Texas Immigration Lawyer & Attorney : Kraft & Associates Law Firm : Visas, Green Card, Citizenship, Deportation : Dallas, Texas

The Dallas Morning News had an interesting story this week about immigrants who can become citizens by enlisting in the U.S. military. This is an enticing path to citizenship because the process is accelerated. There is some controversy however in having so many non-citizens in the military branches. The article begins:

They come from Mexico, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Colombia, Cambodia and a hundred other countries across the globe to find the promise of America. Increasingly they enlist to fight, and sometimes die, in America's wars.

About 69,300 foreign-born men and women serve in the U.S. armed forces, roughly 5 percent of the total active-duty force, according to the most recent data. Of those, 43 percent - 29,800 - are not U.S. citizens. The Pentagon says more than 100 immigrant soldiers have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush and Congress, citing long-established wartime powers, streamlined the process by which immigrants in the armed forces could become naturalized citizens.

As of October, more than 25,000 immigrant soldiers had become U.S. citizens as a result. Another 40,000 are believed eligible to apply. And roughly a third of noncitizens in the all-volunteer military come from Mexico and Central America.

"Latinos are very patriotic and see military service as a way to show their appreciation to America and to prove they can be 'real Americans,' " said Dr. Jorge Mariscal, director of Chicano Studies at the University of California at San Diego.

But he questions the attention that military recruiters give Latino immigrant neighborhoods.

"The efforts of recruiters tends to undermine community efforts to get these kids better civilian educational opportunities and pushes them into low-echelon enlisted positions with a higher risk of seeing combat," he said. "Until the playing field is level, we're only going to create a class of combat soldiers drawn from immigrants and the working class."

Conservative critics fear that increased reliance on an immigrant-based military may create security problems and turn the U.S. armed forces into a "green-card army" where citizenship becomes just another recruiting tool.

"Service to the country is good. But my concern is that by taking in too many noncitizens into the military, we separate service and duty from citizenship," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter immigration controls.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today's Dallas Morning News has a thought-provoking editorial about the Texas panhandle town of Cactus, where approximately half the population is illegal, and most work at the Swift meat-processing plant.

The Face of Desperation: Cactus confirms need for reform

There's no reason to move to Cactus, a lonesome and woebegone Texas Panhandle town. There's not much there aside from a Swift & Co. meatpacking plant, where the work is nasty and bone-crushingly hard. But as The Dallas Morning News reported in a three-part series last week, the slaughterhouse draws thousands of workers from Mexico and Central America who come out of raw desperation. Town officials estimate that three of every four people living there are illegal immigrants.

Anyone who romanticizes the illegal migrant worker population should talk to Cactus officials. The town is chaotic and crime-ridden. There's drunkenness and drug abuse, robbery and prostitution, and fraudulent schemes that exist solely because illegal immigrants are easy targets for exploitation. Zoning and food safety regulations might as well not exist. Cops are overwhelmed. The rule of law is, in many cases, nothing more than a nice idea.

Lawlessness is intolerable.

So, round 'em up and ship 'em home? Do that, the plant closes and the town dies. Period. Does anybody really think Americans are going to be willing to relocate to this miserable hamlet, where, according to the News reporters, "most yards are dirt, weeds and gravel" - and to do so for grim, backbreaking jobs that pay little more than twice the minimum wage? Said a local preacher who ministers to the exhausted workers, "It is a job for animals."

But these are not animals. These are human beings who toil largely beyond the protection of labor laws, for employers who drive them to work harder and faster, putting cheaper meat on American dinner tables.

Grinding the face of the poor is also intolerable.

Whether you're a friend or foe of the lawbreaking migrants, it's easy to maintain opinions and an untroubled mind about the crisis when you don't have to live face-to-face with its complex legal, economic and moral realities.

Nothing about this crisis is abstract in Cactus. Cactus is reality. Nobody in Cactus can live in denial about the urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform to account for hard facts. We can't let Cactuses grow indefinitely. That this situation festers because America chooses denial is perhaps the most intolerable thing of all.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Douglas Dispatch has a story about local rancher Roger Barnett, who was sued for threatening a hunting party of Latinos with a rifle in 2004. Here are excerpts from the newspaper article:

The jury assessed a total of $210,000 in damages, but found Barnett only partially to blame for the incident. As a result, he will have to pay approximately $98,000 to principal plaintiff Ronald Morales, his father, and three girls.

Speaking after the verdict, Morales said he felt justice had been served.

"We came to court and spoke the truth, and the jury heard that truth," he said. "Hopefully this sends a message that you can't point a gun at little kids - or anybody for that matter - and then threaten to shoot them."

Morales sued Barnett after the rancher confronted Morales' hunting party on Oct. 30, 2004, and accused the group of trespassing on his property outside Douglas.

During the incident, Barnett took out an AR-15 assault rifle from his pickup and pointed it toward the group, which included Morales' father, Arturo Morales; his daughters, Angelique and Venese Morales; and the girls' friend, Emma English.

The hunters, all of whom are Americans of Mexican decent, said Barnett insulted them with racial slurs and threatened to shoot them - charges Barnett denied. Ronald Morales said he tried to get the county attorney to press criminal charges against Barnett, but was told no jury would convict him.

Morales' attorney, Jesus Romo Vejar, said he hoped the local prosecutor would now reconsider filing criminal charges against Barnett, and he hoped others who had had problems with the rancher also would be encouraged to file civil claims.

Barnett estimates he has detained and turned over to the Border Patrol between 10,000 and 12,000 illegal immigrants during the past decade.

The five members of Morales party sued Barnett for assault, false imprisonment, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found in favor of all five of the plaintiffs on the claims, but split responsibility between Roger Barnett, Ronald Morales and Arturo Morales.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to a story at Breitbart.com today, "Nearly all air travelers entering the U.S. will be required to show passports beginning Jan. 23, including returning Americans and people from Canada and other nations in the Western Hemisphere." The story goes on to say:

The date was disclosed Tuesday by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in an interview with The Associated Press. The Homeland Security Department plans to announce the change on Wednesday.

Until now, the department had not set a specific date for instituting the passport requirement for air travelers, though the start had been expected to be around the beginning of the year. Setting the date on Jan. 23 pushes the start past the holiday season.

The requirement marks a change for Americans, Canadians, Bermudans and some Mexicans.

Currently, U.S. citizens returning from other countries in the hemisphere are not required to present passports but must show other proof of citizenship such as driver's licenses or birth certificates.

Visitors from most countries in the hemisphere are required to show passports. However, people from Canada, Bermuda _ and those from Mexico who enter the U.S. frequently and have special border-crossing cards have been allowed to use other forms of identification, including driver's licenses.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This news is from the e-mail newsletter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association:

As the Pulse goes to press, media reports suggest that Republican leadership in Congress may defer passage of fiscal 2007 spending bills until the 110th Congress begins next year. Rather than take up appropriations legislation when Congress reconvenes on December 5, reports indicate that GOP leaders plan to pass a continuing resolution (CR), which would extend current levels of funding into January.

Plans to pass a CR in lieu of any further appropriations work would frustrate attempts by immigration advocates to enact positive immigration provisions - such as H-1B visa and employment-based green card relief - during the lame duck session, since any immigration measures would need to be passed as part of an appropriations bill. However, Democrats and Republican appropriators oppose deferral of the spending bills, and would prefer to see appropriations legislation completed during December. If these legislators succeed in bringing one or more appropriations bills to the Floor, advocates will still have a chance to push for positive immigration measures.

Check in with AILA's Congressional News and Updates for updated information on the lame duck session and the upcoming 110th Congress, including a list of newly-elected leadership in the House and Senate.

View the Senate's 2006 calendar.

View the House's 2006 calendar.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Question: How long after becoming a permanent resident does it take to become a United States citizen? What are the requirements for naturalization?
Answer: First, all applicants for U.S. Citizenship must be at least 18 years old.
Second, a person is eligible to apply for citizenship if he or she has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The Applicant must prove that he or she has continuously resided as a lawful permanent resident in the United States for at least five years prior to filing for citizenship. Marriage-based petitions are an exception to the five year requirement and such applicants may apply for citizenship after three years.

The Applicant must also prove that s/he has been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the previous 60 months. (i.e. the 30/60 rule). The Applicant must prove s/he has been a person of good moral character for the statutory period. Generally, the statutory period is five years. The statutory period is three years for person's who obtained permanent residence through a marriage-based petition. The prospective citizen must have an ability to read, write and speak ordinary English, and have an understanding of basic U.S. history and government.

Question: I would like to file a visa petition for my spouse. Want documents do I need to bring to the interview to prove a valid marriage? 
Answer: You can prove the validity of your marriage with many different types of documents. For example, your U.S. Federal Income Tax Return should show either 'married filing jointly' or 'married filing separately.' Other examples include a lease agreement with both your names on it; new joint bank account statements; notarized affidavits from friends and relatives; letters and/or cards addressed to you as husband and wife; proof of vacations taken together, and junk mail addressed to you both. USCIS will want to see evidence of cohabitation, evidence of jointly held assets, jointly filed income tax returns, and other evidence which will tend to show that you married your spouse for love, and not solely to get your green card.

Question: I was granted permanent residency based on my marriage to a citizen. There were conditions placed on my status. What does this mean?
Answer: You are a permanent resident on a conditional basis. This means that your residency was granted to you less than two years after the date of your marriage. Your residency expires two years from the date it was given to you. You will need to file for removal of these conditions 90 days prior to the expiration of your residency status. To do this, you will need to show that you are still married and are in a bona fide marriage.

Question: I entered the U.S. illegally several years ago and married a citizen last year. Am I eligible to apply for permanent resident status?
Answer: Adjustment of status occurs in the United States after an individual has been inspected and admitted or paroled by presenting her/himself for inspection. A Form I-130 petition and a Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status, can be filed simultaneously only where it is for an immediate relative. Obtaining your "green card" in the U.S. can only take place if you entered the country with a valid visa. If you did not you will have to apply for a visa at a U.S. consulate abroad. You will also have to submit a waiver showing extreme hardship to your spouse if you were forced to remain outside the U.S.

Question: What do I need to prove in order to obtain a visitor's visa to the United States?
Answer: There are several issues that affect whether a visitor visa will be given to an applicant. Everyone applying for a visitor visa is presumed to want to immigrate to the USA on a permanent basis. In order to rebut this presumption a person has to provide evidence that they will return to their home country prior to the expiration of their visa. This might include proof that you were invited to visit for a short vacation based on a letter in affidavit form from a friend or family member in the U.S. Also, besides establishing the reasons for the visit, you will also need to prove that you have every reason to return to your home when the purpose of your trip is accomplished. This might include evidence of employment that you will be returning to. Bank accounts, evidence of relatives in your home country, and ownership of property in your home country are all examples of facts that you may want to provide.

Question: I just realized that my green card expired. What do I do to obtain a new one?
Answer: First, you should not travel with an expired green card. You will also need to file an application to replace your green card. This will be done on Form I-90. You will not lose your permanent resident status if you do not renew your Green Card nor will your permanent resident status will not expire or change. However, you are required by law to carry evidence of your status and it is best to apply for a new green card as soon as possible.

Question: I am a naturalized citizen. Is there any way my citizenship can be taken away from me?
Answer: Yes. If within two years of becoming a citizen the USCIS finds that the person acquired citizenship through misrepresentation, then administrative revocation can take place. If the time limit of two years has expired the government must file suit in federal court to have the person "denaturalized." However, the chances of this ever happening are very small.

Question: Is there any new immigration reform that has been made into law? How will the new immigration law affect me?
Answer: As of May 25, 2006, both the Senate and the House of Representatives have passed immigration reform bills. The Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611) on which May 25, 2006 while the House passed the The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437) on which December 16, 2005. Both bills vastly differ from each other in terms of content and law. The bill passed in the Senate encompasses a greater part of immigration benefits issues, while the bill passed in the House focused mainly on protection and security.

In order for any immigration reform bill to be made into law, a conference committee formed of both Senators and Representatives will convene to create one bill based on compromises. After one bill is drafted, both the Senate and the House will vote on it, if passed in both the Senate and the House, the bill will be sent to the President who can then either sign it into law or reject it. Currently there is no schedule set for the conference committee or vote date on the bill.

Question: I would like to travel outside the United States. Do I need to apply for advance parole before leaving the country?
Answer: There are certain classes of people who need to obtain advance parole before leaving the U.S. They include aliens in the United States who wish to travel abroad but have:
1. An application for adjustment of status pending;
2. Been admitted as a refugee or have been granted asylum;
3. Been granted benefits under the Family Unity Program;
4. Been granted Temporary Protected Status;
5. An asylum application pending; and/or
6. An emergent personal or bona fide reason to travel temporarily abroad.

The purpose of advance parole is that it enables an alien to come back to the U.S. after traveling abroad without the necessity of obtaining a visa to the U.S., and it preserves whatever application the alien has pending with the USCIS.

Question: I obtained permanent residency based on my marriage to a U.S. citizen. We are now divorced. Can my green card be taken away from me or cancelled?
Answer: It depends. If your status is that of a conditional permanent resident, and your marriage has been terminated, it is possible for the alien to obtain a waiver of the termination. A waiver of the termination is granted to the alien if the alien can show that the marriage was a union in good faith and the alien was not at fault for his failure to file the joint petition to remove the condition. Generally speaking, if the conditional permanent resident can show that the marriage was entered into in good faith, it is presumed that he was not at fault for failing to file a joint petition.Divorce does not adversely affect an alien's immigration status after the alien obtains permanent residence unconditionally.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, several controversial laws were enacted in order to prevent future acts of terrorism. One of these laws was the Real ID Act, which was passed in May 2005. This law was enacted in order to establish national standards for state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards as well as to make it extremely difficult for terrorists to use immigration laws to their advantage.

Currently, forms of identification, such as driver's licenses, are issued by the states, not by the federal government. States set the rules for what data is found on any identification card, and the states also maintain databases of ID card holders.

Beginning on May 11, 2008, however, a federal agency will not be able to accept any identification card issued by a state unless it meets certain requirements. Most of these requirements are already used by the states. The main source of controversy regarding the Real ID Act is the fact that in order to obtain any state issued ID card the applicant must show that he or she is lawfully present in the United States. States will also be required to collect a variety of data including name, home address, Social Security number and other identifying information, and to keep it this information in a shared database accessible to all states and the federal government. In addition, if a state does not comply with the requirements of the act, it will not be able to receive any sort of federal funding.

This requirement will make it impossible for those who are in the U.S. without any legal immigration status to obtain a state issued identification card. Without this card, a person will be unable to obtain automobile insurance, travel on any airline, apply for Social Security, or even enter federal buildings.

The Real ID Act also contains provisions in order to prevent terrorists from using the asylum process in order to reside in the United States. The Act sets forth a more rigorous standard that will make it more difficult for an applicant to be granted asylum. Furthermore, the Real ID Act provides that an alien who contributes funds or other materials to support a terrorist organization is inadmissible and deportable unless he did not know, and should not have known, that he was helping a terrorist organization.

Congress estimated that the costs of implementing the Real ID Act would be approximately $100 million. New studies, however, suggest that states will incur costs of more than $11 billion in order to meet the requirements set forth by the Act.

Many of those in favor of immigration feel that these new rules put unreasonable burdens on aliens trying to prove they are escaping from persecution, and unnecessarily broaden the definition of terrorist activity such that many will suffer "guilt by association" even if they don't support terrorism. In the end, most feel that the burdens, costs and legality of the Real ID Act outweigh any potential benefit that would result from its enforcement.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dallas Morning News columnist Mercedes Olivera has an article in the November 18, 2006, issue about a recent city resolution passed by the Dallas suburb of Farmers Branch. The resolution, in a nutshell, requires landlords to demand proof of U.S. Citizenship before leasing to a tenant, and dictates that English is the official language of the city, and therefore no city documents can be published in any other language. The article begins:

City officials in Farmers Branch who recently voted for anti-immigration measures seem increasingly out of step with the rest of the country.

And their efforts may only end up backfiring as the children of Latino immigrants take up their roles as future business and community leaders in North Texas.

Looking at races across the nation, it's easy to spot the immigration policies and supporting candidates, such as those in Arizona, who lost big in this year's midterm elections.

Most of those who promoted more comprehensive and humane immigration reform won. Indeed, exit polls showed that six in 10 U.S. voters believe undocumented immigrants should have a chance at legalization.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Xerox Corporation has set up a Web site that allows us to send Thank You cards to our troops overseas. Here is the explanation from the site:

The mission of Let's Say Thanks is to provide a way for individuals across the country to recognize U.S. troops stationed overseas. By submitting a message through this site you have the opportunity to send a free personalized postcard greeting to deployed servicemen and women.

The postcards, depicting patriotic scenes and hometown images, were selected from a pool of entries from children across the country.

All you have to do is click on your favorite design and either select the message that best expresses your sentiment or draft a personal note. The postcards are then printed on the Xerox iGen3^® Digital Production Press and mailed in care packages by military support organization Give2TheTroops^®.

Xerox is committed to helping people across the nation express their gratitude to our troops overseas. The launch of this program is aimed at reminding them how much Americans appreciate their service.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For many immigrants in the United States the Immigration Courts are the only way for their case to be heard and the only way for them to be granted any sort of legal status. Recently, however, the 208 immigration judges currently practicing are being brought under scrutiny, as they struggle to complete 350,000 cases a year amid an immigration debate that promises to increase their caseload significantly.

Many organizations have conducted studies of the immigration courts only to be shown shocking results. For example, denial rates of asylum cases from the 208 judges ranged from a low of 10% to a high of 98%. There has also been extreme judge to judge disparity, and the results of a person's case most likely depends on which immigration judge he is assigned to. Some judges approve cases in so few instances that attorneys actually advise their clients to move to another state in order to obtain a different immigration judge.

Critics of the immigration court system often call it unfair and inefficient. A closer look at the court system, however, can provide an explanation for this. According to a New York Times article, in order to maintain any sort of orderly schedule, New York judges schedule 30 to 70 cases at a time, hold 4 contested hearings a day and decide more than 15 cases a week, all without law clerks, bailiffs, stenographers or enough competent lawyers. Many people agree that it is simply impossible for a judge to make findings of fact and conclusions of law under these circumstances.

After a decision is made by an immigration judge either the alien or attorney for the government may choose to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. However, with new reforms set into place by former Attorney General John Ashcroft board membership was cut to 11 from 23 and tight deadlines were set in order to reduce a large backlog. Since then it has become unlikely that a case on appeal will be adequately reviewed, and there is even less of a chance that a decision of an immigration judge will be overturned.

Additionally, in 2002, Department of Justice issued a series of "Procedural Reforms" for the administrative court that reviews the decisions of immigration judges. This was also done in order to decrease the backlog of immigration cases that were pending. As a result of this reform, the Board of Immigration Appeals has issued thousands of single-member decisions (as opposed to the traditional 3-member panel decisions) without any written opinion. Before the changes were instituted, 1 in 4 appeals was granted. Now only 1 in 10 is granted. This has profound consequences for immigrants and their families.

Several organizations such as The Rights Working Group and Human Rights First have been working diligently to make changes to the courts. Although unfortunate, unless significant changes are made to the current immigration court system and to the Board of Immigration appeals, it is unlikely that any of these problems will be resolved.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

That was the headline of a story in yesterday's Dallas Morning News about the flood of bills pre-filed in the Texas Legislature. The News article offers the opinion that immigration will be a primary focus of the legislative session that starts in January. Many of the pre-filed bills are definitely anti-immigration. Here is a partial list of immigration-related bills, as noted in the article:

• Enact a constitutional amendment to prohibit illegal immigrants from benefiting from state services, including health care, public assistance and education.

• Require proof of citizenship on delivery of medical assistance.

• Require proof of citizenship to vote.

• Require proof of legal residence to be considered for in-state tuition at colleges and universities.

• Require proof of employment eligibility to get any kind of business, occupational or professional license from the state, counties or cities.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This extremely interesting and comprehensive article is provided by the The Immigrant Resource Center. The opinions and judgments are theirs.

The November mid-term election was a repudiation of the Republican majority and a strong protest against the status quo -- whatever the status quo voters were registering their opposition to: the war in Iraq, Congressional corruption, the economy, or terrorism.  And this mid-term election was largely focused on national, not local, issues.

Immigration Not A Wedge Issue: Republican leadership tried, but failed, to make immigration the wedge issue that would ensure their continued control of Congress after aggressively promoting an enforcement-only measure (H.R.4437) as their solution to reforming our broken immigration system. In fact, exit polling as reported by the Washington Post found that fewer than one in three cited immigration "as extremely important in influencing their decision, and they only narrowly favored Republican candidates.  About six in 10 voters said that they believe illegal immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for legal status..... Democratic candidates won support from 61 percent of those who backed a path to citizenship, according to the poll."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dallas Morning News has a thoughtful editorial today regarding rule changes to prevent illegal aliens from receiving free medical treatment for their children. Here are excerpts from the editorial:

Hospitals and doctors across the country report that newborns have been denied coverage since a federal policy that prohibits automatic Medicaid eligibility to babies took effect this year. And it's only a matter of time before this new law results in unintended tragedy.

Before President Bush signed the change into law in February, babies in most states were automatically eligible for Medicaid. States had to cover children's medical expenses for one year. The new policy requires that parents also fill out an application and prove the child is a U.S. citizen. The problem? Processing birth certificates can sometimes take weeks - or months.

Texas has long required proof of identity for Medicaid applicants. But the additional proof of citizenship requirement is making it more difficult to get help at chronically understaffed and overwhelmed eligibility offices in such cities as Dallas, Fort Worth and Austin.

The new guidelines are designed to curb fraudulent abuse of Medicaid benefits, a worthy goal. But innocent children should not be left vulnerable because of possible paperwork tie-ups.

Even worse, misinformation might keep parents from taking their child to the hospital until the baby is gravely ill. Also, consider that denying health care now will only be more costly when the child ends up in the emergency room - which by law must provide help to all in need.

One thing we can all agree on is that denying medical services to a young child - who has no culpability in where he or she is born - is cruel and unusual punishment. Let's get this straightened out before we read about that first needless infant death.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Local election results can be found at the Dallas Morning News, and national results at CNN.

The big news in Dallas County for lawyers is that the Democrats won EVERY contested judicial election.

Nationally, with a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and possibly a Democratically-controlled Senate, there is a better chance of comprehensive immigration reform.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Columnist Ruben Navarrette Jr. has an article on CNN warning Latinos that a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives may be no better than the current Republican-controlled House.

I refuse to be as pessimistic as Mr. Navarrette, but he does make some valid points. Here are excerpts from his article:

Just because a GOP-controlled House of Representatives screwed up immigration reform six ways from Sunday doesn't mean that House Democrats will do any better, or that they'll even feel compelled to try. Remember this is the same bunch of cowards whose leadership, a few months ago, produced a 25-page booklet laying out what they intended to accomplish if they won control of the House. The booklet left out any mention of immigration reform beyond that piece of low-hanging fruit: border security.

Political experts agreed that Democrats were terrified that the immigration issue would hurt them in conservative districts. Hispanic Democrats were furious and publicly criticized the leaders of their own party for dodging the immigration issue.

Now, my hunch is that we're even less likely to see anything resembling amnesty for illegal immigrants under a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives than we were when the Republicans ran things.

Three reasons:

With Republicans in charge, you had their benefactors in the business community pushing hard for legalization in the hopes that it might provide additional workers. Democrats' benefactors are in organized labor, which has -- in the last decade or so -- come around to supporting legalization but not if it's tied to a guest worker program, which might be the only way that Republicans would sign on;

Once Democrats taste power, they're going to like it, and they're going to want to keep it. So they're likely to keep their heads down and not do anything that might increase the likelihood that voters will take a corrective action in 2008 and bounce them back into the minority. At the top of the list is passing anything that looks, sounds or smells like amnesty;

And Democrats won't think twice about betraying their Latino supporters on this issue because they take Latino votes for granted anyway. They haven't come up with a new strategy for getting Latino votes since the 1950s when Texas Democrats used to parachute into Hispanic neighborhoods at election time with tacos and beer.

So it's a safe bet that, even if Democrats retake the House of Representatives, Latinos eventually will come out on the losing end.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If you haven't voted yet, would you like to know which industries and lobbyists are supporting which candidates? You can learn that and much more at the OpenSecrets Web site.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Vote411.org is an excellent educational site that will give you pretty much all the information you could ever need regarding the election November 7, 2006. Check it out before you vote.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks