Author: mopress

By Nick Braune

Although Homeland Security’s border wall has been out of the news recently and off some activists’ radar, there is still strong opposition to it.

Besides its other problems, the wall is mean-spirited and ugly, and a group of Valley “Artists Against the Wall” pointed out that fact a month ago in Brownsville at an outdoor exhibit. (Although attending two rallies in Brownsville’s Hope Park a while back, I had not visited since the wall went up there. I first saw the monstrosity last week: a long metal serrated knife scarring Hope. I am very happy the artists decided to decorate it for a day.)

The Brownsville Herald reported the art show: “About a dozen artists…rested their work on the fence in Hope Park, overlooking the Rio Grande. A 30-foot ladder fashioned out of bamboo and twine, a wreath of ribbon and artificial flowers measuring 8 feet in diameter, and a deflated black inner tube that had been salvaged from along the riverbank were included in the exhibition.”

A six-foot painting by the art show’s organizer, Mark Clark, mocked the “gringo’s nightmare” of Mexican immigration. The “nightmare” canvas showed “a shaman dispensing peyote buttons, Americans covering their ears at the sound of a mariachi band, an unemployed McDonald’s worker selling Mexican ice cream, Mayan women washing their clothes in a blonde woman’s swimming pool, a Mayan soccer player and an American soccer player kicking around the decapitated head of a Dallas Cowboys football player…”

The event was energetic and the Border Patrol kept distant.

***

Gathering background data about the wall, I recently interviewed political activist (and artist) Scott Nicol, cofounder of the No Border Wall organization.

Braune: Scott, how pushy has the government been lately? I am particularly interested in Brownsville’s wall.

Nicol: Well, in Cameron County there have been a number of landowners who had their property condemned by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] in the past year and have watched border walls be constructed on their seized land. At the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010, some of these landowners were served with a second, or in a few cases a third, condemnation to take even more land in the vicinity of the border wall. It looks like DHS wants to establish a broader zone of control around the wall.

The City of Brownsville itself was one of the landowners receiving a second condemnation. In the summer of 2009, the City Commission signed a contract with the DHS in which they gave away $95,000 worth of city property for free, despite strong opposition from the community. In exchange, DHS agreed to build what they called a “floating fence” that would sit on top of the levee, and at some future date the city could pay to have a new border wall built somewhere else.

It was a really bad deal, and it was unlikely that Brownsville would ever raise the $12 million per mile necessary to build the replacement wall. DHS ignored the deal and built permanent border walls that cannot be removed from the levee and in January filed a condemnation notice that they intend to take another 20 acres of municipal land.

Braune: I understand that you also have been helping a Sierra Club project.

Nicol: Yes, besides working with No Border Wall, I have been working with the Sierra Club’s national Borderlands Team, which focuses largely on the environmental impacts of the border wall. In South Texas the wall slices through the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge, which was established to create a wildlife corridor along the river to help keep endangered ocelots and jaguarundi from going extinct in the United States. Because former DHS Secretary Chertoff used the Real ID Act to waive 36 federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act, there has been little effort to ensure that the border wall does not fragment or destroy large swathes of ocelot habitat.

There is also a great deal of concern about the wall’s effect on flooding along the border. In South Texas no studies of the hydrological impacts of the border wall have been released, raising the specter of deflected water and increased flooding in Mexico. In Arizona this has already happened. The border wall that divides Nogales, Arizona from Nogales, Sonora backed up seasonal flood waters, causing two deaths in Mexico and inflicting millions of dollars in damage.

The same flood damaged Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. The laws that DHS waived were there for a reason. They protect human communities and the natural environment, and ignoring them puts us all at risk. The Sierra Club recognizes this, and has been working to prevent Congress from calling for more border walls. The Sierra Club is also worried about the precedent that the Real ID Act represents, where all potentially opposing laws can be tossed out the window.

[This column also appears in the Mid-Valley Town Crier in Weslaco, Texas.]

By Greg Moses

OpEdNews / CounterPunch / DissidentVoice /
BlackAgendaReport

In a recent landmark report, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants Jorge Bustamante said that the “overuse of immigration detention in the United States violates the spirit of international laws and conventions and, in many cases, also violates the actual letter of those instruments.” South Texas immigration attorney Jodi Goodwin agrees.

“I do not see that the letter nor the spirit of international law is given any importance in US Immigration law,” confirms Goodwin. “In fact, international law does not really come into play in the legal arena at all.” Considering Goodwin’s long experience with migrant clients, we asked her to respond to other issues raised by the Bustamante report:

Texas Civil Rights Review: Bustamante said immigration enforcement is being gradually shifted toward state and local agencies. At last count, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reports that 41 state and local agencies have signed up as “287(g) partners” to assist with immigration enforcement, helping to identify as many as 45,000 individuals for “possible deportation.” The Associated Press reports that the number of cooperating agencies could soon reach as many as100. What effects of this activity can be seen at the detention centers in South Texas?

Goodwin: The increase in the use of local law enforcement for immigration law is seen at the detention centers all the time. Many times people are detained by ICE only after a traffic stop for a minor violation, like a headlight being out or something, and then the local law enforcement officers inquire into the immigration status of individuals. I have seen really sympathetic cases where local law enforcement initiated the arrest and then the people are whisked 2,000 miles away from their home, family, community, etc. to be detained in South Texas.

TCRR: When it comes to immigration law, what is the difference between a criminal violation and a civil violation?

Goodwin: The criminal violations of the immigration law are prosecuted by the United States Attorney in Federal Courts. These criminal violations can be subject to jail and or prison sentences. Civil violations of the immigration laws are processed by the ICE Office of Chief Counsel. These violations can result in deportation if the person does not have any relief from removal.

TCRR: According to the Bustamante report, in 2006 the USA began to intensify the use of mandatory detentions and deportations that were put into law in 1996. What effects have you seen of this recent crackdown?

Goodwin: The biggest effect of the enforcement crackdown that I have seen is the enormous growth in the population of detained individuals in the South Texas area. The San Antonio Field Office of ICE is home to more detention bedspace than any other Field Office in the US. Beyond that, there is a marked lack of lawyers and pro bono assistance for all of these individuals that are detained for the most part in very rural, remote, areas of South Texas.

TCRR: Bustamante says that he “heard accounts from victims that ICE officials entered their homes without a warrant, denied them access to lawyers or a phone to call family members, and coerced them to sign ‘voluntary departure’ agreements.” How does this compare with accounts that you have heard from your clients?

Goodwin: Bustamante’s account of ICE actions comports completely with many stories that I have heard from my clients. In fact, I have heard even more egregious stories than the example Mr. Bustamante sets forth.

TCRR: One of your clients? Would you be able to share a story like that?

Goodwin: Sure, I have heard the ugly details of many such arrests. Let me take one as an example: I had a client who was arrested by ICE at her home at around 5:00 am. Agents knocked on the door loudly yelling, “Police, Federal Officers.” Her husband answered the door half asleep and as soon as he opened the door the agents forced their way into the home and knocked her husband down. Of course, the agents start yelling at him and start going through the house to look for people.

My client was in her bed as was her child. She was forced up and handcuffed while in her night clothes. The child awoke and saw all of this happen and as expected of a child started to cry. Instead of showing any compassion at all the agents start yelling at the child to shut up, then yelling at the parents to make their child shut up. They had to beg the agents to let her put on clothes before they took her away.

After being arrested and before physically making it in transport to the detention center, my client was “asked” to sign a voluntary removal no less than 4 times. Fortunately for her, she was insistent with the agents that she would not sign their papers and they would just have to put her in jail because she wanted to see an immigration judge.

My client was not a criminal. She had no criminal history at all. She was married to a United States citizen and had applied for her “papers” through him. What was her immigration violation that would warrant a pre-dawn home invasion? She overstayed her visitor visa.

TCRR: Rapporteur Bustamante recommends that, “Immigration detainees in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and placed in removal proceedings, should have the right to appointed counsel.” It seems astonishing to me that detained persons would not have a right to counsel, but maybe you can help us to understand how the lack of right to an attorney is affecting people in detention today?

Goodwin: The lack of the right to appointed counsel is one that has plagued me for decades. The Supreme Court has characterized the deportation process as non-punitive. Therefore, given that it is a civil proceeding in nature, the Constitutional guarantees to counsel do not apply. The lack of access to legal counsel is a huge constraint on South Texas detainees. Many are confused and do not know what they are being charged with. Many do not understand the process and procedures of the court system. Many do not know or have access to information that could prove they have a defense or are eligible for some form of relief from being removed.

TCRR: Bustamante also seems to be concerned that Government pressure for deportation is conflicting with basic human rights to private life and family. He says that laws in the USA put too much weight on the Government’s side. He recommends that USA laws should be changed to “ensure that all non-citizens have access to a hearing before an impartial adjudicator, who will weigh the non-citizen’s interest in remaining in the United States (including their rights to found a family and to a private life) against the Government’s interest in deporting him or her.” What are the kinds of human issues that don’t get heard under the current system?

Goodwin: Most human issues are not heard at all in immigration proceedings. It is extremely difficult for a person to qualify for any type of relief from being removed. And then, even if one does qualify, the courts have to be convinced in their discretion to grant you some type of relief. This is the hardest aspect to make my clients understand: even though I care about the human issues in
volved in th
eir cases, the courts and the Immigration Service do not. Our laws are structured in a way that any interest in human issues is left out of the equation.

TCRR: In a related recommendation, Butamante says that ICE should, “ensure that the facilities where non-citizens in removal proceedings are held are located within easy reach of the detainees’ counsel or near urban areas where the detainee will have access to legal service providers and pro bono counsel.” In your experience, is it ever a hardship to represent clients simply because of the location of the detention centers?

Goodwin: It is ALWAYS a hardship to represent detainees in remote areas. I live in South Texas and practice here, but most of my clients are from thousands of miles away. That means their family and support network are thousands of miles away. Aside from the logistical difficulty of getting documents and preparing cases, the worst part is the extreme depressive state my clients develop. For many I am the only person that ever visits them, and they would benefit greatly from the support and care of their families being close by. The other hardship is that there are a very limited number of lawyers who practice immigration law in this area. There is only one pro bono agency. The pool of available competent lawyers is extremely thin.

TCRR: Bustamante is calling for some fairly serious reforms in the structure of immigration judges. He says immigration judges should no longer work under the Department of Justice; rather, they should be appointed to a truly independent judicial system. What kind of difference would this make to the practice of immigration law?

Goodwin: It would change in the sense that the Immigration Judges would not be beholden politically to the Attorney General. They would be able to make decisions based in law and justice as opposed to politics and fear. They would be able to pass judgment on the government as well as the aliens. As it stands the process, even through the administrative appeals process, is highly weighted toward the government.

TCRR: Finally, Bustamante says that migrant detention practices should provide more alternatives, especially for children, but also for women who are suffering from prior traumas. How appropriate are the conditions of current detention for traumatized migrant women?

Goodwin: Conditions for women are of particular concern because of the specialized medical care needs. I have seen that these medical needs are not met routinely. I have also seen that women, who have been traumatized by events prior to their detention, are further traumatized by the further detention. The lack of mental health care also plays into the conditions for women.

TCRR: Thank you Jodi Goodwin for helping us to understand the Bustamante report in the context of South Texas.

Does Texas Need another Gold Star for Bigotry?

By Greg Moses

Pink Dome live-blogged the hearing for a proposed Texas amendment to define marriage. Hundreds poured in to oppose it. I dropped off a form opposing it. The room was stuffed full with people. Testimony lasted until 2:30 am. But the lege is a Republican greenhouse, so this bad weed will be watered anyway? We hope not.

The hearing got good headline coverage in state press, thanks to an AP story by April Castro and a wire photo of Rep. Mike Villareal (D-San Antonio) that stresses his wedding band.

Martha Wong, the Republican who represents the Montrose area of Houston told 365Gay that although she opposes gay marriage, last minute amendments to the amendment by Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) went too far in outlawing civil unions or other arrangements “similar to marriage.” If Chisum holds firm with his amendments, the bill dies, says Wong. So hang in there Warren.

State Affairs Committee indeed. How about Committee to Restrict Affairs Pertaining to No Elected Official. CRAPNEO. Said Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v Texas:

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

There is some philosophy in Justice Kennedy. Compare his high court eloquence with Chisum’s chump bite: “This doesn’t discriminate against anyone. It discriminates against a practice, not people.” Chisum is lead author of the bill. In addition there are three other authors and sixty co-authors piling on.

Has anyone among the 64 Marriage Cops considered that Texas needs no more credentials for illiberal geography? While they grandstand for hometown mobs, the general image of Texas as a place you’d like to raise your children or your company drags even further down. Some of these sponsors (like Rep. Will Hartnett R-Dallas) have been to Ivy League schools, and they are well aware of the sparks that fly when fabulously talented people think about social freedom and Texas at the same time. Do Texans send their kids to Harvard so they can come back home and pander for a living? Does Texas need another gold star for bigotry?

Why don’t Republicans try a line like this: “while many of my constituents may be personally opposed to marriage between two men or two women, it’s already against the law and I see no reason to waste more time or money on the issue while we have other pressing needs in State Affairs. The people of Texas should be free to work out their marriage commitments without any interference from lawmakers. And while many of my constituents have concerns about this issue, they generally agree that I should be busy with things that have clear government interest, like providing an environment for prosperity, health, and education.”

Not only does the proposed bill pander to homophobia during the legislative season, it sets the stage for an obnoxious public campaign when the amendment hits the ballot box in some future election. A cautionary announcement out of Washington D.C. this week warns us that officialized homophobia is problem enough in Texas. As reported by OutSports, “an award-winning teacher and basketball coach” was fired from her job in Texas because of homophobic bigotry. The school board president “testified under oath in a deposition that the board’s decision to terminate [Merry] Stephens was based on the personal anti-gay animosity of several school board members.” With that testimony on the record, settlement was quick to follow.

Compare the news out of Texas this week to the news out of Connecticut, where the state Senate “has approved a bill that would make Connecticut the first state to recognize same-sex civil unions without pressure from the courts.” In the contrast between state house leadership in Texas and Connecticut, news consumers everywhere will see which state is a happier place to do business for “award-winning” professionals.

Is this a civil rights issue? Yes it is. Whenever the majority gangs up against the rights of a minority, we have classic features of civil rights at play. In such cases, the progressive use of constitutions is to preserve equal protections, not to grandfather discrimination. Message to Rep. Chisum: you have gay and lesbian constituents, many of them award winning professionals, and you are misusing your power of office when you conjure public opinion into moblike behaviors against them. Make no mistake that your actions contribute to a threatening environment for all Texans. The appropriate use of public power in a constitutional democracy is to preserve civil rights under majority rule, not to pander to illiberal mobs.

See the Goddess of Liberty high atop the Pink Dome? She has transcendent potential. At the Texas legislature, however, they just keep that woman outside, bolted to her pedestal. Maybe we should have an image of her at ground level, where she can look folks in the eye?

Here’s a link to the bill status page, just type in HJR 6

Note: article modified and expanded Apr. 7.

“To serve my family is my highest spiritual hope. It is God’s best beloved
creation.”
–Tezcatlipoca

April 4, 2009

After almost 16 years of confinement in the prisons of America, I’m of the strong
opinion that the world needs to know of the oppression, discrimination, injustice, grief, sorrow, pain, and solitary confinement that I have suffered and endured with all of my spiritual power. The time has come! I can feel it in my heart.

At times I wake up in the middle of the night feeling as if the Creator is speaking
to my heart, stating that we must not be afraid of man, for it is He, our Creator, who shall bring forth our freedom. This is the very same statement that your mother made and relayed to me.

We are not alone. The Creator knows how we have suffered deeply, how I was
chained and shackled in the hole for months, how I was chained to the hospital bed
though unconscious from a near death experience.

I was gravely ill, unable to move, and chained like an animal! I am not an animal! I am Ramsey Muniz, a human being born
with rights created by the grace of God!

In Exile,
Ramsey – Tezcatlipoca
www.freeramsey.com

Source: email from Irma Muniz.