[mobglob-discuss] No one is illegal vancouver weekly digest

[Harsha]

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

A quick reminder to also visit our new blog which features daily updates,
including a new section on Somalia
* BLOG site: http://noiivan.blogspot.com

BELOW:
1) No One is Illegal-Montreal radio archives
2) Exclusive: Inside Gitmo North
3) CBC: Deseronto quarry blocked by Mohawk protest
4) G&M: Visible-minority immigrants identify less with the country
5) Star: 'Khadr effect' silences Canadians
6) Citizen: Refugee wins first battle to teach in Ontario
7) Mohawk Nation News: Resisting the Task Force on Border Crossing
8) US Military recruiting foreigners with citizenship as incentive
9) US Judge demands to about detainees in immigration raid
10) Minutemen build their own $1 million border fence
11) US Immigration News Briefs (Students protest; deported immam arrested
in Israel; UFCW Pursues Lawsuit Over Raids)
12) Statement by African and European organizations on Morrocoan deportations
13) Australia unveils new “Australian values” citizenship test
14) Afghanistan-Pakistan: Fencing Across The Border

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

The No One Is Illegal-Montreal collective produces a monthly radio show
which airs on CKUT community radio.

--> An archive of No One Is Illegal Radio's 2006 shows is available at:
http://nooneisillegal-montreal.blogspot.com/2007/01/no-one-is-illegal-radio-2006-archive.html

Our 2006 shows include the voices of:
- Latifa Charkaoui: mother of Adil Charkaoui, one of the Secret Trial Five;
- Arnoldo Garcia: organizer with the National Network for Immigrant and
Refugee Rights in Oakland, California;
- Kahehti:io: Mohawk youth activist from Kahnawake, arrested at the Land
Reclamation at Six Nations;
- Sherene Razack, author of "Looking White People in the Eye," and a
witness at the People's Commission into Immigration "Security" Measures;
- Hassan Almrei: secret trial detainee at Guantanamo North Prison,
detained without trial since 2001;
- Karen Coq: member of No One Is Illegal-Kingston, active in opposing the
Guantanamo North prison;
- Hazel Hill: spokesperson for the Six Nations Land Reclamation;
 - Arash Aslani: refugee from Iran, and former 10-month detainee at the
Laval Detention Center near Montreal;
- Rasha Moumneh, of the Helem LGBT group in Beirut, Lebanon;


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

http://www.thestar.com/article/168467
Inside Gitmo North
EXCLUSIVE: After being held without charge for five years, terrorism
suspect Mahmoud Jaballah speaks out from the special, high-security
facility built just for him and two others near Kingston
January 06, 2007  michelle shepherd Staff Reporter

BATH, Ont.–In neat handwriting that fills three pages are Mahmoud
Jaballah's complaints about daily life inside this $3.2 million portable
surrounded by barbed wire that was built for him and two other Toronto
terrorism suspects.

He fidgets with the paper on the desk in front of him while he speaks
quickly during an interview this week inside the holding centre west of
Kingston, dubbed "Guantanamo North" by its critics. A guard sits beside
him, staring straight ahead.

"There's no privacy here," says Jaballah, giving a nod to the guard with
the unwavering deadpan stare.

But beyond his list of grievances about the daily conditions of his
detention on the grounds of the Millhaven federal penitentiary looms the
larger issue of the detention itself.

Jaballah and two other detainees held here stand accused by Canada's spy
service of belonging to organizations with connections to Al Qaeda –
claims they deny. They have been held for more than five years. None have
been charged criminally but remain detained here in legal limbo.

The government has ordered them deported to their birth countries of Egypt
and Syria, but the men say they will be tortured if they return and, so
far, the lower courts here have agreed it's not an option.

They were moved last April to this holding centre in response to previous
complaints about their detention in a Toronto jail. The permanency of this
costly facility also sent the signal that the government doesn't expect
their release anytime soon.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule as early as next week on the
constitutionality of the immigration legislation that put these men behind
bars. One argument before the court questions the lawfulness of a process
that allows the government to provide secret evidence to the federal court
justice reviewing the case – keeping the detainee from viewing or
attempting to refute the private allegations.

The Supreme Court's ruling will add to international case law now building
from high courts in the U.K., Australia and U.S., as the West grapples
with restrictions on civil rights in the name of national security.

"It will be a significant watershed in where we're going in Canada and
what type of legal system we're going to have," says long-time civil
rights lawyer Paul Copeland, who argued before the Supreme Court that
Parliament should be forced to re-draft the legislation.

"Canada is one of the leaders generally on justice issues so it's
critically important not only to Canada, but the world is watching, too."

There are five cases pending against Muslim men ordered deported due to
national security certificates – a provision of the immigration act that
has been in effect for more than a decade but has come under heavy
criticism only since 9/11. The two other men from Ottawa and Montreal have
been granted bail under strict conditions.

Another case against Sri Lankan refugee Manickavasagam Suresh, alleged to
be a fundraiser for the Tamil Tigers, has been ongoing for more than a
decade. But the case appears inactive since the Supreme Court ruled in
2002 that Suresh could not be deported due to the risk he faced back home.
For now, Suresh is required to report to a government official once a
week, but is otherwise free to live without restrictions in his home north
of Toronto.

Those who support national security certificates argue that evidence must
in certain cases be presented in secret to protect sources. Sometimes, in
the murky world of terrorism and espionage, criminal trials are not an
option for security threats, government lawyers have argued in support of
the legislation.

They point to last month's deportation of an alleged Russian spy on a
national security certificate as proof that the immigration legislation is
effective. The unnamed man agreed to return to Russia after he was
detained and accused of spying in Canada for the last 10 years, and was
quickly flown out of the country.

But Jaballah says that's not an option for him and although he's also
allowed to leave Canada for a third country, it's unlikely any country
would accept someone accused of terrorist connections.

"If I didn't have any problem in my country I would not stay here in the
jail for one minute. I would take my kids and I'd leave. Why would I keep
myself here in jail for five years?" he says as he again tugs at his list
of complaints.

Known officially as the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre, the new
detention centre where Jaballah is held with Hassan Almrei and Mohamed
Mahjoub is a two-hour drive from Toronto and sits on an expansive property
overlooking Lake Ontario.

Visitors must pass through a series of gates to get to the facility,
similar to the procedure at its neighbouring maximum-security
penitentiary.

The holding centre consists of one portable, housing a common area and six
cells equipped with televisions. Outside is a strip of asphalt with a
picnic bench that the detainees use when allowed outdoors, and a ramp that
leads to another building with a gym, medical room and visiting area
stocked with board games and Lego.

The facility allows him to visit with his family without a Plexiglas
partition. Every couple of weeks his wife, Husnah al-Mashtouli, and
children come to sit with him. It was in this room he recently met his
eldest daughter's new baby, his first grandchild. His second youngest son,
10-year-old Ali, says this is the only vacation he wants to take.

"Without my dad we do not go on any vacations. My dad plays with us and he
helps us with lots of stuff and it's like something's missing in the
family, which is him," says Ali during an interview with his family in
their Scarborough home as the family's pet budgies chirp noisily in the
background.

But Jaballah complains that while the accommodations are now better than
those in Toronto's West Detention Centre, there are restrictions here, and
he claims he has had problems with some of the guards. This is what
troubles him the most these days, he says, as he begins to read out his
list again.

It's not the first time that claims about the conditions of their
detention have been fought publicly. Almrei even waged a lengthy federal
court case three years ago to win the right to wear a pair of shoes during
the winter at the Toronto detention centre.

Jaballah says he is now on a hunger strike with the two other detainees
that has lasted more than a month in an effort to bring attention to their
complaints.

The Canada Border Services Agency (the government department responsible
for their detention) disputes their claim, saying since they still consume
more than just water, they are instead on a "voluntary fast." The agency
also disputes many of the individual allegations made by the detainees.

Jaballah says he'll continue protesting until the conditions of his
detention change or he is released.

But the upcoming Supreme Court decision won't lead to Jaballah going home
this month. Even if the court rules the process that brought him here is
unconstitutional, the government contends that Jaballah still poses a
security risk if released.

The federal court judge that reviewed the certificate and the secret
evidence found it "reasonable" to conclude that Jaballah was connected
with the Egyptian Al Jihad and was a "communications link" for the 1998
bombing attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa that killed more than
200.

A Canadian Security Intelligence Service agent, identified in court only
as J.P., testified earlier in his bail hearing that Jaballah would be a
threat to national security even if he were under constant supervision.
CSIS alleges Jaballah believes he is on a "God-ordained mission" to commit
terrorist acts and "there is no reason to believe he would abandon the
cause."

Jaballah will go back to court in February to continue a bail hearing and
try to convince a federal court justice he would not pose a risk if
released. His lawyer, Barbara Jackman, says she'll argue that after five
years in jail, and with the precedent now of two other terrorism suspects
released on bail without incident, Jaballah should be granted release with
conditions.

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

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/01/10/deseronto.html
Deseronto quarry blocked by Mohawk protest

Aboriginal protesters blocked access to a quarry in Deseronto, Ont., on
Wednesday and handed out pamphlets to passing motorists during a peaceful
protest over disputed land.

Shawn Brant, a spokesman for the approximately 20 Mohawk protesters, said
the group erected the barricades after hearing a Kingston, Ont., developer
would begin construction of a house on land claimed by the Mohawks of the
nearby Tyendinaga Territory on Wednesday.

Brant said the protest would likely continue into the afternoon and would
remain peaceful unless the developer tried to begin work at the site, in
which case protesters would physically remove him.

The protest was not sanctioned by Tyendinaga Territory Chief Don Maracle,
who said it was premature considering that a federal negotiator has been
appointed to settle the land dispute.

The barricades blocked country road off Highway 2, but protesters allowed
residents to pass through and only barred access to the Thurlow Aggregates
quarry, which was closed Wednesday on recommendation of police supervising
the protest.

The quarry, which is also on disputed land, normally opens two days each
week, and has been operating since 1990.

The Tyendinaga Mohawks have expressed opposition to the quarry in the
past, but have never before taken action against it.

Brant said his group now wants to shut down the quarry permanently, as its
stone would be used in housing construction on the disputed land.

The land in question is called the Culbertson Land Tract, and consists of
about 400 hectares that the Tyendinaga Mohawks say they never properly
surrendered.

During the fall, the same Kingston, Ont., developer said he would begin
construction on a housing subdivision on the land, sparking protests from
the same aboriginal group.

That raised fears that the situation could escalate into a long, bitter
dispute similar to the one that continues in Caledonia, Ont.

The Deseronto, Ont., protests ended in November after the Mohawks took
control of the land and construction was suspended indefinitely when
negotiations began with the federal government in November.

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


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070112.wximmigrant12/BNStory/National/home
How Canadian are you?  Visible-minority immigrants and their children
identify less and less with the country, report says
MARINA JIMÉNEZ From Friday's Globe and Mail

Visible-minority immigrants are slower to integrate into Canadian society
than their white, European counterparts, and feel less Canadian,
suggesting multiculturalism doesn't work as well for non-whites, according
to a landmark report.

The study, based on an analysis of 2002 Statistics Canada data, found that
the children of visible-minority immigrants exhibited a more profound
sense of exclusion than their parents.

Visible-minority newcomers, and their offspring, identify themselves less
as Canadians, trust their fellow citizens less and are less likely to vote
than white immigrants from Europe.

The findings suggest that multiculturalism, Canada's official policy on
interethnic relations since 1971, is not working as well for newer
immigrants or for their children, who hail largely from China, South Asia
and the Caribbean, conclude co-authors Jeffrey Reitz, a University of
Toronto sociologist, and Rupa Banerjee, a doctoral candidate.

"We need to address the racial divide," Prof. Reitz said. "Otherwise there
is a danger of social breakdown. The principle of multiculturalism was
equal participation of minorities in mainstream institutions. That is no
longer happening."

The sense of exclusion among visible-minority newcomers is not based on
the fact that they earn less than their white counterparts. Instead, the
researchers found integration is impeded by the perception of
discrimination, and vulnerability -- defined as feeling uncomfortable in
social situations due to racial background and a fear of suffering a
racial attack.

That is why even as the economic circumstances of newcomers improve over
time, the path to integration does not necessarily become smoother for
visible minorities.

The study found that 35 per cent of recent immigrants of Chinese origin
reported experiences of perceived discrimination, 28 per cent of South
Asians, and 44 per cent of blacks, compared with 19 per cent of whites.

The gap didn't narrow, but widened, with the next generation, with 42 per
cent of all visible minority second-generation immigrants reporting
discrimination, compared with 10.9 per cent of their white counterparts.

"There is a perception among minority communities that discrimination is
part of their lives. Yet if you ask Canadians in general, they discount
discrimination," Prof. Reitz noted.

The study, released yesterday by the Montreal-based Institute for Research
on Public Policy, was based on the Ethnic Diversity Survey, which asked
seven specific questions about integration. It is considered the best
source of information on the topic because of the huge sample size (more
than 40,000 respondents).

The study's authors found that only 33 per cent of first-generation
visible-minority immigrants identified as Canadians, compared with 64 per
cent of white immigrants, while 70 per cent voted in the last federal
election, compared with 82 per cent of white immigrants. Seventy-nine per
cent of visible-minority immigrants had Canadian citizenship, compared
with 97 per cent of white immigrants.

Regarding interpersonal trust -- trust of one's fellow citizens -- the
response of blacks was markedly lower. Thirty per cent of blacks trusted
their fellow citizens, compared with 50 per cent of white immigrants and
60 per cent of Chinese immigrants.

As for the children of visible-minority immigrants, 44 per cent of them
felt a sense of belonging, compared with about 60 per cent of their
parents. In contrast, 57 per cent of the children of white immigrants felt
a sense of belonging, compared with 47 per cent of their parents.

While Canadians in general remain supportive of immigration, they also
maintain a "social distance" from minorities, reflected in the study's
findings, the authors noted.

"When you study the trend over time, visible minorities who were born here
feel less like they belong than their parents," Prof. Reitz said.

The research highlights an urgent issue: the failure to engage immigrants
as full members of society, said Ratna Omidvar, executive director of the
Maytree Foundation, a Toronto organization that works with immigrants.
"Good multicultural policy must not only protect our rights to equality,
but it must also create real opportunities," she said.

Added Prof. Reitz: "Multiculturalism doesn't have specific goals and
objectives. The majority population thinks too much is being done already,
while minorities think the policy lacks credibility."


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


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/170464
'Khadr effect' silences Canadians
Country slow to join worldwide protests on Guantanamo camp's 5th anniversary
January 12, 2007  Michelle Shephard

Protestors outside the American embassy in London wore orange prison
jumpsuits. In Melbourne, they took to the steps of Australia's legislature
chanting, "Close Guantanamo now." At UN headquarters, new Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon added his voice to worldwide protests, urging the Bush
administration to close the U.S. prison camp on Cuba's south coast. And in
Washington about 100 protestors were arrested for demonstrating inside a
federal court yesterday to mark the fifth anniversary of the detention
facility's opening.

But in Canada, once home to Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr: Silence.

"I'm not surprised," said Dennis Edney, one of Khadr's Canadian lawyers.
"A Canadian youth has been detained for five years where he has been
abused and not provided with the most basic of rights and still we do
nothing. And by doing nothing, we become complicit with the Americans."But
the lack of public and government protests may also be attributed to what
Ottawa bureaucrats have coined "the Khadr effect."

The Canadian public has had little sympathy for the Khadr family since it
was revealed that patriarch Ahmed Said Khadr was a close associate of
Osama bin Laden. Comments made by his wife and daughter during a
television documentary further agitated some Canadians, who demanded their
citizenship be revoked.

In government circles, the "Khadr effect" is also meant to serve as a
warning not to intervene in foreign security cases if there's potential
for embarrassment. That goes back to 1996 when prime minister Jean
Chrétien intervened in the case of Ahmed Said Khadr, who was under arrest
by Pakistani authorities for allegedly financing a terrorist bombing.

After Chrétien spoke with prime minister Benazir Bhutto about the case,
the elder Khadr was released without charges. (He was later killed by
Pakistani forces during an October 2003 gun battle.)

A spokesperson with Canada's branch of Amnesty International said they
would stage protests against Guantanamo outside U.S. consulates in major
Canadian cities later this month.

Grassroots organizations in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa announced
yesterday they are also planning demonstrations in the coming weeks, but
their focus concerns five terrorism suspects who have not been charged
criminally but ordered deported from Canada. Three have been held more
than five years in a Kingston-area facility dubbed "Guantanamo North."

Omar Khadr was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan after a battle with
U.S. forces. He was charged with murder before a military commission for
allegedly throwing a grenade that killed an American medic, but a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling deemed the military tribunal process
unconstitutional, so he is now held without charges.

Edney and lawyer Nathan Whitling said the lack of public outcry or
government reaction yesterday was typical of how Khadr's situation has
been regarded since his 2002 capture in Afghanistan.

They accuse the Canadian government of ignoring Khadr's case so as not to
jeopardize relations with the U.S. – noting even British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, a close Washington ally, has said the prison should be shut
and has managed to secure the release of British detainees.

Toronto law professor and author Kent Roach said he finds it troubling
there's little reaction to Khadr's case in Canada.

"Some of it may be this failure of imagination or empathy for many
Canadians to put themselves in Omar Khadr's shoes. Some of it may be the
unpopularity of the family in general and I think some of it is probably
related to the fact that he's alleged to have killed an American medic,"
Roach said yesterday.

With memories of the 9/11 attacks still fresh, Canadians were enraged by a
CBC documentary in which one of Khadr's brothers claimed he grew up in an
"Al Qaeda family" and his mother and daughter praised those who died
fighting as martyrs.

The first of more than 770 suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay internment
centre after being captured in the U.S. "war on terror" arrived there on
Jan. 11, 2002. They've been deemed "enemy combatants" for suspected links
to Al Qaeda and the Taliban and the U.S government declared they fall
outside the Geneva Conventions.

About 390 remain and Khadr is expected to again be among those charged
once new U.S. Congress-sanctioned military commissions are implemented.

A dozen activists – including American Cindy Sheehan, who has devoted
herself to the anti-war effort since her son was killed in Iraq in 2004,
and Briton Asif Iqbal, who spent two years in Guantanamo only to be
released without charge – marched to the U.S. military enclave in eastern
Cuba yesterday to demand the detention camp be shut down. They chanted:
"Guantanamo prison, place of shame. No more torture in our name."

The Cuban government, which has denounced the prison as a concentration
camp, allowed the marchers to get to the security perimeter around the
base – nicknamed Gitmo – which Cuba claims was illegally occupied by the
U.S. Navy a century ago.

In London, about 300 Amnesty International members and volunteers
protested outside the U.S. embassy. Demonstrators outside the UN office in
Rabat urged governments to press the U.S. to free five Moroccans jailed in
Guantanamo. In Melbourne, protestors demanded Australia's only Guantanamo
detainee be brought home.

The U.S. military says the detention centre is vital to the fight against
terrorism. Its commander, Adm. Harry Harris, says aggressive interrogation
tactics are no longer used.

"I can tell you that we are detaining the right people in Guantanamo, we
are detaining them legally, ethically and humanely," Col. Lora Tucker, a
U.S. military spokeswoman at Guantanamo, said in an email.

With files from Reuters, AP


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


Iranian refugee wins first battle in bid to teach in Ontario Fights 13
years to have credentials evaluated Ottawa Citizen Graham Hughes, The
Ottawa Citizen Published: Friday, January 12, 2007

Fatima Siadat, who fled Iran in 1990, has won a 13-year legal battle to
have the Ontario College of Teachers consider her application for a
hearing  to evaluate her qualifications to teach in Ontario.

In Ottawa yesterday, Ms. Siadat was ecstatic about what could be a
precedent-setting legal decision. "I can't believe it happened after all
these years," she said. To teach in Ontario's publicly funded schools, a
teacher must have a Certificate of Qualification from the college, which
was created in 1996.  Officials there deemed her few documents
insufficient to judge her abilities to teach and refused her requests for
a personal interview or to  develop alternate means to evaluate her
abilities.

Ms. Siadat fled Iran after falling afoul of the education authorities by
teaching high school students that authors had a right to freedom of
expression. Ms. Siadat, a teacher for 16 years, received death threats and
faced a "political trial." After arriving in Canada, she obtained a
community college certificate in early childhood learning, and worked in
day-care facilities and elementary schools.
She opened her own day care, Our Little School, in 2001.

Now, she said, she hopes she will be able to meet with college officials,
receive accreditation and then "work as a kindergarten teacher." Ms.
Siadat said if she gets her certificate, she intends to work in schools
"until I die." "I have been working with children all of my life and the
older I get, the more I enjoy it," she said. "All the experience builds up
and I think I'm better at it than I was 10 years ago." She pointed out
that "teaching is a job where experience is more important than anything
else."

In a series of approaches beginning in 1993, first to the education
ministry and later to the college, Ms. Siadat had asked authorities to
waive the requirement that her qualification papers must come directly
from  the issuing authority. She requested that the college develop an
alternate method of evaluating her qualifications as a teacher.

In Toronto at a hearing last September, Chantal Tie and co-counsel Jean
Lash of South Ottawa Community Legal Services argued the college's refusal
to evaluate her documentation had violated their client's human rights as
a refugee. The legal aid clinic became involved in the case in 1999. At
one point, Ms. Siadat said, she was tired of the fight and ready to give
up but, encouraged by Ms. Tie, she decided to battle on "to open the door
for other people so they don't have to go through all this hassle."

Her refugee claim was based on persecution by the Iranian government,
which included, over and beyond a threat to her life, the deliberate
withholding of all her official documents to prevent her from ever
teaching again. Ms. Siadat had only a teacher's identification card and
handwritten copy of her university course transcripts, photocopies of her
Bachelor's degree and her employment order from the education ministry.
These were not acceptable, the college ruled, as it refused to meet her or
to explore ways to assess her credentials that do not rely on official
documents.

The decision, written by Justice John Brockenshire of the Superior Court
of Justice, was issued Wednesday in Toronto. He wrote that the college
"failed to meet both the obligation to properly interpret and apply the
relevant  law, and the obligation to provide adequate reasons for its
decision, that  its decision must be rescinded, and the application of Ms.
Siadat must be  referred back to the committee for re-hearing." Justices
Ellen Macdonald and Donald Cameron, who also sat on the appeal tribunal,
concurred.

A teachers college spokesman said a copy of the decision was delivered
late Wednesday. "We are currently reviewing the document and will develop
a response in due course," Brian Jamieson said.

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


http://mohawknationnews.com/news/singlenews.php?newsnr=397&lang=en&layout=mnn&category=26
IMAGINARY LINE” ISSUE FOR ALL ONKWEHONWE OF NORTH AND SOUTH TURTLE ISLAND

MNN. Jan. 9th 2007. The international situation between Canada , U.S. and
Mexico is not very complicated. There are two peoples involved. It is us
(the Onkwehonwe) and them (the colonists).

We Onkwehonwe, also known as “Indigenous” people, have an inherent right
to traverse Turtle Island . When human beings first appeared, Creation
gave us the original instructions to be respectful, to live in harmony
with the rest of the natural environment and to always adhere to the
original ways.

The Haudenosaunee Task Force on Border Crossing [made up of Curtis Nelson,
Oren Lyons, Leo Henry, Paul Williams, Darwin Hill and others] was set up
without consultation with us. They appear to be cooperating with the
colonists who want to issue “smart cards”, something like a credit card.
Everything about us will be on that card. This is another straw to try to
break the back of the Onkwehonwe.

Many of us who have been active and concerned for a long time found out
for the first time this past weekend this committee was set up. They’ve
already met with U.S. Homeland Security and Canada Customs and Immigration
to work out compliance with colonial terms. We have not been allowed to
question this committee. We resist their attempts to pressure us into
accepting the colonial timelines and the proposed card which is a de facto
recognition of the “imaginary line”.

Preamble

We Onkwehonwe face the US-Canada-Mexico border almost every day. Our
nation-to-nation relationship with the colonists is through the U.S.
President and the Her Majesty the Queen of Canada . It is governed by the
principles of the Two Row Wampum Agreement. One condition of tolerating
the presence of the colonists was that we would continue our pre-contact
right to conduct trade and commerce and travel anywhere in the Western
Hemisphere .

Jay Treaty (proviso)

The Jay Treaty of 1794 is a third party agreement and can have no binding
effect on us. Traveling around on our homeland is a birthright, not a
“privilege”. Colonists cannot interfere with our crossing of their
imaginary line they call the Canada-U.S. and U.S.-Mexico borders. The Jay
Treaty created the imaginary line on the 49th parallel. The Iroquois
Confederacy said at the time, “It is for you, not for us”. The Confederacy
would not agree to this as we were looking out for all Onkwehonwe, our
friends and allies. The line between the colonies of Mexico and the U.S.
was created by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. These lines
allowed the colonists to illegally implement privileges and tariffs.

Article III of the Jay Treaty is a violation of international law.

“the right of aboriginal peoples (people indigenous to Canada and/or the
US ) to trade and travel between the United States and Canada , which was
then a territory of Great Britain . This right was restated in section 289
of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act: Nothing in this title
shall be construed to affect the right of American Indians born in Canada
to pass the borders of the United States, but such right shall extend only
to persons who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the American
Indian race.

The Jay Treaty was made between two colonial corporations, Britain and the
United States , to provide privileges for the colonial subjects. It did
not include our political position. It contradicts itself when it
stipulates that it would not be “construed” to affect who is and who is
not an Onkwehonwe. In fact, it stipulates that this article applies to
those who are “naturalized”. So an immigrant who becomes an American,
Canadian or British is subject to the rules and privileges of the
‘corporation’.

Colonists and their “Indian” representatives speaking to band or tribal
councils or incorporated “Indian” entities is not consultation. Once they
thought they had pacified us and diminished our population, the colonists
put these restrictions in place without informing, consulting or getting
our consent. Now new restrictions are being imposed according to their
“might makes right” paradigm.

We will tell the colonizers what we want, not what they want us to do. It
tells us we can travel with personal belongings, not with “bales”. They
wanted to extinguish trade and commerce between all Onkwehonwe. “Bales”
referred to the fur trade. It meant anything that is more than one, and
could not be resold. They set up a system of extortion to interfere with
our ancient rights to sustain ourselves. It was similar to the killing off
of all the Buffalo on the Plains.

The colonists have demonstrated their disregard for universal human law.
Every human has the right to their existence, their own nationality, their
land and their government.

The colonizers are trying to blackmail us into recognizing their borders
between Canada , U.S. and Mexico . We have our own territories, our own
understandings and respect for each other. We did not need standing armies
to protect the borders of our territories because we practiced respect for
those who inhabited the particular area. We still do.

Passports and Citizenship

Canada and the U.S. are trying to push us into getting Canadian or US
passports to restrict and control our movements. We have a right to
maintain a connection to our Onkwehone people throughout the Western
Hemisphere . The colonizers are trying to class us as American or Canadian
or Mexican “Indians” by illegally and violently forcing us to alienate
ourselves from our birthright. They cannot make us something we are not.
Today they tell us we need a card. Next they will tell us we need a mark
on our forehead.

We are not members of any of these colonial entities. We cannot carry
passports of foreign corporations of which we refuse to be members. These
colonists are trying to make us commit an illegal act. As independent
Indigenous peoples we have a right to deal with such issues based on our
own laws. The colonizers are bound by agreements they have entered into
such as the UN Charter of 1948 and the International Covenant on Cultural
and Political Rights.

The concept of “citizenship” does not exist for us. We are Kanion’ke:haka,
not citizens. A “city” is a corporation which one becomes a part of with
privileges that can be taken away by the hierarchical governing body. No
nation has a right to denationalize another nation.

ID Cards

There is no consistency as to what ID the colonists want. When we produce
ID they punch our name into the computer and information comes up on that
screen. Now they are pushing for us to have a specific ID which they will
decide on and authorize. The advisors of the colonists are conforming and
misleading our people. The colonists have already made a decision and are
relying on the ignorance of our people to implement it. This violates
international law because we were not genuinely consulted. Our laws do not
allow us to give away the birthright of our children and future
generations.

We have a right to decide how we will be identified. Phil Fontaine of the
AFN [Assembly of First Nations] has suggested that we use their
government-issued “Indian status cards”. Many Onkwehonwe don’t have such a
card. A lot of imposters do.

The colonists want the micro chip in the card to contain our DNA, retina
scan and finger prints. They will put this into a data base where a
satellite GPS tracking system will know our whereabouts at all times. The
European countries have rejected this and still require paper passports
because the U.S. recommendations violate human rights.

Today the colonial governments are forcing us to shoulder the burden of
threats to their national security by bringing us under their rules. Why
should we? We’ve never carried out terrorist threats or acts of violence
anywhere in the world.

More and more these border guards are bullying our people, trying to
ensnare and control us. Intimidating tactics are being used to entrap our
people into doing something that will give them a reason to detain or
charge us. Cavity searches are being carried out by the customs goons
which violates human rights.


Jurisdiction

The Two Row addresses the jurisdiction issue. We never surrendered our
jurisdiction over ourselves or our land. Legality requires proper
procedures. If they have cause to stop one of our people they can do so
according to the Two Row Wampum Agreement. They can turn them over to us.
It is our responsibility to deal with those who are in violation or
committing a wrong and to restore the peace between our peoples.

The colonists have no right to order us to have these pass ports or
anything by January 2008 or anytime. We will tell them whether we will do
something or not. To follow the rule of law, the protocol is for them to
meet with us. We must polish the Silver Covenant Chain and dust the Two
Row Wampum. The Two Row Agreement governs our nation-to-nation
relationships with the colonizers through their heads of state.


Conclusion

We Onkwehone are here to fulfill our duties and responsibilities as the
Indigenous sovereigns of Turtle Island . The colonists are trying to
kidnap our people from our canoe and force us to row their boat. We are
being held hostage against our will in violation of the Two Row Wampum
Agreement. We can only leave our canoe by our own free will. Those being
forced to live under the illegal Indian Act and federal Indian law system
are hostages forced to live under an alien social, economic, political
system.

When times get rough the colonizers use these violent tactics to try to
control us and make us lose confidence in ourselves and our traditional
system. In the past when they could not defeat our people, they destroyed
the things we needed to sustain us. They disconnected us from our mother,
the earth. She is always there to sustain us. We continue to stand by her
to protect her.

We are not afraid to defend our birthright and to protect the next
generations. Onkwehonwe throughout the world are presently fighting to
protect our children, our people and our land. This entire process to
undermine us is a continuation of the genocide that the colonists
initiated 500 years ago. Only the names and faces in the corporation have
changed.

Kahentinetha Horn kahentinetha2 at yahoo.com
MNN Mohawk Nation News
www.mohawknationnews.com


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


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/12/26/military_considers_recruiting_foreigners/
Military considers recruiting foreigners
Expedited citizenship would be an incentive
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff  |  December 26, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting
goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks --
including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and
putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they
volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.

Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue,
which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using
mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a
large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national
security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform.

The idea of signing up foreigners who are seeking US citizenship is
gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon,
while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that
enter the United States legally each year.

The proposal to induct more noncitizens, which is still largely on the
drawing board, has to clear a number of hurdles. So far, the Pentagon has
been quiet about specifics -- including who would be eligible to join,
where the recruiting stations would be, and what the minimum standards
might involve, including English proficiency. In the meantime, the
Pentagon and immigration authorities have expanded a program that
accelerates citizenship for legal residents who volunteer for the
military.

And since Sept. 11, 2001, the number of imm igrants in uniform who have
become US citizens has increased from 750 in 2001 to almost 4,600 last
year, according to military statistics.

With severe manpower strains because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
-- and a mandate to expand the overall size of the military -- the
Pentagon is under pressure to consider a variety of proposals involving
foreign recruits, according to a military affairs analyst.

"It works as a military idea and it works in the context of American
immigration," said Thomas Donnelly , a military scholar at the
conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a leading
proponent of recruiting more foreigners to serve in the military.

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, the Pentagon has warned
Congress and the White House that the military is stretched "to the
breaking point."

Both President Bush and Robert M. Gates, his new defense secretary, have
acknowledged that the total size of the military must be expanded to help
alleviate the strain on ground troops, many of whom have been deployed
repeatedly in combat theaters.

Bush said last week that he has ordered Gates to come up with a plan for
the first significant increase in ground forces since the end of the Cold
War. Democrats who are preparing to take control of Congress, meanwhile,
promise to make increasing the size of the military one of their top
legislative priorities in 2007.

"With today's demands placing such a high strain on our service members,
it becomes more crucial than ever that we work to alleviate their burden,"
said Representative Ike Skelton , a Missouri Democrat who is set to chair
the House Armed Services Committee, and who has been calling for a larger
Army for more than a decade.

But it would take years and billions of dollars to recruit, train, and
equip the 30,000 troops and 5,000 Marines the Pentagon says it needs. And
military recruiters, fighting the perception that signing up means a
ticket to Baghdad, have had to rely on financial incentives and lower
standards to meet their quotas.

That has led Pentagon officials to consider casting a wider net for
noncitizens who are already here, said Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Hilferty ,
an Army spokesman.

Already, the Army and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of
the Department of Homeland Security have "made it easier for green-card
holders who do enlist to get their citizenship," Hilferty said.

Other Army officials, who asked not to be identified, said personnel
officials are working with Congress and other parts of the government to
test the feasibility of going beyond US borders to recruit soldiers and
Marines.

Currently, Pentagon policy stipulates that only immigrants legally
residing in the United States are eligible to enlist. There are currently
about 30,000 noncitizens who serve in the US armed forces, making up about
2 percent of the active-duty force, according to statistics from the
military and the Council on Foreign Relations. About 100 noncitizens have
died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A recent change in US law, however, gave the Pentagon authority to bring
immigrants to the United States if it determines it is vital to national
security. So far, the Pentagon has not taken advantage of it, but the
calls are growing to take use the new authority.

Indeed, some top military thinkers believe the United States should go as
far as targeting foreigners in their native countries.

"It's a little dramatic," said Michael O'Hanlon , a military specialist at
the nonpartisan Brookings Institution and another supporter of the
proposal. "But if you don't get some new idea how to do this, we will not
be able to achieve an increase" in the size of the armed forces.

"We have already done the standard things to recruit new soldiers,
including using more recruiters and new advertising campaigns," O'Hanlon
added.

O'Hanlon and others noted that the country has relied before on sizable
numbers of noncitizens to serve in the military -- in the Revolutionary
War, for example, German and French soldiers served alongside the
colonists, and locals were recruited into US ranks to fight insurgents in
the Philippines.

Other nations have recruited foreign citizens: In France, the famed
Foreign Legion relies on about 8,000 noncitizens; Nepalese soldiers called
Gurkhas have fought and died with British Army forces for two centuries;
and the Swiss Guard, which protects the Vatican, consists of troops who
hail from many nations.

"It is not without historical precedent," said Donnelly, author of a
recent book titled "The Army We Need," which advocates for a larger
military.

Still, to some military officials and civil rights groups, relying on
large number of foreigners to serve in the military is offensive.

The Hispanic rights advocacy group National Council of La Raza has said
the plan sends the wrong message that Americans themselves are not willing
to sacrifice to defend their country. Officials have also raised concerns
that immigrants would be disproportionately sent to the front lines as
"cannon fodder" in any conflict.

Some within the Army privately express concern that a big push to recruit
noncitizens would smack of "the decline of the American empire," as one
Army official who asked not to be identified put it.

Officially, the military remains confident that it can meet recruiting
goals -- no matter how large the military is increased -- without having
to rely on foreigners.

"The Army can grow to whatever size the nation wants us to grow to,"
Hilferty said. "National defense is a national challenge, not the Army's
challenge."

He pointed out that just 15 years ago, during the Gulf War, the Army had a
total of about 730,000 active-duty soldiers, amounting to about one
American in 350 who were serving in the active-duty Army.

"Today, with 300 million Americans and about 500,000 active-duty soldiers,
only about one American in 600 is an active-duty soldier," he said.
"America did then, and we do now, have an all-volunteer force, and I see
no reason why America couldn't increase the number of Americans serving."

But Max Boot, a national security specialist at the Council on Foreign
Relations, said that the number of noncitizens the armed forces have now
is relatively small by historical standards.

"In the 19th century, when the foreign-born population of the United
States was much higher, so was the percentage of foreigners serving in the
military," Boot wrote in 2005.

"During the Civil War, at least 20 percent of Union soldiers were
immigrants, and many of them had just stepped off the boat before donning
a blue uniform. There were even entire units, like the 15th Wisconsin
Volunteer Infantry [the Scandinavian Regiment] and General Louis Blenker's
German Division, where English was hardly spoken."

"The military would do well today to open its ranks not only to legal
immigrants but also to illegal ones and, as important, to untold numbers
of young men and women who are not here now but would like to come," Boot
added.

"No doubt many would be willing to serve for some set period, in return
for one of the world's most precious commodities -- US citizenship. Some
might deride those who sign up as mercenaries, but these troops would have
significantly different motives than the usual soldier of fortune."

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender at globe.com.


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

Judge demands to know whereabouts of Colo. suspects in Swift raid
Associated Press January 12, 2007

DENVER (AP)-- A federal judge demanded Friday that immigration officials
disclose the whereabouts of 265 people arrested in a raid at a meatpacking
plant in Greeley last month. U.S. District Judge John L. Kane gave
Immigration and Customs Enforcement until Jan. 22 to submit a list
accounting for all the detainees, including those who have been deported.

''There are people in custody - there is an urgency to this,'' Kane said.
Kane told ICE officials to work on the list with union attorneys who are
contesting the Greeley arrests.

ICE agents raided Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in six states on Dec. 12,
arresting a total of 1,282 people. ICE has said about 220 face identity
theft or other criminal charges and the rest face immigration charges,
which are considered administrative rather than criminal.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union filed suit in Denver federal
court, alleging the arrests of the 265 Greeley workers violated their
constitutional rights to due process. ICE has denied the charge.

ICE also raided Swift plants in Grand Island, Neb.; Cactus, Texas; Hyrum,
Utah; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Worthington, Minn. The Denver lawsuit did
not include workers arrested at those plants.


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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1981095,00.html
America's Minutemen build their own fence against Mexican migrants
Dan Glaister in Naco, Arizona Tuesday January 2, 2007 Guardian

The iron and steel fence is the latest project from the Minutemen, the
volunteer group of anti-immigration activists that has placed itself at
the sharp end of the immigration debate since launching a highly
publicised series of border watches in 2005. Now, frustrated at what the
group sees as the inaction of government, it has taken matters a step
further, building its own border fence at a cost of around $1m (£510,000)
at one of the busiest points on the line, 90 miles from Tucson.

"It's not only a symbol, although its creation is symbolic of something,"
says Al Garza, national executive director of the Minuteman Civil Defence
Corps. "It's saying: Congress, Mr President, we've pleaded, now we're
demanding. You've told us it can't be done, well we're just a handful of
people and we're doing it."

Wearing a white Stetson and bearing a crisply trimmed white moustache, Mr
Garza is the picture of a border activist. A retiree who moved to Arizona
from California less than four years ago, he served in the US Marine Corps
and worked as a private investigator in California for 35 years.

"We know that the observation won't quash or deter immigration," he says,
"so we thought what was the alternative: a fence."

But there is a flaw in the Minutemen's plan. While the US-Mexico border
stretches for 1,993 miles, from California to Florida, the Minuteman fence
when finished will be just one mile long.

Despite this apparent drawback, Mr Garza is adamant that the fence will
have an effect. "It's also deterring traffic from that particular area,
which is heavily, heavily travelled. One mile out here is very crucial, so
that's one mile the Border Patrol won't have to scout."

Others, however, doubt whether a fence will have any effect. "They'll just
go around this fence in the way they go around others," says Daniel
Griswold of the Cato Institute thinktank in Washington DC. "All a fence
will do is direct people to more remote areas and create the likelihood of
more deaths."

The Minuteman fence is being built on a private ranch between the towns of
Douglas and Naco. While the border around the towns is fortified by
six-metre high welded steel panels, the point where the Minutemen are
building their fence is marked by a barbed wire fence and some iron bars.
It is an unconvincing barrier.

"Until the Minutemen came along and really raised national awareness about
this there was nothing like this," says Connie Faust, a Minuteman
volunteer who has just taken charge of building the fence. "This was all
holes in the fence. Cattle were coming through, illegal aliens were coming
through. It's been a real problem for the ranchers out here."

Like Mr Garza, Ms Faust is a recent arrival on the border, moving from
Montana three years ago. Like Mr Garza too, her conversion to the
Minuteman cause came to her thanks to Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel.

While Mr Garza had been impressed when he saw Minuteman co-founder Chris
Simcox interviewed on the channel, Ms Faust joined up after seeing the
group's other founder, Jim Gilchrist, on the channel's Hannity and Colmes
show. She went straight to the Minuteman website and signed on.

"When I lived in Montana I would hear [Fox host] Bill O'Reilly but it
didn't really mean that much to me," she says. "When I came here to
Arizona it started to make sense."

Ms Faust puts her hand against a completed section of the fence. "This is
a slice of it," she says, running her hands along the metal grille firmly
held by iron posts set in concrete. "Then we'll have razor wire on the top
of it."

Small US flags hang from the completed parts of the fence; a full-size
Stars and Stripes hangs from one post. "That's my father's casket flag,"
Ms Faust says. "He would have been very proud. He served in the second
world war. And we have a thousand of these small flags that we'll be
putting out. These flags are made in America."

A Border Patrol agent waves as he drives past, following the dirt road
that runs between the border and the Minuteman fence. He stops on a small
rise, just past the railway bridge known as Arnie's Trestle. The railway
line runs just inside Mexico.

"As they come along Arnie's Trestle there they jump off the train," says
Ms Faust. "He goes slow, very slow. That's a real hot spot."

>From there the migrants typically head north, to Tucson or Phoenix, having
paid a "coyote" - the professional smuggler who brings them across the
border - anything between $1,500 and $3,000.

The fence is at the heart of what is known as the Tucson sector, the
busiest crossing-point on the border. Of 1.1m arrests made by the Border
Patrol in 2005, almost half of them were here. This year the figure, in
common with the entire border, has dropped, with 392,000 undocumented
migrants held.

The decline in arrests - 27% down on last year - could be due to any
number of reasons: the increase in Border Patrol officers, the presence of
National Guard troops mandated by President George Bush last year, the
tougher penalties imposed on those who are caught, the clampdown on
undocumented workers in the US. Or it could be that the coyotes and their
clients are getting better at dodging law enforcement. Nobody really knows
and the figures are, at best, estimates.

"You wonder how many get by," says TJ Bonner, president of the agents'
union, the 6,500 member National Border Patrol Council. "Our agents
estimate that for every person we catch, two or three get by." Mr Bonner
sees the Minuteman fence as a publicity ploy. "I think the impact on
day-to-day operations will be really minimal," he says. "The larger impact
of groups like the Minutemen is in bringing attention to the problem. The
fence project is more of a public demonstration to shame the
administration."

The Minutemen began building their fence last October, the same month that
President Bush signed into law an act that provided for the building of a
700-mile fence along part of the US-Mexico border. The act was the
culmination of a year of partisan debate in Congress, fuelled by the
activities of groups such as the Minutemen and the immigrants' rights
marches of last spring.

Unable to work out a compromise offering increased border security and an
amnesty or some path to citizenship for those already in the US, Congress
was only able to come up with the fence and a commitment to a "virtual"
fence, a hi-tech series of initiatives designed to enforce border
security.

But no funds were voted for the 700-mile fence, and its $7bn estimated
cost mean that it is unlikely to be built. Meanwhile, estimates of the
cost of the virtual fence have risen from $2bn to $30bn.

One thing most people agree on, however, is that the border is highly
porous. The Department of Homeland Security this month said it had
"effective control" over just 284 miles of the nation's 1,993-mile
southern border.

"It's a very complex problem," Connie Faust says, "and the first thing to
solve the problem is to close the border, then we can deal with all these
other issues."

Behind her the four labourers hired by the Minutemen continue building the
mile-long fence in the winter heat of the desert.

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


US IMMIGRATION NEWS BRIEFS

1. Arizona Students March
2. Deported Imam Arrested by Israel
3. Chicago Restaurant Raided
4. Union Pursues Lawsuit Over Raids

INB is also distributed free via email; contact nicajg at panix.com for
info. You may reprint or distribute items from INB, but please credit us
and tell people how to subscribe.

*1. ARIZONA STUDENTS MARCH

Chanting "We are students, not criminals," nearly 600 students and their
supporters marched on Jan. 8 toward the University of Phoenix stadium in
Glendale, Arizona, to protest a recently passed state law denying in-state
tuition to out-of-status immigrants. Arizona voters approved the
Proposition 300 ballot initiative last November; it requires students who
cannot prove their legal immigration status to pay out-of-state tuition at
state colleges and universities.

The march took place on the day the stadium hosted the national
championship game of college football's Bowl Championship Series (BCS).
The students delivered a letter to BCS officials asking for support of the
proposed federal DREAM Act, which would help students who have graduated
from US high schools attain legal immigration status. "I'm here because
this does not just affect the undocumented, it affects the entire
community," said Miguel Z., a junior at Arizona State University who works
two jobs to stay in school; he is in the US legally but is not a US
citizen, even though he spent four years in the Navy.

Because the marchers hadn't obtained a permit, police told them they had
to stay on the sidewalk and march two abreast. About a mile from the
stadium, Glendale police told the marchers that if they went any farther,
they would be arrested. Eight people locked arms and stepped into the
street; they were issued criminal citations for engaging in a special
event without a permit and are scheduled to appear in court Jan. 23. "We
will fight this in court," said activist Alfredo Gutierrez, one of the
eight. "We will fight these citations because we feel they're
unconstitutional." [Arizona Republic (Phoenix) 1/9/07]

*2. DEPORTED IMAM ARRESTED BY ISRAEL

Palestinian immigrant Fawaz Damra, the former imam at the Islamic Center
of Cleveland, Ohio, was deported on Jan. 4--a year after reaching an
agreement with the US government to give up his fight to remain in the US.
That agreement had stipulated that Damra would be deported either to
Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Egypt or the Palestinian
territories. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced on
Jan. 5 that Damra had been deported to the Palestinian
territories.

Originally from the West Bank town of Nablus, Damra immigrated to the US
in the mid-1980s. In June 2004, a federal judge revoked his US citizenship
after convicting him of lying on his naturalization application by not
revealing his ties to a group affiliated with the Palestinian Islamic
Jihad. Damra's attorney, Michael Birach, said the imam was a victim of
immigration officials who wanted to look tough after the Sept. 11 attacks
[AP 1/5/07]

ICE spokesperson Greg Palmore asserted on Jan. 5 and again on Jan. 8 that
Damra had been flown to Amman, Jordan, on Jan. 5 and directly handed over
to Palestinian authorities at the Allenby Bridge that links Jordan to the
West Bank. But Damra's brother, Nabil Damra, speaking by cell phone from
the West Bank, said on Jan. 8 that Israeli authorities had arrested Fawaz
Damra "the moment he arrived to the border." Nabil Damra said the Red
Cross and the Israel-based Center for the Defense of the Individual, which
advocates for the rights of Palestinians, had told him that Fawaz Damra
was in custody and had been taken to Israel's Al Jalameh detention
facility near Jenin in the northern West Bank. Nabil Damra said a lawyer
had been hired for his brother. [AP
1/8/07]

Israel's Shin Bet security service confirmed on Jan. 9 that it is holding
Fawaz Damra. Without providing further details, the Shin Bet said Damra
was arrested because of his ties to Islamic Jihad.
[AP 1/9/07]

*3. CHICAGO RESTAURANT RAIDED

On Jan. 9, ICE special agents arrested 10 immigrants working at Pegasus, a
Greek restaurant in Chicago. Eight of the workers are from Mexico; the
other two are from Albania and Bulgaria. All are in ICE custody and have
been placed in removal proceedings. ICE began investigating the restaurant
in September 2006 after receiving information that a large number of its
employees were using false social security numbers and fraudulent green
cards. The investigation is ongoing. [ICE News Release 1/10/07]

*4. UNION PURSUES LAWSUIT OVER RAIDS

ICE officials were scheduled to appear before Judge L. John Kane in
federal court in Denver on Jan. 12 in a follow-up hearing to a civil
lawsuit filed by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7. The
union filed its suit against the government a day after ICE arrested 260
workers at the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Greeley, Colorado. The
Greeley plant was one of six Swift plants in six states raided by ICE on
Dec. 12; a total of 1,282 workers were arrested [see INB 12/15/06,
12/21/06]. The lawsuit charges that the raid was illegal; that federal
officials violated the constitutional rights of the arrested workers; and
that detainees were treated inhumanely while in custody.

At least 66 of the workers arrested at Swift's Greeley plant were shipped
to an ICE jail in El Paso, Texas. Within a few days of the raid, Judge
Kane ordered ICE to bring the detainees back to Colorado, and ICE
officials told union lawyers they were complying. But court papers filed
Jan. 5 revealed that only five detainees were sent back to Colorado, while
61 remain in Texas. [Denver Daily News 12/19/06; Rocky Mountain News
(Denver) 12/16/06, 1/6/07; Greeley Tribune 1/12/07]

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

In the name of commitments made to the EU, migrants and refugees are
rounded up in Morocco
English translation by Yasha Maccanico, Statewatch

At dawn on 23 December 2006, between two and four hundred migrants were
rounded up in several neighbourhoods in Rabat (Morocco), placed in
minibuses and taken by force to the Algerian border. On 25 December,
round-ups also took place in Nador (in the east of the country). Women and
young children were also taken, as were numerous asylum seekers and people
with recognised refugee status granted by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees. Little over a year after the events in Ceuta
and Melilla in autumn 2005, the scene of mass deportations of sub-Saharan
migrants that provoked the indignation of the international community,
large-scale round-ups and deportations in the name of the protection of
Europe borders are again on the agenda in a country where, on a daily
basis, the rights of migrants and of people in need of international
protection are scorned.

By deciding to establish a « strict partnership » on migration issues, the
States that met in the Euro-African conferences on migration and
development in Rabat (July 2006) and Tripoli (November 2006) have asserted
the importance of the « protection of the rights of all migrants », paying
special attention to vulnerable people, as well as the « respect for an
effective protection for refugees and displaced people ». These basic
principles thus appear to have a very relative reach compared with the
will to prevent migrants from entering Europe, since it is in the name of
the commitments made by Morocco in the framework of the Rabat conference
that the Moroccan authorities publicly justified the deportations carried
out on 23 December !

In fact, in the framework of the cooperation that it has promoted since
2004 to ensure the « external dimension » of its immigration and asylum
policy, the European Union uses its southern neighbours, regardless of
whether they are migrants’ countries of origin or of transit, to delegate
the protection of its own borders to them, regardless of the consequences
for those people who cannot cross them any longer. Thus Libya, regularly
singled out for human rights violations perpetrated on its territory, is
becoming one of the main EU subcontractors for the sifting of migrants who
have come from southern Africa. Thus, also, Morocco is considered a
privileged partner of the EU in the fight against illegal immigration, at
a time when the principles contained in the Geneva Convention on refugees,
which it has ratified, are not respected on its soil, and when the UNHCR
is not in a position to assure the protection of people to whom it has
granted the right to international protection in Morocco.

Trapped by the « externalisation » by the EU of its migration policy, the
people who died in Ceuta and Melilla, like the ones rounded up in Rabat
today, abandoned to their fate in inhuman conditions, are the victims of
this irresponsible logic.

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

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/aust-j06.shtml

Howard government unveils new “Australian values” citizenship test
By Fergus Michaels  6 January 2007

Australian Prime Minister John Howard last month chose the anniversary of
the December 2005 race riot at Sydney’s Cronulla beach to outline further
details of the citizenship test initially proposed last September. The
choice of date was itself indicative of the underlying thrust of the new
test, and the entire campaign to restore what Howard’s government calls
“Australian values”.

The anti-Muslim rampage at Cronulla was whipped up by talk-back radio
hosts and other mass media, the Howard government and other promoters of
Australian nationalism as part of a campaign aimed at creating the
political climate for escalating military aggression in the Middle East,
accompanied by attacks on basic democratic rights at home. Its purpose is
to divide the working class along ethnic and religious lines, and divert
escalating social tensions caused by the growing chasm between a wealthy
elite and the vast majority of ordinary people into communal conflicts.

Howard announced that migrants would have to answer 30 multiple-choice
questions on Australian society and history from a collection of 200, with
all questions and responses exclusively in English. In addition, they will
have to pass a yet-to-be specified test to demonstrate a “working
knowledge” of the English language. Citizenship will be allowed only after
four years of permanent residency, twice the previous requirement. These
measures will discriminate against immigrants from non-English speaking
backgrounds, and against those who are working class and poor, less able
to afford the thousands of dollars needed to take intensive English
language classes.

All citizenship applicants will also be compelled to sign a formal
statement declaring their allegiance to what Andrew Robb, Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,
describes as “the Australian way of life and our shared values.” Even
those applying for a visa stay of more than 12 months, except New
Zealanders, will first have to “indicate their understanding and respect
of Australian values”.

Muslims and those of Middle Eastern descent are the immediate focus of
this attack. In February last year, Howard said Muslim immigrants posed a
unique social threat, citing a supposed “fragment which is utterly
antagonistic to [Australian] society.” He claimed that “raving on about
jihad” made Muslims particularly dangerous, insinuating that they were
likely to be terrorists. Treasurer Peter Costello later declared that
Muslims should accept “Australian values or leave.” The clear implication
was that those who refused to pledge their allegiance to
officially-defined “values” should be stripped of citizenship and
deported.

More broadly, the proposed legislation will provide a means for denying
citizenship—and hence fundamental democratic rights, such as the right to
vote, stand for election and travel to and from Australia—to anyone
regarded as politically dangerous or insufficiently patriotic. According
to National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce, a member of Howard’s ruling
Coalition, the new test will block those “who have militant ideas who want
to destroy our nation”.

Already, visa and citizenship applicants can be rejected, on the advice of
the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) as “security
risks”. Now, adherence to a set of political “values” will become the
basis upon which citizenship is granted or denied. As a September 17
government discussion paper stated, the test will become “a mechanism” to
ensure that citizens understand “common values”, which will promote
“social cohesion.” This is the real meaning of the government’s repeated
claim that “Australian citizenship is a privilege, not a right.”
Privileges can, after all, be taken away.

Howard’s timing—his announcement also came within a week of the election
of a new Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd—foreshadows a “khaki” election
campaign this year centred on militarism and jingoism. But the
implications of the “Australian values” crusade, which Labor entirely
supports, go far beyond immediate electoral calculations. It is no
coincidence that new citizens will be required to pledge their willingness
to “defend Australia should the need arise”, i.e., participate in military
operations.

Governments around the world are ratcheting up national “values” as a
means of preparing their populations for war, amid the eruption of US
militarism in the Middle East and escalating major power conflicts over
energy resources, trade and markets. A day after Howard unveiled the new
test, British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that Muslims had a “duty
to integrate” into British society and accept “common unifying British
values”. US authorities have also recently announced a tougher citizenship
examination, designed to test understanding of “US values”. Governments in
Japan, the Netherlands and New Zealand are running similarly nationalist
“values” and language campaigns.

According to last September’s discussion paper, “Australian values” are:
“respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual,” “our support for
democracy”, “our commitment to the rule of law”, “the equality of men and
women,” “the spirit of a fair go,” and “mutual respect and compassion for
those in need”.

The list is deeply hypocritical. Regarding “democracy” and “the rule of
law,” the Howard government has been the most vociferous supporter of the
Bush administration’s illegal wars of aggression against Afghanistan and
Iraq, its installation of puppet regimes and the destruction of basic
democratic rights at home under the banner of the “war on terror”.

In its own Pacific “patch”, the Howard government has dispatched troops,
police and officials to enforce undemocratic “regime change” in East
Timor, take control of key levers of power and create political
provocations in the Solomon Islands, shore up an unelected monarchy in
Tonga, undermine the government in Vanuatu and meddle in the internal
affairs of Papua New Guinea and Fiji.

For more than five years, Australian citizen David Hicks has been stripped
of all “freedom” and “dignity,” along with the right to a fair trial, in
his incarceration and torture at the US military detention camp at
Guantánamo Bay, and Australian personnel have been involved in similar
illegal practices at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for a “fair go” and “mutual respect and compassion,” refugees seeking
asylum in Australia have been turned away by warships or transported for
indefinite detention on remote islands. At the same time, social
inequality has reached unprecedented levels. The richest 200 people now
have a combined wealth of $100 billion, while one fifth of all households,
or 3.6 million people, attempt to live on less than $400 a week.

The new “dictation test”

Howard’s new measures bear a striking resemblance to the notorious
dictation test used to enforce the racist “White Australia” policy at the
turn of the twentieth century. The federation of the Australian nation in
1901 was founded on this policy, aimed at promoting Anglo-European
supremacism and dividing Australian workers from their fellow toilers
across Asia.

Under the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, the test became the means
for imprisoning and deporting any new arrival who could not accurately
write down 50 words dictated by an immigration officer in any European
language selected by the officer. Migrants who were nationally or racially
“undesirable” were expelled on the official grounds of insufficient
language skills.

At present, a “basic knowledge” of English is required for citizenship,
with the test consisting of a simple oral conversation with an immigration
official. Now, according to Howard, applicants must have a “working
capacity” in “the national language, which is English.” The new
requirement will be used to weed out immigrants from non-English speaking
parts of the globe, notably Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and most
of Africa.

In reality, English is only the de facto national language of Australia.
It does not have de jure status, as acknowledged by the immigration
department’s own website. The elevation of English into the “national
language” is designed to separate English-speaking “citizens” from “alien”
immigrants and foster a xenophobic climate.

Howard’s claim that after four years of Australian residency “it’s not
unreasonable” to expect migrants to develop a “facility in the English
language” lacks any foundation. The website of the Centre for Adult
English Language Acquisition states that five years is generally
acknowledged as the minimum time required for a person with no previous
English to achieve most communication tasks. It takes 500-1,000 hours of
instruction for an adult who is literate in another language, but has no
prior English instruction, “to reach a level where she can satisfy her
basic needs, survive on the job, and have limited social interaction in
English”.

For many years, immigrants received free English language classes but
today the government provides only limited help through the Adult Migrant
English Program (AMEP). AMEP offers 510 hours of tuition to most adult
migrants for an annual fee of $315. Refugee and humanitarian entrants are
eligible for 610 hours, or 910 hours if they are under the age of 25.
Beyond that, private providers charge hefty fees—for example, the Sydney
College of English offers a part-time, 15-hour per week intensive English
course for $250 per week.

Howard faces no real opposition within the parliamentary and media
establishment. In fact, the Labor Party, which together with the trade
unions was the architect of the “White Australia” policy, has played a
leading role in the “Australian values” campaign. Last year, former Labor
leader Kim Beazley demanded that all entrants into Australia, including
tourists, sign an oath of loyalty as part of the “struggle against
extremists and terrorists”.

While his successor Rudd has shelved this proposal, Labor fully supports
the new citizenship test. Its shadow minister for immigration, integration
and citizenship, Tony Burke, declared last week that the “Australian
community” knew how important “speaking English is to successful
integration”.

Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle opposed the citizenship measures,
but only on the nationalist basis that Howard had “failed to justify
[their] need, or show how they will make Australians better off”. She
called on Labor to join the Greens in voting against the legislation. Her
comments only serve to promote illusions in Labor and to obscure the real
motivations behind the “values” campaign.

Working people should oppose all forms of discrimination and chauvinism.
As a matter of fundamental principle, all people, no matter what their
country of birth, ethnic background or financial position, should have the
right to live and work wherever they choose, with full political and
democratic rights. That is the perspective fought for by the Socialist
Equality Party.


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

http://countercurrents.org/mustafa130107.htm
Fencing Across The Border Whose Fooling Who
By Abid Mustafa 13 January, 2007 Countercurrents.org

To assuage international concerns over cross border filtration into
Afghanistan, the Pakistani government has announced a series of measures.
These include selectively fencing the 2,430km border, laying down mines
and introducing biometric identity checks on the Pakistani side of the
border. This is in addition to the 80,000 Pakistani troops manning the
border. If this was not enough- Pakistan has also proposed to convene a
tribal Jirga in an attempt to stymie the flow of militants into
Afghanistan. In the near future, Pakistan also plans to repatriate 2
million or so Afghan refugees back to Afghanistan.

Rather than welcoming such measures the government in Kabul has fervently
reprimanded Islamabad and continues to blame Pakistan for providing
sanctuary to Taliban and other Pushtoon fighters. Meanwhile, the US is
staying clear of taking sides in the dispute and maintains that the matter
must be resolved bilaterally between the two countries." I'm not going to
get into disputes between states, both of whom are allies...It is clear
that the issue of border crossings is one of shared interest and concern,"
said White House Press Secretary Tony Snow. The only clarity the Bush
administration has offered is that it concurs with media reports that
Taliban fighters are using Pakistan to re-organise and launch attacks
against coalition troops operating in Afghanistan. So what is going on?

It is obvious that the measures spelt out by Pakistan will only succeed if
Musharraf is prepared to stem the tide of Pushtoon fighters crossing into
Afghanistan. Partial fencing of the border will not stop those determined
to get across. Neither will mining, as sign posts and maps can be used to
navigate around such hot spots. Moreover, mines are likely to maim and
kill civilians than deter militants. Biometric checks are only good as the
intelligence on the ground. Besides, it will take months to implement
these measures effectively-by then the present government in Kabul may not
be around.

Hence the stigma of Pakistan abetting Taliban fighters will remain unless
Islamabad chooses to terminate their activities. But Pakistan's
unwillingness to withdraw support to the Taliban and other Pushtoon
fighters is being fuelled by the US which continues to support Pakistan's
policy of embracing Taliban militants. Despite the growing international
pressure, especially from NATO members, the Whitehouse has hitherto
refused to apportion blame at Musharraf's government for incubating
militants on its soil.

It is also apparent that the US is quietly supporting Pakistan's efforts
to make the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan permanent and this
explains much of the hostility of the Kabul government towards the
measures. The Afghans still dispute the Durand Line which was invented by
the British in 1893 to divide Afghanistan from British India. Afghans
consider the agreement illegal and regard Peshawar and Quetta part of
Afghanistan.

America's current plan is to buy precious time for the Taliban to take
leadership over the Pushtoon resistance and then execute a major offensive
against Kabul in the Spring of this year. Thereafter, the US will convene
an international conference to construct a new government in Kabul-one
that enjoys the support of the Pushtoons; resolve the border issue between
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and integrate the tribal belt into the civil
polity of Pakistan. Aspects of this plan have been put forward by Martin
Inderfurth a former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs
and Dennis Kux a former US ambassador to Pakistan. On 5/12/06 in an
article published in the Baltimore Sun, the two advocate that Afghanistan
should override the Jirga decision of 1948 and accept the Durand Line as
the defacto border, and that Pakistan should undertake reforms with the
assistance of the World Bank to integrate the tribal region.

But if somehow the Pakistan's establishment believes that America is going
to safeguard Pakistan's integrity then they are gravely mistaken. American
policy makers have already discussed several plans which elaborate on how
Pakistan should be divided along sectarian lines. One plan proposes to
reduce Pakistan to Punjab and Sindh and its security and economy
integrated with India. Musharraf often talks about sectarian violence and
blames Islamists or outside powers for fomenting it. Yet it is his
pro-American policies that are laying the seeds of an even bigger
sectarian disaster- the dismemberment of Pakistan.

Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialises in Muslim affairs



-- 
No One is Illegal-Vancouver
NEW: visit our blog at http://noiivan.blogspot.com

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

No One is Illegal-Vancouver is a grassroots anti-colonial
immigrant/refugee rights community collective with leadership from members
of migrant and/or racialized backgrounds. As a movement for
self-determination that challenges the ideology of immigration controls,
we are in full confrontation with Canadian border policies; denouncing and
taking action to combat racial profiling, detention and deportation, the
national security apparatus, law enforcement brutality, and exploitative
working conditions of migrants.

We struggle for the right for our communities to maintain their
livelihoods and resist war, occupation, and displacement; while supporting
indigenous sisters and brothers fighting theft of land and colonization.
We also place ourselves within the broader movement for global social
justice that struggles against capitalism, militarism, oppression,
poverty, imperialism, and other systems of domination and exploitation.