[mobglob-discuss] NOII-Van News and Articles Digest

[Harsha]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: NOII-Van News and Articles Digest
From:    "No One is Illegal-Vancouver" <noii-van at resist.ca>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the No One Is Illegal-Vancouver weekly digest, which includes
news, analysis and articles.  To subscribe, please email us at
noii-van at resist.ca.


1) TAKE ACTION: Support Columbia Students Protesting the Minutemen
2) Minuteman Gilchrist and student Karina Garcia on Democracy Now
3) Counterpunch: “Why We Confronted the Minutemen at Columbia”
4) Indigenous communities at Border Summit of the Americas
5) (Security Certificates) Jabballah's son confident 'truth will come out'
6) TO Star: Refugee panel `in chaos'.
7) Sanctuary- Sergio Loreto deported after trip to store
8) CP: Tensions Rise in Caledonia
9) Leaflet text: Why Canadians Should Support Six Nations Land Rights
10) (US) Man questioned and misses flight for speaking Tamil
11) (US) Escondido council approves illegal immigrant rental ban
12) (US) Illegal immigrants could be targeted by Mesa
13) (US) National City named sanctuary city
14) (Europe) Transnational Action day against migration-control
15) Article: The Rise of Migrant Worker Militancy by Immanuel Ness


++++++++++++++ (1) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (1) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (1) ++++++++++++++

On October 4, the College Republicans at Columbia University hosted
Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist. The Minutemen are known for
inciting racist violence against immigrants. In an exercise of free
speech, students unfurled a banner on the stage reading "No One is
Illegal", prompting audience members to join them on the stage with
another banner with the message, "No to Racism". These peaceful protesters
were violently assaulted. Below is their initial statement published the
night of the protest as well as a link to a video showing parts of the
event. They are now under attack from the administration and potentially
face disciplinary charges.

* Excerpt of Statement of the Student Protestors (Full Statement Below):
We celebrate free speech: for that reason we allowed the Minutemen to
speak, and for that same reason we peacefully occupied the stage and spoke
ourselves. Our peaceful protest was violently attacked by members of the
College Republicans and their supporters, who are the very same people who
invited the Minutemen to our campus in the first place. The Minutemen are
not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist,
armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing
countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should
exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual
people not? No human being is illegal.

* Coverage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N41eXtVK7hA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwqPRmlb3Xg

* Support the Students

On Friday, Oct 6 Columbia University President Lee Bollinger issued a
statement condemning the protesters' non-violent protest and remained
silent about the violence of the Minutemen towards the students. Please
take action to contact President Bollinger's Office to express your
disapproval with his statement and demand that no reprisals be taken
against the protesters. By doing anything short of retracting his
statement and canceling his "investigation" against the assaulted
students, he at best blames the victim and at worst gives cover for the
use of vigilante violence against non-violent protesters.

President Bollinger's Statement:
www.columbia.edu/cu/president/communications%20files/freedomofspeech.htm

Please support the students by signing the online petition at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nominute/petition.html.

The students are also soliciting letters of support and solidarity, which
can be sent to them at nominutemen at gmail.com

Please call and email President Bollinger's office:
phone: 212.854.9970, fax: 212.854.9973 email:  bollinger at columbia.edu

++++++++++++++ (2) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (2) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (2) ++++++++++++++


TRANSCRIPT OF DEBATE AVAILABLE AT:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/11/1430231

The anti-immigration group the Minuteman Project announced yesterday that
they are seeking to strip Columbia University of federal funding for what
they say are violations of their civil rights. Last week, student
demonstrators disrupted a speech by Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist who
was invited to the school by the College Republicans. Gilchrist and
student organizer Karina Garcia joins us for a debate that ends when
Gilchrist abruptly pulls the plug.


++++++++++++++ (3) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (3) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (3) ++++++++++++++


Full Statement of Those Who Occupied the Stage
Why We Confronted the Minutemen at Columbia
By CounterPunch News Service; October 7 / 8, 2006 - Counterpunch Weekend
Edition

In the aftermath of the protest on the night of October 4 against Jim
Gilchrist and the racist Minutemen at Roone Arledge auditorium, we want to
state clearly: We are proud to send the message to the country that racist
and fascist groups are not welcome at Columbia or in New York City.

As Chicanos and Latinos, alongside African Americans and progressive
people of other nationalities, we took it as our responsibility to give
voice to the undocumented immigrant families who live in fear at terrorist
vigilante groups like the Minutemen. Armed patrols by these groups force
more and more people desperate for work to find even more hazardous ways
into the United States. Over 3,000 people-including hundreds of
children-have died in the desert. Their blood is on the hands of Gilchrist
and his thugs.

Fascist scapegoating is not up for academic discussion. Like Hitler in
pre-Nazi Germany, Gilchrist and the Minutemen attempt to demonize
foreign-born poor people, blaming "illegals" for society's problems. His
group doesn't present reasoned debate. It spouts racism and hatred, aiming
to divide people against one another.

Regardless of how Gilchrist tries to sanitize his message for national
audiences, more candid moments tell the real story. Gilchrist is a member
of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, which is now notorious
for referring to Mexicans as "savages." Speaking about Mexicans and
Central American immigrants, Minuteman co-founder Chris Simcox once said,
"They have no problem slitting your throat and taking your money or
selling drugs to your kids or raping your daughter and they are evil
people."

This vile racism translates directly into violence on the ground. "It
should be legal to kill illegals," said one Minutemen volunteer. "Just
shoot 'em on sight. That's my immigration policy recommendation." It is no
wonder that neo-Nazi organizations like the National Alliance praise the
Minuteman Project in their publications, and have members signing up for
Minutemen militias.

We are sure that if the Nazi party held a public meeting on campus, Jewish
groups would be there to challenge them-so would we. We are sure that if
the Ku Klux Klan held a public meeting on campus, African American groups
would be there to challenge them-so would we. The Minutemen are no
different.

We are pleased that an overwhelming number of people answered our call to
demonstrate against the racist, fascist Minutemen the night of October 4.
The hundreds of people outside Roone Arledge chanting, "Minutemen, Nazis,
KKK, racists, fascists, go away!" represented students and community
people from all walks of life. Inside the auditorium, perhaps as much as
80 percent of the crowd was repelled by the Minutemen's message of hate.

When we walked on stage last night with anti-racist banners for immigrant
rights, we were met with violent attack by Gilchrist's goons. We were the
ones who were punched and kicked. We are proud that despite these attacks,
we held our ground. When Gilchrist walked off stage, it was because he and
his Minutemen outfit were isolated.

This is not an issue of free speech. The Minutemen were able to reserve a
hall at our university and had the protection of campus security and the
NYPD-all to espouse their hate speech. We along with hundreds of others
expressed our right to speak and protest.

Over the last 50 years, throughout the Civil Rights movement and the
women's rights movement, ultra-right wing groups have routinely used
violence, lynchings, armed assaults and bombings against oppressed people.
Yet when we organize to oppose them to express our contempt for their
violence, we are criticized for inhibiting the free speech of the ones who
perpetrate violence.

We thank everyone who joined our protest last night, inside and outside of
the auditorium.

Shame on the Columbia University administration for launching an
investigation of peaceful protesters, and failing to condemn the
perpetrators of violence. Shame on the College Republicans for inviting
this fascist thug and provoking such outrage on our campus.


++++++++++++++ (4) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (4) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (4) ++++++++++++++


Mohawks join Tohono O'odham in solidarity at border summit
By Brenda Norrell

SAN XAVIER DISTRICT, TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION, Ariz. -- Indigenous at the
Border Summit of the Americas opposed a border fence that will separate
Indian communities in their ancestral territories and contribute to the
Bush administration's plan for corporate profiteering. Without compromise,
Indigenous called for a halt to the militarization, oppression and
psychological terrorism created by the military industrial complex along
the US/Mexico border.

Mohawks from the northern border united with Tohono O'odham from the
southern border and demanded a halt to the militarization of their lands
by the US Border Patrol, National Guard and federal agents. Mohawk Mark
Maracle, representing the Women Title Holders, said Mohawks from the north
are ready to support the Tohono O'odham in the south "by any means
necessary."

"We are directed under our law to go to the aid of others and not just sit
back and watch the devastation," Maracle said, adding that the proposed
border fence would upset the natural order.

"If this fence goes up, this nation will see natural disasters like it has
not seen before. It will disrupt nature and the natural order."

The Border Summit of the Americas opposed the border fence and the US
Senate's passage of the multi-billion dollar Secure Fence Act of 2006,
during the Border Summit Aug. 29 - Oct. 1.

Calling it another "Berlin Wall," International Indian Treaty Council
member Bill Means said Indian people would not allow the United States to
violate federal laws protecting American Indians, sacred sites and the
environment. Those include the Native American Grave Protection and
Repatriation Act and American Indian Religious Freedom Act. If the US
attempts to continue with its policy of ignoring federal law to build the
fence, Means said the government of Mexico will be called on to demand
that the US follow its own laws and issue an environmental impact
statement before building the fence. Means said Indian people would not
sit by and allow the US to carry out the mandate of the US to disregard
laws to violate Indian lands. (Homeland Security waived environmental and
other laws in 200 to complete the border fence in Southern California.
Kumeyaay said it would allow the US to "plow though" the burial places of
their ancestors.)

During the summit, Angelita Ramon, mother of Bennett Patricio, Jr.,
18-year-old Tohono O'odham, described how her son was ran over and killed
by the Border Patrol. Ramon described the harassment followed when they
began to investigate the details of his death and whether it was an
accident. The family has filed suit against the Border Patrol and United
States. Ramon said the case was transferred to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco, since justice was impossible in the high court
in Tucson, Arizona.

Mike Wilson, Tohono O'odham who puts out water for migrants on tribal
lands, challenged the Tohono O'odham Nation to become morally responsible
and not continue to allow migrants to die in the desert from dehydration.
On tribal land, Baboquivari District has one of the highest rates of
deaths for migrants. "No one should be allowed to die for want of a drink
of water," Wilson said, pointing out that his individual effort comes
after humanitarian groups were halted by the tribe from coming on tribal
land to render aid.

Indigenous at the summit called for a halt to corporate welfare, including
contracts to Boeing to build the border fence and contracts to
Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown and Root to build migrant prisons. During the
testimony, indigenous said the militarization and occupation of Indigenous
lands are in direct violation of Indigenous Peoples' rights to economic,
political, social and cultural control of their lands. Urging a halt to
trade policies, which are leading to mass starvation and unemployment in
the Americas, the summit called for reforms of the
North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade agreements. During the
summit, Tohono O'odham described how Border Patrol intrude into the homes
of elderly O'odham without permission, hold people at gunpoint and ask for
papers and occupy and throw garbage in sacred sites, including Baboquivari
Peaks, the sacred place of the Creator I'itoi. Floyd Westerman Red Crow
sang the all-time favorite,  "Custer
Died for Your Sins," and Keith Secola performed another crowd favorite,
"Indian Kars," during their outdoor concert on tribal land. Westerman
showed a film work in progress of the genocide of American Indians. The
first in the series is focused on the genocide by missions and gold miners
in the state of California. It also describes the militia who collected
bounties paid the state and federal governments for Indian scalps and
Indian heads. It further documents how small pox blankets were given to
Indians in California during the ongoing era of genocide.

The summit called for a halt to subsidized and genetically modified seeds,
including corn and grain that have decimated Indigenous economies.
Further, local, state and federal governments were told to recognize the
international rights of Indigenous Peoples as upheld by the United
Nations, treaty rights, and the sovereignty of American Indians. Further
governments were told to obtain prior permission before entering onto or
engaging in construction or development on indigenous lands. Pointing out
that the fragile desert ecosystem and all of its creatures will be
impacted, Maracle said, "The environmentalists should be up in arms."

Maracle said he was directed by the Women Title Holders to attend the
summit as a representative, because Native people face the same intrusions
and violations of human rights at the northern border. The Women Title
Holders said in a statement, "The colonial government has imposed tribal
and band council systems which are not supported by our people. Under
international law we have a right to our nationality and cannot be
arbitrarily denied that right." While supporting the right of passage of
Indigenous Peoples at the Southern Border, the statement of the Women
Title Holders said Native people, by traditional and federal law, have the
right of passage at the Northern Border. "Whereas the Red Card indicates
that a person is a Haudenosaunee/Six
Nations Iroquois of Turtle Island. According to the Two Row Wampum
Agreement, at all times we are free to pass and repass by land or inland
navigation [or by air] onto our territories, that we are free to carry on
trade and commerce with each other, that we shall not pay any duty or
import whatever, that we are free to hunt and fish anywhere on our vast
territory and that we shall have free passage over all toll roads and
bridges."

The Border Summit opposed anti-Indian legislation in Arizona, including
Prop 103 English-only, Prop 200 voter identification and Prop 300 proof of
citizenship for services.

The summit was organized by Tohono O'odham Mike Flores and facilitated by
the International Indian Treaty Council members, including Bill Means,
Tony Gonzales and Jimbo Simmons. The testimony was live on the radio in
the Tucson area, and live on the Internet, with listeners responding
around the world. After processing, the audio files will be available in
the archives of Earth Cycles: www.earthcycles.net

Tom B.K. Goldtooth
Executive Director Indigenous Environmental Network


++++++++++++++ (5) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (5) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (5) ++++++++++++++


Jabballah's son confident 'truth will come out'
Oct. 5, 2006. 07:10 PM CURTIS RUSH Toronto Star

The 20-year-old son of an Egyptian man detained for five years in Canada
without charge made an impassioned plea on the stand Thursday for his
father’s release.
Ahmad Jaballah repeated his mother’s testimony from Wednesday, describing
in Toronto Federal Court how badly the family misses Mahmoud Jaballah.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service alleges Jaballah was a member
of the Egyptian al-Jihad, a terrorist group with links to Osama bin
Laden's Al Qaeda network, before he and his family arrived in Canada.

He has been accused of orchestrating several bombings in east Africa and
has been detained for five years on a national security certificate
without charge.

“I’m aware of the allegations against him and the court proceedings,” the
University of Toronto student said at his father’s third bail hearing
since 2001.

“I know his side of the story. I would ask him why he kept being
re-arrested (seven arrests in total) in Egypt and why do we keep going
through these events (without any charges),” Ahmad said.

While in Egypt, Jaballah attended a university where authorities say
members of Al Jihad were recruited. The government claims Jaballah is a
member of the outlawed group that claimed re- sponsibility for the 1981
assassination of the country’s president, Anwar Sadat. That group would
later join forces with Al Qaeda.

Jaballah was frequently detained in Cairo by Egyptian authorities. Each
time, he was released after being defended by Tharwat Salah Shehata.

Shehata later went to Afghanistan and ran Osama bin Laden’s civilian
branch of Al Qaeda, au- thorities state.

Jaballah’s troubles followed him to Canada in 1996 when the spy agency
alleged he made doz- ens of calls to the U.K., Yemen, Pakistan and
Azerbaijan and made personal visits with suspected terrorists.

Those calls, many lasting less than a minute, were innocent, Jaballah has
told the court.

Ahmad, who is studying neuroscience at university, said he is upset by
what he called the “secret trials” of five men, including his father, who
have been detained on national security certificates because the gov-
ernment says they pose a risk to public safety.

However, Ahmad said Thursday that Canada is a great country and he is
confident “the truth will come out.”

“I still have faith in this country. And in this country you’re innocent
until proven guilty. But I haven’t seen any solid proof.”

Outside court, Ahmad said his father is merely the subject of “guilt by
association.”

On the stand, Ahmad was asked by government lawyer Michael Dale what he
knew about Hassan Farhat, whom he called the leader of a suicide squad.

Ahmad said Farhat was well known to the family, as were his children, and
he knew nothing of his alleged terrorist activities.

Ahmad offered the $3,000 he made at his summer job as a cash bond should
his father be released under strict conditions.

He told the government lawyer that he would have no problem with turning
his father in if he breached any bail conditions, but doubted he would
have to.

“I don’t think he would risk going back to jail. He knows I would do it
(call police)," he said. "I am dead serious."

A group of 14 sureties, which includes former Iraq hostage James Loney,
have pledged $124,000 in bonds for the release of Jaballah.

If released, the 44-year-old Islamic teacher would wear an electronic
monitoring device and his movements would be restricted, according to
proposed conditions.

A representative from CSIS is expected to testify before the detention
review hearing concludes.

The hearing continues Friday and is expected to wrap up next week.


++++++++++++++ (6) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (6) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (6) ++++++++++++++


Refugee panel `in chaos'
Immigrant hearings routinely cancelled as backlog grows Tories criticized
for failing to replace 34 board members
Oct. 3, 2006. 01:00 AM NICHOLAS KEUNG Toronto Star

Refugee claimants in Canada are seeing their long-awaited hearings
cancelled or postponed because the Conservative government isn't
appointing enough members to the Immigration and Refugee Board, say
refugee advocates.

Most members appointed under the old Liberal regime aren't being renewed
as their terms expire. The slow pace of replacement is prompting fears of
a growing backlog in the already-overloaded system, as well as a renewal
of past patronage appointments.

The IRB itself is so frustrated that it has publicly warned claimants that
the shortage of adjudicators will delay their cases. The board is short 34
members — 22 per cent of its total complement.

"At the rate we are going, this will mean longer waiting times for persons
appearing before the IRB as well as a growing inventory of cases waiting
to be heard," spokesperson Charles Hawkins said in an interview.

Since the Conservative government was sworn in last February, only eight
new appointments and 12 reappointments have been made. Meanwhile, 29
experienced IRB members were let go when their tenures expired. To
maintain normal operations, the board will need 44 new appointments and 20
reappointments by March.

"It has already created chaos at the board because many hearings have
routinely been cancelled now," said Toronto refugee lawyer Raoul Boulakia.
Nine of his 16 cases that were to have been heard in September and October
have been rescheduled.

"It's questionable why the government will let the administration of
justice be neglected so much."

Lesley Harmer, spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Monte Solberg, pointed
out that the appointment process now takes six to eight months. To improve
recruitment, the IRB placed job notices in national and local papers for
the first time, drawing more than 350 applicants, she added.

"The time frame (of appointments) is unacceptable, and we are taking steps
to reduce it," Harmer said.

But since most members not renewed were Liberal appointees, critics
suggest it amounts to a political "housecleaning" — despite reforms two
years ago that were meant to end the practice of patronage appointments to
the IRB.

"We are concerned that there are insufficient board members, and also
who's being appointed," said Janet Dench, executive director of the
Canadian Council for Refugees. "The suspicion is that the government is
delaying the appointments so new names with Tory connections can be
brought forward."

The former government revamped the IRB's appointment process in 2004,
requiring candidates to take qualifying exams and be interviewed by an
independent selection committee before being short listed. Although
cabinet still has the final say, the process is supposed to eliminate
political manoeuvring.

Refugee claims have dropped from more than 44,000 in 2001 to roughly
20,000 last year, mainly as a result of the Safe Third Country Agreement,
which effectively eliminates claimants arriving via the United States.

Reducing hearing panels from two adjudicators to one also has helped cut
average processing time from 16 to 10 months.

Geraldine MacDonald, president of the 200-member Refugee Lawyers
Association of Ontario, said it's not unusual for hearings to be
rescheduled, but it was only recently that administrators began telling
lawyers that "we don't have any member to get to your case."

Peter Showler, who served on the board from 1994 to 2002, said the
government's slow movement will not only increase the time it takes
refugees to get a hearing, but also compromise the quality of the
decisions.

"They are letting go some really strong members, who are the lead dogs of
the sled-dog team," argued Showler, who now teaches refugee law at the
University of Ottawa.

"This is foolish. Who does the government think will train and mentor the
new cadre of members when the government eventually gets around to
appointing them? This is going to do serious damage to the board and to
refugees."


++++++++++++++ (7) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (7) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (7) ++++++++++++++

Man deported after trip to store
Stewart Bell, National Post
Published: Friday, October 06, 2006

On the day he was to be deported to Guatemala City, alleged war criminal
Sergio Loreto Garcia went instead to San Lorenzo church in Toronto and
refused to come out.

Reluctant to violate the tradition of church sanctuary, immigration
officers declined to enter the tiny Anglican parish to arrest Mr. Garcia
and for two years he dwelled in the basement, untouchable.

Then he made a fateful trip to Home Depot.

On Sept. 24, the second anniversary of the day he had gone into hiding,
Mr. Garcia drove a few blocks to the hardware store chain and was stopped
for a minor traffic violation.

The police officer checked his identification, saw his outstanding
immigration warrant and took him into custody. He was deported to
Guatemala last Saturday, six days after he was stopped.

"He made a mistake," said Father Hernan Astudillo of San Lorenzo church,
who had befriended Mr. Garcia, a well-liked handyman at the north-end
Hispanic church. "He was fixing the lock in his room.... He went to buy a
lock for his room and when he went to buy a lock, the moment he was going
in the Home Depot ... the police came and asked him directly, 'Give me
your papers.'"

Anna Pape, a Canada Border Services Agency spokeswoman, confirmed to the
National Post yesterday that Mr. Garcia had been deported on Sept. 30. His
wife and three children remain in Canada. The deportation of Mr. Garcia
was the culmination of a fight with Canada's immigration department that
had dragged on for almost two decades, and may not be over yet.

Mr. Garcia arrived in Canada in 1987 and applied for refugee status two
years later, but his claim was turned down on the grounds that he was an
accomplice in crimes against humanity. In his refugee application, Mr.
Garcia said he had served in the Guatemalan military during a time the
country's armed forces were complicit in the torture of captured rebels.
Although Mr. Garcia's refugee claim was rejected, his wife was accepted as
a landed immigrant. She sponsored Mr. Garcia. He was accepted as an
immigrant, but authorities now say he lied when he failed to disclose that
he had been found complicit in war crimes.

The immigration department began deportation proceedings in 1998 and,
after several failed appeals, Mr. Garcia was ordered to appear at Pierre
Elliott Trudeau International Airport in Montreal for deportation on Sept.
24, 2004.  He never showed up. Leaving his family in Montreal, Mr. Garcia
made his way to Toronto and San Lorenzo church, where he lived under the
name Mario and spent his time "praying and crying and waiting," Fr.
Astudillo said.

In October, 2004, Vision TV aired an exclusive interview with Mr. Garcia,
in which he recanted his story and claimed he had never actually served in
the Guatemalan military. "The history I told them was not my history," he
said. "I had to find some way to stay here in Canada, and that's the way I
chose.... Now, I see the consequence."  The following January, he summoned
reporters to San Lorenzo and admitted he had been living there. The
Canadian Auto Workers and Bloc Quebecois rallied behind him.

While immigration officials would not enter the church to arrest Mr.
Garcia, his sanctuary did not extend to his local hardware store. In the
Home Depot parking lot, Mr. Garcia was approached by two police officers,
Fr. Astudillo said. "Technically, yes you are right, they didn't violate
the sanctuary inside the church, but humanitarily they did because they
were doing harassment, persecution, waiting, waiting.
 "And it was a big mistake."
He said Mr. Garcia thought that he would not be arrested because he was
awaiting the results of his latest appeal, which argued he should be
allowed to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
>From the police station, he was taken to the immigration holding centre
near Pearson airport. At a hearing last week, an immigration adjudicator
said Mr. Garcia had only avoided deportation because of the principle of
church sanctuary.

"It would have been somewhat unpalatable for Canada Border Services Agency
or the police to go and physically remove Mr. Garcia from the church, so
they did not," the board ruled. "Mr. Garcia left the church on his own
volition and came into contact with police through a traffic violation.
Had this incident not occurred, I do not believe that it's unreasonable to
surmise that Mr. Garcia would not have come to Canada Border Services
Agency voluntarily."

The board refused to release him and he was deported four days later. "It
was a heartbreak for our community," Fr. Astudillo said.  He said he
believes Mr. Garcia never served in the Guatemalan military, and said his
lawyer will prove it. "He never, ever was a soldier."


++++++++++++++ (8) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (8) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (8) ++++++++++++++

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061011.wcaled1011/BNStory/National
Tension rises in Caledonia
CHINTA PUXLEY
Canadian Press

TORONTO — The mayor of Haldimand County is prepared to declare a state of
emergency in Caledonia, Ont., this weekend after the province said it
won't stop a potentially dangerous rally and it's counting on police to
prevent bloodshed.

Mayor Marie Trainer said she'll be on standby and hopes rain might deter
people from participating in a rally at the former housing development
site that has been occupied by aboriginal protesters since February.

“I'm very concerned,” said Ms. Trainer, adding she's worried police may
not be able to stop clashes between occupiers and rally participants.
“It's almost 100 per cent that something will happen.”

The rally has been organized to protest the ongoing aboriginal occupation
and is to include a march on the disputed land, which is now owned by the
province.

Six Nations protesters have asked supporters to pressure the government to
block the rally for fear it could spark more violent clashes between the
occupiers and residents.

But David Ramsay, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs, said the
government has done everything it can. The province has asked rally
organizers to stay away from the former housing development site, he said.

“What we've said is this is a very dangerous pursuit . . . to have a
protest on that property,” Mr. Ramsay told reporters Wednesday. “We're
very concerned about it. It is a threat to public safety and we've asked
(organizers) not to do it.”

The government has no intention of seeking an injunction to prevent the
march even though Mr. Ramsay said it is “very dangerous and a risk to
public safety.”

People who participate in the rally are putting their lives in danger, he
added. But it's up to the provincial police — not the province — to stop
the rally before it turns violent, Mr. Ramsay said.

“We're not washing our hands of it but the police are there to protect
people and property,” he said.

Jay Hope, acting commissioner of the provincial police, said in a
statement that police are “well prepared to deal with any situation that
may arise as a result of this weekend's anticipated rally.”

Police will not allow the “hard work and commitment to ensuring a long
lasting and peaceful resolution to be derailed,” Mr. Hope stated.

Premier Dalton McGuinty dismissed rally organizers as publicity hounds and
said they should consider protesting at the Ontario legislature to prevent
any potential for violence.

“There is a particular individual who thrives on the oxygen of publicity,”
he said.

“If somebody has a particular beef with a government, there is a
legitimate way to give expression to that criticism. I would encourage
that individual to come to the front lawn of Queen's Park.”

But Conservative Tim Hudak said the government is ignoring the situation
and needs to end the ongoing occupation. The rally shows town residents
have had enough, he said.

“People are not only angry, they're damn angry,” Mr. Hudak said. “It's an
incredible double standard. On the one hand, the premier is against this
rally but it's carte blanche for the occupiers on the occupied site.”

The province shouldn't continue negotiating with Six Nations as long as
the protesters remain on the site, Mr. Hudak said. “There is no reason for
that occupation to continue,” he said.

Six Nations protesters have occupied the land since February, claiming it
was taken illegally from them over 200 years ago. Their occupation has
been marred by violent clashes with residents and barricades that cut the
town in half.

Protesters say they will remain on the site — through the winter if
necessary — until the land is returned to them.

New Democrat Michael Prue said he hopes this weekend's rally goes ahead
peacefully — with police ready to step in at the first sign of conflict.

“The police have to be very vigilant,” he said. “If these people show up
with pitchforks and guns, I would hope the police would shut them down
pretty fast.”


++++++++++++++ (9) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (9) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (9) ++++++++++++++

Why Canadians Should Support Six Nations Land Rights
(a leaflet from the group Community Friends which is being distributed in
Caledonia and elsewhere on the Haldimand tract)

1. BECAUSE THEIR CLAIM IS JUST AND RIGHT. Canada has a long and shameful
history of mistreating First Nations peoples. Canada has broken treaty
after treaty and has refused to fulfill its obligations to First Nation
peoples, the Six Nations people included. Despite the fact that the Six
Nations people have always been (and remain to this day) a national
Confederation with whom the British crown entered into nation to nation
agreements, the Canadian government imposed its own "Indian Act" by force
upon them and encouraged the illegal sale and theft of land and revenue
belonging to Six Nations. Respect for First Nations land and treaty rights
and respect for indigenous sovereignty is a matter of upholding human
rights, international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Colonization and appropriation of other peoples resources is morally wrong
and must be opposed, even if we or some of our ancestors have benefited
from it.

2. BECAUSE THE FAULT IN THIS CONFLICT LIES WITH THE FEDERAL CANADIAN
GOVERNMENT, NOT THE PEOPLE OF SIX NATIONS OR CALEDONIA. The government
knew that the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) lands were contested when it
allowed them to be sold. If the government had developed a comprehensive
land claims settlement process and had negotiated in good faith with Six
Nations from the start, this problem would never have taken the form it
has. People from Six Nations occupied the Douglas Creek Estates to stop a
housing development from being built on contested land. Now that the
situation has been escalated, non-natives on and off the Haldimand tract
can best resolve this issue by pressuring the Canadian government to
establish a fair and comprehensive settlement of all outstanding land
claims with Six Nations.

3. BECAUSE THIS SITUATION WILL NOT BE RESOLVED BY VIOLENCE AND CONFLICT.
The time when the Canadian government or non-native vigilantes could drive
first Nations Peoples off their land has passed. Any attempt to use force
to resolve the reclamation of Douglas Creek Estates will only make matters
far worse and will likely end in bloodshed and serious injury on both
sides. As events at Ipperwash and Oka proved, native land rights are
political issues that must be solved through dialogue and negotiation.
These are political and not "law and order” issues, and the use of force
or threat of violence will not resolve them. Might does not make right,
and attempts to raise the level of tension through the Friday night
rallies in the Canadian Tire parking lot or through proposed events like
the October 15 march against the reclamation site will only make the
situation worse and increase the likelihood of people being injured or
even killed.

4. BECAUSE THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE IS IMPROVED BY
RECOGNIZING FIRST NATIONS LAND RIGHTS. The conflict over the Douglas Creek
Estates and the future conflicts brewing over the Haldimand tract stem
from the greed of real estate developers who are turning farmlands, animal
habitat and countryside into suburban sprawl in order to enrich
themselves. This way of life is not sustainable in the long-term and
although it makes profits for the bankers, realtors and lawyers it does
not benefit rural life or the average people in small towns like
Caledonia. As suburban sprawl spreads small businesses are pushed out by
the major chains and big box stores, farmers are pushed off the land and
our natural environment is degraded. First Nations peoples have a long
history of protecting the environment and of respecting nature. A
recognition of their rights will ensure that the lands on and around the
Haldimand tract are not ecologically devastated by further suburban sprawl
or clogged up by excessive road traffic and smog.

5. BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT CALEDONIA AS A COMMUNITY CAN HEAL
ITSELF AND MOVE FORWARD. The people of Six Nations and of Caledonia live
closely connected lives, sharing schools, workplaces, friendships and
families. The tensions caused by this conflict need to be resolved. The
people of Six Nations have made clear over and over again that they are
not calling for the removal of non-natives from their lands. No
non-natives living in Caledonia are at risk of eviction. What Six Nations
wants is the compensation they are owed and recognition of their land and
treaty rights. It is possible for natives and non-natives to live together
in peace and harmony, but in order to have peace there must be justice.

- Community Friends for Peace and Understanding with Six Nations
smiley100 at mountaincable.net | 289-284-0154 | www.honorsixnations.com


++++++++++++++ (10) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (10) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (10) ++++++++++++++


SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/287261_tamil02ww.html

Man questioned and misses flight for speaking Tamil
Monday, October 2, 2006 By BRAD WONG

A 32-year-old man speaking Tamil and some English about a sporting rivalry
was questioned at Sea-Tac Airport and missed his flight Saturday because
at least one person thought he was suspicious.

The Port of Seattle dispatched its police officers to investigate the
case, which occurred Saturday around noon, said Bob Parker, airport
spokesman. The Chicago man was preparing to board an American Airlines
flight to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

The man was speaking Tamil, a language largely used in India, Sri Lanka
and Singapore, on his cell phone at the departure gate and on the
aircraft. An off-duty airline employee heard the conversation and informed
the flight crew.

The man also apparently said something in English about a sporting rivalry
at his alma mater.

"It's a big misunderstanding," said Parker. "He had a perfectly innocent
explanation that all added up."

Parker said it is incumbent on airport officials to investigate reports of
suspicious activity.

"It's hard to triage over the phone," he said.

But Parker had no explanation as to why a man speaking Tamil, which is
spoken worldwide, would be considered suspicious. The person who contacted
airport officials could give an answer to that question, he added.

Parker said the man was cooperative and boarded a later flight to Texas.
He told officials that he would not speak in a foreign language on his
cell phone at an airport in the future.


++++++++++++++ (11) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (11) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (11) ++++++++++++++

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/10/05/news/top_stories/3_00_0010_4_06.txt
North County Times
Escondido council approves illegal immigrant rental ban
By: DAVID FRIED - Staff Writer

ESCONDIDO -- Escondido became the first California city to ban renting
property to illegal immigrants on Wednesday, bringing to a head months of
divisive arguments in the community, and possibly setting the city up for
a protracted legal battle.

At the end of a contentious, late-night meeting, the measure passed by a
margin of 3-2, with Council members Ed Gallo, Sam Abed and Marie Waldron
---- who proposed the ban ---- in support. Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler and
Councilman Ron Newman voted against it.

Despite hearing two hours of often-emotional public testimony pleading
both sides of the issue, the outcome of the vote was never in question, as
Gallo, Waldron and Abed had regularly made public comments in support of
the law.

Waldron argued that the ordinance was needed to counter what she called a
lack of initiative to address illegal immigration at the federal level,
and that the country's sovereignty was under attack by a wave of illegal
immigrants.

"If there was ever a time more important to stand up for our sovereignty,
our nation and community, this is it," Waldron said.

In passing the ban, Escondido became the sixth city in the country to
adopt local legislation penalizing landlords who rent to illegal
immigrants.

The ordinance must come back to the council on Oct. 18 for a second vote
before it can be enacted 30 days later.

Several civil rights groups have already promised to challenge the ban in
court, something that could delay its enactment.

The law was proposed as a way of addressing residential overcrowding in
the city. And in explaining the motives behind their votes, the council
majority often referred to a city-commissioned study of the Mission Park
neighborhood downtown. That study found that roughly 80 percent of the
16,000 residents in the area were foreign-born, mostly from Mexico, and
often lived in overcrowded conditions.

"Illegals are willing to live in horrible conditions," Gallo said, citing
problems with health and safety of overcrowded units. "This leads to a lot
of other issues."

Newman and Pfeiler said they recognized immigration was a popular issue,
resulting from mounting frustration with federal enforcement. But they
said the ordinance would do little to actually resolve those issues, since
it is based on federal verification of documents.

"We're telling you we're going to do something, and in reality, we're
not," Newman said.

He also said Waldron's attempt to address immigration at the local level
was simply based on discrimination.

"To suggest that this ordinance is something other than going after
Latinos and Mexicans in our community is really false," Newman said.
"That's clearly what it's about."

The controversial proposal drew crowds that filled council chambers and
overflowed into the courtyard in front of City Hall, where TVs
broadcasting the meeting were set up.

Demonstrators from both sides spent the hours before the meeting rallying
outside, chanting slogans in support or in opposition to the law.

To handle the crowds, dozens of officers patrolled the civic center area,
including representatives from at least a half-dozen other county law
enforcement agencies. And only individuals holding one of 200 tickets
handed out before the meeting were allowed inside. Everyone who entered
the building had to pass through metal detectors.

The council's discussion also generated a storm of media attention, with
news outlets from around Southern California covering what for most weeks
is a sleepy, mundane meeting.

Under the rental ban, the city would only take action after a complaint is
filed with the city's business license division by a resident, official or
business owner. Complaints would have to describe the alleged violators.
However any complaint based primarily on a person's race, ethnicity or
national origin would be discarded.

Complaints deemed valid would be investigated by the city, and landlords
would be required to submit identification documents for the tenants in
question. The city would verify the documents with federal immigration
agencies.

If the renters are found to be in the country illegally, landlords would
be required to remove the tenants within 10 business days, or have their
business license suspended, meaning they could not legally collect rent or
lease their property. Landlords who repeatedly violate the ban would face
misdemeanor charges, which carry penalties of up to $1,000 and/or six
months in jail.

Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, have promised to take
the city to court to prevent the ban from taking effect. They say the law
is unconstitutional and would violate federal fair housing laws.

Many speakers said the law was necessary to counter what they called
federal inaction on illegal immigration.

"One by one, American cities are going to be doing the same," said Claudia
Spencer. "And one by one, Americans are going to be getting their cities
back."

That trend began earlier this summer.

Escondido's ordinance was modeled after a similar measure in Hazleton,
Pa., which in July became the first American city to adopt its own
immigration law.

Since then other cities in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Missouri have
passed their own ordinances.

Those who argued Wednesday in favor of the Escondido ban said that it was
necessary to stem a roaring tide of illegal immigration into the region,
and that it would improve the quality of life for legal residents of
Escondido.

Those opposing the measure called it an embarrassment for the city and
said it would unfairly target Latinos. They warned that the rental ban
would be detrimental for Escondido's community, its businesses and its
image.

About 42 percent of the city's 140,000 residents are Latino, according to
the San Diego Association of Governments.

Since Waldron proposed the ban in July, the matter has generated divisions
among many parts of the community. Those divisions were clear in the
public comments to the council, where immigrants, landlords, business
owners and local residents all argued for and against the ban.

Jim Brabant, an Escondido landlord, said he would be happy to comply with
the ordinance. He said that immigration across the border may be chaotic,
"but the effects of that chaos is felt locally in Escondido"

Many other landlords, however, said the council was making a grave mistake.

Jackie Grant, an Escondido landlord, said they would never have bought
property here, if they had known the council planned to pass what she
called a racially motivated attack on immigrants.

"We are totally embarrassed by this," said Grant, who moved here two years
ago. "We don't want landlords to be a scapegoat for a problem that's way,
way, way bigger than this (ordinance)."

Deborah Szekely, and many others in the city's business community, said
the measure was certain to drive potential business investment away from
Escondido.

"Our city will be identified worldwide as racist and our people will be
seen as looking to the past instead of the future," Szekely said.

The council also voted 4-1 to track the effectiveness of the ordinance,
including how often it results in complaints, evictions an the costs of
enforcement and defending the law to any legal challenges that might
result. Gallo opposed the tracking measure.


++++++++++++++ (12) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (12) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (12) ++++++++++++++

Illegal immigrants could be targeted by Mesa
By Jason Massad and Sarah N. Lynch
Tribune  October 4, 2006

City leaders say they have no other choice but to act on their own because
state and federal lawmakers have failed so far to develop a comprehensive
strategy to address what many believe to be a growing problem in Arizona
and other border states.

“I think the level of frustration is to the point where we feel we have to
do something,” said City Councilman Kyle Jones.

The City Council will meet Thursday to discuss ramping up ordinances to
combat illegal immigration, including new anti-loitering laws, sanctions
against those who hire or rent living space to undocumented immigrants and
a training program that would allow police officers to act as immigration
officials. Council members say they’ve been talking about doing so for
several years.

Hispanic leaders and activists across the East Valley say they plan to
attend. Some have already raised concerns.

“The immigrants are a part of our community,” said Lupe Barraza, a Mesa
resident and member of the Valley Interfaith Project. “I understand that
they are trying to round them up and get them out of here, but I really
don’t agree with that.”

Mesa’s discussion of immigration policy comes at a time when Rep. Russell
Pearce, R-Mesa, faces sharp criticism for voicing his support for a 1950s
deportation program, “Operation Wetback,” last week on a local radio
station.

Mesa Mayor Keno Hawker, a Republican, defended the controversial lawmaker,
even though other Republicans have tried to distance themselves from
Pearce’s comments.

“I think that it’s an easy tag to put on someone — a racist label,” Hawker
said. “If they are illegal, they are illegal.”

The controversy underscores what could be a barrier for city-backed
measures to fight illegal immigration. Hispanic activists, city elected
officials and even new Mesa police Chief George Gascón say problems could
arise if the city goes forward with the new ordinances.

Gascón said that a shortstaffed police department should not be distracted
by whether the people committing the crimes are here illegally.

“I think that we have to be really thoughtful about it and really clear in
our obligation to deal with people that are committing serious crimes,” he
said.

Council members said the city must act cautiously to avoid unwanted legal
consequences. Anti-loitering laws, for instance, could be challenged in
court and lead to lawsuits.

Councilman Mike Whalen said turning the city’s police officers into
immigration officials could cause a different set of problems. If
residents fear the police, they’ll be less likely to report crimes.

“Would you call the police department if you were undocumented?” Whalen
asked. “When you knew that they could deport you? No, you wouldn’t.”

Still, some law enforcement agencies have used local ordinances to stem
the flow of illegal immigrants in their communities. Maricopa County
Sheriff Joe Arpaio has used Arizona’s antihuman smuggling law to arrest
people sneaking across the border. In Southern California, the city of
Costa Mesa and the Orange County Sheriff Department also have taken steps
to train officers to enforce immigration laws.

Councilman Rex Griswold said he’s not sure Mesa should do the same.

“It’s a huge frustration,” he said. “We have all the responsibility, all
the expense and none of the tools to fix them.”

++++++++++++++ (13) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (13) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (13) ++++++++++++++

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20061001-9999-1m1natcity.html
National City named sanctuary city
Immigration activists get decree from mayor
By Elizabeth Fitzsimons
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER October 1, 2006

NATIONAL CITY – Mayor Nick Inzunza declared National City an immigrant
sanctuary in a proclamation he presented to immigrants rights activists
during dueling rallies that brought about 400 people to City Hall
yesterday.

The San Diego Minutemen, and immigrants rights supporters faced off on
National City Boulevard with about 130 peace officers in riot gear between
them to keep the crowds from mixing. The crowds appeared to be near even
in number.

Inzunza didn't leave City Hall, for fear of inciting violence. Instead, he
invited immigration rights activist Enrique Morones inside to receive the
proclamation.

“We're still a nation of laws. We still have a constitution that protects
us. That's what we're saying,” Inzunza told reporters.

Early last month, Inzunza announced his plan to declare the city a
sanctuary for immigrants, though a majority City Council vote is required
to officially establish it.

In a sanctuary city, municipal funds cannot be used for enforcing federal
immigration laws, which is already the case in National City.

Inzunza said yesterday that the proclamation was a way of memorializing
National City policies, such as the Spanish translation for council
meetings and the city's acceptance of the Matricula Consular
identification cards, issued by the Mexican government through its
consulates, as an official ID. The card shows that the bearer is a Mexican
citizen who is living outside of Mexico.

The proclamation also notes how Inzunza has denounced any efforts to break
constitutional law and violate civil liberties, and rejected “the hysteria
being created to align immigrants with terrorists, homeland security, or
any other threat to our nation.”

Inzunza said he hoped the proclamation would “let the community know we
are on the right side of the law.”

The rallies, which began about 11:30 a.m. and lasted until 2 p.m., went
more smoothly than similar demonstrations last week, when one person was
arrested, said National City police Capt. Manuel Rodriguez. No one was
arrested yesterday.

Rodriguez said police learned from last time not to let people into the
street. So yesterday, each group was kept on its respective sidewalk. Law
enforcement from each agency in the county was represented, including
mounted police from San Diego and El Cajon and a sheriff's helicopter,
which circled overhead.

In preparation for the protests, the city canceled events at Kimball Park
and closed the library for the day.

Morones, the immigrants rights activist who organized the rally, said more
than 1,000 signatures had been collected in support of the mayor's
declaration.

National City's proclamation was only the beginning, Morones said. He
hoped other cities would follow.

“This proclamation tells our people they're welcome here,” Morones said.
“We're all the same race – the human race.”

Across the street, the anti-illegal immigration side called for Inzunza to
come outside.

“The people of this community are countering Nick Inzunza's declaration
with our own declaration that this is not a sanctuary city,” said Jeff
Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, which started out as
volunteers patrolling the border in search of illegal immigrants.

“The drug dealers and the human smugglers cannot come here and hide.”

By about 1:30 p.m., Minutemen supporters began leaving. Close to 2 p.m.
one man was left, waving an American flag while the crowd across the
street chanted “Go home! Go home!”

He finally did when a police officer offered him an escort down the block.
With him gone, the immigrants rights group started drifting away.


++++++++++++++ (14) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (14) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (14) ++++++++++++++

7oct: from Warsaw in Poland to Nouakchott in Mauretania
7th of October 2006: Transnational Actionday against migration-control

One year after the escalations in Ceuta and Melilla a broad network of
migrationrelated initiatives call for freedom of movement in a
transnational day of action. In dozens of cities in Europe and also in
Africa manifestations and demonstrations are in preparation for 7th of
October.

To organize such a day of migration-related actions was decided on the
European Social Forum in May 2006, when about 15.000 people from different
social movements met in Athens.

Since last year the militarisation of EU-migration policy has got another
instrument: Frontex! Thats the name of the new European Border Agency,
which is located in Warsaw. Frontex organised already EU-wide charter
deportations and coordinates an operation now at the coast of West Africa:
to intensify controls by ships and airplanes to prevent more so called
African boatpeople from reaching Europe.

At the moment (September 06) still without meeting any success: every day
new boats are landing at the Canary Islands, with more people than ever
before, and some starting at about a 1200 km distance from Mauretania or
even Senegal. During the last months hundreds of people drowned or died of
hunger or of thirst when they risked this new route. And the same is still
happening in the Sicilian Channel.

European governments put increasing pressure to African countries to
become henchmen for their inhuman migration-policy. Beginning in July 06 a
so-called "African European summit on migration and development" took
place in Rabat, again mainly in order to push African governments to adopt
more systems of migration-control: to implement more visa-restrictions, to
establish detention-camps, to accept "repatriation"-programms. Mainly
North and West African countries are targets of this
externalisation-process at the moment, and they are supposed to block
migrants on their way to Europe and help to deport them to the desert or
subsaharan countries.

The European governments are responsible for thousands of deaths of
African people in the last years; it is a kind of war against migrants and
refugees. The above mentioned Frontex-operation is another step in this
war, aiming again on the destruction of the (new) flight-routes.

With this backdrop the following call for actions on 7th of October is an
important step of common resistance against this inhuman policy. Eastern
European activists will protest in front of the aforementioned
Frontex-office in Warsaw, while in a press-conference in Nouakchott the
illegalisation of migration will be strictly critisized.

>From London to Athens, from Hamburg to Barcelona, simultaneous
demonstrations and actions are exspected in dozens of cities all over
Europe. And most important: not only in Mauretania, but also in Marocco,
Tunesia and Benin activities have been announced as well.

"In the name of fighting clandestine immigration, governments are adopting
repressive policies and are expanding the frontiers of wealthy nations
through centers of detention, ejections, expulsions and selection of the
labour force." (from the migration-related Appeal of Bamako/Mali at the
Polycentric World Social Forum in January 2006)

The European migration regime makes migrants 'illegal'. One of the main
measures of the European Union authorities against the movements and
struggles of migration is currently the establishment of camps and other
instruments of migration control outside Europe, in African and east
European countries (their 'externalisation').

When thousands of migrants and refugees collectively stormed the border
fences of the Spanish enclaves in Ceuta and Melilla in October last year,
the crucial demands for freedom of movement and for equal rights were
clearly brought to public attention, at least for the moment. The inhuman,
barbaric reactions, the fatal shootings and mass deportations to the
desert, mirrored the escalating level of conflict and the crisis of the
European migration regime.

But there is an ongoing process undermining this migration regime, not
only from 'outside' the borders, but also from the inside. All over
Europe, almost every day, there are social and political struggles,
protests and campaigns against camps and deportations, for asylum rights
for women and men, for legalisation, for European citizenship rights based
on residence rather than nationality and against the exploitation of
migrant labour. These struggles go far beyond any narrow understanding of
European identity.

Taking into account specific regional and national conditions and the
circumstances of various struggles, our Day of Action aims for resistance
at European and even transcontinental levels. Our mobilisation will make
the first moves towards Europe-wide central activities in order to develop
the idea of a common demonstration in 2007, either in Brussels or at
another place of public interest. Our aim is to address Europe as a whole
and not only national governments.

The Day of Action will be directed against the denial of rights, against
the criminalisation of migrants and against all immigration controls,
articulating clear demands within the framework of freedom of movement and
the right to stay:
- For a European unconditional legalisation and equal rights for all
migrants - For the closure of all detention centers in Europe and
everywhere - For an end to all deportations and of the externalisation
process - For the uncoupling of the residence permit from the labour
contract and against 'precarity'.

++++++++++++++ (15) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (15) ++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++ (15) ++++++++++++++


The Rise of Migrant Worker Militancy
Militant organizing by immigrants in New York City could show the way for
a revitalized labor movement
by Immanuel Ness;  October 09, 2006 - Dollars & Sense

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0906ness.html

Testifying before the Senate immigration hearings in early July, Mayor
Michael Bloomberg affirmed that undocumented immigrants have become
indispensable to the economy of New York City: "Although they broke the
law by illegally crossing our borders or overstaying their visas, and our
businesses broke the law by employing them, our city's economy would be a
shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported.
The same holds true for the nation." Bloomberg's comment outraged
right-wing pundits, but how much more outraged would they be if they knew
that immigrant workers, beyond being economically indispensable, are
beginning to transform the U.S. labor movement with a bold new militancy?

After years of working in obscurity in the unregulated economy, migrant
workers in New York City catapulted themselves to the forefront of labor
activism beginning in late 1999 through three separate organizing drives
among low-wage workers. Immigrants initiated all three drives: Mexican
immigrants organized and struck for improved wages and working conditions
at greengroceries; Francophone African delivery workers struck for unpaid
wages and respect from labor contractors for leading supermarket chains;
and South Asians organized for improved conditions and a union in the
for-hire car service industry. (In New York, "car services" are taxis that
cannot be hailed on the street, only arranged by phone.) These organizing
efforts have persisted, and are part of a growing militancy among migrant
workers in New York City and across the United States.

Why would seemingly invisible workers rise up to contest power in their
workplaces? Why are vulnerable migrant workers currently more likely to
organize than are U.S.-born workers? To answer these questions, we have to
look at immigrants' distinct position in the political economy of a
globalized New York City and at their specific economic and social niches,
ones in which exploitation and isolation nurture class consciousness and
militancy.

Labor Migration and Industrial Restructuring
New immigrant workers in the United States, many here illegally, stand at
the crossroads of two overwhelming trends. On one hand, industrial
restructuring and capital mobility have eroded traditional industries and
remade the U.S. political economy in the last 30 years in ways that have
led many companies to create millions of low-wage jobs and to seek
vulnerable workers to fill them. On the other hand, at the behest of
international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund,
and to meet the requirements of free-trade agreements such as NAFTA,
governments throughout the global South have adopted neoliberal policies
that have restructured their economies, resulting in the displacement of
urban workers and rural farmers alike. Many have no choice but to migrate
north.

A century ago the United States likewise experienced a large influx of
immigrants, many of whom worked in factories for their entire lives. There
they formed social networks across ethnic lines and developed a class
consciousness that spurred the organizing of unions; they made up the
generation of workers whose efforts began with the fight for the
eight-hour day around the turn of the last century and culminated in the
great organizing victories of the 1930s and 1940s across the entire
spectrum of mining and manufacturing industries.

Today's immigrants face an entirely different political-economic
landscape. Unlike most of their European counterparts a century ago,
immigration restrictions mean that many newcomers to the United States are
now here illegally. Workers from Latin America frequently migrate
illegally without proper documentation; those from Africa, Asia, and
Europe commonly arrive with business, worker, student, or tourist visas,
then overstay them.

The urban areas where many immigrants arrive have undergone a 30-year
decline in manufacturing jobs. The growing pool of service jobs which have
come in their stead tend to be dispersed in small firms throughout the
city. The proliferation of geographically dispersed subcontractors who
compete on the basis of low wages encourages a process of
informalization—a term referring to a redistribution of work from
regulated sectors of the economy to new unregulated sectors of the
underground or informal economy. As a result, wages and working conditions
have fallen, often below government-established norms.

Although informal work is typically associated with the developing
world—or Global South—observers are increasingly recognizing the link
between the regulated and unregulated sectors in advanced industrial
regions. (See "Unregulated Work," D&S, September/October 2005.) More and
more the regulated sector depends on unregulated economic activity through
subcontracting and outsourcing of work to firms employing low-wage
immigrant labor. Major corporations employ or subcontract to businesses
employing migrant workers in what were once established sectors of the
economy with decent wages and working conditions.

Informalization requires government regulatory agencies to look the other
way. For decades federal and state regulatory bodies have ignored
violations of laws governing wages, hours, and workplace safety, leading
to illegally low wages and declining workplace health and safety
practices. The process of informalization is furthered by the reduction or
elimination of protections such as disability insurance, Social Security,
health care coverage, unemployment insurance, and workers compensation.

By the 1990s, substandard jobs employing almost exclusively migrant
workers had become crucial to key sectors of the national economy. Today,
immigrants have gained a major presence as bricklayers, demolition
workers, and hazardous waste workers on construction and building rehab
sites; as cooks, dishwashers, and busboys in restaurants; and as taxi
drivers, domestic workers, and delivery people. Employers frequently treat
these workers as self-employed. They typically have no union protection
and little or no job security. With government enforcement shrinking, they
lack the protection of minimum-wage laws and they have been excluded from
Social Security and unemployment insurance.

These workers are increasingly victimized by employers who force them to
accept 19th-century working conditions and sub-minimum wages. Today, New
York City, Los Angeles, Miami, Houston, and Boston form a nexus of
international labor migration, with constantly churning labor markets. As
long as there is a demand for cheap labor, immigrants will continue to
enter the United States in large numbers. Like water, capital always flows
to the lowest level, a state of symmetry where wages are cheapest.

In turn, the availability of a reserve army of immigrant labor provides an
enormous incentive for larger corporations to create and use
subcontracting firms. Without this workforce, employers in the regulated
economy would have more incentive to invest in labor-saving technology,
increase the capital-labor ratio, and seek accommodation with unions.

New unauthorized immigrants residing and working in the United States are
ideal workers in the new informalized sectors: Their undocumented legal
status makes them more tractable since they constantly fear deportation.
Undocumented immigrants are less likely to know about, or demand adherence
to, established labor standards, and even low U.S. wages represent an
improvement over earnings in their home countries.

Forging Migrant Labor Solidarity
The perception that new immigrants undermine U.S.-born workers by
undercutting prevailing wage and work standards cannot be entirely
dismissed. The entry of a large number of immigrants into the underground
economy unquestionably reduces the labor market leverage of U.S.-born
workers. But the story is more complicated. In spite of their
vulnerability, migrant workers have demonstrated a willingness and a
capacity to organize for improvements in their wages and working
conditions; they arguably are responding to tough conditions on the job
with greater militancy than U.S.-born workers.

New York City has been the site of a number of instances of immigrant
worker organizing. In 1998, Mexicans working in greengroceries embarked on
a citywide organizing campaign to improve their conditions of work. Most
of the 20,000 greengrocery workers were paid below $3.00 an hour, working
on average 72 hours a week. Some did not make enough to pay their living
expenses, no less send remittances back home to Mexico. Following a
relentless and coordinated four-year organizing campaign among the
workers, employers agreed to raise wages above the minimum and improve
working conditions. Moreover, the campaign led state Attorney General
Eliot Spitzer to establish a Greengrocer Code of Conduct and to strengthen
enforcement of labor regulations.

In another display of immigrant worker militancy, beginning in 1999
Francophone African supermarket delivery workers in New York City fought
for and won equality with other workers in the same stores. The workers
were responsible for bagging groceries and delivering them to affluent
customers in Manhattan and throughout the city. As contractors, the
delivery workers were paid no wage, instead relying on the goodwill of
customers in affluent neighborhoods to pay tips for each delivery.

The workers were employed in supermarkets and drug stores where some
others had a union. Without union support themselves, delivery workers
staged a significant strike and insurrection that made consumers aware of
their appalling conditions of work. In late October, workers went on
strike and marched from supermarket to supermarket, demanding living wages
and dignity on the job. At the start of their campaign, wages averaged
less than $70 a week. In the months following the strike the workers all
won recognition from the stores through the United Food and Commercial
Workers that had earlier neglected to include them in negotiations with
management. The National Employee Law Project, a national worker advocacy
organization, filed landmark lawsuits against the supermarkets and
delivery companies and won backwage settlements as the courts deemed them
to be workers—not independent contractors in business for themselves.

Immigrant workers have organized countless other campaigns, in New York
and across the country. (See sidebar, "Black-Car Drivers in New York" for
the story of another important New York campaign.) How do new immigrants,
with weak ties to organized labor and the state, manage to assert their
interests? The explanation lies in the character of immigrant work and
social life; the constraints immigrant workers face paradoxically
encourage them to draw on shared experiences to create solidarity at work
and in their communities.

The typical migrant worker can expect to work twelve-hour days, seven days
a week. When arriving home, immigrant workers frequently share the same
apartments, buildings, and neighborhoods. These employment ghettos typify
immigrant communities across the nation. Workers cook for one another,
share stories about their oppressively long and hard days, commiserate
about their ill treatment at work, and then go to sleep only to start anew
the next day.

Migrant women, surrounded by a world of exploitation, typically suffer
even more abuse their male counterparts, suffering from low wages, long
hours, and dangerous conditions. Patterns of gender stratification found
in the general labor market are even more apparent among migrant women
workers. Most jobs in the nonunion economy, such as construction and
driving, are stereotypically considered "men's work." Women predominate in
the garment industry, as domestic and child care workers, in laundries,
hotels, restaurants, and ever more in sex work. A striking example of
migrant women's perilous work environment is the massive recruitment of
migrant women to clean up the hazardous materials in the rubble left by
the collapse of the World Trade Center without proper safety training.

Isolated in their jobs and communities, immigrant workers have few social
ties to unions, community groups, and public officials, and few resources
to call upon to assist them in transforming their workplaces. Because new
immigrants have few social networks outside the workplace, the ties they
develop on the job are especially solid and meaningful—and are nurtured
every day. The workers' very isolation and status as outsiders, and their
concentration into industrial niches by employers who hire on the basis of
ethnicity, tend to strengthen old social ties, build new ones, and deepen
class solidarity.

Immigrant social networks contribute to workplace militancy. Conversely,
activism at work can stimulate new social networks that can expand
workers' power. It is through relationships developed on the job and in
the community that shared social identities and mutual resentment of the
boss evolves into class consciousness and class solidarity: migrant
workers begin to form informal organizations, meet with coworkers to
respond to poor working conditions, and take action on the shop floor in
defiance of employer abuse.

Typically, few workplace hierarchies exist among immigrants, since few
reach supervisory positions. As a result, immigrant workers suffer poor
treatment equally at the hands of employers. A gathering sense of
collective exploitation usually transforms individualistic activities into
shared ones. In rare cases where there are immigrant foremen and crew
leaders, they may recognize this solidarity and side with the workers
rather than with management. One former manager employed for a fast-food
sandwich chain in New York City said: "We are hired only to divide the
workers but I was really trying to help the workers get better pay and
shorter hours."

Migrant workers bring social identities from their home countries, and
those identities are shaped through socialization and work in this
country. In cities and towns across the United States, segmentation of
migrant workers from specific countries reinforces ethnic, national, and
religious identities and helps to form other identities that may stimulate
solidarity. Before arriving in the United States, Mexican immigrant
workers often see themselves as peasants but not initially as "people of
color," while Francophone Africans see themselves as Malian or Senegalese
ethnics but not necessarily "black." Life and work in New York can
encourage them to adopt new identifications, including a new class
consciousness that can spur organizing and militancy.

Once triggered, organizing can go from workplace to workplace like
wildfire. When workers realize that they can fight and prevail, this
creates a sense of invincibility that stimulates militant action that
would otherwise be avoided at all costs. This demonstration effect is
vitally important, as was the case in the strikes among garment workers
and coal miners in the history of the U.S. labor movement.

"Solidarity Forever" vs. "Take This Job and Shove It"
The militancy of many migrant workers contrasts sharply with the passivity
of many U.S.-born workers facing the same low wages and poor working
conditions. Why do most workers at chain stores and restaurants like
Wal-Mart and McDonalds—most of whom were born in the United States—appear
so complacent, while new immigrants are often so militant?

Migrants are not inherently more militant or less passive. Instead, the
real workplace conditions of migrant workers seem to produce greater
militancy on the job. First, collective social isolation engenders strong
ties among migrants in low-wage jobs where organizing is frequently the
only way to improve conditions. Because migrants work in jobs that are
more amenable to organizing, they are highly represented among newly
unionized workers. Strong social ties in the workplace drive migrants to
form their own embryonic organizations at work and in their communities
that are ripe for union representation. Organizing among migrant workers
gains the attention of labor unions, which then see a chance to recruit
new members and may provide resources to help immigrant workers mobilize
at work and join the union.

Employers also play a major role. Firms employing U.S workers tend to be
larger and are often much harder to organize than the small businesses
where immigrants work. In 2003, the Merriam-Webster dictionary added the
new word McJob, defined as "a low-paying job that requires little skill
and provides little opportunity for advancement." The widely accepted
coinage reflects the relentless 30-year economic restructuring creating
low-end jobs in the retail sector.

Organizing against Home Depot, McDonalds, Taco Bell, or Wal-Mart is
completely different from organizing against smaller employers. Wal-Mart
uses many of the same tactics against workers that immigrants contend
with: failure to pay overtime, stealing time (intentionally paying workers
for fewer hours than actually worked), no health care, part-time work,
high turnover, and gender division of labor. The difference is that
Wal-Mart has far more resources to oppose unionization than do the smaller
employers who are frequently subcontractors to larger firms. But
Wal-Mart's opposition to labor unions is so forceful that workers choose
to leave rather than stay and fight it out. Relentless labor turnover
mitigates against the formation of working class consciousness and
militancy.

The expanding non-immigrant low-end service sector tends to produce
unskilled part-time jobs that do not train workers in skills that keep
them in the same sector of the labor market. Because jobs at the low end
of the economy require little training, workers frequently move from one
industry to the next. One day a U.S.-born worker may work as a sales clerk
for Target, the next day as a waiter at Olive Garden. Because they are not
stuck in identity-defined niches, U.S. workers change their world by
quitting and finding a job elsewhere, giving them less reason to organize
and unionize.

The fact that U.S.-born workers have an exit strategy and migrant workers
do not is a significant and important difference. Immigrant workers are
more prone to take action to change their working conditions because they
have far fewer options than U.S.-born workers. Workers employed by
companies like Wal-Mart are unable to change their conditions, since they
have little power and will be summarily fired for any form of dissent. If
workers violate the terms of Wal-Mart's or McDonalds' employee manual by,
say, arriving late, and then are summarily fired, no one is likely to fend
for them, as is usually the case among many migrant workers. While migrant
workers engage in direct action against their employers to obtain higher
wages and respect on the job, U.S. workers do not develop the same dense
connections in labor market niches that forge solidarity. Employers firing
new immigrants may risk demonstrations, picket lines, or even strikes.

Immigrant workers are pushed into low-wage labor market niches as day
laborers, food handlers, delivery workers, and nannies; these niches are
difficult if not impossible to escape. Yet immigrant workers relegated to
dead-end jobs in the lowest echelons of the labor market in food,
delivery, and car service work show a greater eagerness to fight it out to
improve their wages and conditions than do U.S. workers who can move on to
another dead-end job.

The role of unions
Today's labor movement is in serious trouble; membership is spiraling
downward as employers demand union-free workplaces. Unionized
manufacturing and service workers are losing their jobs to low-wage
operations abroad. Unions and, more importantly, the U.S. working class,
are in dire straits and must find a means to triumph over the neoliberal
dogma that dominates the capitalist system.

As organizing campaigns in New York City show, migrant workers are
indispensable to the revitalization of the labor movement. As employers
turn to migrant labor to fill low-wage jobs, unions must encourage and
support organizing drives that emerge from the oppressive conditions of
work. As the 1930s workers' movement demonstrates, if conditions improve
for immigrants, all workers will prosper. To gain traction, unions must
recognize that capital is pitting migrant workers against native-born
laborers to lower wages and improve profitability. Although unions have
had some success organizing immigrants, most are circling the wagons,
disinterested in building a more inclusive mass labor movement. The first
step is for unions to go beyond rhetoric and form a broad and inclusive
coalition embracing migrant workers.

Immanuel Ness is professor of political science at Brooklyn College—City
University of New York. His books include Immigrants, Unions, and the New
U.S. Labor Market and Organizing for Justice in Our Communities. He is
also editor of WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society.



-- 
No One is Illegal-Vancouver
To subscribe to low-traffic email annoucement list email noii-van at resist.ca

web: http://noii-van.resist.ca
email: noii-van at resist.ca
(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.



-- 
No One is Illegal-Vancouver
To subscribe to low-traffic email annoucement list email noii-van at resist.ca

web: http://noii-van.resist.ca
email: noii-van at resist.ca
(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.



-- 
No One is Illegal-Vancouver
To subscribe to low-traffic email annoucement list email noii-van at resist.ca

web: http://noii-van.resist.ca
email: noii-van at resist.ca
(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.