As recently as last year the family sought a pardon for Rojas-Cardona, who jumped bail and fled to Mexico in 1994 to escape a federal drug charge, and a five-year sentence for fraud.

Rojas-Cardona, known as “Pepe”, is now a wealthy businessman in Mexico, where he is nicknamed the “casino czar”. A leaked State Department cable from 2009 says he was suspected of having a business rival killed.

Janet Lyness, attorney of Johnson County, Iowa, says there’s still an outstanding warrant for his arrest, on a charge of violating his probation. She told the New York Times that she “can think of few people who are less deserving of a pardon”.

Friends from his youth in Iowa are shocked by reports of how he’s changed.

The story was broken by Mike McIntire in the New York Times.

He announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will look into unfair trade practices in places like China.

Host Lisa Mullins talks with Bruce Gilley, associate professor at Portland State University, about what the move means for US relations with China.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: President Obama seemed to make reference to the rescue operation in Somalia last night. As he entered the House chamber for his state of the union address he was heard this to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Barack Obama: Good job, tonight, good job tonight.

Mullins: The president made no mention of the operation in his speech though. When he did venture into foreign policy last night, the president focused elsewhere, and one topic he mentioned several times was trade with China. Here’s what President Obama said for instance, about counterfeit goods that are made in China.

Obama: It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized. Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China.

Mullins: That’s President Obama speaking last night. Bruce Gilley is an associate professor of political science at the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. There has been as you know, a lot of anti-China rhetoric in domestic politics. This new unit, this Trade Enforcement Unit that he talked about last night, just politicking or for real?

Bruce Gilley: Well, both, it’s politicking in terms of the timing of the creation of the unit, which is clearly to do with the elections this year, but for real in the sense that once you create an institution it takes on a life of its own and this does come at a time in China-US relations when you know, for the first time the United States is feeling a real sense of threat from the challenge of a rising China.

Mullins: Can you describe for us in terms of trade anyway, where that threat stands right now? How serious it is.

Gilley: For a long time the United States policy towards Asia has been to keep its markets open and turn a blind eye to trade subsidies and unfair subsidies of state companies in Asia. And the logic has always been that ultimately the United State benefits because it makes Asia more prosperous and integrates it with the American economy and the liberal trading order. The problem is that China is of a size that the United States has never dealt with this strategy, and China’s size is starting to have notable impacts on American exports, of products that can be copyrighted, as well as impact on manufacturing here in the US.

Mullins: But if there is some kind of enforcement unit does that combine with perhaps any kind of tax incentives, make it more likely that manufacturing jobs will come back here to the US instead of going to or staying in China?

Gilley: No, I don’t think so. I think if you listen to the speech, what he really had in mind was IPR protection.

Mullins: This is intellectual property rights.

Gilley: Intellectual property rights, plus of course, he did mention the question of health and product safety, which is you know, making sure that products coming into this country not just, are not being dumped, but also are meeting the regulatory standards that they’re supposed to meet.

Mullins: Meaning what? This will all be strengthened, but it doesn’t mean necessarily more jobs here.

Gilley: No, I don’t think it does. I think this is part of a broader strategic rethinking of the United States’ relationship with China in which China is being in some sense graduated from the status of a developing country to one that is the United States is equal and which the United States is now going to no longer give the benefit of unalloyed access to the American market irrespective of how the state subsidizes products there.

Mullins: Okay, so if the tide is turning does that mean there is likely to be a backlash on the part of the Chinese?

Gilley: Of course, we’ll see if there is an immediate backlash when the presumptive Chinese leader in weighting, Shee Jeen Ping, visits the White House I believe in a couple of weeks. And I think the view in China is going to be this is kind of a strategic singling out of China because the United States is afraid of our growing strength.

Mullins: Bruce Gilley is associate professor at the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. Nice to have you on the program.

Gilley: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

The review is a test case for new guidelines that might be implemented nationwide.

The changes were set in motion last summer, when President Obama announced a new policy allowing some judges and attorneys to begin to use “prosecutorial discretion” when dealing with undocumented immigrants. In practice, that means the government’s deportation efforts focus on undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records, rather than those who face deportation after a petty infraction, like a missing tail light.

Many of the immigrants affected by the new policy say they are in a legal limbo.

Raúl Cárdenas, an illegal immigrant in Denver, is among those who no longer face immediate deportation. He worked for eight years in the US driving heavy machinery. Then authorities found his Social Security number belonged to someone else. Despite benefiting from the new policy, he is not eligible for a work permit without a change in the law, and has no path to legalization.

“Honestly I don’t know what is going to happen,” he told host Marco Werman. “I can’t support my family. And I also have family in Mexico that I’ve been supporting the last 10 years. It’s really hard for me to be like that.”

Raúl Cárdenas came to the US from Mexico more than a decade ago without papers. He’s raising three children in Denver with his American wife, Judy. She says the threat of deportation for her husband, though diminished, remains.

“That’s always there in my mind,” Judy Cárdenas said. “The threat hangs over my head.”

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: The Obama administration is conducting an immigration test. It launched a review of more than 11,000 cases before immigration courts in Denver and Baltimore. As a result, officials say some 1,600 immigrants who had been facing deportation will be allowed to stay in the US. The review, which may be extended nationwide, is part of President Obama’s prosecutorial discretion policy. It focuses the government’s deportation efforts on undocumented immigrants with serious criminal records, rather than those who pose no security risk. Raul Cardenas of Denver was among those who had their deportation case stopped at least for now. He and his wife, Judy, join us. Raul, you came to the US from Mexico more than a decade ago without papers. You married Judy but weren’t able to get a work permit. What will this mean for you and your family?

Raul Cardenas: Honestly, I don’t know what’s going to happen. The case is still there, so they said to start deportation, they keep me here in the country, but I can’t work and I cannot leave the country.

Werman: I mean, Judy, given that this is kind of the deportation has been put on pause, I mean you were married to Raul more than nine years ago. You’re raising three children together. Do you still feel though in some way in limbo?

Judy Cardenas: Yes, now he has no process at all. There’s no pathway for him to legalize, no pathway for him to get a work permit, we’re just family people and the tricky thing about this is he’s still deportable, so he has to worry about going down the street. If he’s stopped at a stop sign or goes to some grocery stores you know, you can be asked for papers.

Werman: And Raul, practically speaking, what does it mean for your ability right now to support your family, to be employed, especially since you’re not eligible for a work permit?

Cardenas: I cannot support my family right now the way I wanted. My wife goes to a church. A lot of people there have been helping me, giving me like handyman work, and that’s all I’ve been doing. I can’t really support my family. I also have family in Mexico I’ve been supporting for the last 10 years. I’m talking about my parents and my younger brothers, so it is really hard for me to be like that.

Werman: You worked for eight years driving heavy machinery. Any chance of you finding another job like that?

Cardenas: Oh, yeah, people they’re waiting for me. I have calls every once in a while. They know my capacity to operate that kind of equipment and I just can’t work right now. I mean I’m not allowed to work.

Werman: Judy Cardenas, what are your hopes for the family? I mean even with deportation on pause this must be incredibly distracting?

Cardenas: You picked the right word. It is, it’s a distraction because we have a little girl who’s eight and we have two boys in high school that wanna be college bound. And we can’t go visit his family in Mexico, so the grandparents aren’t known to my kids. It’s hard. It’s hard on your body and it’s hard on your mind, and then just the heartache of knowing how many others thousands and millions of families. The strain for me is that I do not have the right to have my family members in this country. So that’s always there in my mind. We’re not as afraid as we were, but the threat still hangs over our heads.

Werman: Raul and Judy Cardenas, thank you very much for speaking with us.

Cardenas: You’re very welcome.

Cardenas: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

The video below was shot before the decision to suspend Raúl Cárdenas’ deportation.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Aung San Suu Kyi during her visit to Myanmar in December.(Photo: State Department/Flickr)

In the past day, as the country’s most well-known political prisoners have been set free, that optimism has grown a little less cautious. “It is very significant,” said David Steinberg, a Myanmar expert at Georgetown University.

He says the fact that Khun Tun Oo, a leader of the country’s Shan ethnic minority was released will move the government a bit closer to reconciliation with the ethnic groups it has been fighting for decades. And the release of Khin Nyunt, a former military intelligence chief and Prime Minister who was imprisoned in 2004 after he made motions toward reform, could signal a lessening of infighting within the still hugely powerful military.

Steinberg sees changes coming about in part thanks to new leadership in Myanmar. “You have a different leader as head of government—a person who is approachable, who will willingly meet with other people, and with whom you can disagree. Which was not the case under the Senior General Than Shwe,” he said.

Despite the announcement that the US is beginning the process of restoring an ambassador to Myanmar, which they haven’t had since the late ‘80s, Steinberg thinks the US is unlikely to lift its sanctions against the country any time soon. But he says it could take some smaller steps like easing travel restrictions on members of the Burmese government.

There was joy on the streets of Rangoon, Myanmar’s biggest city, today, as throngs waited to greet prisoners being released from Insein Prison. But, despite this joy, and the strategic significance of these prisoner releases, people who have seen the Myanmar government up close and personal are skeptical.

Nyi Nyi Aung is a pro-democracy activist now living in the US He spent several months in jail in Myanmar in 1988 and again two years ago. He’s been talking to a lot of people in his home country over the past 24 hours and says that emotions are very mixed.

“One side is they are really happy,” he said, “because they see all the famous friends and comrades coming out from the prison-they are really free. So they are really happy about it. So one side is they worry—they are worrying for the future, next step.”

“We all have to note that we have been here before,” said Soe Aung, a spokesman for the Forum for Democracy in Burma, speaking to the BBC from Bangkok. “In 2004 and last year there have been mass release of prisoners, but there are still more than 1,100 political prisoners who remain in prisons. There must be a legal and institutional reform to ensure that our friends, our colleagues that have just been released today are not re-arrested and then put in prison again.”

Murray Hiebert, Deputy Director of the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in D.C., agrees that a key test will be how much freedom these newly released political prisoners are actually given.

“I think the other thing to watch will be to see what these people just released are able to do now,” Hiebert said. “Are they able to participate in the political campaigns leading up to the bi-elections in April? Will they going to be very closely proscribed and basically not able to move around. So we have things to watch, surely.”

But, for today at least, there’s hope.

A soldier briefs US Marine Corps General John Allen in Afghanistan. (Photo: Sgt. April Campbell/US Army)

Anchor Marco Werman discusses what the defense cuts will mean for foreign policy with Peter Feaver, former member of the National Security Council, and Juliette Kayyem, former Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security.

The bombings are the worst in months – and follow within days of the withdrawal of US troops.

They come amid fears of rising sectarian tensions as the unity government faces internal divisions.

Host Lisa Mullins talks with reporter Sahar Issa in Baghdad.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. A series of bomb attacks shook the city of Baghdad today. More than 60 people were killed, nearly 200 were injured. Iraq’s interior ministry says there were 14 blasts across the city in a period of two hours. The bombings are the worst in months and they come at a sensitive time. The last US troops just left Iraq on Sunday. Since then, tension with in the country’s unity government has escalated rapidly. And now there are fears of renewed sectarian violence. McClatchy journalist, Sahar Issa, lives in Baghdad. What did you hear today?

Sahar Issa: We woke up to the explosions. The house shook. One of the explosions was very close. It was not more than 100 meters down the road from where I live, and the other one was about 1/2 kilometer away. Iraqis have become quite skillful in determining whether the explosions are IEDs, roadside bombs, or car bombs from the way the vibrations are received. These vibrations we felt through the ground, telling us that these were car bombs, and so they were.

Mullins: In the aftermath of the explosions what happened?

Issa: We can hear the sirens, we can shootings, we can hear shouting, we can hear all sorts of sounds that were quite terrifying that we haven’t heard for quite a while. Roads were blocked, neighborhoods were shutdown, we couldn’t get to work.

Mullins: So when that happens and the roads are blocked, you say you can’t get to work, what do people do? What did you do?

Issa: People who have to go out will walk out. For me, I can work from my home, I have all the facilities, so I called into my boss and told him it is really too dangerous to go out, and the roads are blocked, especially our neighborhood.

Mullins: You’re lucky enough as a journalist to be able to do some of your work at home when it’s too dangerous to go out. What about some of your neighbors, those people who have children, can they go to school? Can people walk outside? Do they see this as possibly the start of more violence?

Issa: To tell you the truth it is difficult. Iraqis have been through so much, they have seen so much violence, it is difficult to say that this is the beginning of a new stage of violence like we once had in 2006 and 2007. People are hoping that this will be just a day of violence, a day where [inaudible 2:33] at each other, a day in which the other factions that you must know, Iraq is a battleground for power, regional powers from all Iraq, when they are fighting their own fight on Iraqi ground, just a day of violence. Iraqis hope that they can go to sleep today knowing the losses of today, hoping for a quick recovery for the injured, but nevertheless hoping that tomorrow will be just another day. And the people who did the violence today have had their fill.

Mullins: Sahar Issa is a reporter with McClatchy newspapers speaking to us from Baghdad. Thanks a lot.

Issa: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

More on the attacks from the BBC

The Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told troops the mission had been worth the cost in blood and dollars.

He said the years of war in Iraq had yielded to an era of opportunity in which the US was a committed partner.

Only about 4,000 US soldiers now remain in Iraq, but they are due to leave in the next two weeks.

At the peak of the operation, US forces there numbered 170,000.

As American troops are leaving Iraq, some Baghdad residents are breathing a sigh of relief.

Others are wary about what lies ahead, as Iraqi journalist Sahar Issa explains to host Marco Werman.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Werman: I’m Marco Werman. This is The World. Eight years and nine months, that’s how much time has passed since the US war in Iraq began. The initial assault, the explosion of shock and awe back in March of 2003 feels distant now. Today, a simple flag lowering ceremony in Baghdad marked the official end of the war in Iraq. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged the high cost to the US in blood and treasure, and he noted the challenges ahead for Iraq. For Americans and Iraqis alike it’s a day of mixed feelings. Iraqi journalist, Sahar Issa, is in Baghdad.

Sahar Issa: The Iraqi people never thought they would see the day, for good or for bad, today is important. It is the very last day of what is predominantly considered an occupation.

Werman: How was that manifested today? I mean as the Americans are kind of rolling their way out of town were people in the street? I mean I’m just trying to get a picture?

Issa: Not really, actually the event went past very cooly I would say. The only real reaction I think would have been found in Fallujah. There are celebrations in the streets of Fallujah.

Werman: And they were celebrating the Americans leaving?

Issa: Yes, yes.

Werman: Of course, Fallujah was the site of some very heavy combat.

Issa: Indeed. Yesterday around 5,000 people congregated. They were poems, there were applause, there were everything. And today, it was even a little bit stranger because the celebration took place in the Martyr’s Cemetery that used to be a football field. And all the families — wives, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons — they all came with photographs of their loved ones. It was very emotional.

Werman: I can imagine. And I mean the perspective on America and the Americans have fought I imagine is quite different in Fallujah than it is in Baghdad.

Issa: Of course, in Fallujah it’s a personal matter because there is no family in Fallujah that has not had a least one of its members killed by coalition forces.

Werman: For you personally, Sahar, is this moment, this day that the American troops finally go out, I mean is it one you’ve been waiting for?

Issa: There are two feelings. One feeling is that what is going to happen? Do you we have real politicians? Are they able to handle the situation and the security issues? This is one thing. And on the other hand the day must come. I mean Iraqis must stand up for themselves and begin. And I don’t see if this day came in 2-3 years that there would have been anything beneficial for Iraqis. So the quicker we start the quicker we’ll be on our feet.

Werman: Is there one image or an interaction you had with American troops that you’ll remember very clearly?

Issa: Yes, of course, one day at 6 o’clock in the morning the door was knocked on and there was a search, a house-to-house search. And they came into the house and were very afraid. Of course, there were Americans and Iraqis together. And they said can we search the house? They were very proper and we allowed them. And so these Americans go to the bookshelves that I have in my sitting room and they see English books. And so the man turns around and he says ma’am, you read a lot. And I said well, yes I do. And he goes on looking and he says hm, Grisham, hm…and all the writers that perhaps his family reads. And then he said do you have a weapon in the house? And I said in that cupboard, of course we do. And he opened the cupboard and he sees the video games that my sons play, and he said what, Auto Theft and the other one, their names, and he was grinning and he was laughing. And I felt inside me that for the first time he was able to see me as a person. And I think for him it was like a revelation, and I could see it in his eyes.

Werman: So Sahar, have you been to any of the bases or the barracks that the American troops have left behind? What’s it like there?

Issa: Well, it’s like a ghost town. It’s like a finality. Although to tell you the truth, with all these finalities around us, with all these camps being emptied of their soldiers, the Iraqi people still ask, the American Embassy is retaining 16,000 personnel…like are the Americans really leaving? And who are these 16,000 people who are staying behind? That’s a really big question.

Werman: Iraqi journalist Sahar Issa lives in Baghdad, works for McClatchy Newspapers there. Sahar, thank you very much.

Issa: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

He met Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Washington for talks on Iraq’s future as American troops prepare to complete their withdrawal.

Obama confirmed no bases or troops would remain in the country next year.

“Those days are over,” President Obama said, adding that Iraq’s sovereignty should be respected.

Anchor Marco Werman speaks with Jane Arraf, Baghdad-based reporter for the Christian Science Monitor and al-Jazeera International.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. President Obama hosted Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki at the White House today. They met to discus what comes next in the relationship between the United States and Iraq. That relationship is entering a new phase as the last U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of this month and that, as Obama noted after the meeting with Maliki, will end the Iraq war after almost nine years.

President Obama: A war is ending, a new day is upon us and let us never forget those who gave us this chance. The untold number of Iraqis who have given their lives, more than one million Americans, military and civilian who have served in Iraq, nearly 4,500 fallen Americans who gave their last, full measure of devotion. Tens of thousands of wounded warriers and so many inspiring military families, they are the reason that we can stand here today.

Werman: President Obama speaking at the White House earlier today. Jane Arraf reports from Iraq for the Christian Science Monitor and Al Jazeera International, she’s in Baghdad. President Obama spoke of a relationship as equal partners between the United States and Iraq. How does it look, Jane, from where you’re sitting in Baghdad?

Jane Arraf: Well, a little more equal, certainly, at the end of this month than it has been in more than eight years. Now this is because, of course, the U.S. military is actually out of here and that was one of the things that Obama and Maliki emphasize, they also emphasize that new relationship but it’s a very complicated relationship. It’s complicated mostly because what the United States wanted here, a democracy, is the very thing that led to U.S. troops actually not staying. The Parliament that said they would not allow U.S. forces to remain here so there are a lot of things to discuss, a lot of challenges, as the like to put it, diplomatically going forward and not quite sure how a lot of those issues are going to be resolved.

Werman: Well as we note, U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the year, I’m wondering though, who is left? What will be the U.S. presence in Iraq now?

Arraf: It is a huge footprint, it is going to be the biggest U.S. Embassy in the world. Now the U.S. Ambassador here said a few months ago publicly, that he expected the Embassy which currently had 8000 people in it, to double by next year so we’re talking 15,000 or 16,000 people, a number they don’t like to throw around anymore just because it sounds so huge. Essentially what that will be is foreign services officers, very small part of it, an awful lot of security, more than 5000 security contractors and that there, again, is one of the issues that still has not been resolved. Things that should be a matter of course such as security contractors ability to carry weapons is still an issue here and as soon as Maliki returns here he’s going to have to talk to Parliament and answers questions about why there’s such a big U.S. Embassy.

Werman: So a long term deal whereby U.S. and NATO advisors would continue to train Iraqi soldiers, that fell apart over the issue of providing legal immunity for U.S. troops, is there a serious threat of Americans getting caught up in the Iraqi legal system? And remind us of some of the charges Americans some Americans might have faced.

Arraf: Absolutely. This is a country where some of the worst incidents of the war are incidents where if U.S. soldiers had not had immunity they would be, certainly in jail here and they would be standing trial and subject to execution. Now we’re talking about cases where civilians have been killed and they found to have been killed deliberately. As well as things like security contractors opening fire in the famous case that killed more than a dozen Iraqi civilians, those are the things that haunt Iraqi’s and those are the reasons why there was such a backlash against immunity. Now the other thing about this is, that even though it is a new relationship, the U.S. troops are leaving, it still does remain a dangerous place. Violence is down but recently there was a kidnapping threat specifically against American diplomats and the green zone, which is at the best of times barricaded and a fortress, became even more of a fortress, their mobility is very limited.

Werman: With all the U.S. troops just about gone from Iraq and this visit by Nouri al-Maliki to the White House, feeling kind of like his Washington swan song, what’s the mood in Baghdad right now? How do Iraqis feel about this?

Arraf: Iraqis feel it’s a really uncertain time. The U.S. military is pulling out, a lot of people are happy about that but a lot of them also don’t believe that they’re really pulling out. We’ve spoken to some members of Parliament for instance, who say the U.S. forces are just pulling out to Kuwait and other countries, they’re just waiting in the wings to invade again. But the other part is that there are still killings going on. There are political assassinations, there is continued repression and all of the things that President Obama and Prime Minister Maliki spoke about are really things that Iraqis would like to see, a real democracy, transparent institutions that serve everyone but they’re not institutions that they have yet.

Werman: Jane Arraf who reports from Iraq for the Christian Science Monitor and Al Jezeera International, Jane, thanks very much indeed.

Arraf: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Minnie and Mickey (Photo: Bruce Wallace)

You might guess that finding a 5-foot tall woman dressed in a red-and-white Minnie Mouse costume would be easy. But, in this case, you’d be wrong.

The Minnie I wanted to talk to is named Andrea. I’d talked to her once before, but she was busy and told me to find her later. A day or two later I went to Times Square. The first Minnie I approached just shook her head. I walked up to a second. “Andrea?” I asked. “No soy Andrea, usted es Andrea?” she said, laughing. “I’m not Andrea, are you Andrea?” I’m pretty sure she was making fun of me.

I didn’t find Andrea that day.

I finally did catch up with her, and we made plans to meet at a small home she shares with a bunch of other folks in Passaic, New Jersey, a working-class town about 40 minutes by bus from Times Square. We sat at a table in a cramped kitchen. One of the Mickey Mouses-in civilian clothes– was there making soup.

The Mickeys, Minnies, Elmos, and Winnie the Poohs scattered across six or seven blocks in Times Square are mostly Latino, and mostly undocumented. On a typical day they’ll spend seven or eight hours waving hello and posing for pictures with the throngs of visitors who fill Times Square, asking for small tips in return.

Mickey and Winnie the Pooh (Photo: Bruce Wallace)

Mohammed Rahman has worked at a nearby newsstand for four years, and says he’s noticed a big increase in the fuzzy characters recently. They come over and buy sodas from him, sometimes he’ll talk business with them. He actually had his picture taken with one of the Mickeys; he put it on Facebook for his family back in Bangladesh to see.

“I have a little sister, they’re curious about this. You know the Mickey Mouse, so they’re looking like this and they’re feeling interesting and nice, that’s why.”

On a typical day, Andrea says they’ll make 50 or 60 dollars, minus about 10 dollars for bus fare. Alfredo, who lives in the house and is one of at least four Elmos working Times Square, says that in the summer they make less because they can only work for about four hours a day.

“Ah it’s so much, like 115 degrees, it’s so hot inside. Right there we’re cooking inside.”

Jorge-the one making the soup–started dressing up as Mickey about a year-and-a-half ago; Andrea’s been Minnie for about five months. Alfredo has been at it for about two months.

All three also work odd jobs through an agency: cleaning homes and offices, some factory work-but that’s slowed down a lot. Alfredo lost a job at a pizza restaurant when a new owner found out he didn’t have papers.

I asked him why he chose Elmo.

“Everybody loves Elmo. I love Elmo too, because he helps me. I don’t know but I like Elmo.”

Any money he has left over after he pays his bills he sends back home to his mom and sister in Cholula, Mexico.

Andrea has four children back home in Arequipa, Peru. Her face brightens when she talks about how being Minnie puts her in touch with kids.

“Porque tambien me gusta mucho los niños…”

“Because also I like children a lot. My kids are in Peru , and so it makes me happy to be around children.”

They also take some satisfaction from the acting chops they’ve developed. Andrea has gotten better at playing to the older audience members.

“‘Que linda’ dicen…”

They’ll say “How pretty,” and she’ll go to pose for a picture with them. They’ll demur, and she’ll pretend to be sad.

“‘Aye, pobrecita’ dicen, y ‘una photo’ dicen”

“Oh, you poor thing” they’ll say, and she gets the photo.

Winnie the Pooh (Photo: Bruce Wallace)

All three of them have been in the U.S. about seven years. They say it’s been a lot tougher than they’d imagined; money’s been a lot tighter. Andrea and Alfredo both told me they want to go back to their countries soon.

You might not guess any of this, though, if you saw them waving and posing and hamming it up for the cameras in Times Square.

“Okay” Child: “Bye Mickey Mouse!” Woman: “Bye Bye Mickey Mouse”

American troops are due out of Iraq by the end of next month.

Washington had lobbied hard, and publicly, for a new agreement that would have allowed it to keep military bases in the country.

But the government in Baghdad would not agree to the conditions set by the Pentagon.

And it seems neighboring Iran was a factor in those failed negotiations.

Marco Werman talks with the BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse is in Baghdad.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I am Marco Werman. This is The World. The war in Iraq is coming to an end, or at least the US military intervention there is wrapping up. American troops are due out of Iraq by the end of next month. Washington had lobbied hard, and publicly, for a new agreement that would have allowed it to keep military bases in the country. But the government in Baghdad would not agree to the conditions set by the Pentagon. And it seems neighboring Iran was a factor in those failed negotiations. The BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse is in Baghdad. Welcome to the program Gabriel.

Gabriel Gatehouse: Good to be with you.

Werman: So, you spoke with Saad Youssef al-Mutalabi who is a close personal adviser to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Let’s hear a part of your conversation first of all.

Gatehouse: You must admit that Iran’s influence having been practically zero before in this country under Saddam Hussein is now really quite strong and quite widespread.

Saad Youssef al-Mutalabi: Oh, definitely. Yeah, Iranians are very, very close to the political scene here in Iraq now and they have influence. We see Iran as a big important neighbor. We do not need a war with them again, but we know that they were very much worried with the presence of the American troops in Iraq.

Gatehouse: We know that the Americans practically begged the Iraqi government to let them keep a certain number of troops, and yet the answer was no. Was that Iran?

al-Mutalabi: [Laughs] No. It’s not Iran, but it is taking Iran in consideration. We understand that there’s a certain sensitivity. And we do not want an excuse for the Iranians to intervene in Iraq on the pretext that you have American troops.

Gatehouse: For the Americans, it’s not a great result, is it?

al-Mutalabi: No, it isn’t. [Laughs] No, it is definitely not. The Americans made a number of mistakes and they are paying the price for it.

Werman: The BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse in Bagdad speaking with an adviser to the Iraqi Prime Minister. Gabriel Gatehouse is joining us now from Bagdad. From your whole conversation with Mr. Mutalabi, what sense did you get of Iranian influence in Iraq today relative to the U.S. influence?

Gatehouse: Well, I mean, if Mr. Mutalabi’s account is credible, then the situation would appear to be as follows: The United States wanted to stay – Iran wanted them out, and Iran prevailed. Now, I think that is not a good scenario for the Pentagon, for Washington, because that basically means that in the sort of geo-political battles that are going on here in the region, they’ve lost out to Tehran.

Werman: Now you also spoke with U.S. Embassy spokesman Michael McClellan. How did he respond to those suggestions that the Iraqi government is more influenced by Iran than the U.S.?

Gatehouse: Well, Washington’s very, very sensitive State Department, very sensitive to any sense that U.S. aims may have failed strategically in the region, he flatly denied that it was an Iranian decision. He said it was a sovereign Iraqi decision and he was trying to spin that into a positive thing. He was saying, “Look, what we are leaving behind here is a sovereign country that is able to make its own decision. It’s one that can’t be pushed around by any country, not even the United States.” Now that is certainly an argument but I think many people, certainly here – Iraqis, would see that as Washington putting a positive spin on something that isn’t really terribly positive for them.

Werman: Right. Well let’s take a listen to that optimistic view on things from Embassy spokesman McClellan. Here’s another part of that conversation you had with him.

Gatehouse: I have not met a single Iraqi who would agree with your assessment that the past 8 1/2 years has been a huge success. Do you get out?

Michael McClellan: Yes, I get out quite a bit. And I would have to question your guest list if you are not talking to other people who don’t share that same opinion. There are problems in the country, nobody argues that.

Gatehouse: And you are becoming the scapegoat, rightly or wrongly, for every single problem. Isn’t that the case?

McClellan: Yes, and I would say a lot of that is wrongly. We have become the scapegoat for it because…

Gatehouse: But the perception is there.

McClellan: Yeah, that’s why we need to correct those perceptions.

Gatehouse: What are you doing to correct that?

McClellan: We have done a tremendous amount of good in this country and, frankly, it has touched the lives of almost every single person in this country. You are kind of looking at this as today is the end result of the project, if you will. And, are we satisfied with it? Well, no. We don’t see this as the end result. We are moving into a new phase of U.S./Iraqi relations. We are gonna see continued progress on this as more investment comes into the country, as democratic institutions are strengthened. So, I see this as a successful project.

Werman: A very lively interview there between Michael McClellan, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Bagdad and the BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse. Gabriel, McClellan is talking about the start of a new chapter in the relationship with Iraq and hope for future progress. What do Iraqis make of that?

Gatehouse: Well, I think Iraq… I was just speaking to a very, very thoughtful man just literally a few hours ago, here in Bagdad. He’s the director of the national archive and I met him in a room full of books that once belonged to Saddam Hussein. And I put to him that this is incredible negativity out the American presence here pretty much across the board in Iraq. And he said one very interesting thing. He says, “You’ve got to distinguish between the invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein which the overwhelming majority of people here think was a good thing, and the subsequent what is seen here as an occupation, which is widely regarded as a disaster.” And then I asked him, I said, “Well, given the violence that followed the years of really terrible heartache and tragedy for so many people here, was it in the end worth it, do you think?” And he said, “Yes, without a shadow of a doubt.” I said, “Why?” He said, “Five minutes of freedom is better than a lifetime of oppression.”

Werman: You know, given everything that’s happened in Iraq in the last 8, 10 years, that comment is really the best that the United States could hope for, in a way.

Gatehouse: I think it really is. And perhaps, that spokesman for the Embassy is right. Perhaps, once the soldiers pull out which will take away that scapegoat, because at the moment Iraqis are quite misguidedly blaming Americans for everything, from all the explosions that still go on here on a weekly basis, from the sectarianism to the corruption that is rife in the government. They blame the Americans for all of that. Now once the American military leaves, the Iraqis will see whether or not America really is responsible and perhaps they will change their mind. So, perhaps there will be an opportunity for some kind of rapprochement, a new era of relations between America and Iraq.

Werman: The BBC’s Gabriel Gatehouse in Bagdad; thanks so much.

Gatehouse: My pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

US Army Photos From Iraq

Speaking at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Hawaii, President Obama said China needed to follow the same rules as other nations.

The value of the yuan has been a key point of conflict between the US and China over recent years.

Marco Werman gets more from The World’s Mary Kay Magistad in Beijing.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: Even as he keeps an eye on Syria, President Obama is focused elsewhere at the moment. He’s getting ready for a trip to Australia and Indonesia, after hosting the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Hawaii. Speaking there yesterday, Obama warned China to stop ‘gaming the international system’ and he said ‘enough is enough’ when it comes to China’s refusal to allow its currency to float.

President Obama: Most economists estimate that the RMB is devalued by 20 to 25 percent. That means our exports to China are that much more expensive and their imports into the United States are that much cheaper.

Werman: The President also called on China to relax its trade practices. All this is not going down well over there. Mary Kay Magistad is The World’s Beijing correspondent. This was a pretty direct and highly public attack on China from the President himself, Mary Kay. How is it being received there?

Mary Kay Magistad: Well, all over the front pages of the Chinese newspapers today were comments very similar to each other that said, basically, the United States’ economic problems were not caused by the level of our currency. Its problems are much bigger than that, and even if we let our currency float, it’s not going to solve the U.S. economic problems. And we maintain a responsible policy toward our currency. We’re letting it increase in value gradually because we have to protect our export sector. If we were to suddenly let it float, we would have a lot of factories shutting down, a lot of jobs lost, and a lot of social unrest. Of course, this is perhaps responsible from the Chinese perspective toward the Chinese population and the Chinese economy in the short term. It’s not necessarily responsible for China as a global player that likes to be seen increasingly as a global leader.

Werman: You know, President Obama said about China that it’s now grown up, and needs to start acting like it. Is that what he was talking about? That kind of stuff?

Magistad: It’s part of it, yeah. Interestingly the Chinese media didn’t really grab onto that particular part of what he said, neither feeling offended that he was suggesting that China was not acting like a grownup or saying China actually is a grownup now and should be acting like it. In the last few months, in particular, China seems to have been wanting to have it both ways. To say ‘Hey, look, we’re still a poor developing country, so you can’t be looking to us to bail you out when you have problems. You sort it out yourselves, and if you get your economy so that it is stable and attractive to us, maybe we’ll put our money there.’ And yet they also want to be seen as a global leader. And what they’ve said in response to some of what President Obama said is look, you want us to play by the global rules? Well we didn’t help set those rules. If you want us to play by rules, we should have a say in what they are, and we should make sure they work to our advantage.

Werman: You know, there’s this other impression too, here in the U.S., Mary Kay, and that is of the declining USA and a rising China. I imagine Chinese leaders would like to leave most people in the world with that impression, but is the reality in China that this is the Chinese century?

Magistad: It’s interesting. Over the last couple of years, Premier Wen Jiabao has made a point when he has spoken in public, of trying to put a damper on that way of thinking of China. At the World Economic Forum, which in some ways tends to be this cheerleading session for China’s economic rise, Wen Jiabao said twice, last year and this year, look, the model of growth we have is neither stable nor sustainable. We have serious problems. We need to be dealing with them sooner rather than later. So, yes, China has great aspirations. Yes, China has had strong economic growth. If we’re going to continue to have strong economic growth, we need to make some changes and we need to make them soon.

Werman: The World’s Beijing correspondent, Mary Kay Magistad. Thanks, as always.

Magistad: Thanks, Marco.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read tweets about the yuan

David Hamod (left) of the National US-Arab Chamber of Commerce and Naufel Al-Hassan, commercial counselor with the Iraqi embassy (Photo: Seattle Trade Alliance)

In a conference room 25 floors above downtown Seattle, about 40 business people in suits are looking at a map of the Middle East, learning about business opportunities in the region.

David Hamod, president of the National US-Arab Chamber of Commerce, stands in front of the group making the case for investing in Iraq.

He talks about consumer spending, a booming youth culture, “mega projects” moving forward, and internationally-educated Arab leaders.

Add it all up, and Hamod says within two years Iraq will be the fourth largest Middle Eastern market for US goods.

I heard Hamod speak at the first of several business roundtables focused on investment opportunities in Iraq that the US-Arab Chamber is putting on across the country. The speakers talked about things like the need for a million new housing units in Iraq, and all the doorknobs, windows, and bolts that come with that.

After the presentation, which was hosted by several Washington state business groups including the Trade Development Alliance of Greater Seattle, I asked Hamod: Why would an American business consider Iraq? After all, there are easier places to make a buck.

“Well, the short answer is that if the oil is flowing, it’s a guaranteed source of revenues for the government,” said Hamod.

The Iraqi government will make some purchases directly. For example, the government has already ordered 40 planes from Boeing.

With all that oil money sloshing around, some of it’s bound to get in the pockets of the middle class, argues Bhaskar Chakravorti, the senior associate dean for international business and finance at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. And he said, those Iraqis want American products.

“This is one of the biggest business opportunities that exist anywhere in the world today.”

Iraq sits on the fifth largest oil reserves in the world, up to 150 billion barrels. But Chakravorti said those estimates are 30 years old.

“A lot of geologists believe that the real number is somewhere close to 300 billion barrels, which would make Iraq the largest source of oil, bigger than Saudi Arabia.”

And it’s not just oil money that Iraq has going for it.

“Iraq is a country with people who are actually quite entrepreneurial, a reasonably large middle class, and no royal family. All these things are good,” said Chakravorti.

Sounds promising. But this is Iraq we’re talking about. It’s still an extremely violent place. And there won’t be any US troops there by year’s end. Chakravorti is well aware of all this.

“The problems are going to be there. And anybody who goes in has to be aware of those problems, has to be aware of the fact that you have to navigate a maze of complexities that range all the way from violence, to corruption, to risk of all kinds. And not even understanding the local mores and customs.”

This seemed to somewhat undermine what Chakravorti was saying about huge business opportunities. So, bottomline: Should an American company consider working in Iraq?

“Bottomline? I would say the answer is yes,” said Chakravorti. “And this kind of goes back to the principle rules of investing: With high risk, comes high reward.”

In Seattle, Jim Seymour was intrigued by that message. He’s the owner of Key Pharmacy Compounding, a Washington state drug manufacturer. He’s exported drugs to South Africa and the United Kingdom and is looking to expand.

“I never would’ve dreamed Iraq, but we’re interested in wherever the market is.”

I asked Seymour though: Wasn’t he concerned about safety?

“No.”

Enough said.

Companies doing business in Iraq can take out insurance, hire locals to handle business, and contract with private security guards.

Iraqi officials are hoping more people are thinking like pharmacist Jim Seymour.

Naufel Al-Hassan, commercial counsellor with the Embassy of the Republic of Iraq in Washington DC, said, “Many American companies, or international companies, when they look at the Iraq market, they probably view Iraq 2011 in the eye of 2005 or 2006 when we were in a very difficult time.”

Al-Hassan says he understands that Iraq is not in a perfect position, but violence has ebbed. And the economy has stabilized.

“The Iraqis (are) making more money than they used to probably 10 years ago or 20 years ago, so there is a lot of liquidity within the consumers. People start making a lot of money and start asking to purchase a lot of products.”

It’s not exactly a time of certainty though in Iraq. Nobody knows what will happen once the last US troops leave.

Still, investment analysts remain upbeat about the long-term prospects. Looking out 10 or 15 years, there’s a lot of money to be made in Iraq.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

LISA MULLINS:  At the United Nations today, it seems all the attention was on the Palestinian bid for UN membership.  President Obama spoke against the move in his speech before the UN General Assembly.  He also hit on other subjects, including nuclear disarmament.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  To lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.

MULLINS:  The US and Russia signed the so-called New START Treaty, last year in Prague.  They pledged to continue shrinking their arsenals, down to a combined total of about 3,000 active warheads.  But there are an estimated 20,000 nuclear warheads out there.  Most of them are not actively deployed.  Ron Rosenbaum wrote the book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War Three.  We asked him what sway the UN and Washington actually have over the non-active nuclear warheads.

RON ROSENBAUM:  Well, very little.  We’ve been negotiating with North Korea for six years.  And they’re always calling it off and going back to their nuclear weapons production, and then saying they’ll stop if we’ll talk some more.  And then we’ll talk.  The talks go nowhere, and they continue to build nuclear warheads.  Pakistan, you’ve heard of the nuclear arms bazaar, that was run by A.Q. Khan, who was the nuclear scientist who gave Pakistan the bomb.  We don’t even know whether he sold nuclear weapons to nations we may not even be aware of.  And everyone knows that these unstable nations are the ones that are the greatest threat, but still the existence of that many warheads, even in the hands of stable nations, poses the threat of an accidental war, or who knows what kind of relations, hostile or not, we might have in the future.

MULLINS:  What is the best solution that you have heard, given the underlying interests here?

ROSENBAUM: I’m not sure that there is a good solution.  I’ve given attention to the minimal deterrence, or the minimalist deterrence theories of the Federation of American Scientists, who believe that we can reduce arsenals, particularly those nations that have large ones, to less than 100, maybe carried on submarines where we wouldn’t have to worry about a surprise attack taking out our deterrent.  And perhaps some decades, or maybe sooner in the future, we’ll get down from thousands to hundreds.  Whether we’ll ever be able to get from hundreds to dozens, or from dozens to zero, is an open question.

MULLINS:  What about not a nuclear war, but a nuclear crisis?  I mean, take the civilian power plant, the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan.  How does that fit into the overall concerns about not just nuclear weaponry, but nuclear power?

ROSENBAUM:  Well, I’d say it fits in this way.  For years, we’ve gradually grown more used to nuclear power.  It’s kind of safe, no emissions, nothing’s happened since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, maybe it’s all OK.  Same with nuclear weapons.  We’ve gradually, since the end of the Cold War, almost forgotten about them.  But they’re there, underneath the prairies of the Midwest, and in the steppes of Russia.  And so far we’ve been lucky, just as the Japanese were, and all of the nuclear power plant operators were, but they turned out to be wrong.  But I guess we have to cross our fingers and hope that our luck holds with nuclear weapons.

MULLINS:  Has President Obama himself – give him a grade, since he first started talking the talk in 2009.

ROSENBAUM:  He gets A+ for putting it on the agenda initially, and for getting that treaty through, even though he was tortured by Republican senators.  And the treaty was marred by all their unilateral additions.  I wouldn’t blame him for saying oh God, do I have to get back to that again?  But he does.  I think he could do a lot more to put the nation’s attention, focus the nation’s attention on nuclear weapons.  Why not open up the White House and give a televised demonstration of what it would be like to launch a nuclear weapon?  He’d have to open the black briefcase, pick up the phone, dial in his code, and give people a sense that this is real, this is not just something from novels and movies.  This is something the President himself, this nuclear briefcase, carries with him every moment of the day.  I think he could do more to focus the nation on this danger.

MULLINS:  Author Ron Rosenbaum wrote the book How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War Three.  He writes a column for Slate as well.  Thanks a lot, Ron.

ROSENBAUM:  Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

A month ago, the Obama Administration announced a new policy that would suspend the deportation of undocumented immigrants who don’t pose a threat to public safety.

US officials said they’d review 300,000 pending deportation cases. However, they’re still working out the details of how they’ll wade through them and have yet to act on any case.

Across the country, the new policy has given hope to many undocumented immigrants, but has also caused confusion.

Juan, who asked not to use his real name out of fear, came to San Diego from Mexico illegally 24 years ago when he was only sixteen. He had quit school in Mexico and his family sent him to the United States with one of his brothers.

“So, really I never felt like it was my decision to come up here.” Juan tells his story sitting on the couch in his living room. His house is immaculate. So is he. His slacks and dress shirt are perfectly pressed.

Juan says they day after he arrived in San Diego, he began washing dishes at a tony restaurant. Juan says a cute hostess convinced him to enroll in high school. He learned English, moved up to busboy and became a statewide track star. Universities like UCLA courted him with scholarships.

“My goal always was to become a coach and a bilingual math teacher and it never happened,” he says. While Juan had the ability, he didn’t have the legal status to go to college. Juan has worked steadily for the last 25 years. He’s managing an upscale restaurant and raising a family. Juan’s 12-year-old son was recently assigned to the Gifted and Talented Education program at his junior high school.

Last January, Juan was detained at a major Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 5. Juan doesn’t have a criminal record but the government began the process of deporting him.

Immigration Attorney Ginger Jacobs sees these kinds of cases all the time. “Folks who, a few years ago, would never be placed into proceedings. They don’t have a criminal record but are placed into proceedings anyway.”

She says the potentially good news for Juan is that it appears his case is just the kind that the federal government will put on hold. During the last two years, President Obama has repeatedly said he was after undocumented immigrants who’d committed crimes – “the worst of the worst,” he called them.

Yet, on Obama’s watch, the federal government has deported a record 800,000 people. Last year, more than half of those deported either had no criminal record or had committed a misdemeanor or traffic violation.

The White House says the new deportation policy’s goal is to target more serious criminals, but immigration attorneys say their phones are ringing off the hook with confused clients.

Jacobs says some ask if they should turn themselves in. Some say they want to apply for the new amnesty law. “Questions for me that indicate that they’ve received some misinformation about the policy. There is no new law,” says Jacobs.

Jacobs, along with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, warn their clients not to be tricked by unscrupulous attorneys or “notarios” who capitalize on the confusion, falsely claiming they can legalize undocumented immigrants.

Critics of the new policy accuse the Obama Administration of acting illegally.

“This is an extra-constitutional act. I mean, I don’t know how else to put it,” says Mark Krikorian, who directs the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that favors tighter immigration controls.

Krikorian says if President Obama wanted to stay these deportations he should have gone through Congress to make a new law. Instead, Krikorian says Obama did an end-run around Congress because he failed to get it to move in immigration reform. “It’s a bridge amnesty, like a bridge loan to legalize them legalize them long enough until the pro-amnesty people can prevail in Congress.”

Legal analysts say the new deportation policy is not amnesty.

Aarti Kohli, Director of Immigration Policy at the UC Berkeley’s Boalt Law School, says the policy has the potential to affect only a small minority of the undocumented immigrants in the US.

“We’re talking 300,000 people, not the estimated 11 million who are in the country. You don’t actually get legalized. You just don’t get deported.”

At any time, the federal government can re-open the deportation cases it stays.

An official with the Department of Homeland Security says they’ve convened a team of 20 lawyers to determine how the process will proceed. The official would not say when the first case would be put on hold or how long it will take to review 300,000 cases.

Meanwhile, Juan says he’s only heard snipits about the policy. He says he used to spend hours pouring over everything he could about immigration reform, the Dream Act, Obama’s campaign promises.

“And, at the end, everything went back to the same. Good old nothing. So, lately, I been like, you know what? I’d rather sit with my little baby girl and read a book with her even if we have to read it over and over again because that’s what she likes to do, than try to look up what’s going on, who’s saying what. For what? ”

Juan prays that immigration laws will change. He still dreams of going to a US college, teaching bilingual math and coaching track.