Blogsource=
http://aztlannet-news-blog.blogspot.com/2006/10/domingo-10-29-2006-aztlannetnews.html
<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<><>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>
<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<><>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>
http://www.elpasotimes.com/breakingnews/ci_4571182
Article Launched:10/29/2006
Police advance into city of Oaxaca (2:37 p.m.)
By Mark Stevenson / Associated Press Writer
OAXACA, Mexico -- Federal police with assault rifles and riot-shields advanced into Oaxaca on Sunday, bypassing or extinguishing barricades of burning tires and tree trunks in this normally picturesque tourist destination wracked by five months of protests and violence.
Officers in bulky black helmets lined a highway just shy of a sign reading "Welcome to Oaxaca" and used fire extinguishers to douse flames at a roadblock abandoned by retreating demonstrators.
Flanked by armored vehicles, water-cannon and bulldozers and with helicopters roaring overhead, they faced a knot of protesters who yelled insults and readied piles of stones to hurl. Some protesters used syringes to pierce their arms and legs, then paint signs decrying the police in blood.
In other parts of the city, columns of police climbed over burned-out cars and moved past hijacked tractor-trailers, buses and other debris used to block streets, marching toward downtown. Instead of offering resistance, many protesters retreated, pledging a massive defensive in the city center.
As police marched by, some residents emerged from their homes cheering and waving white flags.
What began in late May as a teacher's strike in this colonial southern Mexican city spiraled into chaos as anarchists, students and Indian groups seized the central plaza and barricaded streets throughout the city to demand the ouster of Oaxaca state Gov. Ulises Ruiz. Police and state forces - often in plainclothes - have shot at protesters, setting off clashes in which at least eight people have died.
President Vicente Fox, who leaves office Dec. 1, resisted repeated calls to send federal forces to Oaxaca until Saturday, a day after gunfire killed a U.S. activist-journalist and two residents.
While some protesters retreated, others fortified their posts at street blockades, pledging a street-by-street defense against the Federal Preventative Police. But Bertha Munoz, one of the movement's leaders, said that many demonstrators were peaceful.
"How can we confront them? We have already seen the R-15 (rifles) and AK-47s they carry," she said. "What do our people have? Most have just come to bring them flowers."
The Interior Department issued an ominous statement demanding that protesters give up their occupation of the city immediately, but officials said Sunday they hoped negotiations could avoid further bloodshed.
Protesters accused Ruiz of rigging his 2004 election and using thugs to kill or intimidate political opponents. They say they will not return home without his resignation.
In Mexico City, several hundred supporters of the Oaxaca protests converged on a hotel where Ruiz was rumored to be staying, damaging the grounds around the entrance and screaming "Murderer! Murderer!"
The government news agency Notimex reported that a vehicle transporting federal police to Oaxaca crashed Sunday, killing one officer and injuring 12. Federal officials could not confirm the report, but protesters cheered wildly as it circulated Oaxaca.
The protesters estimated that around 4,000 federal police had taken up positions around the edges of the city. There were no official reports, however, on how many officers were sent to Oaxaca, which is the capital of the state of the same name.
Demonstrators have occupied the city's leafy central plaza since the start of the teacher's strike, setting up a sprawling tent city and covering historic buildings with graffiti. Surrounding streets were mainly deserted Sunday, and just one restaurant was open. A small group of residents and tourists sat eating and chatting quietly inside.
Late Saturday, protesters gathered to mourn Bradley Roland Will, a 36-year-old from New York who was killed during a shootout between protesters and men they claim were local officials in Santa Lucia del Camino on Oaxaca's outskirts.
Will, whose body was laid out in a white shirt and a glass-topped coffin at a funeral parlor near the square, was remembered as a video and documentary-maker devoted to the protesters' cause.
A video posted by Indymedia.org showed the last minutes of footage Will shot Friday, apparently including the moment he was hit by gunfire.
In a statement, Will's family said it was "grieving over the tragic and senseless loss of Brad's life."
"Brad's friends and family admired his brave support for the downtrodden and willingness to act tirelessly upon his convictions. We believe he died doing what he loved," it said.
U.S. Ambassador Tony Garza said those who shot Will may have been Oaxaca police and Mayor Manuel Martinez Feria of Santa Lucia del Camino said five men seen brandishing pistols at the time of the shooting had been turned over to authorities. He identified them as two members of Santa Lucia's city council, two of that town's police officers and a former justice of the peace from another town.
The tense weekend standoff comes after teachers agreed to return to work by Monday; their strike has kept 1.3 million children out of classes across the southern state.
++++++++++
Federal Police officers stand of the entrance of Oaxaca City, Sunday, Oct. 29, 2006, in Mexico. Protesters vowing to fight to the death hauled massive tree trunks and used semitrailers to block highways leading into Oaxaca Saturday as federal police with riot shields and rifles poured out of planes, preparing to crush five months of violent unrest.
( AP Photo)
On the Net:
Will's video (Spanish site):
AP video: American journalist killed in Mexican violence
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
http://www.localnewswatch.com/jordanfalls/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=20382
28 October, 2006
NYC journalist slain in Oaxaca mourned
Staff and agencies
By COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Undeterred by violence, journalist Bradley Roland Will felt compelled to document what he called human rights abuses around the globe, so he headed to the volatile city of Oaxaca in Mexico.
"I am entering a new territory here and don‘t know if I am ready," Will wrote Tuesday in an e-mail to an ex-girlfriend. "Life is crazy."
The gunfire erupted in a rough neighborhood when armed men, possibly police, tried to remove a blockade set up by protesters who were demanding the resignation of Oaxaca Gov. Ulises Ruiz.
However, it wasn‘t clear who fired the shot that killed Will, who was working for Indymedia.org, an independent Web-based media organization, and selling video footage on a freelance basis.
Paris-based watchdog group Reporters Without Borders released a statement Saturday saying it was "deeply shocked" and "horrified by this escalation of violence."
Word that he died after being shot in the abdomen spread quickly in New York City, where he had lived for more than a decade.
Beka Economopoulos, a New York activist and friend, said Will‘s death would leave a void in places where journalists are needed. Will had been documenting the upheaval in Oaxaca in Internet dispatches for nearly a month. His reports showed he had strong sympathies with the movement.
Fellow documentarian Josh Bregman, who recently returned from Oaxaca, said he felt safe within the barricades among the citizens, but not when police were looming.
Friends described Will as tall and lanky with long brown hair, glasses and a scruffy beard. He loved folk music, played the guitar and had a huge heart.
"He was a warm, gentle person, who lit up the room with his songs and his cheer," said Brandon Jourdan, a former roommate.
+++++
Associated Press writer Rebeca Romero contributed to this report from Oaxaca, Mexico.
+++++
On The Net:
http://www.indymedia.org
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061029/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cuba_castro_16
Sunday, October 29, 2006
New photos show Castro standing, talking
By VANESSA ARRINGTON, Associated Press Writer
HAVANA - Photographs of Fidel Castro standing and talking on the phone were published Sunday in Cuba's state-run media, a day after the ailing leader appeared in a video to dispel rumors he was on his deathbed.
The Communist Youth newspaper Juventud Rebelde dedicated its front page to the Cuban president, printing a blown-up picture of a pensive Castro with the title "Always fighting for something, and fighting with optimism!"
The 80-year-old Cuban leader, who temporarily ceded power to his brother Raul in July following intestinal surgery, had not been seen since mid-September when photographs of him receiving world leaders at a summit in Havana were released.
The latest photos apparently were taken during the filming of a video broadcast Saturday, in which Castro, looking thin and tired, was shown walking slowly but steadily in an unidentified room and reading in a loud voice from Saturday's edition of Granma, the Communist Party daily newspaper.
"They've declared me moribund prematurely," he said. "But it pleases me to send my compatriots and friends this small video."
He said his recovery would be prolonged and not without risk but added he was making good progress.
"I am coming along just as planned ... I feel whole," he said. "I'm not the least bit afraid of what will occur."
He called rumors of his death ridiculous and insulting, claiming they were the work of his enemies.
"Let's see what they say now," he said.
Castro, dressed in a red, white and blue track suit, said he was trying to help those currently in charge of the government as much as he could while he recovers.
"I participate in the most important decisions with my comrades from the leadership of the (Communist) Party and the government," he said. "I do everything possible to support my comrades, and to be useful."
The rumors "motivate me to work, to fight," he said.
The Cuban government has treated Castro's ailment as a state secret, and rumors that he may have died had intensified in recent weeks. He has not made a public appearance since July 26, a few days before he underwent surgery. Cuban officials attending the inauguration of a ballet festival Saturday night said they were thrilled to see the images of Castro.
"This is excellent news for everyone — all Cubans, and all of Cuba's friends," Vice President Carlos Lage said.
"We are really happy to see that Fidel is better and that every day he's moving forward," Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque said. "He's not been lost, just working on his (recovery) plan."
The video shown Saturday came a day after Castro's close friend and ally Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the Cuban leader was walking and taking trips at night into the countryside.
Bolivian President Evo Morales said Saturday that Castro would return to office "in two or three weeks."
A top Cuban official previously said he expected Castro back at the helm by December, when the country plans to hold a belated birthday celebration for the leader, who turned 80 on Aug. 13.
Related Link= Video report
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=4706210#
Sabbath, October 28, 2006: Fidel Castro appears on Cuban television, ridiculing rumors of his death. A top Cuban official had previously said he expected Castro back at the helm by December, when the country plans to hold a belated birthday celebration for the leader, who turned 80 on Aug. 13. The ailing Fidel Castro appeared on Cuban state television for the first time in more than a month Saturday.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061028/ts_nm/mexico_oaxaca_dc_8
Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:22 PM-PST
Fox sends federal police to Mexico's Oaxaca crisis By Noel Randewich
OAXACA, Mexico (Reuters) - Mexico sent federal riot police to the southern tourist city of Oaxaca on Saturday after gunmen killed three people in the latest violence sparked by protests to oust a state governor.
Hundreds of federal police arrived in five planes on Saturday morning, a Reuters photographer said. Isolated gunshots were heard in the city, famous for its colonial architecture, cuisine and indigenous crafts.
Three people, including U.S. independent journalist Brad Will, were shot and killed on Friday when men in civilian clothes opened fire on the protesters.
A Mexican newspaper gave the names of the attackers and said they were local police.
About a dozen people, mostly protesters, have been killed since the conflict began five months ago, when striking teachers and leftist activists occupied much of the city, chasing out police and blocking streets in an effort to oust state Gov. Ulises Ruiz.
The crisis has escalated with frequent drive-by shootings on protester barricades.
Critics accuse the governor of corruption and repressive tactics against dissenters, whose hundreds of roadblocks have driven foreign tourists from the city and hurt business.
Mexican President Vicente Fox's office declined to say if the federal police would try to take control of Oaxaca from protesters or look to negotiate a presence in the city.
It is unusual for federal forces to be sent to conflicts in Mexican states, which are the jurisdiction of local police.
Fox has been under pressure for weeks from Ruiz and local businessmen to send in police or the army to Oaxaca.
SAND BAGS
The protesters say Ruiz is behind the shootings.
A Reuters photographer at the shootout that killed 36-year-old Will on Friday said the violence started when protesters came under fire after blocking highways and burning vehicles.
He said activists' weapons were limited to powerful fireworks, rocks and Molotov cocktails.
Protest leaders called on their supporters to reinforce barricades built from sand bags, barbed wire and burned-out vehicles in preparation for a possible federal offensive.
"People need to rise up with dignity, but we feel a great impotence because we have no weapons," said Araceli Gaytan, 40, a mother of two guarding a protest camp on the outskirts of the city.
This week, striking teachers voted to return to classes but many protesters say they will not back down until Ruiz, who blames the protesters for the violence, is ousted.
In May, federal police were sent to break up protests in San Salvador Atenco, a rebellious town near Mexico City. Two people were killed in battles between police and protesters.
Uniformed police have not entered the center of Oaxaca since being fought off by protesters during a failed attempt in June to break up a protest camp in the city's central square.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061029/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_elections
Sun Oct 29, 2006 @12:33 PM ET
Brazil president appears headed for win By STAN LEHMAN, Associated Press Writer
SAO PAULO, Brazil - President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva appeared headed to easy victory in Sunday's runoff election, thanks to support from Brazil's poor, who appeared willing to overlook the corruption scandals that tarnished his first term.
Silva's leftist Workers Party has been battered for two years by charges of vote-buying and illegal campaign financing, scandals that have cost the former labor leader and lathe operator his reputation as a bastion of political ethics.
Still, polls indicated voters were unwilling to abandon him for his opponent, former-Sao Paulo Gov. Geraldo Alckmin, whose tepid campaign style and robotic image has failed to win over working-class voters in this country with one of the widest gaps between rich and poor.
Silva voted at a school in Sao Bernardo do Campo, just next to the small house where he lived when he got his start as a union leader organizing strikes and opposing the 1964-85 military dictatorship.
"If I win these elections, then the integration of South America will have won," Silva said after voting. He promised to improve the country's income distribution and to improve education so that Brazil can "take a leap in quality in the world of politics, economics and business."
Outside the polling station, Silva plunged into the adoring crowds to hug supporters and kiss the Brazilian flag.
The last two polls released Saturday night both showed Silva, who is seeking a second, four-year term, getting 61 percent support and Alckmin 39 percent, similar to earlier polls. Both polls had a margin of error of 2 percentage points.
More than 125 million Brazilians were expected to vote in Sunday's runoff elections for president and for governor in 10 of Brazil's 27 states where elections were not decided in the first round.
Alckmin cast his vote in Sao Paulo's upscale Morumbi district accompanied by former-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and the state's governor-elect Jose Serra, who lost to Silva in the 2002 presidential elections.
"What really matters is the voting and not the polls," Alckmin said after voting.
Alckmin, who trailed Silva throughout the campaign, appeared to gain momentum for a brief period earlier this month after he forced Silva into a second round in the Oct. 1 elections, where Silva fell just short of the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff.
Polls had predicted Silva would win outright, but his campaign was tripped up after the news media ran photos of $770,000 in cash that members of his party allegedly planned to spend on purchasing an incriminating file about Alckmin and his allies.
The charges followed a string of corruption allegations against Silva's Workers' Party and while Silva was never personally implicated, the exposes reinforced suspicions of government corruption — suspicions stressed by Alckmin in his campaign speeches.
Even as he voted, Cardoso, who was president for eight years prior to Silva, continued to hammer at the allegations against Silva's party, known here at the PT.
"The PT can't cover up the crimes, Brazil has to investigate," Cardoso said. "Brazil is tired of impunity."
Still, Alckmin failed to make the corruption charges stick to Silva during the second round.
Instead, Silva battered his opponent with accusations that the former Sao Paulo governor would privatize cherished national assets and end the popular Family Allowance program that provides monthly subsidies to some 11 million poor families as long as they keep their children in school and get them vaccinated. It has helped lift millions out of poverty.
Alckmin has repeatedly denied he will end the program.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1027/p09s01-coop.html
Opinion from the October 27, 2006 edition
No matter who wins in Brazil, the poor still need to act
By Marlene Nadle
Foreign-affairs journalist and associate of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
NEW YORK – Conventional wisdom says that after a surprising failure to win outright the first round of the Brazilian election on Oct. 1, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will cruise to reelection in Sunday's runoff. Even if he wins, Lula will struggle to earn back that trust of those who no longer consider him their hero. There's still a lot of anger among the discontented voters who elected him four years ago - and for good reason. In addition to rampant government corruption, Lula betrayed almost all of his promises to his political base.
Lula won power in 2002 on a platform of helping the country's millions of poor. Since taking office, he has met only about 50 percent of his own social goals.
Lula's failed promises
He pledged 10 million new jobs, but created only 4 million. Unemployment stands at 10.7 percent nationwide, with joblessness hitting an estimated 70 percent in the slums.
He has placed less than half the promised number of peasant families on farms created from public land. In a nation where 1 percent of the people own 50 percent of the land, he has yet to begin his land-reform program that would buy and distribute private land.
He missed his target on providing healthcare to more people by half, and did not come close to fulfilling his promise to double the minimum wage until reelection time neared.
That helps explain why Lula got just 48.6 percent of the first-round vote. The votes he needed to get at least 50 percent and avoid a runoff were given in protest to two dissident candidates who were once members of Lula's Workers' Party.
Sen. Heloisa Helena Lima de Moraes, who left Lula's party in disgust, took 6.9 percent of the vote, while Cristovam Buarque, Lula's former minister of education, got 2.6 percent. Geraldo Alckmin, the candidate of the elites and the Social Democratic Party who will face Lula Oct. 29, got 41.6 percent.
Discrepancy between Lula's rhetoric about the poor and his actions caused a rebellion among his supporters in the first round and poses risks for the runoff.
Senator De Moraes, a fierce champion of social justice whose electoral challenge forced Lula to promise to improve public schools and boost social programs, is urging her supporters to deface their mandatory ballot - voting is required in Brazil - instead of voting for Lula.
An earlier strategy among Lula's disillusioned supporters called for voting for de Moraes in the first round, but supporting Lula in the runoff. This approach seems to be gaining ground. "We will vote for him not because of his merits, but because of our desperation," says Marcus Arruda, of the Institute for Policy Alternatives.
Lula did create a family allowance that provides about $45 a month to roughly a quarter of the country's population, which should keep the poorest of the poor loyal in the runoff. However, he has made almost no long-term changes to lift them out of poverty permanently.
His tight fiscal policy and his failure to obtain better terms or a cancellation of Brazil's $450 billion debt is what makes his former supporters most bitter. That approach left little money to meet his social goals in his first term and will limit him to small gestures toward the poor if he gets a second term.
A tight money policy also requires high interest rates, which curb economic growth by making it too expensiv for companies to expand and hire workers. Although Lula had the rate cut to 13.75 percent, in response to De Moraes's proposal to cut it by half, it still isn't enough.
Dashing the hopes he originally raised for new economic policies that would put Brazil's needs first, he carried out neoliberal policies that make investors happy, but bring little prosperity to most people. He is promising to continue those policies in a second term. So is his rival, Mr. Alckmin. That's why a Wall Street Journal story reported that "a runoff would present a win-win situation for investors."
A lose-lose situation for many in Brazil
It will be a lose-lose situation for the poor and those in the middle class concerned about Brazil's great inequality. Lula will make only a marginal difference for the needy if he continues his fiscal and debt policies. Alckmin, who wants to cut even Lula's limited social spending as well as taxes, would exacerbate the inequality. Both would eschew the trend among Latin America's populist presidents, whatever their individual failings, to try seriously to reverse centuries of injustice.
Brazil's hope for change lies not with the two candidates in the runoff, but with the social movements that originally put Lula in power. Led by the unions, they intend to present an economic plan to the victorious candidate. They promise street demonstrations to back up their cause.
Labor movements that still support Lula, though with new reservations, say they'll have a different relationship with him if he serves a second term. They understand that being his uncritical cheerleaders in the first term didn't produce much for the poor or Brazil.
The media and Lula's opponents are using the corruption issue to blur Brazil's struggle for justice. But this election won't be shaped by corruption. It will be shaped by whether Lula's betrayed supporters vote their anger or their hope.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061029/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/bolivia_nationalization_3
Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:29 AM ET
Morales' gas nationalization complete
By DAN KEANE, Associated Press Writer
LA PAZ, Bolivia - President Evo Morales completed his ambitious oil and gas nationalization plan early Sunday with the last-minute signing of contracts allowing several international companies to continue operating in Bolivia under state control.
Just after a midnight Saturday deadline to wrap up the nationalization talks, Morales joined representatives of eight companies for the signing ceremony in the capital of La Paz, achieving one of his nine-month-old government's central goals.
Among the companies were two affiliates of Brazilian state energy giant Petrobras, Spanish-Argentine company Repsol YPF and Repsol's Bolivian subsidiary, Andina. The French company Total SA and the U.S.-based Vintage Petroleum signed nationalization deals Friday.
Morales nationalized the South American country's oil and gas industry on May 1, giving foreign companies 180 days to sign new deals ceding majority control of their Bolivian operations or leave the country.
At the ceremony, Morales said the petroleum nationalization would be only the first step in his campaign to recover control of Bolivia's natural resources. Earlier this month, he announced plans to bring Bolivia's mines under state control.
"Bolivia will not be as it was before, a beggar state with many social problems," Morales said. "We will continue in this path of recovering our natural resources, not only the hydrocarbons but also the minerals and the non-metallics, and all nonrenewable natural resources that belong to the Bolivian people."
The president commended the international companies for becoming "partners" in Bolivia's future.
"As we have said before, we are looking for good partners," Morales said. "We need partners to help us resolve the social problems of our country."
Petrobras is Bolivia's largest single foreign investor and the largest player its natural gas industry. Its long-running and often contentious talks with Morales' government was key to the nationalization process.
With those tensions in the past, Morales spoke warmly of Bolivia's biggest neighbor.
"As Bolivians we recognize that Brazil is the leader of the region, and that's why its businesses are so important to our country," he said. "We are obligated to live with Brazil in a marriage without divorce, because we both need each other."
Morales also endorsed his ally Brazilian President Lula Inacio da Silva on the eve of his bid for re-election in Brazil's presidential runoff. "I believe in my friend Lula," he said.
While Petrobras is the largest producer of Bolivian gas, Repsol YPF and its subsidiary Andina control the largest share of Bolivia's known gas reserves, with 35 percent. Petrobras controls 16 percent and Total SA 14 percent.
All three are involved in the massive San Alberto and San Antonio gas fields in southern Bolivia, which together produce some 70 percent of the country's total natural gas output.
Under the terms of Morales' nationalization decree, the state raised its share of the revenues from the two giant fields from 50 percent to 82 percent, while taking only a 60 percent share at Bolivia's minor deposits.
The signings represent a political victory for Morales, who had been for months dogged by criticism over the slow and uncertain progress.
The signing ceremony took place in the same hall where former President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada privatized Bolivia's gas industry in 1996. In the decade since privatization, Petrobras has invested some $1.5 billion in the exploration and production of Bolivian natural gas.
Demands to re-nationalize Bolivia's natural gas reserves were at the heart of violent 2003 protests that chased Sanchez de Lozada into U.S. exile and catalyzed the indigenous political movement that eventually propelled Morales to power.
The new contracts came a week after Morales and Argentine President Nestor Kirchner signed a $17 billion deal significantly expanding Bolivia's natural gas exports to Argentina over the next 20 years.
Morales said the nationalization plan and the Argentine deal would provide Bolivia some $1 billion in revenues this year and up to $4 billion annually in four years' time.
The other companies signing deals Sunday were Argentine company Pluspetrol, British Gas Bolivia Corporation, British Gas subsidiary Chaco, and Matpetrol, a Bolivian company that operates internationally through its parent, Equipetrol.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/hl971.cfm
October 26, 2006
A New Strategy for Control of Illegal Immigration
(or tales from the Dark Side!~PSL)
by The Honorable Thomas G. Tancredo
Heritage Lecture #971
For Op-Eds:
Paul Gallagher E-mail= staff@heritage.org
Manager of Editorial Services
Desk: 202.608.6151
Cell: 410-591-1123
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since January of 2004, when President Bush first proposed his “comprehensive immigration reform,” it has become increasingly evident that there is a sharp disconnect on this issue between the political elites in the nation’s capital and the values and concerns of average citizens. This disconnect is evident even in the terminology chosen to discuss our immigration and border security problems, so it should come as no surprise that an acceptable solution has proven elusive. We can’t hope to find a solution until we have some agreement on the problem.
I have used the term “illegal immigration” here only because in this city, it is the way people are forced to talk about illegal aliens. But traditionally, and in federal law, there is no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”
A person who is in this county legally is either here as a legal immigrant or has a “non-immigrant visa,” meaning a tourist, student, or temporary worker visa.
If someone enters our country by unlawful means, he is by law an illegal alien, not an illegal immigrant.
I believe this confusion in language is deliberate. It is an effort to confuse the public and allow politicians to talk glibly about “the rights of immigrants.” The rights of immigrants are already protected in law, so it is the status of illegal aliens we are debating.
Two days ago in Denver, 600 people from 80 countries took the oath of allegiance in a naturalization ceremony on a beautiful day in front of City Hall. Those 600 people did it the right way, and they are welcomed with open arms by all Americans. Until they took that oath of allegiance, their rights as green-card holders were on a par with citizens, with the exception of the right to vote. Illegal aliens, on the other hand, are in a totally different category of law and their future ought not to be discussed under the umbrella of “immigrant rights.”
We ought to be able to agree that the heart of the problem is the continued flow of illegal aliens into our country.
We ought to be able to agree that whatever other immigration problems we face, they cannot be addressed until we have an answer to these questions: How do we control our borders so we know who is entering our country? How can we stop uninvited persons from entering—both across our borders and through our ports of entry?
We ought to be able to agree that lax border enforcement poses a national security risk to every American.
This problem of unlawful entry into our country is intellectually, morally, and politically separate from other issues related to immigration. I believe the President’s attempt to roll these separate problems into one so-called comprehensive plan has caused much confusion and needless delay in fixing our broken borders.
It is one of the great misfortunes for the nation and the Republican Party that over the past three years the White House has proven to be tone deaf on border security and immigration reform.
The President continues to repeat the same red herring argument, which he used again recently in his August 5 weekly radio broadcast, that the nation needs to find a “rational middle ground” between the “two extremes of mass deportation and amnesty.”
Bush further confuses the debate by insisting that amnesty is “automatic citizenship,” and that nothing else can be called amnesty. The fact is there is no such thing in history or in immigration law as “automatic citizenship,” and H.R. 4437 does not propose “mass deportations.” Yet neither fact deters the President and his army of propagandists from repeating the same non sequiturs month after month.
The interesting question for Washington policy wonks to study is whether the intellectual confusion preceded the political confusion or was in fact a deliberate tactic to advance a political agenda. The American people want clarity, not confusion, and wrapping a half dozen different immigration-related problems into one bundle of proposals is not the way to address any of them.
It has been the White House that has been out of step with the mainstream of the Republican Party, not Tom Tancredo.
I was flattered that the Wall Street Journal called the idea of a border fence “Tancredo’s Wall,” but the reality is that the mainstream of the Republican Party—indeed the American mainstream—wants border security now and consideration of other matters afterwards.
I am attempting to fix the most urgent problem connected to immigration policy and suggesting that the other problems can wait. That approach does not make me “anti-immigrant.” This approach is in keeping with the old adage that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is: stop digging.
Whether or not we have a new guest worker program, we first need secure borders.
Whether we have increased or decreased legal immigration, we first need secure borders.
Debate on other proposals makes no sense unless we first have secure borders. It has been a mystery to many observers why so many smart people do not see our broken borders as a barrier to immigration reform. Yet, on closer examination, the reason for this confusion is not hard to see.
There has been a deliberate effort by many to obfuscate the matter by telling the American people they cannot have border security without a guest worker program, without an increase in legal immigration, and without granting amnesty to all or most of the illegal aliens who have come across our borders without our permission.
I submit that the only reason we do not have a solution to the problem of illegal immigration is that the majority of American people feel insulted by that argument and will not support proposals based on such inverted logic.
The need to fix the borders first is so obvious that ordinary citizens suspect the motives of politicians who do not want to do it. And they are right to have such suspicions.
The Minutemen patrol on the Arizona–Mexico border during the full month of April in 2005 demonstrated to the entire world that the flow of illegal aliens across the border can be controlled by a physical presence on the border.
That Minutemen project was the turning point in the national debate over illegal immigration—not some policy paper published in Washington, D.C., or any speech by any politician. The action of citizens themselves tore down the wall of denial that policymakers and bureaucrats had so carefully constructed.
Once citizens understood that the border can be made secure by the simple addition of adequate manpower, the debate changed. Citizens will not trust leaders who insult their intelligence by claiming we have to provide additional ways to enter the country legally before we can stop illegal entry.
I believe leaders in Washington must chart a new course by admitting to the American people that we can fix our broken borders and that we will do so.
I believe that all parties and factions can and should come together to do this for the good of the nation, and that all other proposals be put aside until we can demonstrate to citizens that we have actually achieved secure borders—not talked about them, not promised them, not adopted a plan for them, but actually achieved secure borders.
It is also important to remember that this is not a partisan issue. Our national security, sovereignty, and identity are not items for partisan maneuvering.
We often hear that unless the President’s proposal or some similar amnesty plan is adopted quickly, the Republican Party will lose the Hispanic vote. I reject such thinking, and I will reject any legislation that is predicated so blatantly on pandering based on ethnicity or race rather than sound policy for all Americans.
The House bill passed last December, Representative Sensenbrenner’s H.R. 4437, has been widely called the “enforcement first strategy” to distinguish it from the “comprehensive approach” touted by the proponents of a mass amnesty as found in the Reid–Kennedy bill, S. 2611.
The Congress and the American people have good reason to be wary of any such plan that merely promises border security in exchange for another amnesty. We learned from the disaster of the 1986 amnesty that both border security and interior enforcement must be clearly demonstrated, not merely promised.
The national debate of the past year has revealed the unfortunate truth that the executive branch of our government is dead set against having genuinely secure borders—and I mean not only the White House but also the State Department, the Justice Department, the Commerce Department and, sadly, even the Homeland Security Department. This political fact of life means Congress must not only enact a plan for secure borders but must also monitor and oversee the implementation of that plan at every stage until it is fully achieved.
A Trojan Horse Compromise?
This past summer, a proposal was floated that supposedly combines the obvious need for secure borders with the presumed need for a guest worker program. That idea is a key feature of the widely discussed Hutchison–Pence plan. Yet as attractive as it may look at first reading, it is fatally flawed.
The “sequencing” of border security, interior enforcement, and guest worker plans is valid in principle—in fact, I included it in my own legislative proposal in 2005. However, to be viable in practice, the various stages of the sequence must be separated by years, not by weeks or months, and each stage should involve separate legislation that can be debated and examined in great detail, then enacted as our experience, our knowledge, and our confidence in enforcement grows. They cannot be enacted as elements of a single plan.
If anyone doubts that it will take years and not months to achieve real border security, they need only look at the plan announced by the Bush Administration this past month. It is a multi-billion-dollar contracting program to use the latest technology to build effective barriers, and it will take up to six years to complete the construction project. If we take DHS at its word, we need a six-year trigger for any “sequencing plan,” not a two-year trigger.
There are at least three things fundamentally wrong with the Hutchison–Pence plan.
* First, it is not a true compromise. Proponents of a general amnesty for all 12–20 million illegal aliens still get all they want with only a two-year delay, whereas proponents of border security get only a promise of what they want—halting all illegal entry into the country and serious enforcement of immigration laws.
* The second thing is that the proposal is dishonest about the matter of offering a path to citizenship for the “temporary workers” authorized. The Hutchison–Pence proposal permits these “temporary workers” to remain in the U.S. for the better part of 20 years, and at the end of that period allows them to obtain permanent resident status, and ultimately citizenship. They are also permitted to bring their families. These workers are not going to be “temporary,” and for the proponents to lead the public to believe they are temporary is plainly dishonest.
* The other thing wrong with the plan is naive or shallow thinking about “triggers” and “sequencing.” The real issue is not two years versus four years or even six years for the waiting period between enactment of border security plans and implementation of a guest worker program. The real problem is that there is no “trigger” that cannot be sabotaged by open borders advocates within the bureaucracy. As we saw in 1986, if the Administration is given a bill that contains enforcement and guest worker/amnesty provisions, they will take the amnesty and leave the enforcement.
I can give you an example from within the Border Patrol itself.
In theory, secure borders can be achieved next month by effective use of the military. In reality, the “trigger-certification” proposal in the Hutchison– Pence plan does not envision or require genuine border security, only a pale imitation called “operational control,” which is to be certified by the Border Patrol and then announced by the White House.
This term “operational control” is a term used throughout the Border Patrol’s “Strategic Plan” published in 2005 by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. It is on their Web page.
The inconvenient truth is, “operational control” can mean anything the Border Patrol and the White House want it to mean. The one thing it has never meant in any Border Patrol mission statement is preventing all illegal entry into the country.
The idea that President Bush would fail to “certify” border security in two years even if secure borders were only “substantially achieved”—the phrase used in Representative Pence’s earlier draft legislation—is either embarrassingly naive or deceptive by design. For any triggers mechanism to be successful, the triggers must be objective and outcome-based, and must be certified by a vote of Congress.
Cultural and Security Implications—What is at Stake
Failing to secure our border—or moving forward with an amnesty or new guest worker program—also has security ramifications. Look, for example, at the current political crisis in Mexico following the recent presidential election.
Protestors in Mexico City have vowed to establish a parallel government that could result in an intensification of already high tensions. Six years ago, Mexicans and the rest of the world thought that, perhaps, Mexico had arrived to a new era in democracy. Now, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that Lopez-Obrador’s loyalists could provoke a civil war.
If the Hugo Chavez–like Lopez-Obrador is successful in igniting this simmering powder keg— either provoking a civil war or seizing power—foreign investors will panic, the peso will plummet, and what is left of the Mexican economy will collapse.
Felipe Calderon, the election winner, has attempted to calm the situation, in part by making overtures to Lopez-Obrador supporters with promises of slowing, or even rolling back, hard-fought economic reforms. While this course of action may serve some short-term gain, if he follows through on these ill-advised promises, Mexico’s economy will stall or stumble. Either alternative points to a larger exodus of Mexicans bound for the United States than we see today.
In this context, the need to secure the borders becomes much more acute, and the notion of discussing an amnesty or new guest worker program more absurd.
Another important and long neglected component of our immigration system, and one that is critical to a successful immigration system, is assimilation.
In order for assimilation to take place, two things are necessary: a desire on the part of immigrants to assimilate and the political will for our government to require assimilation.
In many ways, both of these elements are currently lacking.
Immigrants—both legal and illegal—are coming in very large numbers from the same part of the world. This has enabled them, in many cases, to remain in separate cultural enclaves.
Making matters worse, government institutions are not facilitating assimilation. In fact, we are in many ways doing just the opposite. Bilingual education requirements, bilingual ballot mandates, and proposals in cities like Washington, D.C., to allow non-citizens to vote all underscore this problem.
What woke most Americans up to the scope of this problem were the mass protests for “immigrant rights” we saw around the country this year. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets waving foreign flags and unapologetically demanding that America adjust to their cultures rather than the other way around.
Those protests, perhaps more than anything else, turned the tide of the immigration debate. Those protests made it clear to many Americans that we are failing as a nation to assimilate new immigrants.
Until we can construct the physical and political infrastructure needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and assimilate the legal ones already here, we cannot even begin a discussion about what the right number of immigrants or guest workers to admit might be.
A New Strategy: Enforcement Works
If the Congress does not enact key enforcement provisions to achieve border security and immigration law enforcement, proponents of the enforcement strategy will carry the battle to all 50 states and into a thousand local communities. Illegal aliens will begin to self-deport as more and more states adopt measures to discourage the residence and the employment of illegal aliens.
If the Senate rejects the “enforcement first” approach by refusing to enact serious enforcement legislation this year, advocates of border security and immigration law enforcement should move to a new strategy, a strategy aimed at local initiatives in lieu of federal action.
This new strategy will be called, simply, “enforcement works.”
Serious enforcement and border security have not been attempted in 40 years, so there is no basis for creating new amnesty plans until enforcement has had a chance to show its real-world impact. Enforcement is a common-sense approach that the American people understand and support.
The new factor that will change the political dynamic is expanded and coordinated grassroots citizen activism to pass and enforce laws at the state and local level, which will simultaneously put increasing pressure on Congress to mandate the enforcement of existing federal immigration laws.
Among the main policy goals of this local effort would be the following:
* Mandates in state law for employment eligibility verification through the Basic Pilot Program and denial of business licenses to effectively turn off the jobs magnet;
* Requirements that all companies doing business with state or local governments verify employment eligibility;
* Requirements that all local law enforcement agencies identify and turn over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement all criminal aliens who pass through local jails and state prisons;
* Prohibition of access to social services not mandated by federal law;
* Requirements for proof of citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID for voting;
* Documenting by state audits the true taxpayer cost of all services provided to illegal aliens, including the services mandated by federal courts—health care, K–12 education, and all the benefits bestowed by “birthright citizenship” on the children of illegal aliens;
* Petitions by local officials for federal reimbursement of costs associated with illegal aliens (the main value lies not in the federal reimbursement but in the process of documenting the actual costs);
* Requirements for judges to deny bail to illegal aliens charged with DUI or any serious crime;
Outlawing of “sanctuary cities” through penalties in state funding to localities;
* Strengthening of sub-contracting laws to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers;
* Mandates that all local law enforcement agencies cooperate with federal immigration agencies.
Georgia, Colorado, and Arizona have enacted some of these proposals, and more will be enacted soon if Congress fails to fulfill its responsibilities. Success at the local and state level will build more pressure for action in Congress.
Pursuing these goals through a coordinated program of citizen activism will lead to the election of pro-enforcement public officials—from city hall to the statehouse, as well as Congress and the White House.
This new strategy will energize and employ a nationwide network of citizen activists to hold public officials at all levels accountable.
It does not accept as inevitable an amnesty that undermines our nation’s sovereignty, our workers’ jobs, our communities’ hospitals, or our children’s schools. It does not accept a need for increased legal immigration as a prerequisite to stopping illegal immigration.
“Enforcement works” is not a slogan. It reflects what we must do as a first step to get control of our nation’s immigration system. The entire system is broken, including the management of our 322 Ports of Entry.
There are over 4,000,000 aliens now in illegal status, people who entered legally as tourists or students or temporary workers but did not leave when their visa expired. Our government has no reliable way to track our visa arrivals, to know when they leave or don’t leave, or to find them and deport them if they don’t leave.
The US–VISIT program is still not implemented five years after the 9/11 attacks. Yet some supposedly serious lawmakers want to burden the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with ten to twenty million additional background checks and visa applications in a new guest worker program. That is a recipe for catastrophe.
The public is beginning to understand that the lack of serious enforcement permeates our entire immigration system, not only our physical borders with Mexico and Canada. Until we can get agreement that enforcement of our immigration laws is a serious task requiring serious measures and dedicated resources, all other reforms are futile.
The place to start is with border security, because secure borders are a precondition for control of immigration at all levels. Once we have achieved that and demonstrated a commitment to immigration law enforcement, we can move on to more complicated problems.
Enforcement—and the enforceability of any proposal—will be the key issue on many fronts, because our whole immigration system is burdened by a history of incompetence, corruption, and failed management systems.
The sooner we can demonstrate the ability to enforce our immigration laws effectively, the easier it will be to move forward with a meaningful overhaul of a broken system. That’s why I see enforcement not as a delaying tactic, not as a short-term, half-way solution to a larger problem, but as the key to addressing all of these problems.
I call immigration enforcement a “new strategy” because it has never been tried; it has only been given lip service.
In the 1986 amnesty legislation, we tried amnesty without enforcement.
I think it’s time to try enforcement without amnesty.
The Honorable Thomas G. Tancredo (R) represents the 6th District of Colorado in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061113/lovato
Immigrants Regroup
by ROBERTO LOVATO
[from the November 13, 2006 issue]
While standing next to a large wreath of white carnations in front of Ground Zero on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Simeón Yañez was reminded that one can be both an advocate for and a threat to freedom. "Our friends are not recognized," said Yañez, speaking of the undocumented workers who perished in the Twin Towers but have not been counted among the dead. "We're the only ones making sure they're not forgotten."
As he gazed up at the gigantic Stars and Stripes on a building next to the "Tribute in Light"--two rays of light piercing the dusk-hour clouds from the ground he and thousands of other immigrants helped to clean immediately following 9/11--his contemplation was interrupted by a woman who walked past and said, "F--ing immigrants." The 48-year-old Yañez, who survived death threats from death-squad operatives claiming to defend freedom in wartime El Salvador, kept his cool.
"She's ignorant and doesn't know what she's doing. I have to deal with this a lot," said the brawny, soft-spoken immigrant-rights activist, who organized hundreds of other Long Islanders to join the historic marches earlier this year. Only minutes later, a bald man wearing a corduroy sport coat with a US flag pinned on the lapel pushed through the small crowd of candle-bearing immigrants, many of whom bore flags of their native countries as well as the flag of their new home. As he got to the front, the man yelled, "You should not be here! You're here illegally! You're a threat to our security!" A calm Yañez countered, "We're here to remember our dead, our injured," as he stepped between the man and agitated Ecuadoreans, Dominicans and other men and women standing in front of the wreath. "They should have come through the front door!" screamed the man before being escorted away by nearby Port Authority Police.
Lowering and then shaking his head in disbelief, Yañez said, "Some of us have lived terrorismo here--and in our countries. This hatred only gives us more reason to keep organizing."
This dynamic, of immigrant activism and native backlash, mirrors a larger pattern that has emerged in the past year. While the Republicans (and Democrats) have de-emphasized immigration and re-emphasized national security, immigrants themselves have been not so subtly linked to the terrorist threat. There is little doubt that 2006 will be remembered not only for some of the most massive marches in US history but as the year marking the Al Qaeda-ization of immigrants.
In this context, the Bush Administration's immigration policies have become increasingly militarized. Halliburton/KBR was awarded $385 million in government contracts for the construction of migrant detention centers along the US-Mexico border. The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security just handed major contracts to Boeing, General Electric and other military-industrial companies for the production of drones, ground-based sensors, virtual fences and other surveillance technology for use in the Arizona desert that were originally designed for war zones like the deserts of Iraq. In May the Administration announced the deployment of 6,000 additional National Guard troops to the US-Mexico border. That same month, and under the radar of most people outside the immigrant community, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, now "the largest arms-bearing branch of the U.S. government, excluding the military," according to a Cato Institute report) along with the FBI carried out hundreds of raids in neighborhoods and workplaces across the country. The ICE's "Operation Return to Sender" program captured more than 8,400 immigrants between late May and August in what DHS officials hail as "the largest operation of its kind in U.S. history." It is no coincidence that this same historical moment has witnessed the passage of the Military Commissions Act, which denies the habeas corpus rights of even legal residents who are suspected of providing "material support" to terrorist groups.
The immigrant-rights movement, meanwhile, has been declared all but dead by the mainstream media. In fact, it is regrouping in response to the national security panic gripping the country. The strategy questions raised by this climate dominated recent meetings in Chicago, Juarez (Mexico), Washington and the National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles, where more than 2,000 leaders gathered in early September. Historians like Eric Foner draw parallels between the national security pressures that shaped (and divided) the civil rights movement during the cold war in the 1950s and the situation facing movimiento leaders at the front end of the war on terror. "The danger is that criticism of American society will be taken as aiding an outside enemy, and that the range of allowable discussion will be sharply narrowed," says Foner. "Another danger is the splintering of a movement as one group turns on another, to prove its patriotism."
Today, as many black leaders did in the 1960s, a number of movimiento leaders attack the politics of national security fear with their ultimate weapons: faith and familia.
"With God as my witness, I am not a criminal. I am not a terrorist. I am a mother who doesn't want to be separated from her son," said Mexican immigrant Elvira Arellano from the makeshift room she calls home and shares with her 7-year-old US-citizen son, Saul, on the second floor of her church on Chicago's West Side. Arellano, who made national headlines after taking refuge in Adalberto United Methodist Church instead of reporting to the DHS for deportation, provides moral, spiritual and political inspiration to a movimiento trying to redefine itself. "What is most important is that we, the inmigrantes, lead the struggle; we have to ask pastors, churches and other citizens to support us as we find a way to stop deportations and struggle for legalization," said Arellano.
The 31-year-old mother says she drew her own inspiration from the Central American immigrants she recently met during visits to California and Boston. They shared with her, she said, their experiences in building the sanctuary movement of the 1980s, when refugees who were denied political asylum after fleeing US-backed governments in Guatemala and El Salvador persuaded US citizens of many denominations to declare their churches sanctuaries. Elected officials in places like Los Angeles and Madison, Wisconsin, made their cities sanctuaries, prohibiting law enforcement cooperation with immigration officials, and many of these sanctuary ordinances are still in force. Arellano has had to face numerous death threats, hate letters and anti-immigrant protesters who believe she is a lawbreaker and should be deported. But this has only strengthened her resolve.
"We're watching the birth of a new sanctuary movement, and many are drawing inspiration from Elvira," says Angela Sanbrano, president of the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities (NALACC), a network of more than seventy-five immigrant-led organizations in twelve states. "A lot of the repressive local and national policies against immigrants use a national security and anti-terrorist framework," adds Sanbrano, who herself received death threats from Salvadoran paramilitary operatives and whose offices were infiltrated by FBI agents during the Central America sanctuary movement. "They use these strategies to develop fear, to create a chilling effect."
In such a climate, says Sanbrano, who is also a leader in several national coalitions, including the Latino Congreso and the We Are America Coalition, "priority number one is challenging this fear by helping people understand their rights, by letting them know about this thing called the Constitution that says we can speak out and question immoral laws. Priority two is changing those laws." Sanbrano attends weekly meetings with church and other Los Angeles groups planning to continue the sanctuary tradition started in churches like the late Father Luis Olivares's La Placita church, where immigrants received food, housing and protection from immigration officials. During her travels across the country, Sanbrano says, she has encountered numerous church and community members who are preparing for the possibility that, rather than reform laws and legalize the more than 12 million undocumented immigrants like Arellano, Congress will create laws that further facilitate their exploitation. And some believe even worse things may transpire.
Nativo Lopez, head of Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, a California-based association engaged in advocacy and organizing as well as legal and social services, says he already sees the effects of the more repressive immigration policies. "Since the marches, our offices are getting calls daily from people whose homes have been raided, from the families of workers who've been captured," says Lopez, who is also one of the key members of the recently formed National Alliance for Immigrant Rights, a grouping of more than 400 organizations calling for an end to deportations and roundups and for full legalization of all immigrants.
Lopez has several fears about what may happen if the crackdown intensifies. The DHS is poised to implement new regulations for so-called "no match" letters, which are sent to employers by the Social Security Administration, or the DHS informing them of inconsistencies between government records and the information provided by workers. These letters are commonly used by employers as grounds for dismissal or to deny workers their rights. Lopez and Hermandad have started laying the groundwork for workplace committees to defend against the threats posed by the new regulations.
Echoing concerns about the melding of migration and national security in Mexico and other parts of Latin America, activistas in the United States are cognizant of the unique problems posed to the movimiento by the rise of a national security state here. And like the millions of Mexicans organizing against what they consider fraudulent elections and increased government repression just a stone's throw across the militarized border, activistas here face colossal challenges. But rather than succumb to what they consider repression disguised as the defense of freedom since 9/11, Yañez, Arellano and many other leaders in the movimiento respond by opting to use hope, faith and good strategy in their own defense--in the process translating and defining "freedom" into and on their own terms.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/immigrant-rights-1102/
Published Oct 25, 2006 9:16 PM
Immigrant rights protest unites the issues
By Heather Cottin / New York
“We beat back Sensenbrenner, now for round two of the struggle,” said Walter Pacheco from the New York-based Ecuadorian group, Pachamama, as 2,000 rallied for immigrant rights at Union Square on Oct. 21.
People of all ages take to the streets for immigrant rights Oct. 21.
Photo: Roberto Mercado
Organized by New York United for Immigrant Rights, a coalition of over 60 groups, the protesters called for legalization, family reunification, and an end to raids, deportations and deaths at the border. They rejected all congressional anti-immigrant legislation.
Activists from the South Asian, African American, Caribbean, Latin American, Middle Eastern, and Asian Pacific Islander communities spoke of the relationship of their struggles to economic and social crises in the developing countries and immigration.
WW photo: G. Dunkel
In the bright fall sunshine, eight-year-old Joshua James told how he felt when, three years ago, “Daddy was taken to jail in his bathrobe and deported to Jamaica. The government says it is for families,” said Josh. “But I miss my daddy and the government took him away.”
New York City Councilperson John Liu questioned a government which says it is in favor of family values while conducting an immigration policy which destroys families, leaving children like Josh orphaned by deportation raids.
La Guardia Community College student Álvaro López described how immigration policy targets youth. City University of New York charges undocumented students twice the tuition of foreign students with papers.
Monique Dols, an organizer of the recent Columbia University protest against Jim Gilchrist, the leader of the xenophobic Minutemen, said: “We were viciously attacked by the Minutemen and their supporters and are now vilified by the corporate media. We didn’t create the violence; we exposed the racists’ violence.”
WW photo: Lal Roohk
“We need to protest in schools, universities, with Black and white, Latin@s, Asians, Africans, unifying to oppose racism,” said Rádamas Pérez, representing the Dominican community in Washington Heights, N.Y.
Bobby Khan, a Pakistani activist, said: “Since 9/11, the U.S. government has repressed us, arresting people in their mosques [as terrorists]. Last week there was a mass deportation of 40 men to Pakistan. We are victims of a lie, arrested, held in prisons without charges, and tortured.”
Hilda, from Esperanza del Barrio, a group of street vendors in East Harlem, said no one is illegal. “We live in fear of the migra [the Border Patrol]. But we are really the victims of a global economy that forced us here. I ask you: where would the U.S. be without the labor of my brothers and sisters?”
“How can there be a concept like ‘illegal workers?’” asked DRUM representative Rishi Singh. “Here is what is illegal: 4,000 have died in the desert trying to cross to the U.S.! $337 billion for an illegal war in Iraq!”
New York City Councilperson Charles Barron said: “This is a city of immigrants, and unless you are an Indigenous person, you are an immigrant to this city. They stole us from Africa to build this nation, making profits for the capitalists that we never shared. This is your story too. Immigrants must unite and support Black issues. We should bring the troops home, and use the money to provide jobs in New York City and across the U.S.”
Lamis Deek from Al-Awda spoke passionately about the poverty, unemployment, homelessness and violence Palestinians face. “Just days ago, an Israeli company got a contract to build a ‘border security’ fence between the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. took the most fertile land from Mexico, and the Zionist Israelis did the same with the Palestinian land. ... That government is right now planning an attack on Gaza. Like you, we struggle so we can live free.”
Protesters carried a “wall” representing those who died at the border wall as they marched towards Times Square, chanting “Sí se puede” (yes, we can).
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
http://www.fightbacknews.org/2006/04/afscmeresolutions.htm
October 2006
Minnesota AFSCME Convention Passes Two Important Resolutions
Solidarity Resolutions with Northwest Flight Attendants, Immigrant Workers
By Brad Sigal
Bloomington, MN - AFSCME Council 5, which represents over 40,000 public sector workers in Minnesota, held its annual convention here Oct. 5-7. At the convention, two notable resolutions were passed, both of which were written by AFSCME Local 3800, the clerical workers union at the University of Minnesota.
Solidarity with Immigrant Workers
One resolution called for AFSCME Council 5 to actively support the immigrant rights movement. While this resolution passed, it was the only one out of the 21 resolutions presented at the convention that aroused any debate and that some delegates voted against. The 20 other resolutions were all approved unanimously. About three quarters of the delegates voted in favor of the immigrant rights resolution, the Council 5 Executive Board supported it and one of the Chair Officers spoke strongly in favor of it.
But a quarter of the delegates voted against the immigrant rights resolution. This shows why it is so important to bring forward such resolutions, to bring the debate about immigrant rights out into the open in the labor movement. It is important to have the discussion openly, to try to convince those that disagree that this is about solidarity, and that immigrant workers’ fight for legalization and full equality is the fight of all workers.
The immigrant rights resolution that was passed at the Council 5 convention is one of the more progressive immigrant rights positions taken by a union in the U.S. Some unions have played a fairly bad role at the national level, such as SEIU, by supporting the ‘compromise’ Kennedy-McCain bill. This bill would create a massive second-class guest worker program, a three-tier program that would call for the immediate deportation of the millions of immigrant workers who have been here less than two years, impose a highly restrictive process that would exclude the majority of immigrant workers and a system where it would take more than ten years for the few who do qualify to get any sort of legal status.
The resolution passed at the AFSCME Council 5 convention is better than this. The resolution was modeled on the resolution passed at the AFSCME International Convention in August, but is more concise. It clearly comes out in favor of legalization, against expanded guest worker programs, and against ‘enforcement-only’ and ‘enforcement-first’ policies. It also states clearly that AFSCME is against NAFTA-style free trade agreements. The resolution calls on Council 5 and on locals within the Council to actively support and participate in the immigrant rights movement. It also commits AFSCME Council 5 to work against anti-immigrant legislation at the state level. The passage of this resolution was made possible by the generally progressive resolution that was passed at the AFSCME International Convention. It is significant that AFSCME Minnesota has taken a position against expanding guest worker programs as well as against enforcement-first or enforcement-only policies. This resolution puts AFSCME against all the main existing legislative proposals, from the Sensenbrenner bill to the ‘compromise’ proposals that Bush supports, which include vastly expanded guest worker programs and vast new walls and more troops on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Solidarity with Flight Attendants at Northwest Airlines
The other important resolution that was passed was a resolution in support of the flight attendants at Northwest Airlines, who are in the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA union. They are in a sharp battle with Northwest Airlines, who is trying to block the flight attendants’ right to strike - saying that since Northwest is in bankruptcy the workers should not be allowed to strike. Northwest has imposed a contract on the flight attendants with 40% wage cuts and other concessions. The flight attendants have voted to reject the proposed contract twice.
This resolution called on AFSCME Council 5 to support the flight attendants in their struggle, to mobilize for their rallies, as well as to take up a collection at the convention for the flight attendants’ strike fund. Over $2100 was collected from delegates on the floor of the convention and then the convention voted to have the Council 5 Executive Board match that amount, doubling the contribution to over $4200.
Camilla Wolkerstorfer, Interim President of Council 95 of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, was a guest at the convention and spoke about their struggle with Northwest Airlines. She received standing ovations, and she was brought to tears when they announced the amount of money collected at the convention.
Both of these resolutions represented a broad-minded spirit of solidarity with all workers who are struggling for their rights. This kind of solidarity - with mostly unorganized immigrant workers and with flight attendants taking on a vicious anti-union corporation here in Minnesota - is key to revitalizing the labor movement.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzapata
<>+<>+<>+<>+<>THE END/ EL FIN<>+<>+<>+<>+<>
Liberation Now!!! Amnesty Is Sanity!!!
Peter S. Lopez ~aka Peta-de-Aztlan
Email= sacranative@yahoo.com
Sacramento, California, Amerika
Key Web Links=
* http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/
* http://hispanictips.com/index.php
* http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/
* http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/home.html
* http://www.mylatinonews.com/
* http://www.vidaenelvalle.com/front/v-english/
<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>+<>
JOIN UP! Aztlannet_News Yahoo Group
COMMENT!
Aztlannet_News Blog
CLICK!
Aztlannet Website
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be for real! Love La Raza Cosmca! Venceremos!