Defense Secretary Robert Gates told US has ‘interest’ in keeping troops in Iraq

WASHINGTON Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a House committee Wednesday that the Obama administration is interested in having more military personnel in Iraq after 2011 than the roughly 150 who are currently scheduled to remain.The rest of the U.S. force, which now numbers about 47,000, is leaving under a 2008 agreement with the Iraqi government.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Gates stressed that unless the Iraqis ask the U.S. to renegotiate that deal, the pullout will proceed.”There is certainly on our part an interest in having an additional presence,” Gates said. “And the truth of the matter is the Iraqis are going to have some problems that they are going to have to deal with if we are not there in some numbers.” He mentioned gaps in Iraq’s ability to protect its own airspace, to meld its intelligence systems and to provide for its own logistics and maintenance of military equipment.

Under the troop pullout agreement that the administration of George W. Bush signed with the Iraqi government shortly before Bush left office, all U.S. troops are to be out of the country by the end of this year. The only exception is 150-160 uniformed officers who are to support Iraqi training and military equipment purchases; Gates said they would work with several hundred contractors in a civilian-run Office of Security Cooperation in Baghdad.(AP)

Immigrants in New York City have a lower unemployment rate and participate in the labor force at a higher rate than native

Immigrants in New York City have a lower unemployment rate and participate in the labor force at a higher rate than native-born Americans, a divergence from the national trends that may reflect optimism about the recovery.The economic recession didn’t hit New York City as badly as other parts of the country. The city lost proportionally fewer payroll jobs than the nation as a whole.

A report by the Fiscal Policy Institute, a think tank, shows that in the first five months of 2010 the unemployment rate for immigrants in New York City was 8.8 percent while the rate for native-born residents was 10.9 percent. The city average was 9.9 percent.”When employers see the light at the beginning of the recovery, when they begin hiring again, the first kind of worker they seek will likely be expendable,” said Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Center in Washington.

“New York has always relied on immigrants, and new immigrants, to drive its economy,” he said.Labor participation rates of U.S.-born New Yorkers declined from 59.2 percent in 2008 to 57.1 percent in 2010, while that of immigrant residents rose from 60 percent to 64.1 percent in the same period, the study said.

Labor participation is defined by those employed plus those actively looking for work.”Immigrant labor force participation in New York goes up during the recession, underscoring the notion that as the economy worsens, immigrants are more increasingly looking for work to cover their needs,” said David Dyssegaard Kallick, senior fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute who authored the report.

Kallick measured immigrants’ employment, regardless of their legal status, using five months of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau.Immigrants laborers are more likely to relocate in pursuit of work, and without access to unemployment insurance many more quickly accept undesirable and temporary jobs.

“We see people coming from towns in Michigan, from Wisconsin, from North Carolina,” said Cirilo Gonzalez, 50, who works on indoor construction, primarily installing drywall.Oscar Hernandez, 39, moved to the United States 12 years ago from the central Mexican state of Morelos, and said labor conditions in New York push some immigrant workers to New Jersey or Philadelphia.”Seven dollars an hour is bad but it’s better than nothing,” Hernandez said. “My family is waiting for food.”(Reuters)

Senate approves $26.1 billion for state aid

The Senate on Thursday approved a jobs bill that would send states $26.1 billion to help them cope with historic budget shortfalls and give Democratic lawmakers a victory to tout on the campaign trail ahead of the November elections.By a 61-to-39 vote, the Senate passed a bill that would send the states $16.1 billion for Medicaid, the healthcare program for the poor, and $10 billion to prevent teacher layoffs. States could face total budget gaps this year of $120 billion.

The U.S. House of Representatives, in a rare move by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has been summoned back from its August recess to vote on the measure. That is expected to happen on Tuesday. The bill would then go to President Barack Obama for his signature. Similar measures previously have passed the House.Republicans say the legislation will add to the deficit and tie states’ hands on how to spend the funds. They have attacked it as a “job-killing tax increase.”

They also say the bill serves “special interest groups,” specifically teachers unions whose members tend to vote for Democrats.Pelosi said that labeling teachers and police officers, who will also benefit from the state aid, is demeaning.”This legislation is about creating and saving American jobs and preventing a double-dip recession,” she said. “It is fiscally responsible and fully paid for.”

Democrats facing a wave of anti-Washington anger hope the bill will convince voters going to the polls on November 2 of their commitment to bring down the U.S. unemployment rate, which is near 10 percent.The fragile economic recovery is foremost on the minds of voters and candidates for the 435 House seats and 37 Senate seats up for grabs.

Although states have been begging for the Medicaid money, they are wary of the teachers’ fund as it requires them to keep education spending at 2008 levels, which many cannot afford.Supporters say the bill will not add to the deficit because it is paid for by closing tax loopholes, eliminating advance refunds on the earned income tax credit and ending stimulus funds for food stamps earlier than expected.

One loophole that would be closed would raise more than $10 billion over a decade by preventing companies from claiming foreign tax credits for income not yet subject to U.S. tax.More than half of the 50 U.S. states counted on the additional funds for Medicaid for fiscal 2011, which started last month for many.

States use federal reimbursements to run the program. The $862 billion economic stimulus plan passed last year boosted the reimbursements, but the extra money runs out in December and states have been considering spending cuts and tax cuts to fill the void.The Medicaid money will also give older people access to healthcare, said AARP, the lobbying group for older Americans.

“States are better able to continue offering the often less costly home and community-based service that older Americans overwhelmingly prefer to more expensive nursing homes,” said the group representing retirees.The healthcare industry generally found reassurance in the Senate vote, saying the extra money will help hospitals and pharmacies continue to provide services.

One state, though, was not pleased. The bill would require Texas to agree to maintain or increase education funding during fiscal 2011, 2012 and 2013, in order to receive any of the teacher funds.The federal government was targeting the Lone Star state, said Governor Rick Perry, a Republican running for reelection in November.”Washington would be taking yet another step toward usurping the state’s authority by determining how to fund our schools, and what’s worse, no other state is subject to this provision,” Perry added.(Reuters) –

federal appeals court has decided not to step into the controversy over Arizona's tough immigration law until November

PHOENIX A federal appeals court has decided not to step into the controversy over Arizona’s tough immigration law until November, leaving state officials to consider other steps they might take in the meantime.Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law and appealed a ruling blocking its most controversial sections, said Friday she would consider changes to “tweak” the law to respond to the parts U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton faulted.

“Basically we believe (the law) is constitutional but she obviously pointed out faults that can possibly be fixed, and that’s what we would do,” Brewer told The Associated Press. Brewer said she’s talking to legislative leaders about the possibility of a special session, but said no specific changes had been identified.In her temporary injunction Wednesday, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. Bolton indicated the federal government’s case has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law.Brewer has said she’ll challenge the decision all the way to the Supreme Court.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order late Friday that it will hold a hearing on Brewer’s challenge in the first week of November. Briefs from the state are due Aug. 26.

Brewer had asked for an expedited appeals process, with a hearing scheduled for the week of Sept. 13. State lawyers had argued that the appeal involves an issue of “significant importance” the state’s right to implement a law to address “the irreparable harm Arizona is suffering as a result of unchecked unlawful immigration.”The federal government countered that there was no need to expedite the matter because “the only effect of the district court’s injunction in this case is to preserve a status quo that has existed for a long period of time.”

Calls Friday night to Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman and Phoenix attorney John Bouma, who is defending the immigration law on the governor’s behalf, were not immediately returned.Democrats scoffed at Brewer’s desire to change the law, with a key House minority leader calling it laughable.”Why would we help her?” asked Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix. “This bill is so flawed and clearly a federal judge agrees.”

House Speaker Kirk Adams said there would be little support among fellow Republicans to weaken the law.Attorneys have begun reviewing the statute to identify possible changes, he said: “It’s embryonic.”Sen. Russell Pearce, the law’s chief sponsor, said he would only back changes to make it stronger.

Even though the law’s critics scored a huge victory with the judge’s decision, passions among hundreds of immigrant rights supporters still flared at demonstrations near the federal courthouse in downtown Phoenix after the parts of the law that weren’t blocked took effect Thursday. At least 70 people have been arrested.The law’s supporters reacted too, and a fund set up to help defend the measure added $75,000 Wednesday alone, giving the state more than $1.6 million to get Bolton’s ruling overturned.Meanwhile, hundreds of emails and phone calls including some threats have poured into the courthouse.

Federal officials in charge of court security wouldn’t say whether anyone made a death threat against Bolton and wouldn’t provide specifics of the threats they were examining. But a majority of the emails and phone calls to the judge’s chambers and the court clerk’s office are from people who want to complain about her ruling, officials said.”We understand that people will vent and have a First Amendment right to express their dissatisfaction. We expect this,” said David Gonzales, the U.S. marshal for Arizona. “But we want to look at the people who go over the line.”

Arizona sheriff Arpaio forges ahead with aggressive immigration sweeps even after court ruling

PHOENIX Lost in the hoopla over Arizona’s immigration law is the fact that state and local authorities for years have been doing their own aggressive crackdowns in the busiest illegal gateway into the country.Nowhere in the U.S. is local enforcement more present than in metropolitan Phoenix, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio routinely carries out sweeps, some in Hispanic neighborhoods, to arrest illegal immigrants. The tactics have made him the undisputed poster boy for local immigration enforcement and the anger that so many authorities feel about the issue.

“It’s my job,” said Arpaio, standing beside a sheriff’s truck that has a number for an immigration hot line written on its side. “I have two state (immigration) laws that I am enforcing. It’s not federal, it’s state.”A ruling Wednesday by a federal judge put on hold parts of the new law that would have required officers to dig deeper into the fight against illegal immigration. Arizona says it was forced to act because the federal government isn’t doing its job to fight immigration.

The issue led to demonstrations across the country Thursday, including one directed at Arpaio in Phoenix in which protesters beat on the metal door of a jail and chanted, “Sheriff Joe, we are here. We will not live in fear.”Meanwhile, Gov. Jan Brewer’s lawyers went to court to overturn the judge’s ruling so they can fight back against what the Republican calls an “invasion” of illegal immigrants.

Ever since the main flow of illegal immigrants into the country shifted to Arizona a decade ago, state politicians and local police have been feeling pressure to confront the state’s border woes.In addition to Arpaio’s crackdowns, other efforts include a steady stream of busts by the state and local police of stash houses where smugglers hide illegal immigrants. The state attorney general has taken a money-wiring company to civil court on allegations that smugglers used their service to move money to Mexico. And a county south of Phoenix has its sheriff’s deputies patrol dangerous smuggling corridors.The Arizona Legislature have enacted a series of tough-on-immigration measures in recent years that culminated with the law signed by Brewer in April, catapulting the Republican to the national political stage.

But the king of local immigration enforcement is still Arpaio.Arpaio, a 78-year-old ex-federal drug agent who fashions himself as a modern-day John Wayne, launched his latest sweep Thursday afternoon, sending about 200 sheriff’s deputies and trained volunteers out across metro Phoenix to look for traffic violators who may be here illegally.

Deputy Bob Dalton and volunteer Heath Kowacz spotted a driver with a cracked windshield in a poor Phoenix neighborhood near a busy freeway. Dalton triggered the red and blue police lights and pulled over 28-year-old Alfredo Salas, who was born in Mexico but has lived in Phoenix with a resident alien card since 1993.

Dalton gave him a warning after Salas produced his license and registration and told him to get the windshield fixed.Salas, a married father of two who installs granite, told The Associated Press that he was treated well but he wondered whether he was pulled over because his truck is a Ford Lobo.

“It’s a Mexican truck so I don’t know if they saw that and said, ‘I wonder if he has papers or not,'” Salas said. “If that’s the case, it kind of gets me upset.”Sixty percent of the nearly 1,000 people arrested in the sweeps since early 2008 have been illegal immigrants. Thursday’s dragnet led to four arrests, but it wasn’t clear if any of them were illegal immigrants.Critics say deputies racially profile Hispanics. Arpaio says deputies approach people only when they have probable cause.

“Sheriff Joe Arpaio and some other folks there decided they can make a name for themselves in terms of the intensity of the efforts they’re using,” said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the pro-immigrant Immigration Policy Center. “There’s no way to deny that. There are a lot of people getting caught up in these efforts.”The Justice Department launched an investigation of his office nearly 17 months ago over allegations of discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures. Although the department has declined to detail its investigation, Arpaio believes it centers on his sweeps.

Arpaio feels no reservations about continuing to push the sweeps, even after the federal government stripped his power to let 100 deputies make federal immigration arrests.Unable to make arrests under a federal statute, the sheriff instead relied on a nearly 5-year-old state law that prohibits immigrant smuggling. He has also raided 37 businesses in enforcing a state law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.”I’m not going to brag,” Arpaio said. “Just look at the record. I’m doing what I feel is right for the people of Maricopa County.” (AP)

Joe Biden said on Friday "the hard lifting" is done for the year and now it is time for Democrats to campaign

Vice President Joe Biden said on Friday “the hard lifting” is done for the year and now it is time for Democrats to campaign on their achievements ahead of November 2 congressional elections.Biden spoke at a fund-raising event in Columbia, South Carolina, for Democratic Representative John Spratt’s re-election campaign.

Democrats are trying to prevent Republicans from regaining control of Congress in the November 2 elections amid a weak U.S. economy and a stubbornly high 9.5 percent nationwide unemployment rate.Legislative achievements by President Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats so far have not led to a big vote of confidence from Americans in their leadership.A CNN-Opinion Research poll released on Friday said 42 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the U.S. economy, compared to 57 percent who disapprove.

Biden, who was a U.S. senator from Delaware for 36 years from 1973 to 2009 until he became vice president, said Democrats in the next three months need to emphasize the tough decisions they have had to make.Since taking office 18 months ago, Obama has pushed through Congress an $862 billion economic stimulus plan, bailed out banks and auto companies, and overhauled the U.S. healthcare system and financial regulations.

“Here’s the problem — we’ve been working so hard to get these major new building blocks laid down,” Biden said. “They are so big, so heavy, that the American people don’t understand what’s in it for them yet.””Now that the hard lifting is done, we’re going to spend the next 90 days going out explaining to people exactly what it means to them,” Biden said.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs in the November elections and 37 Senate seats. Democrats control both chambers.Analysts believe enough House seats are in play that Republicans could conceivably win the House while falling short of controlling the Senate.

Biden said it is understandable that many Americans are angry about the economy. Once voters pay attention to Republican policies, he said, Democrats will see improved prospects.”They don’t want to think about anything other than what’s made them mad,” he said.Eventually Americans will “have to look at the alternatives and not just be generically angry,” said Biden.(Reuters)

Obama's Justice Department will soon file a lawsuit against the controversial Arizona law

President Obama added a late meeting this afternoon, a closed-to-the-press session featuring only what the White House described as “grassroots leaders” to discuss “comprehensive immigration reform.”The meeting takes place amid anticipation that Obama’s Justice Department will soon file a lawsuit against the controversial Arizona law that gives law enforcement officers authority to ask residents about their citizenship.

Obama said the law opens the door to potential harassment and that a better solution is comprehensive reform that combines tighter border security with a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already in the U.S.

Critics such as Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the focus should be on border enforcement. Brewer, who met with Obama this month at the White House, said her state’s law is a logical response to the federal government’s failure to protect the border.And in related Arizona immigration news, the Supreme Court today agreed to review a 2007 state law that punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.(AP)

Obama administration poised to challenge Arizona immigration law

The White House is expected to file a lawsuit next week. Arizona has raised more than $120,000 in private donations to defend the legislation.Reporting from Washington  A White House showdown with the state of Arizona over its tough new immigration law is likely to unfold next week, when the Obama administration is expected to file a lawsuit aimed at blocking the state’s bid to curb illegal immigration on its own, according to people familiar with the administration’s plans.

Arizona officials are girding for the legal challenge. The state has raised $123,000 in private donations to defend the law, according to Gov. Jan Brewer’s office. Money has come in from all 50 states, in donations as little as $1.Obama administration officials declined to reveal the basis for the suit. But legal experts say the challenge is likely to include the argument that in passing the law, Arizona violated the Constitution by intruding on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration.To date, the state has been hit with five lawsuits. The law, SB 1070, was signed in April and is scheduled to go into effect July 29.

By confronting Arizona, the Obama administration would be making a political statement as much as a legal one. Obama has already criticized the Arizona law as “misdirected.” Criminal action against illegal immigrants is not, by itself, a satisfactory solution to the nation’s dysfunctional immigration system, the White House says.Obama has said that part of the remedy must include a path to legal status for the estimated 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally. But with mid-term elections approaching, the president has not made the politically explosive issue a legislative priority for 2010.

Brewer and other Republican officials have recoiled at the prospect of a federal suit.”Perhaps the administration should focus on getting the assets they promised to the border region rather than wasting time and taxpayer dollars on suing the state of Arizona,” said Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The Obama administration tipped its hand on its plans earlier this month when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an Ecuadoran television interview that a lawsuit was coming. Outraged, Brewer said the administration should “inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”

The Arizona law empowers police, after making a lawful stop, to verify the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect are in the country illegally.

Opponents warn that the law could be easily abused — enforced in a fashion that unfairly targets Latinos.Lucas Guttentag, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and an attorney who is part of a group of civil rights organizations contesting the law, said: “A legal challenge by the Justice Department would help ensure that Arizona’s renegade state law, which will cause racial profiling and undermine effective law enforcement, does not actually go into effect.”

Sarah Palin was illegal and must repay nearly $400,000 to donors

A legal defense fund for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was illegal and must repay nearly $400,000 to donors, according to a settlement with a state-appointed lawyer announced on Thursday.But Palin, the feisty former Republican vice presidential candidate who has become a fixture of the conservative Tea Party movement, probably violated a state ethics act without knowing she was doing so, independent counsel Tim Petumenos said.

While governor, Palin faced some two dozen ethics complaints, which she said left her with a legal bill of more than $500,000. Her political action committee raised a fund to pay for her defense.A preliminary ruling by another independent counsel last year said the fund was illegal because it used her official position as governor to raise money for her personal gain.Petumenos confirmed the decision and said no such legal defense fund had ever been set up before for a state official in Alaska.

Palin violated the ethics rules because she was a beneficiary of the fund but probably relied on bad advice from out-of-state lawyers to conclude it was above board, Petumenos said at a news conference.He added that Palin should have checked with the state attorney general before pursuing the fund.

“It is the responsibility of every public official to make sure they are personally compliant with the (Alaska Ethics) Act,” he said.The deal requires Palin’s fund to give back to donors $386,856 collected while she was in office. A further $33,546 collected after she resigned will not be affected by the deal.Palin, no longer a public official, has launched a new defense fund. She is now independently wealthy but her lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, told reporters he still believed she ran up the legal costs in her capacity as governor and so a new fund was justified.(Reuters)

Rahm Emanuel would resign from the position of White House Chief of Staff

Some foreign media reported that Rahm Emanuel would resign from the position of White House Chief of Staff because he was tired with the idealism of the people inside the circle of the government of President Barack Obama.

UK newspaper, Telegraph, citing unnamed sources from Washington, launched that Emanuel will withdraw in six to eight months. A number of media such as New York Times, the Daily Telegraph; Israeli newspaper Haartez; and New York Magazine, then follow the preaching of the Telegraph. They called Emanuel would resign out of frustration will officials stubbornly difficult to unite opinion in order to pass the government’s policies the United States (U.S.).

However, so far no official statement from the White House about it. Emanuel, 55 years old, really enjoyed working relationship with Obama. However, as media reported that, Emanuel and Obama are equally understand that the difference in style between them will result in Emanuel – are known to talk frankly and this aggressive – only to be served during the half period of a four-year tenure .

Emanuel friends also says that followers of the Jewish and fluent in Hebrew is worried that he would be “annihilated” if still maintaining his position. He also felt it would be farther away from his family because of the pressures of work to be received as a holder of one of the key positions in U.S. government.

It has become an old story in Washington that the arguments and differences of opinion occurred between Emanuel minded pragmatist and a very senior member of Congress who are known to compromise.

A U.S. government official from the era of Bill Clinton’s claim would not be surprised if Emanuel will be back around November when the Democratic Party is struggling to maintain its majority in the House and Senate. If I were to resign from the White House, Emanuel is rumored to be running for mayor of Chicago, his birthplace.