Hispanic Foreign-born Workers in US Average 76.4 Cents Per Dollar Earned by Native-borns

In 2010 there were 24.4 million foreign-born workers making up 15.8 percent of the US labor market says a roundup report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

With an unemployment rate at 9.8 percent, foreign-born workers fared no better than native-born workers, and they made less money.

“Native-born workers were more likely than foreign-born workers to be employed in management, professional, and related occupations (38.9 versus 28.0 percent), and in sales and office occupations (25.3 versus 17.3 percent),” said the BLS report.

“Foreign-born workers were more likely than native-born workers to be employed in service occupations (25.0 versus 16.4 percent); in production, transportation, and material moving occupations (16.1 versus 10.8 percent); and in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (13.6 versus 8.6 percent).”

In terms of earnings, “the median usual weekly earnings of foreign-born full-time wage and salary workers ($598) were 77.5 percent of the earnings of their native-born counterparts ($771). Among
men, median earnings for the foreign born were $610 per week, while the native born earned $873 per week. The median usual weekly earnings for foreign-born women were $577, compared with $686 for native-born women.”

While earnings of foreign-born and native-born workers were “similar” for white, black, or Asian workers, there was a significant difference between Hispanic workers, with foreign-born Hispanic workers making 76.4 percent as much as native-born Hispanic workers.

While close to one third of workers had college degrees, whether foreign-born or native-born, there was a 12 point difference in “some college or an associates degree” (17.1 of foreign-born versus 29.9 percent native born). And a downright disparity in high school equivalency.

“In 2010, 26.5 percent of the foreign-born labor force age 25 and over had not completed high school, compared with 5.4 percent of the native-born labor force.”

According to numbers published by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), about one third of the foreign-born population in the US is considered “unauthorized.” If labor force participation is the same for authorized and unauthorized foreign-born populations, then about 5 percent of the US labor market would be comprised of unauthorized foreign-born workers.

According to DHS tables, 80 percent of the “unauthorized” population would generally be classified as Hispanic; therefore, 4 percent of the US labor market would be foreign-born, “unauthorized,” Hispanic, and earning wages that pay 76.5 cent per every dollar paid to native-born Hispanics.–gm

Obama Administration Setting Record for Felony Prosecutions of Immigrants

The administration of President Barack Obama is setting records for felony prosecutions of immigrants, as “illegal reentry” becomes “the most commonly recorded lead charge brought by federal prosecutors during the first half of FY 2011,” says a report by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University.

While the administration is pursuing fewer and fewer cases of misdemeanor “illegal entry” the numbers of felony “illegal reentry” prosecutions in 2011 is projected to reach more than 37,000 or more than double the number of such cases (17,679) recorded in 2007.

“Illegal reentry is a felony offense and results in longer sentences than the second most frequent immigration charge brought this year, illegal entry, which is classed as a petty misdemeanor,” says the TRAC report.

“During the first six months of 2011, the average prison sentence was 14 months for those convicted where illegal reentry was recorded as the lead charge. This contrasts with an average of only 1 month prison time for convictions where the recorded lead charge was just illegal entry. Together, these two statutes account for over nine out of ten (91 percent) of all immigration criminal prosecutions.”

This is the first year that the number of felony reentry charges exceeds the number of charges for misdemeanor entry.

“Virtually all prosecutions for illegal entry (98 percent) are the result of investigations by the Border Patrol, and the number of border apprehensions have fallen off sharply particularly beginning in FY 2007,” says the TRAC report. “Relative to the number of apprehensions at the border, however, the odds of being criminally prosecuted have actually been climbing.”–gm

168 Cases Pending at T. Don Hutto

During the first seven months of fiscal year 2011, there were 168 immigration cases pending at the T. Don Hutto Immigrant Detention Center for Women in Taylor, Texas with the majority of immigrants (111) from Guatemala, El Salvador, or Honduras. Cases at the facility were handled in an average of 30 days.

The numbers come from a database tool offered by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University. The Immigration Court Backlog Tool shows that 16 of the cases involve women from China, ten more that were reported in fiscal year 2010.

“Among individual Immigration Courts, and considering only those with at least 1,000 pending cases, the court with the fastest buildup during FY 2011 was the Immigration Court in San Antonio, Texas, where pending cases jumped by 26 percent,” says a June 7 report by TRAC.

The San Antonio Immigration Court had 7,465 cases pending in the first seven months of FY 2011 (through the beginning of May). 3,462 (or 46 percent) of the cases were from Mexico. 2,458 ( or 32 percent) were from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

India (with 221 pending cases) and Cuba (with 174) ranked fifth and sixth for numbers of cases pending in the San Antonio Immigration Court. China (with 82 cases) ranked tenth.

The San Antonio Immigration Court resolved pending cases in an average of 239 days. Cases from Mexico took an average of 277 days to resolve.

“The number of cases awaiting resolution before the Immigration Courts reached a new all-time high of 275,316 by the beginning of May 2011,” says the TRAC report. “The average time these pending cases have been waiting in the Immigration Courts of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is now 482 days, compared with 467 days at the end of last year.”

A 2010 fact sheet at the website of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that the T. Don Hutto facility has a capacity of 512 beds and an average length of stay of 31 days. The official descriptions do not mention that the facility is supposedly reserved for immigrant women. –gm

Preview: The Case for Rrustem Neza's Asylum

Attorney John Wheat Gibson has provided via email the following motion on behalf of asylum for Rrustem Neza. The motion will be filed officially on Nov. 7, 2007-gm

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA

In the Matter of
RRUSTEM NEZA
NURIE NEZA
XHELADIN NEZA

Petitioners
IN ASYLUM PROCEEDINGS

PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO DHS OPPOSITION
TO AMENDED MOTION TO REOPEN

TO THE HONORABLE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APEALS:

Petitioners RRUSTEM NEZA, NURIE NEZA, and XHELADIN NEZA hereby file their Petitioners’ Reply to DHS Opposition to Amended Motion to Reopen, respectfully showing the following:

Petitioners filed their Amended Motion to Reopen on Account of Changed Circumstances on or about 9 October 2007, together with exhibits proving that during September 2007 at least three Albanian newspapers published front page articles naming Rrustem Neza as having identified the assassins of Democratic Party leader Azem Hajdari, reporting that he had been denied asylum in the US, and announcing that he soon would be deported from the US to Albania. Alerted to Rrustem Neza’s imminent return, therefore, the assassins would be waiting for him with sharpened knives.

The DHS filed a Department of Homeland Security’s Opposition to Respondents’ Amended Motion to Reopen on or about 5 November 2007, readily acknowledging that Mr. Neza likely will be murdered on account of his political opinion if returned to Albania, but declaring it to be his own fault for trying to rally public support for his efforts to avoid being delivered into the hands of the assassins.

His efforts have begun to awaken people who value elementary fairness and ordinary decency in legal proceedings. Congressman Louie Gomert on 1 November 2007 filed two private bills in the United States Congress, one to prevent the deportation of Mr. Neza and make him a legal resident of the US, and the other to stop the deportation until he has an opportunity to present the facts of his case to an immigration judge. Congressman Gomert also wrote a letter that was printed in the Lufkin Times newspaper describing the conduct of the government in its eagerness to kill Mr. Neza. That letter, as published, is attached as Exhibit 1. The private bills are attached as Exhibit 2.

The Petitioner has asked the BIA and the Circuit Court to allow him an opportunity to present the facts of his case to an immigration judge, claiming that he is entitled to do so by the Constitution of the United States and by the treaty obligations of the US. It is not necessary, however, to invoke the denial of due process that Mr. Neza’s previous attorney obviously caused to Mr. Neza by his ineffective assistance. Mr. Neza is entitled by 8 USC §1229a(b)(4)(B) to the right of which the government continues to seek to deprive him:

There is no need to invoked the Constitution when the immigration statute itself guarantees a fair hearing. 8 USC §1229a(b)(4)(B) (the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross examine witnesses presented by the Government”) Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F3d 506, 508 (7th Cir 2006) (aliens have both statutory, and regulatory, entitlements to present all material evidence at impartial hearings. Any proceeding that meets these requirements satisfies the Constitution as well.” (citations omitted)). The specific statutory right with which the immigration judge interfered in this case was the alien’s right to “a reasonable opportunity…to present evidence.” Kadia v. Gonzales, slip opinion No. 06-1299 (7th Cir—7 September 2007)

The clearly established statutory right to “a reasonable opportunity…to present evidence” plainly was denied to Mr. Neza by the incompetence of Mr. Haber in preparation for and trial of removal proceedings, and in the appeal filed by Mr. Haber’s partner Mr. Roth, whose main concern was to prevent embarrassment to Mr. Haber, rather than effective representation of Mr. Neza, as any lawyer can see by reading the transcript of the hearing and the text of Mr. Roth’s brief and his Motion to Reopen to the BIA.

In its Opposition the DHS simply ignores the law, and makes the conclusory allegation that “Respondent’s former counsel zealously represented him.” Of course, the DHS makes no attempt to show any examples of that zealous representation. There are none. The government simply hopes that its ranting will divert attention from the specific facts of the case to its abstract and incessantly repeated mantra that “the regulations ‘plainly disfavor’ motions to reopen.” As if that were sufficient reason to abandon the laws and treaty obligations of the United States in order to kill Mr. Neza. The government makes such noise to distract the BIA’s attention from the undisputed fact that former counsel was not even aware at trial that his own client had with him the death certificates of the two murdered cousins with whom he had hidden in Albania after the Hajdari assassination.

Perhaps most outrageous, however, is the willingness of the DHS to seek litigation advantage by lying to the BIA knowingly about things its attorney could not possibly have any knowledge of. Although the BIA publishes Disciplinary Actions Under Rules of Professional Conduct, the names of government attorneys never appear there, no matter how dishonest and unethical they may be.

The DHS writes that the news stories in the Albanian newspapers announcing the imminent return of Mr. Neza to the hands of the assassins “do not contemplate evidence that is material…” because “The news articles originate from the United States.” The DHS statement is not merely stupid: it is a deliberate misrepresentation. One of the two articles in the Korrieri, 5 September 2007, is essentially a translation to Albanian of a request for assistance that Mr. Neza’s attorney published in the Texas Civil Rights Review, in English, one of the articles in Agon, 12 September 2007 appropriately cites the Associated Press, and one of the articles in the Tirana Observer, 13 September 2007, cites the Dallas Morning News, all of the reports include extensive background on the Hajdari assassination and ensuing investigations, which does not appear in any of the U.S. media. Worse, is the plain lie that “Any interest in Albania about Respondents’ case is a direct result of Respondent’s attorney’s own webpage and attempt to publicize the case in the US and in Albania.” Of course, if publicity generated by Mr. Neza’s attorney attracts the attention of the assassins so that they murder Mr. Neza on account of his political opinion when he returns to Albania, Mr. Neza will be no less dead. Neither human life nor logic are of any interest to the DHS. Unfortunately, neither is truth. Mr. Neza’s attorney does not have a web page. Moreover, Mr. Neza’s counsel has done nothing to publicize the case in Albania, contrary to the DHS statement. Not to confuse the BIA with mere fact and truth, the DHS provides no evidence that Mr. Neza’s counsel has tried to publicize his case in Albania. The DHS also contradicts itself: it says Mr. Neza will be killed in Albania on account of his political opinion now that the assassins have been alerted to his arrival, but his asylum claim has never had any merit. The DHS should not be allowed to have it both ways. Either the killers of Hajdari want to silence the potential witnesses against them or they do not. DHS is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Perhaps, however, the DHS should be congratulated on its sense of humor, if, indeed, its argument is not mere confusion. It argues that former counsel presented the immigration judge with “numerous inconsistencies, both internally in testimony and with the documentary evidence…” and when the BIA reviewed the record created by that attorney ”
both in appeal a
nd in a motion to reconsider” it found no reason to reverse the immigration judge. From this proof (undeniable proof in light of the evidence that has been presented to the Board by present counsel) of previous counsel’s incompetence, the DHS argues the BIA should conclude the representation by previous counsel was not ineffective. It is, of course, precisely because prior counsel presented a case riddled with “inconsistencies” when he could have presented a plainly meritorious case, if he had bothered to investigate what his client had been through and what evidence was easily available to him (indeed, he did not even know his client had with him his cousins’ death certificates!) that his performance was so far beneath that which the Constitution and laws of the United States require that it denied Mr. Neza a reasonable opportunity to present his evidence. Prior counsel argues, and the DHS bays along with him and his partner, that since the record prior counsel created was so defective the BIA could not find in that same record a meritorious asylum claim, the BIA now should ignore the evidence that it now knows prior counsel could have put into the record, and which almost certainly would have resulted in a grant of asylum to Mr. Neza.

Perhaps the DHS has its own reasons for wanting to prevent disclosure of the facts that might surface if Mr. Neza were afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case in the immigration court. It is clear that neither the BIA in its previous denial of Mr. Neza’s Lozada motion nor the DHS in its present pleadings, doubts that Mr. Neza very likely will be murdered if returned to Albania, and that the murder will be because of his political opinion.

The BIA should not deny Mr. Neza the right to a fair hearing before sending him to his death. It is hard to imagine a more flagrant blot on the honor of the United States than the efforts of the DHS to deny to Mr. Neza the reasonable opportunity, which the laws of the United States guarantee him, to present his case to an immigration judge. The BIA should look at all of the evidence before it, and reject the mere bureaucratic spite for which the DHS argues. If it does, it will reopen Mr. Neza’s asylum application.

Respectfully submitted,
JOHN WHEAT GIBSON, P.C.