Category: Uncategorized

  • Penal County USA

    By Greg Moses

    CounterPunch / OpEdNews

    Back in January, the jobs picture in Eloy, Arizona wasn’t looking so good. Thanks to federal budget cuts, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) announced it would cancel a contract with the town’s biggest employer, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) at a cost of 300 jobs.
    Today, however, the jobs picture is much improved. Not only did CCA manage to save the jobs at the Eloy Detention Center by picking up a contract to detain 1,500 male “noncitizens” for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but the giant prison contractor has also broken ground on two new projects in Eloy that will together import about 3,500 new prisoners from Alaska and Hawaii.

    “This means an awful lot to the city. It opens more job opportunities for people in the region,” said Eloy Mayor Byron Jackson in a dispatch filed by reporter Eli J. Long of the Arizona Daily Star.

    In addition to Eloy’s three prisons, CCA already manages two prisons in the nearby town of Florence that together import nearly 4,000 prisoners from ICE, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), US Air Force, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. When all five prisons of Pinal County are up and running, they will bring a total of 2,000 jobs.

    “Our contracts create predictable revenue streams,” brags the CCA investor report for Q1 2006. And the news does look good for investors. The prison industry is not much affected by economic downturns; 93.3 percent of the market share is yet to be privatized; overcrowding is pervasive; and demographic trends “point to higher prison populations.”

    In addition to these favorable trends for investors, CCA points to “strong federal demand substantially driven by an increasing emphasis on border security” (CCA Q1 investor report 2006, pdf page 10.)

    By “increasing emphasis,” CCA means increasing funds. To hold more prisoners, Congress has given USMS a 38 percent increase in detention funding, good for about 5,000 new beds. ICE is getting another $90 million for new cells, too.

    “This represents the third consecutive year of increased funding to ICE and USMS,” announces CCA in a blue box filled with bold red italics. So you see, Congress has been addressing somebody’s needs. But there’s more, because the President also has taken action in time to make the Q1 pdf.

    “On May 15, 2006, President Bush requested $1.948 billion in emergency funding to help secure America’s borders,” heralds the May 30 report from CCA. That emergency money is supposed to include 4,000 prison beds more.

    Then, if you look at the schedule for FY 2007, things get even better for CCA investors. The USMS will be looking at another funding increase of $110 million for prisoner detention, which sounds pretty good until you look at ICE, which is even better, because ICE is looking at a $700 million increase in funds, which will translate into anywhere from 4,780 to 6,700 new beds for immigration prisoners.

    “Although the ultimate form of a comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill is not certain at this time,” reports CCA once again in red italics, “the Company believes any bill ultimately passed will provide for substantial increases in the arrest and detention of illegal immigrants crossing the US border with
    Mexico.” And why should we not believe the company?

    But CCA is not yet finished with the prospects of federal demand for prisoners, because it’s not all about immigrants, you know. There are 190,000 prisoners in the BOP; the agency is running 34 percent over capacity; and for plain ole U.S. Citizens, it will need at least another 30,000 beds before 2011. Funding for this need will be forthcoming. The CCA isn’t worried about that.

    Factor in only one thing more, that the CCA’s preference for warmer climates of the South and Southwest tends to “mute” the impacts of rising energy prices, and you have the total picture: “Superior returns on investment,” says the bullet point, “The Company is able to generate unleveraged, pre-tax returns on new real estate investments of between 13-15 percent of cost at a stabilized occupancy of 95 percent.”

    Which brings us back to Pinal County and the obvious pun. Just put your money on the table. CCA and the feds will stabilize the prison occupancy. Ask not for whom they build the beds. Whether you’re a CCA investor or not, either way you’re guaranteed a secure place to sleep.

  • Air Patrols Help Catch 105 Tons of Dope FY '05

    “CBP P-3s based in Jacksonville, Florida and Corpus
    Christi, Texas contributed to the seizure of over 210,779 pounds (105 tons) of illegal drugs – over 38,600 more pounds (19 tons) than last year,” says Assistant Secretary of Policy for Homeland Security in his May 11 testimony to a congressional committee. But did you know that border security is also busy preventing illegal exports? According to the Assistant Secretary, there were 5,670 investigations into “illegal exports” in FY ’05.

    Beyond these stunning facts, the testimony speaks to a high velocity of reoganization in border matters, with a few hot nodes to watch. Most interesting as a node in play is the Program Executive Officer (PEO) of the Secure Border Initiative:

    PEO will establish the proper foundation that will enable DHS components to create and maintain a functional and seamless network of capabilities that control the border and disrupt and dismantle the continuum of border crime into the interior of the United States.

    The plain language indicates that this office will be the handoff point when Homeland Security awards its multi-billion dollar SBInet Contract in the Fall. A fine node for considering the confluence of big biz and border policy.

    We bet that a fine stack of paper is collecting around the activities of the ICE-CBP Coordination Council, which we would prefer to call the council of de-confliction:

    The Council meets regularly to proactively consider and address issues to better coordinate and resolve operational and policy matters and to monitor implementation of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), among other things. The Council reports to the Secretary on outstanding issues, resolutions, and
    disagreements that require further direction or de-confliction. The Council also interacts closely with the Assistant Secretary for Policy, the Director of Operations Coordination and the Chief Intelligence Officer.

    The Council is co-chaired by the leaders of each agency, and membership includes the heads of the main operational divisions and main policy and planning arms of both ICE and CBP. The Council’s ongoing mission is to identify and address areas
    where greater cooperation can enhance mutual achievement of our missions and be proactive in fostering improved coordination efforts. It addresses a revolving agenda of ICE-CBP touch points, developing, as appropriate and necessary, interagency policies, prioritizations, and procedures to better guide ICE and CBP interactions and
    communicate roles and responsibilities in those matters.

    During a Council meeting in February, for example, ICE and CBP agreed to issue a joint memorandum to clarify and reinforce key components of the
    existing policies by which CBP refers cases to ICE for investigation and to ensure that enforcement results are routinely and effectively shared between the two agencies. The signatories of this memorandum will be Acting Commissioner Spero and Assistant
    Secretary Myers, prior to its distribution to the field.

    Together ICE and CBP have generated many cooperative successes in the last two years, such as Operation ICE Storm, Operation Texas Hold ‘Em, the ABC Initiative, the LAX Initiative, and the Expedited
    Removal Working Group.

    http://hsc.house.gov/files/TestimonyBaker.pdf

  • Social Intelligence Seeking Leadership

    Thanks to Angela Valenzuela for this clip. Like we say, the people are learning well enough how to live in peace with each other, and some day they’ll trade old anchors of leadership for new sails.–gm

    WASHINGTON – Despite its battles over immigration, affirmative action, racial profiling and other issues, America is finally becoming a melting pot.


    Posted on Thu, Jul. 20, 2006

    Social integration in the U.S., including cohabiting and marriage, is surging

    By Ely Portillo and Frank Greve

    McClatchy Newspapers

    (MCT)

    WASHINGTON – Despite its battles over immigration, affirmative action, racial profiling and other issues, America is finally becoming a melting pot.

    A powerful interracial tide has transformed friendships, dates, cohabitations, marriages and adoptions in just one generation. If the wave continues to grow, it could sweep away racial stereotypes and categorizations, as well as the rationale behind affirmative action and other broad minority protections. It remains to be seen, however, whether higher levels of social integration, especially among Asians, are benefiting blacks, the least integrated of U.S. minorities. Data from the 2010 census will make that a lot clearer.

    For now, the interracial trend – while evident everywhere – is hard to gauge because young adults and children are at its vanguard: children such as Heshima Sikkenga, 9, of Apple Valley, Minn., for whom race “is a minor point, like brown hair or blond hair,” as his father, Steve, put it.

    But the wave is so far-reaching that the average American today, young or old, is 70 percent more likely than Americans were a generation ago to count a person of another race among his or her two or three best friends, according to an article in the current issue of American Sociological Review. The same percentage of applicants tells Match.com, a leading Internet dating service, that they’re willing to date someone of another race.

    “If the right person comes in a Latino package, that’s just part of who that person is,” said Kristin Kelly, a spokeswoman for Match.com.

    “I’m seeing a lot more interracial couples,” said Javier del Cid, a 32-year-old Washington bartender who has worked in restaurants for 18 years. “They’re not scared anymore. You see a Hispanic guy with a black girl, you don’t say, `Oh, my God!’ Only people raised before it was accepted say that.”

    Del Cid should know: A Guatemalan, he dates mostly black women.

    A raft of social research ratifies his view:

    _ In 1992, 9 percent of 18- to 19-year-olds said they were dating someone of a different race. A decade later, the figure was 20 percent, according to a 2005 study by sociologists Grace Kao of the University of Pennsylvania and Kara Joyner of Cornell University.

    _ In 1992, 9 percent of 20- to 29-year-old Americans were living with people of different races. A decade later, Kao and Joyner found, 16 percent were.

    _ In 1985, when asked to describe confidants with whom they’d recently discussed an important concern, 9 percent of Americans named at least one person of a different race. These days, about 15 percent do, according to Lynn Smith-Lovin of Duke University and Miller McPherson of the University of Arizona at Tucson, co-authors of the American Sociological Review article.

    _ In 1980, 1.3 percent of marriages in the United States were interracial, according to the census. By 2002, that had more than doubled, to a still minuscule 3 percent.

    _ In 1987, 8 percent of adoptions were interracial. By 2000, 17 percent were, according to Census Bureau demographer Rose Kreider.

    What’s causing the shift?

    One big reason is that the white fraction of the U.S. population is shrinking. Four out of 5 people in America were white in 1980, and today 3 out of 4 are, mainly because of surges in Hispanic and Asian populations. People’s friendship networks are more racially mixed today whatever their races, Smith-Lovin said, “primarily because society is more diverse.”

    At the same time, racial attitudes are softening. In 1990, two-thirds of Americans polled said they opposed having a close relation or family member marry a black person. That’s dropped to about one-third, according to Maria Krysan, a racial attitudes specialist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    More integrated workplaces also have a lot to do with it, according to researchers. Steve Sikkenga, 54, a federal Justice Department official in Minneapolis, Minn., agreed.

    “The white-collar workers were all white when I started working at Detroit Radiant Products in Warren, Michigan, in the `70s,” Sikkenga said. “There were some other races in the shop, but there was no commingling to speak of. Where I work now it’s a lot different and a lot better.”

    For singles in their early 20s, living on their own and newly freed from the opinions of parents and college cliques, workplaces are hubs for interracial contacts. One consequence: Americans age 21.5 are the likeliest of all to be living with people of another race, according to researchers.

    Young adults ages 22 through 25 also typically have the most sexual partners and the most breakups. But while interracial couples who live together often marry, their relationships disintegrate short of the altar more often than those of same-race couples do. According to Kao and Joyner, the marital batting average is .213 for same-race couples who live together in their 20s. For mixed race couples, it’s .127.

    When you’re young, “you experiment,” said Justice King, 38, a black Washingtonian who’s dated interracially. “You maybe want to be exposed to somebody of another culture. But by the time you’re 30, you know what’s going on. You’re ready to choose, ready to get serious.”

    If disproportionate numbers of interracial relationships tend to be passing fancies, they may not be harbingers of big social changes. Even so, Duke sociologist Smith-Lovin noted in an e-mail, interracial intimacies of all kinds matter because “having a positive, cooperative tie to a person in another racial group makes us less likely to stereotype that racial group. So increasing the proportion of the population that has such a tie should make us less prejudiced and less likely to discriminate against people who are not of our own race.”

    Whom the world changes for depends largely on who marries whom, however, and interracial-marriage figures vary widely by race, according to Zhenchao Qian, a researcher at Ohio State University. About 2 percent of whites and 5 percent of blacks intermarried, Qian found in an analysis of 20- to 29-year-olds based on the 1990 census. For Hispanics, Qian found, the interracial marriage figure was 37 percent; for Asians, it’s 64 percent.

    (The 2000 census offered Americans so many new racial options – 63 and a wildly popular category called “other” – that traditional racial tallies were early casualties of richer social integration.)

    The more subtle distinctions of the 2000 census showed, for example, that Southeast Asians weren’t matching the economic and educational performances of Chinese, Koreans or Japanese; Cubans did better than other Latinos; and black immigrants outperformed blacks born in the United States. So do they deserve equal protection and preference? John Skrentny, a University of California-San Diego sociologist who specializes in affirmative action, doubts it.

    “Affirmative action categories were created by government bureaucrats without any serious study, and that occurred more than 40 years ago,” Skrentny said. A better basis for anti-discrimination measures, he said, would be one based on the recognition of “a divide or hierarchy in America, of black and nonblack, with blacks on the bottom.”

    John Hope Franklin of Duke University, the dean of U.S. black-history professors, a
    gr
    eed that this model makes sense. Black integration continues to move “at a snail’s pace,” he said, largely because most white Americans remain “stuck in their old ways.” Illinois’ Krysan, whose primary concern is black-white relations, agreed, citing continued segregation in public schools and housing.

    Meanwhile, among richly integrated groups such as Native Americans, more than half of whom have intermarried, there’s uncertainty about what’s been gained by it.

    Sharon Peregoy, 53, who lives on Montana’s Crow Reservation, for example, and has Puerto Rican, Asian and black in-laws, considers that a mixed blessing.

    “Interracial dating is good, but it dilutes,” she said, in the sense that it’s left some of her grandnieces and nephews without enough Crow blood to qualify as tribal members.

    “There’s a cultural shift and a language loss.”

    Older and especially foreign-born generations of many Asian and Hispanic families share that concern, their Americanized offspring say.

    Then there’s Sikkenga, an American of Dutch ancestry whose adopted son is black, who feels that he’s witnessed great social progress.

    “Twenty years ago,” he said, “to have a black friend or couple over for dinner would have set the neighbors going.

    “Now, most people don’t notice it anymore, and those who do are kind of ignorant.”

    © 2006, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

  • It's Wrong: Texas Voices against Troops at the Border

    Indymedia Austin

    Second in a series of comments recorded at the anti-militarization protest at Camp Mabry, Texas, June 24 (2006)

    K.C.: “I’m here to basically protest the increasing militarization of the border. You know I feel like these are human beings who are trying to survive, and we shouldn’t create an atmosphere where it feels more like an occupied territory rather than a community of people trying to live and do right by their kids.

    “And so I’m protesting our country sending national guard to the border. I just got back from El Paso, and already the community is extremely stressed, scared to come out of their houses, there is a lot of anxiety, and now these troops being sent to the border is just going to increase that tenfold.

    “And I don’t see anything but bad news. I don’t think it’s going to stop migrants from coming over, but it is going to result, it may result, I hope it doesn’t, but it may result in some deaths, in some deaths of innocent people, so that’s what I’m here protesting against.


    Ruth Epstein, board member of Central Texas ACLU: “We are opposed to militarizing the border and having police violate the constitution. We’re for the Bill of Rights all the way.”

    Q: What’s wrong with militarizing the border?

    Epstein: “Well, the military don’t seem to think they need to pay attention to the Fourth Amendment, and we have had complaints about people in the little towns near El Paso being harassed, and we think that’s wrong.

    “I’m having a public forum on immigration, the Central Texas chapter is doing that, and it’s going to be on June 29. People come at 5:30, and it will be taped for access tv from 6:00 to 7:00. It’s going to be at Cafe Caffeine, which is 909 West Mary.”


    Roxanne, originally from Sugar Land, TX: “I’m here to lend my support to the protest against militarization of the border, because it leads to deaths and it’s a policy that goes about what it’s trying to achieve in what I think is a wrong way.

    “I don’t have an answer to what the right way is, but it seems to as though handling a situation that is not civil and human rights with military is not a correct response in any circumstance. While I can’t pinpoint, because I’m not the most informed about government policies and procedures in this area, I do personally think that it’s not the right one.”


    LaVelle Franklin, executive assistant, ACLU: “I believe in what’s happening here. I think that we need to welcome our friends from across the border. I think that we shouldn’t be sending military troops down there. And I’m here because basically I think that we need to be more peaceful and get along, not send more military people down there.”


    Ray Ybarra, Racial Justice Fellow ACLU: “Things are going great, it’s a much larger turnout than I thought we would have, so it’s always good to see people who are willing to stand up for justice and stand up for human rights.”

    Q: Did you hear about the checkpoints being taken down?

    Ybarra: “Yeah, we’re very happy. We spent all the past few weeks working double-overtime on this issue, and I think it’s an example of what can happen when community groups and grassroots start organizing and finding injustice in their community and mobilize around it. But it’s not a total victory yet, but it’s a small step, and I think that’s owed to the community, and I was happy to see that announcement yesterday.”


    Meggie, from Holland: “I’m here to show support tor the disadvantaged people on the other side of the border.

    “I think the reason that made me to come here is a few weeks ago I was in the Chaparral Wildlife Management Area, it’s close to the border, close to Laredo. I’m a scientist, and I was doing some research there (studying invasive species) and I was exposed to I guess ignorance and one-sidedness of park managers there who deal with that issue everyday, and one of the people said that if it were up to him it would be perfectly fine to put razors on top of these fences.

    “At that time I didn’t say anything. I felt extremely bad, but I didn’t say anything. And I felt bad afterwards for not saying anything, so I guess I’m here to repair that silence then.”


    Carla Vargas, law student summer intern at ACLU: “I’m here to protest the National Guard going out to the border, because I oppose militarization of our border.

    “For example, we’re passing out flyers today about Esequiel Hernandez who is an 18-year-old goat herder out on the border who was shot by Marines when he was just out there tending to his goats. And he was shot in the back. And killed.

    “We’re out here protesting the National Guard, trying to shed some light on the real issues they might encounter when they are down there. I understand that the National Guard troops who are being sent down there are essentially following orders, but they do have the option to shoot or not shoot if they’re down there. We’re trying to prevent some deaths that could possibly occur. I’m not saying they are going to happen, but with more troops being sent down there the possibility of another accident, another shooting, another death happening by our US government increases. So that’s why I’m here.”


    Courtney Morton, grad student at UT School of Social Work: “We’re working on a project this summer, trying to get people accurate information about immigration and the contribution of immigrants to this country.

    “Our school focuses heavily on social activism, like grassroots organizing, and so we’re trying to start an immigration information network to connect the immigration organizations in Austin with immigrants and just get more people out at these events and just knowing about them and what they are, and facts about immigration.”


    Jesse: “I’m here because I don’t think they should militarize the border.”

    Q: Why not?

    Jesse: “Sh*t. It’s wrong. There are many levels of wrong reasons. There’s no reason to have guns down there. It just escalates all tensions and violence. I feel our border should be relaxed. I feel like I should be able to come and go. I feel like other people should be able to come and go. That’s how it goes.”