everything. Posters, a lost ad, the pound, driving up and down the streets and alleys. JR was trying to get back to my son's yard. I was watching him, and it was just like disappearing into thin air. If someone knows his whereabouts, I would really appreciate it and pay a good reward.  He is like a child wandering the streets, thirsty, hungry and terrified of the world he has only peeked at through a fence hole. I am aware there are not so nice people but I will tell them if they hurt an animal it will come back on them tenfold.  God's creatures cannot speak for themselves that is why we are here.  Anne Walsh  Springfield  What we need to see in the next president  There are a few things we need to see in the next president:  No relation to previous presidents. Truthfulness would be a plus. No pre-emptive wars. Don't try to be the world's policeman. No false intelligence. Lay off continual threats and talk to them. Use tax money on things in United States, health care, schools, borders, etc.  Gordon Lugibill  Springfield  A positive side to American history  In a recent In My View essay, Linda Spence asked the question that many of us are asking: Where are the moderate Muslims?  Her letter elicited a caustic ""Blame America first"" response from Timothy Parsons-Heather, who begins his remarks by accusing Spence of being ignorant, intolerant, hypocritical, paranoid, prejudiced, and, oh yes, vague on American values.  Then, after promising us only a ""brief"" review of history, he instead seizes the opportunity to instruct us at length on the villainous character of American moderates down through history and how they remained silent while crimes were committed against their fellow countrymen.  I'll have to admit, the clever drumbeat of his condemnations against my nation and my forefathers weighed heavily on my conscience until I reminded myself that the negative Parsons- Heather had conveniently ignored the positive side of American history.  It is this side that teaches us that it was moderate Americans who arose to free us from the yoke of British oppression and then presented us with the USA, and that it was moderate Americans who fought the bloodiest of all civil wars to put an end to slavery, with 250,000 killed. And it was moderate Americans who fought the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II, thereby saving the world from tyranny.  They were also moderate Americans, heroes all, who fought and died in the jungles of Viet Nam. And even now, moderate Americans are making the supreme sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan in a war of survival against Islamic extremists who want to steal the soul of our country and replace it with a hideous monster.  Linda Spence is one of these moderate Americans, courageous enough to ask a question, which, in spite of insipid historical insights by her interrogators, remains unanswered.  Wayne Ingram  Springfield  In Afghanistan, things go better with ... tea  The January/February 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs has a very interesting article, ""Saving Afghan-istan,"" by Barnett Rubin of New York University. Policy questions are addressed, as well as a brief history of that country. I commend this overview to State Journal- Register readers.  What caught my eye was that a new Coca-Cola bottling plant has opened near Kabul, the capital, an irony in that Afghanistan ""is the poorest country in the world outside of sub-Saharan Africa."" That is globalization, but as it exploits poor Afghans, the profits flow back to Atlanta, the home of the $100 million shrine to Coke.  I hope that the Afghan people will reject this American soft drink and stick to their traditional tea.  Milford Franks Jr.  Springfield  Don't forget main reason for 2nd lake  One of your recent letter writers suggested that area towns would benefit from Lake Hunter being built. Let me ask some questions to his statements.  How is it apparent the Lake Springfield is filling in with silt and the volume of water is decreasing every year? If natural habitat for birds and animals is needed, why not leave the land where the new lake is to be built as is? It is mostly farmland and woods, which is a natural habitat for animals. How is the new lake to provide recreational opportunities, when, as I recall the plans, such access was not going to be available?  We all know what Hunter Lake is about. Its about making certain there is a sufficient water supply for cooling and power generation for the Springfield power plants. Let's not ascribe other motives to the building of Hunter Lake, which are at best secondary, and at worst a cover-up for the real reason.  Tom Christ  Springfield  Senate immigration bill badly flawed  The Senate, with Teddy Kennedy, D-Mass., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., leading the way, wants to give 12-20 million illegals and their families amnesty, moving the estimate up to the 40-60 million range.  Some of the major problems of the bill are: No method to ensure that workers and families overstay their visas; this bill imports poverty; legal status is granted before enforcement; no background checks for criminals are needed before amnesty is given; gang members and criminals are given amnesty; terrorists are given amnesty; earned income tax credits are given to the illegals, costing legal taxpayers billions; ""affidavits from friends"" satisfy requirements and will invite fraud; educational benefits will be given to illegals first ahead of U.S. citizens; illegals need not pay back taxes.  The House Republicans have crafted a bill of their own. The GOP plan includes blocking illegal immigrants from becoming citizens, sanctions against employers that hire illegals, and setting up a market-based guest worker program on a 10-month visa.  Lost in this debate is the fact that the legal American taxpayers and citizens want border security and have already funded the border fence. This fence will pay great dividends for the people in the United States. When Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., built the wall across the border in the San Diego area, crime dropped immediately. You can read in your daily newspaper or online news service of the drugs and crime that come from Mexico and cost American lives and treasure.  If American sovereignty and our country's well-being are important to you and you do not want to import poverty, I would suggest that a call to your senators and representative.  Mike Moseley  Staunton  Having transplant like getting new life  This is in regard to the front-page story Sunday on David Doom.  I am very happy for the gentleman who will be receiving the kidney transplant from his daughter. There is nothing more precious than a gift of life.  But I don't understand that there are a lot of people who get transplants every day and they are never recognized. And there are also people on dialysis.  I am a kidney transplant recipient myself, and I have had my kidney for five years. I was so grateful because my two daughters were very young when I was on dialysis and when I got my transplant.  But I am very happy whenever I read about someone getting a transplant because it is like a miracle.  Organ donation is something that people don't take seriously enough, but it should be for everyone.  When you have had all these problems and they come and tell you that you will be getting a transplant, it is almost like you will be getting a new life. It is the most joyous time in your life. You thank God every day for giving you that chance.  My family and I are very grateful to the family that gave me the kidney. Now I can do things that I never could, and I can enjoy time with my grandchildren.  So everyone should really stop and think about organ donation and what it means.  I want wish this gentleman who will be getting a transplant - thanks to his daughter donating one of her kidneys - good luck and the very best to you and your family.  Lisa Tomlin  Springfield Caption: Andrew Martin, right, laughs during a game with his grandfather, David Doom, at Doom's home. Doom's daughter, Natalie Beck, left, will give one of her kidneys to her father in an operation soon."
"1","Legislators leave behind mixed bag as session ends TUCC000020070623e36m00008 Citizen Voices; B 601 Words 22 June 2007 The Tucson Citizen 1B English (c) Copyright 2007, The Tucson Citizen. All Rights Reserved.  It took too long - 164 days - and again was marred by too much  pointless talk about illegal immigration and too little attention to substantive state issues.  But late Wednesday, the books were closed on the 2007 version of the Arizona Legislature. The end came not with a whimper, but with a flurry of bills shoved through the process - some making it to the governor, others failing.  So now, a look at the good, the bad and the ugly of the session.  The Good  � Road bonds: The repayment period for transportation bonds was increased from 20 to 30 years. That makes $500 million more available for needed highway construction.  � Railroads: Under a bill pushed through by Rep. Jonathan Paton, a Tucson Republican, railroads will have to go through a state review before buying state land or taking private land through eminent domain.  The bill is an outgrowth of a Union Pacific plan to put a switching yard over an aquifer near Picacho Peak State Park.  � Teen drivers: Inexperienced drivers younger than 18 will face limits on how late at night they can drive and on the passengers in their vehicles.  � Med school: The Phoenix campus of the University of Arizona College of Medicine received funding allowing it to expand to 48 students.  � Saving: About $45 million was added to the rainy day fund, bringing it to $705 million. The fund is used to maintain essential state services when revenues decline.  The Bad  � Immigration: Employers who knowingly hire an illegal immigrant could be forced to close for 10 days, then permanently lose all business licensing the second time it happens.  The bill is an attempt to head off a petition drive that would put an initiative on the 2008 ballot.  This is a federal issue. A hodge-podge of state laws would be confusing and hurt Arizona companies.  � Flores: Legislators refused to obey a federal judge's order to increase funding for English-language students. (More on this Saturday.)  � DNA: Anyone arrested in certain crimes will have a DNA sample stored in a state database. These are people who have not been convicted or even charged. If charges are not brought or if the person is acquitted, the accused can go to court and petition to have the sample destroyed.  This is an intrusion on the ""innocent until proven guilty"" protection and a misguided invasion of privacy in the name of law enforcement.  � Soldiers: It is illegal to print the name or likeness of a dead soldier to make a profit. The media are exempt.  This is constitutionally questionable. Running a photo of George Washington in an ad for a Presidents Day sale presumably would be illegal.  The Ugly  � Budget: The result was good, but the process made sausage-making look appealing.  The Senate worked with the governor in a rare example of bipartisan statesmanship. The House leadership cabal hatched a secret plan that called for unwise tax cuts and stingy social spending. Most of its members hated it. In the end, the Senate prevailed.  � DUI: Legislators passed a bill requiring an interlock device be attached for a year to the car of anyone convicted of DUI. The device would prevent startup if alcohol is detected in the driver's breath.  After the governor signed the bill, one legislator had second thoughts and tried to repeal it before it went into effect. Fortunately, that collapsed in the waning hours of the session.  The people of Arizona - as well as the legislators - should be glad this grueling session has come to an end."
"4","Ghost of '86 failure haunts bid for immigration reform USAT000020070622e36m00060 NEWS DEBATE 934 Words 22 June 2007 USA Today FINAL A.10 English � 2007 USA Today. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Hovering over the Senate immigration debate like a malignant ghost is the near total failure of the last attempt to bring immigration under control -- a train wreck of a plan passed in 1986. Then as now, the heart of the plan was a legalization-for- enforcement trade-off. Roughly 3 million illegal immigrants were offered legal status in exchange for supposedly tough new enforcement procedures to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants.  It was a sham. The measure set up a system in which employers had to accept virtually any document a job applicant produced to prove his or her legality. The inevitable byproduct was a booming industry in phony documents -- and 12 million more illegal immigrants.  Now, 21 years later, legislators are being asked to make roughly the same deal: Give those 12 million undocumented immigrants probationary legal status and a path to permanent residency and citizenship. In exchange, tough new enforcement procedures will sharply cut the flow of future illegal immigrants. To skeptics, it's Groundhog Day.  Except that it's not.  The new enforcement plan is not yet convincing and must be improved. But it is built on a credible foundation.  On the border, hundreds of miles of fence are already being built, cameras and sensors installed, and the Border Patrol is adding thousands more agents. All are steps long demanded by immigration opponents, and all will be extended.  But fences and border agents won't keep undocumented workers out if the magnet of appealing jobs constantly lures them in. Reformers joke, grimly, that the nation is sending immigrants opposing messages: There's a ""Keep Out"" sign at the border, but 20 feet in there's a ""Help Wanted"" sign.  That makes the most important piece of any enforcement regime what it does in the workplace, where more than 7 million employers have to decide every day whether job applicants are legal or not. This is where the 1986 bill most notoriously failed, and where the 2007 bill is more promising -- if the promise can be realized. That's a big if.  The bill is very ambitious.  Any legal worker would be expected to have an ID that was difficult or impossible to forge, preferably with a photo or biometric ID that would prove indisputably that the person holding the card was the person on the card. That is essential, but it is a huge hurdle. For reasons unrelated to immigration, any national ID card is intensely controversial. At least six states have already rejected a plan to make driver's licenses a de facto national ID. The debate won't disappear quickly.  To further solidify the card's credibility, employers would have quick access to one or more government databases to check, for example, that a job applicant's Social Security number matched his or her name. The government's existing ""Basic Pilot"" program does that now, but only for the tiny fraction of the nation's employers that voluntarily participate. Penalties for repeat violations would be massive -- as much as $75,000 for each illegal worker.  Again, a good idea. It might not reach every illegal immigrant working as a nanny or gardener, but if fully operational and aggressively enforced, it could close off millions of jobs at companies large and small. That would be a resounding success.  But the bill's proponents appear wildly optimistic about their ability to field such a complex system quickly. They give themselves just 18 months. By comparison, we just wrote in this space Thursday about the failure of a much smaller plan, simply requiring passports for people returning from nearby countries. That had to be delayed despite a three-year run up.  Given the difficulties and the '86 experience, the temptation is to say that the new bill's most controversial provision -- offering legalized status to many of the 12 million immigrants now here illegally -- should not kick in until the program is fully functional. But that makes the enforcement job exponentially harder. If the focus instead is on new arrivals, chances of success are much greater.  That would have a domino effect. If new immigration were sharply curtailed, the law would regain its lost credibility, deterring others and restoring faith in the system. Those already here could then easily be assimilated -- provided they followed the bill's tough strictures, which include fines, payment of back taxes and no serious criminal record during a rigorous 13-year path to citizenship. In any case, trying to toss out millions of hard- working people and breaking up families whose children are U.S. citizens would be heartless, needless, exceedingly expensive and ultimately futile.  But all of that depends on having an enforcement system that will work.  One huge obstacle is money, and senators have taken an important step by adding $4.4billion in upfront funding to the bill.  The other obstacles are will and competence. Congress can ensure that this works by writing tough accountability provisions into the bill, approving the ID cards, and following through with sustained oversight.  Critics of the bill talk as if Congress is powerless. They're running from the ghost their predecessors created in 1986. There's no reason they can't write a bill that won't haunt their successors 20 years from now.  ---  This is the fifth in an occasional series of editorials about this year's immigration debate. View the previous editorials at blogs.usatoday.com/oped/immigration_editorial. GRAPHIC, B/W, Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY, Source: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (LINE GRAPH)"
"5","U. Iowa: EDITORIAL: Stop the rhetoric, solve the problem UWIR000020070622e36m00033 588 Words 22 June 2007 U-Wire English (c) 2007 U-Wire. All Rights Reserved.  U-WIRE-06/22/2007-U. Iowa: EDITORIAL: Stop the rhetoric, solve the problem (C) 2007 The Daily Iowan Via U-WIRE  Staff Editorial, The Daily Iowan (U. Iowa)  IOWA CITY, Iowa -- Illegal immigration has long been a divisive issue  in political debate. Lately, it has come to dominate much of political discourse in the United States. The reason this age-old problem has suddenly come to the forefront? Someone is trying to fix it. An extensive bill referred to as ""McCain-Kennedy"" has been proposed, and it has sparked debate in the Senate. So far, the public response to the bill does not appear to be favorable. It's been debated and amended in the halls of Congress while the rest of us discuss the pros and cons of recently proposed reforms and the issue of illegal immigration.  Between sound bites and media debates, there are a few things we can discern from this extensive and involved bill. It is intended to ""bring people out of the shadows"" and allow the millions of undocumented workers in this country to pay some penalties and pursue a path to citizenship. It's a controversial approach, and when it was mentioned in a recent Republican presidential-nomination debate, John McCain himself admitted that it may not be an ideal solution, but something needs to be done. This is the problem, we all agree that something needs to be done but never seem to agree on a solution.  Like the rest of the country, this Editorial Board has several different points of view on how to reform immigration, but there are a few things that we agree on and feel strongly about. Whatever form this legislation ultimately takes, it seems premature to consider any sort of comprehensive reform until the borders are secure. Until we isolate the problem within our borders, any laws that are passed will be difficult to enforce. With more people crossing the border illegally every day, a reform that is truly ""comprehensive"" is virtually impossible. Until the problem is contained, we have little faith that any changes to the current laws will make a difference.  Another point that we feel strongly about has to do with the penalties for illegal immigrants. Much of the media debate has centered on a proposed $5,000 fine for the illegal immigrants. While our personal opinions differ, we can't help but think that this country is having the wrong debate altogether. Why are we talking of fining the individuals rather than going to the source and stopping those who employ illegal workers? Attempting to reform illegal immigration by penalizing illegal individuals seems tantamount to reforming the drug problem by locking up anyone who is caught smoking a joint. Everyone knows that it's more effective to take the dealer, not the user, off the street. Why, then, are we talking of punishing illegal individuals without finding out where they are getting their paychecks and stopping those who take advantage of this cheap source of labor?  First things first. Now is not a time for a comprehensive immigration bill. Before we begin the eternal bickering over an all-encompassing solution, let's secure the borders, take control of the problem that we all agree exists, and look for the employers that are breaking the law. After we've dealt with these two important factors, we can begin the amnesty rhetoric once again.  ##30##  Distributed via M2 Communications Ltd - http://www.m2.com"
"5","The Terrorist Facilitation Act of 2007 WATI000020070622e36m0003g EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 887 Words 22 June 2007 The Washington Times A18 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prepares to bring up the immigration bill once again, the Bush administration and amnesty advocates in Congress are attempting to sell the measure as critical ""national security"" legislation. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez makes this pitch over and over again, and Sen. Ted Kennedy this week took time out from from poor-mouthing the war effort in Iraq to try to spin the Senate bill as a critical tool in the war against al Qaeda. Mr. Kennedy told the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce on Monday that Britain, France and Germany had problems with jihadist terror because Muslim immigrants are ""all in different communities, which failed to assimilate individuals.""  But the comments of Messrs. Kennedy and Gutierrez are disinformation - an effort by illegal-alien advocates to whitewash the fact that the immigration bill will make it much easier for terrorists to enter the country and conceal themselves while preparing to commit mass murder. Few people are better positioned to understand the damage than Kris Kobach, currently a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, who served as Attorney General John Ashcroft's top adviser on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. (On today's Op-Ed page, Mr. Kobach analyzes yet another major flaw in the Senate bill: It would grant illegal aliens the right to pay lower in-state tuition rates to attend college.) In a Heritage Foundation paper (""The Senate Immigration Bill: A National Security Nightmare"") published the day after Mr. Kennedy's Chamber of Commerce speech, Mr. Kobach makes a powerful case that terrorists would be major beneficiaries if the legislation passes in anything remotely resembling its current form.  The situation is surreal: While terrorists are trying to come up with ways to commit mass murder that will make September 11 pale by comparison, the Senate is looking to find new ways to grant mass amnesty to between 12 and 20 million illegals. We already know that there are alien terrorists seeking to enter the United States. The cell that allegedly tried to bomb JFK International Airport in New York included two Guyanan nationals, one from Trinidad and a former Guyanan who was a U.S. citizen. The six persons arrested and charged in the plot to blow up Fort Dix, N.J. included a resident of Turkey who obtained U.S. citizenship and five aliens from Jordan and the former Yugoslavia. The three Yugoslav aliens were illegals who snuck across the border near Brownsville, Tex. with their families in 1984.  Proponents of the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill assert that it will make it possible for the government to identify the terrorists (perhaps some will rush to the nearest DHS office to register themselves and fill out the necessary paperwork), but the bill will likely have the opposite effect, because it will make it easier for illegal-alien terrorists to create false new identities for themselves. Within 180 days after the president signs the legislation, the Homeland Security Department must begin handing out ""probationary"" Z visas signifying amnesty. No border security triggers have to be met, according to sections 1(a) and 601(f)(2) of the bill. That's when a jihadist terrorist intent on attacking the United States gets to choose from three options:  * Continue to operate as an illegal alien. This option is particularly easy if the terrorist lives in a sanctuary city, where police are generally barred by law from cooperating with the federal government, including New York City, Los Angeles and Detroit (with its large Middle Eastern population, the Motor City is an ideal place for a jihadist to hide.) Under Sections 601 (h)(1) and (5) of the bill, if an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent detains an alien, he must give him an opportunity to apply for the Z visa. This is weaker than under current law, under which ICE can detain the alien and immediately begin removal proceedings.  * Obtain the amnesty using one's real name. Under Section 601(h)(1) of the Senate immigration bill, the government has only one business day to conduct a ""background check"" on each Z visa applicant. If U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (an agency plagued by disorganization and already stretched to the breaking point) can't find a terrorist connection in 24 hours or less, the applicant gets his visa - and with it the right to roam the United States at will.  * Create a fraudulent new identity with the assistance of the U.S. government. A terrorist can walk into a USCIS office and offer a false name, providing two easily forged pieces of paper that purport to show that he was in the country prior to Jan. 1, 2007. With this new identity backed by an ID card issued by the U.S. government, the alien terrorist will be armed with a ""breeder document"" allowing him to obtain driver's licenses and just about any other form of identification he wants. This is essentially what the 19 September 11 hijackers did - using their passports and visas to obtain 63 driver's licenses allowing them to travel the country at will and board airplanes.  The immigration bill in its current form should be renamed ""The Terrorist Facilitation Act of 2007."""
"2","LETTERS AKDG000020070625e36n0001w Editorial 2211 Words 23 June 2007 The Arkansas Democrat Gazette 17 English Copyright (c) 2007 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. All rights reserved.  Stronger punishment needed  A Benton dog owner recently returned home after work to find that her dog was in tremendous pain, suffering from having been skinned alive in the way that a hunter would skin a deer.  To put a pet dog through that is unconscionable. The perpetrator must've had a reason for doing this, but there is no reasoning imaginable that would justify his horrible actions.  Even if you do not believe that a dog is deserving of more humane treatment, remember this: Anybody who would do this kind of violent act to a much-loved pet is capable of unspeakable acts of violence towards other unsuspecting and vulnerable creatures, i.e., your children and pets.  It is hard to believe that, if the perpetrators are caught, they will only be subject to a misdemeanor charge. We in Arkansas simply must pass a felonyprovision animal cruelty law. If you are a member of the Arkansas Farm Bureau, recognize here and now that we want these kinds of acts covered and punished. If your state representative or senator opposes legislation that would demand felony punishments for offenders, please e-mail, call or write him or her to let it be known that you support felony provisions for depraved acts of animal abuse.  How many more egregious acts of violence and abuse need we see before Arkansas takes a stand to say no to more of these situations? The time has come to establish a strong felony cruelty law that does not take away from humane law enforcement's powers.  JENNIFER SHREVE  Fayetteville  Feeders won't go down  Letter writer John Frey of Berryville hit the nail on the head. However, realistically, our elected officials will not ""take down the feeder"" for the entitlement base of their constituency for fear that they, too, would lose their ""feeder."" As long as the feeder is there, all the derivative issues-the poop and the squawking as well as the increase in population of those desiring the ""free"" food-serve their purpose. By continuing to provide entitlements, they can continue to sustain and broaden an everincreasing dependency base. These politicians want to command and control the largest monetary resource in the world while at the same time commanding and controlling most everything else.  Find a selfless politician and you will find a politician living in the so-called private sector. However, that politician will then be one of the many living off an entitlement-the monthly income that former congressional members receive. Try taking down that feeder.  ROY SEAY  Bentonville  Sheriff was out of line  I am shocked and appalled at Benton County Sheriff Keith Ferguson's recent comments on the 10 o'clock KNWA news. His reason for requesting more gang, drug and immigration task force employees was that ""the illegal aliens that we're getting in our area now are not here to work, they're here to do crimes."" Northwest Arkansas may have some of the problems of large, urban areas creeping into our community. We can now count racial profiling by law enforcement officials on the list of growing problems along with gang activity and meth.  What happened to innocent until proved guilty? What happened to the role of law enforcement to protect and serve the public? Can a person living in Benton County only expect protection and service from law enforcement based upon his or her immigration status?  KATE WALLIS  Springdale  People not represented  Current Arkansas members of the U.S. Senate are a pathetic disappointment. They are really Republicans in mufti, and I solicit their defeat in 2008. Consider the record.  Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln do not truly represent the people of Arkansas. They represent corporate Arkansas. Repeat: They represent corporate Arkansas.  They have betrayed the people and pledged their allegiance to the un-American corporations that are basically Republican in ideology and practice. They voted to reward illegal immigrants for breaking our laws by voting for the amnesty reward.  Lincoln and Pryor also voted against funding the border fence. Why? Logically, it would seem that their corporate CEO masters waved the Judas checkbook at them. They have been bought and paid for.  These free-loading political hacks have the very best medical and retirement plans they can devise for themselves while the common serf will witness masses of immigrants destroy the Medicare and Social Security System. Lincoln and Pryor have no shame, and I will repudiate them in 2008. I have been a Democrat for my 79 years-until now. I am now an independent, thanks to Lincoln and Pryor.  HARRY CROWTHERS  Rogers  Belief cannot be forced  Again, another person is trying to force his Christian beliefs on others. If it's not Norman Gentry, it's M.L. Tucker. If the King James Bible is the word of God, not a myth, I wish that God himself would tell me.  There is no doubt in my mind that humans are only a higher form of animals, that when we die, like the lower forms, we simply go out of existence. There is no Hell, there is no Heaven, there is no afterlife and there is no holy God to face in judgment. I am sorry, but that is my belief. And believe me, I have looked for answers.  I've got a sort of assurance inside me that wherever I am bound, it will be peaceful, like a dreamless sleep. After all, there is nothing more refreshing than a dreamless sleep. Just the art of being kind is all the sad world needs.  BILL MORELAND  Rogers  Bush's actions justified  This country is infested with blithering idiots. Letters that appear daily on this Voices page are a good example of what I'm talking about-people too stupid to realize how fortunate they are to have George W. Bush as their president during these tumultuous times.  Bush is the victim of his own success in the war on terrorism. We haven't been attacked by al-Qa'ida since Sept. 11, 2001, so the morons believe there is no longer a threat. The reason we have not suffered another attack on American soil is because we have killed or captured hundreds of the top leaders of the terrorist organization. They have been severely crippled, but continue to function because the Democrats in Congress have convinced them that they are winning.  Future historians will have a much different assessment of the Bush administration than the opinion expressed by the peanut farmer from Georgia. They will see that Bush presided over a robust economy for eight years with the stock market setting new records each year. They will see that this president had the courage to declare war on the Islamist terrorists where previous presidents did little if anything in response to terrorist attacks on U.S. personnel and property.  Bush will, indeed, receive high marks for his presidential service by future historians, who will not be influenced by treacherous politicians.  FRED LEMON  Cabot  Tax might not fare well  I was reading about the Aug. 14 special election for us to decide if our mayor should have more duties and power when I thought about that hamburger tax that you have been mentioning lately.  I was just wondering, if that Aug. 14 vote were to include a chance for us to vote on continuing that 2-cent Little Rock promotion tax, how it would fare. I'm beginning to think it's a little much to spend for what it seems like we've been getting. Seems to me lots of folks probably know where Little Rock is and that we have sites worth seeing like the presidential library and hotels and restaurants.  Anyway, I think I would like to be given a chance to vote on that hamburger tax. Perhaps 2 cents is not really necessary anymore. But I confess, I'm just an ordinary person and not very savvy about why we all have to pay and pay to promote our town, so I could just be a little confused.  OZ PERDUE  Little Rock  Voters lack faith in bill  Lots of furor over S. 1348 and immigration reform. Democrats and Republicans think conservatives and others are confused, which explains why they will not support what has been proposed in Washington. Wrong again. We are not confused, we just don't believe what the president and congressional leaders are saying. We don't believe that, if the bill passes, anything is going to change.  For 30-40 years, Congress, along with presidents, has approved all sorts of legislation, but nothing has happened. A failing effort has been one amnesty proposal after another. What reason is there to believe that, this time around, anything is going to change? I don't.  We now have a long and cumbersome bill with no special emphasis on controlling our borders. Many supporters equate building a double fence with the Iron Curtain, which is ridiculous on its face. Communists built the wall across eastern Europe to keep their people enslaved. We want to see illegal, uncontrolled, wholesale crossing of our borders stopped now. Nothing in this bill indicates that will happen.  When Congress and the president realize that voters do not believe they honestly intend to do anything about illegal immigration, then something may change. Priorities [should be] controlling our borders and adequate manpower backed up by arrests, temporary incarceration followed by the making of criminal records followed by immediate deportation to a Mexican port. Nothing else is going to call a halt to such foolishness all under the guise of being good neighbors.  MARION HICKINGBOTTOM  North Little Rock  Development shameful  I'm appalled and ashamed of the development in Eureka Springs concerning the City Council's ruling to [formally recognize] the unions of those other than husband and wife. When the rest of the nation calls us the Unnatural State, we have Eureka Springs to thank for it.  I thought these unnatural unions were against state law. I tried to find out by asking our attorney general's office, but [the person I talked to] refused to state whether it was legal or illegal and whether the rest of us could or could not take action to stop this embarrassment.  I'm hoping the Democrat-Gazette will take a straight approach in reporting the developments of this story.  DEL GARRETT  Jacksonville  Scooter will start to sing  Will Scooter be pardoned? Of course.  I. Lewis ""Scooter"" Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice so should be pardoned is what the loyalists, the Bushie lovers, keep parroting. Where were these spinners when the House voted a bill of impeachment against Bill Clinton? What was the underlying crime?  Don't forget the indictment of Scooter came under a Republican appointee, and he was tried and convicted before a judge appointed by none other than George W. Bush. In contrast, Clinton was impeached by a Republican House and then acquitted by a Republican Senate presided over by Republican appointed by a Republican president to the U.S. Supreme Court. So much for the claimed injustice to Scooter. The reason he will be pardoned is his singing voice. No sooner will he step into that cell but what he starts singing like a canary. Since the trial judge was not interested in delaying Scooter's admission to prison, W. needs to get that pardon ready to file.  BOB SCOTT  Springdale  Feedback  Exemptions still exist  I have read several letters proposing a sales tax in place of the income tax. One of the reasons given is that it would be more fair, as lobbyists could not get politicians to pass loopholes for special interests.  Before you buy into this idea, take a look at the state sales tax. Lobbyists have gotten all kinds of exemptions put in place for their special friends. The most glaring loophole is for farmers. If I want to make widgets, I have to pay sales tax on every piece of equipment I buy. A farmer does not have to pay a single penny on that $150,000 tractor he buys every year or so because the paint is faded a little on last year's model or he needs a bigger tractor so he can plow his entire field in one day.  If the farmers in Arkansas paid their fair share of sales taxes, the taxes on the rest of us could probably be cut in half.  THOMAS TAYLOR  Heber Springs  D�ja vu all over again Americans are beginning to understand how the Native Americans probably felt at Plymouth Rock in 1620 when those boatloads of foreign invaders came into their homeland.  At first, they welcomed the invaders. Then the strangers became more and more numerous, claiming the land as their own, forcing the natives from their villages and hunting grounds. The fate of the Indians is fairly well known.  Multimillions of foreign invaders are in our homeland, establishing their own language, customs and businesses. Our most powerful politicians have welcomed them and are asking more to join them. Does that sound familiar? It has been only 500 years since Columbus arrived.  D�ja vu.  CLIFTON E. HULL North Little Rock  This article was published 06/23/2007"
"1","THE ISSUE: LEGISLATURE EARNS A BREAK PHX0000020070625e36o0000f Opinions 690 Words 24 June 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser V4 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  Whew! State legislators are kicking back after a marathon session.  While dragging on far too long -- 64 days past the 100-day target -- the session was generally productive.  Lawmakers crafted a $10.6billion budget for fiscal 2008 that meets Arizona's needs. They approved some useful new legislation, such as making mortgage fraud a felony and imposing some restrictions on young, newly minted drivers. And only a few bills were clunkers, including misguided employer sanctions that threaten to put Arizona at a competitive disadvantage.  Our senators and representatives deserve a break (although some will use it to catch up on their ""regular"" jobs). They need to recharge their batteries.  Because some items on their to-do list, like dealing with water, never got checked off. And others, including transportation, are certain to come up next year.  * Employer sanctions. It's frustrating that Congress hasn't created a national program of workplace enforcement as part of immigration reform. The answer isn't to hobble business in Arizona with state sanctions so harsh that a company's license would be revoked on a second violation. Gov. Janet Napolitano should veto a bill that is filled with potential landmines, from conflicting federal employment law to the reliability of the system for verifying legal status. Some legislators said they reluctantly voted ""yes"" to head off an even more Draconian voter initiative. We shouldn't adopt a bad measure just because there's a worse one in the wings.  * Clean air. It took the threat of federal sanctions, but lawmakers adopted a package that should make a dent in particulate pollution. But we may need additional steps to keep up the progress toward healthful air. Meanwhile, a new standard on ozone is likely to require a strategy for reducing fumes from a wide range of products and industrial sources.  * Transportation. Extending the length of bonds, as Napolitano proposed, will give us access to an extra $500million for roads. But with construction costs rising, the Legislature will have to find additional answers to keep Arizonans moving.  * Water.  We got a few sips of progress: Rural counties can require adequate water in subdivisions, but there are loopholes and supervisors must give unanimous approval. A bill recognizes the need to protect the San Pedro River, with a planning process to do so. But c'mon: We need answers by the gallon, not the thimbleful.  * Investment. Arizonans' health, both physical and economic, got booster shots. Legislators agreed on a budget with $25million for the downtown medical campus. They pledged $100million over the next four years for Science Foundation Arizona. That farsighted move will spur research, help turn that research into commercial development and strengthen science and math in Arizona schools.  * Trust land. The antiquated rules for state trust land have to change. Outstanding spots, such as the foothills of the Superstitions or the flanks of Picacho Peak, should be preserved without financial strings that jeopardize their protection. The State Land Department needs better resources and legal tools to manage trust land. Legislators considered a proposal this year that didn't go far enough. Arizona needs vision on this issue.  * City giveaways. A bill on Napolitano's desk should stop counterproductive municipal bidding wars by penalizing cities that give huge tax rebates for retail development. Except it only applies in Maricopa and Pinal Counties. Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, fended off extending the requirement to southern Arizona. But Marana and other cities there should take warning and back off on the giveaways.  And now ... ahhhhhhhh! We can take a little break from worrying about bills at the Legislature.  And gather strength to do it again.  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: Freeways and future transportation needs were paramount, and the Legislature stepped up -- but there's plenty left that needs doing."
"1","Furthermore . . . OMHA000020070625e36o0008r Editorial 76 Words 24 June 2007 Omaha World-Herald Iowa;Midlands;Nebraska;Sunrise 06B English � 2007 Omaha World-Herald. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  One idea likely to be floated as U.S. Senate debate on immigration resumes, says the New York Times, is the incorporation of biometric information in Social Security cards to make them tougher to counterfeit. Whatever else one might say about this idea, it would have one virtue that a similar mandate on driver's licenses in the Real ID Act lacks: The states wouldn't have to foot the bill to implement it."
"5","A needed tool | Worker verification must be part of reform SDU0000020070626e36o00011 OPINION 534 Words 24 June 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune R,F G.2 English � 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The immigration debate has many moving parts, and so it's easy to lose sight of major developments, like a proposed amendment to the bipartisan Senate bill that should make clear once and for all why we have so much illegal immigration in this country.  Answer: Because we have been much too soft on the companies and individuals who flout our laws by hiring illegal immigrants, in some cases repeatedly and en masse.  Some Americans don't seem to even consider hiring illegal immigrants a crime. It's no wonder why. Rarely are even the habitual violators fined, let alone prosecuted and jailed. Too often, you'll hear people make excuses for those who commit the offense. Or they'll give employers the benefit of the doubt by insisting that most of them mean well and just need the tools to determine who is eligible to work and who isn't.  There is no doubt that employers need such tools, including a tamper-proof biometric card that all Americans carry in their purses or wallets. But it would be naive to believe that employers, and organizations that represent them, aren't going to fight any attempt to hold them accountable for hiring illegal immigrants.  Which brings us to that awful amendment, which happens to be bipartisan, at that. Proposed by Republican Charles Grassley of Iowa and Democrats Max Baucus of Montana and Barack Obama of Illinois, the amendment would flat-out eliminate the requirement in the bill that employers verify the legal status of each worker they hire in order to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. If the amendment is approved, employers would only have to check the status of employees whose Social Security numbers on their pay stubs didn't match the one assigned to their name or were used by multiple people.  In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security, the lawmakers wrote that the mandate to check all workers is an ""onerous and unnecessary requirement"" on employers.  It really isn't. If Americans are really serious about curtailing illegal immigration, then everyone needs to do his part. That includes employers, who may or may not want to know if they're employing illegal immigrants. They stand to get hundreds of thousands of guest workers every year in this bargain, and yet they don't want to give anything in return. That is simply not a reasonable position for one to hold. And it's obviously not helpful to this debate or the larger effort to get control of our borders.  Which is why we're glad to see that Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff is having none of this. He is urging the Senate to reject this amendment, saying that it ""eliminates needed tools"" to enforce the law and would help sustain ""a flourishing market for fake documents and identity fraud.""  Other senators, such as Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who helped craft the bipartisan compromise, agree with Chertoff. They want to see this amendment defeated, as well.  That's encouraging. Let's hope that view prevails and this amendment ends up in the wastebasket. 1 DRAWING"
"1","Blagojevich criticized Vallas for use of 'limousine'!? STJR000020070625e36o0006v EDITORIAL 1684 Words 24 June 2007 The State Journal-Register 15 English � 2007 The State Journal-Register. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  I've long since stopped being surprised that Gov. ROD BLAGOJEVICH acts differently in office than he said he would during his 2002 campaign. It's clear that he is the type who will say whatever sounds good at the moment, and sometimes immediately forget about it.  But just how far that trend can go is still a matter of some amazement.  Blagojevich's often-daily round-trip flights on state airplanes from his home base of Chicago to Springfield, for example, which cost the state an estimated $5,800 on each of those days, show just how different he is than what he claimed to be.  I've estimated, based on per-mile numbers in an auditor general's report, that flights that Blagojevich has taken on twin-engine state planes from Chicago to Springfield in just more than three months this spring cost the state about $100,000, including the empty flights the planes take to pick him up and then to return to Springfield after dropping him back in his home city. An Associated Press analysis of state records for a slightly different period put the cost at more than $5,800 per day and $76,000 and climbing for the spring.  Just like when it was disclosed in 2004 that he had six state cars driven to the Democratic National Convention city of Boston that year, and six cars also were dispatched to California for a wedding and fundraising trip - each time with 10 or a dozen state troopers assigned to watch him and his family - I am reminded of his visit to the AFL-CIO headquarters in Springfield just before he won the 2002 Democratic primary.  One of his campaign attacks against primary rival PAUL VALLAS was that the former CEO of Chicago Public Schools had used ""chauffeur- driven limousines"" in that education job. At the time, a spokesman for Vallas had said there were six sedans for top administrators of the district of nearly 600 schools, and Vallas reluctantly accepted the service at the request of Chicago police because he was often working long hours in blighted neighborhoods.  So I asked Blagojevich - then a member of Congress and a former state representative - if he would use a state police driver when governor.  ""I don't know,"" he said then. ""Do you get one? I never even thought about that.""  ""I hope not,"" he added about having a driver. ""I'd like to be my own person.""  Asked if that meant he would drive himself around as governor, he said, ""Well, I don't know about that. I might have a staffer drive me, right? I don't know. We're speculating.""  Well, the speculation is over. This governor seems to know no bounds when it comes to using state resources to meet his own desires.  As for Vallas, well, he's gone on to do good things. July would have marked five years running the school system in Philadelphia, where he oversaw more than 300 schools, including charter schools. But he has now taken a new job, which officially starts this week, and he said he has already been there for about three weeks.  ""You know me,"" he said. ""I always kinda start early.""  Vallas is the new superintendent of the Recovery School District, based in New Orleans, which was formed by the state before Hurricane Katrina to take over low-performing schools. Since the hurricane, the purview of that district has expanded greatly, taking in many city schools that are reopening as damage is fixed and students return.  The Recovery District, by the fall, is expected to be running about 60 schools, including charter schools.  ""I love assignments where I can have a positive impact on people,"" Vallas said in a telephone interview.  Like many staff members there, he will serve in New Orleans without a contract, but says he will stay at least two years, if wanted. His family has purchased a home back in Illinois, in Palos Heights, near parents of both he and his wife, SHARON. But that doesn't mean he has political plans. The opposite is true, he said.  ""I just paid off my campaign debt,"" he said, and without outside help. Any talk of another run for something, he said, and ""Mrs. Vallas would do serious damage to my ability to walk.""  ""I'm re-establishing residency in Illinois because ...that's going to be our last house,"" he said. ""That's where we're going to live and that's where where we're going to retire. It's as simple as that.""  Vallas' father-in-law, DEAN KOLDENHOVEN, is former mayor of Palos Heights.  Vallas had nothing bad to say about Blagojevich. Asked about the governor's travel, versus Blagojevich's 2002 campaign talk, Vallas simply noted that he very rarely will get into an airplane himself.  ""That wouldn't have been a problem with me,"" he said. ""You know I hate to fly.""  About state government  ALAN EHRENHALT, executive editor of Washington, D.C.-based Governing magazine, discussed the growing role of state governments last week at a forum on state government and citizen participation at the University of Illinois at Springfield.  The interesting talk was hampered just a bit by the fact that airline delays kept him from attending - but he talked by speaker phone and answered questions.  He believes that in areas such as immigration reform, the environment and health, states have actually been leading the policy path - with the federal government sometimes just following the lead.  Given that he studies state and local governments nationwide, I asked if there is a national persona of Blagojevich - given that the governor has often seemed to be seeking one.  ""To be honest, he does not have an extremely high level of visibility at the national level, and that's probably good for him right now,"" Ehrenhalt said. ""To the extent that he has a public image at the national level, it's not a favorable one. I would have to say that.""  Among governors Ehrenhalt said are ""doing interesting things and have been at the forefront of innovation"" are ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER of California; CHARLIE CRIST of Florida; MITCH DANIELS of Indiana; CHRIS GREGOIRE of Washington; and EDWARD RENDELL of Pennsylvania.  Of course, the level of knowledge about Blagojevich may have been raised in the last couple days, as the AP story about his Chicago- to-Springfield air commuting played in news outlets across the country and beyond.  The 135 people at the luncheon last week were also treated by RICHARD SCHULDT, director of the survey research office of the Center for State Policy and Leadership at UIS, to results of a new survey on citizen views of state government. The office did extensive interviews with 465 people across the state from May 17- June 15.  ""Overall, the public isn't overly pleased with state government currently,"" Schuldt said. ""Three-quarters ... said they trusted state government to do what is right only some of the time or hardly ever. Fifty-four percent think we're going in the wrong direction. ... About half think that state government takes their interests into account a lot or some, but almost as many say not much or not at all.""  When people were asked to name issues important to them, Schuldt said, most responses, about 23 percent, fell into the area of budget, taxes or spending, followed by education at 20 percent, cost of living and prices, 18 percent, and health-related issues, 16 percent.  Overall, he said, electricity prices were brought up by 8 percent, but in the sample of about 90 people from southern Illinois that percentage was a ""phenomenal"" 40 percent.  Among interesting findings: 69 percent of respondents knew that legislative sessions are in Springfield; 53 percent wrongly thought there are limits on state campaign contributions and 22 percent wrongly thought there are limits on state campaign spending; and 76 percent strongly or somewhat agree that potential candidates don't run because of the amount of money they would need to raise to have a chance to win.  Three-quarters of respondents knew that a bill can become law even after a governor's veto, while two-thirds knew that the House and Senate must pass the same version of legislation to make it law. Just 43 percent knew that it becomes harder to pass a state budget after May 31.  Of 10 names presented to respondents, 89 percent correctly identified BARACK OBAMA as a U.S. senator or presidential candidate - and that even topped a name thrown in as a benchmark - ANNA NICOLE SMITH, who was correctly identified by 86 percent. Only 16 percent knew MICHAEL MADIGAN was speaker of the House, though 32 percent in all knew he was a legislator or powerful person in Springfield. About 8 percent knew EMIL JONES is Senate president, while 20 percent knew him with a broader definition.  Only 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively, knew that Senate GOP Leader FRANK WATSON and House GOP Leader TOM CROSS were legislators.  There is some hopeful news, Schuldt said. Asked if they would encourage a son or daughter in their 20s to pursue a career in state government, 70 percent said they would encourage it - up from 62 percent in a similar survey in 2003.  A slide presentation about the results can be viewed on the Web at http://cspl.uis.edu/SurveyResearchOffice/index.htm.  Fans of Fred Thompson  Three Republicans who told reporters in Springfield last week that they are hoping that actor and former U.S. Sen. FRED THOMPSON, R-Tenn., runs for president all said they think Thompson can best let the public in on the party's message.  Former state Sen. ROGER KEATS, now of Wilmette, called Thompson a ""master communicator"" and ""Reaganesque."" Also with him were DON ""DOC"" ADAMS of Springfield, chairman emeritus of the state GOP; and Champaign County Clerk MARK SHELDON.  They urged people who like Thompson to log onto http://www.imwithfred.com and join the list of supporters. "
"2","PUBLIC FORUM LAD0000020070627e36p0000f Editorial 1291 Words 25 June 2007 Los Angeles Daily News VALLEY N10 English � 2007 Los Angeles Daily News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Accountability?  Re ""Rocky's wife gets probation, fine"" (June 21):  How hypocritical can Rocky Delgadillo be in supporting Paris Hilton's long sentence while sitting by as his cronies in Santa Monica allow a plea deal for his wife? How can you let her off of driving without insurance --a fact; driving on a suspended license - - a fact; driving without valid registration -- another fact?  This case is a slam dunk and she got off way too easy. Where is the outrage when the city's legal leader purposely skirts the law? Yet again, L.A. politicians show utter disdain for any semblance of accountability.  -- Jerry Procanik  Valley Village  Rail-crossing crashes  Re ""Deadly rail-crossing crashes soar in California"" (Sue Doyle column, June 20):  There really is no effective deterrent to people trying to get across a gated crossing before a train. We're too stupid as drivers to compare the benefits to the risks. But here are some suggestions/ observations:  Make the crossing gate arm extend completely across the roadway, make it unbreakable and have it activate quickly -- say 3 seconds. In Taiwan, they had a heavy steel curtain about 6 feet high that was raised and lowered between 2 stanchions. Very persuasive. This would be the most economical remedy.  Elevate the rail line like it has been done along Aviation Boulevard at LAX. Or put the line in a trench -- as long as it is not sharing the same surface as vehicle traffic a la the Alameda corridor.  -- Jim Emanuel  Thousand Oaks  Immoral demolition  Re ""Bulldozer demolishes pioneer bungalow"" (June 21):  This immoral act of destruction is simply greed over good, nothing more. As an owner and occupant of a Valley historical monument I find it comforting to know that at least some history is preserved. I am frequently contacted by these developers who could not care less about the Valley, the city or the country's heritage. Their Mercedes and financial gain are solely the name of their game.  As a railroad demolition contractor, I expertly understand very well how this artifact could have been spared with a phone call from the owner or the councilman. The rest of the lame excuses are pure double talk.  -- Dan L. Huffman  Chatsworth  Being inconsistent  Re ""Bush sticks to guns on embryos"" (June 21):  To be consistent, President Bush should use his power to halt in vitro fertilization, because it results in millions of unneeded embryos -- human lives, as he would put it -- being ""murdered"" each year. All our scientists want to do is use some of those excess, unneeded embryos to find cures for human diseases. Bush won't let them. But what is he doing to prevent the millions of IVF embryos from being created in the first place, with virtually all of them planned to be killed?  Also, if Bush thinks it is immoral to do research involving the destruction of excess IVF embryos, he and like-minded members of Congress should publicly declare that they will refuse medical treatments developed from embryonic stem cell research done anywhere in the world.  -- Robert Porter  Burbank  What have they done?  Re ""Metro fare hikes protested"" (June 21):  The Bus Riders Union has some gall to wail about using state spillover money to reverse the recent MTA fare hike. What have they done to advocate for those funds? Zilch! And not for lack of being asked to help, I have been assured by those working on this issue.  Our organization with a budget a fraction of the BRU's has sent numerous letters to key legislators urging action to secure our region's share of those funds. I guess the difference is we believe in action, instead of the sort of meaningless agitation the BRU indulges in.  -- Dana Gabbard  Southern California Transit Advocates  Stress lesson  Re ""Driving lesson 101"" (Your Opinions, June 20):  Does Richard Blanchard really think that lifting my left foot off the floor and onto the brake is quicker than lifting my right foot off the floor/accelerator and onto the brake? Last time my doctor checked, my reaction times were bilaterally equal indicating a normally functioning nervous system.  Or is he advocating driving with one foot on the gas and the other foot on the brake at the same time? I see that on the freeway all the time, brake lights flickering mile after mile after mile so you never know if they are really truly braking or not. Other than wearing out your brakes three times as fast, the only thing this will accomplish is stressing out everyone behind you.  -- Daniel Brown  Simi Valley  Construction workers  The so-called ""immigration reform"" bill now before the U.S. Senate would be disastrous for construction workers in California and across the nation -- union and non-union alike. Credible estimates place construction work as the third-largest employment sector in the U.S. for undocumented workers -- approximately 14 percent of the construction work force has entered the country without the legal right to do so.  The Senate debate has not focused sufficiently on the U.S. labor market and its workers. Speaking for the 350,000 construction workers and the unions affiliated with the State Building & Construction Trades Council, this bill is beyond salvaging and must be defeated. Not only would it destroy the economic pathway to a middle-class life for skilled union construction workers, it would ultimately drive down the living standards of all working Americans.  -- Robert L. Balgenorth  President  State Building and Construction Trades Council  Who made it?  I heard recently that you should not buy toothpaste at any of the dollar stores because it might have been made in China and a dangerous chemical might be in it. I checked my toothpaste, a very familiar brand, and noticed that it said distributed by Procter & Gamble. I called Procter & Gamble and asked them where my toothpaste was made and they could not or would not give me an answer. I told them that until they printed on the tube where it was made I would not buy it again.  It is scary that so many things we use every day are made in China where there are no regulations to speak of, and then to top it off the FDA does no checking unless there is a problem brought to their attention.  -- Marjorie Eisenberg  West Hills  41-cent postage  I have collected U.S. mint stamps since FDR was president and still have scads of sheets and plate blocks -- only to find they have no philatelic value. In fact I was offered 20 percent below the face value by more than one dealer. So with the new 41-cent postage rate, I am using the following three-stamp combinations just to mail a letter: 15-cent (stamp) plus 13-cent + 13-cent; 15-cent + 15-cent + 11-cent; 18-cent + 15-cent + 8-cent; 20-cent + 18-cent + 3-cent; 25-cent + 8-cent + 8-cent; 22-cent + 15-cent + 4-cent and several combinations using more than three stamps -- each of which was once the first-class postage rate.  -- Sol Taylor  Sherman Oaks  Question of integrity  Re ""Rocky's wife gets probation, fine"" (June 21):  There has often been a question of integrity of lawyers, but our own city attorney? He definitely knew the rules governing use of the government vehicle and, I believe, his wife knew about the warrant and was aware police do not look for persons with infraction and/or misdemeanor warrants. Doubtful the average citizen would have received a slap on the hand. Shame on you, Rocky.  -- Lynette Grismore  Valencia Letters to the editor"
"1","The charge of the Dems; First on gun control, now on energy, the Democrats are pushing Congress and the nation in a new direction. LATM000020070625e36p00022 Main News; Editorial Pages Desk 497 Words 25 June 2007 Los Angeles Times Home Edition A-14 English Copyright 2007 The Los Angeles Times  FIRST GUN CONTROL, now fuel economy. Congressional Democrats still have a lot of work ahead to get their groundbreaking bills past both houses and the president's desk, but you can't say they're not leading a radical change in direction.  On June 13, the House passed what could become the first major gun-control law in a decade, a bill aimed at strengthening a federal database used in background checks for gun buyers. A week later, the Senate approved an energy bill that would improve mileage for the nation's automotive fleet for the first time in nearly 20 years. Democrats still haven't forced a troop reduction in Iraq or put their stamp on the nation's backward immigration policies, but their surprising success in other areas is worthy of praise.  Not that Democrats deserve all the credit. The gun bill was a bipartisan effort that passed by acclamation after it won the blessing of the National Rifle Assn., while 20 Republicans -- nearly half the 43 who voted on the measure -- backed the fuel economy bill. Still, these measures would have been inconceivable while Republicans controlled both houses during the first six years of the Bush administration, a period characterized by the disgraceful decision to allow a decade-old assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 and successive energy bills focused on maximizing fossil fuel production at the expense of the environment.  It would be nice to think that the broad Republican support for a progressive energy bill signaled a pro-environment change of heart. Unfortunately, it probably has more to do with the high price of oil; Republicans are feeling pressure to bring gas prices down. They also rightly see dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue. The fuel economy bill would increase the average mileage requirement for cars sold in the U.S. from 25 miles per gallon to 35 by 2020, expected to eventually save millions of barrels of oil a day.  Regardless of their motives, Republicans' support for the energy bill will increase pressure on President Bush to sign it, assuming it gets through the House. Bush favors better fuel economy but wants it to come at a slower pace, with loopholes to allow more gas guzzling by SUVs. The Senate energy bill has its own regrettable loophole: A strong mandate was watered down in committee, allowing federal regulators to cancel the improvements if they decide the tighter standards aren't ""cost-effective."" But senators beat back furious efforts by the auto industry to weaken the bill further.  There was one sour note to last week's passage of the energy bill: An amendment that would have required the nation to get 15% of its electricity from renewable sources was defeated. Senate leaders should revive it in the future."
"2","Letters to the Editor PHLI000020070625e36p0000v EDITORIAL; P-com Opinion 559 Words 25 June 2007 The Philadelphia Inquirer CITY-D A08 English (c) Copyright 2007, Philadelphia Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.  Immigration blunder  Read Senate Bill 1348, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, if you have a couple of weeks off. Or go to http://go.philly.com/reformact and read just the sections that interest you.  As a naturalized citizen I have a special interest in immigration. The president wants this bill passed. ""Do what is right for America and pass this bill,"" he has said.  I'm sure he was not referring to Section 645 of this bill, titled ""Addressing poverty in Mexico."" All of his warnings are just politically scripted and insult the intelligence of the American public.  Individuals who have resided illegally in the United States for decades will receive a pardon. This is the definition of amnesty. Each illegal alien costs the taxpayers thousands of dollars annually. This is a crime against taxpayers who for decades have endured increases in community service costs and medical insurance premiums.  This bill is full of politically motivated giveaways. This is not ""reform,"" but just another administration blunder, in an election season, that will be detrimental to this country.  Richard Butscher  Warminster  The revenue side  I must question the linchpin of Chris Satullo's ""Center Square"" column June 17, ""A bracing heresy: Tax cuts don't pay for themselves.""  It is invalid to use deficit spending as an argument against supply-side theory, as the latter deals only with revenue generation and has no relationship to governmental spending or deficits.  So let's stick with revenue. Since May 2003, when the final and most stimulatory portion of the Bush tax cut package (capital gains and dividend income) went into effect, federal revenues have increased 35 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Compare this to the 28 percent gain in the highest-growth four-year period of Clinton's administration, 1997-2000. Not too shabby, I'd say!  David Shuey  Berwyn  Integrated beliefs  I was taken by Crispin Sartwell's recollection (commentary, June 18) of his postmodernist teacher, Richard Rorty. Extreme relativism is nonsense, yet Rorty offers an implied reminder that should give pause to those of us who are sure of the nature of truth.  He reminds us that almost everyone would much rather be right than change, so much so that we will do almost anything to twist new information to fit our existing beliefs. This is true of the proponents of narrow, inflexible and unsubstantiated scientific doctrine (e.g., the radical materialism of Richard Dawkins), as well as of the followers of the ancient mythology that composes much of mainstream religion.  While most people do believe in shared truth, they forget that there are many paths to take, and that the boundary they impose at the limit of their beliefs is artificial.  I applaud Rorty's disturbing the status quo, but I part company with his ""nihilistic pragmatism."" Better to try an integrated philosophy encompassing the higher truths in all philosophies, rational and spiritual, East and West. Why not accept the best of all worlds?  Craig Spielman  Lafayette Hill  Pope at the wheel  Re: The Vatican's Ten Commandments for driving:  I wonder how many of those commandments the pope would be breaking if he were driving over the Walt Whitman Bridge on a Friday afternoon at, let's say, 5 o'clock?  Michael R. Dettra  Clayton Previous | Next "
"2","LETTERS TO THE EDITOR SFC0000020070625e36p0000k EDITORIAL LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 898 Words 25 June 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL B.6 English � 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  'Reform' bill a disaster for construction trades  Editor -- The so-called ""immigration reform"" bill now before the U.S.Senate would be disastrous for construction workers in California and across the nation -- union and non-union alike.  Credible estimates place construction work as the third-largest employment sector in the United States for undocumented workers -- approximately 14 percent of the construction workforce.  It is now common practice for large contractors, who do business worldwide, to move construction workers from the Philippines, Pakistan and Eastern Europe around the globe like indentured servants. If this immigration bill becomes law, these international contractors already are planning to use the new guest-worker program to drive down wages and benefit standards for construction workers throughout the nation.  To date, the Senate debate has not focused sufficiently on the U.S. labor market and its workers. Speaking for the 350,000 construction workers and the unions affiliated with the State Building and Construction Trades Council, this bill is beyond salvaging and must be defeated. Not only would it destroy the economic pathway to a middle-class life for skilled union construction workers, it would ultimately drive down the living standards of all working Americans.  ROBERT L. BALGENORTH  President, State Building  and Construction Trades Council  Sacramento  ------------------------------------------------  Renewable energy  Editor -- Regarding ""Challenge to California's emissions rules dropped"" (June 19): We would like to commend House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for standing up for California's right to reduce global- warming emissions and for steering the energy debate back toward solutions.  Taking away states' authority to move forward in stopping global- warming pollution is the last thing that the House Energy and Commerce Committee should be debating. Instead, it's time to be moving forward with real solutions, such as increasing our use of renewable energy nationwide. Renewable energy development is a win- win solution that will create jobs, save money for consumers and reduce global-warming pollution.  In fact, by generating 20 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020, we can cut global-warming pollution to a level equivalent to taking more than 89 million cars off the road. Our country desperately needs energy independence, and a 20 percent renewable electricity standard by 2020 is one of the best ways to get there.  MOIRA CHAPIN  Federal field organizer  Environment California  San Francisco  ------------------------------------------------  Boxer's partition plan  Editor -- U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer's idea for partitioning Iraq should be explored more fully. It holds the promise of successfully changing the failed status quo, and makes a great deal of historical sense: As she pointed out, this kind of plan has worked before, and could work again. Gregory Maier's letter to the editor claiming that partitioning Iraq wouldn't work (""Partitioning Iraq would be a disaster,'' June 20) ignores these past successes, and relies on false historical analogies -- Palestine/Israel and Northern Ireland.  In Iraq, a partition that gives the three interested parties equal negotiating power would stand a much greater chance of success. The status quo is clearly not working. A military solution to a political problem is no solution at all. It's time to try a new plan. This partition plan could well be the plan that works.  TOM J. WRIGHT  Oakland  ------------------------------------------------  Kids need recess  Editor -- Catherine Harrell's June 22 Open Forum commentary, ""Bring back recess,"" is right on target. As a teacher for more than 30 years, I have seen this trend evolving. Not only can it lead to depression, but it can contribute to other conditions as well. We have a growing obesity problem in this country.Children do not get enough physical exercise. Most no longer walk to school.Many rarely play outside after school.  We also have a growing problem with ADHD (attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder). If children must sit all day in a classroom without a break to run off excess energy, it is understandable that it will come out in inappropriate ways.  Recess also serves a very vital educational purpose in giving time for children to work on their social relationships in a way unstructured by a teacher. This is very important for their development.  LUCY POPE  Berkeley  ------------------------------------------------  BART's muddled vision  Editor -- I was astonished to see that BART's future map did not include extensions or links to Livermore or Tracy (""BART's new vision: more, bigger, faster,'' June 22). Can someone explain to me why a rail line is not being built into the highway 205 project, yet now BART is talking about a second transbay tube? Has no one stopped to consider where a significant percentage of the Bay Area's workforce actually lives?  WILLIAM MAXWELL  Stockton  -- -- --  Editor -- BART has the right idea for a second transbay crossing, but the wrong location. The next tube or bridge should be between the San Francisco and Oakland airports. Not only would it allow BART to route trains to the Peninsula further south, but it would also allow airline passengers to arrive at either airport and take BART to make their flight connection. On top of that, BART would go to Oakland's airport, instead of leaving passengers at the Coliseum station.  JERRY VAN CLEVE  San Francisco  -- -- --  Editor -- Apparently, BART's new vision does not include an extension to San Jose. Quelle dommage!  MICHAEL ZONTA  San Francisco GRAPHIC; Caption: / Margaret Scott / NewsArt.com"
"2","LETTERS, FAXES & E-MAIL STJR000020070626e36p00011 EDITORIAL 843 Words 25 June 2007 The State Journal-Register 8 English � 2007 The State Journal-Register. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Governor ought to drive to work like everybody else  I just got off the phone with the governor's office. I was watching MSNBC national news and they did a story regarding the governor of the state of Illinois and his expensive travel to Springfield from Chicago.  I then made a phone call to the governor's office. The gentlemen who answered the phone told me that the plane is already scheduled, so it doesn't matter what the cost would be.  I told him I didn't care if it is scheduled; the taxpayers are paying for him to fly. I asked if the governor's plane ride is included in the temporary budget? The gentlemen replied he didn't know.  My suggestion to the governor is to stop being a crybaby regarding the programs that he isn't getting funded and use the money he saves from flying.  And he should ride back and forth to work in a car like every other taxpayer does. Maybe he'll see how expensive it is for us to drive because of high gasoline prices. Then again, that would still be cheaper for us than flying back and forth on the back of the taxpayers.  Sarah Gripper  Springfield  Disgusted by Blagojevich's travel back and forth  After reading what it costs for the governor to travel back and forth to Springfield, I am totally disgusted with the entire mess.  Here's a plan. Ground all the state planes that are funded by us nobodies (we, the taxpayers) and make the governor and all the legislators travel by train while paying for the expense out of their own pockets. It's not like they can't afford it.  In the meantime, I believe I will start having all my bills forwarded to the House and Senate to be paid by them, as I will be unable to do so by the end of next month because I will be without a paycheck. I urge others to do the same.  Diana Hayes  Springfield  Vigil planned Tuesday at the Capitol  Thanks to Karen Soltys for keeping alive the concern of injustice at the Guantanamo detention center, and the reminder that June is Torture Awareness Month.  It is unfortunate and ironic that our country, which stresses liberty and justice for all, has undermined that very perception by its reprehensible conduct. What is just in a culture that allows some individuals to be held without trial, fosters dehumanization, and dwells in the secretive?  With a call for a restoration of habeas corpus, a repeal of the Military Commissions Act, as well as an end to torture and extraordinary rendition (the clandestine movement of detainees from one country to another), our local ACLU, Pax Christi and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom chapters will join with the Justice and Peace Office of the Franciscan Sisters to sponsor a vigil at the state Capitol steps at 4:45 p.m. on Tuesday,. The public is welcome, and all are asked to bring a flower in remembrance of the loss of rights, loss of life of those who suffer from the injustice of torture, and hope that Congress will vote in and for the good conscience of our democracy.  Diane Lopez Hughes  Event coordinator  Springfield  National Spelling Bee was a wonderful experience  Can you spell APPRECIATE? We can! Our family appreciates all of the good wishes, cards and calls for our son Drew's trip to the National Spelling Bee in Washington, D.C.  We had a wonderful experience at the bee, and that was made all the more special by the send-off we received from so many great people - the staff and students at Williamsville Junior High School, friends from Hope Church, neighbors and others who just recognized Drew from newspaper articles. We were overwhelmed with the support! Thank you all for the encouragement and kind comments.  The trip was possible through the generosity of The State Journal- Register. The newspaper hosts the Regional Bee and pays for the winner to attend the National Bee. What an awesome way to support students in an academic endeavor!  The trip preparation was made easier by the details and arrangements provided by Edie Weaver of the SJ-R. Drew was privileged to wear the No. 82 placard, which represents The State Journal-Register region.  Though we didn't come home with a grand champion trophy, we did bring home many wonderful memories of a great event in which Drew was fortunate enough to participate. Thank you to all!  The Kluemke Family  Sherman  An obvious alliance  I see where the recently defeated amnesty/immigration bill is being reintroduced in the U.S. Senate.  But I finally get it now why their is such a coalition between the Democrats and Republicans. It is very simple.  The Democrats are buying votes for elections and the Republicans are getting cheap labor by depressing wages earned by all our citizens. It's an obvious and understandable alliance.  Tony Salvatore  Springfield"
"4","Police on the Spot; In the absence of a workable immigration system, state and local officers are forced into a quandary. WP00000020070625e36p0001b Editorial 367 Words 25 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A18 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  DESPITE THE objections of police chiefs all over the country, officers at the state, city and county levels are increasingly being drawn into what should be the federal government's responsibility to deal with illegal immigrants. In some instances officers are compelled to arrest undocumented immigrants after routine traffic infractions if a computer shows that they are facing outstanding federal warrants. In this way local police are being made complicit in federal deportations, which subverts their attempts to establish ties and cooperative relations with immigrant communities. Hence the police chiefs' objections.  This is a potentially serious problem. Violent gangs have gained a dangerous foothold in many immigrant communities, including some in the Washington area. To contain them, police need informers and other kinds of help in those neighborhoods. But what immigrant informer will come forward if he knows that as soon as police enter his name into a database, they will be compelled to arrest him because he failed to appear at a hearing on his immigration status or a deportation proceeding some years ago?  A handful of police departments have refused to enforce the federal warrants, which include about 250,000 from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Most departments, including those in this region, are enforcing them, albeit unenthusiastically in some cases. Lawsuits have been brought challenging the inclusion of the warrants, which are for civil violations, in a national criminal database.  All of this is symptomatic of the underlying sickness, which is the nation's failure to devise a workable immigration policy and the resulting problem of 12 million illegal immigrants. The tensions between federal and local law enforcement will only worsen until lawmakers in Washington figure a way out of the impasse -- one that recognizes the reality that most of those immigrants are an integral part of the U.S. economy and are here to stay. As the Senate prepares to take up its immigration bill for the second time in a month, it should be mindful of how tenuous the status quo has become. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200706251ED-IMMIGRATION25"
"5","Sen. Lott's foot-in-the-mouth problem WATI000020070625e36p00036 EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 972 Words 25 June 2007 The Washington Times A16 English � 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  With his buffoonish complaints about talk radio and its role in educating the American public about the flaws in the Senate immigration bill, Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott has done much to energize the conservative Republican base and jeopardize the chances of its passage. Earlier this month, open-borders advocates came up 15 votes short when they attempted to shut off debate on the immigration bill, and nothing that has taken place since that time leads us to believe that the Bipartisan Alien Amnesty Caucus will fare much better on tomorrow's cloture vote - the most critical one on illegal immigration during the current Congress. If open-borders advocates fail again tomorrow, don't be surprised if President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, their poll ratings already abysmal, conclude that this isn't the way to build their respective political legacies.  Poll after poll shows the American people are, to put it charitably, very skeptical about the bill. In the past few days, we've seen Republican senators like John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who were thought to be in the undecided column, announce they would vote against cloture. Georgia Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, original supporters of the ""compromise,"" are expected to oppose cloture tomorrow. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has made statements generally supportive of the bill and helped work out a ""compromise"" agreement with Mr. Reid to bring it back to the floor, now says he is not sure how he will vote. While many factors have helped drive down support, it's increasingly clear that Mr. Lott's over-the-top efforts to silence amnesty critics have backfired and become a rallying point for conservative critics of the legislation.  On June 7, Mr. Lott delivered a Senate floor speech in which he lavished praise on Sen. Edward Kennedy, the most fervent liberal advocate of the bill (and whose staff is most likely responsible for writing the parts of the bill that make it easier for illegal-alien gang members and alien absconders to remain in the United States). Mr. Lott attacked critics of the immigration bill as ""mice"" and accused them of trying to ""slither away from this issue."" The Massachusetts Democrat responded by giving Mr. Lott a verbal pat on the head, thanking him for his ""constructive and positive attitude.""  Unfortunately, Mr. Lott was just warming up. The following week, he spoke to the New York Times about the Senate's difficulty passing an immigration bill: ""Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem."" After talk-radio hosts from around the country reacted furiously (and properly so) to Mr. Lott's menacing tone, the Mississippi Republican complained to The Washington Post over the fact that angry callers protesting the amnesty bill had jammed his phone lines for three weeks. He appeared to suggest that the telephone calls were an effort by ignorant non-Mississippians to ""intimidate"" him.  During yesterday's appearance on ""Fox News Sunday,"" Mr. Lott was asked about television ads run by NumbersUSA criticizing him for joining with Mr. Kennedy in ""selling out Mississippi"" by supporting the Senate bill. In response, Mr. Lott's arguments for the amnesty bill included the following: ""We need to make sure we know who these people [illegal aliens who benefit from the amnesty bill] are, where they're going, that there's a job for them, that they're not treated like animals."" Leave aside for a minute the insulting suggestion that if you have an honest disagreement with Mr. Lott over the merits of this bill, you favor treating people in a subhuman way. Mr. Lott's assertion that the immigration bill will enhance our ability to keep tabs on potential security threats only shows that he knows very little about what is in his bill or is desperately spinning. As we noted in some detail in our lead editorial on Friday (""The Terrorist Facilitation Act of 2007""), the Senate bill includes provisions that will make it absurdly easy for a potential terrorist to obtain a ""probationary"" visa and create a fraudulent new identity for himself with the assistance of the U.S. government.  Mr. Lott's comments about the immigration bill are unfortunate in their own right. But his suggestion that talk radio is a problem that someone has to ""deal with"" because it makes it harder to ram the immigration bill through the Senate is even worse, because it raises the specter of reviving the ""Fairness Doctrine"" - the Federal Communications Commission policy (repealed in 1987 at President Reagan's urging) that effectively barred any serious political debate from occurring on the airwaves. The result of the demise of the ""equal-time rule"" has been the rise of issue-oriented talk radio - perhaps the one area of the media where conservatives dominate. So, liberals who say they believe so strongly in the First Amendment want to revive the doctrine in order to prevent talk radio from doing what is has done on the illegal-immigration issue: educate people about what has been jammed into this massive bill and how it affects their country.  We note that left-liberals like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, along with research organizations like the Center for American Progress headed by Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, are pushing to revive the Fairness Doctrine - which would make it much easier in the future to pass open-borders immigration bills before people understand what is in them. We trust that those Mississippians who are making their opinions on illegal immigration clear to Mr. Lott will let him know that they are watching very carefully what he does regarding the ""Fairness Doctrine"" and other efforts to shut talk radio up."
"1","FAMILY PLANNING XWSJ000020070626e36p00004 A Editorial 513 Words 25 June 2007 Winston-Salem Journal METRO 6 English (c) Copyright 2007 Piedmont Publishing Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  The U.S. House of Representatives struck a blow for compassion and common sense last week when it moved to reverse a ban on contraception aid to international groups that offer abortion or promote abortion rights. The Senate should follow suit.  By a narrow margin, members of the House voted to allow the United States to donate contraceptives to family-planning organizations overseas even if the organizations include abortion or abortion counseling among their services. Rep. Nita Lowey, a New York Democrat, introduced a bill that would have allowed the United States to give money for such organizations to use for contraceptives. But in the face of stiff opposition from conservatives, she amended it to allow only the donation of contraceptives themselves.  Such opposition to helping overseas groups with family planning if they also deal with abortion is as entrenched among Republicans in Washington as it is misguided. President Ronald Reagan started the ban in 1984, and President Bush reimposed it early in his first term.  The ban, like Bush's opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, is an example of how the long struggle over abortion rights has polarized politics in this country. The conservative wing of the Republican Party is so adamantly against anything related to abortion that it supports a ban that hurts needy women in poor countries. In the long run, the ban also will be bad for the future of the United States, and indeed, the whole world.  It's not just that the population of the world is growing at an alarming rate. The problem is worse because of where the growth is taking place. In most wealthy countries, there are only enough births to replace people who have died, if that many. Most of the growth in wealthy countries is from immigration - largely from people coming from poor countries.  It is the poor countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America where population growth is booming. Rapid population growth in those countries causes more poverty, disease, misery and environmental degradation. It also contributes to political instability.  Women in those poor countries often have little or no access to family planning advice and contraception. Many of them want to be able to plan how many children they will have and when they will have them, so that they can provide better, healthier lives for everyone in their family. Contraceptive devices also help fight the spread of AIDS, which is taking such a toll, especially, in Africa. There is no question of U.S. money going to pay for abortions overseas; all the bill would provide is contraception.  The worst thing about the ban is that it surely leads to more abortions. Few women choose abortion as their preferred method of family planning. Abortion is a last resort. Family planning and contraception can help women avoid such desperate measures.  The House vote is a welcome change. The United States should be working to ensure that as often as possible, babies are born in good health and into families that want and can provide for them."
"2","U.S. must keep its gates ARGL000020070628e36q0000x Voices; B Staff 535 Words 26 June 2007 Argus Leader 1 English (c) Copyright 2007, Argus Leader. All Rights Reserved.  Sen. Thune has introduced smart amendment to immigration bill  Too often common sense in our nation's capital is scarcer than Chicago Cubs World Series championships. But Sen. John Thune has offered a pragmatic amendment to the polemical immigration bill resurfacing today in Congress.  Thune's amendment - and the rest of the immigration bill - for all practical purposes died earlier this month when opponents to the bill stifled debate. But the bill has re-emerged, returning to the Senate floor this morning. There is a good chance it will meet another quick death, but if the bill survives, Thune's amendment must accompany it.  Under Thune's amendment, before illegal immigrants now living in the United States can receive probationary legal status, provisions in the bill to beef up border security must be implemented. The provisions include hiring more border guards, building more border fence, instituting a system to conduct aerial surveillance and another to verify the legal status of employees before they can be hired.  This much is clear to all - even us distant observers in the nation's northern reaches: Illegal immigrants are pouring into the United States across its southern border. Prompting their flight are two of humankind's worst scourges: poverty and political persecution. America offers them a haven, a place to find work during the day and peace during the night.  The border between the United States and Mexico is almost 2,000 miles long. According to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, an estimated 250 million people each year legally cross from Mexico into the United States. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates hundreds of thousands of others annually jump the border. Some get caught. Most do not.  For all kinds of legitimate reasons - safety, economic, social - the United States must do a better job of controlling its borders. Although ""amnesty"" for illegal immigrants is generating much of the discord and grabbing most of the headlines in the immigration bill debate, border security must be without question the central objective of the bill.  Thune, it seems, recognizes that. ""My amendment is common sense,"" he said after introducing it. ""Frankly, it does what the sponsors of the bill say the bill does. Before we go down the path of legalization, let's address the other issues.""  No one is suggesting these ""other issues"" of improving border security are not terribly complicated or will not require sound thinking and terrific sums of money to accomplish. Nor are we necessarily endorsing all the security provisions in the current bill.  But if the nation's long history of welcoming immigrants is to continue, its gates must be better kept. Because the less well-off in this world will continue to knock.  THE FACTS  Æ The Pew Hispanic Center estimates 11.5 million to 12 million illegal immigrants currently live in the United States.  Æ More than half of all illegal immigrants in the country - an estimated 6.2 million in 2005 - came from Mexico. Another 2.5 million - or 22 percent - came from the rest of Latin America.  Æ The center estimates 500,000 illegal immigrants have entered the United States each year since 2000."
"2","THE ISSUE: STATE EMPLOYER SACTIONS PHX0000020070627e36q0005p Opinions 594 Words 26 June 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser B4 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  Gov. Janet Napolitano is pondering whether to sign an employer sanctions bill this week. We think she should veto it.  This may look like the culmination of the usual sausage-making legislative process.  Look more closely.  The employer sanctions bill is not the result of the governor or the Legislature making public policy on illegal immigration.  This measure is about sensible people trying to head off something worse.  It's about averting an initiative.  Petitions are being circulated to qualify a ballot measure on employer sanctions that is far less rational than what lawmakers passed. The danger is that laws passed by initiative, unlike those passed by the Legislature, cannot easily be modified or undone -- even if they prove unworkable.  The threat of the initiative made some lawmakers get behind an employer sanctions bill even though the initiative's backers represent strident, hard-line views that are not in keeping with the wishes of the majority of Arizonans.  (Doubt that? Consider that hard-liners J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf lost their bids to represent Arizona in Congress. Don Goldwater, one of the key supporters of the initiative, also lost his bid to be the GOP candidate for governor.)  The Legislature's employer sanctions bill was the lesser of two evils.  That's no way to make law.  This bill should not become law.  States all over the country are passing laws aimed at an issue that only the federal government can solve. The nation doesn't need 50 immigration policies. It needs one good one.  The U.S. Senate is grappling with a compromise immigration reform package that represents the nation's best chance in a long time to really address this issue. But hard-liners are doing their best to stifle that process, too.  Let's be clear: Tough employer sanctions are the key to the success of any immigration reform. We support them. But they need to come from Washington and be uniform nationwide. They need to be enforced by the federal government, not local prosecutors.  The governor should not sign a bill simply because it is not as bad as something worse.  The bill requires employers to use the federal Basic Employment Verification Pilot Program, which cannot detect the use of fraudulent documents. Since that's what many illegal immigrants use to get jobs, the system is highly unreliable. It is also understaffed and not ready for prime time, according to the Government Accountability Office.  If this becomes Arizona law, it will put Arizona businesses at a disadvantage by requiring them to do something businesses in other states can skip.  A business owner in Arizona could lose the license to operate on the second offense of hiring an illegal immigrant.  There is no reason to expect that initiative backers would end the petition drive simply because of this law. Some who support the initiative hope they might. They think the existence of a new law would at least provide a reason to say the initiative is unnecessary. The initiative is unnecessary.  So is this bill.  Veto it, governor.  Even sausage-making isn't this messy.  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: The U.S. needs federal immigration reform, not 50 different state laws."
"5","Get the real facts on immigration AGCR000020070627e36q00016 EDITORIAL 335 Words 26 June 2007 Augusta Chronicle All A04 English © 2007 Augusta Chronicle. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  I hate being lied to, especially by politicians who are supposed to be representing the legal population of their states. For example, Sen. Lindsey Graham, on his Web site, lists several so- called ""myths about immigration reform,"" and lists several ""facts"" that are, in reality, just lies.  ""Myth: This is amnesty."" Lindsey's fact states the Z visa workers must ""leave the U.S. and file their application in their own home country, and demonstrate merit based on the skills and attributes they will bring to the United States."" But Senate Amendment 1150 states: ""Noncitizens who are already physically present in the United States may apply for an adjustment of status, provided they meet certain requirements and complete the application process within the United States.  ""Myth: Illegal immigrants will come out of the shadows and on to the welfare rolls."" Lindsey's fact states: ""Z visa workers are not entitled to welfare, Food Stamps, SSI, nonemergency Medicaid, or other programs and privileges enjoyed by U.S. citizens and some Legal Permanent Residents."" But Senate Amendment 1150 states: ""Individuals with Z-A visas would be treated like LPRs when determining eligibility for federal benefit programs and thus become eligible for nonemergency services in most states after five years."" Those individuals who are already in the United States and simply adjust their status would become eligible for nonemergency services in most states five years after they become LPRs.  Currently, a person making about $15,000 in one year with two children will pay zero in federal and state taxes, and receive a tax credit check for over $5,000. The immigration bill is estimated to increase federal direct spending by over $10 billion for tax credits and Medicaid. Discretionary spending for this bill is estimated to cost another $20 billion, and increase several billion per year. Does the American taxpayer need this? ...  This bill will not be enforced; is amnesty for the illegal immigrants.  Denis Thomas  North Augusta, S.C."
"4","EDITORIAL: Take action on immigration KRTGL00020070626e36q00009 The Boston Globe McClatchy-Tribune Regional News 491 Words 26 June 2007 The Boston Globe (MCT) English Distributed by McClatchy - Tribune Information Services  Jun. 26--The wearying battle on immigration continues in the US Senate, where once again rational reform faces a test of survival. A vote expected today requires 60 senators to proceed. Earlier this month, a similar vote failed.  Too many senators disliked pieces of the sprawling bill. Indeed, the compromises aren't pretty. There are flaws and omissions. But the bill now has a new amendment, supported by President Bush, to spend $4.4 billion for border security, which should reassure some critics. The bill also has an asset the country badly needs: progress.  Senate members should dig deep and find the political will to move this bill forward. The country needs the shove. National policy has been stuck for years.  The bill would increase border protections, set up a guest worker program, and create a way for the estimated 12 million people who are here illegally to pay a $5,000 fine and pursue citizenship. It's a sound attempt to modernize and face up to real limitations, including the fact that it's hard to deport 12 million people.  Still, the political process is harrowing. Senator Edward Kennedy has been accused even by supporters of compromising too much. And other senators are wary of angry voter backlash.  Outside Washington, however, there's impressive clarity. A letter sent to Senate majority leader Harry Reid from the Western Governors' Association urges the Senate to pass comprehensive reform, saying any policy "". . . should have the overarching purpose of protecting and preserving the safety and interests of the United States and its citizens while recognizing our nation's economic needs to have a stable and legal supply of workers where there are no willing United States workers otherwise available. Western farmers and other businesses need to have a steady supply of seasonal and year-round workers in order to meet their demand.""  The June 22 letter is signed by a bipartisan group of governors: Jon M. Huntsman, Janet Napolitano, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, respectively the governors of Utah, Arizona, and California.  The National Governors Association's policy on immigration says: ""The federal government has the dual responsibility to protect our national borders and maintain the values that make us a beacon of democracy, human rights, and civil rights."" In other words, keep the country safe and decent.  If the bill survives today's vote, more political stamina will be needed. The bill would face another Senate vote and then move onto a new battlefield in the House. If Bush signs the bill, the country would still face the challenges of implementation. It would be the beginning of years of hard work -- and more political battles. But this would also bring the forward motion that the country requires.  -----  To see more of The Boston Globe, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.boston.com/globe.  Copyright (c) 2007, The Boston Globe"
"4","Our view: Congress should pass compromise on immigration CPGN000020070627e36q00037 Editorial 481 Words 26 June 2007 The Capital (Annapolis) A12 English Copyright (c) 2007 The Capital (Annapolis). Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.  Two questions will probably be going before Congress before the end of the week:  Can the legislature pass an immigration reform bill that is far from perfect, but is about as good as can be expected from Washington? And can Congress pass a bipartisan compromise on any major national issue?  As a Washington Post story pointed out yesterday, while Congress endlessly fiddles around on this issue, the states are burning. Exasperated state legislatures are passing bills to cut off public services to illegal immigrants and make it harder for them to find jobs.  You can't blame state legislators for losing patience. The federal government has failed to control the border or impose significant penalties on businesses that employ illegals. And this has stuck state governments with a huge unfunded mandate - providing social services for people who are not supposed to be here.  But the best a state legislature can do is shove the problem elsewhere by passing laws that will make other states comparatively more attractive to illegals. For a real solution, federal action is necessary.  The immigration bill now on hold in the U.S. Senate is unusual: It was not only drawn up by legislators on both sides of the aisle, but has support from a Republican president and a sizable bloc of Democratic legislators. In short, the support comes from the sensible center, while most of the opposition is coming from those with more extreme - and incompatible - views.  Some opposition is from those allergic to the word ""illegal"" in the term ""illegal immigrants."" They don't like it that the bill, as it stands now, would increase funding for border security or create a status for today's illegals - the ""Z visa"" - that requires fees, background checks, a biometric identification card and employment.  Then there are the businessmen who detest the bill for bolstering penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, with fines of up to $75,000 and possible jail time for repeat offenders.  On another fringe are those who insist on describing the Z visa as ""amnesty."" Most of the politicians in this camp are playing to instinctive public hostility to illegal immigrants - although most of them also know that the forcible removal of at least 12 million people is impossible. The only feasible approaches are to strengthen border and workplace enforcement, and to provide a path to full legality for those already here. These are all things that the current bill at least tries to do.  The responsible politicians are the ones trying to improve the bill. The others are trying to defeat it so they can pander to anti- immigrant sentiment while the situation deteriorates.  The fate of the immigration bill will tell us a lot about the ratio of responsible to irresponsible legislators on Capitol Hill - information it will be nice to have for 2008."
"4","Hutchison Amendment Senate should OK her bill in exchange for vote DAL0000020070626e36q00072 EDITORIALS EDITORIALS 359 Words 26 June 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 10A English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  When the Senate returns to its immigration bill today, vocal opponents will try to kill it on the spot. We hope sufficient other senators stop them. The Senate should have the chance to fine-tune the valuable proposal through the 11 amendments each party gets to introduce this week.  We support the bill because it tightens border security, creates an employee verification system, establishes a temporary worker program and offers America's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a chance to earn citizenship.  That last category still gives some conservatives heartburn. They think it translates into amnesty, even though immigrants couldn't earn citizenship until all current applications are handled.  Texas Sen. Kay Hutchison is among those who consider the citizenship provision amnesty. But, unlike others in her camp, she's trying to address her concerns.  The Republican senator will offer an amendment to require adult illegal immigrants to return home - or to a consulate in another country - within two years after earning a new temporary Z visa. If immigrants go home with an affidavit proving they have a job here, they will earn a permanent Z visa until they apply for citizenship.  This proposal wouldn't be our first choice, but her compromise is acceptable. The current bill already contains a so-called ""touchback"" provision. The major difference is adult immigrants must ""touch back"" a few years earlier under the Hutchison plan.  In return, however, Ms. Hutchison must do two things:  *Guarantee a safe, speedy return here for those who go back home to get a permanent Z visa. Otherwise, illegal employees won't go to their country of origin if it takes forever to process their visas. Nor will employers encourage them.  *Support the entire bill. Yes, some parts will need refining in a conference committee. But this is about horse-trading. If her amendment passes, President Bush and reformers like Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl have every right to expect her support for the larger bill.  We respect the senator's willingness to work out her differences. With the right guarantees, her amendment deserves support."
"5","The other side of immigration DN00000020070626e36q0000y Deseret Morning News editorial 410 Words 26 June 2007 Deseret Morning News A02 English (c) 2007 Deseret News Publishing Co.  The immigration debate is a far more varied and complicated thing than many Americans realize. That has been evidenced by the way Bill Gates and other leaders in the high-tech industry are reacting to parts of the Senate bill that would limit the number of visas granted to foreign workers who are skilled professionals.  This is the opposite end of the debate from the one that concerns illegal immigrants streaming in from the nation's southern borders. It has little to do with undocumented noncitizens using tax-supported resources and everything to do with an attempt to protect American workers in high-tech jobs from legal immigrants with skills.  But at its heart lies the same emotion -- fear.  The United States has retained its strength through the years because of its ability to renew itself regularly through immigration. In many ways, the nation retains its leadership role in many industries because it attracts the best talent in the world -- people seeking to work in a place that values and rewards hard work and innovation.  This traditional role will become even more important in coming decades as members of the so-called ""baby boom"" generation retire. Without robust immigration, few people will be around to replace the jobs left vacant, and the burdens on programs such as Social Security and Medicare will be great.  According to a report this week in the New York Times, the Senate immigration bill would take away a company's ability to sponsor workers needed for specific jobs. Two senators are sponsoring an amendment that would gradually phase out employer-sponsored green cards over five years. Meanwhile, the bill would raise the limit on H-1B visas, which allow temporary employment for people with university degrees or special skills, but not to the level many American giants, such as Google and Microsoft, would like.  Some people worry these workers drive down the wages of American workers who have the same skills. However, in a competitive world where emerging nations are becoming serious threats to the U.S. high-tech dominance, companies need more freedom to attract the best and brightest.  There are many fears surrounding all facets of immigration. It has been thus from the earliest days of the republic. But the biggest fear should be that Congress would put too many limits on immigration, which has been the secret to the nation's continued prosperity."
"4","Bush has little to lose pushing immigration cause ; The issue pits the president against his base, but what's he saving that support for? PTPH000020070626e36q0000a Editorial 346 Words 26 June 2007 Portland Press Herald FINAL A8 English © 2007 Portland Press Herald. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  With his approval rating still low in most national polls, President Bush has precious little political capital. It wouldn't be wrong, however, if he blew it all on immigration reform.  Stymied by procedural votes in the Senate, it appeared a few weeks ago that a bill addressing the horrendous state of affairs with regard to immigration had died.  Many of the conservatives who make up the president's base of support don't want a bill that provides a path to residency and citizenship to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. They want, instead, strict enforcement of immigration laws and a secure border.  President Bush doesn't share this sentiment. He understands that years of laxity with regard to immigration, as well as the need for foreign labor in the economy, argue for a more balanced approach.  It's not practical to simply send all these people back to their home countries, and there is a legitimate need for foreign workers in our economy. Giving illegal immigrants a chance to make amends and start on the path toward legitimacy is a worthy and pragmatic approach. So, too, is a guest-worker program.  But that's not going to happen so long as Republicans in the Senate resist reform. They've already shown they have the votes to hang things up procedurally.  It's up to the president to fight them, but doing so will come at a cost. Pushing hard for immigration reform pits Bush against some of his most loyal supporters. So impassioned are the feelings around the issue, that it's also fair to say the bridges burned won't easily be rebuilt.  But what is the president saving his base for? He has less than two years left in office, and this is one of the few things he could actually get done in that time. He may as well take his best shot."
"2","Editorial Roundup APRS000020070627e36r00d1q By The Associated Press 2712 Words 27 June 2007 18:27 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:  June 27  Los Angeles Times, on immigration reform:  ... That 64 senators voted to revive debate on the (immigration) bill is a tribute to both (Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid, who recognized that he had overplayed his parliamentary hand, and President Bush, who amped up his advocacy by endorsing a $4.4-billion ""direct deposit"" for border security. But as important as Tuesday's vote was, it's no guarantee that an acceptable bill will emerge from the amendment process in the Senate, much less survive consideration by the House or a tug of war in a conference committee.  During the next few days, supporters of the original grand bargain, including Bush and his political team, must be vigilant to preserve all three elements of comprehensive reform referred to in the bill's unwieldy title: the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Those elements are better border security, a temporary-worker program to meet the needs of American business for skilled and unskilled workers and the legalization of millions of immigrants already living and working in the United States. ...  Take away a temporary-worker program and straightforward legalization and all that remains is enhanced border security. That would suit talk-show demagogues just fine, but it's not an outcome that Congress will or should approve.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.latimes.com  ------  June 26  The Palm Beach (Fla.) Post, on Congress' efforts to raise automobile fuel economy:  ... Detroit's best hope just might be last week's belated intervention by Congress. Lawmakers finally may have realized that they allowed the industry to operate on cruise control for too long. The Senate passed an energy bill that includes the first significant requirements for higher fuel standards in two decades. ...  Foreign competitors have boosted sales by adapting and turning out efficient vehicles while U.S. manufacturers stayed committed to SUVs, which the automakers got classified as light trucks to avoid improving their mileage. Advocates of the new mileage standard say it can save the country 1.2 million barrels of oil per day - the U.S. uses about 20 million - and consumers $25 billion a year. The efficiency that trickles from the pumps through the rest of the economy could produce about 170,000 new jobs. ...  The American auto industry is hurting itself and the country by idling in the past. Strong action by Congress on fuel economy will do wonders for both.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion  ------  June 26  The Star-Ledger, Newark, N.J., on the congressional hearings about air-quality after the Sept. 11 attacks:  It is clear that Christie Whitman and other officials didn't do nearly enough to warn people of the pollution danger after the collapse of the World Trade Center. And the government still isn't doing enough to protect people in Lower Manhattan from 9/11's toxic legacy. ...  The medical reports, and a growing number of cases of death and illness, prove that the government botched its duty to protect the public. The illness and suffering of police officers, firefighters, apartment dwellers and office workers show that Whitman and others were horribly mistaken when they concluded that the air was safe in the days after 9/11, but said little about dust and soot. ...  Yet the EPA didn't hammer home the need for the skilled cleanup of homes, offices and schools, even though Whitman and other officials quickly saw to it that the agency's own building near the Twin Towers was thoroughly decontaminated. Instead, the public tone was one of reassurance. Whitman, a former governor of New Jersey, seems genuinely to believe the EPA did the best it could, that the confident tone was justified by the science at the time.  The mounting medical evidence shows that the reassurances were optimistic at best. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.nj.com  ------  June 25  The Greenville (S.C.) News, on standards for student success:  Is it time for the nation to adopt a better method of comparing academic achievement from state to state? The federal No Child Left Behind law requires standards in all states but allows the states to set their own definition of student success -- known as ""proficient.""  The result is a hodgepodge of standards that make it difficult to know exactly how South Carolina students compare to, for instance, North Carolina or Texas or California students. A U.S. Education Department study, in fact, confirmed what state education officials have been saying for years: South Carolina's standards are among the highest in the nation. ..  The study showed some other states have set their standards so low that students who score ""proficient"" there would rate ""below basic"" -- flunking -- in South Carolina ...  The obvious remedy is for Congress to develop national proficiency standards ... which can provide the most accurate information in comparing student progress from state to state. It would put all states and public school students on a level playing field.  ------  On the Net:  http://greenvilleonline.com  ------  June 26  The Times Herald-Record, Middletown, N.Y., on Cheney:  ... So burn those textbooks, folks. The White House is writing new ones for the No Child Left Behind Generation. Lesson No. 1: No one can get any information from the vice president. Unless he says they can. (How's that, Mr. Orwell?) Want to know who's on Cheney's staff? Unh-uh, Congress, I'm part of the executive branch. I don't have to tell you.  Want to know what documents he's classified as ""confidential,"" ""secret"" or ""top secret""? Sorry, National Archives, that executive order signed by President Bush and directed to every entity within the executive branch doesn't apply to me because, as presiding officer of the Senate, I'm part of the legislative branch.  That occasional tie-breaking vote has been expanded by Cheney into his own political universe. And George Bush has no problem with any of it. ...  All kidding aside, the vice president remains the most visible, most embarrassing, most galling symbol of this administration's wholesale contempt for the Constitution and its blatant disregard of its duty to be accountable to the American people. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.recordonline.com  ------  June 25  The Herald, Everett, Wash., on the ""Ten Commandments"" for drivers:  The Vatican rolled out a ""Ten Commandments"" for drivers last week. No word yet whether Charlton Heston will star in the movie version. What would Moses drive?  The document, issued by the Vatican's office for migrant and itinerant people, warned that automobiles can be ""an occasion of sin"" -- particularly when used to make a dangerous passing maneuver or when used by prostitutes and their clients. Or particularly when you combine the two. Don't do that. ...  The Vatican's document hits close to home (that is the United States of America) when it laments the wrongs associated with automobiles: Individual using their cars to show off; ""dominating others"" by speeding; and drivers killing themselves and others.  It warns about the effects of road rage, saying driving can bring out ""primitive"" behavior in motorists, including rude gestures, cursing, blasphemy and loss of a sense of responsibility. Pride and wrath are also sins. The Vatican doesn't go so far as to say Humvees and SUVs can be false gods, worshipped at the gas-guzzling big vehicles altar, but we do. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/07/06/25/100edi--editorial001.cfm  ------  June 22  Chicago Tribune, on the presidential campaign and the Internet:  Have to admit, this is fun.  Thanks to the advent of viral videos, this is becoming the most entertaining presidential campaign since Ross Perot blamed ""Republican operatives"" for attempting to sabotage his daughter's wedding.  Thank you, young techno people with lots of time on your hands, for sexing up this presidential campaign with the hoochie-coochie girl in ""I got a crush ... on Obama,"" a low-budget, independent video spoof that quickly exceeded a million views in just four days after its release last week. ...  Thank you, whoever captured John Edwards proving he didn't get his money's worth with his $400 haircut. There's Edwards on camera, spending two full minutes fussing, coiffing, spraying and finger-combing his 'do into place, in a video set to the strains of ""I feel pretty.""  ... And thank you, Internetizens, for breaking the candidates' traditional lock on their own usually banal messages, and revealing just the right smidgen of subtextual truth. ...  Are the candidates' positions on Iraq, health care, poverty and taxes obscured behind this push to turn politics into a Fluffernutter sandwich? Sure. But maybe, once they've lured people into paying attention, they'll blind-side them with some substance.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.chicagotribune.com  ------  June 25  Naples (Fla.) Daily News, on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling over a high-school student's banner:  ... The current Supreme Court has expanded schools powers to regulate speech in a case in which the speech in question was described as ""cryptic,"" by Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority, and as ""nonsense,"" by Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting. A more rugged description would be just stupid.  The phrase was the now infamous ""Bong Hits 4 Jesus,"" words now enshrined in First Amendment lore. It was written on a 14-foot banner that Alaska high-school student Joseph Frederick unfurled as the Olympic torch relay was coming through Juneau. ...  Why, oh why, do these things become federal cases? Nonetheless, principal Deborah Morse confiscated the banner and suspended Frederick for 10 days on the grounds that the message conflicted with the school's mission of fighting illegal-drug use.  By 5-4, the court agreed. ...  Under the ""bong hits"" ruling, school officials gained the court's backing for making students check at least part of their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.naplesnews.com  ------  June 26  Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, on global warming:  The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency reported on June 19 that China's 2006 carbon dioxide emissions had surpassed U.S. emissions, becoming the world's top emitter of CO2 for the first time.  The world now has to take quick action to promote arguments of how to convince China, India, Brazil and other emerging industrial nations to participate in intergovernmental efforts to curb global warming.  Specifying the responsibilities of developing nations is one major challenge faced by the architects of the ""post-Kyoto framework.""  Particularly crucial is the part to be played by emerging industrial nations. China, for one, has lately begun to indicate its readiness to fulfill its reasonable amount of post-Kyoto responsibilities.  This autumn, the post-Kyoto discussions will begin in earnest. We hope the agreement reached by the end of this year will cover such basic issues as emissions reduction targets and requirements, with at least China and other new industrial powers on board. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.asahi.com/english/  ------  June 27  Dagens Industri, Stockholm, Sweden, on new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown:  Two questions arise with veteran Brown at the helm: In what way will he differ from Tony Blair on specific issues? And how will he handle the challenge from new conservative leader David Cameron?  While Tony Blair is described as charming, charismatic, and extrovert, Gordon Brown is described as sullen, stubborn and introvert... Gordon Brown is often described as standing closer to the Labour left wing and the unions. In his speech at the conference on Sunday he also used a more social democratic rhethoric.  But so far there is hardly anything that indicates that he wants to introduce policies much different from those of the Blair era. He wants to protect school and health care reforms -- where more choices and more competition has irritated the left wing -- but promises to listen more to public opinion and how it interprets changes...  A less pleasant heritage for Gordon Brown is the British military's participation in Iraq. The war in Iraq was Tony Blair's downfall, where large segments of his own party turn against him. British media speculates he will accelerate the retreat from Iraq, but in his speech he vowed that Britain would continue its long-term commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Blair, he defends the strong relationship with the U.S. It remains to be seen how he will handle the difficult Iraq question. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.di.se/  ------  June 24  The Jerusalem Post, on Middle East peace:  Yesterday, the Cabinet approved a package of measures for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to take to the summit in Egypt today with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah. The main item is the gradual release of Palestinian tax revenues held in escrow by Israel, once Abbas's new government is deemed to have met the Quartet's three conditions for receiving direct assistance.  Olmert is also expected to arrive at the meeting ready to discuss the lifting of IDF roadblocks in Judea and Samaria. As Olmert said yesterday to the cabinet, ""We need to take risks, even though it's not fun, otherwise we will be in a vicious circle (of no movement)... We're strong enough to take gradual risks.""  The word ""gradual"" has a reassuring ring, as if Israeli concessions will be linked to Palestinian behavior. Officials will no doubt claim that the process can be stopped at any time if it turns out that our confidence in Palestinian actions has been misplaced.  But what does this approach -- a road we have traveled down many times before -- really mean? It assumes that Israel must risk the lives of its citizens for the dim hope that this time, the risk will pay off, rather than blow up in our faces.  ""Risk"" is really too nice a word for this strategy. It implies that there is a decent chance of success. In fact, the odds are the opposite: We know from years of bitter experience that lifting roadblocks, let alone reducing IDF actions, will produce the near-certain result of lethal terrorist attacks on Israelis.  ... Putting the cart of security concessions before the horse of a Palestinian crackdown against terrorism endangers Israelis, deprives Abbas of his main reason to act, and thereby endangers the chances, however slim, of moving forward.  ------  On the Net:  http://www.jpost.com  ------  June 27  The (London) Times, on Tony Blair's new job as envoy in Middle East:  Tony Blair leaves office today at a time broadly of his choosing (give or take 12 months or so), at a comparatively youthful age and with his health intact. This is a remarkable achievement for a prime minister. ...  Mr. Blair is right, nonetheless, to believe that there is more that he can offer public life and that the international stage provides him with that opportunity. ... It has been contended that Mr Blair's role in the military intervention in Iraq means that he cannot function with any plausibility (as Mideast negotiator for the Quartet of international mediators).  This is nonsense. Iraq is entirely irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. What matters is that an envoy commands the confidence of the major powers sponsoring him, that he is familiar with the problems on the ground, and that both Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas are prepared to work with him. Mr. Blair is thus well qualified.  A more salient criticism of his appointment would be that, while his flair for the ""big picture"" is extraordinary, his capacity for small but important details is less impressive, and any peace settlement in the Middle East will involve hundreds of small but exceptionally sensitive details. ...  If Mr, Blair were to continue in this position for longer than a year or so, he would have to master details, ensure that money donated to Palestinians is spent sagely and not squandered for corrupt purposes, as it has often been in the past, and resist the temptation to ""engage with"" extremists who are ultimately home wreckers. He is capable of doing this and of exceeding expectations. ...  ------  On the Net:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading--article/article1991074.ece  ------ 7"
"2","Sampling of editorials from upstate New York APRS000020070627e36r008px 2746 Words 27 June 2007 13:03 GMT Associated Press Newswires English (c) 2007. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.  The Times Union of Albany on state legislative session.  June 24.  For New Yorkers who were hoping things would change in Albany this year, Thursday came as a reality check. The Legislature left town with its reputation for dysfunction firmly intact. After six months of wrangling and posturing over a slew of major issues, state lawmakers have gone home with a mountain of unfinished business still on their desks. Not surprisingly, both parties are blaming one another for leaving so much undone. But New Yorkers know better. The 2007 session was, by and large, business as usual in Albany, long on posturing and short on achievement. That's a disgrace.  What makes it so disgraceful is that, early on, there were signs things might change this year. There was a new governor in charge and the spirit of reform seemed to be catching on. The early agreement on tougher lobbying and ethics rules raised hopes that, at last, the Legislature had finally gotten the message that the public wanted reform. Then came a long overdue agreement on workers compensation, a new state aid formula and large infusions of funds for public schools, an agreement to end the use of solitary confinement for seriously mentally ill prisoners (although Governor Spitzer may demand changes before signing the bill), and legislation banning human trafficking.  But these positive results proved to be the exceptions. In the last weeks of the session especially, New Yorkers saw a familiar sight of legislative leaders flexing their political muscle. Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, R-Brunswick, stonewalled Governor Spitzer's attempt to pass campaign finance reform. Redistricting, another major reform measure that would make legislative elections more competitive, languished and died.  Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, stonewalled a promising effort to repeal the state's antiquated ban on cameras in the courts, which had easily passed in the Senate.  To be fair, the final day ended with welcome agreement on a $300 million package for Sematech computer chip research at University at Albany, as well as an agreement to increase the state Environmental Protection Fund to $300 million from $150 million. But the list of what didn't get done, ranging from reform of the Wicks Law -- which governs bidding on public projects -- to healthy school cafeteria foods, to paid family leave to judicial pay raises to a law on siting power plants speaks volumes about the Legislature's dysfunction.  There is talk the lawmakers might reconvene in a few weeks, but these catch-up sessions rarely produce much. The legislative leaders should have listened to Senate Democratic Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, when he asked, ""Why quit now? Certainly I understand the need to impose deadlines. However, a deadline is an arbitrary restriction, a mere planning tool. In no way does it excuse us from completing our work -- especially when the consequences of inaction can have a ripple effect on the life and livelihood of all New Yorkers.""  Imagine that. At least there is one legislative leader who realizes that dysfunction has consequences.  ----  On the Web: http://www.timesunion.com  The Buffalo News on upstate revitalization.  June 22.  Before winning his first term as governor, Eliot L. Spitzer toured Buffalo and the area to its east and declared it Appalachia. Critics called that absurd, but Spitzer persisted and the cure he prescribed was to move the Economic Development Corp. out of the comfortable environs of Manhattan to Buffalo, where executives and staff could live and better understand the problems of the area.  That campaign promise didn't happen. When he won the office, Spitzer decided instead to divide the agency into two units, upstate and downstate. But that division wasn't equal. The state's development agency remains in New York City, and Buffalo has a branch office. Worse, when the governor appointed an upstate czar, the understanding here was that the upstate director would embrace the community and hit the job running.  Unfortunately, Daniel Gundersen ran all the way to the lush confines of Saratoga Springs, some 285 miles away. As one critic noted, that's a hell of a commute.  If the downstate people of the development agency never got it, how on earth is the upstate head going to understand and deal with our problems and opportunities if he doesn't live here? The governor may not be able to fix all the problems of the upstate economy, but he should be able to make sure that his intent in positioning the ESDC here starts with Gundersen viewing his challenge where the challenge exists and that's in Buffalo.  The science of economic development involves such hard facts as tax rates, skilled worker availability and the price of real estate. The art of economic development is all about appearances. And, however gifted Gundersen may be at the science of boosting upstate New York's economic prospects, he has so far fallen short in the art department.  Gundersen's new address is not exactly Park Avenue, but it's still much closer to the Green Mountains of Vermont than to the brownfields of Buffalo. To be fair, Gundersen, like many of the corporate honchos whose future he hopes to influence, is trying to balance professional duties and family needs. He didn't want to uproot his high-school-aged daughter just yet, even before his nomination by Spitzer wins Senate confirmation. But that confirmation became a little more iffy with the revelation that Gundersen has not yet established an address that will give him credibility as economic development czar for this region.  Even if it is a short-term layover, his choice of tony Saratoga Springs over the more utilitarian surroundings of Albany proper does indicate a tin ear for how the taxpayers and their elected representatives will receive such information. Do as I say, not as I do, doesn't work very well in any context. In economic development, especially the taxpayer-funded kind, it just won't work for the top salesman to push beer, even really good beer, while insisting on champagne for himself.  There are any number of Buffalo-based real estate agents who could quickly help Gundersen find a home in the Queen City. It is the first example he could set.  ----  On the Web: http://www.buffalonews.com  The Poughkeepsie Journal on border enforcement.  June 22.  If front-loading spending on border enforcement gets a sweeping immigration bill passed, Congress should, by all means, do it.  Security should come first. But a comprehensive immigration bill is still needed; any agreement that fails to address what the United States should do with the more than 12 million illegal immigrants in the country would be a complete failure.  A bipartisan group of U.S. senators seemingly broke a yearslong impasse recently, offering a plan that would put millions of illegal immigrants on the road to legal recognition while greatly enhancing border security. But procedural matters have blocked key votes on the bill. These technical maneuvers have come about largely because some Republican leaders equate provisions of the bill to granting amnesty for illegal immigrants. Some Democratic leaders, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, are opposed to other components of the bill, most notably the family reunification language. They are concerned the bill would put a premium on allowing into this country immigrants with certain job skills at the expense of those wishing to enter to be with family members already here.  The Senate should be working through these issues, not impeding vigorous discussions and votes on key amendments. Procedural rules necessitate a 60-vote supermajority to pass the bill; the first time around, only 50 senators supported the effort to advance the bill, including New York's Democratic senators -- Clinton and Charles Schumer -- and just seven Republicans.  To his credit, President Bush has pushed for the bill's passage and met last week with a group of Republican senators, urging them to give the bill a second chance. The president said he would back efforts to expedite about $4.4 billion in funding to secure the nation's borders and enforce laws prohibiting companies from hiring illegal workers.  Even without this concession, opponents of the bill should realize most enforcement aspects of the bill would occur before the great majority of illegal immigrants could gain citizenship. In fact, obtaining permanent residency would take between eight and 13 years after the law took effect. And they would have to pay fines and fees and pass a background check to receive a temporary visa. The bill also would allow up to 200,000 guest-workers per year to enter on two-year visas.  The sweeping measure doesn't shortchange enforcement. It would add 20,000 border agents and nearly 700 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers along the Mexican border, as well as create a new worker-verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers. That last part is critical to getting illegal aliens and businesses in this country to take the right path.  While authorities have conducted a number of high-profile sweeps of businesses employing illegal workers, they would have to increase the number dramatically to make a difference. And while some businesses brazenly break the law, others are victims themselves of widespread document fraud. The bill must make it clear illegal aliens found guilty of unrelated criminal offenses will be swiftly deported. And it should include a binding commitment to spend the necessary money on enforcement first. Proponents of the bill should concede this point to get what they are after: A comprehensive law aimed at addressing a massive problem that will only get worse without changes in policy.  ----  On the Web: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com  The Watertown Daily Times on Tony Blair.  June 22.  The Bush administration has a job in mind for British Prime Minister Tony Blair after he leaves office Wednesday. The White House has been quietly negotiating with Mr. Blair to take on the role of special Middle East envoy working to improve Palestinian governance.  The prime minister, an ally of President Bush in the Iraq war, would report to the Quartet of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia, which are overseeing the stalled peace efforts. Mr. Blair comes well qualified for the post from his position which has given him the essential diplomatic experience, familiarity with the personalities and issues, and the international stature needed to push Palestinian reforms.  The need for improvements take on greater urgency in the wake of events over the past few days that have seen the separation of the Palestinian government into two factions controlling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  Prime Minister Blair's friendship and alliance with President Bush may alienate some people, but the Washington Post reports that Mr. Blair ""has a good working relationship"" with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayad.  As special envoy, his task would be to work with the Palestinians to strengthen their political and economic systems and institutions as a step toward an independent Palestinian state.  A spokesman for the prime minister declined comment on Mr. Blair's plans after leaving office, while White House press secretary Tony Snow downplayed reports, saying, ""At this particular point, we're not in the business of designating envoys.""  Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert supports the idea. One potential obstacle might be opposition from Russia, which could be addressed at a scheduled meeting of the Quartet next week. With quick approval, Prime Minister Blair could readily move into his new role as special envoy.  ----  On the Web: http://www.watertowndailytimes.com  The Times Herald-Record of Middletown on Cheney.  June 26.  George Orwell had nothing on Dick Cheney. The author of ""1984,"" who made political doublespeak and ""Big Brother"" standard fare in debates about government secrecy and abuse of power, would surely be proud of the vice president's grasp of the concept and, indeed, his unashamedly arrogant disregard for the law that has led him to expand even on Orwell. For Cheney, you see, now not only regards himself as above the law -- pretty much any law -- but also as a government agency unto himself.  Neither fish nor fowl, nor executive nor legislative is Cheney in his mind when it comes to being held accountable. No one, says he, can make him divulge anything to anyone because the vice presidency ""is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch."" Except, of course, when he wants it to be one or the other.  So burn those textbooks, folks. The White House is writing new ones for the No Child Left Behind Generation. Lesson No. 1: No one can get any information from the vice president. Unless he says they can. (How's that, Mr. Orwell?) Want to know who's on Cheney's staff? Unh-uh, Congress, I'm part of the executive branch. I don't have to tell you.  Want to know what documents he's classified as ""confidential,"" ""secret"" or ""top secret""? Sorry, National Archives, that executive order signed by President Bush and directed to every entity within the executive branch doesn't apply to me because, as presiding officer of the Senate, I'm part of the legislative branch.  That occasional tie-breaking vote has been expanded by Cheney into his own political universe. And George Bush has no problem with any of it.  For the record, the Information Security Oversight Office, which is seeking Cheney's report on classified information, is a small, little-known part of the National Archives. And that query about who works for him is a routine governmental request to produce a staff directory for federal agencies. But such is Cheney's obsession with secrecy (we still don't know who was on his energy task force) that no request for any information is too small or too unimportant not to be ignored. He will run his own government, thank you.  Cheney's refusal to obey the presidential directive on classified information began in 2003. He obeyed the order in 2001 and '02, but Bush gave his co-president equal power to classify documents as secret in 2003 and Cheney took full advantage of it. But even though the president has abided by his own order to report annually on classified documents, Cheney has not.  That may seem like a blatant overreaching of power on the vice president's part. On the other hand, it is a convenient way for the White House to hide information from the public. You know, like who's being held prisoner in what secret CIA prison in what country and what alternative interrogation methods have been approved for use on them. We repeat, for the record, President George W. Bush has no problem with any of this.  Cheney's most recent display of disregard for the law takes on greater significance even than his thumbing his nose at the Constitution because his former top aide, Scooter Libby, is about to go to prison for lying to prosecutors about the release of classified information identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. Libby didn't leak the information, but he got in trouble by obviously trying to protect others. Good soldier, Scooter.  Some Democratic senators, clearly dumbfounded, have suggested a possible response to Cheney's argument that he is not part of the executive branch: Withhold the executive branch funding for the vice president's office. Hey, the budget's unbalanced anyway. See what happens when all those anonymous people who work for Cheney don't get their paychecks. Maybe he'll come to the Senate for funds, since he's so fond of being part of the legislative branch. But then, the Senate has its own rules and oversight committee on classified documents. One gets the feeling Cheney would not feel obliged to be accountable to them either.  All kidding aside, the vice president remains the most visible, most embarrassing, most galling symbol of this administration's wholesale contempt for the Constitution and its blatant disregard of its duty to be accountable to the American people. But Cheney, government unto himself though he may be, is only the symbol. George W. Bush, who may or may not be his boss, is still the president and, for the record, he has no problem with any of this.  For shame.  ----  On the Web: http://www.recordonline.com 7"
"4","Editorial ; Immigration bill survives BHLD000020070627e36r00010 EDITORIAL 279 Words 27 June 2007 Boston Herald All Editions 22 English © 2007 Boston Herald Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  A landmark immigration bill is far from a done deal, still, yesterday's test vote in the Senate was a huge victory for the forces of reason.  The Senate voted 64-35 to revive the compromise bill - a carefully constructed, precariously balanced combination of enhanced border security, a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for some 12 million illegal aliens living today within the nation's borders.  ""We did the right thing today because we know the American people sent us here to act on our most urgent problems. We know they will not stand for small political factions getting in the way,"" Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in a statement following the vote.  Kennedy was the principle Democratic architect of the legislation, which has been strongly backed by President Bush as well. Kennedy's patient statecraft in the face of opposition from the right and from his own party's left flank has thus far managed to keep a fragile coalition together. Holding the line on amendments with the potential to render the bill unacceptable to one side or another is the task ahead.  Voting to resume debate on the bill were 39 Democrats, 24 Republicans and independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.  Those Republican presidential contenders who are fond of taking pot-shots at the bill from the side-lines, must face the question: So what's your solution? Democratic contenders, like Sen. Barack Obama, need to be sure they're not putting the bill at risk by attempting to ""improve"" it.  This is a time for political courage. Those who exercise it will stand above the crowd."
"4","EDITORIAL: Amnesty with asterisks POR0000020070628e36r0003a Editorial The Oregonian 530 Words 27 June 2007 The Oregonian Sunrise B4 English © 2007 Oregonian Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  SUMMARY: Want to see a crackdown? The best chance  for that is the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform  President Bush apparently flubbed his lines Tuesday, although he may have unintentionally spoken for many Americans. In trying to explain why the immigration reform bill he favors does not extend amnesty to illegal residents, Bush said it did.  ""Amnesty means that you've got to pay a price for having been here illegally,"" the president said, getting it exactly backward. As the White House immediately clarified, receiving amnesty usually means you don't face punishment for breaking the law. Your crime is erased or forgotten. (Amnesty and ""amnesia"" share the same Greek root word, which means ""forgetting."")  Ironically, though, the reform bill that the Senate revived debate on Tuesday may be the nation's only real way to remember its illegal population. The bill would beef up enforcement, call illegal residents out of hiding and, for the first time, record them by name.  Their real names.  For security purposes alone, we need to get a handle on who is here. That is crucial to figuring out who shouldn't be here, and focusing law enforcement resources narrowly on true security risks. But how do we get illegal residents to come forward? The Senate bill gives undocumented workers an incentive. People here as of January could qualify for a ""Z"" visa.  Making the date of eligibility as recent as possible is the best way to ensure that people come forward. That was one of the miscalculations in the immigration reform bill of 1986. To qualify for legalization, people had to prove they'd been in the country before 1982, and that proved too onerous. Instead of coming forward, many people dove underground.  True, as most Americans define the term, the Senate bill does extend a form of forgiveness to the nation's illegal immigrants. But heads of household would have to prove they're working, submit fingerprints for a background check and pay a steep fine to qualify for a provisional ""Z"" visa. They would then have to wait in line for at least eight years to obtain a green card.  To qualify for that, the head of household would have to make a trip home and wait some more, with no guarantee of ever re-entering this country. Many experts believe it would take at least 13 years, and more likely 15, for anyone to come close to qualifying for citizenship, and that's only if everything goes perfectly.  That is amnesty, yes, but there is nothing quick or easy about it. The Senate bill has tough enforcement provisions, too, that were never tried in 1986, including mandatory employer verification, a single identification card for workers and steep fines for employers that break the law.  True, this bill has something in it that makes everybody mad. But that's an indication that it's a good compromise. The bill provides the best antidote for anger --a real answer on illegal immigration.  Either we find that answer, or we just stick with the status quo, never knowing who's here, and sinking back, inevitably, into amnesia."
"5","Legislation Must Make Border Security a Top Priority RCHD000020070629e36r00009 Editorial Eric Cantor 774 Words 27 June 2007 The Richmond Times-Dispatch Final A11 English © 2007 Richmond Newspapers Incorporated. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  If your village is situated on the banks of a river and the levee bursts, causing severe damage, would it make sense to rebuild the town before you fix the breach in the levee?  Ask the same of the resuscitated Senate immigration bill. Should the legislation become law in its current form, we would fail to address the open borders and unchecked illegal immigration that have become the Achilles heel of our national security.  Presently, the bill fails to add enough fencing and security features to establish control over the border. As a result, immigration officials will have to continue to ""catch and release"" the tens of thousands of border-crossers they apprehend because we lack the detention space and resources to hold them.  The bill also does not address the fact that in most parts of the country, local law enforcement remains woefully under-equipped to help enforce immigration law. Consider this: Three of the six terrorists who plotted to attack New Jersey's Fort Dix last month were in the country illegally for more than 20 years. Shockingly, the three had compiled an exhaustive list of 75 police charges, but because immigration authorities were not notified of the charges, they made no attempt to deport these terrorists.  POLICE LACK direct access to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) database. Without such access, the burden often falls on local authorities to contact the federal bureaucracy regarding the legal status of the person in custody. The process, when undertaken, has caused complaints of delay.  But full direct access alone will not solve the problem. Local law enforcement agencies across the country are constrained by tight budgets and limited resources. It's difficult for them to focus on detaining illegal immigrants and enforcing immigration law, a task usually left to federal authorities, when they are struggling as it is to meet their more traditional responsibilities. As a result, aliens who have committed crimes are released routinely from jails as soon as they finish serving their sentences - a far more troubling form of catch and release than that which goes on near the border. Local police requests for immigration officials to deport criminal aliens often fall on deaf ears.  Congress must explore grant programs and other innovative ways to enhance cooperation between federal and local authorities. We should encourage local entities to participate in voluntary programs like the 287(g) initiative, which enters local and state police into a partnership with ICE. Once police receive 287(g) status, they are more able to identify, process, and detain criminal aliens in their custody.  The situation on the borders calls for similar attention.  TO SHOW THEY were serious about shoring up the border, proponents of the Senate bill incorporated a set of ""triggers,"" or concrete steps that ostensibly would increase border security. Unless the president could certify that the triggers had been met, he could not move forward with the bill's visa-granting provisions.  Triggers are necessary to restore the public's confidence in the government's willingness and ability to enforce immigration law. But the triggers in the Senate bill set the bar too low. New and bold initiatives are few and far between. The 370 miles of fencing required pales before the amount authorized by Congress last year. The 31,500 detention beds that must be ready under this bill fall short of the 43,000 beds already required by the end of 2007. And the voluntary computerized pilot program that will become mandatory for all employers struggles with a spotty success rate.  Since the triggers are weak, how can we guarantee that their implementation will restrict the flow of immigrants into the country? Three hundred-seventy miles of fencing will still leave most of the border unguarded, and it's unlikely that the addition of 200 miles of vehicle barriers and four unmanned aerial vehicles - two other triggers - would make up for the difference. The bill's flaws led the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office this month to estimate that the legislation would reduce the rate of illegal immigration by only 25 percent.  The United States is and will always remain a deeply pro- immigrant country, but one that welcomes legal immigrants who respect our laws. The American people deserve to know that the border is secure and their government is determining who enters the country. Only then can we break the current impasse in Washington and address the other more controversial issues in the Senate bill.  Eric Cantor represents Virginia's 7th District in the U.S. House.  ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO"
"4","Reason for hope | Status quo on immigration is not an option SDU0000020070629e36r0001x OPINION 510 Words 27 June 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune R,F B.8 English © 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  So far, so good. The bipartisan immigration bill inched forward yesterday when a majority of senators voted to revive the legislation and begin debating amendments. It is expected that, by tomorrow, another vote will be held -- this one to close the debate entirely and put the measure to a vote. As it stands, the outcome is too close to call. Yet supporters have reason to be optimistic.  But what if? What if the Senate immigration bill, once amended, doesn't get the votes it needs and immigration reform goes down in flames?  Some conservatives would rejoice. That's an interesting reaction, given that these are the same folks who, not long ago, demanded that Congress address an illegal immigration ""crisis."" We simply would be back where we started. And yet critics are doing their best to bring about just that outcome -- without proposing a workable alternative.  Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh warned his listeners that ""this bill is worse than doing nothing."" Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading critic, has said he and his colleagues are ""working hard to make sure we get a good bill or none.""  If this bill fails, the message would be: Senators can still approve pay raises and pass out pork, but on the hard issues, many of them would rather do nothing than do something controversial. It makes you glad this bunch isn't wrestling with women's suffrage or slavery or Social Security.  Even so, if immigration reform dies because of a fear of amnesty, well then, there would still be amnesty. Illegal immigrants would still go to work, and employers would still hire them. And the extremes on the right and the left who helped torpedo this bill would still gripe about how the system is broken and how there is a crisis and how Congress has to do something about it. And, meanwhile, in Washington, it would be clearer than ever that lawmakers are never going to do anything about it.  The critics have it wrong. They think it's better to do nothing, but doing nothing should not be an option.  One of the few bright spots in this debate is President Bush, who has demonstrated real leadership. On Saturday, during his weekly radio address, Bush urged lawmakers to ""summon the courage"" to support the bill and stated plainly that ""the status quo is unacceptable."" Yesterday, Bush said immigration reform presented a ""historic opportunity for Congress to act, for Congress to replace a system that is not working with one that we believe will work a lot better.""  Bush also praised immigrants and ""a country where people come with dreams and aspirations and through hard work can realize those dreams and aspirations."" As a result, he said, ""the country is better off. Our soul is constantly renewed. Our spirit is invigorated when people come here and realize the blessings of America.""  The president gets it. Let's hope enough members of Congress do, as well."
"5","Border betrayal WATI000020070627e36r00037 EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 685 Words 27 June 2007 The Washington Times A16 English © 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  There is no nice way to describe what happened yesterday in the Senate, which failed the American people on the most critical border- security vote that has taken place in the 110th Congress.  After a furious press from a president with some of the lowest popularity ratings in modern times, the Senate, which just 19 days earlier had voted decisively against shutting off debate, reversed itself and voted 64-35 to resurrect the illegal-alien amnesty bill - along with a set of amendments agreed to by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican supporters of the bill to give senators plenty of political cover: They can vote for a bill replete with provisions that undermine our defenses against criminal and terrorist aliens and set the stage for an explosion of the welfare state and massive tax increases in the decades ahead, while approving a couple of amendments in order to give senators political cover.  These amendments will either be defeated on the Senate floor (or stripped from the bill in conference), but amnesty advocates from both parties hope they will fool at least some of their constituents into thinking that they are really ""tough"" on border security and that they are really tried hard to make substantive improvements to the bill.  Yesterday, the Senate began debate on a series of amendments to the legislation. Some come from Democrats intent on making the bill more generous, which is not surprising. Other amendments, however, are designed as fig leafs to enable Republicans to pass a bill that is palatable to Big Business, Big Labor and the National Council of La Raza. As to the rest us, the spin is that they improved the bill, or that they really tried to make it better but just couldn't muster enough votes. In the latter category is an amendment crafted by Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, Mel Martinez of Florida and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina. The amendment puts together $4.4 billion for border enforcement, creates a tracking system for guest workers and permanently bars workers who overstay their visas from returning. On Monday, the three senators added a provision that required illegals to return to their home countries to apply for their ""provisional"" Z visas.  In many ways, this amendment epitomizes why the American public trusts neither Congress nor the Bush administration to broker a serious deal on border security. As Sen. Jim DeMint points out, nearly all the security provisions in the immigration bill mirror existing laws that aren't enforced (except when Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff turns on his public relations machine.) And if anyone seriously believes that illegal aliens in any numbers will be forced to return to their home countries to apply for visas, we'll sell them the Brooklyn Bridge. Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, let the cat out of the bag the other day, when he dismissed the idea as ""putting people through punitive steps"" for ""no good reason."" And such fig-leaf amendments do nothing to change the crux of the problem with this bill that we have repeatedly documented on this page: The provisions are like a magnet for undesirables in general, and terrorists and criminals in particular.  In the end, the following 20 senators who voted against cloture on June 7 reversed themselves yesterday and voted for the illegal- alien amnesty bill: Robert Bennett, Utah Republican; Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat; Kit Bond, Missouri Republican; Barbara Boxer, California Democrat; Richard Burr, North Carolina Republican; Norm Coleman, Minnesota Republican; Susan Collins, Maine Republican; Larry Craig, Idaho Republican; John Ensign, Nevada Republican; Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican; Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican; Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican; Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican; Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican; Mark Pryor, Arkansas Democrat; Olympia Snowe, Maine Republican; Ted Stevens Alaska Republican; George Voinovich, Ohio Republican; John Warner, Virginia Republican; and Jim Webb, Virginia Democrat. Sen. Sam Brownback, who missed the June 7 vote, also voted for amnesty. Two Democratic senators who previously supported amnesty - Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Evan Bayh of Indiana - reversed themselves and voted no."
"2","Everybody's Column BFNW000020070629e36s0001z Viewpoints 1052 Words 28 June 2007 Buffalo News Central A9 English © 2007 Buffalo News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  New schools are just tools in the educational scheme  I am thrilled with the new school for Buffalo Academy for Visual and Performing Arts and the superintendent's support for the arts program. However, the principal's comments, that the new school is a key tool in the improvement efforts because it sends a strong message to students that they are important and that what they're studying is important, are odd.  What a bizarre message to those students, teachers and administrators in old buildings. It isn't the building that is important but the people within. A new school is only a new tool. A key tool sounds like a magic bean. Every school was once new. However all buildings age. So, as the newness fades does that mean the once key tool of the new building and program it contains also fades?  A building is inanimate, but no matter how old the building, it is always new because students and teachers grow up and move through. A new building is not the implied key tool that is all Performing Arts needs to excel.  A good carpenter knows a new hammer won't necessarily mean better results, it is just newer. It is the professional at the other end that makes it get results. A new car doesn't make a bad driver any better.  Drew Kelley  Buffalo  ***  U.S. is not serious about true democracy  If the U.S. government were serious about planting the seeds of democracy in the Middle East, why would the Bush administration be supporting the illegitimate, self-appointed Fatah group on the West Bank? The democratically elected government of Hamas on the Gaza Strip should be the legitimate government of the Palestinians, but we -- the Bush puppet regime of big corporations -- do not like Hamas' politics.  This appears to be the new democracy. We will support the democratically elected governments to our liking and help to overthrow those we do not like -- pretty much a repeat of the U.S. elections of 2000 and 2004.  George J. Cotroneo  Buffalo  ***  Fire pits are not the sole source of warmth  This letter is prompted by the article ""Let the Buyer Beware"" about fire pits. In it, a retailer was quoted as saying they draw people to their ""warmth and light,"" a welcome respite from an increasingly virtual world.  Folks, you don't need a fire pit for warmth and light. Look up from your computer screen, walk to the door and go outside in the sun. Human beings can be sources of ""warmth and light"" too, so put down the cell phone, BlackBerry, notebook, iPod, MP3 player, and engage your family in what is called conversation. As a matter of fact, though it may seem bizarre to some, people can actually be outside, talk to each other and walk at the same time without needing to be charged or put on mute. And, if music is what you're craving, there are radios that can be turned up and everyone can listen at the same time -- imagine that! Who knows -- this may inspire some to come together and enjoy one another's human company.  Barbara B. Pelosi  Williamsville  ***  Clinton's qualifications are a bit questionable  It's amazing that our politicians will spend $500 a plate to attend a breakfast with Sen. Hillary Clinton as she replaces two trees from the October storm. They let her walk away with $150,000, yet we suffer in poverty here. Maybe someone should tell her to focus on replacing the thousands of good manufacturing jobs this area lost when her husband signed the NAFTA agreement. Yet let's vote for her because she is a woman, has done nothing for this region, never comes around until election time and her husband cheated on her. Total presidential qualifications.  Gerald Szustakowski  Buffalo  ***  Everyone should pay for air traffic costs  A June 20 opinion piece by small business owner Richard Shine claims that the FAA is attempting to unfairly tax businesses that operate their own aircraft. In my opinion, unfair is airline passengers being forced to subsidize corporate aircraft. Airline passengers pay 94 percent of the taxes that fund air traffic control (ATC) operations, but use only 68 percent of ATC services.  Corporate aviation, on the other hand, pays only six percent while using 16 percent of the same services. All users of ATC services should pay equally for what they use, no more, no less. That seems fair and reasonable.  Our nation's ATC system is in dire need of modernization, flight delays are worse than ever and our 1950s technology cannot accommodate the expected growth in air travel. But how do we fairly fund modernization?  A Senate proposal calls for a $25 per flight surcharge to help pay for modernization projects. No piston or turboprop aircraft operating under visual flight rules would pay this fee, so small businesses that operate piston-driven aircraft would continue to thrive. Our system needs to change, but we must agree on a fair way to fund it.  James C. May  President and CEO  Air Transport Association  ***  Immigration reform is headed for trouble  When former President Reagan experimented with amnesty there were 3 million illegal aliens. Now there are 20 million. Are we slow learners? Will we continue to be the source and the dumping ground for economic depravity in the Americas?  Much of the hyperbole about immigration reform is about establishing an antebellum subculture to do the labor. What is the point of establishing labor standards and environmental controls if to escape the costs we import from places who do not enforce these laws and we exploit desperate, downtrodden illegal aliens?  Under the thin guise of globalization we are precipitating an ancient course which will exact the same terrible consequences as slavery in the past.  Louis L. Boehm  Orchard Park  ***  Nuclear weapons-making should be scaled back  It was recently reported in The News that the House of Representatives has zeed out funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead. This showed courage and foresight. The Senate should do the same and deny funding for the the production of new nuclear weapons.  The United States should return our nation's production capacity of nuclear weapons to Cold War levels.  Judith M. Metzger  Williamsville"
"1","Locked Away Kyl sitting on key to a more-open government DAL0000020070628e36s00003 EDITORIALS EDITORIALS 340 Words 28 June 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 22A English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  It could be a question about small-business loans. Or Social Security. It could be a veteran's, customs or immigration matter.  There are many reasons citizens want - and are entitled to - information from their federal government. Getting that information often is as frustrating as the U.S. tax code.  Only 6 percent of federal agencies are in full compliance with federal law aimed at expediting information requests via the Internet, according to the National Security Archive project at George Washington University. And the backlog of unprocessed requests has steadily grown, from 13 percent at the end of 1998 to well more than double that in 2005.  A bipartisan law co-authored by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas would help Americans deal with their own government with a set of useful new tools, like the creation of an open-records ombudsman, a hotline and tough deadlines for agency compliance.  Unfortunately, on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the Freedom of Information Act, the bill (co-authored by Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont) has been stopped cold by a legislative maneuver by Republican Sen. John Kyl of Arizona. This comes despite approval of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee and overwhelming passage of a similar measure in the House.  Mr. Kyl has objected that the citizen-friendly proposal could trigger release of sensitive information. Mr. Cornyn has addressed this concern by giving agencies exemptions from automatic release of anything that could compromise security.  The proposal remains in limbo, however. It deserves debate on the Senate floor. Mr. Kyl should release his ""hold"" on the bill. Any senator in doubt ought to consider the odds against citizens who come up against the bureaucracy.  And they should consider the absurd, such as the denial of records on a dead giraffe at the National Zoo on grounds it would violate the animal's right to privacy. A government capable of such blundering needs a new set of rules."
"5","Down In Flames INVDAI0020070629e36s0000b Editorials & Opinion IBD 566 Words 28 June 2007 Investor's Business Daily English (c) 2007 Investor's Business Daily  Immigration: The Senate's 53-46 defeat of the immigration bill Thursday was more than a victory for rule of law over alien amnesty. It was a triumph of citizens' will over politicians' disdain. Real reform must follow.  The Bush-Kennedy immigration reform bill is dead and unlikely to be served up again before a new administration takes office. No wonder. It was a pork-laden spending bill that offered de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants, federal contracts to the usual contractors, spoils for businesses that habitually hire illegals, and new layers of bureaucracy, supposedly to speed immigration entries.  The only people it didn't reward were those not looking for cash largesse, citizens who ask only that the federal government show the will to enforce existing laws.  Over two decades, border and labor laws have been so neglected that some 20 million illegal immigrants have entered the country with impunity. No lawmaker blames himself for this state of affairs. He just insists it's a question of more money.  That's why grass-roots Americans took legislators aback with letters, demonstrations and phone calls, the latter in such overwhelming volume that they crashed the Senate switchboard on Thursday, sending a message that words couldn't quite match.  Entrenched politicians not only tried to shove this bill down voters' throats. They repeatedly implied that voters weren't smart or reasonable enough to understand why they were doing it. They blamed talk radio, as if their constituents were sheep. They also made the bill long and secretive.  All that did was fuel voter anger. In turn, lawmakers declared war on their constituents, calling any who questioned the bill ""yahoos,"" ""bigots"" and ""simpletons."" President Bush, who had a key role in crafting this bill, fell into some of this, warning against letting details ""frighten people.""  The bill's co-sponsor, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, took a lower road, calling the bill's opponents Nazis. What opponents really sought, he bellowed on the Senate floor Thursday, were ""gestapos"" to remove illegals, contemptuously confusing anyone seeking rule of law with a proponent of a lawless police state.  Majority Leader Harry Reid called talk-show critics of the bill ""generators of simplicity"" and vowed they'd eat their peas sometime. ""We will come back,"" he said. ""It's only a question of when.""  South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham pandered to La Raza activists by way of the Southern-guilt card, saying illegal-immigration opponents were ""hatin' on people who aren't from around here.""  All of these efforts to distort the government's failure to enforce the law and blame voters are signs of a Senatethat's out of touch. Rather than having a civil debate -- taking the issue piece by piece, starting with border enforcement law, moving to a guest worker program and then resolving how to deal with the millions of illegal aliens, as most Americans favor -- senators insisted that pork be doled out first and that the same failures that began with the 1986 amnesty be repeated.  With this kind of ""reform"" off the front burner, maybe the Senate can spend the time remaining until next election listening to what voters really want and build from there. Arrogance always fails in a representative democracy. Defeat of this bill was a wake-up call to politicians to remember those who elected them."
"4","Back on the burner RNOB000020070628e36s0000z Editorial/Opinion 339 Words 28 June 2007 The News & Observer Final A12 English Copyright (c) 2007 by The News & Observer Pub. Co.  The immigration reform bill in Congress has been revived with support from a bipartisan Senate coalition and the White House. Standing against that encouraging step Tuesday was North Carolina's senior senator, Republican Elizabeth Dole. But her Tar Heel colleague, Republican Richard Burr, at least voted to reopen debate. Burr will stand even taller if he puts himself constructively behind reform and helps fashion the compromises that will be necessary to gain the bill's passage.  Dole, facing re-election next year, has cast her lot with those who oppose the bill, mainly because of their view that it extends amnesty to those who have entered the country illegally. (In a recent UPI-Zogby poll, 73 percent of respondents said major immigration reform is needed, suggesting that opposition to the bill, while vocal, hardly reflects a consensus.) A plain reading of the Senate measure dispels the amnesty notion. For instance, it levies fines on illegal immigrants who want to be able to remain here.  Dole actually has good reason to help boost the legislation. From a partisan point of view, it would help her fellow Republican, President Bush, for whom immigration reform is a chief domestic goal.  More importantly, Dole was elected to do what's good for North Carolinians -- and getting a handle on illegal immigration would be good. The rate of growth of Hispanics in North Carolina is among the nation's highest. Too often it is illegal immigrants who do the work on the state's farms.Young Mexicans, Hondurans and the like flock to urban areas to landscape our homes and build our skyscrapers. Illegals burden schools, health-care systems and courts as much here as in other overwhelmed states.  Reform benefits the business community, in that it helps address ongoing labor shortages. That helps explains Burr's apparent open-mindedness. If the bill fails, Dole will owe her constituents an explanation of why she let complaints about wispy ""amnesty"" block solutions to a large and stubborn domestic problem."
"4","Border vigilance OKLD000020070628e36s00135 Editorials; Tri-Valley; San Mateo; Argus; Review; Tribune; Times-Star 252 Words 28 June 2007 The Oakland Tribune English (c) Copyright 2007 ANG Newspapers. All rights reserved.  WHAT a difference three weeks makes — not to mention a few billion dollars. On June 7, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,  D-Nev., could muster only 45 votes — 15 too few — to limit debate and proceed to a vote on a ""grand bargain"" immigration bill. On Tuesday, 64 senators voted for cloture, ratifying a bipartisan deal to resurrect the legislation and allow a mixed bag of amendments.  That 64 senators voted to revive debate on the bill is a tribute to both Reid, who recognized that he had overplayed his parliamentary hand, and President Bush, who amped up his advocacy by endorsing a $4.4 billion ""direct deposit"" for border security. But as important as Tuesday's vote was, it's no guarantee that an acceptable bill will emerge from the amendment process in the Senate, much less survive consideration by the House or a tug of war in a conference committee.  During the next few days, supporters of the original grand bargain — including Bush and his political team — must be vigilant to preserve all three elements of comprehensive reform referred to in the bill's unwieldy title: the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Those elements are better border security, a temporary-worker program to meet the needs of American business for skilled and unskilled workers and the legalization of millions of immigrants already living and working in the United States.  Los Angeles Times  Editorial"
"4","Not by the back door ; Senate abuses process in handling immigration bill RMTN000020070628e36s0001o NEWS 531 Words 28 June 2007 Rocky Mountain News FINAL 50 English © 2007 Denver Publishing Company, Rocky Mountain News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  'The world's greatest deliberative body""? Yeah, right. The Senate's handling of the immigration reform bill this week is in fact a sham.  The maneuvers that have been used to bring S. 1639 forward are so flawed that we hope opponents collect the 40 votes they need - perhaps as early as today - to deny cloture, which would kill the measure for now.  Representative government should not be conducted behind closed doors, as has been the case with this bill. Senators were required to vote on legislation that would affect tens of millions of people, not just the illegal immigrants who could gain a path to citizenship, without public hearings or committee votes or amendments from individual senators.  Such consequential policies should be fully, fairly and openly debated, not jammed through using a confined and secretive process.  We say this as supporters of comprehensive immigration reform. We continue to believe that many illegal immigrants who have worked hard, provided for their families and stayed out of trouble should earn the opportunity to become permanent residents and eventually citizens. And that the price of this ""slow-motion amnesty"" should include credible, accountable measures to police the border and stanch the future flow of illegal entries.  Well-crafted legislation could attract widespread public support. But it needs to be sold to the American people, not jammed down their throats.  It has been appalling to witness the defensive and dismissive approach President Bush and his congressional allies have deployed, especially during this most recent rush through the Senate. As late as Wednesday only a handful of ""grand bargainers"" - including the president, leaders of both parties and a few other senators such as Colorado's Ken Salazar - were aware of the entire contents of the legislation.  When the bill passed its first procedural hurdle by a 65-34 vote on Tuesday, the bargainers permitted senators to consider only a handful of amendments, several of which were clearly included to buy off some of their colleagues. These include proposals to add a U.S. attorney's office in Utah; increase the number of federal judges in some states; and (improbable as this might seem) create a commission to study the World War II internment of Latin Americans of Japanese descent.  Meanwhile, senators from both parties who tried to offer separate amendments or object to specific provisions in the legislation were cut off - a practice that's nearly unprecedented in the normally chatty and collegial Senate.  At that point the amendment package was riddled with errors. That led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday to pull the package from consideration so it could be rewritten. When the vote on the first amendment (by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas) took place, copies of the document had not been circulated to all senators.  So yes, in this case senators literally voted on legislation they had never seen.  The high-handed tactics deployed by the president and Senate leaders are inexcusable. S. 1639 deserves to die so that an immigration reform package that is worthy of support can be debated, amended - and, we hope, approved."
"4","Immigration and Reality; Better to be pragmatic than talk tough on illegal immigrants WP00000020070628e36s0001h Editorial 430 Words 28 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A24 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  THE EFFORT to overhaul the nation's broken-down immigration system, lifeless in the Senate earlier this month, has embarked on a tenuous and possibly terminal second act. Under attack from talk radio, unions, xenophobes and others, the White House and reform-minded Republicans have maneuvered to salvage legislation that would address the core problems of tightening enforcement of existing laws and providing a legal future for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. The risk is that in the desperation to keep the bill alive, it will be amended to the point of unworkability.  Of particular concern is an amendment by three of the bill's Senate Republican sponsors, Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and Mel Martinez (Fla.). It would require immigrant heads of households to return home within three years to apply for legal status, a mandate that probably would overwhelm already badly burdened consulates and prompt millions of illegal immigrants to opt out of the legalization procedure. Potentially more damaging is a provision in the same amendment that would criminalize and imprison people -- including millions of tourists and students -- who overstay their visas. Until now those people have been handled with administrative measures. Requiring that they be arrested pending deportation could mean hiring thousands of new agents and building massive new prison capacity -- and an enormous diversion of law enforcement time and energy for a population that poses no evident threat to homeland security.  The idea behind the amendment is to give the bill a get-tough sheen that will mollify critics and provide cover for wavering senators. Some immigration reform advocates remain confident that the bill can be ""fixed"" at a later date -- i.e., stripped of onerous provisions. Maybe. But there is also a risk that skittish senators will simply stick themselves, and the country, with a bad law. That makes no sense. As Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.) says, ""If they're going to eat the pain of doing an immigration bill, they might as well pass a good one.""  The enemies of immigration reform remain unable to articulate a realistic alternative to the Senate legislation that would address the plight of the 12 million undocumented immigrants. They seem to imagine that by ignoring them, or harassing them, they will simply fade from view. They won't. If it's not resolved in this congressional session, the problem will come back again and again. Better to fix it now. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200706281ED-IMMIGRATION28"
"5","Don't aid alien fugitives WATI000020070628e36s0000k EDITORIALS THE WASHINGTON TIMES 505 Words 28 June 2007 The Washington Times A16 English © 2007 Washington Times Library. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  The Senate immigration bill is huge windfall for illegal-alien absconders - fugitives who ignored an immigration judge's order to leave the country. Following the September 11 attacks, federal immigration officials were troubled by the fact that they did not know the whereabouts of approximately 314,000 immigrants who had been ordered deported. While Congress and the Bush administration have talked tough since then about dealing with such aliens, their numbers have more than doubled to approximately 636,000 today. These aliens run the gamut from persons ordered deported for their involvement in terrorist activities to criminals convicted of everything from shoplifting to DUI to murder.  Two days ago, the Senate voted 64-35 in favor of shutting off debate on the immigration bill. Today, the legislation (S. 1639) faces another important procedural vote, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid once again requiring at least 60 votes for cloture. If Mr. Reid and amnesty proponents prevail, the biggest illegal-alien winners will be the fugitives - the very people who have deliberately violated court orders. According to Kris Kobach, who served as Attorney General John Ashcroft's top adviser on immigration issues, under Section S. 601(f)(2) of the Senate bill, amnesty - for fugitives and illegals alike - must begin within 180 days of the bill's signing into law - without any ""border enforcement triggers"" being met.  Moreover, under Section 601 (d)(1)(I) of the bill, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would be permitted to grant Z visas to fugitives if the recipient can demonstrate that his or her departure from the United States ""would result in extreme hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse, parent or child."" The term is an extraordinary flexible one that has been vigorously debated by immigration advocates and lawyers dating back to the 1970s. Myriad factors ranging from the alien's age to his health to the length of time he has spent in the United States to his financial status and the economic and political conditions in his home country could influence this decision. Moreover, the absconder can receive amnesty if he demonstrates that his removal could cause hardship to his family. Immigration lawyers can easily argue that the violator should be permitted to remain in the United States because his child is a citizen, and therefore the separation of family members would constitute ""extreme hardship.""  The most disturbing thing about all of this, Mr. Kobach says, is the fact that this ""offers a massive reward to aliens who have defied immigration courts. Successfully fleeing justice can win absconders the most generous visa ever created, as well as de facto permanent residence in the United States. Aliens who obeyed their removal orders and left the country are ineligible."" In other words, if senators vote for cloture today, they will be voting for a pernicious incentive system that rewards people who broke U.S. law but gives the back of the hand to those who followed it."
"4","GOOD FOR BURR XWSJ000020070629e36s0001m A Editorial 500 Words 28 June 2007 Winston-Salem Journal METRO 8 English (c) Copyright 2007 Piedmont Publishing Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  Congratulations are in order for U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, who cast a courageous vote Tuesday against the gridlock that grips Washington and keeps the United States from taking any action on its immigration problem.  His vote to reopen debate on the compromise Senate immigration bill brought the wrath of the anti-immigration right upon him and a monumental snub from his own state party.  Listen carefully here: Burr did not vote for the immigration bill, as many on the right and far left who oppose this bill will try to make us believe. Instead, he simply voted to begin discussing the compromise again. The bill is a long way from passage, and nothing in Burr's vote Tuesday requires him, either legally or politically, to vote for the bill when it comes up for final passage.  On the other hand, Sen. Elizabeth Dole, North Carolina's other Republican senator, voted no and immediately got the blessing of her state party. In effect, the candidate for re-election next year said she preferred that the United States do nothing about illegal immigration by voting to continue the failed policies that brought 12 million illegal immigrants here. Every day that Washington ignores immigration reform is one more day in which these 12 million get more deeply rooted in our society without legal status, and the problem becomes more complex.  But in a national government that is more about partisan politics than results, a no vote was right for the N.C. Republican Party. Linda Daves, the state GOP chairman, issued a press release Tuesday praising Dole and the state's Republican members of the House of Represenatives - who did not vote on the issue - for their opposition to this bill. Noticeable by its absence was any mention of Burr.  What Burr did was vote to reopen discussion of the bill - which, by the way, was fashioned in part by Republican senators and the very president that Daves and the GOP have so enthusiastically supported for the past six-plus years.  With the reopened discussion, senators will now bring forth several dozen amendments.  The reasonable person, one who actually wants to address the immigration problem, will say that the president's bill is a place to start and that the amendments should be heard. If 51 senators truly believe that the bill provides amnesty, as the right so forcefully charges, then they can amend the bill to eliminate that amnesty. The same holds true for other provisions of the bill.  Under Burr's approach, gridlocked Washington gets to work. Under Dole's approach, Washington once again turns its back on a problem.  North Carolinians should not be fooled. Immigration is a hot political issue and, therefore, a valuable commodity for 2008 political candidates. Burr voted to put the Senate to work looking for a solution. Dole voted to keep the issue hot so that she can use it in her re-election campaign. Color Photo; Richard Burr"
"2","THE ISSUE: FAILURE OF IMMIGRATION REFORM PHX0000020070630e36t0002v Opinions 732 Words 29 June 2007 The Arizona Republic Final Chaser B4 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Arizona Republic. All Rights Reserved.  Barely eight months after their fall as masters of the Washington universe, Republicans are in an even tighter, more rapid tailspin, thanks to Thursday's defeat of comprehensive immigration-reform legislation, one of the most emotionally charged issues to face Congress in decades.  Immigration reform has failed. And the faces of its failure are almost all Republican. As a result, the prospects for the GOP in the coming elections can get far, far worse than even the most cynical strategists ever imagined.  Opposition to the plan did come from both sides of the political aisle. For a time, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nearly scuttled the bill. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama groused about several of its more restrictive provisions.  But it is Republicans who personified both the failed legislation itself and the often uproarious and ultimately successful opposition to its passage.  It is Republicans, not Democrats, who put their political reputations on the line in support of the bill. In the end, the Democrats largely stood aside and let the bill's GOP advocates lead the charge ... and take the hits from their own furious base.  Those Republicans were led, of course, by President Bush, whose advocacy of immigration reform constituted his last-gasp attempt at salvaging an otherwise disastrous second term.  The payoff for the president? Bush's poll numbers among Hispanic voters are worse today than among the nation's voters as a whole. The GOP incumbent candidate who set records for winning over Hispanics in 2004 would garner perhaps half as many today.  It represents a stinging defeat, too, for Arizona GOP Sen. Jon Kyl, who braved the storm from within his own party for standing with Sen. Ted Kennedy in support of the measure.  The calumny directed at Kyl from his own party ""faithful"" over recent weeks should be fair warning to any politician inclined to buck poll numbers in pursuit of his vision of a greater good: You do so at your own peril.  But neither Bush nor Kyl faces a presidential election in 2008. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain does, and even McCain's own campaigners see the defeat on immigration reform as a stunning blow.  Still, it is less the GOP champions of immigration reform that general-election voters will remember come 2008, but its vociferous detractors.  Fair or not, Republicans will be viewed as the party that blocked legislation that promised -- however tenuously -- to put a vexing, emotionally charged issue behind the nation.  Fair or not, it will not be the principled, honest detractors of the legislation who voters will remember. It won't be conservative intellectuals like Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, whose calculations on the enormous financial cost of the legislation were nigh-on irrefutable. It won't be William F. Buckley of National Review, who argued that a nation indifferent to its laws or its sovereignty is barely a nation at all.  It won't be the conservatives who recognize that immigration in and of itself can be a boon to the nation, not a drift of humanity to be feared.  It will be the catcallers. The bombasts. The bellowers. It will be the madder nativists, the clueless cloak-rippers howling from their radio caves about ""rounding up"" millions of people and piling them like tumbleweeds in a dust storm against enormous border fences that will never be erected.  Indeed, it is the height of irony that some congressional Democrats now seek the return of the ridiculous ""Fairness Doctrine,"" which would effectively deconstruct talk radio as we now know it.  Given what talk radio has just wrought on the Republican Party with its hell-bent, ""successful"" opposition to immigration reform, why in heaven's name would the Dems ever want to do that?  \  Editorials represent the opinion of the newspaper, whose Editorial Board consists of: Robert J. Dickey, John Zidich, Joanna Allhands, Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor, Steve Benson, Phil Boas, Ward Bushee, Richard de Uriarte, Jennifer Dokes, Joe Garcia, Cindy Hernandez, Kathleen Ingley, Robert Leger, Doug MacEachern, Joel Nilsson, Ed Perkins, Robert Robb, Bob Schuster, Linda Valdez and Ken Western.  CAPTION: Sen. Jon Kyl (left) and some GOP supporters discuss the defeat of the immigration reform plan. Also pictured (from left) are Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "
"4","RESENTMENT WINS, AGAIN BSUN000020070629e36t0001q EDITORIAL 472 Words 29 June 2007 The Baltimore Sun Final 18A English Copyright 2007, The Baltimore Sun. All Rights Reserved.  The Senate majority that voted yesterday to crush what is almost certainly the last opportunity to fix America's broken immigration system for at least two years was responding to constituents with unreasonable expectations.  Flogged into a fury by talk-show agitators and Internet provocateurs, thousands of people called, wrote and e-mailed their senators to protest legislation they believed would do nothing to stop the flow of illegal entry into this country, would forgive millions of illegals already here and would burden taxpayers with the cost to schools and health care.  Granted, the bill at issue was widely described as imperfect. But killing it ensures that the worst fears of opponents will be realized.  No one is going to round up 12 million people here illegally, kick them out of the country and lock the door behind them, as some critics of the reform measure propose. Even if there were a will to do it, there's no practical way.  The 700-mile fence between the United States and Mexico that Congress approved last year is creating an uproar because of the damage it poses for the towns and countryside along the border. But the fence is not expected to provide any more than symbolic comfort to those who want the border sealed.  Impoverished people will continue to find a way into the United States for the economic opportunities. Changes in the law intended to make it more difficult for workers to be hired using phony papers will die along with the rest of the bill. And while the 12 million undocumented foreigners living in the shadows won't get the purported amnesty that offended so many Americans, they will continue to be part of American communities, contributing to and drawing from their resources, in a limbo status dubbed ""silent amnesty"" by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate was designed to be more resistant to demagogic passions. Indeed, on Tuesday, a bipartisan majority of 64 senators resurrected the immigration bill from what had appeared a near-fatal setback so that it could be debated, amended and potentially approved. But angry voters didn't appreciate the value of that procedural courtesy and deluged the senators with such a protest that only 46 senators voted yesterday in favor of another procedural question that would have positioned the bill for a final vote today. Sixty votes were needed.  ""People who have played by the rules all their life feel like people are getting ahead not playing by the rules,"" said Rep. John Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat who got an earful of such sentiment at a town hall meeting in Annapolis recently. This high emotional pitch ""is a sign of how dysfunctional the current system is,"" he added.  Doing nothing, though, is not a fix."
"3","Immigration bill dead; issue is not CRG0000020070630e36t00013 THE GAZETTE'S EDITORIAL 515 Words 29 June 2007 Cedar Rapids Gazette F 4A English Copyright 2007, Gazette Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Distributed by NewsBank, Inc.  Opponents of the bipartisan immigration reform bill that died Thursday in the U.S. Senate are celebrating their victory today, but it is only this bill, not the issue, whose fate has been determined.  To the contrary, when an attempt to limit action on the bill favored by the White House failed, immigration was ensured a prime spot in the 2008 presidential and congressional campaigns.  Good. That will provide ample time for a thorough, reasonable discussion, as well as opportunities for voters to ask specific questions of the candidates to determine exactly what position they take.  Perhaps more important, it will allow time for proponents who hold office now to deal with one of the biggest hurdles reform faces. That is distrust and skepticism among the public about whether government will back up its talk, threats and promises with substantive action. The government needs to reassure citizens about the future by getting more serious about the present.  A good start would be to make employment of illegal aliens more difficult by taking legal action against them, and in some cases against their employers, once the illegals have been identified.  An employer typically requires prospective workers to provide at least two forms of identification, including a Social Security number. If the Social Security Administration is unable to match the name and number, clearly something is amiss. It can be a clerical error somewhere along the line, but it also can be a case of fraud.  Employers currently are notified when such anomalies are discovered, but in most cases, that is the end of it. The government does not pursue the issue or require the employer to do so. In many cases, by the time the employer is notified, the worker has moved on to another job, anyway.  Do some employers intentionally take advantage of the situation? No doubt they do. But so does the government.  Immigration officials do not have to greatly increase the scope and expense of their operation in order to follow up suspicious cases.  Then there is the matter of Social Security. The government is collecting a great deal of money from workers and their employers in the form of Social Security taxes meant to pay for benefits that never will be claimed.  Employers are not government agents. Although there are ways they could help, they should not be tasked with primary enforcement of the law. Meanwhile, taxpayers must decide how much they are willing to pay to tighten the country's borders. And that still doesn't address the underlying issue.  ""They (the federal government) can do it (eliminate illegal workers) if they're willing to shut down half the businesses in the West,"" one employer commented, ""because that's just about what they'd have to do.""  Those are some of the questions. There are others, and a lot of common ground still needs to be covered.  In the months remaining until the general election in November 2008, voters have a right to know what the candidates believe are the answers.  -- "
"4","The speech Bush didn't give TRIB000020070629e36t00042 News 867 Words 29 June 2007 Chicago Tribune Chicago 28 English Copyright 2007, Chicago Tribune. All Rights Reserved.  U.S. senators who tried for two years to solve this nation's immigration dilemma met a bracing truth Thursday: Too many Americans distrust their comprehensive plan to regulate the flow of foreigners into this country and its economy.  Immigration reform now lies in ruin. That doesn't mean supporters of a broad immigration bill will or ought to surrender. It should, though, force them to admit they didn't do the hard work that would convince Americans to back their efforts to reduce illegal immigration and control the legal immigration our economy needs.  Specifically, they never admitted how spectacularly they and their like-minded predecessors failed to keep their word after Congress rewrote immigration law in 1986. They didn't do the difficult work that would have kept a respected, pro-business lawmaker such as Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) from recently telling a New York Times reporter how much he regrets his vote for that bill 21 years ago: ""I thought then that taking care of 3 million people illegally in the country would solve the problem once and for all. I found out, however, if you reward illegality, you get more of it."" The proponents also had no retort when Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) said he had supported the 1986 law ""based on the very same promises we hear today. ... I will not vote to make the same mistake twice.""  Thursday's devastating defeat didn't have to be. Suppose that after the 2004 election, President George W. Bush had leveled with his fellow Americans:  ***  ""Back in 1986, the people who write this nation's laws made promises they didn't even attempt to keep. They promised you they would control our borders, stop our employers from hiring illegal immigrants and give legal status to three million people who were here in violation of the law.  ""But in succeeding years, Washington broke its pledges -- all except the one about legalizing those 3 million people. Members of Congress who'd voted for the bill stopped talking about enforcement, let alone demanding it. They had placated big business and immigrant communities full of potential voters, and they'd gotten what they wanted from President Reagan -- his signature and his morning-in-America endorsement: 'Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders.'  ""Those pieties of 1986 have rung hollow ever since, and until we get square with you, the American people, [U.S. Sens.] Ted Kennedy and John McCain and I and everybody else in Washington who wants to fix immigration will get just as much of your trust on this as we deserve.  ""Now, though, this cause has what it needs, a president committed to fixing this mess before he leaves office. You may not like me, but you know how I get when I'm resolute. I won't flinch.  ""What matters more is that, on this issue more than most, you voters terrify Congress -- Republicans and Democrats, Senate and House. Unless you give your permission, reform won't happen.  ""So here's what we in Washington have to do. We have to enforce the 1986 law we've got. It may take us a couple of years to gear up, and you may not like what you get. Expect higher prices for the goods and services you purchase when we start forcing employers to abide by that law.  ""But we will show you that government can make a good-faith effort to do what it's supposed to do, which is enforce the law. We're not just going to spend more money on border control. We're going to cut the flow of illegal immigrants.  ""This time, though, don't judge us by our gauzy promises and our optimistic predictions and our billions spent for border agents and technology. Judge us by whether we succeed.  ""Because when we show you that we know how to enforce a law, we'll earn your support for a new one. I could say a lot today about what we'll gain from the new citizens and legal guest workers and other benefits a reform bill will give us, but until I earn your trust, I don't have the right to say any of that.""  ***  That would have been a fine speech for Bush to give in 2004. Just as it would be a fine speech for him, and for Democrats and Republicans who want immigration reform, to give in 2007.  After Thursday's vote, those who want a comprehensive immigration bill have to find a radically new way forward.  Do they want to be seen now and always as ruthlessly tactical, as their Senate supporters were this week in trying to silence debate on a bill that -- whether you favor or oppose it -- unarguably would change the fabric of America?  Or will they recognize that Washington has to climb out of a hole it dug 21 years ago? A hole that got perilously deeper each year the demands of the '86 law didn't even get lip service from our members of Congress and our presidents? Editorial"
"2","Letters to the Editor CHSM000020070628e36t0000a EDITORIAL 824 Words 29 June 2007 The Christian Science Monitor ALL 8 English © 2007 Christian Science Monitor. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Border security depends upon enforcement of laws  Regarding the June 21 article, ""Senate makes new try for immigration bill"": Sen. Harry Reid (D) of Nevada and others seem as though they want to hurt their prospects for reelection, since they are pushing for a comprehensive immigration plan when probably 80 percent of the American people only want a border security plan, without any form of amnesty. Illegal aliens are criminals who broke the laws of the United States. They should go back home.  Any senators or representatives who vote for any amnesty plan should be voted out of office, and probably the majority will vote them out. We, the American people, are tired of our voices being ignored in Washington.  There is a need for real, meaningful enforcement when it comes to drying up the jobs provided by small businesses that hire undocumented workers. These employers should all be fined $500 per day per worker, and there should be frequent audits to make sure that the employers are not paying cash to these individuals. The current laws on the books are that employers must verify that their employees are legally eligible to work, but these are not being enforced.  Our representatives have let Americans down, as they did when they passed the 1986 amnesty. The current bill will result in more of the same - business as usual. We may never see border security. Congress can spend billions on a war that we should never have been in, yet it will not spend all the money needed to secure the border.  Tom Rodeffer  Decatur, Ala.  Influencing the outcome of Afghanistan  Almost six years after 9/11, the June 25 article, ""Taliban turn gunsights on Afghan police,"" told about America's efforts to defend against future Taliban provocations. We learn that Afghan police forces contain ""ragtag"" auxiliaries training with fake guns. We must do better by Afghanistan.  US soldiers sacrifice much for the cause. What should we do? Write our congressional representatives and demand more resources for Afghanistan. Write the media and demand that they don't let Paris Hilton and friends upstage the ominous trends in Afghanistan. Go to the websites of such organizations as the Spirit of America, the Global Partnership for Afghanistan, and the Central Asia Institute and give generously. Work to motivate others.  There is no greater mistake than to do nothing, just because you can do only a little.  John Stettler  Dallas  Don't curb the First Amendment  I read your June 27 editorial, ""When campaign money can't talk."" The problem with your stance is that you seem to be saying that the First Amendment must bend to disallow certain types of political speech. I'm curious to know when political speech has ever damaged the body politic in a free society.  The fact is, the free speech spoken about in the First Amendment is what defends the very democracy that your editorial seems to wish to protect by limiting some forms of political speech.  The only reason for people to want to limit political speech would be if they don't like the results of an election. Those on the losing side rarely like the result, and it's always easy for them to be upset at the other side for stating its case too well. The Supreme Court didn't go as far as it should have in striking down the ban on issue ads, and for the good of the republic, it should have struck down this whole antidemocracy law.  Michael Lacy  Salem, Ore.  Learning from the mistakes of past immigration policy  Regarding the June 28 article, ""What's left out of immigration debate"": I think it's time for electors to debate the effectiveness of elected officials in America. Thank you for this article and the link to a previous article about seven immigrants who benefited from the immigration bill of 1986.  It seems that if the senators would read these articles, they could focus on what went wrong with the previous amnesty bill and work on new implementation processes. We should decrease the amount of their benefits and lower their salaries until they do the job they were elected to do.  I think the average American has a short memory, but the actions of our elected officials affect the country for a long time.  Martha Goldhorn  Beckenham, England  The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number. Any letter accepted may appear in print or on our website, http://www.csmonitor.com.  Mail letters to Readers Write and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to (617) 450-2317, or e-mail to Op-Ed.(c) Copyright 2007. The Christian Science Monitor"
"4","Fighting the Good Fight Bush lost on immigration but was on right side DAL0000020070629e36t000p7 EDITORIALS EDITORIALS 359 Words 29 June 2007 The Dallas Morning News FIRST 20A English Copyright 2007 The Dallas Morning News. All Rights Reserved.  The senators who voted yesterday to cut off debate on the immigration bill did the nation no good deed. We're particularly disappointed that Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn sided with the bunch who effectively killed it.  The two knew, as did everyone else, that the vote to limit debate was a way to get the legislation yanked off the floor. Now Americans have little more than a lick and a promise that the Senate will get back to work on the issue this year or next.  President Bush, on the other hand, deserves enormous credit for pushing immigration to the top of Washington's domestic agenda. His stand on behalf of a better immigration system is like what he did as governor when he pressed legislators to overhaul Texas' school funding system. Ironically, he lost that battle too, again because some Senate Republicans went south on him. But he was right when he warned Austin about a coming crisis, just as he has been correct to encourage Washington to find a saner way of dealing with immigration.  We hope he and immigration reformers like Sen. Ted Kennedy keep the battle going. Mr. Kennedy also worked valiantly to find a compromise that would satisfy enough senators to win passage. Mr. Kennedy, the president and several others tried to build a coalition from the center out, usually the only way to get a victory in Washington.  They didn't succeed this time, but it's better to take on a good fight and fail than not to take it on for fear of losing.  It's also best for the nation to solve this problem sooner rather than later. If Congress waits two or three more years, we'll have another million illegal immigrants. We'll have more employers looking the other way when it comes to hiring illegal workers. And we'll lack enough agents to protect our borders. This is one problem that will only get worse with time. PHOTO(S): 1. John Cornyn. 2. Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison."
"4","LAST RITES FOR IMMIGRATION BILL HFCT000020070629e36t0006o EDITORIAL 312 Words 29 June 2007 The Hartford Courant STATEWIDE A10 English Copyright 2007, The Hartford Courant. All Rights Reserved.  It will take a miracle to bring back to life the immigration bill killed Thursday by 53 senators who refused to invoke cloture, which is another word for terminating a filibuster.  President Bush and members of his Cabinet had urged approval of the legislation, which they helped draft with congressional leaders from both parties.  This is a sad ending of an earnest effort to mend America's broken borders by providing $4.4 billion for border security, increasing the penalties on employers for hiring illegal immigrants, creating a guest-worker program, and offering legal status to illegal immigrants who would pay fines and taxes and have no criminal records.  The compromise was less than ideal, as compromises often are. But the overarching goal was to begin to address meaningfully one of the gravest challenges facing Americans at home.  Naysayers nitpicked away, however, arguing mostly that they were against granting amnesty to illegal residents.  During the drawn-out debate, foes offered no workable solutions to end the underground flow of humanity across our borders and address the reality that some 12 million ``undocumented'' aliens already are in this country. Millions of them have been in the United States for decades, with children and grandchildren born here.  Senators who killed the bill -- Connecticut's Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman were not among them -- should be asked by constituents what they intend to do next about immigration. The answer probably will be to continue ranting against ``illegals.''  The death of the immigration bill represents failure of leadership in Congress, but especially failure of leadership in the White House. The president, alas, has lost considerable clout. He is having trouble moving a pebble up the hill, let alone a boulder.  What happened in the Senate on Thursday is another failure as the disappointing end of the Bush era draws near."
"4","Editorials XHAD000020070630e36t00016 Main; A 324 Words 29 June 2007 Honolulu Advertiser 18 English (c) Copyright 2007, Honolulu Advertiser. All Rights Reserved.  Senate fails to deliver immigration reform  In the end, the Senate failed to bridge the deep partisan gulf on one of America's hot-button issues: immigration.  The bill yesterday failed to win a procedural vote in the Senate, eliminating the hope of accomplishing any meaningful reform, at least until after the presidential election, and perhaps indefinitely. The 46-53 vote weighed heavily on President Bush, who tried but failed to deliver the 14 GOP votes needed to pass it.  The Senate's failure to reach a compromise means enduring a failing immigration system, which for decades has forced millions of illegal immigrants into the shadows and separated far too many families.  The sweeping reform package included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here, tighter border security and an attempt to address the staggering backlog of applicants.  The bill wasn't perfect, and there should have been room for compromise.  But the rhetoric — particu-larly on the conservative talk-radio circuit — was venomous. Conservatives claimed the bill would be akin to granting millions of illegal immigrants ""amnesty."" That's hardly the case: Under the bill, immigrants applying for legal status would have been forced to first clear criminal background checks, pay any back taxes owed and substantial fines and fees totaling as much as $6,000 — hardly affordable for many immigrants often locked in low-wage jobs. And in some cases, they would have been required to return to their home countries as part of the process.  The visceral and often xenophobic debate resulted in some GOP senators saying they received death threats.  That's shameful. If in this country — a nation of immigrants — we cannot debate this issue with civility and respect, then we have much to learn.  Sensible immigration reform has been long overdue. Leadership and compromise on Capitol Hill were needed to make that possible. It's a shame that neither came through this time around."
"4","EDITORIAL 12 MILLION REASONS AMERICA NEEDS IMMIGRATION REFORM LAD0000020070630e36t0000k Editorial 484 Words 29 June 2007 Los Angeles Daily News VALLEY N18 English © 2007 Los Angeles Daily News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  IMMIGRATION reform, declared dead once before, now seems truly dead -- or at least for this year and probably next.  Once again, our leaders have failed us, neglecting to fulfill their most basic mission: providing the security and well-being of our nation.  Yes, there were 1 million good reasons to oppose the Senate's bipartisan immigration-reform bill, reasons its many critics, left and right, happily ticked off. But there were also 12 million good reasons to support the bill. They are the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the shadows of society.  These are people who are unidentified and unaccountable. Their anonymity gives rise to crime, exploitation and an underground economy. It creates a clandestine world in which terrorists and gangbangers can thrive.  Say what you will about the reform bill: It was too stringent, not stringent enough; too hard on families, too easy on lawbreakers. But the bill would have brought the 12 million out of the shadows, given them identities and given the rest of us the knowledge we need to make sure that terrorists, criminals and undesirables are not living among us.  In this post-9-11 world, that alone should have been reason enough to make the bill law.  Then there are the 500,000 or so immigrants who cross our border illegally each year. Absent a coherent, adequate system to facilitate legal immigration, their ranks will only continue to compound America's illegal-immigration problems.  Yes, the bill was far from perfect. Compromises, by definition, require that everyone give up something, and so the bill didn't fully satisfy anyone.  But it's a mistake to judge any immigration-reform plan against a hypothetical, perfect alternative that doesn't exist and wouldn't get enough votes if it did. The plan needs to be judged against the immigration system we have now.  And by that measure, the Senate's bill was relatively a work of beauty. Because our current system can only be described as chaos.  We have laws that are unenforceable, unenforced and routinely ignored. We reward those who break the law and punish those who honor it. We maintain rules that discourage assimilation and encourage ghettoization. And we lack the sophistication to distinguish between those who come here to contribute to our society and those who come here to cause trouble of one sort or another.  It's hard to see how anyone could defend America's immigration status quo, or how any comprehensive reform wouldn't be an improvement.  What the Senate reformers tried to do was forge a compromise all could live with, something that makes our immigration law better, if not ideal.  America has needed a sound immigration policy for 20 years. Sadly, it looks like we might have to wait even longer while the harmful effects of uncontrolled and illegal immigration get worse."
"2","PUBLIC FORUM LAD0000020070630e36t0000i Editorial 1248 Words 29 June 2007 Los Angeles Daily News VALLEY N18 English © 2007 Los Angeles Daily News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  AWOL  Re ""Mayor lobbying for immigration"" (Briefly, June 27):  I understand that our stealth mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, and his entourage were in Washington, D.C., again -- this time to support the Senate immigration bill. Isn't the L.A. mayor supposed to stay at home and take care of local matters?  I recall when Antonio was spending a lot of time in Florida working with the Kerry campaign while he was being paid to be a full- time L.A. councilman. I hope all of this is remembered when he is looking for votes again.  -- Dan Francis  Northridge  Rein him in  Re ""Mayor lobbying for immigration"" (Briefly, June 27):  Someone please tell me who's paying for ""our beloved leader"" (reference to Kim Jong-Il of North Korea) to fly to Washington, D.C., to support the immigration bill. It's none of his business. As a sanctuary city, L.A. does not need any more illegal immigrants. He already refuses to acknowledge the problem illegal immigrants create.  The bill had nothing to do with running the city of L.A. We have serious problems in L.A., and ""our beloved leader"" continues to be sidetracked with unimportant or irrelevant issues, including flying all over the world at taxpayer expense. I did not vote for him, and everything I suspected about him has come to pass. He needs to be reined in.  -- Sandra Mantik  Sylmar  Scary out there  Re ""Anti-gang officers stray from policy"" (June 27):  I am not supporting the actions of the South Los Angeles anti- gang units by any means, but let us just make sure we keep this in context: It is scary out there! I worked in South Central L.A. for over 15 years, and I can tell you that the gangs run the streets. And by ""run,"" I mean have complete, total control. If a cop has the gumption to even arrest one of those guys, then, please God, let him do so.  -- Charlene Gowers  Santa Monica  Encouraging scofflaws  Re ""Slow drivers in fast lane have tempers racing"" (June 27):  I agree that someone driving under the speed limit in the left lane when there is no reason to go slow should have to move over, but your article seems to say that some drivers should be free to ignore the speed limit. Intentionally disregarding traffic laws is a major part of traffic problems and accidents.  -- Kenneth Cominolo  Los Angeles  Boks responds  Re ""Just kidding"" (Our Opinions, June 26):  Readers must wonder how the Daily News can find fault with L.A. Animal Services' attempt to educate pet owners on what might be the most fatal decision they will ever make for their once-loved pet. Readers should ask why more time is not spent on real news, like the challenges we face, the progress we're making in modernizing the department and saving animals, and making Los Angeles the first major metropolitan ""no-kill"" city in the United States.  Instead of editorials like ""Just kidding,"" why not focus on how the department places nearly 21,000 pets into loving homes and returns 4,500 lost pets to their grateful guardians each year -- and has reduced pet euthanasia to a historic low.  -- Ed Boks  General manager  L.A. Animal Services  You want fireworks?  Re ""Fireworks shows?"" (Your Opinions, June 27):  Contrary to John Horn's belief that there are no fireworks shows here in the Valley, I invite John to my home in Sylmar. I live in a cul-de-sac, and for several years have had people come from other areas to ignite their plethora of illegal fireworks, M-80s, and to drink alcohol while doing so. There won't be any police because they are busy with more important matters.  In the meantime, we feel trapped in our home for safety reasons, and our pets are going crazy with hours of unrelenting noise. To have city-funded shows may curtail these illegal activities, but that could be wishful thinking on my part.  -- Erin Ziliak  Sylmar  Tax is the problem  Re ""Thinking outside the bus"" (Our Opinions, June 30):  The Daily News recently reported about a proposed ""transit village"" planned in Tarzana. One of the mayor's staff stated, ""You have to build neighborhoods where people can exist without getting in their cars."" Another article stated that freeway congestion has worsened because of population growth that has pushed more Californians into homes they can afford that are farther away from their jobs.  Building new communities in which you can live near where you work or fixing/building car-pool lanes is not going to fix the real problem. The real problem is the property tax. I live in Northridge, and I am a partner in a company in Westlake Village. I would gladly move closer to my office in Westlake Village if my property tax -- for a house of the same current value -- was not going to literally double. Instead, I suffer through 45 miles of solo driving each day, which wastes one to two hours of each day.  -- Jim Albrecht  Northridge  Like the rest of us  Re ""Pension initiative planned"" (June 26):  Why not let the taxpayers pay the salaries of the public employees and the retired employees be responsible for their own retirement savings (be it credit union-type pension funds, mutual funds or whatever), like everybody else?  -- George Green  Valley Village  Law divorcement  Lately, it seems, to be a pretty Delgadillo -- I mean, rocky -- road for law enforcement. The public properly holds ""lawmakers"" at California and congressional levels in contempt for being corporate toadies and spectacularly unwilling to sanction their own ethical lapses.  Sheriff Baca has been stung by a series of questionable judgments, and Chief Bratton has been stung by an absence from and reaction to the MacArthur Park demonstration. However, I think the cynicism of the citizenry, why we feel divorced from equality under the law, is represented by the disingenuous Shakespearean dramas of the top federal and city law enforcement officers. If they had character, Alberto Gonzalez and Rocky Delgadillo would have resigned by now. If there were any justice, they would be breaking big ""rockies"" into small ones for Caltrans road shoulders.  -- Gary W. Dolgin  Santa Monica  Bush's incompetence  During the 2000 presidential campaign, American voters had many opportunities to learn that George W. Bush had been a failure at everything he attempted in his adult life. Only his family's money and connections allowed this quintessential failure the opportunity to move up to his next venture. What induced the voters in all those red states to believe that, given the toughest job in the world, this man would somehow become competent?  So after six years, it isn't surprising that we have the Hurricane Katrina mess, an unending and unwinnable war in in the Middle East, the devaluation of our currency, exploding deficits, multiple scandals and a backward step in the sciences. What more will this stubborn, reckless man do in the next two years to turn this nation upside down?  -- Stan Gordon  Encino  Get rid of Kobe  Re ""Will this make Kobe happy?"" (June 26):  I really, truly, sincerely believe the best move the Lakers could make would be to get rid of Kobe Bryant. They all try harder when he is off injured or for whatever reason not there.  Yes, I believe Kevin Garnett would be great.  -- Robert F. Souder  Chatsworth Letters to the editor"
"4","The grand failure; 'Amnesty' and wage issues doomed immigration reform. It's the GOP that may pay the price at the polls. LATM000020070629e36t0002x Main News; Editorial Pages Desk 401 Words 29 June 2007 Los Angeles Times Home Edition A-34 English Copyright 2007 The Los Angeles Times  THE DEMISE of the Senate immigration reform bill Thursday was a grim reminder of how much easier it is to block legislation on controversial issues than to pass it. Although the provisions were worked out by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, and President Bush had made it a top priority, in the end neither he nor Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could persuade even a simple majority of the Senate to keep the bill alive.  Whatever leadership the two men provided wasn't enough to overcome the opposition's two main messages: Putting illegal immigrants already in the United States on a path to citizenship would forgive them for violating U.S. law (the ""amnesty"" argument), and providing more opportunities for workers to enter legally would take jobs away from American citizens (the ""cheap labor"" argument). The former resonated largely with conservatives, the latter with liberals. Those criticisms are sure to confront any comprehensive approach to immigration reform, and it's past time for proponents to find an effective retort.  As supporters of the Senate measure correctly argued, the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States cannot be forced to move out. Requiring them to return to their home countries and go to the end of the visa line would simply persuade them to stay in the shadows they inhabit today. A much better way to bring them out of the shadows is to provide a clear path to citizenship -- not a free one, but one that rewards work and compliance with the law.  Nor would banning temporary workers or decreasing the number of legal immigrants shield citizens from low-wage competition. In a globalized marketplace, there's almost no way to escape it. And as long as countries to the south and west struggle economically, many of their residents will do whatever it takes to find work here.  Both parties' leadership failed in the Senate this week, yet Republicans may pay a higher price. A new USA Today/Gallup poll showed Latinos gravitating to the Democratic Party, just as they abandoned the Republican Party in California after then-Gov. Pete Wilson pushed a mean-spirited, anti-immigrant agenda. Conservatives should ponder that history before they play the ""amnesty"" card again."
"4","A status-quo vote OMHA000020070629e36t000e9 Editorial 471 Words 29 June 2007 Omaha World-Herald Iowa;Metro;Midlands;Nebraska;Sunrise 06B English © 2007 Omaha World-Herald. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The immigration bill most likely died for good Thursday. But in debating it, the U.S. Senate didn't rush to a decision. The many hours of debate invested by senators prove that  Yet in voting to talk the bill to death, senators have made a decision that will speak for all Americans for at least the next two years. The decision: The public doesn't feel compelled to move beyond the status quo  The decades-old trend will continue by which Latinos come north to work, send money back home and stay or go back south as they please. There is no consensus to build a nearly 2,000-mile-long fence, physical or electronic, along the Mexican border  The federal government will occasionally raid employers hiring illegal immigrants, as a nod to laws that mean little if not enforced  There does appear to be a recognition of the obvious fact that the United States cannot round up and deport 12 million people (the equivalent of the population of Ohio) and wouldn't like what such an action would say about 2007 America if it were tried. But beyond that, it appears the status quo will continue  That is, those 12 million will continue to be, in effect, unofficial guest workers. And their conditions, aside from the wages they're paid, will largely remain an object of indifference  Finally, the status quo will continue by which the immigrants themselves decide how much to blend into U.S. culture (something that would be easier for their children anyway) and whether to seek admittance into the electoral process that decides how future immigrants will be treated  The U.S. Senate's immigration bill was controversial, but it would have made changes on all these fundamental issues: border security, workplace enforcement, guest workers, legalization of status and assimilation. Even in the face of inaction, these issues remain  Congress would have been correct to take steps forward on this issue. These issues do not have to be addressed in one massive bill; they could be broken up, individually debated and passed as a multibill package  Legislators with the stature and the will to pull it off are in short supply in any case. So presidential candidates will go on raising millions and feeding the public brief sound bites on America's growing list of complicated dilemmas. Congressional leaders will keep setting their agendas based on winning elections rather than on governance that attempts to address key issues  And the states will be left to either enable or discourage illegal immigrants who might come their way  Deciding to do nothing is a decision, however ill-advised it might be at a given time. As always, all Americans share the responsibility -- and the consequences -- of the decisions of their elected leaders."
"4","EDITORIAL: Epitaph for immigration reform POR0000020070630e36t00005 Editorial The Oregonian 490 Words 29 June 2007 The Oregonian Sunrise C8 English © 2007 Oregonian Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  SUMMARY: The Senate delivers devastating defeat  to Bush's imperfect but pragmatic plan  for America's toughest domestic issue  Realistically, President Bush's plan to overhaul America's immigration laws probably never had a chance.  By the time the legislation died in the Senate Thursday, it had become too hopelessly burdened by emotion, too politically volatile. Only a leader blessed by popularity and unifying skills of historic proportion could have saved this plan, and the United States does not have that today.  Americans are left staring out at a bleak landscape on this most intractable of domestic issues. Now, nothing seems remotely likely to move the nation forward on the issue until the next Congress in 2009.  Perhaps it was naive of us to hope that Bush's compromise might squeak through after weeks of tumultuous debate and failed votes. But on Thursday it fell 14 votes short of the 60-vote supermajority of the Democratic-controlled Senate.  There wasn't a single American who couldn't find something to loathe about Bush's bill. And that will be true of any immigration reform Congress will ever consider. The deal-breaker on the Bush plan was that it would enable an estimated 12 million illegal immigrations to remain in the country legally. A congressional cadre from the president's own party, conservative Republicans, seized on these provisions and decried them as ""amnesty.""  We have disagreed with Bush on many, many issues, but he was correct in rejecting that argument. His reform plan, calling for fines and arduous legal procedures, did not amount to unconditional amnesty, and it would have moved illegal immigrants to the very back of the line of foreigners already awaiting citizenship.  The bill would have created a better system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces while toughening border security, but that didn't satisfy Senate critics. Many said they needed proof the U.S.-Mexican border has been ""sealed"" before they'll consider any accommodations to illegal immigrants.  The bitter truth is that this bill could have called for building the longest, tallest international wall in history, and these critics still wouldn't have signed on. They'd still be spouting the tired ""illegal means illegal"" rhetoric. The problem with that point of view, clearly shared by huge numbers of Americans, is that it comes with no solution. Does it mean creating a vast new police agency to round up 12 million people and put them in prison camps to await train rides back to Mexico?  Of course not. But that won't keep candidates in the 2008 election from engaging in easy demagoguery on illegal immigration.  This guarantees that no serious debate on the issue will occur in 2008. And after the voting is over, addressing the problem will be harder, not easier.  The only winner in Thursday's frustrating Senate vote was the chaotic status quo."
"4","Failure Our position: The defeat of immigration reform deals a blow to all Americans. ORSE000020070629e36t00015 EDITORIAL OPINION Sable 469 Words 29 June 2007 Orlando Sentinel FINAL A20 English Copyright 2007, Orlando Sentinel Communications. All Rights Reserved.  The Senate came to a contentious dead end on the issue of immigration reform Thursday. It's a failure that will be felt way beyond the borders of Washington, D.C.  Americans lost big Thursday. They can thank a group of Republicans and a handful of Democrats who cried amnesty without offering reasonable alternatives. These naysayers got their wish by torpedoing a vote that would have ended the debate and moved the bill toward passage.  Guess what? The bill included a $4.4 billion provision for increased border security. It's a cruel irony that these lawmakers voted to make our borders less secure.  The winners? How about unscrupulous employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants? This bill's failure lets them off the hook. There would have been much stronger rules requiring employee verification. Tamper-proof cards would have helped weed out undocumented workers and opened up the job market for U.S. citizens who claim they are deprived of jobs that go to cheap, illegal labor.  Rejecting the bill also closed doors for American companies who need high-tech workers who would come here under a temporary work visa. Now high-tech companies that can't find enough qualified workers here will send the work overseas, hurting the American economy.  The bill's failure also makes it more difficult for law enforcement, since an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants will remain unchecked. Although the majority of them are law-abiding folks, there is a criminal element that will continue to live here with little fear of being discovered by thorough immigration system.  This bill wasn't perfect, but it was a compromise that offered something to both sides of the immigration debate. Now, nobody gets a thing, and the saddest part is that immigration reform will remain in legal limbo for two more years because of the 2008 election season coming up.  All that's left are the hard feelings from a bitter debate that too often vilified people with principled objections.  Immigration now becomes the focus of advocacy groups intent to make senators who opposed this bill accountable at the polls. As well they should be. Expect a backlash from the expanding universe of Hispanic voters. But all Americans had an interest in seeing this issue resolved.  The scorecard reads 37 Republicans and 15 Democrats and one Independent voting against the bill. To their credit, Florida Sens. Mel Martinez and Bill Nelson voted for the bill.  They understood the bipartisan stength it would take to hold the bill together. Now, as Mr. Martinez noted, the burden shifts to others to see what solutions they will offer.  They had a workable answer in their hands, and dropped it.  All Americans lose."
"3","Editorial | Immigration Bill Fails; A merciful ending PHLI000020070629e36t0001h EDITORIAL; P-com Opinion 386 Words 29 June 2007 The Philadelphia Inquirer CITY-D A22 English (c) Copyright 2007, Philadelphia Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.  Sometimes the only thing you can do for a badly wounded animal is put it down. Any disappointment in the Senate's inability to pass immigration reform must be tempered by an acknowledgment that the bill had become so mangled that it needed to be put out of its misery.  No one was totally happy with the bill. Often that is a sign of fruitful negotiation. But this proposal so compromised principles on both sides of the argument that in the end few had the stomach to keep fighting.  Both Democrats and Republicans were opposing the bill when a procedural vote ended the fiasco Thursday. The vote sent a clear message to President Bush, who personally lobbied for the bill, that his low poll ratings have made him a paper tiger in his own party.  Conservatives kept harping about the need to make America's border with Mexico more secure. The dead bill would have done that. It included not only increasing the Border Patrol, but also adding fencing and electronic surveillance at key spots.  The stickier point that still has most Americans scratching their heads is what to do with the 12 million or more people who have entered this nation illegally.  The defeated bill included a path to citizenship, but it was decried by critics as granting ""amnesty."" That was hardly the case, unless you deem anything short of deportation as amnesty.  The bill called for fines, fees and other steps before eligible persons could apply first for legal residency and then for citizenship. It's not amnesty when you have to pay a fine for what you did.  But the path had problems. For example, it treated all illegal residents the same; an earlier version made clearer, proper distinctions between new arrivals and those who had lived and worked in this country for years.  What happens next is a guess. Immigration will likely be a hot topic in the 2008 elections. Some steps are proceeding to make borders more secure. Immigration officials are making more raids to catch undocumented workers. But not enough is being done to sanction the companies that hire and often exploit them.  America must find the will to balance its immigration concerns and its Statue of Liberty ideals."
"3","Enough Said: RCHD000020070703e36t0000k Editorial 32 Words 29 June 2007 The Richmond Times-Dispatch Final A10 English © 2007 Richmond Newspapers Incorporated. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  George Allen on how John McCain's support of the Senate immigration reform bill will affect the Arizonan's presidential campaign: ""God, that just hurts him a great deal."""
"4","IMMIGRATION POLITICS AHEAD RNKE000020070630e36t00021 EDITORIAL 426 Words 29 June 2007 Roanoke Times & World News METRO B10 English © 2007 Roanoke Times & World News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The U.S. Senate's refusal Thursday to bring a controversial immigration reform bill to a vote will increase pressure on state and local governments to police the millions of immigrant workers who have entered the country illegally.  The issue is likely to loom large in Virginia's General Assembly races this fall, setting the stage for what could be a campaign season of ugly appeals to fear and racism, both overt and subtle. Virginians worried about the impact of illegal immigration on their communities might be susceptible to demagoguery, even as they assure themselves that they are not prejudiced people.  After all, the country's most recent influx of immigrants, many - - but not all -- of whom arrived without the proper documents, has created crowded public schools and touched off sparks at economic and cultural friction points, from worries about wages to how many cars are parked at a suburban home.  Voters should recall, though, that Virginia already is attempting to take a fair and reasoned approach to immigration issues thrust on the states by the federal government's years of failure to adopt realistic immigration policies. This year, the General Assembly established a Virginia Commission on Immigration to study the impact immigrants, legal and illegal, have on the commonwealth.  The commission has not yet even been formed, much less started to work. But its charge, to look at both the positive and negative effects immigrants have in the state and then to make recommendations on legislation, is a good starting point for sound policymaking.  Unfortunately, its findings won't be available to guide reasoned debate in this year's campaigns.  So beware, Virginians, of appeals to raw emotions and promises of simple solutions to complex problems, however urgent those problems may be.  Republicans, trying to stave off losses to their assembly majorities, are looking at immigration as a wedge issue that also would distance them from an unpopular president. President Bush backed the immigration bill that was filibustered to death Thursday in the Senate.  But Democrats, too, are likely to be feeling anti-immigrant pressure from that part of their political base that looks for government to even out economic opportunity. Illegal immigrants presumably have the most immediate impact at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.  After Thursday's rout of a bill deemed too soft on illegal immigrants, Tennessee's Sen. Bob Corker, an opponent, said: ""Americans feel they are losing their country.""  Voters need to take care to protect that part of it that makes it America: its ideals."
"4","Don't give up yet | Framework remains for worthy compromise SDU0000020070703e36t00056 OPINION 530 Words 29 June 2007 The San Diego Union-Tribune R,F B.8 English © 2007 San Diego Union Tribune Publishing Company. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  The Senate's decision yesterday to block a final vote on a landmark immigration reform bill touched off immediate recriminations among bill supporters -- against talk radio; against supposedly backward and nativist conservatives; and against the Senate itself, for its purported inability to tackle big issues.  We offer a more constructive view: That only 46 senators demanded an up-or-down vote on the bill, 14 short of the 60 needed to end debate, may have been disappointing, but it was understandable -- and not at all the death knell for immigration reform.  It was disappointing, of course, because after months of work by President Bush and a bipartisan group of senators, the chance to improve our broken immigration system seemed much closer than at any point in years.  Yet the bill's rejection was understandable given the many serious, legitimate complaints about it. The root cause of the immigration crisis is the U.S. job magnet. To address this, the reform bill would have required that the immigration status of all new hires be verified by employers beginning in 18 months. Leaving apart the implausibility of bureaucrats being able to handle such a complicated task so quickly, even if they did, the system still would not be reliable. That's because until every worker is required to have a tamper-proof biometric ID card, immigration-status verification will be subject to vast fraud due to the availability of easily faked documents. The result: The bill wouldn't turn off the job magnet.  But instead of giving the Senate more time to fix such shortcomings and fine-tune a compromise, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., sought to limit debate, and he now gives the impression he considers the bill dead and buried. This doesn't make sense.  Perhaps the cynics are right and Reid never really wanted the bill to pass. Certainly House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., sent out signals that she feared the bill's passage would cost Democrats politically. The vehemence of opponents had to worry any lawmaker without a safe seat who was considering support. Nonetheless, we hope supporters of reform keep on pushing. The issue is too important to abandon.  Yesterday's vote doesn't have to be the final say on reform for this summer, much less until 2009. The framework for a comprehensive compromise remains in place: a path to citizenship for most of the 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States; a new seriousness by the federal government about both controlling the borders and forcing private employers to stop hiring those in the country illegally; and a revised legal immigration system that gives preference to better-educated, more skilled applicants.  A bill can be written that goes much further to achieving these basic goals than the one rejected yesterday. And so we hope that Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is right -- reformers ""will live to see another day"" -- and that Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is wrong: ""This (bill) is as good as it is going to get."" If Graham is correct, then immigration reform is dead -- perhaps deservedly."
"4","No one wins with defeat of immigration reform bill TUCC000020070630e36t0000p Citizen Voices; B 603 Words 29 June 2007 The Tucson Citizen 1B English (c) Copyright 2007, The Tucson Citizen. All Rights Reserved.  And so the conservatives have ""won"" - haranguing senators not to let an immigration reform bill come to a vote and essentially killing the issue until President Bush leaves office.  A reform bill that was imperfect but far better than the status quo has been hammered out of existence by xenophobes, talk radio hosts and those whose voices and shouts of ""no"" are more developed than their reasoning.  The Senate on Thursday failed to adopt a procedural motion to conclude debate on the bill. That effectively kills the issue for this year. And it is unlikely it will be resurrected in 2008 as Congress turns its attention to political races.  This ""victory"" for the naysayers is so pointless, they cannot even explain what they ""won."" If not this bill, then what? With the Senate bill dead, they have no suggestion on what to do about the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country or about any of the other issues related to immigration.  Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who broke from his conservative roots to help craft the bipartisan Senate bill, said that, ""The result of our inaction regrettably means the status quo will continue, as thousands of illegal immigrants continue pouring across our borders every day and millions already here continue receiving silent amnesty.""  Kyl identified one of several ironies in the bill's defeat. Those who say they are opposed to amnesty are allowing those here now to receive de facto amnesty indefinitely - without fines, security and background checks and other requirements that were in the Senate bill.  And by killing the bill now - when a Republican president is in office - it is quite possible a more ""liberal"" bill will gain traction in 2009, when a Democrat may be in the White House and Democrats may have larger majorities in Congress.  The guest-worker provision also was a target. But with the bill dead, those who want to deport all illegal immigrants now working in the United States must step forward with their own plan to fill those jobs.  Maybe it is better the immigration bill went down quickly on a procedural vote, instead of being saddled with numerous ineffective and harmful amendments and then passed. Maybe no bill is better than a bad bill.  Gov. Janet Napolitano traveled to Washington, D.C., this week in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade senators to pass a good law. ""If they're going to eat the pain of doing an immigration bill, they might as well pass a good one,"" she said.  Instead, they avoided the issue.  As columnist Linda Chavez notes, with the immigration reform bill dead, ""Our borders will be less secure, not more."" (See column, Page 2B)  The Senate vote was not a victory for anyone. It's an admission of defeat.  •  A step forward for health care  A plan by Carondelet Health Network to open a state-of-the-art neurological institute is good news for the Tucson health care community.  Carondelet said it will open the facility in December at St. Joseph's Hospital. It will attract needed neurosurgeons to Tucson and provide a high level of care to patients with brain and spinal injuries.  The technology here will be available nowhere else in North America, Carondelet officials said.  Tucsonans needing highly skilled neurological care have been sent to Phoenix or elsewhere. This will allow them to be cared for here and bring doctors to town to care for patients, to teach and conduct research.  It is a major step forward for health care in Tucson."
"4","Demise of immigration bill leaves problems to fester USAT000020070629e36t0005z NEWS Debate 521 Words 29 June 2007 USA Today FINAL A.14 English © 2007 USA Today. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  People are elected to Congress to solve problems, but Thursday when the Senate had a chance to solve one of the nation's worst -- its intolerable, unworkable and unjust immigration system -- a majority ducked and ran toward the safety of their political bases.  Fifty-three senators voted to kill an immigration compromise that was months in the making and favored by interests as diverse as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and President Bush. The measure would have provided strong new enforcement in exchange for opening a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA.  Instead of compromising in the nation's interest, senators kowtowed to their loudest, and often most irrational, supporters. For conservatives, it was nativists who stoked fears that immigrants are tainting America. For a few liberals, it was unions, some of which claimed that more immigration would cut wages and opportunities for Americans.  By failing to act, what the senators gave America is more of the dysfunctional status quo. Republican foes of the measure can crow, as they did Thursday, of a ""victory,"" but the facts show that they killed a long list of enforcement remedies they said they wanted -- and could have had just by saying yes.  That list includes more than $4.4 billion for patrols, barriers, cameras and other mechanisms to strengthen the nation's borders. Gone, too, is a plan for the first smart, effective way for employers to verify if workers are legal, as well as stiff criminal penalties for businesses that break the law.  Of course, the biggest cry of the naysayers was that the measure granted ""amnesty"" for 12 million illegal immigrants already in the USA. Well, guess what? The 12 million are still here. It's folly to think that they will be deported, disappear voluntarily or be hounded away. If past trends continue, another 400,000 will arrive this year, and every year Congress fails to act.  The future for immigration overhaul is bleak. Even the most hopeful reformers say fixing the broken system is unlikely before a new Congress takes office in 2009.  Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff promises enforcement will continue. That means more raids, more children left behind as parents are summarily deported. And cities and states, in the absence of a decent federal law, will continue to pass local measures -- many of them ill-conceived and mean-spirited -- to restrict housing, jobs, education and just about every facet of immigrants' lives.  What a hollow victory. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who broke from many Republicans to back the compromise, denounced colleagues for being afraid to confront the tough issues: ""The American people have a low opinion of us because we can't seem to do the things that we need to do because we're too worried about us and not them.""  That pretty much sums it up.  This is the sixth in an occasional series of editorials about this year's immigration debate. View the previous editorials at blogs.usatoday.com/oped/immigration_editorial. PHOTO, B/W, Getty Images"
"4","An Immigrant's Lament; 53 senators vote to keep 12 million people in the shadows. WP00000020070629e36t00008 Editorial 458 Words 29 June 2007 The Washington Post FINAL A20 English Copyright 2007, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved  AFTER SEN. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina joined 36 of her Republican colleagues, 15 Democrats and one independent in the Senate yesterday in squashing the last, best hope for now of overhauling the nation's bankrupt and busted immigration laws, she was asked what she proposed for the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country. ""I think that is something that can be dealt with at a later time,"" she replied airily.  Tell that to Ernesto, Mrs. Dole. He's a 31-year-old Salvadoran handyman in Wheaton who sneaked over the border through California four years ago after paying thousands of dollars to a migrant smuggler, to whom he remains in debt. Mrs. Dole and her colleagues may imagine that Ernesto will simply evaporate now that the Senate has decided to avert its gaze, but he won't. Although he earns barely $1,200 a month, he does better here as a painter, carpenter, landscaper and electrician than he ever could in Cabanas, his hardscrabble native region of northern El Salvador, which is rich in beans and sugar cane but bereft of jobs.  Ernesto, who spoke with us on the understanding that his last name would not be published, was on Capitol Hill with a small group of immigrants yesterday. He watched ruefully as the senators dealt their lethal blow to his prospects for a normal life on the right side of the law. But he's staying put. With the help of Casa of Maryland, a local nonprofit, he finds work several days a week and sends $200 a month home to his family in El Salvador. His worldly possessions here, which he keeps with him in a tiny rented room, consist of a power saw, a few hand tools, a television and the cellphone he uses to talk to his wife and 5-year-old daughter every day.  It's enough, better than what he left behind in El Salvador, and plenty to nourish an immigrant's dream of earning a little more, of working full time, of maybe bringing his family to live with him one day. Ernesto does not intend to leave, but even if he were to be deported, there are still about 12 million people representing 5 percent of the nation's job force who cannot be ignored, hounded, harassed, wished or deported into nothingness. At some point Congress will come to its senses, steady its nerves and recognize that unimpeachable reality. Mrs. Dole and her colleagues may think they killed immigration reform yesterday. In fact the problem will just keep coming back, bigger each time than the last. http://www.washingtonpost.com WP200706292ED-IMMIGRATION29"
"4","EDITORIAL; A loss without winners LVL0000020070703e36u00032 A; Forum 410 Words 30 June 2007 The Courier-Journal Louisville, KY METRO 10 English (c) Copyright 2007, The Courier-Journal. All Rights Reserved.  Presumably, the conservatives and the small band of liberals who joined forces to defeat the immigration reform bill in the Senate this week are happy and think they have accomplished something.  It is difficult, though, to imagine what that might be.  After all, virtually no one believes the current system is working. And by beating the best hope for change that is likely to present itself for quite some time, all that has been achieved is to preserve the status quo.  Hard-line opponents of the bill want tougher action against illegal immigrants and increased border security, but resources for a more stringent system were in the legislation that they played a key role in derailing.  As a result, a justifiably angry secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, said the flood of undocumented workers is unlikely to diminish. Employers will not receive the help the bill provided in uncovering employees with phony papers, he said; Texas ranchers can continue to resist new fences; Arizona residents will fight to prevent new radar towers.  Similarly, however, liberal foes, including a handful of senators and the American Civil Liberties Union, should have been more careful about what they wished for. The present situation does nothing to advance their goals of allowing illegal immigrants who are already in this country to come out of the shadows or to make it easier for their families to join them. The reform bill, on the other hand, provided a path to citizenship, albeit a rigorous one.  And no recounting of this fiasco should omit the self-interested flip-flop of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who earlier had supported efforts to bring the immigration bill to a vote but on Thursday opposed cutting off debate. Before he was against the bill, he was for it.  There are those who will take delight in yet another humiliating defeat for President Bush, who to his credit pushed hard for passage. In the end, he could persuade only 12 members of his own party to support his position, a clear sign of his crippling political weakness.  But if right-wing radio could produce such venomous (and effective) resistance to a reform supported by George W. Bush, imagine how it would react to a similar measure offered by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.  This was the moment when reform was possible. The Senate chose instead to let a severe problem get worse."
"4","Cheers & jeers DYRC000020070630e36u00014 OPINION01 235 Words 30 June 2007 Daily Record English (c) Copyright 2007, Daily Record. All Rights Reserved.  CHEER: To three Morris County teachers -- Michelle Rhodes of Morristown, Cynthia Thieringer of Chester and Deborah Katchen of Montville -- for earning the right to attend a special academic program on space science and exploration.  JEER: To the lack of common sense exhibited by some employees of the state Motor Vehicle Commission. A Roxbury man, Darren Miller, has to go to court to get a name change so he can get a new driver's license. It seems that his name was spelled ""Darran"" on his birth certificate. But he's been ""Darren"" all his life. Really now, couldn't someone at the MVC deduce that this is the same person?  CHEER: To more than 1,000 motorcyclists, who raised an estimated $50,000 last week to benefit the March of Dimes.  JEER: To continued public indifference to contracts being given to top school administrators. A new law mandates that these mostly six-figure contracts be publicly detailed and public comment be heard prior to adoption. What happened this week in Hanover Township has been the norm: There was no comment. What a missed opportunity for interested residents to vent.  CHEER: To the U.S. Senate, by advancing a compromise immigration bill by supporting a procedural vote. The bill may not be perfect, but it's preferable to the status quo. New Jersey Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez support the bill."
"4","A vote for human suffering DN00000020070630e36u0000q Deseret Morning News editorial 369 Words 30 June 2007 Deseret Morning News A20 English (c) 2007 Deseret News Publishing Co.  The comprehensive immigration bill is now dead. And the senators who killed it have reams of principled reasons for putting a bullet through it. What's less clear is if they are willing to shoulder the responsibility for the years of hardship and suffering they have now foisted on the immigrant community.  Whatever reaction those senators were expecting from the illegal immigrant community, the reaction that came has been sorrow.  In California, the country's most popular Spanish-language talk show host -- Piolin -- fielded call after call from tearful mothers until he himself choked up. To a person, those mothers were worried about their children, many of whom are full citizens of the United States of America for having been born here.  Those American children have now been condemned to the shadows of society. Perhaps all those dancing on the grave of immigration reform should put some of that high-stepping energy into helping those families.  In Mexico, President Felipe Calderon was melancholy but diplomatic.  ""All the United States Senate did was heighten the risk and insecurity on both sides of the border,"" he told the Mexican press corps.  Clarissa Martinez, the director of a major immigration reform group, told the Spanish-language television audience, ""The politicians speak lovely words to us in an election year, but they lack the courage to follow up and act.""  All that has changed is that the issue is now muddier than ever. Tim Russert of ""Meet the Press"" claims the senators who killed the bill will probably find that vote haunting them for years to come. And though it sounds harsh, some pundits feel that -- as with Gov. George Wallace and segregation -- senators such as our own Orrin G. Hatch have landed on the wrong side of history. Senators stood, for a moment, at the crossroads of a nation. Their knees buckled.  Novelist Wallace Stegner once said that the Southern states have produced so many gifted writers because the South feels a need to work through its sins against humanity.  If that's true, perhaps America's skittish senators will themselves end up winning the Nobel Prize -- not for peace, but for literature."
"4","Senate fails on immigration; Leaders in Washington must find a way to fix our broken policy. FBEE000020070703e36u0001j LOCAL NEWS THE FRESNO BEE 321 Words 30 June 2007 The Fresno Bee FINAL B8 English Copyright 2007. The Fresno Bee. All Rights Reserved.  Immigration reform, like so many other important issues in Congress, is on the trash heap. It was tossed there by critics on all sides of this divisive issue. They'd rather pick apart a solution than compromise on a reasonable approach to reforming the nation's immigration policy.  This failure in leadership occurred even with the reform measure being supported by President Bush and a bipartisan group of senators.  Now we are left with the status quo, and the senators must be very happy with their work. They support the continuation of a de facto amnesty program that allows 12 million illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. Their action leaves in place a policy of weak borders, which threaten the nation's security.  Most of all, the Senate's bungling of this issue ensures that the immigration problem in the United States will only get larger -- to the point that it will be unsolvable, if it's not already. Thank you, senators, you have again showed that you're incapable of solving the problems we sent you to Washington to fix.  The immigration reform measure should have passed. We urge leaders in Washington who want to see real reform to find a way to fix our counterproductive immigration policy. It will be difficult because there are too many politicians who'd rather demagogue this issue than actually solve it.  But we can't continue to ignore this problem. We need an immigration reform proposal that meets the nation's security requirements, provides reliable sources of labor in industries that need it and gives hope to those who are being exploited by the current unfair system.  Tell us what you think. Comment on this editorial by going to http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion, then click on the editorial. EDITORIALS"
"4","Blow to Bush and country Death of immigration bill means a return to status quo that doesn’t work NDAY000020070630e36u0000n OPINION 339 Words 30 June 2007 Newsday ALL EDITIONS A22 English Copyright 2007, Newsday. All Rights Reserved.  The inability of the Congress to deal with immigration reform is not only a stunning rebuke to President George W. Bush. More depressingly, it's yet another sign that this nation is not able to deal with the big, complex issues confronting it.  Just as Congress failed to deal with health care reform in President Bill Clinton's first term or Social Security reform in recent years, immigration reform was shot down by a combination of special interests and myopic politics. Yes, there are deep divisions over how to deal with the problem of illegal immigrants, but not doing anything just means the problem will become worse.  We believed that while the proposed bill was far from a perfect solution, it would have represented a significant stride in the right direction. But, in the end, a strange coalition of senators on the left, who were not comfortable with a compromise version or were listening to complaints from labor unions, combined with the reflexive anti-immigrant crowd on the right, prevented the Senate from cutting off debate on the bill.  The result is that the current system, which has allowed approximately 12 million illegal immigrants into the country, will continue. As long as there's work that American citizens don't really want to perform, immigrants will find ways into the nation - no matter how high the fences. Bush's concept of a guest worker program was a key element of the bill, and it had great merit.  It is a crushing blow to Bush, already burdened by his failure in Iraq and dismal poll numbers. It leaves him very little to show for a second term and makes him an even lamer duck. Despite his best efforts, he could not persuade enough members of his own party to join Democrats to bring debate to a close on the compromise bill. Too bad for Bush. Too bad for the country."
"1","'Fairness' blarney ; Don't reinstate a bad doctrine RMTN000020070702e36u00015 NEWS 495 Words 30 June 2007 Rocky Mountain News FINAL 36 English © 2007 Denver Publishing Company, Rocky Mountain News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  In case you hadn't heard, much of the political establishment, especially in Washington, really doesn't like talk radio. And this disdain crosses partisan and ideological lines.  It's not just Democrats and liberals beating up on national hosts that include Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. Talk radio has some Republicans and conservatives hot under the collar, too - especially those who supported the failed immigration reform bill. In that context, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said to reporters ""talk radio is running America - we have to deal with that problem.""  Meanwhile, a host of prominent Democrats, including Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin and presidential front- runner Hillary Clinton, have apparently decided that the way to combat unwelcome speech from unfriendly radio hosts is to revive the Fairness Doctrine, a discarded regulation that once required broadcast stations to ""balance"" their political coverage. Make no mistake, radio is the target.  Look, we too cringe at the tone and content of some talk-radio programs. But that's part of the free-wheeling nature of political debate, and it ought to be encouraged.  Part of the motivation to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine comes from a recent report by the Center for American Progress, which concluded that 76 percent of talk radio programming nationwide is conservative. (Duh.) The report urged Washington to consider what amounts to extortion - commercial stations that aired conservative talk shows might be forced to fund public radio operations - or what amounts to theft - ""diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs."" That means, we suppose, revoking or not renewing licenses of outlets that broadcast an ""unbalanced"" share of talkers.  At one time, the Fairness Doctrine was defended on the basis that government had granted broadcast licenses for a ""scarce public resource."" As a result, the theory went, regulators could control broadcast speech in ways that would be impermissible for the print media. The 1969 Red Lion decision by the U.S. Supreme Court said as much.  Even if that reasoning made sense at the time, the explosion of cable TV, satellite radio, Internet sites and podcasts renders the scarcity rationale meaningless.  Ironically, even as conservative talk radio continues to thrive, Democrats have done quite well in the political marketplace. They have retaken Congress, along with numerous state legislatures and governors' seats once held by Republicans (see: Colorado).  To date, there's no legislation that would impose the Fairness Doctrine - but that does not mean it won't soon be introduced. Meantime, the House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed an amendment to a financial services bill by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., that would block the FCC from spending any money during the next fiscal year to enforce the Fairness Doctrine - if it were reinstated.  The amendment offers a sign that lawmakers on one side of the Capitol may take free speech seriously, even if some heavy hitters in the Senate do not."
"1","Ravenel Fall Hurts; Indictment deprives voters of a 2008 contest of ideas XSNW000020070630e36u0000c A EDITORIAL 534 Words 30 June 2007 Sun-News TSN 10 English Copyright (c) 2007. Myrtle Beach Sun-News. All rights reserved.  Two weeks ago, S.C. Treasurer Thomas Ravenel was the go-to guy to challenge U.S. Sen Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., for the allegiance of bedrock Republican voters in 2008, when Graham faces renomination. Now Ravenel is in a 30-day Arizona drug-rehabilitation program following his indictment last week on a federal cocaine charge.  Were it not for that charge, which a federal magistrate will hear in Ravenel's absence July 9, Ravenel's drug rehab effort might also have led to the rehabilitation of his political career. He wouldn't be the first public figure to succumb to substance abuse and addiction who admits his problem and takes affirmative steps to address it. The days when voters expected their political leaders to be superhuman - to be above reproach and temptation in every way - seem mercifully to be sliding into history.  The criminal indictment and his suspension from office, however, likely will end Ravenel's political career, even if the charge is dismissed or he is acquitted. An indictment means only that a prosecutor thinks he can make a case against his target. But it constitutes an obstacle that even the most imaginative campaign cannot overcome, particularly in a race against an established incumbent such as Graham. And some voters won't forgive an indictment, even if it proves groundless.  For S.C. voters who value political contests of ideas, as we do, Ravenel's fall is a disappointment. A Graham-Ravenel 2008 primary campaign would have offered a clear choice between two intelligent candidates with starkly different views of congressional service.  Graham, as South Carolinians know well, is less interested in toeing the GOP party line than in lending his intellect and political capital to solving public problems - the just-concluded Senate debate over immigration reform being a powerful example. Many bedrock Republicans regarded Graham's support of compromise reform legislation as heresy.  Ravenel, in contrast, believes that members of Congress have a duty to hew to party principles in congressional debates and votes. In a campaign against Graham, he could have made a powerful case that Graham's unorthodox approach to congressional service constitutes a betrayal of the voters who awarded him Strom Thurmond's Senate seat in 2002.  Full disclosure: The Sun News did not recommend Graham to voters in 2002. But the newspaper has supported, often enthusiastically, his desire to explore opportunities for compromise on tough issues, even if the compromise in question doesn't meet the ideological standards of some Republicans.  As for Ravenel, the newspaper opposed his candidacy for U.S. Senate in 2004 and for S.C. treasurer last year because opposing candidates seemed better qualified to serve. But we have respected - and still respect - his service as S.C. treasurer. He quickly grasped the fundamentals of that important constitutional office and seemed on track to serve the public effectively.  We hope Ravenel fares as well as the law allows in the legal proceedings ahead. But we especially regret that what would have been a thought-provoking 2008 primary campaign for S.C. voters will likely now not take place."
"4","Missed opportunity ; Senate turns back on immigration reform WORC000020070701e36u00012 EDITORIAL 341 Words 30 June 2007 Worcester Telegram & Gazette ALL A14 English © 2007 Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  A bill that would have changed immigration law significantly for the first time in more than 20 years, went down to defeat in the U.S. Senate Thursday despite bipartisan support from President Bush and U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.  The final vote was 53 to 46, falling 14 votes short of the needed 60 to close Senate debate. The bill was highly criticized by conservatives who claimed it offered illegal immigrants amnesty; only 12 of the 49 Republican senators voted in favor of the legislation.  Admittedly, the proposal was far from perfect, but it was not the unwarranted ""amnesty"" critics claim. It called for stronger border security and tougher anti-fraud measures. It would have created a means to legal status for undocumented immigrants who came forward and paid a fine to qualify for a visa and perhaps permanent residency. It also would have established a guest worker program that could lead to the issuance of a green card.  If the bill was not the full solution to the country's immigration woes, it was nonetheless regrettable that the Senate passed up the chance to make some improvement. Having 7.5 million to 20 million people living illegally within our borders, vulnerable to exploitation, is unacceptable.  As throughout our nation's history, immigrants make up an important component of the human capital that builds, sustains and enriches all of us. It is unfortunate that the Senate missed the opportunity to bring millions who are living in the shadows into the light of legal status.  What happens now? Observers say that it is unlikely that Mr. Bush will be able to get an immigration reform bill, a key element of his second-term domestic agenda, enacted before he leaves office in 19 months.  It is regrettable that Congress has squandered its best opportunity in years to improve the immigration status quo. It is possible portions of the bill could be revived, however. That, now, should be the reformers' goal."
"1","If Thompson campaign flops, Gingrich will consider jumping in race CHI0000020070701e3710002g Editorials Robert Novak Robert Novak Special to The Chicago Sun-Times 692 Words 01 July 2007 Chicago Sun-Times Final B6 English © 2007 Chicago Sun Times. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights reserved.  Newt Gingrich is telling Republican insiders that his decision in September on whether to run for president in 2008 depends on the progress of Fred Thompson's imminent candidacy.  If Thompson runs a vigorous and effective campaign, Gingrich says privately, he probably will not get in the race. If Thompson proves a dud, however, the former House speaker will seriously consider making a run. That implies that the others in the field look to Gingrich like losers in the general election.  A footnote: Gingrich has weighed in more heavily on the immigration issue than any of the major Republican presidential hopefuls. He has bombarded Republican Senate offices with material attacking the immigration bill backed by President Bush, even sending proposed talking points to senators about to meet with the president.  Taxes and Thompson  Dropping into what will be the key state of South Carolina for his prospective presidential campaign, Fred Thompson was ambushed Wednesday by advocates of the ""Fair Tax"" plan to repeal the federal income tax and replace it with a national sales tax.  The former senator addressed a Republican state fund-raising luncheon in the state capital of Columbia. He appeared surprised to see more people wearing ""Fair Tax"" stickers than ""Thompson for President"" badges. He did not seem prepared to answer questions about the sweeping tax reform.  On Feb. 2, South Carolina will have the second Republican presidential primary after New Hampshire's Jan. 22 start, and polls show that its GOP voters are inclined to fellow Southerner Thompson. He would need a win there after a possible win in New Hampshire by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.  Clinton moving right?  Sen. Hillary Clinton recently conferred with conservative health- care analyst Regina Herzlinger, who advocates universal health insurance provided by the private sector and who has sharply criticized the 1994 ""Hillarycare"" as Clinton's ""bid for a centrally controlled system.""  Herzlinger, a Harvard Business School professor, was one of several health-care experts heard by Clinton during a two-hour ""listening"" conference call. ""I was thrilled that she was sympathetic and interested in what I said,"" Herzlinger told me.  Although Clinton is sponsoring a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, several conservatives speculate that she as president might take the same path to the right on health care that President Clinton did on public welfare.  Patrick Kennedy's billionaire  Billionaire financier Stephen Schwarzman was listed as one of the hosts of a 40th birthday party for Democratic Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island on Thursday night at the New York Yacht Club in Manhattan. An individual ticket cost $1,000, with $5,000 required to be a VIP.  Schwarzman, co-founder and CEO of the Blackstone Group, made newspaper front pages when it was reported he would earn $7.5 billion from the public offering of his private-equity firm. Other big-money Democrats listed on the invitation included David Boies, Norman Hsu, Felix Rohatyn, Bernard Schwartz, Todd Slotkin and Kenneth I. Starr. The principal host was the congressman's father, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.  The location of the party could be found only by phoning a Washington telephone number to R.S.V.P.  Party switcher  John N. Kennedy, Louisiana's conservative Democratic state treasurer, is expected to change parties and run against Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu as a Republican at the urging of White House aide Karl Rove, despite harassment from the Democratic-controlled state legislature.  Kennedy long has considered changing parties, but wanted to wait until the current state legislative session ended. His switch was discussed on Mother's Day in a private lunch attended by Kennedy, Rove and David Vitter, Louisiana's Republican senator. When Vitter leaked Kennedy's intentions, the legislature began machinations to obstruct operations of the state treasurer's office.  A strong fiscal conservative, Kennedy is fighting maneuvers intended to chew up a state budget surplus, as a Republican, Rep. Bobby Jindal, is expected to be elected governor of Louisiana this year.  novakevans@aol.com"
"4","R.I.P. ; Immigration debate must be revisited OKC0000020070703e3710001r OPINION OUR VIEWS 453 Words 01 July 2007 The Oklahoman CITY 14A English Copyright 2007 The Oklahoman Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.  WITH last week's nail-in-the-coffin vote in the U.S. Senate, comprehensive immigration reform almost certainly is dead in Congress this year. Probably next year, too; presidential election years seldom produce the bipartisan spirit to pass major legislation.  Immigration had chances. Set aside at the Memorial Day recess, the bill got another week as supporters hoped for the necessary consensus to prevail. It needed 60 votes to advance to a final vote but got just 46. (Both Oklahoma senators voted against the bill.)  Ultimately, the bill was done in by the vehemence of its enemies. Although opinion polls showed Americans marginally favor a comprehensive approach — border security, a guest worker program and dealing with an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants here — opponents were more passionate, energized and organized.  They called the legislation amnesty for millions who broke U.S. laws, even though the bill required them to pay fines and wait more than 10 years for citizenship. They questioned claims the bill would secure the border, saying failed enforcement in a 1986 immigration bill led to so many illegals in the United States today.  Unfortunately, some appealed to baser instincts with nativist, anti-immigrant rhetoric that recalled past eras of migration, when waves of Irish and Italian immigrants brought out the worst in many Americans. A few talked of building a great wall from San Diego to Brownsville, an absurdity for the ""land of the free.""  The effects ripple beyond the bill's death. The current, hopelessly backlogged system remains broken. That and Congress' inaction will only cause the illegal population to grow.  Politically, opponents — mostly Republicans — may regret the tone some used to slay the bill. A new USA Today/Gallup Poll shows Hispanics leaning Democratic by nearly 3-to-1. Inroads by President Bush in the 2004 election — he upped the GOP's Hispanic vote to 40 percent, compared with 21 percent in 1996 — are being surrendered. Only 11 percent of Hispanics now identify themselves as Republicans, down from 19 percent in 2005.  Practically, Congress may revisit the subject piecemeal but probably not any time soon. It will be hard for lawmakers to gather the political energy to recross the recent fight's scarred terrain.  At some point they must. Sooner than later. The security and social concerns are too great to do nothing. At that point, all sides should lower the volume and cool the rhetoric, remembering the status quo is unacceptable.  Critically, they must reject anti-immigrant, un-American attitudes toward people who hunger for the promise of this country, people who historically have added to its richness. Only then is meaningful reform possible. EDITORIAL"
"4","IMMIGRATION VOID FILLED WITH BAD IDEAS PMBP000020070703e3710000t OPINION Dan Moffett 707 Words 01 July 2007 The Palm Beach Post FINAL 2E English Copyright 2007. The Palm Beach Post, All Rights Reserved.  The failure of Congress to pass an immigration reform bill means that state and local governments will continue to struggle to make an unworkable system work.  Immigration policy is supposed to be the exclusive province of the federal government. But with Washington ignoring the problem, police departments and municipal agencies will continue to find themselves performing immigration enforcement roles they are unqualified for and unhappy to perform.  The defeat of the Senate bill last week hits Western border states especially hard. On the front lines of the immigration mess, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano already feels like she's running a federal agency. Two years ago, she declared a state of emergency to free up disaster money and help cities and counties with border control.  The states have no choice but to convert local law enforcement into ""pseudo-immigration agents,"" she says, and incrementally pass laws and ordinances to deal with illegal immigrants. It is a legal hodge-podge of conflicting measures that ensures inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement.  It's what happens when the federal government doesn't do its job.  Gov. Napolitano went to Washington last week in a futile attempt to get Congress to come to its senses. Lawmakers didn't try telling her that at least she would be getting a fine new federal fence along her Arizona border. The governor is already on the record about the futility of that idea: ""Show me a 50-foot wall, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder.""  After the Senate bill died, she was equally articulate and just plain right.  ""For years now, I have spoken out on the devastation, the lack of action from the federal government and the desperate need for reform,"" Gov. Napolitano said. ""By leaving it unattended, Congress is shirking its responsibility to not only Arizona but the entire country.""  Across the nation, where the federal government has left a void, frustrated local lawmakers are inclined to fill it with bad ideas. You don't need to go to the Mexico border to find that out; maybe just show up at a Home Depot parking lot.  Local governments in a growing number of major metropolitan areas -- among them Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and Washington -- have passed ordinances requiring Home Depot to provide accommodations for day laborers who come to the company's stores.  The typical law calls for Home Depot stores to have facilities that include bathrooms, seating areas and security staff to keep day laborers from soliciting jobs on nearby sidewalks and streets.  In Palm Beach County last year, sheriff's deputies arrested 15 Hispanic and Mayan laborers outside a Home Depot in suburban Lake Worth. The men were charged with trespassing after complaints that customers were being harassed in their cars. Deputies cited and released the workers, and local lawmakers had the good sense to do nothing. At least, so far.  One of the amendments that died with the Senate bill last week would have prohibited city councils from requiring home improvement stores to pay for day-worker services.  Why should local governments single out Home Depot for a dysfunctional U.S. policy and drag a hardware store into the hospitality business? Guilt by association isn't reason enough.  It's like requiring Victoria's Secret to put on sex education classes or McDonald's to install Stairmasters.  The cross hairs of blame should line up on the right targets. Congress could have approved billions to secure the borders and implement a system for checking the backgrounds of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. Congress could have approved a guest-worker program that would have put day laborers into a legal system, gotten them off street corners and satisfied the needs of business.  Gov. Napolitano will have to figure out ways to get more money to cash-strapped border towns; local cops will waste more time as psuedo-immigration agents; and Home Depot will install more toilets and picnic tables because Congress lacked the political courage to take on the nation's most pressing domestic problem.  Dan Moffett is an editorial writer for The Palm Beach Post. His e-mail address is dan_moffett@pbpost.com"
"1","Bush departs Maine in search of relevancy ; The Iraq war overshadows this administration in a way that diminishes the president's stature. PTPH000020070701e371000h5 Editorial Our Views 441 Words 01 July 2007 Portland Press Herald FINAL C4 English © 2007 Portland Press Herald. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  You couldn't blame President Bush for being sorry that his summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin is almost over. Though the U.S.- Russia relationship has proved challenging, the president must prefer conferring with Putin over what awaits him in Washington.  As he was leaving the capital late last week, the immigration reform bill that the president supports was going down to defeat in the Senate - again. The Senate Judiciary Committee was seeking the testimony of key White House aides as part of the inquiry into the firing of U.S. attorneys. Members of his own party in Congress were growing increasingly nervous about the course of events in Iraq, sensing that a lack of progress in the war will hurt them in 2008.  In some respects, these difficulties are not entirely of the president's making. Lame-duck presidents often have a hard time pushing through controversial legislation like the immigration reform bill. Congress and presidents have always been at odds about subpoenas and the separation of powers issues they raise. And it's probably expecting a lot to see a turnaround in Iraq in just a few months.  But this president seems to be having a particularly difficult time of making himself relevant in his final months in office. Not only did his mishandling of the war put Congress in Democratic hands, it has also eroded support among Republicans.  A big part of the problem is that Bush doesn't seem to be the kind of leader who can engage opponents and forge compromises that move his policy agenda forward. From the beginning, the Bush White House has been about winning and holding true to an ideology. There is no sign that this is going to change.  The one hope is that the president will reach a point where he feels he has exhausted all avenues for all-out policy victories on the issues, prompting him to compromise.  Such an approach is most needed with regard to Iraq. It is clear that the path the president has chosen there is not working. He should open himself to new thinking on the war.  That doesn't mean going along with the ""peace now"" wing of the Democratic party. But a good start would be taking a hard second look at the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's report.  It's not too early in this presidency to talk about Bush's legacy. Without a change of course, it is likely to be a shameful one."
"4","STATUS QUO: NATION'S LEADERS FAIL TO DEAL WITH BORDER ISSUES -- AGAIN SRPD000020070703e3710000i LOCAL 235 Words 01 July 2007 Press Democrat CITY B8 English © 2007 Press Democrat. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  Has the nation's illegal immigration problem become so complex and polarizing that it now exceeds the capacity of lawmakers to find a solution?  One would certainly believe that to be the case given the latest failure by Congressional leaders to agree on an immigration reform package.  The death of the Senate bill on Thursday leaves the nation facing the inconvenient fact that immigration reform is at least two more years away. The odds of reviving the bill for this year are slim. The odds of having a measure approved in 2008, during an election year, are none.  It's a major defeat for President Bush, who has racked up more than his share of setbacks in recent months.  It also should be a source of embarrassment for Congressional leaders who will now have to explain to constituents why they -- once again -- failed to address one of the nation's most pressing issues, but are still deserving of votes and campaign donations.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who helped write the measure, and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California both deserve credit for voting to move the bill forward on Thursday. But they were in the minority.  For its efforts, Congress is now awarded with a week off for the Fourth of July. The public gets stuck with the status quo -- for the foreseeable future."
"5","A bill too bad even for the Beltway SFC0000020070701e3710000n EDITORIAL DEBRA J. SAUNDERS Debra J Saunders 653 Words 01 July 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle FINAL F.5 English © 2007 Hearst Communications Inc., Hearst Newspapers Division. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.  IN WASHINGTON, it is easier to pass a bad bill than a good bill. That's practically a law. But as Washington learned last week, there is such a thing as a bill so bad that even Congress can't pass it. So the Kennedy-Kyl Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill tanked, as it most assuredly deserved to do.  Advice to Washington politicians who want to pass a bill that grants citizenship to some illegal immigrants: Don't call it ""reform."" Reform is supposed to curb abuse, not codify it.  Don't call your bill ""comprehensive"" -- when in fact it is clearly designed to do everything but craft solid policy, and loaded with amendments to sell voters on the window dressing of beefed-up enforcement likely to be administered by officials with only a passing interest in deterring cheap labor from coming across the border.  If you are going to tell people you want to grant citizenship to otherwise-law-abiding illegal immigrants, you need to be consistent. An amendment by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to make illegal immigrants who ignored deportation orders or used fraudulent documents ineligible for legal status failed last month by a 51-46 vote.  More advice: Wait until you've ramped up border enforcement and then take a stab at broadening citizenship. There are people who, like me, opposed this bill, but would agree to a narrow amnesty measure under the right circumstances. The fact is, many of today's naturalized citizens and legal residents at one point were illegal. Some overstayed their visas, then married.Others petitioned a judge for legal status so they could care for a legal resident. Congress has passed laws, now expired, which allowed qualified residents to apply for legal status if they paid a fine.  Pundits have been quick to call the bill's failure bad for the GOP -- and it was a loss for President Bush. Still, Democrats looking to 2008 should be afraid. Their constituents don't want Big Amnesty and don't take kindly to granting citizenship to anyone who decides to break American law, as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., apparently wants to do.  A recent Democracy Corps poll found that 47 percent of Democratic voters supported the bill, while 47 percent opposed it. With independents and Republicans opposed, the Democratic Party is also on the losing side of this issue.  While many opponents saw those who voted for this bill as giant sell-outs, I have to disagree. Yes, Democrats are looking for new voters, and yes, Republicans want cheap labor, but they also are looking out for their constituents. They care about farmers and employers who might shutter their operations if they can't find willing workers. That's not good for their states' economies.  I believe that the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate who voted yes on Kennedy-Kyl thought that a ""yes"" vote was in this country's best interest.They thought of employers who struggle to stay in business, and of those good people who only come here to work and be part of the American dream. Their fault -- no small one -- is that they failed to think of citizens who are outraged and baffled at Washington's failure to enforce long-standing laws that are supposed to protect Americans.  But they also weren't honest with voters about what they wanted. From the start, Bush should have said that his main goal was not improved enforcement, but to expand citizenship to illegal immigrants. Then the debate could have been about how best to achieve that goal, and which immigrants should qualify.  There's another rule in politics: If you don't believe you can sell a bill to the American people for what it really is, you deserve to lose. E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com"