Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: [Noii-announce] NO HUMAN IS ILLEGAL newsletter - Minutemen/ Security Certificates/ Mexican migrant workers/ News

Expand Messages
  • Al Soto
    No One is Illegal-Vancouver wrote:Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:08:07 -0700 (PDT) From: No One is Illegal-Vancouver To:
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 5, 2005

      No One is Illegal-Vancouver <noii-van@...> wrote:
      Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 08:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
      From: "No One is Illegal-Vancouver" <noii-van@...>
      To: "noiilist" <noii-l@...>
      Subject: [Noii-announce] Minutemen/ Security Certificates/ Mexican migrant
      workers/ News

      1) Report: Minutemen shut down on U.S. - Canadian Border
      2) Vancouver Province: Minuteman and his pooch Vigilante on guard
      3) Canada Defies United Nations and Paves the way to Deport Secret Trial
      Detainee Mahmoud Jaballah to Torture in Egypt
      4) Civil servant fired after going public about wrongdoing at the
      Immigration and Refugee Board
      5) An Open Letter to Joe Volpe and Anne McLellan from the Coalition
      Against the Deportation of Palestinian Refugees, Montreal
      6) 40 Mexican Migrant Farm Workers Stage Work Stoppage and Decide to
      Return to Mexico as President Fox Chats Business with Martin (Vancouver)
      7) Judge upholds lawsuit by two Muslim men (US)
      8) Hayworth to introduce immigration bill today (Arizona)
      9) Greyhound staffers face job loss if entrants ride (US)
      10) Prosecutions in Immigration Doubled in Last Four Years (US)

      Minutemen shut down on U.S. - Canadian Border

      The Minuteman northern border patrol has officially begun. As was widely
      publicized by the Minutemen and their supporters, October 1st was the
      launch date of this latest campaign – six months after the beginning of
      their first armed patrol on the Arizona/Mexico border. Detachments have
      now been sent along the U.S./Canadian border in the states of Maine,
      Vermont, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho and Washington State.

      Though slated to make a launch appearance at the Peace Arch, which marks
      the border between Washington State and British Columbia – there were no
      Minutemen to be seen there on October 1st. Members of the vigilante group
      were spotted - in much smaller numbers than originally publicized – along
      a few stops on the border near Abbotsford, B.C. When questioned by the
      media as to their original plans to have a gathering at the Peace Arch,
      the Minutemen confirmed that the location was changed in order to avoid
      the protestors.

      Instead, loud cries of protest against the armed border vigilantes were
      heard from a group of about 60-80 protestors who had gathered from both
      sides of the border as well as a heavy media presence to cover the events.
      Community members from Bellingham, Blaine and Vancouver stood together to
      denounce this latest demonstration of racist anti-migrant activity as well
      as the larger political and social ramifications of the Minutemen’s
      actions. Organizers from both sides have begun an active campaign to
      counter the Minutemen and bring public attention to the harsh realities
      surrounding migration and the threat that such groups pose to marginalized

      The Minutemen have also in the past told the media that the Lummi reserve
      has welcomed them to train on their territory in Washington State. A
      member of the community, however, completely denied those claims.

      “It is an outrage that armed groups can patrol the border and threaten our
      communities this way without any repercussions,” said Harjap Grewal, an
      organizer with No One Is Illegal Vancouver. “Why are these groups not
      being condemned by the government”, he added, “while members of our
      communities are increasingly subjected to racial profiling, arbitrary
      detentions and labelled as terrorists?”

      Since the Minutemen began their activities along the U.S. – Mexican border
      in April of this year, numerous communities in the U.S. have clearly
      demonstrated their opposition and outrage over both their actions and the
      impunity with which they have been allowed to work. Thus far, ½ of the
      Minuteman members have been former military and the majority have been
      armed. Though they have maintained that they are not a racist group, many
      of their members have been shown to have ties to white supremacist groups.
      The Minutemen and their supporters have openly blamed migrants and
      “illegals” as being the cause of disease, crime and low wages. “They’re
      spreading all the racist myths about migrants that we’ve heard before,”
      said Mandeep Dhillon, another organizer with No One Is Illegal Vancouver.
      “The Minutemen and their allies will say that migrants are free-loading
      off the system when the truth is that this system only exists because of
      the exploited labor of such migrants. If NAFTA can cross
      the border then so can the poor.”

      The Minutemen have stated that beyond border patrols,one of their main
      objectives is to influence the public perception of border security and
      policy changes to further militarize the U.S. borders. Resistance to their
      actions, however, is also on the rise in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
      Along the Mexican border, where a record 460 migrants have died in the
      last year alone as a result of U.S. border policies known as Operation
      Gatekeeper, numerous protest actions are planned for October 8th.


      Vancouver Province
      Minuteman and his pooch Vigilante on guard for U.S. of A.
      A few administrative snags to overcome, says Wash. state leader

      Salim Jiwa
      The Province

      Monday, October 03, 2005

      A private army's plan to patrol the Canada-U.S. border fizzled into a
      oneman show yesterday. Thirty observation posts were to be operating
      along the border in Washington state but only one was set up. And it was

      The two members of the Washington detachment of the Minuteman Civil
      Defense Corps who were to man the post deserted it because a neighbour
      told them their presence was making them "feel uncomfortable," said Tom
      "Skipper" Williams, leader of the Washington detachment. "We are having
      administrative problems with getting our ID cards printed and our radio
      relay sites set up," said Williams, holding his dog Vigilante
      as he stood on a metre wide patch of grass separating Zero Avenue near
      Aldergrove and Boundary Road in Washington state. He vowed the observation
      posts will be manned soon, and said reinforcements are on the way.

      The militia, described by U.S. President George Bush as "vigilantes,"
      plans to monitor the boundary in eight northern U.S. states Washington,
      Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York
      bordering seven provinces.

      The Minutemen say they will report to border officials when they see
      people trying to sneak into the U.S. Washington state Democrats have
      already passed a resolution condemning the group's plan, saying an
      unregulated private army could jeopardize the safety of citizens on both
      sides of the border.

      On Saturday, civilrights and immigrant groups held a vigil at Peace Arch
      Park to protest against the border patrol by a private army. A B.C.
      refugee rights group which took part in the rally fears the thousands of
      refugees who come from the U.S. to Canada each year will get into a
      confrontation with armed militia members. "Refugees are already vulnerable
      to various forms of abuse by governments, border services, law enforcement
      agencies and unscrupulous employers," said Amal Rana, an organizer with
      No One is Illegal group. "That they have to now deal with armed
      vigilantes on their way to Canada is a major concern of ours, to say the

      Williams, who said he was not armed yesterday, was upbeat despite the
      "teething problems." He said his pooch Vigilante "is armed to the teeth."


      Canada Defies United Nations and Paves the way to Deport Secret Trial
      Detainee Mahmoud Jaballah to Torture in Egypt; New Immigration Decision
      Violates Canada's Legal Obligation NEVER to deport ANYONE to Torture;
      Torture Survivor Maher Arar Calls on Canadian Government to End Practice
      of Deportation to Torture

      TORONTO, OCTOBER 4, 2005 -- Four months after the United Nations called on
      Canada to respect the absolute prohibition on deportation to torture,
      the Governmment of Canada has for a second time denied protection to
      secret trial detainee Mahmoud Jaballah, paving the way to deportation to
      that exact fate in Egypt.

      Jaballah, a father of six held without charge or bail since August, 2001,
      on secret evidence neither he nor his lawyers are allowed to see, expects
      to challenge the decision in Federal Court sometime in October. Jaballah
      and his family claimed refugee status when they arrived in
      Canada in May, 1996, following a decade of persecution, arbitrary arrests
      and detentions without charge, and torture in Egyptian prisons. R.B.
      Thornton, a delegate of Citizenship and Immigration Minister Joe Volpe,
      acknowledges in a 15-page deportation decision that in 2002,
      a Government of Canada pre-removal risk assessment officer concluded
      "there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant [Jaballah]
      would be killed or tortured should he be required to return to Egypt." The
      Federal Court has twice ruled that this assessment constitutes a final
      determination as to the risk faced by Mr. Jaballah if deported. R.B.
      Thornton writes in the September 23, 2005 decision that "there is
      the possibility that Mr. Jaballah will be subject to torture or even the
      death penalty if he were to return to Egypt," but proceeds to deny
      Jaballah's application for protection.

      Mr. Jaballah is one of five Arab Muslim men subject to a security
      certificate, which allows the government to hold individuals under
      indefinite detention based on secret evidence. Today in Federal Court in
      Montreal, Adil Charkaoui, released on bail in February of this year, is
      challenging the portion of the immigration act which opens the door to
      rendition of non-citizens to torture -- the act explicitly excludes
      people who have fallen under security suspicions from protection against
      deportation to torture.

      The Jaballah deportation decision is the first to be released in the cases
      of the Secret Trial Five since the landmark United Nations Committee
      Against Torture report, released May 20, 2005, calling on
      Canada to comply with the absolute prohibition on deportation to torture
      (see http://incat.org/cat_reccomendations.php). Decisions about whether
      Canada will grant protection for or deport to torture three other men
      subject to security certificate -- Mohammad Mahjoub, Hassan Almrei, and
      Mohamed Harkat, all at risk of torture or death if deported -- are
      expected in the coming months.

      The startling Jaballah deportation decision also comes on the heels of
      three judicial reviews of similar decisions which were challenged in 2004.
      All of them were found to be "patently unreasonable," "unlawfully made"
      and, in one case, "perverse." A fourth deportation decision was withdrawn
      by the federal government earlier this year as well. While judges of the
      Federal Court have yet to rule on the legality of deportation to torture,
      the Jaballah case may prove a touchstone that leads to a final
      determination about whether such decisions are legal in Canada. Justice
      Eleanor Dawson, writing in a January 31, 2005 judgment on the deportation
      decision for Mohammad Mahjoub, did, however, note that there are
      "powerful indicia that deportation to face torture is conduct
      fundamentally unacceptable; conduct that shocks the Canadian conscience
      and therefore violates fundamental justice in a manner that can not be
      justified under section 1 of the Charter."

      While Mr. Jaballah fights the deportation decision, he is also challenging
      the provisions of the security certificate scheme which prevent him from
      applying for bail while the deportation issue winds its way through the
      court system. Arguments in that case resume October 19 in Toronto. At a
      time when Canadians have learned a great deal about the shocking role of
      their government in the deportation to torture of Maher Arar, Ahmed
      El-Maati, Abdullah Almalki and Muayyad Nureddin, it is remarkable that
      this government continues to pretend as if there is nothing wrong with
      deporting someone to such a fate, says a spokesperson for the Campaign to
      Stop Secret Trials in Canada.

      Maher Arar, writing from Ottawa, comments: "As someone who has suffered
      and endured physical and psychological torture at the hands of a regime
      that does not respect basic human rights, I find it very shocking that
      Canada will deport Mr. Jaballah to Egypt, a country it admits, practices
      torture on detainees. "There is nothing on earth that justifies shipping
      off someone to torture. The best way to have security is to support and
      promote justice. If someone is guilty of breaking the law then he should
      be allowed to see the evidence against him and to defend himself in an
      impartial and fair manner. It is about time for Canada to repair the
      damage that was done to its reputation since it was criticized by various
      human rights organizations for being directly or indirectly complicit in
      sending people to torture. Canada has a choice to make and I hope it
      chooses the right one by committing not to send people back to countries
      where they will face a substantial risk of being abused and tortured."


      TORONTO (CP) - A federal civil servant who was fired after going public
      about wrongdoing at the Immigration and Refugee Board has turned to the
      courts for help because he says he has been punished for his decision
      to come forward.

      While the board says it axed Selwyn Pieters for tarnishing its image by
      lying to the media, he argues in Federal Court documents that his
      dismissal was in retaliation for blowing the whistle.

      "Everyone should know that there's serious wrongdoings at the IRB,"
      Pieters said in an interview. "The person who blew the whistle shouldn't
      be fired for doing it." In March 2004, Pieters complained to the Public
      Service Integrity Office that the politically appointed board members who
      are supposed to decide the fate of refugee claims were violating the
      Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by not writing their own

      The refugee protection officer also went to the media with his allegations
      that civil servants were the ones who were doing the decision-making.
      Following a probe by a board-hired investigator, IRB chairman Jean-Guy
      Fleury conceded "improper conduct occurred" in three cases and
      administrative measures" were taken against four board members.

      In firing him last month, executive director Marilyn Stuart-Major credited
      Pieters with exposing the wrongdoing in which he participated. However,
      she lashed out at him for his "deliberate fabrication" in calling the
      problems at the board "systemic," and for alleging a "code of silence"
      existed around the misconduct. "Rather than raising your own misconduct
      and that of the members concerned internally, you instead chose to
      go to the media with a story replete with exaggeration and falsehood with
      a view to damaging the board in a dramatic and public fashion,"
      Stuart-Major wrote in a letter obtained by The Canadian Press.

      Pieters, who is black, called his firing "an outrage." He said he went
      public because he had no faith the IRB would deal properly with his
      allegations because complaints he made about racism at the board led to
      reprisals. He was disciplined after an internal investigation concluded
      earlier this year that Pieters had harassed three colleagues by not
      keeping private his accusations of racial harassment against them - even
      though the conduct of one employee was "arguably inappropriate."

      In its final report released in June, the integrity office deemed three of
      Pieters' allegations were valid and praised him for coming forward with
      his "serious disclosure" of wrongdoing. "As a result, measures that would
      not have otherwise been taken had the wrongdoing remained unknown have
      been taken," the report concluded. However, it found no evidence he had
      been subject to reprisals. In his request for a judicial review, Pieters
      argues the integrity office's investigation into the alleged
      retaliation was "very cursory."

      He also maintains it failed to delve throroughly into his claim that the
      problems with decision writing were widespread. "I said it was a systemic
      issue and they're saying there's no evidence of any systemic issues here,"
      Pieters said. "There's no evidence because (they) didn't investigate


      29 September 2005

      An Open Letter to Joe Volpe, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and
      Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and
      Emergency Preparedness from the Coalition Against the Deportation of
      Palestinian Refugees

      Dear Hon. Joe Volpe and Hon. A. Anne McLellan,

      One might have thought that, being old enough to fill the shoes of federal
      cabinet Ministers, you would have long since outgrown the childhood game
      of hot potato. Instead you have simply increased the stakes, and instead
      of passing off a scalding tuber, you have moved on to passing off
      responsibility for the lives and dignity of Palestinian refugees in Canada.

      Either way, the music has stopped: Your attempts to disavow responsibility
      and accountability for our current situation are revealed.

      Ms. McLellan, in a letter dated June 4th 2004, you denied responsibility
      for the situation of over 40 Palestinian refugees facing deportation from
      Canada, tossing the potato to Joe Volpe’s office, stating that it is the
      Minister of Immigration who is responsible for addressing our concerns.
      Mr. Volpe, in a letter dated August 22nd 2005, you denied all
      responsibility for the situation of over 40 Palestinian refugees facing
      deportation from Canada, tossing the potato to Anne McLellan, stating that
      it is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness who is
      responsible for addressing our concerns.

      Our demands have always been clearly stated: end the deportation of
      Palestinian refugees from Canada and grant permanent residence status to
      all Palestinian refugees in Canada. In June 2005, we marched 220
      kilometers from Montreal to Ottawa with hundreds of our allies in
      Solidarity Across Borders to highlight these same demands. For over two
      years, we have made repeated requests to discuss our situation with
      representatives of your Ministries.

      The NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and members of the your own party, as well as
      over 140 civil society organizations, have publicly denounced the
      arbitrariness and injustice wreaked by Canada’s refugee determination
      process upon the lives of Palestinian refugees, and recognized that the
      plight of those unjustly refused—those stateless persons born in refugee
      camps, living under military occupation—should be immediately redressed.
      However, when these same demands are addressed to you, the two members of
      Parliament directly responsible, you purport to absolve yourselves of
      responsibility for ‘immigration’, ‘permanent residence’, ‘refugee
      protection’ and ‘deportations’—all of which fall squarely and solely
      within your joint mandate.

      Meanwhile, your fool’s dance does not absolve you of responsibility. You
      remain responsible for our suffering. Members of our Coalition have been
      deported back to refugee camps and unending insecurity, our health
      deteriorates under the stress of not knowing if or when we will be
      uprooted from our homes here and shipped out like last week’s garbage—as
      though we never worked 80-hour weeks in your kitchens and car washes, as
      if we never fell in love or held our newborn kin in our arms in this

      Maybe you’ve enjoyed your little game, but we haven’t.

      Tag, you’re both it.

      -The Coalition Against the Deportation of Palestinian Refugees, Montreal


      40 Mexican Migrant Farm Workers Stage Work Stoppage and Decide to Return
      to Mexico as President Fox Chats Business with Martin

      (VANCOUVER) - A group of 40 Mexican migrant farm workers staged a work
      stoppage today at Purewal Blueberry Farms in Pitt Meadows when their
      demands for improved pay and housing conditions to bosses were not met. It
      is has been 3 months since workers have been living under completely
      inadequate living conditions, and they have seen virtually no improvement.
      Many have to cook in the open air, exposed to the cold and rain, as well
      as take cold showers and air dry their clothes, even though they are
      charged rent.

      Meanwhile, Mexican President Fox is in town speaking about the virtues of
      NAFTA to Canadian and Mexican business and government officials, like Paul
      Martin and Gordon Campbell. President Fox is here in Canada to expand the
      very program that has conditions which led to the work stoppage. One of
      the negative impacts of NAFTA has been its devastating effects on
      communities of farmers and workers, who must migrate North to the US and
      Canada to seek jobs. The Mexican government is relieving itself of its
      responsibility to offer support for rural and urban development by
      exporting its population through such programs as the Seasonal
      Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP).

      Mexican migrant farm workers are employed under the auspices of SAWP, an
      agreement between the Mexican and Canadian governments. Each worker has a
      contract with their employer, and is here on a temporary work visa.

      Workers face a number of violations to their contract, including being
      paid 15 cents per box of mandarins, earning about $20-24 a day, when their
      contract stipulates that they must earn $8.30 an hour for a minimum of 40
      hours a week.

      Workers at Purewal say that what pushed them to make the decision to
      return to Mexico was that they "no longer believed the boss nor the
      representative of the Mexican Consulate" who kept making promises that
      were not fulfilled.

      Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW) and other organizations across Canada
      will be staging support actions for Mexican and Caribbean migrant farm
      workers. J4MW is a human rights organization that advocates for migrant
      agricultural workers in Canada for improved labour and living standards.


      Friday, September 30, 2005

      (TORONTO)- Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW) is demanding that current
      bilateral talks between Mexico and Canada address the poor living and
      working conditions faced by Mexican agricultural workers while they are
      employed in Canada.

      Mexican President Vicente Fox is in British Colombia today in an effort to
      increase business ties between Mexico and Canada. J4MW stresses that both
      governments must urgently address the exploitative conditions faced by
      many Mexican migrant farm workers employed under the auspices of the
      Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP), a guest worker program that
      provides offshore labour to meet the needs of Canada’s agricultural

      J4MW questions the motives of both the Mexican and Canadian government for
      expanding the SAWP when the deplorable conditions to which many migrant
      farm workers are subjected throughout Canada have not been addressed.
      Across the country, workers in this program have expressed a litany of
      concerns that include the following:

      • Working 12-15 hours without overtime or holiday pay
      • Being denied necessary breaks
      • Using dangerous chemicals without proper equipment or training
      • Cramped, substandard housing (for example, leaking sewage, inadequate
      washroom facilities, lack of heating or hot water, weather-exposed open
      air cooking facilities)
      • Overt racism from townspeople sometimes resulting in physical threats •
      Acute pay discrimination between migrant and non-migrant workforces •
      Unfair paycheck deductions such as for EI, CPP and other services, to
      which they have little or no access
      • Inadequate health attention and services
      • Limitations on collective bargaining and joining unions
      • Exclusion from many laws pertaining to the protection and rights of workers
      • Inadequate representation in policy making and contract disputes •
      Inability to claim residency or obtain educational opportunities for
      themselves or their children despite extensive years of work in Canada •
      Lack of appeals process when employers repatriate workers to home country
      • Gender discrimination: few opportunities for female workers and women
      are heavily are controlled and disciplined in various ways by employers

      Erika Del Carmen Fuchs, an organizer with J4MW who works with agricultural
      workers in BC’s Fraser Valley asks, “When will both governments shoulder
      their responsibilities and address the structural issues that drive
      migration, such as the impact of NAFTA on Mexico’s farming communities?
      The exploitation of farm labour is simply a near-sighted response that
      fails to address the root causes of unemployment and poverty.” According
      to Fuchs, “There are workers who do not have cooking facilities, proper
      heating in their living quarters and are subjected to verbal abuse from
      employers. Both governments must take steps to ensure that migrant
      agricultural workers are treated with respect and dignity. Currently the
      Mexican consulate is not meeting the concerns of workers in the program,
      so how it is possible that they could meet the needs of even more workers
      if the program is expanded?”

      A group of Mexican migrant farm workers accompanied by organizers went to
      the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Vancouver this morning in an attempt to speak
      with President Fox as he was about to address the Vancouver Board of
      Trade. Workers wanted to give Fox a letter to denounce their current
      living and pay conditions. The letter was handed to Consul Hector Romero
      who assured the workers that he would pass the letter onto Fox. Currently,
      workers at Purewal Farms in Pitt Meadows are on work stoppage, as their
      contract is being violated and they are subjected to substandard living
      conditions, which they say they can no longer tolerate.

      Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW) is a human rights organization that
      advocates with migrant agricultural workers in Canada for improved labour
      and living standards.


      Judge upholds lawsuit by two Muslim men
      Associated Press

      NEW YORK - A federal judge has rejected former Attorney General John
      Ashcroft's attempt to block a lawsuit by claiming that the threat of
      terrorism exempts the government from following peacetime regulations.

      The decision allows a lawsuit by two Muslim men who were detained after
      the Sept. 11 attacks to go forward against Ashcroft and other high-ranking
      federal officials. The two, who were later deported, are seeking to hold
      the officials responsible for their confinement and alleged abuse at a
      federal jail in Brooklyn where Arab and Muslim men were held after the
      terror attacks.

      U.S. District Judge John Gleeson's ruling Wednesday also opens the door
      for depositions of Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and other
      officials, who will be questioned under oath about their personal
      knowledge of detention policies if they are unable to successfully appeal
      the decision.

      "I think we have a strong chance of prevailing in terms of discovery going
      forward," said Haeyoung Yoon, a lawyer for Egyptian immigrant Ehab
      Elmaghraby and Pakistani immigrant Javaid Iqbal, who filed the lawsuit
      last year.

      The two argued that the government violated their right to appeal their
      solitary confinement in a special unit of the Metropolitan Detention
      Center in Brooklyn.

      Justice Department lawyers wrote on Ashcroft's behalf that the FBI needed
      detainees isolated from the outside world as the bureau frantically tried
      to find al-Qaida cells in the United States in the months after Sept. 11,
      making the appeals process and its limits on solitary confinement an
      unnecessary burden.

      "Regulations written in peacetime cannot circumscribe the government's
      discretion at a time of national emergency from foreign threats," they

      Gleeson singled out that argument for particularly harsh criticism
      Wednesday in a 70-page decision upholding most of the charges in the

      "This proposition, which suggests that, as a matter of law, constitutional
      and statutory rights must be suspended during times of crisis, is
      supported neither by statute nor the Constitution," he wrote.

      Elmaghraby and Iqbal were deported to their home countries after serving
      time for charges unrelated to terrorism - Elmaghraby for a counterfeiting
      charge and Iqbal for fraud.

      Yoon said Wednesday that Gleeson's ruling confirmed the validity of the
      charges in the lawsuit.

      "We do allege in the complaint that people at the highest levels of
      government were involved," she said.

      A Justice Department spokesman, Charles Miller, said the government was
      still reviewing the decision and had not decided what action to take.

      A 2003 Justice Department report found "significant problems" with the
      treatment of post-Sept. 11 detainees at the Metropolitan Detention Center,
      including physical abuse and mistreatment.


      Tucson Citizen
      Hayworth to introduce immigration bill today
      The Arizona Republic

      WASHINGTON - Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., today will introduce a sweeping
      immigration-enforcement bill that would create a new national Social
      Security card, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and
      bring a moratorium on immigrant visas for Mexican citizens. While the
      provisions of the bill were well-received by some proponents of greater
      immigration control, they were widely assailed by immigration attorneys,
      advocates for illegal [SIC!] immigrants and privacy watchdogs.

      The "Enforcement First Immigration Act of 2005" laces together in one
      package new and old proposals. It represents what Hayworth and other U.S.
      House conservatives hope will be their signature, core principles in any
      immigration-reform bill agreed upon by Congress.

      "The hope is that my model of enforcement will be a blueprint where the
      majority ... can come together," Hayworth said of the 113-page bill he
      will detail today at a Capitol Hill news conference.

      Hayworth joins several other Arizonans in producing his own major
      legislation targeting immigration reform, a key issue for the state, which
      is the gateway for most of the illegal immigration into the United States.

      Some provisions echoed a bill by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that calls for
      10,000 more Border Patrol agents, adds Customs and Border Protection
      officers at ports of entry and expands detention space for illegal

      But Hayworth's bill, unlike other immigration legislation introduced this
      session, would reduce the number of visas available, particularly for
      Mexican citizens. It includes provisions that historically have proven
      controversial, such as putting the U.S. military on the border, ending
      automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil, and authorizing an
      estimated 700,000 state and local law enforcement officers to enforce
      immigration law.

      Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for
      Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors stricter immigration
      controls, said the bill is "the right approach because it focuses on
      enforcement first."

      "It really does summarize the approach we need to take, which is to regain
      control of the border and then talk about whether we need an amnesty or
      guest-worker program," he said.

      But critics found plenty to fault in the legislation. Lynn Marcus,
      director of the University of Arizona Immigration Law Clinic, said the
      proposed legislation is a "monster," with "many heads," alluding to the
      number of controversial provisions. "Any piece of this could be a
      disaster," she said.


      Arizona Daily Star
      Greyhound staffers face job loss if entrants ride

      By Michael Marizco

      Greyhound Lines Inc. has been threatening to fire employees who sell bus
      tickets to illegal immigrants under an internal policy made public earlier
      this month. The policy was adopted after a 2001 migrant-smuggling
      indictment of Golden State Transportation Co. that grew out of an
      investigation beginning in Douglas two years earlier. Eventually, the bus
      company admitted to moving more than 42,000 illegal border crossers from
      Tucson to Los Angeles.

      The "Transportation of Illegal Aliens" policy warns Greyhound's customer
      service employees to beware of people in large groups, moving in single
      file and traveling with little or no luggage. It says other telltale signs
      include people "trying to hide or stay out of plain view" or large groups
      led by a "guide" who holds everyone's tickets.

      The policy has been in place since 2002, including in Tucson, where there
      were 335,000 outbound passengers on Greyhound buses last year, said
      company spokeswoman Anna Folmnsbee. Whether Greyhound employees are
      actually reporting illegal entrants in Arizona is not known. Folmnsbee
      said it has "rarely, if ever," actually happened.

      One immigrant-rights group said several companies in Tucson have the same
      policy, while U.S. immigration agencies in Arizona say they have used tips
      from companies calling in illegal border crossers. "We have had
      information provided to us by employees of certain transportation
      companies," said Russell Ahr, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs
      Enforcement. He said the agency does not keep track of how many times that

      According to Greyhound, other signs of smugglers include: calling bus
      stations to ask if immigration authorities are present, loitering,
      repeatedly buying large numbers of tickets for other people and using
      phrases such as "These guys just crossed the line," "My cargo" and "I've
      got to move my people."

      "This is the anti-immigrant climate going everywhere," said Isabel Garcia,
      co-chair of Tucson-based Derechos Humanos. "Obviously Greyhound has
      decided to remove its own liability by putting it on their workers." She
      questioned the training that Greyhound workers would receive to ascertain
      whether to alert a supervisor. Answers to that question were vague.
      Folmnsbee said employees are trained to look for certain types of behavior
      but that the policy serves as a reminder that there are federal laws
      against knowingly transporting an illegal entrant. "We just remind our
      employees that there is such a law," Folmnsbee said. "This is just a
      customer-service training." The policy is the company's way to cover its
      bases after the 2001 indictment, she said.

      "What it's really doing is encouraging racial profiling," said Derechos
      Humanos organizer Kat Rodriguez. "Which is the same as having state
      workers trying to enforce immigration laws under Prop. 200. It's not their
      job, and it shouldn't be." The company is walking a fine line if it
      enforces the policy, said Denise Blommel, a labor and employment lawyer in
      Scottsdale. Because an illegal entry is a violation of law, it can be
      tantamount to refusing to allow someone with a gun board the bus. Or it
      could be construed as racial profiling, she said. If a Greyhound employee
      believes the policy violates anti-discrimination laws and complains, that
      worker is protected from being fired, she said.

      The Golden State case prompted another bus company, Sistema Internacional
      de Transporte de Autobuses Inc., a Greyhound subsidiary, to adopt the same
      policy. The company owned a 51 percent stake in Golden State, Al Penedo,
      its chief operating officer, said. Golden State filed for bankruptcy and
      pleaded guilty in 2004, paying a $3 million fine and forfeiting a downtown
      Phoenix terminal. The Golden State case is still held up in the 9th U.S.
      Circuit Court of Appeals, said Mike Piccarreta, the lawyer representing
      Golden State's ex-president, Antonio Gonzalez. In June, the court upheld a
      Tucson judge's decision not to allow wiretap evidence collected at the
      corporate offices of Golden State. The government planted devices at
      Golden State Transportation Co.'s corporate offices in Los Angeles,
      seizing telephone conversations at that location that it sought to
      introduce as evidence. The United States filed for a rehearing. Piccarreta
      said he will file a response to that motion.

      The Associated Press contributed to this report.


      [This article clearly demonstrate the racist, yet popular, myth
      perpetuated by the government that migrants are criminals and terrorists]

      New York Times
      September 29, 2005
      Prosecutions in Immigration Doubled in Last Four Years

      WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - Federal prosecutions for immigration violations
      more than doubled in the last four years, surpassing drugs as the most
      frequently pursued federal crime, according to new data released Wednesday
      by a private research group. The change reflects a major shift in
      priorities since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

      Immigration prosecutions surged to 38,000 last year from 16,300 in 2001,
      as federal authorities mounted a crackdown on illegal immigration as a way
      of deterring terrorism, according to the Transactional Records Access
      Clearinghouse, a research group connected to Syracuse University that
      compiled the data.

      Prosecutions for drug crimes have begun to decline, dropping to 30,988
      last year from 32,753 in 2001, the new data showed. The Syracuse group's
      data showed that immigration prosecutions passed drug crimes last year as
      the crime most frequentlyprosecuted by federal officials.

      The study, analyzing half a million federal prosecutions, offers perhaps
      the firmest evidence to date of the refocusing of federal law enforcement
      priorities since the Sept. 11 attacks toward illegal immigration,
      terrorism-related offenses and gun crimes and away from drugs and
      white-collar crime. Prosecutions for white-collar crime dropped to 7,000
      cases last year from 9,500 in 2001, the study found.

      "This is a substantial shift any way you measure it," said David Burnham,
      co-director of the research group, which collects and analyzes federal
      data on law enforcement and financial issues. "We're seeing choices being
      made by United States attorneys and by the president about what's
      important and what's not, and clearly, the administration has changed the
      priorities of the federal law enforcement machine."

      The Justice Department has often tangled with the Syracuse research group
      over its methodology and access to law enforcement data. Paul Bresson, a
      spokesman for the department, said the group's numbers were "misleading"
      because a significant number of misdemeanor immigration prosecutions in
      Texas that had not previously been counted were included.

      Since the Sept. 11 attacks, hundreds of agents at the Federal Bureau of
      Investigation who had been working on drug investigations have been
      diverted to terrorism cases, and many financial investigators at the
      F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security are now handling cases
      related to terrorist financing.

      The new numbers from the Syracuse group bear out the trend. The number of
      cases brought by the Justice Department related to terrorism rose to
      nearly 800 last year from 115 in 2001. The number peaked at 1,208, but
      researchers at Syracuse and some critics of the administration's
      antiterror policies have asserted that the department inflated its
      prosecution numbers after Sept. 11 by including cases that had little or
      no connection to terrorism.

      With the drop-off over the last three years, "it appears that prosecutors
      are being more selective," Mr. Burnham said.

      A separate study by Mr. Burnham's group at Syracuse, completed last month,
      found that the Justice Department was now bringing many criminal charges
      in immigration cases that once would probably have been handled as
      administrative matters. This was particularly true in South Texas, where
      prosecutors went into "super drive" on immigration crimes last year and
      spurred a 345 percent increase in recommendations for criminal
      prosecutions, rising in a single year to 18,092 from 4,062, the study

      Federal prosecutions for gun and weapons crimes rose to more than 10,000
      last year from about 6,500 in 2001, the study showed, and
      prosecution rose to 728 cases last year from 428 in 2001.

      No One is Illegal-Vancouver
      To subscribe to low-traffic email annoucement list email

      web: http://noii-van.resist.ca
      email: noii-van@...
      (604)682-3269 x 7149
      Office 714, 207 West Hastings, Vancouver BC V6B 1H7

      The No One is Illegal campaign is in full confrontation with Canadian
      colonial border policies, denouncing and taking action to combat racial
      profiling of immigrants and refugees, detention and deportation policies,
      and wage-slave conditions of migrant workers and non-status people.

      We struggle for the right for our communities to maintain their
      livelihoods and resist war, occupation and displacement, while building
      alliances and supporting indigenous sisters and brothers also fighting
      theft of land and displacement.

      Noii-l mailing list

      Buy Hydrogen or Hybrid Vehicles, not Hummers.  The government and the NEWS should reflect, not determine, the desires of the people.The news is to be reported not a melodrama of constant trivia. The founding fathers knew that government is always corrupt, that is why they gave us civil liberties.  The people must lead to survive corrupt governments. Read the constitution. (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this includes information for research and educational purposes.)  Al Soto (c) 2005

      Yahoo! for Good
      Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.