Andrews protects discriminating release of information

Australian Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews has denied excluding key details from the police information he revealed yesterday as criticism grew thick the "secret" details is nothing new and is politically motivated. Andrews last night cited suspicious phone calls and an Internet chat with Mohammed Haneef's brother - after the UK bomb plot was foiled - as reasons for revoking the Indian doctor's visa on July 16, hours after a magistrate granted bail to the hospital registrar.

However, Andrews would not release all the protected police information, including the second record of police interview with Haneef. He defended criticism he had selectively released details designed to taint Haneef, instead of making public the entire second police interview that would provide proper context.

"That was the material (released) which formed the substance of that Internet conversation," Andrews told a local TV network. Haneef's lawyers said details of the conversations were old news, raised during Haneef's successful bail application last month."Andrews has been going around saying that this is part of the secret information which the public weren't allowed to see, but it was out in the public arena two and a half weeks ago," lawyer Peter Russo told SBS television from India.

Russo said the Indian doctor was asked about the chatroom conversation during a police interview and he is now calling on authorities to release that information to the public. "Then they can make their own judgement calls, rather than release this inflamatory stuff, all it does is further tarnish Haneef's reputation in the Australian community, and it's not the full version of the event," he said.

Illegal immigration flourishes in U.S.-Mexico border

At the remote Ugly Piggy cattle ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border, dozens of Mexicans doze by an abandoned chicken pen in the searing desert heat, waiting for nightfall to cross illegally into Arizona. Every day, thousands of people come to isolated farms and villages in the Sonoran Desert to slip into Arizona, despite searing summer heat and a huge U.S. security crackdown. Immigration experts say the latest initiative, a 38-mile (61-km) "virtual fence" of towers, radars, cameras and sensors about to come into operation along the border near Tucson, will not make a significant difference in the number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. Southwest.

"They will just change routes," said Arturo Obregon, head of the Mexican migrant protection agency Grupos Beta in El Sasabe, a town used by immigrants as a starting point for the 45-mile (72-km) journey across the desert. He has seen no overall decline in migrant numbers recently due to increased U.S. border security. "I will get through, mentally I feel unstoppable," said Jose Magarino, 25, waiting to cross the desert and wearing a Rambo T-shirt saying: "No Man, No Law, No War Can Stop Him."

Following the failure of President George W. Bush's immigration reform proposal in Congress last month, U.S. policy is centered on tighter border security rather than giving immigrants more options to find jobs legally. The government has raised its Border Patrol deployment to around 13,500 agents now from fewer than 4,000 in 1993, and traditional crossing points in border cities such as Tijuana are sealed with huge metal fences. The Border Patrol is catching fewer undocumented immigrants, especially in the Yuma area of Arizona, where numbers fell by 68 percent between October 1 and June 30.

That might suggest the number of illegal immigrants is dropping, but it is not clear whether tighter security is really keeping them out. "We would like to believe that less apprehensions means we are controlling our borders, but it is not an exact science," said Ramon Rivera, a Border Patrol spokesman.

Prosecution can end illegal immigration

I am disappointed that the Times Union continues to marginalize its opinion pages by giving space to columnists who offer sob stories about illegal immigrants who are just trying to provide for their families. Criminals are similarly trying to provide for their families and we all must provide for our families -- doing so within the law is a prerequisite.

The amnesty versus deportation debate presents a false choice. We need only prosecute employers who hire illegals to quench the job magnet that leads people to illegally enter the U.S. or overstay their visas. Without the draw of employment, people will stop coming and those here illegally will voluntarily return home.

We need to welcome and provide a path to citizenship for legal immigrants who bring highly valuable skills, but we shouldn't confuse them with the criminals who illegally enter our country. Those who advocate rewarding illegal immigrants falsely point to the enormous success of our generous legal immigration policies -- there's a difference.

CREDIT: ROBERT KAUCIC Niskayuna