Are Mexican Invading USA or U.S. Americans Invaded Latin America already?
Looks at the comments from one of my Panamanian Friend.
WHERE DO THOSE AMERICAN INMIGRANTS THINK THEY ARE???
Recently the Panamanian newspaper La Prensa in a anti-panamanian gesture published
an article about the American inmigrants under the title of "Los Nuevos Pobladores"(The New Inmigrants to the Republic of Panama).
In that article presented Donald Davis and Esther Davis who arrogantly said that
they left the United States because of the policies of George W. Bush.
(So,I can say that every time one disagrees with the local government,one emigrates..
what a logical way of taking life decisions).
Then,both agreed that Panama has the politest,warmest,most affectionate,most friendly,happiest people worldwide(Then,it was TRUE what the previous study of the
measure of happiness said about Tropical Paradises like Panama who ended in # 5
happiest country worldwide...compared to this,it means that these Americans
inmigrants are running away from the rudeness,unpoliteness,unfriendliness and
unhappiness proper of America,Canada and Europe....but it is NOT MY PROBLEM that Americans had built a rude,unpolite,materialistic,xenophobic,anti-inmigrant,racist society of their own....
Moreover, Panamanians are not famous for emigrate to nowhere unlike other nationalities...Then, WHY do we,panamanians, have to
tolerate their American invasion of our country?)
The American inmigrant couple said that in the US they live like "middle class" and
in Panama and Latin America,they live like "millionaries"..everything is cheaper here and we receive discounts in everything we consume...from restaurants to theaters..to airline tickets to utilities bills.
(the ironic thing is that those American inmigrants are doing exactly the same
the illegal inmigrants in the US are doing....taking benefits from our own country...
if we do not put an stop to this insane American inmigration to Latin America. we,as a citizens will be the excluded in our OWN COUNTRY...Latin America will be just another American state overseas...)
Donald Davis commented that "it was good that the panamanian government was
giving us all those discounts and acknowledging the hard work we have been doing all
in the US".
(LET ME UNDERSTAND THIS....ARE YOU AWARE WHAT ARE YOU SAYING ,MR DAVIS?
YOU ARE GLAD THAT A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT LIKE PANAMA IS GIVING YOU WHAT IS DENYING TO ITS OWN PANAMANIAN CITIZENS?
SO,YOU EXPECT EVERYTHING ABOUT THE PANAMANIAN GOVERNMENT AND EXPECTING NOTHING
FROM YOUR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT?
what a nice reasoning...
So,it is "our duty" to provide Americans the benefits to them to live with luxuries
they cannot afford in the US?
HAVE IMPERIALISM HAD REALLY DIED?
OR COLONIALISM STILL EXIST?
I DON'T THINK SO.
AMERICANS AND AMERICAN IMPERIALISM IS ALIVE AND KICKING...
ALIVE AND KICKING IN THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA..."no longer for Panamanians",right?)
WHAT A NERVE YOU HAVE,MR DAVIS...
SO,ACCORDING TO YOU ,IT IS A DUTY OF THE PANAMANIAN GOVERNMENT TO
PROVIDE YOU BENEFITS FOR YOU TO ENJOY???
i CANNOT BELIEVE IT!!!!!!
AN AMERICAN INMIGRANT HAS MORE BENEFITS THAN ME,THAT I AM A PANAMANIAN
NATIONAL,BORN IN PANAMA?????
WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT IS THE GOVERNMENT OF PANAMA?????
THIS IS UNIQUE IN THE WORLD)
On top of that abuse,Mr William Eaton,the American embassador in the Republic of
Panama was recently censured publicly for meddling in the internal affairs of the republic of Panama.Mr Eaton was critising Panama's politics,life,background and panamanian
nationals...
THE ANGRY FEELING WAS SO UNANIMOUS IN PANAMA THAT THE AMERICAN EMBASSADOR HAD TO APOLOGIZE PUBLICLY.
I SAID IT AGAIN....AMERICAN IMPERIALISM IS ALIVE AND KICKING...
WELCOME BACK T0 1850.
Friday, October 13, 2006
3 students arrested in Concord High School bomb threats
Charged with felony terrorist threatening and second degree conspiracy.
Do you wonder where or how this Terrorist enter into the U.S? They were already here. I am hoping that the illegal immigrants can not be blame for.
Delaware State Police and Mounty Pleasant High School officials stand in front of the school around State police arrested three Concord High School ninth-graders this morning and charged them in connection with a series of bomb threats called in there last week.According to Delaware State Police spokesman Cpl. Jeff Whitmarsh each student – a 15-year-old female, 17-year-old male and a 15-year-old male – is charged with felony terrorist threatening and second degree conspiracy.Brandywine School District officials announced Tuesday night that police has issued arrest warrants for the suspects.While such developments unfolded this morning, officials continued responding to a flurry of new threats at other schools.Troopers and two canines were on the scene of a bomb threat at Mount Pleasant High School, which was reported at 9:56 a.m. By 12:30 p.m., classes had resumed at the schoolThe bomb threat follows a threatening call received at 7:20 a.m. that police are dealing with as a threat of violence.State police spokesman Cpl. Jeff Whitmarsh said the caller reportedly said, “Something’s going to happen in school today and people are going to get hurt.”The high school, at 5601 Washington Street Extension in Bellevue, was the scene of three bomb hoaxes since Thursday.Whitmarsh said prior to the Mount Pleasant incidents, a bomb threat was called in at 6:51 a.m. to Glasgow High School, at 1901 S. College Ave. in Glasgow.At 7:44 a.m. another bomb threat was called in to Concord High School, at 2501 Ebright Road in Brandywine Hundred.In addition, a false fire alarm was called in at 10:47 a.m. at Brandywine High School, at 1400 Foulk Road.
Charged with felony terrorist threatening and second degree conspiracy.
Do you wonder where or how this Terrorist enter into the U.S? They were already here. I am hoping that the illegal immigrants can not be blame for.
Delaware State Police and Mounty Pleasant High School officials stand in front of the school around State police arrested three Concord High School ninth-graders this morning and charged them in connection with a series of bomb threats called in there last week.According to Delaware State Police spokesman Cpl. Jeff Whitmarsh each student – a 15-year-old female, 17-year-old male and a 15-year-old male – is charged with felony terrorist threatening and second degree conspiracy.Brandywine School District officials announced Tuesday night that police has issued arrest warrants for the suspects.While such developments unfolded this morning, officials continued responding to a flurry of new threats at other schools.Troopers and two canines were on the scene of a bomb threat at Mount Pleasant High School, which was reported at 9:56 a.m. By 12:30 p.m., classes had resumed at the schoolThe bomb threat follows a threatening call received at 7:20 a.m. that police are dealing with as a threat of violence.State police spokesman Cpl. Jeff Whitmarsh said the caller reportedly said, “Something’s going to happen in school today and people are going to get hurt.”The high school, at 5601 Washington Street Extension in Bellevue, was the scene of three bomb hoaxes since Thursday.Whitmarsh said prior to the Mount Pleasant incidents, a bomb threat was called in at 6:51 a.m. to Glasgow High School, at 1901 S. College Ave. in Glasgow.At 7:44 a.m. another bomb threat was called in to Concord High School, at 2501 Ebright Road in Brandywine Hundred.In addition, a false fire alarm was called in at 10:47 a.m. at Brandywine High School, at 1400 Foulk Road.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
What you dont know about HR4437. Thanks to Mr. Sensenbrenner (Sin Brainer)
Dangerous Immigration Legislation Pending in Congress!
Something akin to a panic has descended upon the immigrants’ rights community with the introduction in December 2005 of Republican House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner’s HR 4437, The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. Passed last week in the House and poised to move quickly through the Senate, if passed, HR 4437 could signal some of the most sweepingly dramatic changes in immigration law since the now infamous Illegal Immigration Reform and Individual Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 and could actually surpass that law in gutting judicial review and eroding due process.
Nothing in the bill provides a comprehensive and realistic plan for our immigration system to enhance border security, support economic growth and provide a legal means to lawful permanent residency for the millions of hardworking undocumented immigrants and their families in the United States. Nearly 500 organizations, including a wide variety of civic, religious and business groups are opposing this legislation. Below is a summary of just a sampling of the areas of greatest concern to the ILRC. See also www.ilrc.org/criminal.php for more information about drastic possible changes regarding immigration consequences of criminal convictions that would result if HR 4437 were passed.
* HR 4437 criminalizes organizations and individuals assisting undocumented immigrants
HR 4437 greatly expands the definition of “alien smuggling” to include assisting a person to remain or attempt to remain in the United States when the “offender” knows the person is in the United States unlawfully – thereby treating social services organizations, refugee agencies, churches, legal services and others the same as smuggling organizations and imposing criminal penalties for providing such assistance. Even family members and charitable workers could face federal prison time for assisting undocumented immigrants.
* HR 4437 criminalizes undocumented immigration status
Under current law, presence in the United States without valid status is a civil violation, not a criminal act. HR 4437 would create a new federal crime of “unlawful presence” and would define immigration violations so broadly as to effectively include every violation, however minor, technical or unintentional, as a federal crime. In addition to permanently barring the entire undocumented population – including 1.6 million children – from the United States, this would also lead to the tragic separation of families as undocumented members of mixed-status families would never be able to secure lawful immigration status in the United States.
* HR 4437 grants state and local law enforcement agencies “inherent authority” to enforce immigration laws
HR 4437 would grant law enforcement agencies the authority to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain and transfer to Federal custody immigrants they find in the United States. When police act as immigration enforcement agents, it undermines their ability to keep communities safe because immigrants and their family members will be scared to report crimes, fires, and suspicious activity out of fear of exposing themselves, families or neighbors to police. Inevitably, crimes will be left unsolved and the safety of entire communities will be compromised.
* HR 4437 furthers the erosion of due process
Our immigration laws provide that some individuals in removal proceedings can be granted voluntary departure – essentially leaving the United States on their own, with their own money – at the conclusion of the immigration hearing process. This is an important alternative to receiving a removal order because it allows an immigrant to reenter the United States lawfully in the future, despite having been in removal proceedings in the past. It is only granted to individuals with good moral character at the discretion of an immigration judge. Under HR 4377, noncitizens would be required to waive all rights to any further motion, appeals or petition for review related to removal or protection from removal in order to be granted voluntary departure, essentially barring them from a list with their family in the United States
Currently, various circuit courts have ruled that immigration officials may be prohibited from simply removing an individual from the United States without a hearing, based on the reinstatement of a prior removal order. HR 4437 purges this appellate court precedent. As a result, if passed, HR 4437 would strip the rights of immigrants with prior removal orders to any sort of hearing before being removed again.
HR 4437 would also eliminate the ability of any person who wishes to enter the United States on a nonimmigrant visa (such as a tourist visa, a student visa, etc.) to have a hearing before an immigration judge in the event that he or she is later charged with an immigration violation. This is because HR 4437 would prohibit the issuance of a nonimmigrant visa unless the applicant first waives his or her right to any review or appeal of an immigration officer’s decision.
* HR 4437 expands the costly detention of immigrants
HR 4437 would require the Department of Homeland Security to detain all noncitizens apprehended along the border until they are removed from the United Statues – thus filling up already overcrowded and tremendously costly facilities as detainees wait for final decisions on their cases. To address the overcrowding issue, HR 4437 authorizes an increase in DHS detention capacity by contracting with state and local jails – thus further criminalizing immigrants by placing them in criminal facilities.
* HR 4437 guts the federal courts’ authority to review immigration matters
HR 4437 would prevent courts from reviewing any application for naturalization denied because of a discretionary determination of ineligibility based upon “any relevant information or evidence.” This gives the immigration agency practically unfettered authority to deny naturalization applications with no judicial review.
HR 4437 also completely eliminates judicial review where noncitizens visas are revoked and is a specific attempt to remove courts’ ability to review consular decisions.
For the few remaining immigration cases that could be reviewed by an appellate court, HR 4437 implements an unprecedented system whereby no appellate court review is available unless a single judge certifies that the petitioner has “made a substantial showing that the petition for review is likely to be granted.” The decision of the single judge to deny certification for review would be not be open to appeal or review of any kind.
* HR 4437 turns many minor crimes into aggravated felonies, which carry the worst possible immigration consequences
Because aggravated felonies are supposed to be reserved for the worst and most violent of crimes such as murder and rape, they carry the most serious immigration consequences. HR 4437 would make makes minor offenses aggravated felonies, with same concomitant consequences. As a result, misdemeanor drunk driving offenses, mere presence in the United States without documentation, assisting an undocumented immigrant to reside in the United States, and minor accessory roles in the criminal conduct of others would all qualify as aggravated felonies. Most of these changes would be retroactive, meaning that someone who committed an offense 20 years ago that was not a deportable offense then could be charged with an aggravated felony now. By making these offenses aggravated felonies, HR 4437 seeks to treat those who commit nonviolent, negligent acts or omissions the same as those who have acted with criminal intent to injure. Regardless of whether it is a major or minor crime, the mere characterization as an aggravated felony will trigger the same immigration consequences – mandatory deportation, mandatory detention, disqualification for almost all immigration benefits, permanent banishment from the United States without hope of lawful return, and the inability to present any equities to immigration judges regardless of how long the immigrant has been in the United States and how many ties he or she has here. Those at risk include permanent residents who have lived here lawfully for decades. In addition, because the noncitizen population in the United States is so large and many American families include both immigrants and citizens, these deportations will break up U.S. citizen families without any possibility of reunification.
* HR 4437 expands the consequences of an aggravated felony and other offenses
Despite the current drastic consequences of an aggravated felony, HR 4437 seeks to add more. It would bar an immigrant from establishing good moral character required to become a U.S. citizen if they have an aggravated felony conviction in the past – even if they could prove that at the time the offense occurred it was not characterized as an aggravated felony, and they presently have excellent moral character. Under HR 4437, aggravated felonies would also bar admission to the United States and bar the ability to re-immigrate to the United States via an immediate relative as defense to removal. There would be no waiver available. It would further bar an asylum seeker who has an aggravated felony conviction from ever becoming a permanent resident. These provisions will eliminate the little available relief and benefits for immigrants with aggravated felony convictions who demonstrate rehabilitation and strong family, social and economic ties.
* HR 4437 eliminates key safeguards concerning evidence used to prove that an immigrant is deportable for an aggravated felony
Since 1990, the United States Supreme Court has established guidelines, called the “modified categorical analysis,” for how a court can characterize a prior conviction. While this may sound technical, the categorical analysis is a vital safeguard that protects immigrants from wrongful deportation. It ensures that immigration judges consider only the most reliable information and documents from a prior conviction – and not from facts that were not established at the original criminal trial – to identify the offense for which the person was actually convicted. HR 4437 seeks to eliminate these guidelines for those accused of being aggravated felons in immigration proceedings. This means that immigrants could be deported for a conviction of an offense that is not actually an aggravated felony, simply because the offense is listed in the same state criminal statute that also includes an aggravated felony. Eliminating the categorical analysis is a radical violation of basic fairness that seeks to overturn years of established judicial precedent.
* HR 4437 reverses the burden of proof
Historically, the burden has been on the government to prove deportation, because the hardship of deportation is so great. Analogous to the criminal “innocent until proven guilty” standard, the longstanding rule has provided that the government may not simply arrest a long-time permanent resident, allege that she is deportable, and force her to prove that she is not. HR 4437 reverses this burden of proof for those charged with aggravated felonies. This would be an extreme blow to deeply-rooted and longstanding notions of fairness. The result in practice is that once the government decides to charge the person, the low-income, unrepresented, detained immigrant will be required to obtain the public records and to produce the extremely complex legal arguments required to disprove the government’s assertion. If the person cannot meet this nearly impossible burden, he or she will face mandatory detention, deportation, and permanent exclusion and separation from family and friends in the United States.
* HR 4437 makes an immigrant associated with any street gang deportable and ineligible for any immigration benefits
Under HR 4437, immigrants who have never committed any crimes whatsoever and who have obeyed all of our laws can be deported, denied admission and the ability to obtain lawful status, subjected to mandatory detention, and denied all forms of protection such as asylum and temporary protected status, simply because the Attorney General has determined that they are associated with a designated street gang. The Attorney General, through a secret process that provides no notice or opportunity to be heard to the immigrant, can designate any formal or informal group of three or more persons who have committed two or more enumerated gang crimes a “criminal street gang.” As a result of this designation, many immigrants who never committed or supported a single criminal act may be punished severely for exercising their right to association – they may be deported to a country where they face interrogation, torture, detention and even death.
* HR 4437 undermines state court decisions regarding the reversal or vacation of convictions in immigration proceedings
HR 4437 would allow immigration authorities to ignore certain reversals and vacations of criminal convictions by state courts, such as the failure to advise the immigrant of the immigration consequences of the guilty plea. This provision will seriously undermine the concept of “full faith and credit” due to state courts. This is particularly so, in states like California, where the state Supreme Court and other lowers courts have ruled that the failure to advise and defend of the immigration consequences and giving affirmative misadvice as to the immigration consequences constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, meriting vacation of the conviction.
* HR 4437 imposes mandatory minimum sentences for many offenses
HR 4437 adds dozens of new mandatory minimum penalties to current law. It imposes the same sentences upon persons who aid or assist certain immigrants to enter the United States as the immigrants themselves would receive. The bill would also impose one to 10 year mandatory minimum penalties for those who reenter the United States after deportation. These mandatory minimum sentences punish arbitrarily and strip judges from the discretion to make the punishment fit the crime, while also increasing the cost of incarceration to American taxpayers.
Something akin to a panic has descended upon the immigrants’ rights community with the introduction in December 2005 of Republican House Judiciary Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner’s HR 4437, The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. Passed last week in the House and poised to move quickly through the Senate, if passed, HR 4437 could signal some of the most sweepingly dramatic changes in immigration law since the now infamous Illegal Immigration Reform and Individual Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 and could actually surpass that law in gutting judicial review and eroding due process.
Nothing in the bill provides a comprehensive and realistic plan for our immigration system to enhance border security, support economic growth and provide a legal means to lawful permanent residency for the millions of hardworking undocumented immigrants and their families in the United States. Nearly 500 organizations, including a wide variety of civic, religious and business groups are opposing this legislation. Below is a summary of just a sampling of the areas of greatest concern to the ILRC. See also www.ilrc.org/criminal.php for more information about drastic possible changes regarding immigration consequences of criminal convictions that would result if HR 4437 were passed.
* HR 4437 criminalizes organizations and individuals assisting undocumented immigrants
HR 4437 greatly expands the definition of “alien smuggling” to include assisting a person to remain or attempt to remain in the United States when the “offender” knows the person is in the United States unlawfully – thereby treating social services organizations, refugee agencies, churches, legal services and others the same as smuggling organizations and imposing criminal penalties for providing such assistance. Even family members and charitable workers could face federal prison time for assisting undocumented immigrants.
* HR 4437 criminalizes undocumented immigration status
Under current law, presence in the United States without valid status is a civil violation, not a criminal act. HR 4437 would create a new federal crime of “unlawful presence” and would define immigration violations so broadly as to effectively include every violation, however minor, technical or unintentional, as a federal crime. In addition to permanently barring the entire undocumented population – including 1.6 million children – from the United States, this would also lead to the tragic separation of families as undocumented members of mixed-status families would never be able to secure lawful immigration status in the United States.
* HR 4437 grants state and local law enforcement agencies “inherent authority” to enforce immigration laws
HR 4437 would grant law enforcement agencies the authority to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain and transfer to Federal custody immigrants they find in the United States. When police act as immigration enforcement agents, it undermines their ability to keep communities safe because immigrants and their family members will be scared to report crimes, fires, and suspicious activity out of fear of exposing themselves, families or neighbors to police. Inevitably, crimes will be left unsolved and the safety of entire communities will be compromised.
* HR 4437 furthers the erosion of due process
Our immigration laws provide that some individuals in removal proceedings can be granted voluntary departure – essentially leaving the United States on their own, with their own money – at the conclusion of the immigration hearing process. This is an important alternative to receiving a removal order because it allows an immigrant to reenter the United States lawfully in the future, despite having been in removal proceedings in the past. It is only granted to individuals with good moral character at the discretion of an immigration judge. Under HR 4377, noncitizens would be required to waive all rights to any further motion, appeals or petition for review related to removal or protection from removal in order to be granted voluntary departure, essentially barring them from a list with their family in the United States
Currently, various circuit courts have ruled that immigration officials may be prohibited from simply removing an individual from the United States without a hearing, based on the reinstatement of a prior removal order. HR 4437 purges this appellate court precedent. As a result, if passed, HR 4437 would strip the rights of immigrants with prior removal orders to any sort of hearing before being removed again.
HR 4437 would also eliminate the ability of any person who wishes to enter the United States on a nonimmigrant visa (such as a tourist visa, a student visa, etc.) to have a hearing before an immigration judge in the event that he or she is later charged with an immigration violation. This is because HR 4437 would prohibit the issuance of a nonimmigrant visa unless the applicant first waives his or her right to any review or appeal of an immigration officer’s decision.
* HR 4437 expands the costly detention of immigrants
HR 4437 would require the Department of Homeland Security to detain all noncitizens apprehended along the border until they are removed from the United Statues – thus filling up already overcrowded and tremendously costly facilities as detainees wait for final decisions on their cases. To address the overcrowding issue, HR 4437 authorizes an increase in DHS detention capacity by contracting with state and local jails – thus further criminalizing immigrants by placing them in criminal facilities.
* HR 4437 guts the federal courts’ authority to review immigration matters
HR 4437 would prevent courts from reviewing any application for naturalization denied because of a discretionary determination of ineligibility based upon “any relevant information or evidence.” This gives the immigration agency practically unfettered authority to deny naturalization applications with no judicial review.
HR 4437 also completely eliminates judicial review where noncitizens visas are revoked and is a specific attempt to remove courts’ ability to review consular decisions.
For the few remaining immigration cases that could be reviewed by an appellate court, HR 4437 implements an unprecedented system whereby no appellate court review is available unless a single judge certifies that the petitioner has “made a substantial showing that the petition for review is likely to be granted.” The decision of the single judge to deny certification for review would be not be open to appeal or review of any kind.
* HR 4437 turns many minor crimes into aggravated felonies, which carry the worst possible immigration consequences
Because aggravated felonies are supposed to be reserved for the worst and most violent of crimes such as murder and rape, they carry the most serious immigration consequences. HR 4437 would make makes minor offenses aggravated felonies, with same concomitant consequences. As a result, misdemeanor drunk driving offenses, mere presence in the United States without documentation, assisting an undocumented immigrant to reside in the United States, and minor accessory roles in the criminal conduct of others would all qualify as aggravated felonies. Most of these changes would be retroactive, meaning that someone who committed an offense 20 years ago that was not a deportable offense then could be charged with an aggravated felony now. By making these offenses aggravated felonies, HR 4437 seeks to treat those who commit nonviolent, negligent acts or omissions the same as those who have acted with criminal intent to injure. Regardless of whether it is a major or minor crime, the mere characterization as an aggravated felony will trigger the same immigration consequences – mandatory deportation, mandatory detention, disqualification for almost all immigration benefits, permanent banishment from the United States without hope of lawful return, and the inability to present any equities to immigration judges regardless of how long the immigrant has been in the United States and how many ties he or she has here. Those at risk include permanent residents who have lived here lawfully for decades. In addition, because the noncitizen population in the United States is so large and many American families include both immigrants and citizens, these deportations will break up U.S. citizen families without any possibility of reunification.
* HR 4437 expands the consequences of an aggravated felony and other offenses
Despite the current drastic consequences of an aggravated felony, HR 4437 seeks to add more. It would bar an immigrant from establishing good moral character required to become a U.S. citizen if they have an aggravated felony conviction in the past – even if they could prove that at the time the offense occurred it was not characterized as an aggravated felony, and they presently have excellent moral character. Under HR 4437, aggravated felonies would also bar admission to the United States and bar the ability to re-immigrate to the United States via an immediate relative as defense to removal. There would be no waiver available. It would further bar an asylum seeker who has an aggravated felony conviction from ever becoming a permanent resident. These provisions will eliminate the little available relief and benefits for immigrants with aggravated felony convictions who demonstrate rehabilitation and strong family, social and economic ties.
* HR 4437 eliminates key safeguards concerning evidence used to prove that an immigrant is deportable for an aggravated felony
Since 1990, the United States Supreme Court has established guidelines, called the “modified categorical analysis,” for how a court can characterize a prior conviction. While this may sound technical, the categorical analysis is a vital safeguard that protects immigrants from wrongful deportation. It ensures that immigration judges consider only the most reliable information and documents from a prior conviction – and not from facts that were not established at the original criminal trial – to identify the offense for which the person was actually convicted. HR 4437 seeks to eliminate these guidelines for those accused of being aggravated felons in immigration proceedings. This means that immigrants could be deported for a conviction of an offense that is not actually an aggravated felony, simply because the offense is listed in the same state criminal statute that also includes an aggravated felony. Eliminating the categorical analysis is a radical violation of basic fairness that seeks to overturn years of established judicial precedent.
* HR 4437 reverses the burden of proof
Historically, the burden has been on the government to prove deportation, because the hardship of deportation is so great. Analogous to the criminal “innocent until proven guilty” standard, the longstanding rule has provided that the government may not simply arrest a long-time permanent resident, allege that she is deportable, and force her to prove that she is not. HR 4437 reverses this burden of proof for those charged with aggravated felonies. This would be an extreme blow to deeply-rooted and longstanding notions of fairness. The result in practice is that once the government decides to charge the person, the low-income, unrepresented, detained immigrant will be required to obtain the public records and to produce the extremely complex legal arguments required to disprove the government’s assertion. If the person cannot meet this nearly impossible burden, he or she will face mandatory detention, deportation, and permanent exclusion and separation from family and friends in the United States.
* HR 4437 makes an immigrant associated with any street gang deportable and ineligible for any immigration benefits
Under HR 4437, immigrants who have never committed any crimes whatsoever and who have obeyed all of our laws can be deported, denied admission and the ability to obtain lawful status, subjected to mandatory detention, and denied all forms of protection such as asylum and temporary protected status, simply because the Attorney General has determined that they are associated with a designated street gang. The Attorney General, through a secret process that provides no notice or opportunity to be heard to the immigrant, can designate any formal or informal group of three or more persons who have committed two or more enumerated gang crimes a “criminal street gang.” As a result of this designation, many immigrants who never committed or supported a single criminal act may be punished severely for exercising their right to association – they may be deported to a country where they face interrogation, torture, detention and even death.
* HR 4437 undermines state court decisions regarding the reversal or vacation of convictions in immigration proceedings
HR 4437 would allow immigration authorities to ignore certain reversals and vacations of criminal convictions by state courts, such as the failure to advise the immigrant of the immigration consequences of the guilty plea. This provision will seriously undermine the concept of “full faith and credit” due to state courts. This is particularly so, in states like California, where the state Supreme Court and other lowers courts have ruled that the failure to advise and defend of the immigration consequences and giving affirmative misadvice as to the immigration consequences constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, meriting vacation of the conviction.
* HR 4437 imposes mandatory minimum sentences for many offenses
HR 4437 adds dozens of new mandatory minimum penalties to current law. It imposes the same sentences upon persons who aid or assist certain immigrants to enter the United States as the immigrants themselves would receive. The bill would also impose one to 10 year mandatory minimum penalties for those who reenter the United States after deportation. These mandatory minimum sentences punish arbitrarily and strip judges from the discretion to make the punishment fit the crime, while also increasing the cost of incarceration to American taxpayers.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
I am heartbroken to see the tension and division brought about by the current debate on the immigration issues. Everyone has an opinion, but no reasonable solution seems to be forthcoming. In the interim, 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation Hispanic Americans like myself find ourselves embroiled in the debate by coworkers, friends and strangers. Why do people expect Hispanic Americans to take sides, like we are expected to defend our "Americanism" by decrying the flow of immigration, legal or illegal. I don't see Italian Americans, Irish Americans, or other "Americans" having to defend their beliefs or demonstrate their patriotism. I don't pretend to know the answers to this highly sensitive debate, but here is what I do know. When I see the Mexican gardener, or laborer, I am reminded of the face of my grandfather, who came to this country, legally or illegally I do not know, but became a resident alien, served our country in the war effort during WWII, and raised his daughters and sons to believe in the American dream. One of my sisters married to a descendant of Mexican origin, who worked in the fields alongside his family while completing his education, and later rose through the ranks of the Police Department to become the first Hispanic Police Chief . It is this same work ethic instilled by my grandparents and parents that enabled me to rise to one of the most esteemed positions in my company. It is that same American dream that enabled one of my sons to graduate from M.I.T., one of the most prestigous universities in the country and the other to pursue his dreams of filmmaking in the Cinema School at the University of Southern California. We owe all of this success to the dreams of our grandparents or great grandparents who came to this country in search of opportunity. This is what I see in the faces of those who are coming to this country to earn an honest living. Rather than taking sides why aren't we utilizing that good old American ingenuity and developing reasonable solutions to the immigration problem? It won't be solved by telling people to go back to where they came from. They aren't here on a vacation. Necessity has forced their presence and our style of living in this country welcomes them with open arms. Many of these recent immigrants are doing the work we won't do. And like our ancestors before us, they are the parents of future Americans who will be valuable contributors to American society. Many will become doctors, medical researchers, business owners and entreprenuers. After all, my story is not unusual. It is the story of thousands of my generation and Mexican origin. But it is not the compelling story that people who want to use the immigration debate as a mask for their racism want to hear. They are more comfortable with the stories of drug dealers and coyotes. It is time we put the face of the real America on the front page and it is all of us, be it brown, white or black, and work together to find a reasonable solution to a compelling issue.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Proud American
Reasons to Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform
1) We are Americans, and we believe in the American Dream and opportunity for all who are working hard to make a better life for themselves and those they love. Like most American's, many of our family members are and were immigrants.
2) The system is broken and we need a new system.
3) We understand that we must work with the federal government to address illegal immigration. We seek a compassionate, fair approach. We cannot support unrealistic measures that would return our family members, friends and colleagues back to their country of origin. There is no lasting value in separating families, many of whom were recruited to the United States to complete a job.
4) It is estimated that over 8 million unauthorized workers are employed in diverse sectors, from hospitality, construction, and agriculture to name only a few. It is also estimated that these workers contribute over 8 billion dollars to social security on an annual basis.
5) Immigration influx is simple economics, supply and demand. It is estimated that 12 million undocumented people live within our borders. Therefore, we must genuinely create a legal way for foreign workers we depend on to enter our country legally. It works to everyone's benefit to know who is in the United States. This will help to keep our borders secure.
6) For decades, it has been against the law to work here illegally; ironically, it has not been illegal for business to hire a worker without legal status. Nevertheless, we do not support unfair employer sanctions that will further complicate this issue. We understand that a reasonable and fair worksite enforcement system must be sought in order to reach comprehensive reform.
7.-It has been a lot of rethorics and xenophobics acts, comments lately against latinos when we born here, we fight for this Country, we paying our Taxes and we conduct and behave as an every American regarding race, color, or ethnicity. Like Mr. Lou Dobbs, Mr Buchannan and others using the Latinos and Illegal inmigration as a flag to increase CNN rating and for their personal political advantage.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
The Borderlands
The Borderlands on the Eve of War The Travail of War A Major Watershed Mexican Perceptions during the War.
The Borderlands on the Eve of War
A Conversation With David J. WeberSouthern Methodist University
Before and during the U.S.-Mexican War, what do the United States and Mexico see is at stake with the "new frontier" in the West?
Mexico and the United States went to war over a vast amount of terrain — what would amount to half of Mexico when it was all over, beginning of course, with Texas, which the United States annexed. The U.S. interest in expansion is very plain. Texas we wanted simply for its fine agricultural production, cotton in particular, which turned out to be the major commodity. California was the real goal in the far west — to have harbors on the Pacific and make ourselves a continental empire. We were not terribly interested in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Nevada, all of which belonged to Mexico as well, but those territories needed to be conquered if we were eventually to connect the Atlantic to the Pacific by railroad, which was already a dream. From the point of view of Mexico, these lands were not of any great value, but they belonged to Mexico. The lands were theirs and had potential value in the future. They were not of immediate economic value, but Mexicans knew full well that Texas was a wonderful place for agriculture. The reports that came back suggested that Texas and California were potentially very rich provinces. I don't think either the U.S. or Mexico especially appreciated the desert. It wouldn't be until the advent of air conditioning that we would get excited about the desert country.
Mexico recognized that it needed to hold its northern frontier if for no other reason than to stop the U.S. from moving even closer to Mexico, then taking the next inevitable step of moving into Mexico City itself. There was a kind of domino theory at work here.
This was an extraordinarily remote area of the Mexican Republic. In those days, the population centers were actually the reverse of the way they are today. In 1821, when Mexico became independent of Spain, California was sparsely populated with something like 3,200 Mexicans. New Mexico, on the other hand, had a population of about 40,000 and was the dynamo of the northern frontier. Texas was also sparsely populated with about 2,500 Mexicans. The folks who lived in this frontier zone essentially lived in islands — enclaves unconnected to one another. There were no horizontal lines of communication across the Southwest. People who lived in San Antonio were more apt to think of Saltillo, Monterrey, and Mexico City than they were Santa Fe. People who lived in Santa Fe were unlikely to communicate with people living in San Francisco. The gulf between them was enormous.
How did these vast distances shape attitudes and interests of people living in these remote areas?
Many historians think that Mexico really was not even a nation at this early time but rather a collection of nations. New Mexico, California, Yucatán, Zacatecas, Oaxaca — these distant areas from the core of the nation were loyal to their own regional governments. This new creation, this Republic of Mexico, which had no king nor none of the power that the Spanish majesty had to demand loyalty and authority, was an abstraction. Mexico was a country in the process of inventing itself, and these different parts simply didn't hold together very well until the center somehow coalesced. I think at this time the center seemed more of a threat to those parts than a force to bring those parts together.
Revolts were breaking out in Mexico as the government moved more toward centralism in the mid 1830s. Revolts were breaking out in Sonora, which included a bit of what is Arizona today. Revolts in California, revolts in New Mexico, revolts in Texas. The Texas revolt happened to be the most successful one because Texas was on the very edge of the U.S. and could get arms, moral support and manpower from the U.S. Other distant places like Yucatán broke away at the same time too, and stayed away several years before it was brought back into the Mexican Republic.
It seems to me that Mexicans were ambivalent in their loyalty toward Mexico to the extent that Mexico could not deliver the goods. Mexico could not defend them with troops. The Mexican economy was not strong enough to furnish manufactured goods to frontiersmen at reasonable prices and link the country to it economically. Mexican politics were in chaos and the frontiersmen felt that they were neglected politically. Those problems left frontiersmen with no compelling reason to be loyal to Mexico, but rather to look to themselves and after their own self interest.
Some of the leading Californians thought the answer to this might be to create an independent California or, perhaps, one under British, French or American protectorate. There were a variety of options. New Mexicans thought, on the eve of the U.S.-Mexican War, about breaking away from Mexico and forming an independent republic. We don't know how many New Mexicans did this, but there are some documents suggesting a separatist sentiment. And it's perfectly understandable that leaders in these provinces would look to their own fates and not to the central government to solve their own problems for their families.
How did these settlers take their fates in hand and resolve problems that were unique to their province?
Given the sparse population of these northern provinces, one of the principal goals was to find more sources of populations. Living in Santa Fe, for example, imposed an isolation from the rest of Mexico. It was a 40-day journey from Santa Fe to Chihuahua. From Mexico City, the journey by wagon could have taken as much as six months. So where did New Mexicans sell products? The U.S. looked like a very attractive market. It was a 60-day journey across the Santa Fe trail to Missouri but the trail was actually more level and safer in many ways than traveling through the Apache-infested country of northern Mexico.
By the time of the war with Mexico, New Mexicans were enormously dependent on the United States for trade goods. That included largely manufactured goods made of metal such as hinges, hair pins and scissors. It also included manufactured cloth that was produced more inexpensively by machines in the United States than could be made by hand in Mexico. Silver was the principal commodity of the Mexicans. Americans were drawn west to trade their goods and bring silver back into the U.S., a place that had been short of hard cash. Silver drove the Santa Fe trade.
New Mexicans thought of themselves as surrounded by hostile Indians, and indeed they were — Navajos to the west, Utes to the northwest, Comanches to the northeast, Apaches to the south. One could go on and break these groups down into still smaller entities as the New Mexicans did, who understood Apaches, for example, by many different names — Gileños, Mimbreños, Lipanes. These totaled 20 or 30 different groups of hostile Indians that surrounded New Mexico. The danger that the U.S. posed was, in many ways, less dramatic than the danger that Indians posed on the eve of the war between the United States and Mexico.
The desire on the part of many Mexican frontiersmen to bring in more colonists from somewhere was acute. "How are we going to defend ourselves in these remote provinces, unless there are more of us? If we are surrounded by Indians, then we need to increase our numbers too." But the odds of getting immigrants from Mexico were really very slight. Central Mexico was so far away, so to look to the United States seemed to make a great deal of sense. As the Americans came in, the Mexican frontiersmen thought of this as a real boon, by and large. It didn't mean that they were in love with Anglo-Americans, nor thought that Anglo-American culture was something that was without its dangers or threats to them. But it simply meant they would be more secure with more gun-carrying people who were likely to help them fight Indians.
On the eve of the U.S. war with Mexico, relations with Indians had actually worsened rather than improved. One sees that in the laments of frontiersmen, as they begged Mexico's central government for military help. There's a wonderful quote from the legislature of the state of Chihuahua, suggesting that Mexicans in Chihuahua essentially couldn't travel the roads, farm or ranch without Indians' permission — that, in fact, they raised cattle and sheep for the benefit of Indians, who would come and take them. Apaches, on the other hand, boasted at one point that they allowed the Mexicans to raise sheep for them and that they never wanted to take all of the sheep for fear that their herds would be decimated and they would have no fresh sources.
I think the question of worsening Indian relations can't be understood apart from the western movement of Anglo-Americans at this time. We think of Anglo-American frontiersmen as being hardy souls wandering out to conquer the wilderness. Mexicans thought of those very same frontiersmen not as hardy pioneers but rather gun merchants — that they were selling guns to Indians who used those guns to take Mexican cattle and horses to sell to the Anglo-Americans in exchange for ammunition. So Mexicans essentially had no control over the frontier. They no longer controlled the arms trade — they no longer controlled ammunition. During the 1830s and 40s, Indians increasingly found markets for stolen goods with the Americans and the military situation just simply deteriorated. New Mexico was braced for war with Navajos just a month before Stephen W. Kearny marched over the Santa Fe trail to invade New Mexico. So, New Mexico really was at war on several fronts simultaneously.
As we think about Anglo-American/Mexican relations during this time, the emphasis naturally is on conflict. We have a war heating up. But underneath the surface, there was also a terrific amount of accommodation as Anglo-Americans moved in, lived with Mexicans in New Mexico and California, and intermarried. The very same Anglo-Americans who left the United States with racist attitudes wound up as minorities in Mexican communities. They adapted and, indeed, embraced Catholicism, embraced the Spanish language, and literally embraced Mexican women with whom they had very close relationships. So, the Mexican frontier became a place of considerable harmony even as there was conflict on other levels.
The Borderlands on the Eve of War The Travail of War A Major Watershed Mexican Perceptions during the War.
The Borderlands on the Eve of War
A Conversation With David J. WeberSouthern Methodist University
Before and during the U.S.-Mexican War, what do the United States and Mexico see is at stake with the "new frontier" in the West?
Mexico and the United States went to war over a vast amount of terrain — what would amount to half of Mexico when it was all over, beginning of course, with Texas, which the United States annexed. The U.S. interest in expansion is very plain. Texas we wanted simply for its fine agricultural production, cotton in particular, which turned out to be the major commodity. California was the real goal in the far west — to have harbors on the Pacific and make ourselves a continental empire. We were not terribly interested in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Nevada, all of which belonged to Mexico as well, but those territories needed to be conquered if we were eventually to connect the Atlantic to the Pacific by railroad, which was already a dream. From the point of view of Mexico, these lands were not of any great value, but they belonged to Mexico. The lands were theirs and had potential value in the future. They were not of immediate economic value, but Mexicans knew full well that Texas was a wonderful place for agriculture. The reports that came back suggested that Texas and California were potentially very rich provinces. I don't think either the U.S. or Mexico especially appreciated the desert. It wouldn't be until the advent of air conditioning that we would get excited about the desert country.
Mexico recognized that it needed to hold its northern frontier if for no other reason than to stop the U.S. from moving even closer to Mexico, then taking the next inevitable step of moving into Mexico City itself. There was a kind of domino theory at work here.
This was an extraordinarily remote area of the Mexican Republic. In those days, the population centers were actually the reverse of the way they are today. In 1821, when Mexico became independent of Spain, California was sparsely populated with something like 3,200 Mexicans. New Mexico, on the other hand, had a population of about 40,000 and was the dynamo of the northern frontier. Texas was also sparsely populated with about 2,500 Mexicans. The folks who lived in this frontier zone essentially lived in islands — enclaves unconnected to one another. There were no horizontal lines of communication across the Southwest. People who lived in San Antonio were more apt to think of Saltillo, Monterrey, and Mexico City than they were Santa Fe. People who lived in Santa Fe were unlikely to communicate with people living in San Francisco. The gulf between them was enormous.
How did these vast distances shape attitudes and interests of people living in these remote areas?
Many historians think that Mexico really was not even a nation at this early time but rather a collection of nations. New Mexico, California, Yucatán, Zacatecas, Oaxaca — these distant areas from the core of the nation were loyal to their own regional governments. This new creation, this Republic of Mexico, which had no king nor none of the power that the Spanish majesty had to demand loyalty and authority, was an abstraction. Mexico was a country in the process of inventing itself, and these different parts simply didn't hold together very well until the center somehow coalesced. I think at this time the center seemed more of a threat to those parts than a force to bring those parts together.
Revolts were breaking out in Mexico as the government moved more toward centralism in the mid 1830s. Revolts were breaking out in Sonora, which included a bit of what is Arizona today. Revolts in California, revolts in New Mexico, revolts in Texas. The Texas revolt happened to be the most successful one because Texas was on the very edge of the U.S. and could get arms, moral support and manpower from the U.S. Other distant places like Yucatán broke away at the same time too, and stayed away several years before it was brought back into the Mexican Republic.
It seems to me that Mexicans were ambivalent in their loyalty toward Mexico to the extent that Mexico could not deliver the goods. Mexico could not defend them with troops. The Mexican economy was not strong enough to furnish manufactured goods to frontiersmen at reasonable prices and link the country to it economically. Mexican politics were in chaos and the frontiersmen felt that they were neglected politically. Those problems left frontiersmen with no compelling reason to be loyal to Mexico, but rather to look to themselves and after their own self interest.
Some of the leading Californians thought the answer to this might be to create an independent California or, perhaps, one under British, French or American protectorate. There were a variety of options. New Mexicans thought, on the eve of the U.S.-Mexican War, about breaking away from Mexico and forming an independent republic. We don't know how many New Mexicans did this, but there are some documents suggesting a separatist sentiment. And it's perfectly understandable that leaders in these provinces would look to their own fates and not to the central government to solve their own problems for their families.
How did these settlers take their fates in hand and resolve problems that were unique to their province?
Given the sparse population of these northern provinces, one of the principal goals was to find more sources of populations. Living in Santa Fe, for example, imposed an isolation from the rest of Mexico. It was a 40-day journey from Santa Fe to Chihuahua. From Mexico City, the journey by wagon could have taken as much as six months. So where did New Mexicans sell products? The U.S. looked like a very attractive market. It was a 60-day journey across the Santa Fe trail to Missouri but the trail was actually more level and safer in many ways than traveling through the Apache-infested country of northern Mexico.
By the time of the war with Mexico, New Mexicans were enormously dependent on the United States for trade goods. That included largely manufactured goods made of metal such as hinges, hair pins and scissors. It also included manufactured cloth that was produced more inexpensively by machines in the United States than could be made by hand in Mexico. Silver was the principal commodity of the Mexicans. Americans were drawn west to trade their goods and bring silver back into the U.S., a place that had been short of hard cash. Silver drove the Santa Fe trade.
New Mexicans thought of themselves as surrounded by hostile Indians, and indeed they were — Navajos to the west, Utes to the northwest, Comanches to the northeast, Apaches to the south. One could go on and break these groups down into still smaller entities as the New Mexicans did, who understood Apaches, for example, by many different names — Gileños, Mimbreños, Lipanes. These totaled 20 or 30 different groups of hostile Indians that surrounded New Mexico. The danger that the U.S. posed was, in many ways, less dramatic than the danger that Indians posed on the eve of the war between the United States and Mexico.
The desire on the part of many Mexican frontiersmen to bring in more colonists from somewhere was acute. "How are we going to defend ourselves in these remote provinces, unless there are more of us? If we are surrounded by Indians, then we need to increase our numbers too." But the odds of getting immigrants from Mexico were really very slight. Central Mexico was so far away, so to look to the United States seemed to make a great deal of sense. As the Americans came in, the Mexican frontiersmen thought of this as a real boon, by and large. It didn't mean that they were in love with Anglo-Americans, nor thought that Anglo-American culture was something that was without its dangers or threats to them. But it simply meant they would be more secure with more gun-carrying people who were likely to help them fight Indians.
On the eve of the U.S. war with Mexico, relations with Indians had actually worsened rather than improved. One sees that in the laments of frontiersmen, as they begged Mexico's central government for military help. There's a wonderful quote from the legislature of the state of Chihuahua, suggesting that Mexicans in Chihuahua essentially couldn't travel the roads, farm or ranch without Indians' permission — that, in fact, they raised cattle and sheep for the benefit of Indians, who would come and take them. Apaches, on the other hand, boasted at one point that they allowed the Mexicans to raise sheep for them and that they never wanted to take all of the sheep for fear that their herds would be decimated and they would have no fresh sources.
I think the question of worsening Indian relations can't be understood apart from the western movement of Anglo-Americans at this time. We think of Anglo-American frontiersmen as being hardy souls wandering out to conquer the wilderness. Mexicans thought of those very same frontiersmen not as hardy pioneers but rather gun merchants — that they were selling guns to Indians who used those guns to take Mexican cattle and horses to sell to the Anglo-Americans in exchange for ammunition. So Mexicans essentially had no control over the frontier. They no longer controlled the arms trade — they no longer controlled ammunition. During the 1830s and 40s, Indians increasingly found markets for stolen goods with the Americans and the military situation just simply deteriorated. New Mexico was braced for war with Navajos just a month before Stephen W. Kearny marched over the Santa Fe trail to invade New Mexico. So, New Mexico really was at war on several fronts simultaneously.
As we think about Anglo-American/Mexican relations during this time, the emphasis naturally is on conflict. We have a war heating up. But underneath the surface, there was also a terrific amount of accommodation as Anglo-Americans moved in, lived with Mexicans in New Mexico and California, and intermarried. The very same Anglo-Americans who left the United States with racist attitudes wound up as minorities in Mexican communities. They adapted and, indeed, embraced Catholicism, embraced the Spanish language, and literally embraced Mexican women with whom they had very close relationships. So, the Mexican frontier became a place of considerable harmony even as there was conflict on other levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
