Lack of migrant workers leaves county farms choking in weeds
Via LongmontFYI.com
09/17/2006
Farmers cope with labor shortage
LONGMONT — A dry summer and the shortage of migrant laborers have depleted Boulder and Weld county crop production this year.
Sugar beet and organic vegetable farmers stand to lose the most in ag
yield this fall because of a labor shortage that has left their fields
choking on weeds.
Organic farmers rely most on migrant laborers because organic-label
standards limit them from using many chemical herbicides, Longmont soil
conservationist Don Graffis said. Those farmers typically employ large
numbers of Hispanic workers to weed their fields and, in many cases, to
harvest them.
Hand-picked vegetables often receive less bruising than mechanically harvested vegetables and sell for more money, he said.
Along with drought, farmers this year have also begun to cope with new
state laws that many say have already scared immigrant workers out of
Colorado.
Dotting the I’s, Crossing the T’s
Via Baywindows.com
Trans people face heightened scrutiny in a post-9/11 world
You’re driving in your car and get stopped by the police for speeding.
The officer asks for your license and registration and takes them back
to the police car. He swipes a strip on the back of the license into a
computer, and instantly has access to an assortment of personal
documents about you, from your birth certificate to letters from your
doctor detailing your most private and intimate medical history. While
it sounds like a plotline pulled from the Sci-Fi Channel’s new fall
lineup, it could be a very real scenario for members of the transgender
community if the Real ID Act goes into effect as scheduled in May 2008.
Streamlined Program Makes Getting a U.S. Visa More Efficient
Students, as always, are welcomed to the United States, official says
Washington — U.S. efforts to improve its visa process are paying
off: Nearly 97 percent of visa applications are processed within just
two or three days of the interview, and worldwide almost 80 percent of
visa applications are approved. In 2006, the United States expects to
process some 7.5 million visa applications.
Tony Edson, deputy
assistant secretary of state for visa services, brought this good news
to an international audience during a September 6 webchat.
Students in particular are welcome, as they always have been, Edson said.
“The
United States and our consular officers everywhere around the world
value highly the exchange of international visitors and ideas,” he
said. “We do our best to ensure America remains a welcoming
destination for international travelers while administering U.S. law
and safeguarding our borders.”
GETTING A STUDENT VISA
“There
is a widespread perception in some countries that it has become more
difficult to qualify for a student visa to the United States,” Edson
said. “In fact, although we have made significant changes to the
application process by incorporating additional security checks,
fingerprinting and greatly expanded interview requirements, the basic
requirements for a student visa have not changed.”
Students
now are required to go to the U.S. embassy or consulate to be
fingerprinted and interviewed, but if they are bona fide students and
are able to fund the education they plan in the United States, they are
likely to qualify for visas, Edson said.
Edson did emphasize,
however, that the major mandate under U.S. law is that student visa
applicants must prove that they intend to return to their home country
after a temporary stay in the United States.
“We recognize,”
Edson said, “that the very best advertisement for America is America
and look forward to each and every international student who arrives at
our shores. We have added some additional security measures to the visa
process since 9/11, but even as we strive to make our country safer, we
have never stopped trying to make those security measures as efficient
and effective as possible.”
He urged students to apply for
their visas as early as possible and noted that students are given
priority in scheduling visa interviews.
U.S. VISA LAWS TREAT ALL EQUALLY
“The
United States government,” Edson emphasized, “does not discriminate
based on religion or any other factor in processing visas.
“U.S.
visas are processed everywhere around the world using the same
standards and requirements, most of them stipulated in U.S. law,” he
said.
He acknowledged that in some countries a higher
percentage of applicants might fail to qualify than in other
countries. “This is not because of their nationality, but because of
their inability, as individual applicants, to meet the requirements of
U.S. law, Edson said.
One important law governing the visa
process, he said, is Section 214(b) of the U.S. Immigration and
Nationality Act. The presumption under that law, Edson explained, is
that every visitor visa applicant is intending to immigrate to the
United States.
Therefore, applicants for visitor visas, he
said, must overcome this presumption by demonstrating that that they
have ties abroad that would compel them to leave the United States at
the end of their temporary stay. Among the ties that bind a person to
his or her country of residence are possessions, employment and social
and family relationships. U.S. consular officers make the
determination, but the burden of proof is on the applicant, he said.
“In
cases of students or younger applicants who may not have had an
opportunity to form many ties, consular officers may look at the
applicant’s specific intentions, family situations, and long-range
plans and prospects within his or her country of residence,” Edson
said. “Each case is examined individually and is accorded every
consideration under the law.”
“Denial under Section 214(b) of
the law is not permanent,” Edson said, “and a consular officer will
reconsider a case if an applicant can show further convincing evidence
of ties outside the United States. Unfortunately, some applicants will
not qualify for a nonimmigrant visa, regardless of how many times they
reapply, until their personal, professional, and financial
circumstances change considerably. “
Under the Visa Waiver
Program, Edson noted, travelers from countries that have met criteria
specified in U.S. law can travel for tourism and business to the United
States without applying for a visa. Visa Waiver Program travelers can
stay in the United States for no longer than 90 days.
THE VISA WAIVER PROGRAM
Visa Waiver Program (VWP) travelers must have secure passports, and all passports must be machine-readable.
Many
passports are now equipped with security features, such as digital
photographs and contactless chips that can be read without being
touched to a sensor.
VWP travelers who obtained
machine-readable passports (MRPs) before October 26, 2005, are not
required to have the digital photograph or contactless chip, Edson
said. The traveler who obtained, renewed or extended an MRP before
October 26, 2005, will not be required to get another passport for
travel until his or her MRP expires.
Passports issued, renewed or extended on or after October 26, 2006, must be machine-readable and include the integrated chip.
For more information, see the online journal “See You in the USA,” the IIP web site Immigration Reform and the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs Web site.
A transcript of Edson’s remarks is available at IIP’s Webchat Station.
(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International
Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site:
http://usinfo.state.gov)
Visa Bulletin For October 2006
Visa Bulletin
Number 98
Volume VIII
Washington, D.C.
VISA BULLETIN FOR OCTOBER 2006
A. STATUTORY NUMBERS
1.
This bulletin summarizes the availability of immigrant numbers during
October. Consular officers are required to report to the Department of
State documentarily qualified applicants for numerically limited visas;
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of
Homeland Security reports applicants for adjustment of status.
Allocations were made, to the extent possible under the numerical
limitations, for the demand received by September 8th in the
chronological order of the reported priority dates. If the demand could
not be satisfied within the statutory or regulatory limits, the
category or foreign state in which demand was excessive was deemed
oversubscribed. The cut-off date for an oversubscribed category is the
priority date of the first applicant who could not be reached within
the numerical limits.
Only
applicants who have a priority date earlier than the cut-off date may
be allotted a number. Immediately that it becomes necessary during the
monthly allocation process to retrogress a cut-off date, supplemental
requests for numbers will be honored only if the priority date falls
within the new cut-off date.
2. Section 201 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) sets an annual minimum family-sponsored
preference limit of 226,000. The worldwide level for annual
employment-based preference immigrants is at least 140,000. Section 202
prescribes that the per-country limit for preference immigrants is set
at 7% of the total annual family-sponsored and employment-based
preference limits, i.e., 25,620. The dependent area limit is set at 2%,
or 7,320.
3. Section 203 of the INA prescribes preference classes for allotment of immigrant visas as follows:
FAMILY-SPONSORED PREFERENCES
First : Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.
Second : Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent
Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, and any unused
first preference numbers:
A. Spouses and Children: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;
B. Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older): 23% of the overall second preference limitation.
Third : Married Sons and Daughters of Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.
Fourth : Brothers and Sisters of Adult Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.
EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES
First : Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth
and fifth preferences.
Second
: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of
Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference
level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.
Third : Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by
first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to “Other Workers”.
Schedule
A Workers : Employment First, Second, and Third preference Schedule A
applicants are entitled to up to 50,000 “recaptured” numbers.
Fourth : Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.
Fifth
: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, not less than 3,000
of which reserved for investors in a targeted rural or
high-unemployment area, and 3,000 set aside for investors in regional
centers by Sec. 610 of P.L. 102-395.
4.
INA Section 203(e) provides that family-sponsored and employment-based
preference visas be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which
a petition in behalf of each has been filed. Section 203(d) provides
that spouses and children of preference immigrants are entitled to the
same status, and the same order of consideration, if accompanying or
following to join the principal. The visa prorating provisions of
Section 202(e) apply to allocations for a foreign state or dependent
area when visa demand exceeds the per-country limit. These provisions
apply at present to the following oversubscribed chargeability areas:
CHINA-mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, and PHILIPPINES.
5.
On the chart below, the listing of a date for any class indicates that
the class is oversubscribed (see paragraph 1); “C” means current, i.e.,
numbers are available for all qualified applicants; and “U” means
unavailable, i.e., no numbers are available. (NOTE: Numbers are
available only for applicants whose priority date is earlier than the
cut-off date listed below.)
| Fam-ily | All Charge- ability Areas Except Those Listed | CHINA-mainland born | INDIA | MEXICO | PHILIPP-INES |
| 1st | 01MAY00 | 01MAY00 | 01MAY00 | 01JAN93 | 01NOV91 |
| 2A | 22APR01 | 22APR01 | 22APR01 | 15OCT99 | 22APR01 |
| 2B | 01JAN97 | 01JAN97 | 01JAN97 | 15FEB92 | 22JUL96 |
| 3rd | 22OCT98 | 22OCT98 | 22OCT98 | 01JAN94 | 01AUG90 |
| 4th | 15SEP95 | 01FEB95 | 01AUG95 | 15SEP93 | 01APR84 |
*NOTE:
For October, 2A numbers EXEMPT from per-country limit are available to
applicants from all countries with priority dates earlier than 15OCT99.
2A numbers SUBJECT to per-country limit are available to applicants
chargeable to all countries EXCEPT MEXICO with priority dates
beginning 15OCT99 and earlier than 22APR01. (All 2A numbers provided
for MEXICO are exempt from the per-country limit; there are no 2A
numbers for MEXICO subject to per-country limit.)
|
All |
CHINA- mainland born |
INDIA | MEXICO | PHILIP-PINES | |
| Employ-ment -Based |
|||||
| 1st | C | C | C | C | C |
| 2nd | C | 01APR05 | 15JUN02 | C | C |
| 3rd | 01MAY02 | 01MAY02 | 22APR01 | 01MAY01 | 01MAY02 |
| Schedule A Workers |
C | C | C | C | C |
| Other Workers |
01JAN01 | 01JAN01 | 01JAN01 | 01JAN01 | 01JAN01 |
| 4th | C | C | C | C | C |
| Certain Religious Workers | C | C | C | C | C |
| 5th | C | C | C | C | C |
| Targeted Employ-ment Areas/ Regional Centers |
C | C | C | C | C |
The
Department of State has available a recorded message with visa
availability information which can be heard at: (area code 202)
663-1541. This recording will be updated in the middle of each month
with information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Employment
Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA,
as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105 – 139, provides that once the
Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached
the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November
19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be
reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year.
This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset
adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached
November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW
annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002.
B. DIVERSITY IMMIGRANT (DV) CATEGORY
Section
203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a maximum of up
to 55,000 immigrant visas each fiscal year to permit immigration
opportunities for persons from countries other than the principal
sources of current immigration to the United States. The Nicaraguan and
Central American Relief Act (NACARA) passed by Congress in November
1997 stipulates that beginning with DV-99, and for as long as
necessary, up to 5,000 of the 55,000 annually-allocated diversity visas
will be made available for use under the NACARA program. This reduction has resulted in the DV-2007 annual limit being reduced to 50,000.
DV visas are divided among six geographic regions. No one country can
receive more than seven percent of the available diversity visas in any
one year.
For
October, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to
qualified DV-2007 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible
countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas
are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers
BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
| Region | All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately | |
|---|---|---|
| AFRICA | 5,700 |
Except: |
| ASIA | 1,550 | |
| EUROPE | 3,450 | |
| NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) | 4 | |
| OCEANIA | 150 | |
| SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN | 225 |
Entitlement
to immigrant status in the DV category lasts only through the end of
the fiscal (visa) year for which the applicant is selected in the
lottery. The year of entitlement for all applicants registered for the
DV-2007 program ends as of September 30, 2007. DV visas may not be
issued to DV-2007 applicants after that date. Similarly, spouses and
children accompanying or following to join DV-2007 principals are only
entitled to derivative DV status until September 30, 2007. DV visa
availability through the very end of FY-2007 cannot be taken for
granted. Numbers could be exhausted prior to September 30.
C. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF THE DIVERSITY (DV) IMMIGRANT CATEGORY RANK CUT-OFFS WHICH WILL APPLY IN NOVEMBER
For
November, immigrant numbers in the DV category are available to
qualified DV-2007 applicants chargeable to all regions/eligible
countries as follows. When an allocation cut-off number is shown, visas
are available only for applicants with DV regional lottery rank numbers
BELOW the specified allocation cut-off number:
| Region | All DV Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed Separately | |
|---|---|---|
| AFRICA | 8,500 |
Except: |
| ASIA | 2,600 | |
| EUROPE | 5,700 | |
| NORTH AMERICA (BAHAMAS) | 6 | |
| OCEANIA | 280 | |
| SOUTH AMERICA, and the CARIBBEAN | 350 |
D. OBTAINING THE MONTHLY VISA BULLETIN
The Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs offers the monthly “Visa Bulletin” on the INTERNET’S WORLDWIDE WEB. The
INTERNET Web address to access the Bulletin is:
From the home page, select the VISA section which contains the Visa Bulletin.
To
be placed on the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the
“Visa Bulletin”, please send an E-mail to the following E-mail address:
listserv@calist.state.gov
and in the message body type:
Subscribe Visa-Bulletin First name/Last name
(example: Subscribe Visa-Bulletin Sally Doe)
To be removed from the Department of State’s E-mail subscription list for the “Visa Bulletin”, send an e-mail message to the
following E-mail address :
listserv@calist.state.gov
and in the message body type: Signoff Visa-Bulletin
The
Department of State also has available a recorded message with visa
cut-off dates which can be heard at: (area code 202) 663-1541. The
recording is normally updated by the middle of each month with
information on cut-off dates for the following month.
Readers may submit questions regarding Visa Bulletin related items by E-mail at the following address:
VISABULLETIN@STATE.GOV
(This address cannot be used to subscribe to the Visa Bulletin.)
Department of State Publication 9514
CA/VO:September 8, 2006
New Process for Issuing Employment Authorization Documents to Asylees
USCIS Public Notice
09/14/2006
Beginning October 1, 2006, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum Division will implement a new process nationwide for issuing secure Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) to applicants who are granted asylum by a USCIS Asylum Office. Under existing regulations, asylees are eligible to work in the United States incident to their asylum status. Previously, USCIS Asylum Offices issued provisional Form I-688B cards evidencing employment authorization to asylees interviewed at a local Asylum Office on the same date they received their asylum approval letters. Those who were interviewed at an Asylum Office circuit ride location (usually a USCIS District Office) were instructed to return to the District Office to receive their I-688B cards. The I-688B card was issued with a 1-year validity period. Under the new process, asylees will receive in the mail the standard, more secure Form I-766 EAD card in the mail within seven to ten days after the date they are issued their asylum approval letters. The Form I-766 EAD will be issued for a 2-year validity period. This will provide most asylees sufficient time to apply for and receive adjustment of status before the validity period of the EAD expires. In March 2006, the Asylum Division successfully tested this new EAD issuance process in the Arlington Asylum Office during a pilot program and will implement the program in all Asylum Offices throughout the nation by October 1, 2006.
Q: Why is USCIS changing the process for issuing asylees EADs?
A: Changing the process accomplishes several USCIS objectives, including enhancing security, customer service, and efficiency in case processing. This change allows USCIS Asylum Offices to issue more secure documents, as the I-766 is more resistant to tampering than an I-688B. Issuance of the I-766 also offers greater convenience for asylees by providing a more widely circulated and recognizable employment authorization document. Issuance of I-766 EADs also contributes to the agency’s goal of relying increasingly on secure means (in this instance, biometric images from the I-766) to verify the status of non-citizens for various purposes, including those asylees hired by employers who are participating in the Basic Pilot employment verification program or a parallel program that verifies status of non-citizen benefit applicants for certain Federal, state and local agencies. While both cards are free of charge, the I-766 for asylees will be issued with a 2-year validity period. The I-688B has been issued for only a 1-year validity period because it is not as secure a document at the I-766. With this extended validity period and the recent elimination of the 10,000 cap on asylee adjustments, it is expected that most new asylees will be able to apply for and receive adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident before their initial EADs expire, which would save asylees the cost of the service fee associated with renewal of EAD cards. Finally, efficiencies in case processing are gained by generating the I-766 through a computer-automated process rather than through the more labor intensive process of generating I-688Bs. In addition, requiring asylees to have secure EADs contributes to theagency’s increasing ability to electronically verify the status of noncitizens for various purposes, such as those who are hired by employers who are participating in the Basic Pilot employment verification program or the similar program that verifies status of noncitizen benefit applicants for certain Federal, state and local agencies.
This change does not modify in any way existing USCIS Asylum Office procedures to issue to asylees approval letters and stamped I-94 Arrival-Departure Records evidencing asylum status, which may be used to obtain a social security card.
Q: How is the new process for obtaining EADs different from the previous process for obtaining EADs?
A: Previously, most applicants who were interviewed at a local Asylum Office and granted asylum received the Form I-688B EAD free of charge on the same day they returned to the Asylum Office to pick up their decision. On that day, the applicant’s biometrics (i.e., fingerprint, photograph and signature) were taken at the Asylum Office and then used to manually create a laminated I-688B card on site at the Asylum Office. Those applicants who were interviewed at a circuit ride location and received notice by mail that they had been granted asylum were instructed to go to the local USCIS District Office where the I-688B was produced and provided to the asylee on the same day. The I-688B cards were valid for a period of one year.
Unlike the I-688B, the I-766 is mailed directly to the asylee’s residence within seven to ten days after the date they are issued their approval letters. The I-766, which is also free, is automatically generated using the applicant’s fingerprint, photograph, and signature, which are captured as part of the required fingerprinting process at the USCIS Application Support Center (ASC) and stored in a database. The I-766 for these asylees is valid for a period of two years.
Q: To whom does this new EAD process apply?
A: The new EAD process will apply to asylees (both principals and dependents included in the asylum application) who were granted asylum through the affirmative asylum process, which takes place in front of a USCIS Asylum Officer. These asylees also must have biometrics on file with USCIS in order to have an EAD card produced through the new process.
Note: Applicants granted asylum by an Asylum Office are eligible for the 2-year I-766 regardless of whether they have been previously issued an EAD based on a recommended approval or a pending asylum application.
Q: To whom does this new EAD process not apply?
A: Because this new process is being implemented at USCIS Asylum Offices and will be used for only those asylees who were granted asylum by USCIS, the new EAD process does not apply to:
1. Asylee following-to-join cases (beneficiaries of an approved form I-730).
2. Applicants granted asylum by an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals within the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
3. Applicants granted asylum by a federal court judge.
Asylees following-to join should submit a form I-765 to the appropriate Service Center as indicated in the form instructions, and the secure I-766 EAD card will then be sent to the asylee in the mail. Individuals granted asylum by EOIR or a federal judge should continue to make their appointments with the local USCIS District or Sub Office to begin immediate processing for an EAD. See post-order instructions for obtaining documentation at http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/PostOrderInstr.pdf. The USCIS District or Sub Office will confirm the asylee’s final EOIR order, biographic information, and address and initiate production of the secure EAD (I-766), with a 2-year validity period, through an automated process. In some cases, it may be necessary for the District or Sub Office to instruct the EOIR-granted asylee to provide biometrics for card production. If so, USCIS will provide an ASC appointment promptly. The asylee will then receive the EAD in the mail within 7 to 10 days. The I-688B EAD will no longer be issued at the District or Sub Offices to EOIR-granted asylees because it is being discontinued. District and Sub Offices will continue to issue asylees in the three categories listed above stamped I-94 Arrival-Departure Records evidencing asylum status.
Q: Can asylees granted by an Asylum Office use this new process for renewals, replacements, or extensions of EADs?
A: No. Under the new process, as under the old process, Asylum Offices will not issue renewals, replacements, or extensions of EADs. Instead, all asylees must apply for a renewal, replacement, or extension by submitting a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization Document, to the Nebraska Service Center and paying the applicable fee.
Q: How will asylees be told about
the new EAD process?
A: The Asylum Office will verbally inform asylees who receive their grant letters in person of the new procedures and provide written information that summarizes the process of obtaining an EAD. Applicants who will receive their approval letters in the mail, generally those who are in valid status and those interviewed at a circuit ride location, will be informed of the new procedures in a packet of information included with the asylum grant letter, sent via the mail.
Q: How will the asylee be able to receive the I-766 if he or she has a change of address after the asylum interview?
A: Asylees who receive their grant letters in person at the Asylum Office will be asked that same day to verify that the address the office has on file is correct and the office will update the address if it is not correct. Within seven to ten days after the decision issuance, the asylee will receive the I-766 at any updated address provided. For asylees who are to receive their decision in the mail, prior to mailing the decision, Asylum Office staff will check the databases for the most recent address on file to ensure that the decision and the I-766 is mailed to the correct address. It is imperative that asylum applicants comply with the law and report changes of address to the Department of Homeland Security and the local Asylum Office within 10 days of the change.
Q: What if an asylee does not receive his or her card in the mail?
A: If an asylee granted by a USCIS Asylum Office does not receive the I-766 within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of asylum approval, the asylee should contact the local Asylum Office, per the instructions contained in the approval letter packet.
U.S. immigration agency speeding up procedures
Via Reuters
09/15/2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
said on Friday it will meet its goal of reducing the average wait time
for immigration services to six months by the end of September.
The
agency formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service
also said the total number of pending cases that exceeded the six-month
wait period fell from 3.8 million in January 2004 to 1.1 million in
July this year.
“It really is a Herculean achievement that we’ve
been able to achieve this,” Emilio Gonzalez, the agency’s director told
reporters.
Nearly 1 million applications will still be pending at
the start of October, said Michael Ayetes, director of USCIS field
operations.
But the agency considers these outside its control because they
are awaiting feedback from other agencies such as the FBI, or
information or documents from applicants, Ayetes said.
In July
2001, President George W. Bush asked the agency to establish a
six-month standard from start to finish for processing immigration
applications.
Three main types of services still face backlogs,
Ayetes said. They include relative petitions, in which a U.S. citizen
asks for the naturalization of a relative, requests for permanent
residence and asylum applications.
The offices with the biggest numbers of backlogs are New York, Miami and Atlanta, he added.
Crystal
Williams of the American Immigration Lawyers Association said USCIS
holds some responsibility for the nearly 1 million applications it says
are outside the agency’s control.
“They have become faster and
they’ve made progress … but in many cases they are generating these
numbers by sending unneeded requests for extra documentation (to
applicants),” she said.
Williams added the agency should also establish procedures to get information from other agencies faster.
Immigration raids make a ghost town in Georgia
Via CNN.com
STILLMORE, Georgia (AP) — Trailer parks lie abandoned. The
poultry plant is scrambling to replace more than half its workforce.
Business has dried up at stores where Mexican laborers once lined up to
buy food, beer and cigarettes just weeks ago.
This Georgia
community of about 1,000 people has become little more than a ghost
town since September 1, when federal agents began rounding up illegal
immigrants.
The sweep has had the unintended effect of underscoring just how vital the illegal immigrants were to the local economy.
More
than 120 illegal immigrants have been loaded onto buses bound for
immigration courts in Atlanta, 189 miles away. Hundreds more fled
Emanuel County. Residents say many scattered into the woods, camping
out for days. They worry some are still hiding without food.
At
least one child, born a U.S. citizen, was left behind by his Mexican
parents: 2-year-old Victor Perez-Lopez. The toddler’s mother, Rosa
Lopez, left her son with Julie Rodas when the raids began and fled the
state. The boy’s father was deported to Mexico.
“When his momma
brought this baby here and left him, tears rolled down her face and
mine too,” Rodas said. “She said, `Julie, will you please take care of
my son because I have no money, no way of paying rent?”‘
For five
years, Rodas has made a living watching the children of workers at the
Crider Inc. poultry plant, where the vast majority of employees were
Mexican immigrants. She learned Spanish, and considered many immigrants
among her closest friends. She threw parties for their children’s
birthdays and baptisms.
The only child in Rodas’ care now, besides her own son, is Victor. Her customers have disappeared.
Federal
agents also swarmed into a trailer park operated by David Robinson.
Illegal immigrants were handcuffed and taken away. Almost none have
returned. Robinson bought an American flag and posted it by the pond
out front — upside down, in protest.
“These people might not
have American rights, but they’ve damn sure got human rights,” Robinson
said. “There ain’t no reason to treat them like animals.”
The raids came during a fall election season in which immigration is a top issue.
Illegal immigrant population doubles
Last
month, the federal government reported that Georgia had the
fastest-growing illegal immigrant population in the country. The number
more than doubled from an estimated 220,000 in 2000 to 470,000 last
year. This year, state lawmakers passed some of the nation’s toughest
measures targeting illegal immigrants, and Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue
last week vowed a statewide crackdown on document fraud.
Other
than the Crider plant, there isn’t much in Stillmore. Four small
stores, a coin laundry and a Baptist church share downtown with City
Hall, the fire department and a post office. “We’re poor but proud,”
Mayor Marilyn Slater said, as if that is the town motto.
The 2000
Census put Stillmore’s population at 730, but Slater said uncounted
immigrants probably made it more than 1,000. Not anymore, with so many
homes abandoned and the streets practically empty.
“This reminds me of what I read about Nazi Germany, the Gestapo coming in and yanking people up,” Slater said.
Immigration
and Customs Enforcement spokesman Marc Raimondi would not discuss
details of the raids. “We can’t lose sight of the fact that these
people were here illegally,” Raimondi said.
Businesses may have to close
At
Sucursal Salina No. 2, a store stocked with Mexican fruit sodas and
snacks, cashier Alberto Gonzalez said Wednesday that the owner may
shutter the place. By midday, Gonzalez has had only six customers.
Normally, he would see 100.
The B&S convenience store, owned
by Keith and Regan Slater, the mayor’s son and grandson, has lost about
80 percent of its business.
“These people come over here to make
a better way of life, not to blow us up,” complained Keith Slater, who
keeps a portrait of Ronald Reagan on the wall. “I’m a die-hard
Republican, but I think we missed the boat with this one.”
Since
the mid-1990s, Stillmore has grown dependent on the paychecks of
Mexican workers who originally came for seasonal farm labor, picking
the area’s famous Vidalia onions. Many then took year-round jobs at the
Crider plant, with a workforce of about 900.
Crider President
David Purtle said the agents began inspecting the company’s employment
records in May. They found 700 suspected illegal immigrants, and
supervisors handed out letters over the summer ordering them to prove
they came to the U.S. legally or be fired. Only about 100 kept their
jobs.
The arrests started at the plant September 1. During the
Labor Day weekend, agents with guns and bulletproof vests converged on
workers’ homes after getting the addresses from Crider’s files.
Remarks by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff on September 11: Five Years Later
Via Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.
Georgetown University
September 8, 2006
Secretary Chertoff:
Well, thank you very much for that warm welcome and for the opportunity
to address you in a very handsome hall here in what I gather is the
oldest building in the campus and one in which George Washington used
as the basis of his farewell to the diplomatic corps.
Provost
O’Donnell, I appreciate your introduction. I want to thank Gary
Schiffman, who is a former colleague at the Department of Homeland
Security, for welcoming me to the university to speak.
And
I’d also like to thank Daniel Byman, the Director of the Center for
Peace and Security Studies, who I gather was not able to be with us
here today. And of course, it’s a pleasure to have colleagues from the
Department, students, and friends, as well.
Today, we are
gathered just a few days before the 5th anniversary of the September
11th attacks against the United States. And as we begin to think back
on the events of that tragic day, we have an opportunity to look, both
in terms of what we’ve learned and to look ahead in terms of what we
know we need to do. It’s appropriate to reflect on some of the steps
we’ve already taken, and to measure the progress we have already made
to protect our country and our citizens against further attacks. And of
course, it’s certainly worth remarking on the fact that there has not
been a successful attack against Americans on American soil since
September 11th.
But we also have to recognize remaining
challenges and be clear about setting the priorities we need to have in
place to make sure that there is not a successful attack in the years
to come.
For everybody in this room and for everybody in
this country, September 11th remains a defining moment in our personal
lives and in the history of our country. Even today, looking back, it’s
difficult to comprehend the full nature of the devastation and loss of
life that flowed from this premeditated and infamous act of war against
innocent people from all over the world, doing nothing more than
working here or visiting here in the United States; a senseless
campaign of murder that resulted in the death of nearly 3,000 men,
women and children of all backgrounds and all faiths.
All
of us have our personal memories of that day where we each — where
each of us were, what we experienced, how we first learned about it. I
can tell you, speaking for myself, I was the head of the criminal
division, and from the moment that I first learned that there had been
airplanes directed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, I
dedicated myself, with my colleagues in the government, to tracking
down those who had done us harm and who still intended to do us harm.
And
even today, when I go into New York, and I look at the scar in the
earth that is what remains of the physical structure of the World Trade
Center, it’s hard to escape that feeling of the breathtaking
devastation and the infamous nature of that crime against humanity,
which was the attack on the World Trade Center.
So for
those who need to be reinvigorated in the struggle against terror, I
suggest that as we approach this 5th anniversary, you visit the site of
the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, where an airplane killed many,
many of our soldiers and our defense workers, or to go out to the field
in Shanksville, where the heroic passengers of United Flight 93 averted
yet another attack against our nation’s capital.
The fact
of the matter is, no words can fully describe the measure of the
tragedy of 9/11. But amid the horror of that day, we should also
remember that we witnessed tremendous courage, valor, and sacrifice:
first responders who gave their lives entering burning buildings,
citizens who fought back over the skies in Pennsylvania, other citizens
on other aircraft who picked up their cell phones and called loved ones
in the last moments before those planes were turned into weapons of
mass destruction. Out of the crucible of 9/11, we witnessed not only
horrible evil, but also wonderful courage and virtue. And I think that
we ought to consider the shining example that comes out of it that day,
as well as the clear warning of what lies ahead if we do not continue
to build our safety and security here in the United States and all over
the world.
We’ve had five years to absorb the lessons of
9/11, and we have acted deliberately and decisively to reduce the risk
that we will ever face another day like that infamous September
morning. We’ve learned that we cannot be complacent in the face of
terrorism. The fact is that terrorists continue to plot, even as we
strike against them. That was exposed yet again this past August, when
we uncovered and disrupted a potential horrible attack against
airliners flying from the United Kingdom to the United States.
And
we’ve been less successful in other parts of the world. There have been
attacks against American citizens overseas, our allies and innocent
civilians in London, in Bali, and in Madrid, and all over. Americans
have come to understand that protecting our nation involves trade-offs.
We cannot pursue the illusion of perfect security obtained at any
price, but we must pursue a security that is strong, and it has to be
one that is also consistent with our freedoms, our values, and our way
of life.
As we begin this first decade of the 21st
century, therefore, having emerged from the Cold War and the struggles
of World War II, we face a new challenge that has every bit as much
danger as the challenges we have faced in this country in prior
decades. And we have to reorient our approach to that threat. We have
to build a security system with urgency, with flexibility, and with
resolve.
Now, a critical part of the President’s strategy
in dealing with this new threat of terror involves in taking the war to
the enemy overseas — in Afghanistan, in Iraq, all over the world —
working with our international partners to disrupt terrorist plots and
to dismantle terrorist threats before they reach our own shores.
Here
at home, we have to continue to work to build a unified set of
effective capabilities to manage the risk to the people of this
country. The Department of Homeland Security, which I am privileged to
lead, was created specifically to integrate our national capabilities
against all kinds of threats, whether they be acts of terror or natural
hazards, or even medical hazards like pandemic flu. And the key to this
integrated approach, this partnership, working with state and local
governments, working with the private sector, working with our allies
overseas, and most important, working with the individuals and families
and communities all over the United States.
So looking
back and looking forward, how do we build on our progress to date?
What are the remaining challenges we have to face? And how are we
going to allocate priorities among them? And what is the path we have
to follow to achieve those steps that must be in place to guarantee
ourselves and our families safety in the years to come?
Well,
let me say, there’s one critical thing we have to recognize at the
threshold. We have to be focused on the most significant risks, and we
have to apply our resources in the most practical way possible to
prevent, protect against, and respond to manmade and natural hazards.
That means we have to make a tough-minded assessment, and we have to
recognize that it is simply not possible to eliminate every threat to
every individual in every place at every moment. That is simply not the
way life works.
And if we could achieve absolute perfect
security against all threats, we would only be able to do so at an
astronomical cost to our liberty and our prosperity. As the President
said a couple of days ago, you need look no further than the words of
bin Laden, himself, to see that he sees victory for his cause in
bankrupting and destroying the countries of the West. And we cannot
hand him the victory by being so hysterical and overreacting to such a
great extent that we destroy our way of life in order to protect it.
That
means we do have to be disciplined in assessing the threats, looking at
our vulnerabilities, and weighing consequences, and then we have to
balance and prioritize our resources against those risks so that we can
ensure the right amount of protection for Americans in our nation
without under-protecting, but also without overprotecting.
So
let me ask the question: What are those things we ought to be most
concerned about? Well, it seems to me that our priority has to be
focusing on those possible terrorist events that pose the greatest
potential consequences to human life and to the continuity of our
society. At the top of that list is the threat of weapons of mass
destruction. Weapons of mass destruction are weapons that, if used,
would have a shattering, earth-shaking consequence for this country.
And preventing the introduction and use of those weapons has to be the
number one thing we attend to in the years to come.
We
also must continue to guard against infiltration of this country by
international terrorists, international terrorists who have the
capability and the intent to cause real damage to the functioning of
this country by engaging in multiple high consequence attacks on people
and our economy. And the illustration of this kind of a plot is the
plot of London — that plot in London that was uncovered this past
month; a plot that, had it been successful, would not only have caused
the lives of — cost the lives of thousands of people, but would have
had a — would have raised a very significant blow against the
functioning of our entire system of international trade and travel.
But
even as we look at these high consequence threats, we have to be
mindful of something else: the potential for home-grown acts of
terrorism. We have to recognize that there are individuals who
sympathize with terrorist organizations or embrace their ideology, and
are prepared to use violence as a means to promote a radical, violent
agenda.
And to engage with this emerging threat, we have
to work not only across federal, state and local jurisdictions to
prevent domestic radicalization and terrorism, but we have to build a
new level of confidence and trust with our American Muslim community,
who have to remain critical partners with us in protecting our country.
So
let’s look back and measure where we’ve come, and then let me be very
clear about where we need to go and what our plan is to get there.
Well, over the last five years, we’ve taken some very significant steps
to address the threat of terrorism by closing vulnerabilities that
existed five years ago on September 11th, and by creating what we call
layers of security across land, sea and air.
And I think
I’m going to take the opportunity today to highlight some of the new
capabilities we have in place and point out what we’re building for the
next couple of years. These areas include screening people at the
border to keep bad people out of the country; screening cargo to
prevent bad things from coming into the country; protecting our
critical infrastructure so that even if someone mounts an attack, we
can reduce our vulnerability; sharing information so we can stop
attacks before they begin; and, finally, boosting our emergency
preparedness and response so that even if there were a successful
attack, we could minimize the damage by acting promptly and effectively
in response.
First, screening people at the border. Our
number one defense against terror involves the perimeter, keeping
dangerous enemies from entering the United States of America.
Five
years ago, before September 11th, we had very limited tools to
accomplish that mission. We had fragmented databases, biographical
information to determine whether a person posed a security threat or
should be allowed to enter the United States. The process, even if it
worked at all, was cumbersome, inefficient, and fraught with
vulnerabilities. And the proof of the pudding is in what happened on
September 11th. We learned looking back that terrorists had accessed
this country on repeated occasions, even though we knew who some of
them were, and we weren’t able to screen them from coming into the
United States to execute their deadly plot.
Today, five
years later, we have transformed our screening capabilities at the
international ports of entry. And we’ve done that in order to prevent
terrorists and criminals from entering the United States to do us harm.
We have pulled together and unified our counter-terror databases, and
we’ve dramatically strengthened the process we use to issue visas.
Equally
important, we have implemented biometric capabilities,
fingerprint-reading capabilities at all of our international ports of
entry. With these new fingerprint reading capabilities, which are part
of the program we call U.S. Visit, deployed all over the ports of entry
at land and in the air and at sea, we can now, within seconds,
positively confirm a person’s identity against their passport and
against our databases by checking two-digit finger scans against watch
lists and immigration records.
The result of this
dramatic step forward in screening at the border is illustrated to me
day in and day out when I come in to get my briefing in the morning as
Secretary. Because repeatedly I hear about dangerous people who have
been stopped at the border and denied entry based upon the tools we
have given our border security officials five years after 9/11.
Of
course, we have to worry not only about those who come in through the
ports of entry, like the 9/11 hijackers, but we have to worry about
those who might come in to do us harm between the ports of entry. And
here again, we have made protecting our borders one of the top
priorities of the Department of Homeland Security and, indeed, of the
entire administration.
And we’ve made progress securing
the miles of border, the thousands of miles of border that lie between
our designated international ports of entry. We’ve done it by giving
the men and women who do the job of patrolling the border the tools,
the technology, and the resources they need to do their very important
job of protecting the perimeter of this country.
Again,
looking back five years ago, before 9/11, we had about 9,000 Border
Patrol agents along our southern and northern border. But under the
President’s leadership, today we have more than 12,000 Border Patrol
agents. And by the end of 2008, we will have over 18,000 agents. We
will have more than doubled the number of Border Patrol between our
ports of entry. And while we are waiting to recruit and train and
deploy these additional Border Patrolmen and women, the President has
ordered the National Guard to the border to support the existing Border
Patrol agents. And that has caused a huge amplification of our
capabilities in protecting this country against those who want to cross
illegally to come in to do us harm.
Since 9/11, the
Border Patrol has apprehended and turned away some 6 million illegal
migrants trying to cross our borders. Now, I’m not saying, of course,
the vast majority of those are terrorists. Quite the contrary, the vast
majority of those are coming for economic reasons. But the fact of the
matter is, if we can control our border and do it in an intelligent and
comprehensive fashion, we can focus ourselves in continuing to raise
the barrier against those who would come to this country to do us harm.
Let
me tell you some other things we have done to control the space between
our ports of entry. Before September 11th, we did not have the adequate
bed space that we needed to detain people who came in illegally that we
captured. And so a significant number of these people, even if they
were caught entering illegally were released into the community — and
to no one’s great surprise, never showed up again for their court
appearances.
But today, by taking a disciplined and
strategic approach to dealing with the crisis of illegal migration, we
have completely transformed that policy. We have ended this pernicious
practice of catch and release at the border. We now catch, detain and
return to their home country virtually everybody that comes across the
border illegally. And that is a major step forward, not only in
protecting our borders against terrorists, but in maintaining the
general integrity of our country against those who come in illegally.
We
see real results. For the first time, we are seeing a real decline in
the total number of illegal migrants that are trying to come across our
nation’s southern border. It proves that the efforts we are putting
into place are beginning to work. But we have more to do. Under the
Secure Border Initiative, we are going to be rolling out new
technology, new tactical infrastructure, unmanned aerial vehicles and
other high-tech to give our Border Patrol agents the kinds of tools
they need to do the job that we have entrusted to them.
We
still have a lot of work to do at the border, but we should certainly
remark on the progress we’ve made. We are now moving in the right
direction. And with the help of Congress, and with the continued
support of the fine men and women who work at the border, we’re going
to continue to make more progress.
So that’s where we’ve
come in screening bad people out. But what do we have to do next,
because there remain some very significant challenges. Well, as again
emphasized by last month’s London airline threat, we have to be able to
determine as early as possible who is trying to come into this country
from overseas, and who is trying to get on an airplane that might do us
harm.
Right now, under our current arrangement, we still
only get full information about the identity of passengers boarding
international air flights 15 minutes after the flight has left the
gate. That’s simply too late. Therefore, over the next two years, we
will implement a system that will require the airlines to transmit
passenger information in advance of departure. This will give us the
time to check passenger names against databases and to coordinate with
airlines and foreign authorities to prevent a suspicious person from
getting on an airplane before they get on the plane, rather than after
the plane leaves the gate. And we have already begun this process of
advanced notification for flights that come from the United Kingdom to
the United States.
But that only deals with the issue of
known terrorists. The other question is, what do we do about the
unknown terrorist, the terrorist who we have not yet identified? How
do we prevent that person from coming into the United States? Well,
there are three things we need to do. We need to get more information.
We need to get better, more secure documentation. And we need to use
even more our biometric technology. So let me turn to the first, more
information.
One of the most valuable tools we can have
in identifying the unknown terrorist is actually already in our
possession. It’s in our fingertips. It’s information that is routinely
collected by the travel industry when a person makes an airline
reservation or buys an airline ticket. They call this passenger name
record data, and it includes such basic things as how you paid for the
ticket, what your telephone number is, and a little bit about your
travel history. By analyzing this kind of information, we can determine
if an individual has traveled with a known terrorist, if their ticket
was bought by a terrorist facilitator, if they’ve been in phone
communication with a terrorist. And that is precisely the kind of
information we need to have in order to figure out whether there is an
unidentified threat getting on an airplane. The information is there.
Now
we are working with the Europeans to lift some of the restrictions on
our use of that information so we can fully analyze it before people
get on airplanes, to prevent the unidentified terrorist from trying to
come into this country.
Now, I can tell you from personal
eyewitness that this works because after the 9/11 hijacking, when I was
the head of the criminal division, in that first 24 hours when we were
trying to track who financed and who supported the 19 hijackers who
went down with those airplanes, what we did is look at exactly this
kind of data. And my plea in this country, and my plea to the Europeans
is this: For God’s sake, let us do that before the next 9/11, rather
an afterwards. It’s much better to be able to do this kind of detective
work to stop an attack, rather than to investigate an attack that has
already occurred.
So over the next year, I’m going to be
looking forward to working with my European colleagues on building on
this kind of information, allowing a full analysis, and still making
sure we respect the privacy of those who travel internationally.
A
second area we need to look at is more secure documentation. And,
again, 9/11 has a very, very vivid lesson for us. All but one of the
9/11 hijackers who carried out the plot five years ago used American
identification documents that they had obtained in fraudulent purposes,
including drivers’ licenses, which enabled them to move freely around
the country. And the 9/11 Commission, itself, focused on this use of
fraudulent documents as a major vulnerability in our protection against
those would come in and impersonate Americans.
The
solution is obvious. We have to take the advice of the 9/11 Commission
and other experts in developing standard secure identification
credentials that give us a high degree of confidence that an individual
is not using phony documents to enter our country or get on airplanes
or get into our critical infrastructure.
The good news
is we have underway a number of initiatives mandated by Congress that
will do exactly that. Under our Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative,
we are in the process of developing a secure biometric credential for
individuals traveling in the Western Hemisphere. This card is going to
be wallet-sized. It’s going to contain biometric — that means
fingerprint-type security features — and it will allow for real-time
security checks at our ports of entry.
We’re also working
with the states to develop standards for a secure driver’s license
under the congressional Real ID Act. Drivers’ licenses are one of the
most common forms of identification in this country. There’s no reason
to facilitate the forging of these documents. We must have clear
guidelines for how drivers’ licenses are produced, who gets them, and
what kind of anti-forgery security features they contain.
Now,
all these recommendations have been out there. We are pushing forward
on all these initiatives, but there’s one obstacle we have to overcome.
Five years after 9/11, we’re starting to hear some complaints that
these measures are going to be too burdensome, or too expensive, or
that they’re somehow going to transform themselves into a national
identification card. And that kind of back-sliding runs directly
contrary to the lessons of 9/11, and directly contrary to the advice
that the 9/11 Commission gave and every other expert who has looked at
this problem has given.
Secure identification that cannot
be forged and cannot be exploited by terrorists is precisely what we
need now, just as we needed it five years ago. If we’d had it five
years ago, there would not have been a 9/11 — God help us if we don’t
take the steps to put into place as soon as we can to prevent another
9/11 from happening.
And then there’s a third thing we
can do, which would probably be, in my view, the greatest step forward
in protecting against the unidentified terrorists. And that is building
on the experience we’ve had with two fingerprint identification into a
10 fingerprint identification system.
What we are going
to do starting this fall, for those who want to come to the United
States, is at least on their first visit, collect 10 fingerprints —
not just two, but 10. For those of you who are watchers of some of
these programs like “CSI,” you know the value of latent fingerprints
for crime detection, latent prints being what people leave when they
touch a piece of glass or even a piece of paper.
I can
tell you that latent fingerprints can be equally important as a tool
against terror, because with 10 prints taken from all visitors to the
U.S., we will be able to run everybody’s fingerprints against latent
fingerprints that we are collecting all over the world — in terrorist
safe houses, off of bomb fragments the terrorists build, or at
battlefields where terrorists wage war.
What that means
is, we will be able to check visitors not only against the known list
of names that we have, but against their fingerprints picked up
anyplace the terrorists have operated internationally. That will give
us a real capability to locate the unidentified terrorist before he or
she enters the country.
And by the way, it also has a
magnificent deterrent effect, because when we get this in place, every
single terrorist who has ever been in a safe house or a training camp
or built a bomb is going to have to ask himself or herself this
question if they’re going to come in the U.S.: Have I ever left a
fingerprint anywhere in the world that’s been captured? Because they
will know that if they have, we will match that fingerprint against
their 10 prints when they come into the country, and we will be able to
apprehend them.
So to promote this vision of a real
biometric security net around this country, this year, the State
Department will begin to deploy new 10 print fingerprint reading
devices at U.S. visa issuing posts overseas. And by the end of 2008, we
will have not only deployed these readers overseas, where visas are
issued, but we will have deployed them at our ports of entry so we can
capture fingerprints from everybody who wants to visit the United
States.
Now let me talk about what we’ve done since 9/11
to monitor the cargo that’s entered our country and to prevent bad
things from getting in. Again, five years ago, we’ve screened very few
cargo containers entering our ports for the risk of terrorism. We
didn’t have the ability to screen any of it overseas, and we didn’t
have scanning equipment that would test containers for radiation.
Without
these tools, we had very little ability to stop someone from smuggling
radioactive devices or other dangerous implements through our maritime
trade system. But, again, five years later, this has dramatically
changed. Through our National Targeting Center at Customs and Border
Protection at DHS, every shipping container that enters the U.S. from
overseas is analyzed for risk, and the high-risk containers are
targeted for inspection.
Moreover, under our Container
Security Initiative, U.S. officials are now stationed overseas at more
than 40 ports and are screening 80 percent of the cargo bound for the
U.S. before it even gets on the ship that’s crossing the ocean. And by
the end of this year, those inspectors will be in a position to screen
90 percent of that cargo.
In addition, focused as we are
on the particular danger of radioactive material, we have deployed
hundreds of radiation detection monitors and thousands of hand-held
radiation detection devices to protect against radiological and nuclear
threats. As a result of this massive devotion of resources to the issue
of radiation detection, by the end of this year, we will be screening
80 percent of maritime cargo containers arriving at U.S. ports for
radioactive emissions. And we’re also working with almost 6,000
companies who have voluntarily taken additional steps to enhance
security when they ship into this country using their supply chains.
Standing
back and looking at what we’ve done over the years, here is a
remarkable number often not reported in the media. If you look at the
budget from fiscal year 2003 through the current budget proposal in
Congress for 2007, you will see that this administration has provided
for nearly $10 billion in port security — that’s billion with a “b” —
and that includes the resources and manpower devoted by the United
States Coast Guard, by Customs and Border Protection, and the research
and development efforts of our Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.
These
actions have not only significantly increased the security against bad
stuff coming in the country through our seaports, but we have been able
to do so without sacrificing the free flow of commerce and trade that
is essential to maintaining our economy.
So now this is
where we are. What do we have yet to do? First we are going to
complete to process of deploying radiation portal monitors to all of
our ports of entry at sea and on land by the end of next year. And we
will screen essentially 100 percent of cargo coming through those land
and sea ports of entry for radiation by the end of next year.
We’re
also going to move overseas and continue to push to do as much of the
screening as we can in foreign ports working with our foreign partners.
Our goal, again, in the next two years, working with the private sector
and our international partners, is to create an integrated system for
scanning and imaging containers for radiation in multiple overseas
ports, so that even before containers get on ships, we can have a high
confidence level that they do not pose a threat to the United States.
Additionally,
in order to expand the protection that we are able to put into place
with respect to the vast amount of cargo that moves around the world,
we are increasing the extent and depth of information that we’re
accumulating about the movement of cargo so we can have an even more
detailed and precise picture of those containers that we need to
physically open and inspect.
And the point in doing all
of this — bearing in mind, again, that bin Laden’s objective is to
destroy our economy — the point of doing all of this is to do it in a
way that actually furthers our economy, that actually increases
international trade, that pursues the dual goals of security and
prosperity in a way that advances both, without compromising either.
Now,
Congress has a role to play in this, too. And as I speak to you today
there is on the floor of the Senate legislation that the House has
passed to increase the efforts we made in port security. As we stand in
the shadow of the 5th anniversary of 9/11, I urge Congress to complete
its work on this port security legislation this month. That would be
not only a fitting tribute to the 5th anniversary, but would be an
important set of tools that we can use in achieving the goal we have
set for ourselves over the next couple years.
Finally,
let me talk a little bit about the interior — because although we want
to protect our border, we recognize that particularly radioactive
material can even be accumulated here in the United States, itself. So,
therefore, we have a more ambitious goal than merely protecting the
border. We want to protect the heartland and the cities in our country,
as well.
Therefore, by the end of 2008, we will complete
the first phase of what we call a Securing the Cities Program. That is
a program — and we’re going to start in New York City — that will
conduct nuclear and radiological scanning on the principal pathways
into the city, whether they be overland, in the water, or underground.
And we also intend to provide grants to two additional cities to
purchase operational screening systems for radiation detection.
These
tools will allow us to build not only a layer of protection against
weapons of mass destruction at the perimeter of the country, but it
will allow us to build a second layer around our major cities for an
added measure of protection.
Now, let me turn to
protecting our infrastructure. We know that the vast majority of
critical infrastructure in our country is owned and maintained in
private hands, and the government, of course, cannot by itself protect
these critical assets and key resources. The way to do this is to work
in partnership with federal and state and local officials, and with
those private-sector folks who actually own the things we’re trying to
protect.
What have we done? Well, let’s start with the
aviation system. As was all too terribly demonstrated five years ago,
before September 11th, we did not have secure cockpit doors. We did not
have a federalized, efficient screener workforce at the airports,
trained to detect bomb components and detonation devices. We did not
have thousands of federal air marshals on aircraft protecting travelers
every day all over the world. We didn’t have armed flight deck officers
authorized and trained to defend the cockpit. We didn’t have 100
percent screening of all passenger baggage. And we didn’t have
thousands of explosive detection machines scanning passengers and
baggage at airports nationwide. All of these layers of security are now
in effect. And they now create a protective network — a fabric of
security that keeps hundreds of thousands of air travelers safe and
secure every day.
Now, to be sure, there’s more to do.
The enemy constantly adapts his tactics and his methods. And we have to
keep pace and get ahead of those. But we have succeeded in laying over
the last five years a solid foundation for the future of our aviation
security efforts for the five years and the 10 years to come.
But
of course we can’t confine our efforts only to aviation. So since
September 11th, we’ve looked at all of the fixed critical
infrastructure in this country. We’ve performed thousands of
vulnerability assessments and reviewed thousands of security plans with
the private owners of infrastructure all across the country, including
transportation assets, seaports, and chemical facilities.
We’ve
also established new ways of information sharing with the private
sector to warn them about threats and give them advice on how to
increase the measure of protection for their facilities. We’ve
completed a national infrastructure protection plan, and by the end of
this year, we will have completed specific plans for each of the major
sectors of our national economy.
In the area of rail and
mass transit — and we’re certainly vividly aware of the threat there,
as we look at attacks overseas in Madrid and London — in the area of
rail and mass transit, we’ve invested in new technology. We have
bio-detection sensors in many cities that sample the air to determine
whether someone is trying to put a biological or chemical agent into a
mass transit system or elsewhere in a city. We’re funding sensors and
video cameras. And we’re building the capability to surge law
enforcement when there is an emergency, including the old-fashioned,
low-tech method of using bomb detection dogs. In all, we have provided
more than $1.1 billion in risk-based grants that are specifically
targeted to mass transit and other kinds of transportation systems.
But
again looking forward, we have more to do. And one area is the
challenge that we face in developing a risk-based regulatory structure
for our nation’s chemical plants and facilities. One of the lessons of
9/11 is the intent of the enemy to turn our own technology against us.
Five years ago, what the enemy did was they took our airplanes and they
fashioned them into deadly missiles.
Well, we know that
at least some chemical plants in high populated areas could also be
transformed into deadly agents to wreak destruction on our populace.
Now, since 9/11, most chemical companies have recognized that threat,
and they’ve been good corporate citizens. They have voluntarily taken
steps to improve their security and make sure their operations and
facilities are safe.
But not every company has acted
responsibly, and those few companies that don’t do the right thing put
everybody at risk. Therefore, we must develop a balanced, common-sense
approach for protecting the full range of chemical facilities all
across this country. And we have to protect their surrounding
communities, and we have to do it in a way that doesn’t destroy, of
course, the businesses, themselves.
In order to do that,
the Department of Homeland Security must have the authority to set
standards, develop the risk categories for different kinds of
facilities, check and validate security measures, and, most important,
insist on compliance with those security measures.
That
is why, today, to give us this critically needed authority, I want to
urge Congress to pass chemical security legislation that is currently,
again, before it. If Congress passes that legislation this month, we
will implement it promptly through regulations that will raise the
security for Americans all over this country.
The fourth
area I want to touch on briefly is intelligence, because the best way
to protect ourselves is to stop something before it happens. And
there’s been a painstaking review of all of the intelligence failures
that led up to September 11th. But the good news here is that under the
President’s strong leadership, we have succeeded in integrating and
unifying intelligence collection and analysis across all of the
different elements of the national intelligence community.
At
my own department, the Department of Homeland Security, we now have a
strengthened and unified intelligence office led by a legendary
intelligence official. And through our Homeland Security Information
Network, thousands of state and local participants share information
everyday on threats and incidents within their communities. But we can
do more.
We need to build deeper partnerships with our
state and local officials to make sure that we’re not only tracking the
high visibility international threats, but looking at the low
visibility homegrown threats which could take root in any community in
the country. And there the first line of intelligence collection lies
with your local responders and your local law enforcement, because they
will often be the first to get a sense that a homegrown threat is
beginning to bud.
Therefore, we’re going to expand our
partnerships by substantially increasing our federal participation in
state and local fusion centers all across our country. DHS has sent
intelligence personnel to work side by side with their state and local
counterparts at intelligence fusion centers in New York, California,
Louisiana, and Maryland. Our goal is to have a two-way flow where
federal, state, and local officials contribute and analyze and make use
of intelligence information collected at every level.
By
the end of 2008, we will have intelligence and operations personnel at
every major fusion center in the United States. They will be sitting in
the same room with their local counterparts, they will be sharing and
analyzing information with their local counterparts, and they will be
taking steps to protect the country in real time.
Finally,
what do we do if there is an attack, if, has against all the measures
we’ve taken, someone does succeed in carrying out a terrorist attack in
this country? And we all know that life is not without risk, and the
possibility of such an attack remains very real.
Well, we
have to be prepared to respond to such attacks in a way that will
minimize the damage and effectively aid those who need assistance as
quickly and efficiently as possible. Over the past year, we have,
therefore, retooled and refashioned the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, which would be the principal means at the federal level to
assist state and local responders if there were a need to respond to an
emergency, whether it be a terrorist attack or natural disaster.
We
have given FEMA new and experienced leadership, leadership that has
literally decades of hands-on work experience dealing with disasters,
that is now bringing that experience to bear at the highest level. We
have given FEMA enhanced, real-time tracking capabilities for emergency
supplies. We’ve given them new communications systems that would
survive the possibility of a disaster.
We have now
identified and put into the field experienced federal leadership to
work with regional counterparts, particularly in high risk parts of the
country, so that when an event occurs that requires a response, the
federal, state and local responders will have trained together and
exercised together. We never again want to have a circumstance where
federal, state and local responders meet each other for the first time
during an ongoing, catastrophic event.
And to respond to
the possibility of a no-notice or short-notice event, we’ve worked very
hard in the last year, with our own operational agencies — like the
Coast Guard, and TSA, and the air marshals — and with other agencies,
like the Department of Defense, to create pre-positioned and
pre-structured force packages that we could rapidly deploy to an
incident or a disaster zone to provide an immediate capability to
assist those who have needs and to secure an area against disorder or
disruption.
But here, again, we still have more work to
do. One area in particular that requires continued action is the area
of interoperable communications. Again, looking back five years, we
remember the sad story of firefighters and police who entered the
burning World Trade Center and were unable to communicate with each
other at any level. That cost lives, and that was unacceptable. We
cannot let that happen again.
Therefore, we have put
considerable effort and hundreds of millions of dollars into developing
communications interoperability at the command level. We have achieved
this in 10 of the highest threat cities through our RapidCom program.
And we provided a total of $2.1 billion to states and localities since
2003 for interoperable communications equipment, planning, training,
and exercises.
As we sit here today, five years after
9/11, we have the technology that allows interoperable communications,
that allows different jurisdictions and different agencies to talk with
one another even if they don’t yet have the same frequencies on their
radios. But that doesn’t mean we’ve done everything we need to do. We
need new technology to get to the next generation, and we also have to
assess whether we have fully deployed this equipment and trained
ourselves to use it in a way that would stand up if there were a real
test.
So this year we initiated a National
Interoperability Survey to take a hard look at the communications
interoperability among our law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical
service responders in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Using
this survey, as well as a survey that’s going to be looking at
interoperability in 75 urban areas, we’re going to take a critical eye
and say, here’s what’s been done, but here’s what remains to be done.
And
I will tell you in a very straightforward way, the obstacle here is not
technological; we have the technology. The obstacle is that we need to
build procedures across governments and among agencies where we have
agreement about what the rules of the road are going to be.
This
is something the federal government can lead. It is something the
federal government can make recommendations about. It is something the
federal government can test. But in the end, the decision for these
jurisdictions and these agencies to come together and work together is
one they, themselves, have to make. And we are going to be encouraging
and putting a spotlight on this over the next year, because it’s very
important we complete the job of making this technology work in real
life in emergency circumstances.
Five years ago, on what
still, with some irony, seems to have been a remarkably beautiful,
clear morning, men and women went to work in the World Trade Center,
the Pentagon; they got on airplanes leaving from airports in the
northeast, and they looked forward to what, I imagine, they expected
would be a beautiful day. Those people never got to see the sun set.
And
the victims of 9/11 are not only those who perished, but the mothers,
fathers, sisters, and brothers, like all of us here. Many of you, like
me, probably lost someone that you were friendly with or even a family
member on 9/11. Many of you have memories of the Pentagon or of the
World Trade Center that resonate in your mind when you go back and you
see the site of these attacks.
And we’re reminded when we
do go back and visit Ground Zero or look at the Pentagon of the dreams
that perished, the plans that were never brought to fruition, and the
lives that were snuffed out. If we ever needed a reminder, taking a
moment on September 11th will be a very vivid reminder of the fact that
this nation is still at war.
Just in the last couple of
days, bin Laden has released another video celebrating what he views as
his accomplishment in murdering innocent people. An ideology that
celebrates the murder of the innocent is an indecent ideology, and
those who worship at its altar are an enemy that we cannot walk away
from.
This is a struggle that will be with us in years to
come, and it is a struggle that we will win as long as we remain
steadfast, dedicated, and balanced in the approach that we take. Over
the last three years, the people that I am privileged to work with at
the Department of Homeland Security have built an agency whose only
mission is to protect the American people and to protect the homeland.
For
the 185,000 men and women who I serve with, this is a mission that we
proudly undertake every single day, whether it’s patrolling the border,
taking to the skies in helicopters over our oceans, or patrolling in
boats or in subway stations all over the country. I turn to them and I
turn to you and say, we can win this struggle, and we can do it in a
way that will preserve the values and the freedom and the way of life
that we cherish, but we can only do it if we remember that the greatest
strength is the spirit that we bring.
If we recognize
that the only people who can defeat us are ourselves, and as long as we
remember the bond that ties us together, the importance of what we do,
the faith that we cherish — if we remember that, we will succeed in
this mission.
I hope that five years from now the only
attack that people have to remember in this country remains that first
attack on September 11th. And I tell you, on behalf of the people of
the Department of Homeland Security, that all of us will work
tirelessly every single day and night to do everything we can to try to
make sure that that dream remains true.
Thank you very much.
###
Department of Labor Backlog Center Opens Online Case Status Check
09/13/2006
The Department of Labor recently initiated an online case status check system for two Backlog
Centers.
If a case is approved, the search result is: “Certified,” otherwise, it is “In Process” or “Data Review.”
USCIS Limitations on I-140 Premium Processing
From the USCIS Website:
Are there any additional conditions of availability being placed on the Premium Processing Service at this time?
Yes. This will accord USCIS the flexibility to adapt to
contingencies affecting its ability to provide Premium Processing
Service. Premium Processing Service is available for the Form I-140
classifications indicated on the chart above provided that the case
does not involve:
1. A second filing of a Form I-140 petition while an initial Form I-140 remains pending;
2. Labor Certification substitution requests; and
3. Duplicate Labor Certification requests (i.e., cases filed without
an original labor certification from the Department of labor).
USCIS is prescribing these additional conditions of availability on
Premium Processing for Form I-140 because of their special processing
requirements, including locating and transferring other files or
documents internally and requesting initial evidence from an outside
agency, that make it difficult for USCIS to guarantee that it will
process the case within a 15 calendar day period.
Kirkland family’s American dream a step closer
Ayoob Siddick picked up his cellphone Wednesday afternoon to hear
the news he’d been waiting for after nearly six months of frayed nerves
and sleepless nights.
An immigration judge in Seattle granted asylum in the U.S. to the
Kirkland resident; his wife, Amida; and their four children. They will
not be deported to their native Zimbabwe, where the family feared they
would face persecution or worse.
“I feel as if I’ve been fighting this great war, and now I’m
victorious,” Siddick said. “We are taking time to reflect on everything
that has happened in the past and all the people who have rallied
around us and have never faltered.”
The family, which is buying a home near Mill Creek, moved to
Kirkland five years ago to escape what they described as turmoil and
widespread government corruption. The Siddicks had been fighting for
asylum since 2003, when their first application was denied because the
family had not applied for asylum status within one year of arriving in
the U.S., as the law requires.
In March they appealed that decision and faced an immigration judge
in Seattle to explain why they feared persecution if they returned to
Zimbabwe. In her ruling Wednesday, Judge Victoria Young agreed that the
Siddicks could face persecution.
The Siddicks were members of the Movement for Democratic Change
(MDC), the opposition party to the government’s ruling party, and
members of the MDC have been arrested without cause, tortured and
killed, according to the State Department’s 2005 Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices, released in March.
U.S. immigration overhaul impossible: Senate leader
Via Forbes.com
09/07/2006
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. congressional leaders are giving up on
broad immigration legislation that would legalize millions of illegal
immigrants and instead will concentrate on border security ahead of the
elections, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on Wednesday.
“I
think it would be next to impossible to pass a comprehensive bill that
includes dealing with the diversity of 12 million people here in the
next three weeks,” the Tennessee Republican told reporters.
President
George W. Bush backs comprehensive immigration legislation along the
lines passed by the U.S. Senate. That bill would have created a guest
worker program and put millions of illegal immigrants on a path toward
U.S. citizenship.
19 arrested in major marriage and immigration fraud scheme
Via ICE.gov
News Release
September 7, 2006
|
ALEXANDRIA, VA – Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of As described in the government’s affidavit, nine defendants are Aliens who participated in the fraud generally paid large fees, Arlington County Police Chief Scott stated, “Alert employees in the As alleged in the affidavit, the defendants who facilitated the sham For instance, couples were told to memorize the name of their sham “Immigration and benefit fraud is not simply a nuisance crime, it The investigation was conducted by a task force of federal and local The task force received important assistance from several other Defendants are presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty. |
|
— ICE — |
