gaithersblog.net

…with a few interesting articles I’ve read over the past few days:

The first few are from the Examiner, and written by Kathleen Miller:

• Intersection a hot spot of immigrant frustration
  

  Nonetheless, throughout 2007, 50 to 80 workers a day looked for jobs at the Exxon and 7-Eleven at the intersection [of University Boulevard and Piney Branch Road], roughly the same number who signed up for work at [Casa’s day laborer] center. Now, with the downturn in the economy, those numbers have doubled, according to Hispanic community police liaison Officer Luis Hurtado.

• Immigrant groups push for $15M to speed up citizenship process
  

  Immigrant advocates are lobbying Washington area state and local governments, plus private organizations, for $15 million to help legal permanent residents in the region become citizens.

  “I am just wondering why this is necessary — my mom got her citizenship without the help of any centers,” Virginia Del. Jeff Frederick said. “I feel like, if we’ve got $15 million, let’s go build some roads.”

• Gaithersburg considering street cameras
  

  Gaithersburg leaders may turn to surveillance cameras on city streets and license plate scanner systems that check plates regardless of suspicion of guilt.

• Maryland considers adding tolls on I-270, Beltway
  

  State transportation officials said they are studying the use of tolls on two Montgomery-area highways to combat congestion in the rapidly growing region, and hope to meet with the public about the potential projects in the fall.

• Budget troubles to curtail Montgomery planning panel’s agenda
  

  Budget woes will force Montgomery’s Planning Department to delay or abandon county environmental protection initiatives, traffic-relief studies and some of the transportation and zoning planning necessary in rapidly growing Bethesda next year, planning officials said Tuesday.

In the Frederick News-Post, Sarah Fortney writes, Walkersville — English: official language:

Town commissioners voted unanimously to designate English as Walkersville’s official language.

A Gazette-written story in the Washington Post gives a little more background on Gaithersburg’s new Enterprise Zone:

The move, made to enhance economic development and job creation in targeted revitalization areas, is to help one of Montgomery County’s historic districts. Olde Towne Gaithersburg is the site of the city’s original mercantile district, spurred by the arrival of the B&O Railroad in 1873. The area flourished for decades as shops and businesses served the needs of the local agricultural-based economy. However, in the 1930’s a six-lane bridge, erected to address a rail safety issue, virtually obscured the view of Olde Towne and distanced potential shoppers from the area, according to state and county information.

Actually, I don’t recall the old bridge, which was torn down and replaced in the 1980s, having six lanes.

Finally, Raymond McCaffrey writes in the Washington Post, Man to Serve 10 Years for 2006 Crash That Killed 2:

A 27-year-old man pleaded guilty yesterday and was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his role in a drunken-driving accident in Howard County in 2006 that killed a Marine and his date.

In imposing the sentence, Circuit Court Judge Louis A. Becker said he considered that Eduardo Raul Morales-Soriano is an illegal immigrant and that his blood alcohol level was four times the legal limit on the night of the crash.

The Baltimore Sun also has a story on this, written by Tyeesha Dixon:

The sentence imposed by Becker exceeds suggested state guidelines for the charges. The judge said he made his decision “primarily because of the high alcohol read.” Morales-Soriano’s blood-alcohol level was 0.32 percent, four times the legal limit, at the time of the crash, police have said.

Becker said he also considered an unusual facet of the case: Morales-Soriano, a native of Mexico, was living in the country illegally.

”This court cannot ignore that the defendant has violated the law with his illegal presence here,” Becker said.

Gaithersblog readers will likely recall this story from a couple of weeks ago, about Casa de Maryland’s unease with Frederick County’s cooperation with the Federal immigration authorities. One of the central examples cited by Casa to highlight what they perceived as the harm this would do was the arrest of illegal immigrant Alejandro Rocha and the difficulties this created for his companion, Rosibel David, and their child.

According to a report by Sherry Greenfield published today in the Frederick Gazzete:

However, the new initiative, known as 287G, had nothing to do with Rocha’s arrest, The Gazette has learned from law enforcement officials. It was the Maryland State Police, which does not participate in the initiative.

‘‘This goes to show what I’ve been saying, that Casa de Maryland has been too quick to judge, and that Casa de Maryland has been quick to point the finger at the sheriff,” said Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins (R). ‘‘When you don’t have anything, it’s easy to throw out the race card because it sells newspapers.”

The details of what really happened are a little bit uncertain, as the Gazette has not yet been able to reconcile some differences between the stories told by the State Police and Federal immigration authorities. But the lack of involvement by the Sheriff seems undisputed. The initial misinformation appears to have stemmed from confusion on the part of the driver of the stopped car, who simply assumed that the arresting officers were Sheriff’s deputies. Casa de Maryland and the NAACP appear to have taken this at face value.

Sherry Greenfield reports in the Gazette, Casa: Checking immigration status costs Frederick County $3.2 million:

Immigration supporters released a report today placing an annual price tag of $3.2 million on a program that allows sheriff’s deputies to check the immigration status of everyone taken to the Frederick County Adult Detention Center.

The 27-page report [link added –gb] released by Casa De Maryland disputes claims by Frederick County Chuck Jenkins (R) that the 287G program costs the county nothing, and that funding for the program comes from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The Gazette story of course does not directly quote anyone who disagrees with CASA.

Nicholas C. Stern writes in the Frederick News-Post, Immigration enforcement: at what cost?

Rosibel David, a Hispanic immigrant living in Frederick, is alone with a 5-year-old child after her companion was arrested for not being able to present proof of residency about a week ago. Her companion was taken into custody following a traffic stop on his way to a job interview.

Since then, she and her child have been evicted from their apartment because she cannot afford her $900 rent, so she is staying with friends, David said.

David was brought to tears while speaking at CASA de Maryland’s press conference to unveil a report about a Frederick County program to detain and deport unauthorized immigrants. She said she has been unable to retrieve information about her partner’s case.

Well past the middle of this 1200-word article, there is one note of disagreement:

Frederick County Commissioner Charles Jenkins said he believed people who spoke at the press conference had good intentions.

Jenkins said, however, he did not support their calls to bring an end to the 287(g) agreement.

“I support the program and the sheriff enthusiastically,” he said.

He challenged figures cited by CASA de Maryland in its report. By housing some inmates from throughout Maryland for ICE over the past year, the sheriff was able to bring in $500,000 and help close the gap on the county’s $1.2 million budget deficit, Jenkins said.

Also, more than half the officers deputized as a result of the agreement are corrections officers, he said, so the percentage of officers in the field might be more in line with other jurisdictions.

Furthermore, charges of racial profiling are easy to make, but hard to prove, Jenkins said.

“It looked like they cherry-picked statistics to make their point,” he said.

Pamela Constable writes in the Washington Post, Immigrants Feel Less Welcome in Frederick, at least stating the Sheriff’s case near the beginning of the article:

“The single biggest threat to our country is the immigration problem. We cannot continue to absorb this population or we will end up in collapse like a Third World country,” said Sheriff Chuck Jenkins, whose officers have identified 18 illegal immigrants in the past two weeks after traffic stops or other incidents. “We are not going out in a white van with a big net, but we are getting the criminal element of the illegal population out of Frederick County.”

Local opponents of the measures, including black, white and Hispanic residents, say the crackdown and other proposed actions smack of racism and political grandstanding. They say Latinos have been welcomed by Frederick’s businesses as a source of cheap labor. Since 1990, the county’s Hispanic population has more than tripled, from fewer than 5,000 to more than 15,000, growing to about 5 percent of the county’s inhabitants.

Kelly Brewington writes in the Baltimore Sun, Policy raises ire in W. Md.:

Kerry O’Brien, legal director at CASA, said immigrants have become scapegoats in Frederick and in other places where restrictive local immigration policies have been passed, such as Prince William County, Va., where stringent immigration enforcement has ignited fierce debate.

“Frederick is definitely the farthest out in its sentiment against immigrants and basically showing little appreciation to the contributions that immigrants have made, such as in the construction boom,” she said. “No one complains when immigrants contribute to the economy, but all of a sudden, people have become organized around blaming any particular problem on immigrants.” During the question-and-answer portion of the news conference, Frederick resident Richard Schultz stunned immigration-rights advocates by launching into personal complaints about illegal immigration in the county.

“What do you say to the burden on the typical American worker whose wages are cut under by illegal aliens?” he said. “Illegal aliens should be getting out of the country, going to the back of the line and doing things the right way.”

According to a survey done by the Inter-American Development Bank

Fewer Latin Americans are sending money home regularly from the United States to their homelands, according to the results of a survey on remittances commissioned by the Inter-American Development Bank’s Multilateral Investment Fund (MIF) presented today in Washington, DC.

The poll, conducted in February 2008 among 5,000 Latin American adults living in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, found that only 50% of the respondents were still sending money on a regular basis to their families, down from 73% in a similar poll conducted in 2006.

The principal causes for this drop cited by migrants were the slowdown in the U.S. economy and the harsher climate against immigration in this country, said MIF General Manager Donald F. Terry, who presented the survey’s result in a news conference held at the National Press Club.

An article by Julia Preston in the International Herald-Tribune adds:

A large majority of the Latino immigrants in the survey — whether or not they were illegal — said they experienced increasing hostility as a result of U.S. government and state efforts to curb illegal immigration and punish employers who hire unauthorized immigrant workers. In the survey, 61 percent of Latinos who were American citizens and 66 percent of those who were legal immigrants said that discrimination had become a major problem for them.

As a result of the difficulties, the numbers of immigrants who said they were considering going back to live in their home countries increased notably. Among immigrants who have been here less than five years, 49 percent said they were thinking of returning home, while only 41 percent said they planned to remain in the United States. Over all, just under one-third of the immigrants said they were thinking of leaving this country.

Not that they are actually leaving yet:

But Latino immigrant workers who participated in focus groups as part of the survey said they were not ready to leave the United States quite yet, said Sergio Bendixen, the Miami-based pollster who conducted the survey. Instead of going home, the immigrants said they were taking jobs at lower wages or sometimes working two jobs to try to maintain their income, he said.

A story by Miriam Jordan in the Wall Street Journal (unfortunately subscription-only) explains further (although not in so many words) that the situation is likely driving an increase illegal overcrowding:

In Maryland, for example, the value of remittances sent home in 2008 is projected to drop 11% compared to 2006, according to the bank. Joel Fernandez, who had steady construction work for five years, says that until late last year he earned about $1,400 a month; he sent a third of that to his two daughters in Peru. Now that he works with less regularity, “I am sending home money when I can,” says the 39-year-old, who was seeking work on Tuesday at a day-labor center run by the Casa de Maryland advocacy group in Silver Spring. To save on rent and free up money to send home, he’s recruiting three more immigrants to move into his apartment — already occupied by three men — to split the $1,000 monthly payment. “I have to provide for my girls,” he says. “That’s what I came here for.”

Ricardo Mejia, a day-laborer organizer at Casa, says that workers who once only accepted a full day’s work at $15 an hour are now accepting a morning or afternoon job at $10. “They’ll take any small job to earn cash for food and housing,” he says. “A lot of people aren’t managing to send money home.”

Another story, this one by Eunice Moscoso in the Austin American-Statesman, adds:

Sergio Bendixen, a veteran pollster whose Miami-based company conducted the survey, said […] that a growing “anti-immigrant” sentiment in the United States is a major cause of the drop in number of immigrants sending money home.

He cited state laws and local ordinances that have cracked down on illegal immigration such as a well-publicized one in Hazleton, Pa., that he said created a climate in which immigrants felt insecure about their futures.

“They feel that they are not welcome in America anymore,” Bendixen said. “They don’t know whether they will be able to work next month or whether they will to be able to rent an apartment … so many become conservative about how they spend their money.”

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports lower levels of immigration, said that Latin American governments should stop looking at exporting their labor force as a source of development income.

Krikorian said the survey shows that anti-illegal immigration ordinances are working.

A PowerPoint presentation of the survey’s results is available from the IADB here.

Brad Botwin, director of Help Save Maryland, sent me a link to the following video. Now, the titling over the video is a little more inflammatory than what I would normally be comfortable with, but I thought that the video itself was worth posting so that y’all could see it. There’s a big difference, I think, between reading about these rallies and seeing one.

If you don’t see the video above, try following this link.

What with the holidays, I missed this when it was first reported; a letter from Chuck Floyd in this week’s Gazette called my attention to the change. According to an article by Kathleen Miller in the December 20th Examiner,

Montgomery County officials said Wednesday they will open a $300,000 contract to run a Silver Spring day labor center for competitive bidding next year. Immigrant advocacy group CASA of Maryland has operated the University Boulevard center since 1994.

The announcement of this change came eight days after Judicial Watch sent a rather extensive MPIA request to the County, asking for details on their relationship with Casa de Maryland.

Kathleen Miller writes in the Examiner, Some day laborers bypass help:

Each day, about the same number of workers gather at convenience stores at University Boulevard and Piney Branch Road in Silver Spring as use a taxpayer-funded center run by immigrant advocacy group CASA of Maryland a half-block away.

Patrick Lacefield, spokesman for County Executive Ike Leggett, said the centers ”manage and regularize what had been a gathering that was impacting residential and commercial areas” and called the program a success.

“We can’t force people to use the center. Obviously lots of people are using the center of their own free will,” he said.

Manuel Rivera, a Silver Spring resident originally from El Salvador, said he went to the 7-Eleven instead of in the county-sanctioned center because of the church vans that he says deliver food to the workers in the store parking lot.

“I get breakfast here every day,” he said in Spanish.

Let’s repeat here: Patrick Lacefield says that the centers ”manage and regularize what had been a gathering that was impacting residential and commercial areas” (emphasis mine). How on Earth does this make any sense whatsoever? How can he use the words “had been” with anything approaching a straight face, when the entire point of the discussion is that these gatherings are still going on? With respect to the impact of solicitation activity on residential and commercial areas, in the context of the County’s cojones-free approach to this problem, all these centers do is create yet another place for solicitation to occur.

I suppose that the most remarkable thing about this quote is that anyone that high up in the County actually admits that these gatherings have any impact on residential or commercial areas whatsoever. Not that they appear to have any intention of actually addressing these problems. They could, for example, enact and enforce an anti-solicitation ordinance. Which, if the County was truly serious about protecting these vulnerable day laborers, would be an excellent way to help stop abusive employers from hiring in the County, while simultaneously providing relief to areas impacted by the solicitation activity. But the County would appear not to be interested in achieving this sort of balance.

Brad Botwin, Director of Help Save Maryland, sent me the following email:

This past summer Chuck Floyd and Help Save Maryland filed Maryland Public Information Act requests with Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett and Montgomery County Council President Marilyn Praisner concerning information and financial records relating to CASA of Maryland and the Montgomery County Government. Our intent was to uncover the vast taxpayer funded financial and organizational relationship between the pro-illegal alien group CASA and our elected officials.

Help Save Maryland opposes any taxpayer dollars being spent on CASA managed Day Laborer Centers which provides employment opportunities for illegal aliens or any other related CASA managed efforts. Included in the correspondence was a request for the names and addresses of the businesses that utilize the workers from the Day Laborer Centers. Again our intent was to notify the citizens of Montgomery County regarding the businesses that are utilizing the taxpayer-funded Centers in possible violation of Federal and State law.

After receiving little if any information or data from Leggett and Praisner, Help Save Maryland submitted a second set of letters in the hope that our elected officials and career Montgomery County employees would obey the law and release the information. Did not happen.

I am pleased to announce that Judicial Watch Inc (www.JudicialWatch.org), a DC based, conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law, has taken up our cause! Please see the attached letter to County Executive Leggett. A similar letter was sent to the Montgomery County Council. For further information please contact JW President Tom Fitton at 202-646-5172 x306

Brad Botwin, Director
Help Save Maryland

Attached to this email was a PDF file containing the letter sent by Judicial Watch. Below is a transcription of this PDF, which I produced via OCR, cleaning it up and formatting it by hand, so please consult the original for an authoritative copy. I must say that this does seem — to my untrained eye — like a massive request, covering a great deal of territory. But I do hope that this effort will ultimately result in some light being shed upon the County’s unmistakably cozy — but heretofore opaque — relationship with Casa de Maryland.

December 11, 2007

VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL AND FAX

Ike Leggett Montgomery County Executive 101 Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 240-777-2517	Mary Anderson Department of Health and Human Services 11 N. Washington Street, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 240-777-1342
Jennifer E. Barrett Department of Finance 101 Monroe St. Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: (240) 777-8857

Re: Maryland Public Information Act Request

Dear Sir/Madam:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA), SG §§10-611 - 10-630, Judicial Watch, Inc. requests from Montgomery County access to and a copy of any and all public record(s) within thirty (30) days concerning or relating to the following:

1. Any and all records relating to CASA of (de) Maryland’s budget and accounting information, opening and operation of day labor site(s) in Montgomery County, procedures/requirements for determining work authorization at day labor site(s), and any agreements and/or applications made by CASA of (de) Maryland to Montgomery County.
2. Any and all records relating to the use of public funds to fund (including, but not limited to, grants, income, subsidies, loans, and debt forgiveness), house, or provide goods and services for any day labor site(s) located in Montgomery County.
3. Any and all records relating to the use of public funds provided to CASA of (de) Maryland by Montgomery County to fund, in any way, education, training, publications, outreach, health care, English language training, recreation, gang prevention, etc.

---

Custodian of Records
Public Information Act Request
December 11, 2007
Page 2 of 3

4. Any and all research, studies, analyses, statistics, data, surveys, reports, legal opinions, and any other information related to:
   1. Illegal immigrants immigrating to, living and/or working in Montgomery County;
   2. Day labor site(s), day laborers (including information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of day laborers) and employers of day laborers in Montgomery County; and
   3. CASA of (de) Maryland’s day labor site and day laborers and employers of such day laborers, including the citizenship or immigration status of day laborers.
5. Any and all communications and/or correspondence between Montgomery County and any federal government agency regarding CASA of (de) Maryland and/or any day labor site(s) located within the county.
6. Policies and procedures for Montgomery County employees concerning or relating to illegal aliens or suspected illegal aliens, including but not limited to approval or denial of services with respect to a person’s citizenship or immigration status.
7. Policies and procedures concerning or relating to contacts or communications with between Montgomery County employees and federal immigration officials, including but not limited to officials of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Border Patrol, regarding a person’s citizenship or immigration status.
8. Any third party communications, including, but not limited to members of the media and/or activists, regarding Montgomery County day labor site(s).

The time-frame for this request is January 1, 2005 to present.

Public records are any records that are made by, or received by, a covered public agency in connection with the transaction of public business. SG §10-611(g)(1)(i). All "public records" are covered by the PIA. The term "public record" includes not only written material but also computerized records (including, but not limited to emai1s and digital files), correspondence, photographs, photostats, films, microfilms, recordings, tapes, maps, drawings, and any copy of a public record. SG §10-611(g)(1)(ii).

Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this request, you are required to determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in your possession and to notify us promptly of your determination and the reasons therefore. SG §10-614(b)(2). If this request is denied you are required to provide a written statement of the reasons for the denial, the legal authority for the denial, and notice of the remedies for review of the denial within 10 working days. SG §10-614(b)(3)(ii).

---

Custodian of Records
Public Information Act Request
December 11, 2007
Page 3 of 3

Any reasonably segregable portion of a record otherwise exempt from disclosure is required to be made available after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. SG §10-618(a).

Finally, Judicial Watch requests a waiver of any direct costs of duplication or statutory fees pursuant to SG §10-618(c) as the request is for noncommercial purposes that serve the public interest. Judicial Watch is a non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) educational organization dedicated to increasing public understanding of the operations of government as well as the importance of ethics and the rule of law. Judicial Watch regularly requests information from public agencies about their operations and activities and disseminates this information to the public in furtherance of its educational mission. However, if any fee is to be charged for copying the requested records, please notify us in advance if the expected cost is likely to exceed $150.00.

If you do not understand this request or any portion thereof, or if you feel you require clarification of this request or any portion thereof, please contact us immediately at 202-646-5172 or dgrothe@judicialwatch.org.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Deronda Grothe
Program Manager

Kathleen Miller writes:

Police officials from Washington, Prince George’s County and Montgomery County said Wednesday they do not have any agreements to accept ID cards issued by a Maryland pro-immigrant advocacy organization as valid identification, contrary to the claims of the group’s leaders.

Montgomery police spokeswoman Lucille Baur said: “We do not have an agreement with them.”

“If the police departments are expressing another policy, we will obviously have a conversation directly with them about the utility of accepting the identification,” [CASA spokeswoman Kim] Propeack said in an e-mail.

The Washington Post has been more interesting over the past few days than has this week’s Gazette, so, given limited time this week, I’ll round up some of the articles from the Post:

• Pamela Constable writes, Sometimes, A Labor Day:
  

  This has been a tense summer for the men who arrive each morning at the Center for Employment and Training in Gaithersburg, operated by the nonprofit CASA de Maryland. Many have no legal documents. They have anxiously followed the news of Virginia communities passing laws against illegal immigrants, of stepped-up factory raids and deportations. And they hear the angry voices.

  But no worker is asked whether he is in the country legally, and it is assumed that many are not. On the front table is a stack of brochures that explain in Spanish what to do in case of an immigration raid. “Don’t lie. . . . Don’t turn over false documents. . . . Don’t discuss your migratory status. . . . Ask to speak to a lawyer . . . ask to see a warrant . . . contact your consulate.”

  And I have to give this guy credit; this is one of the first times I’ve heard a CASA employee talking sense:

  “Some guys still prefer to wait for jobs outside the 7-Eleven. They say it gives them more freedom. But what they really want is to be drinking a beer and hiding it behind the dumpster,” says German Reyes, a staff member at the trailer. “This is bad for everyone. It is not a question of freedom. It’s a question of discipline and order.”

• Bill Turque writes, Laborer Ruling a Setback for Herndon:
  

  A Fairfax Circuit Court judge threw out Herndon’s anti-solicitation ordinance yesterday, finding that the town’s two-year-old prohibition against laborers and motorists discussing employment on the streets violates First Amendment rights to free speech.

  The third prong is where the town falls short, [Judge Leslie] Alden said, noting that governments restricting public speech must “open ample alternative channels” for communication of the prohibited speech.

  Alden said the Herndon Official Workers Center is not adequate because it is described in the ordinance as a temporary site. She also cited Reston Interfaith’s agreement with the town, which was based on a temporary permit.

  The bar on solicitation described in the ordinance, however, is permanent.

• Karin Brulliard writes, Immigrant Laws Tread Uncharted Legal Path:
  

  As officials in places such as Prince William County increasingly respond to public discontent over illegal immigration by passing ordinances, law scholars say a key question remains: Are local regulations legal?

  For now, they say, some things are clear. The Supreme Court has ruled that true immigration matters — who enters and leaves the United States — fall under the federal government’s realm alone. When it comes to laws related to noncitizens, the Constitution invalidates, or “preempts,” state laws that clearly conflict with federal laws or that courts interpret to be ground that Congress intended to dominate.

  That is where things get hazy, experts say.

  As the Virginia task force’s co-chairman, Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax), put it: “I’ve been working on this for three years, and everybody is confused about what you can and can’t do. . . . You ask four attorneys, and you’ll get four answers.”

  Albo, himself a lawyer, asked whether state police could arrest people who approached them and said they had expired visas. Probably not, the lawyers said, because that is a civil immigration violation. And if the person said he had entered the country illegally? Probably so, he was told, because that is a criminal violation.

• Spencer S. Hsu writes, Planned Crackdown on Immigrants Denounced:
  

  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO this week separately assailed a new White House-backed crackdown on illegal immigration, warning of massive disruptions to the economy and headaches for U.S. citizens if the proposal goes ahead as planned in the coming days.

  Under the new rules, set to take effect on Sept. 14, employers that receive “no-match” letters have 90 days to resolve discrepancies. If they do not, the DHS may conclude that employers knowingly violated the law by employing illegal workers, opening the door to fines and even criminal arrests.

  That approach marks a major change. The Social Security Administration has long sent “no-match” letters, and it has found that 4 to 10 percent of workers have suspect numbers because of typographical errors, name changes resulting from marriage or multiple surnames, as well as fraud. But, until now, it has not held employers liable.

• Nick Miroff writes, A Strong, but Divisive, Voice for Immigrants:
  

  Twelve years ago, Ricardo Juarez was an unemployed government clerk standing in the dark on a riverbank outside Eagle Pass, Tex. He had no particular American dream in mind, he says, no vision of white picket fences or the Liberty torch. The youngest male in a family of 12 siblings, Juarez was mostly thinking about food. He and a group of other migrants set their inner tubes into the swirling blackness of the Rio Grande and let the current carry them across.

• Andrea Hopkins of Reuters writes, U.S. immigrants worry as families face deportation:
  

  When 300 U.S. immigration agents surrounded the chicken processing plant where Danny Alvarez-Reyes works, he did the only thing he could think of: he gave his coat to a scared friend determined to hide in the walk-in freezer.

• Tim Craig writes, Va. Republican Bill Would Bar Illegal Immigrants From College:
  

  Virginia Republicans announced legislation Wednesday that would prohibit public colleges and universities from accepting illegal immigrants even if they attended a public high school and were brought to the United States at an early age by their parents.