Category: Uncategorized

Email from Jay Johnson-Castro.

Hola y’all…

Here you are. The official itinerary for Hands Across el Rio…a 1250 mile…17 day protest against the border wall. See the border ambassadors web site.

We are not launching as early as anticipated…but the launch date is going to be worth the weight. Yesterday, we received the commitment of El Paso to support our project with a press conference on August 25th and a send off on August 26th. Folks in the Big Bend region want to support the Presidio-Ojinaga event on August 28th. Both Mayors of Del Rio and Ciudad Acuña are pledged to support the event 31st. Mayor Chad Foster of Eagle Pass is in touch with the Alcalde of Piedras Negras to receive us on September 1st.

Mexican Congresswoman, Maria Dolores Gonzales-Mendivil will lead the coordination of Los Dos Laredos Hands Across el Rio on September 2nd. She is also coordinating support to the four Mexican neighboring states of Texas , the alcaldes along el Rio Bravo (mayors on the Mexican side) and Mexican consuls. We’re lining up similar commitments from Roma-Miguel Aleman, Rio Grande City-Camargo, Los Ebanos-Diaz Ordaz, McAllen/Hidalgo-Reynosa on down to Brownsville-Matamoros on September 8th. We will finish our journey at the mouth of the Rio Grande at Boca Chica on Sunday, September 9th.

LULAC National, Rosa Rosales , President and Jaime Martinez, Treasurer, have committed their support of Hand Across el Rio. The same is true of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement. We anticipate the support of many other organizations and coalitions, from environmental, cultural, economic, political, faith-based, and tourism.

With the exception of El Paso y Juarez…we will launch kayaks and canoes upriver from each principal international pedestrian bridge. Any one who wants to join our flotillas for any portion or any day of this historical event is welcome to do so. Kayaks, canoes, inner-tubes. We will paddle down river to each international bridge respectively and meet up with fellow grass roots citizens from both sides of our Rio who are opposed to the wall. As we experienced in Roma and Miguel Aleman this past weekend…we will be inviting the grass roots folks from both sides of el Rio…to form a human chain in symbol of our border solidarity and amistad.

As Mayor Chad Foster says…”We’re joined at the hip”. That’s something that folks like Lou Dobbs and members of Congress who have never lived inside the checkpoints do not understand. Our Congressmen and Texas legislators from the border region have spoken out against the border wall. The Texas Border Coalition of our border mayors, judges and economic experts have all spoken in our behalf…in solidarity…against the wall. Our border sheriffs have spoken out against the wall. No one in Washington is listening to them. Now…we the people of the Rio Grand Corridor…from both sides of el Rio…must make our voices heard. “NO Border Wall…!” “Hell NO!!!

We can tell the Congress and the national media all day long that we who live on the border live in friendship with our neighbors on the other side of el Rio. We can tell them that we don’t want to be in a militarized zone…on American soil…here in Texas . Now…we will show them why we don’t need one. We get along just fine!

En amistad and solidarity…

Jay

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jay J. Johnson-Castro, Sr

(830)768-0768

jay@villadelrio.com

After the fireworks of July 4 have fallen back to earth, high summer in Texas will demand hard thinking about how people in a “land of the free and home of the brave” are supposed to act.

In early July, citizen-workers at the Swift meat cutting plant in Cactus, Texas will argue why their racketeering lawsuit against company management should not be dismissed.

Valenzuela, etal v Swift (3:06-cv-02322) was filed in the federal Northern District of Texas last December, alleging that managers of the butcher corporation have been hiring migrant workers in an effort to depress wages.

Lower wages would be the most obvious cost-cutting benefit of hiring migrant workers, but it is also cheaper to supervise workers less likely to demand their rights to workplace health and safety.

For named plaintiffs in the lawsuit — Blanda Valenzuela, Margie Salazar, Jose A. Serrato, Josie Rendon, Clara Tovar, Consuelo Espino, Maria Avila, Ernestina Navarrette, Maria E. Munoz, Amanda Salcido, Candelario G. Ortega, Maria Ortiz, Jose Oliva, Rafaela Chavez, Elodia Arroyo, Susana Cardiel, Gracie Rios, and Leonel Ruiz — the Swift company’s hiring practices deliberately undermined the value of workers.

A Dallas Observer story by Megan Feldman, “Ground Meat,” really digs into the guts of the Cactus butcher factory, where workers are ever slipping onto gore-strewn floors, or ruining their own tendons as they cut into cow carcasses at a rate approximating 400 per hour.

About the same time that the federal court will be updating the Swift worker lawsuit, the United Nations will convene the first meeting of its Global Forum on Migration and Development.

Session 1.3, for example, “aims at some best policy guidelines for governments to engage with the private sector to the mutual advantage of migrants, host communities, employers and developing economies.”

“This session will address the following questions: How can private sector and other non-state agencies better ensure that migrants are well informed and protected from abusive and malevolent practices (e.g. at the hands of smugglers or traffickers), both in their migration and the job placements abroad? How to balance facilitation and control of these players to help them facilitate beneficial and protective migration without further driving such agencies underground.”

As a working idea, we look forward to July’s high summer as a time for “free and brave” assertions about respecting rights of workers, for citizens and migrants alike. Otherwise, the only “mutual advantage” we see is where companies are able to depress the value of labor because immigration authorities intimidate migrants rather than protect their fundamental human rights.–gm

The press release below concerns the Dallas trial of five top officials for the Holy Land Foundation who go on trial Tuesday. According to an LA Times story, “The indictment accuses Holy Land officials of supporting Hamas by sending money, goods and services through a network of so-called zakat committees, or local charities, and other organizations controlled by Hamas.”–gm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 23, 2007

Please find contact and event information below.

Holy Land Foundation: American Casualties of the “War of Terror”

The Holy Land Foundation provided humanitarian services to families in Palestine and surrounding areas through Zakat (charity) committees when their assets were frozen in December 2001 by an executive order. Zakat, or charity, is one of the five pillars of faith in Islam.

In addition to helping Palestinian refugees, the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) provided relief to people in need during the Turkish earthquakes, the wars in Bosnia/Serbia and the Oklahoma City bombing. The group was well known for its generous support of people around the world in crisis.

Three years later, the organization and seven of its officers were indicted on 42 charges, including conspiracy to provide material support to a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. However, the government has since retracted all allegations that any of the Holy Land Foundation’s resources ever went to fund terrorism.

The government does not contest that the money sent from HLF to the Zakat committees went to need-based humanitarian aid. Instead, they contend that the social aid freed up resources for Hamas to spend on violent acts. These Zakat Committees, licensed by the Palestinian Authority government, received aid from many international charities funded by the U.S. In fact, this is still the case, and the U.S. government has never explained why HLF was singled out for prosecution.

Several civil rights and humanitarian issues are at stake in this high profile case. First is the American principle that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. HLF was designated a terrorist organization in May 2002 during what the Legal Intelligencer described as “a hasty and one-sided Treasury Department administrative hearing.” A lawyer working with HLF at the time commented in the same article:

“This administration basically has a free hand with whatever it wants to do insofar as administrative claims it relates to the war on terrorism. The courts are simply not going to check the executive.”

The Supreme Court refused to hear the HLF appeal when the federal courts in the District of Columbia failed to grant the defense a hearing for their challenge to the designation.

The persistence of the media to label this a “terror financing” case, instead of a “charity” or “civil rights” case, shows their willingness to continue to be the mouthpiece for the administration.

The government has also crossed unprecedented lines in what is considered admissible evidence. Israeli military intelligence is providing translated transcripts for the case. An independent translation company has found that the transcripts contain egregious errors, according to the L.A. Times, including the false allegation that the HLF employees used anti-Jewish hate language.

Many of the transcripts admitted also come from warrantless wiretappings, a subject that has caused much controversy among the civil libertarian crowds. Evidence submitted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has been amended by the USA Act (part of the USA PATRIOT Act), is often problematic, said Lisa Graybill, Legal Director of ACLU-TX.

“We’re concerned with the constitutionality of this case, and we will be monitoring it,” Graybill said.

In addition to the sketchy evidence, Graybill cited the fact that the Zakat committees had not been designated as terrorists and are still operational. She foresaw religious freedom issues coming up as the trial progresses. Also, Graybill said the publication of unindicted co-conspirators was underhanded, since those groups and individuals listed are not being charged with anything, yet they are now overshadowed with suspicion.

The government is relying heavily on guilt by association. Throughout the indictment, the government references family ties between HLF members and members of Hamas, the Palestinian political party that the U.S. has designated a terrorist.

Even so, most people would be in trouble if they were held accountable for the decisions their relatives make. After all, President Bush’s own grandfather had his assets frozen in 1942 for doing business with Nazi Germany under the Trading with the Enemy Act, but the Jewish population is not demanding reparations from the President for his family’s miscalculated judgments.

This case has caused a chilling effect in the Muslim community, which prides itself on its ongoing tradition of philanthropy. International humanitarian aid has dwindled since the indictment. Ironically, this effect serves to bolster terrorism recruitment, instead of stopping it, like the government claims it intends to do.

According to an OMB Watch report, “Muslim Charities and the War on Terror,” the 9/11 Commission reported, “A comprehensive U.S. strategy should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and to enhance prospects for their children’s future.”

When international aid slows, poverty grows. As poverty traps people into limited lives, they search desperately for ways to escape. Occupation and embargo are a deadly combination that lead too many to act on “Give me liberty or give me death!” Only education and prosperity, only genuinely helping our fellow human beings, the way that HLF was, will stop the forces that feed terrorism.

Press Conference:

What: Hungry for Justice Press Conference

Who: Rep. Lon Burnam (D-TX), Director, Dallas Peace Center; Imam Mahdi Bray, Executive Director, Muslim American Society; Khalil Meek, President of BOD, Muslim Legal Fund of America; Mustafaa Carroll, Executive Director, CAIR-DFW

When: Tuesday, July 24 at 12:30 p.m.

Where: Commerce Street , across from the Earle Cabell Federal Building

Hungry for Justice Coalition Partners include: Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-DFW); Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA); Muslim American Society (MAS); Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (A.N.S.W.E.R.) Coalition; Dallas Peace Center; Partnership For Civil Justice; American Muslim Alliance (AMA); Reverend Graylan Hagler; and the American Muslim Task Force (AMT)

Press contacts:

Khalil Meek, President, BOD, Muslim Legal Fund of America
972.849.9188, emeek@roctransport.com

Mustafaa Carroll, Executive Director, CAIR-DFW
214.240.7299, muspeaks@yahoo.com

Dr. Parvez Ahmed, National Chairman, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
904.710.6514, pahamed@cair.com

Imam Mahdi Bray, Executive Director, Muslim American Society (MAS)
202.421.3623, imambray@yahoo.com

Beth Freed, Media Relations, Muslim Legal Fund of America
214.684.3773, media@mlfausa.org

By Nick Braune
Mid-Valley Town Crier
by permission

Wednesday, June 20th, was the seventh annual World Refugee Day, honoring the spirit and courage of those who flee economic and political malaise. This official day was established through the United Nations.

Sometimes our country, for certain purposes, will hail the United Nations as important, demanding that other nations abide by its standards. Sometimes major US figures make speeches at the United Nations and occasionally mention the Declaration of Human Rights. But more often than not, concerning international rights and law, the US is a cheap scofflaw. I doubt World Refugee Day even crossed President Bush’s mind.

A former Dutch prime minister, Ruud Lubbers, who is the chief U.N. commissioner on these matters, stressed that helping refugees is “a moral and legal imperative” not just an “optional act of charity.” His World Refugee Day address criticized Western Europe, according to the New York Times, for “inflaming sentiment against refugees by calling them ‘bogus’ asylum seekers who are ‘flooding’ their countries.” Lubbers said that those who talked that way used to be associated with “small extremist parties” but now are in major ones. Lubber’s criticism should sting the US as well as Europe.

In Texas this weekend, I will join two demonstrations in sympathy with World Refugee Day. One (Saturday) is against the detention center in Taylor, near Austin, which is housing children, and another (Sunday) is against the Raymondville detention center, a tent city with maybe 2,000 people, from maybe thirty different countries, sleeping in bunk bed rows and getting outside one hour a day.

These centers are improperly holding people as if they were criminals, even though the inmates have not been convicted of crimes. Some inmates held productive jobs in this country for years and are stuck because of immigration paperwork technicalities; some came to this country recently asking for legal refugee status, having fled a miserable situation.

Amnesty International, co-sponsoring the demonstration in Taylor, states on its website that established conventions assume that asylum seekers are not to be “detained” unless warranted by special circumstances. Make no mistake, these detention centers are “detaining” people.

Raymondville’s tent city center was built adjacent to another prison and has armed guards who yell at the immigrants. It forces people to stand in line, does not have private shower stalls, makes no provision for those held inside to get to a mall or movie or church event. Immigrants are not just residing there; they are detained prisoners, and scared.

Private contractors who run these for-profit prisons are getting up to $10,000 per prisoner per month. (My source is Jay Johnson-Castro, a founder of Border Ambassadors, one of the groups sponsoring the weekend demonstrations.) Juicy federal money flows to Corrections Corporation of America and other companies, although it is known that other ways of monitoring immigrants while they wait for hearings, etc. are far less costly than incarceration.

Actually, detained refugees are treated worse than criminals in a sense. Although the UN 1951 Refugee Conventions state that a refugee should have the same access to courts as a national, we now have an increasingly politicized and capricious special immigration court system under the Justice Department. According to a study last year by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), getting asylum can depend simply on what judge one gets.

The TRAC report, according to Eunice Moscoso of Cox News Service, “directly challenged” the Justice Department that runs these immigration courts. The courts have a mission statement to provide “fair, expeditious and uniform application of the nation’s immigration laws in all cases.” But one Miami judge turned down 97 percent (!) of asylum requests between 2000 and 2005, while one New York judge only turned down 10 percent.

And there even seems to be a problem with the way immigration judges have been picked. (See my June 17 column examining partisanship in Alberto Gonzales’ Justice Department). A Washington Post expose this month charged that the administration “increasingly emphasized partisan political ties over expertise in recent years in selecting the judges who decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, despite laws which preclude such considerations.”

Studying immigration judges appointed by Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft, the Post article found the appointees greatly lacking in immigration law experience. (Republican fellowship seems like the main hiring criterion.) And with redress in federal courts extremely limited and habeas corpus suspended for immigrants, there goes a refugee’s right to have the same access to fair courts as a national.

Next week I will report on the demonstration at Raymondville’s detention center. I will be in Raymondville promptly at 6 pm Sunday, June 24, with my trusty notebook.