Please visit our YouTube and Facebook pages.

1. Admin mulls commandeering hotels
2. Experts press on Census count
3. CA health care program tightens
4. SF proposal moves ahead
5. Advocates fret care plans

1.
Ideas for Immigrant Detention Include Converting Hotels and Building Models
By Nina Bernstein
The New York Times, October 5, 2009

The Obama administration is looking to convert hotels and nursing homes into immigration detention centers and to build two model detention centers from scratch as it tries to transform the way the government holds people it is seeking to deport.

These and other initiatives, described in an interview on Monday by Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, are part of the administration’s effort to revamp the much-criticized detention system, even as it expands the enforcement programs that send most people accused of immigration violations to jails and private prisons. The cost, she said, would be covered by greater efficiencies in the detention and removal system, which costs $2.4 billion annually to operate and holds about 380,000 people a year.

“The paradigm was wrong,” Ms. Napolitano said of the nation’s patchwork of rented jail space, which has more than tripled in size since 1995, largely through Immigration and Customs Enforcement contracts for cells more restrictive, and expensive, than required for a population that is largely not dangerous. Among those in detention on Sept. 1, 51 percent were considered felons, and of those, 11 percent had committed violent crimes.

“Serious felons deserve to be in the prison model,” Ms. Napolitano said, “but there are others. There are women. There are children.”

These and other nonviolent people should be sorted and detained or supervised in ways appropriate to their level of danger or flight risk, she said. Her goal, she said, is “to make immigration detention more cohesive, accountable and relevant to the entire spectrum of detainees we are dealing with.”

Several of the initiatives Ms. Napolitano described, to be formally announced on Tuesday afternoon, are steps on a road outlined in August, when John Morton, the assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, announced an ambitious plan to transform the penal network into a “truly civil detention system.”

But the corrections expert he had put in charge of the overhaul, Dora B. Schriro, quit last month to become the corrections commissioner in New York City, after delivering a report on her eight-month top-to-bottom review of the system. The report had remained under wraps until now.

Dr. Schriro’s departure, and the delay in making her report public, dismayed many of the dozens of immigrant advocacy groups she consulted. Her 35-page report, provided to The New York Times after the interview on the condition that it not be posted on its Web site until Tuesday afternoon, calls for prompt attention to individual complaints about a lack of medical care, and “a credible grievance process, sustained in an environment free from intimidation and retaliation.”

In her interview, Ms. Napolitano said little about medical care but promised that within six months the Department of Homeland Security would “devise and implement” a classification system to better place people with medical or mental health needs in the right detention centers.

That vow puzzled some immigrant advocacy groups that deal with seriously ill detainees, including some who have died in federal custody after not getting proper treatment. The groups said they were concerned about the gap between announced plans to improve medical care and the actions of immigration officials.
. . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/us/politics/06detain.html

********
********

2.
Experts: Census could hurt La.
By Claire Taylor
The Advertiser (Lafayette, LA), October 6, 2009

Louisiana and 42 states could lose congressional representation, Electoral College votes and trillions of federal dollars to seven other states if people living in the country illegally are counted in the 2010 U.S. Census.

That's the message John Baker, an LSU professor of constitutional law, and Elliott Stonecipher, a Louisiana demographer, want U.S. citizens to know.

The two, who published an op/ed piece Aug. 9 in The Wall Street Journal, were in Lafayette on Monday evening discussing the consequences of what they call an unconstitutional U.S. Census and urging residents to get involved.

About 40 people attended the event sponsored by the Alexander Law Firm of Baton Rouge and Teche Federal Bank.

Stonecipher learned earlier this year that the Census Bureau will include in the 2010 count 22 million noncitizens and treat them the same as U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 60 percent of them are not documented migrants, he said.

"Whoever the 22 million are, they're going to be included in calculations of congressional reapportionment," Stonecipher said.

Thirty-one seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, Electoral College votes and $4 trillion over 10 years in federal money will go to people who are not U.S. citizens, he said.

Only seven states stand to gain if noncitizens are counted: Florida, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, California, New Jersey and New York. Texas stands to gain four congressional seats with the 2010 Census, Stonecipher said.

Forty-three states, including Louisiana, will come out on the losing end.
. . .
http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20091006/NEWS01/910060302

********
********

3.
Verification of illegal immigrants is scrutinized amid healthcare debate
L.A. County officials question cost-effectiveness of rules aimed at screening those trying to get public health services.
By Teresa Watanabe
The Los Angeles Times, October 6, 2009

Los Angeles County health worker Leonardo Rincon lifts the birth certificate up to the light and expertly scrutinizes it. Do faint watermarks show up? Yes. He rubs his thumb over the official seal to see if it is raised. It is. He checks the number of digits in the document number. Perfect.

Ruth Torres, he decides, has brought in valid U.S. birth certificates for her six children, a valid U.S. passport for her husband and a valid green card for herself, a legal immigrant from Mexico. The family will continue to receive public healthcare benefits, as least for the next year.

Since July 2008, when Los Angeles County began implementing tougher federal verification rules, Rincon and his colleagues have gone back to check the documents of more than 100,000 recipients of Medi-Cal, the public healthcare program for low-income residents.

The county has received nearly $28 million in state and federal funds to cover the cost of the program and posted 81 people in 27 social service department offices to check documents, Walker said.

So far, they have not found one illegal immigrant who posed as a legal resident to get benefits, according to Deborah Walker, the county's Medi-Cal program director. Fewer than 1% of applicants between July 2008 and February 2009 lacked the proper documents, and many of those applicants eventually produced them, she said.

Among new Medi-Cal applicants, county officials have found a relative handful of cheaters under the tougher standards. In the El Monte office, for instance, supervisor Alma Young said that five to eight undocumented immigrants were discovered among about 7,000 applicants in her unit over the last year -- about 0.1% of the total.

"It's been a big effort without a whole lot of payback," Walker said of the program.

As the health insurance debate continues to rage, a key point of contention has been how to screen out illegal immigrants from access to any new public benefits. U.S. citizens and legal residents are entitled to full public health benefits; illegal immigrants are eligible only for emergency and pregnancy care.

Members of Congress have proposed a range of new verification requirements, including presentation of photo identification and checks with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's immigration database. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York), has proposed requiring biometric ID cards -- using fingerprints, for instance -- to prove citizenship.

"The point of this is not to catch people, it's to deter them and potentially save tons of money," said Steven A. Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based research organization that advocates immigration restrictions. "If you don't have these systems, you might have hundreds of thousands of illegals trying to get health benefits."
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-immig-health6-2009oct06,0,506605...

********
********

4.
San Francisco sanctuary rule change moves ahead
By John Coté
The San Francisco Chronicle, October 6, 2009

San Francisco officials on Monday moved closer to amending the city's controversial sanctuary ordinance and restricting when local authorities can report juveniles for possible deportation.

The public safety committee of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors approved the legislation on a 2-1 vote, with Michaela Alioto-Pier dissenting.

The legislation is expected to go before the full board later this month. A veto-proof majority supports amending the policy so that federal immigration officials are notified if a juvenile is convicted of a felony. Current policy, enacted by Mayor Gavin Newsom last year, requires immigration officials be contacted when a juvenile is arrested on suspicion of a felony.

Newsom says the legislation proposed by Supervisor David Campos conflicts with federal law, is unenforceable and sets the city up for legal challenges.

Monday's committee hearing, though, was packed with supporters of Campos' legislation.

"We are on the right side of history," said Campos, a lawyer who arrived here as an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala. "San Francisco has always been at the forefront of civil rights, and what we do here usually sets a precedent for the rest of the country. Hopefully, we'll do the right thing."

Campos, immigrant rights groups and others say this is an issue of due process: children who had no say in crossing the border are facing deportation without even being convicted of a crime. Youth are arrested for crimes they didn't commit or for minor offenses like graffiti that are overcharged as felonies. Even if cleared in court, they can be split from their families.

Supporters say the measure will help public safety because illegal immigrants will be willing to cooperate with police.

Newsom says the current policy strikes the right balance between public safety and individual rights.

"Our sanctuary city policy is designed to protect our residents, regardless of immigration status, but it is not a shield for criminal behavior, and the mayor won't let it be used that way," Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard said. "If you are booked for a felony, you have lost the protection of the sanctuary city policy."
. . .
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/05/BARR1A1FPN.DTL

********
********

5.
Hispanics could face barriers under health-care reform
Advocates say immigration restrictions and costs could keep many from insurance plans
By Víctor Manuel Ramos
The South Florida Sun Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale), October 5, 2009

As the health-care reform debate takes shape in Congress, advocates worry that many Hispanics -- who have the highest rate of uninsured of all ethnic and racial groups -- could still be left without needed medical care.

Some think that out-of-pocket expenses would keep many Hispanics from buying insurance. For others, their immigration status could affect whether they get any kind of coverage.

On Monday, several minority advocacy groups, including the National Council of La Raza and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, announced a campaign in favor of a public option that would cover more people in poor minority communities.

"The proposals assume that people have the money to buy health insurance. . ." and those who don't could be fined, said Josephine Mercado, director of Hispanic Health Initiatives, an advocacy group in Casselberry. "I just don't know how fair that system is going to be to the people who really need it."

Among those who might be priced out is Adela Moreno of Apopka, a legal immigrant from Mexico who has been living with an abdominal hernia for years because she lacks insurance and cannot afford treatment.

Her medical care consists of occasional $20 checkups at community clinics.

Under current proposals, Moreno would be required to buy medical insurance from an exchange, which would serve as a government-regulated marketplace, before she could qualify for tax subsidies.

But the mother of three doubts she and her husband could pay premiums on his income from odd jobs in construction.

"I don't have the resources to pay for myself," said Moreno, 46. "Legal or illegal, if you don't have the money, it's all the same."

While the Senate Finance Committee has defeated amendments that would have restricted access to legal immigrants, pending proposals would leave out millions of others who are in the country illegally, completely excluding them from benefits.

Illegal immigrants -- whose population adds up to about 1 million in Florida and 11 million nationwide -- became a flash point in the debate when U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., accused President Obama of lying about their eligibility during the president's national address last month.

Advocates on all sides agree that illegal immigrants excluded from health benefits will end up using public resources through emergency rooms and government-funded clinics.

"Either you encourage people to go home or you pay through the nose," said Steven Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that calls for stricter immigration enforcement. "There is no other way about it."
. . .
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-hispanics-immigrant...