Category: Uncategorized

Jenny LaCoste-Caputo of the San Antonio Express-News breaks word that the lawyer who filed the last school-funding lawsuit in Texas is preparing a new one.

“David Thompson, former general counsel for the Texas Education Agency and attorney for West Orange-Cove ISD, whose lawsuit was the subject of the Supreme Court ruling, said a second lawsuit claiming the new business tax amounts to a personal income tax, is imminent.”
LaCoste-Caputo reports this little gem in the middle of a story about San Antonio area school superintendents who are finding that the so-called funding solution passed by the lege this year doesn’t do much besides solve the state’s need to comply technically with the last lawsuit filed by Thompson.

“That’s a real concern, not just immediately but in the long term,” said one super. “We’ve gone so long without any additional revenue for maintenance and operations. We’ve cut and cut and cut some more; meanwhile our fuel costs, our utility costs, everything is going up every year.”

“Lawmakers passed this with no real understanding of what these new taxes would generate,” said another super. “There are a lot of traps in this law.”

Which is why we spend so little time on legislative shenanigans when it comes to school funding. The main purpose of the last session seemed intent to produce lying headlines, with bad faith so heavy as to crush all scales of measurement.

Here’s what Thompson told the Dallas Morning News in May:

“David Thompson, a lead attorney for school districts in the lawsuit that resulted in the Supreme Court’s ruling, said that the plan will definitely require monitoring on issues of adequacy and equity. Still, he said, the Legislature has ‘done something that is very significant, and I personally applaud them.’ “

Mexican History: Readings From The Left

By Rodrigo Saldaña Guerrero
Guest Columnist from Mexico

Benito Juárez García was born in 1806. He became president in the midst of a civil war. What were his politics?

This champion of Mexican nationalism was in favor of U. S. intervention in Mexico. He confiscated Catholic Church estates that sustained many welfare activities, and sold them cheaply (he did not use them to strengthen the state, as his myth maintains). He terminated Indian communal property.

These interventions in Church and Indian affairs fostered the formation of the latifundies that made infamous the Porfirio Díaz regime and against which Emiliano Zapata fought in the next century.

He was a capitalist who believed that progress laid in making every Mexican a liberal Western person. He clung to power until his death, violating the law and using electoral fraud.

In other words, his politics were precisely the same of the much criticized Díaz. Díaz started a revolution with a No Reelection slogan, became president for four years, left the presidency in charge of a friend, and later reelected himself over and over until a revolution toppled him.

The revolution aborted and gave way to a civil war. The winner of this was Alvaro Obregón. He became president for four years, left the presidency in charge of a friend, then started reelecting himself. Then he was assassinated. In many ways, his career paralleled that of dictator Díaz. But he elected to build his power on a progressive rhetoric that, without being precisely socialistic, repudiated the laissez faire capitalism Juárez had sponsored.

Here the complications begin, because Obregón did not repudiate Juárez himself. Juárez became one of the civic saints of the patriotic myths on which Obregón and his successors built their regime. The capitalistic Juárez was presented as a leftist.

The system Obregón founded, perfected by Plutarco Elías Calles and, above all, by Lázaro Cárdenas Del Río, built on a large measure on the oppression of poor people, and which kept the people poor, was publicized as a center left party.

A political landscape was painted in which this system (which in time was known as PRI) was the only sensible choice between communist left and rightist PAN (this party was not rightist at the time, by the way, but official propaganda helped making it so).

The PRI system was deeply corrupt, and many of his people got richer at the expense of the poor, who suffered fierce repression whenever they tried to resist. It tried to cover up this situation with subsidies, debt and inflation, that future generations would have to pay for. Many intellectuals were generously paid for their part in this make up work, a part that included writing Mexican history in such a way that it would conform to the official rhetoric.

All this made a mess of the historical consciousness of the Mexican people. Juárez capitalism and PRI-ist corruption and oppression were successfully presented as left.

All this is only part of the story, of course. We have, for instance, the fascinating joining of men who were mortal enemies in one pantheon of heroes. But the point I want to emphasize is the mess the PRI version of Mexican history, mainly of the Juárez period and of the nature of the system itself, has caused in the ideological debates of the present. The insistence of many intellectuals in the validity of that version is like a virus that makes it very difficult to examine objectively a series of issues.

The enormous complexity of history is too often simplified for party purposes, sometimes causing a very serious distortion. The cure for this cultural illness is cultural health: making people aware of the true nature of historiography, and of the true history of the society they are interested in.

Mexican historiography has developed enormously in the last half century or so. For some strange reason, political debate has remained far behind it in its understanding of Mexican history. Intellectuals that should know better keep using old myths in their approach to present day issues.

The natural solution for this problem would be to dialogue about the history that lies at the bottom of that approach. There is, however, a vicious circle: the present day approach contaminates the understanding of history and prevents an objective look at it. I suggest showing these two trends in their interrelationship and inviting comments on this point.

Judge Rules That U.S. Has Broad Powers to Detain Noncitizens Indefinitely

By NINA BERNSTEIN
The New York Times
Published: June 15, 2006

A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled yesterday that the government has wide latitude under immigration law to detain noncitizens on the basis of religion, race or national origin, and to hold them indefinitely without explanation.
The ruling came in a class-action lawsuit by Muslim immigrants detained after 9/11, and it dismissed several key claims the detainees had made against the government. But the judge, John Gleeson of United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, allowed the lawsuit to continue on other claims, mostly that the conditions of confinement were abusive and unconstitutional. Judge Gleeson’s decision requires top federal officials, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, to answer to those accusations under oath.

This is the first time a federal judge has addressed the issue of discrimination in the treatment of hundreds of Muslim immigrants who were swept up in the weeks after the 2001 terror attacks and held for months before they were cleared of links to terrorism and deported. The roundups drew intense criticism, not only from immigrant rights advocates, but also from the inspector general of the Justice Department, who issued reports saying that the government had made little or no effort to distinguish between genuine suspects and Muslim immigrants with minor visa violations.

Lawyers in the suit, who vowed to appeal yesterday’s decision, said parts of the ruling could potentially be used far more broadly, to detain any noncitizen in the United States for any reason.

“This decision is a green light to racial profiling and prolonged detention of noncitizens at the whim of the president,” said Rachel Meeropol, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the detainees. “The decision is profoundly disturbing because it legitimizes the fact that the Bush administration rounded up and imprisoned our clients because of their religion and race.”

A spokesman for the government, Charles S. Miller, would not respond to those assertions, saying only that the Justice Department was “very pleased that the court upheld the decision to detain plaintiffs, all of whom were illegal aliens, until national security investigations were completed and plaintiffs were removed from the country.” He said the government was reviewing the rest of the opinion to decide whether to appeal the rulings Judge Gleeson made to allow the plaintiffs’ other claims to proceed.

In his 99-page ruling, Judge Gleeson rejected the government’s argument that the events of Sept. 11 justified extraordinary measures to confine noncitizens who fell under suspicion, or that the attacks heightened top officials’ need for government immunity to combat future threats to national security without fear of being sued.

But his interpretation of immigration law gave the government broad discretion to enforce the law selectively against noncitizens of a particular religion, race or national origin, and to detain them indefinitely, for any unspecified reason, after an immigration judge had ordered them removed from the country.

“The executive is free to single out ‘nationals of a particular country’ and focus enforcement efforts on them,” the judge wrote. “This is, of course, an extraordinarily rough and overbroad sort of distinction of which, if applied to citizens, our courts would be highly suspicious.”

Yet, he continued, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress and the executive branch, in exercising their broad power over naturalization and immigration, can make rules that would be unacceptable if applied to American citizens.

In the judge’s view, the government has the right to detain people indefinitely as long as their eventual removal is “reasonably foreseeable.” If that interpretation stands, it could apply to millions of noncitizens, including tourists removable for visa violations, said Gerald L. Neuman, a law professor at Columbia who is an expert in human rights law and was not involved in the case.

“It doesn’t seem to limit the motives the government has to have in being slow in removing them; it could even be just basic neglect,” he said.

But Professor Neuman cautioned that “it’s only a district judge’s decision.”

“The decision encourages the government to behave this way without fear of financial liability,” he said, but it does not carry the weight of a ruling by an appellate court. “This interpretation is attackable even among other judges in Brooklyn, let alone Lower Manhattan.”

But David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University and a co-counsel in the lawsuit, said the ruling was the only one of its kind and made New York “an equal protection-free zone” because the government can detain immigrants wherever it chooses.

“What this decision says is the next time there is a terror attack, the government is free to round up every Muslim immigrant in the U.S., based solely on their ethnic and religious identity, and hold them on immigration pretexts for as long as it desires,” he said. “We saw after 9/11 what the government did in an era of uncertainty about how far it can go. Judge Gleeson has essentially given them a green light to go much further.”

The class-action lawsuit, Turkmen v. Ashcroft, is the first and largest of several brought by immigrants held after 9/11. The named plaintiffs in the case include former detainees who came back to the United States this year for depositions and were required to be in the custody of federal marshals at all times. Among them were Hany Ibrahim, a deli worker, and his brother, Yasser, a Web designer, Egyptian Muslims who said then that putting themselves back in the hands of the government they were suing was an act of faith in America.

Yesterday, Yasser Ibrahim, who had lived in New York for three or four years on an expired tourist visa and was delivered in shackles to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn soon after Sept. 11, said through his lawyers that he was shocked and very disappointed by the judge’s decision.

“I can’t believe the court would allow this to happen,” he said.” I am frightened for other Muslims in the United States, who could face the same discrimination and abuse that I suffered.”

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Five Democratic members of Congress were arrested at the Sudanese Embassy and led away in plastic handcuffs Friday to protest the atrocities in the Darfur region.

The lawmakers — Reps. Tom Lantos of California, Jim McGovern and John Olver of Massachusetts, Jim Moran, of Virginia, and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas — were among 11 protesters arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. The charges are misdemeanors.

The international community has accused the military dictatorship in Sudan of an ongoing genocide of its non-Arab citizens. Several hundred thousand refugees are in the Darfur region after having been driven off their land.