This was the first feature I saw and it was satisfying on all levels - good story, nice film making, sensitive human relationships.
The highlight for me was when the main character Mirte, a cleaning woman at a Dutch immigration detention center at the airport - not quite in Dutch territory - is cleaning a
glass wall. On the other side, an African detainee that she has found a connection to through their common loss of a spouse, mimics her cleaning motions with his head and body in a beautiful playful dance. [Dec 8: found it on the trailer, added screenshot]
But there were many other parts that were so well done. The slow and painful opening of Mirte, whose son is living with his aunt and uncle and we someone have to figure out that Mirte has recently lost her husband.
There is the inside view of the detention center. Another review called it a "reception centre for asylum seekers," but it looked more prison - even if clean and modern - where people wait for the Dutch to decide if they meet the guidelines for getting asylum. We see the difficult job of questioning the asylum seekers, interactions among the staff, and the pain of sending people back.
But we also see Mirte's struggle to take her son back in and their easing of tension.
And there's her motorbike which probably has some symbolism, but I haven't had time to think that through.
Very satisfying film. It will show again Wednesday 7pm at Alaska Exp Theater.
It turns out it was scheduled three times at the festival - two showings is normal - so Mine Games, which was only scheduled once, will take The New World's spot Sunday, Dec. 9[8], at 5:30pm at Alaska Experience Small Theater.
From what I understand listening and reading the news, the GOP is in a pickle.
The GOP isn't doing well at the voting booth with Latinos who make up a huge portion of immigrants, including undocumented folks residing in the USA now who would like their status legitimized.
The GOP is split on the concept in general. On one extreme are businesses who employ immigrants and want their workers to be able to stay in the US. On the other end are party members who want to send 'them; all back.
On the one hand the GOP want to look supportive of immigration, one of the most important Latino issues, in order to attract more Latino voters. On the other hand, they are afraid that if Latino immigrants get citizenship, they will overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.
So, their answer seems to be to have immigration reform that does not include citizenship.
That's where I want to start this.
Needing to be a citizen to vote is not a US Constitutional requirement!
Voting has NOT always been tied to citizenship. In the beginning, except for the Native Americans, who were not allowed to be citizens, most people were from somewhere else.
Robert Caro, in his first Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Power Broker, describes Tammany Hall, New York's Democratic political machine, greeting immigrants as they land.
The wheels of the Tammany war machine might be greased with money, but the machine was pulled by men, the men who voted Democratic themselves, the men who rounded up newly arrived immigrants and brought them in to be registered Democratic, the men who during election campaigns rang doorbells and distributed literature to those immigrants and to their own friends and neighbors and on Election Day, shepherded them to the polls to vote Democratic. (p. 71)
If you're paying close attention, you'll notice that they get them off the ships and sign them up to vote. They could do that because citizenship was not a requirement to vote in those days.
From Wikipedia:
Over 40 states or territories, including colonies before the Declaration of Independence, have at some time admitted aliens voting rights for some or all elections.[1][2][3][4] In 1874, the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett noted that "citizenship
has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment
of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth,
who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United
States, may under certain circumstances vote."[5]
By 1900, nearly one-half of the states and territories had some
experience with voting by aliens, and for some the experience lasted
more than half a century.[6]
At the turn of the twentieth century, anti-immigration feeling ran very
high, and Alabama stopped allowing aliens to vote by way of a
constitutional change in 1901; Colorado followed suit in 1902, Wisconsin
in 1908, and Oregon in 1914.[7]
Just as the nationalism unleashed by the War of 1812 helped to reverse
the alien suffrage policies inherited from the late eighteenth century,
World War I caused a sweeping retreat from the progressive alien
suffrage policies of the late nineteenth century.[8]
In 1918, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota all changed their
constitutions to purge alien suffrage, and Texas ended the practice of
non-citizen voting in primary elections by statute.[9] Indiana and Texas joined the trend in 1921, followed by Mississippi in 1924 and, finally, Arkansas in 1926.[10]
In 1931, political scientist Leon Aylsworth noted: "For the first time
in over a hundred years, a national election was held in 1928 in which
no alien in any state had the right to cast a vote for a candidate for
any office -- national, state, or local."[11]
“Alien suffrage was quite common during the nineteenth century, coming to a peak in 1875 when twenty-two states and territories granted aliens the right to vote.”237 That ended in the 1920s, at which point all states required citizenship as a condition to voter eligibility.238 Today, every state prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.239 Federal law, too, prohibits aliens from voting in federal elections.240 There are, however, jurisdictions that allow,241 or seek to allow,242 noncitizens to vote in local elections. And as resident aliens have a significant interest in the locales where they reside, and are subject to other political obligations like taxation, there have been particularly strong arguments in favor of extending suffrage to at least a set of them.243
Footnote 240 suggests that the federal ban on aliens voting in federal elections didn't come until 1996:
240. 18 U.S.C. § 611(a) (2006) (“It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for [federal office].”) (enacted as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 208, 100 Stat. 3009–3546).
Most of the estimated 12 million legal permanent
residents cannot vote although they may work, pay taxes, send their
children to school, and serve in the military. This gap between the
electorate and the total population raises important issues about
government accountability to residents who cannot vote, and the civic
responsibilities newcomers are expected to assume toward their
communities.
In response, several communities across the United States are
seeking to grant non-citizen residents the right to vote in municipal
and/or school board elections. Most Americans are unaware that
non-citizen voting was widespread in the United States for the first 150
years of its history. From 1776 until 1926, 22 states and federal
territories allowed non-citizens to vote in local, state, and even
federal elections but gradually repealed this right. The US Constitution
gives states and municipalities the right to decide who is eligible to
vote.
Those arguing for non-citizens to vote say that if they pay taxes and have a long term stake in the community, they should be allowed to vote, based on the colonists' argument about taxation without representation.
I guess we'll just have to see how long Koch (and other) money can continue to stir up enough people to fear and anger on this issue to keep the rising number of immigrants (not to mention all those people who stopped voting because they thought it didn't matter) from voting in their own best interests.
News stories about Chinese dissident attorney Chen Guangcheng focus on his escape to the US Embassy and the quick arrangements to allow him into the US. But for most Chinese, getting out of China is the easy part. Getting into the US is much more difficult.
The Statue of Liberty story is embedded in Americans' brains - the one that says people struggle to escape oppressive regimes to be welcomed with open arms by the US. The story gets reinforced by news articles like Chen's. For me this story got turned upside down in 1989 when I was teaching in Hong Kong for a year. I found out that getting out of China or Hong Kong was the easy part. But visas to the US were extremely difficult to get.
If you are an internationally known dissident, like Chen or Feng Lizhii, who recently died I just learned, it's different. In these cases a US visa is readily available, while the dissident is having trouble with their own countries.
Back in the early 90's, I was told on several occasions by US consulate and embassy officials that people applying for visas must prove that they have sufficient ties in China to ensure that they will return when their visa expires. For a male, under 40, I was told, this was impossible to prove. Essentially, they were saying that males under 40 could not get visas to the US. This wasn't completely true, but unless the applicant had very good connections, he wasn't going to get a visa.
In one case, UAA had accepted an exceptionally good Chinese student, someone I'd met in Beijing. We got him housing, we had tuition covered, an assistantship for him - his expenses were covered. We sent letters of support to the Embassy. He was turned down and missed the fall semester. I was able to visit the Embassy on a trip to Beijing and talk to the head of the Visa section and assured him this was all good. Only then was he able to get his visa and start in the winter semester. (And after getting an MPA from us and a PhD in North Carolina, he returned to Asia to teach.)
After 9/11, student visas got harder for everyone. Many potentially great international students
have gone to Britain and other countries because the obstacles to
getting into the US are so daunting. From a USAToday story last year
Cost, distance and lingering fears about visa denials in the post-9/11
era have helped make the USA less attractive to foreign students,
threatening a lucrative market that is a source of brain power and
diversity for U.S. colleges. [emphasis added]
The American Embassy, in the early 1990's was in the heart of a bustling Beijing neighborhood. An active street market was right across the street, taking advantage of relatively wealthy foreigners going to the embassy. It was pretty cheeky since they sold lots of illegal knock-off products that the US was continually trying to curtail. A decade later, the neighborhood around the embassy was totally blocked off. Windows on nearby buildings had been boarded over. The line to get into the embassy started about 1/4 mile from the entrance. Once cleared (Americans didn't have to wait in line here) you walked through a fenced off no-man's land. It reminded me of going into East Berlin in the height of the Cold War. But this was to get to the US Embassy. After waiting in line for long periods, walking the quarter mile dead zone, Chinese then had to stand around more and wait until they were called. It didn't matter if you were elderly. It was positively degrading for Chinese. Everyone was treated like a potential terrorist. It makes going through US airport security seem like a Disney ride. A great way to say "Welcome to the US."
It's true there were periods when masses of immigrants came to the US - but never without a backlash. But it's also true that there were many times when people escaping starvation or oppressive, even genocidal regimes, were turned back by the US. Chinese were banned from immigration from 1882 until 1943. Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany faced a State Department that resisted giving out visas. Some ships kept going until they found a port in Cuba or South America where the passengers could land. Sometimes they were forced to return to Germany and for many that meant annihilation in concentration camps.
I would imagine that this Statue of Liberty story is well embedded in the minds
of the rabidly anti-immigration folks have no idea how difficult it is
to get into the US. They imagine hordes of immigrants, legal and illegal, being welcomed with open arms. It just ain't so. (Yes, there are many people crossing the borders illegally, but in part because of the legal barriers and in part because of the demand for cheaper and more compliant labor. And recent studies show that net flow of Mexicans to the US is now zero. Some anti-immigration activist may claim their efforts led to this and they could be right. It's not clear yet.)
The Point?
This post is just a reminder that there are so many things we believe that aren't exactly true. So much uninspected 'truth' is embedded in our brains that it's hard to spot. Just ask yourself, once a day, about something you read or realize that you believe,
"How do I know this?"
"Is this something I have the facts to prove or is it something I've just always, uncritically accepted as true?"
This isn't easy to do. I'd strongly recommend James Loeven's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong as a starting point. I avoided the book for years thinking the title was too sensational. It isn't. It's just a very good and very readable book. And it will wake up liberals and conservatives alike. (And people who don't fit those labels too.)
Some notes while walking through the Capitol Building today.
Rep. Cissna Says No to Airport Pat Down
Traveling and staying with friends, I haven't heard any news for a couple of days, so when I was in Sharon Cissna's office and meeting her new staff person Marie, she was a little amused that a blogger didn't realize he was in the eye of the storm. That's where I learned that Rep. Cissna is a national news item for refusing to be patted down by TSA. Marie was answering phone calls from news outlets and having to say, "Sorry, I can't tell you any more than you know, because I don't know." Readers of this blog know that I find TSA's strategy to be serious lacking.
While Marie was not answering questions, Time magazine was saying that Cissna was going to take the Alaska ferry to Juneau. I heard from others as I walked the halls that Rep. Cissna is on an Alaska ferry and should arrive in Juneau Wednesday. Time got this response from TSA:
. . . the TSA issued a general statement that they are "sensitive to the concerns of passengers who were not satisfied with their screening experience." Whatever Cissna's reason for declining to fly, we can only imagine it was worthy enough of enduring the 1,000 mile + journey to Juneau by sea.
I'm in Juneau, so people reading this listening to the radio and watching TV probably know more about this than I do.
Coastal Zone Management
Gov. Sean Parnell has allowed the CZM regulations put in place by Gov. Murkowski, to continue for another six years. I'm told, that local governments were pretty much cut out of any say over what happens on their coasts and the state has all the authority. But in response to a question asked at a State Chamber of Commerce luncheon, apparently backtracked on this. (Sorry I'm vague here, this is my first day, and I'll have a firmer grasp of things as days go by. I'm trying to give a sense of things I heard as I talked to folks. House Bill 106 as I understand it, is an attempt to make the renewal much shorter.
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska coastal management program and relating to the extension; relating to the review of activities of the Alaska coastal management program; providing for an effective date by amending the effective date of sec. 22, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and providing for an effective date."
"An Act extending by one year the date the Alaska coastal management program will be subject to termination under the statute establishing a procedure for evaluation of agency programs and activities; providing for an effective date by delaying the effective date of the repeal of the program; and providing for an effective date."
These bills are not easy to understand. I need to get more information.
Jay Ramras, former legislator, is making money in Fairbanks and Southern California and has taken up gardening.
North Slope Facilities Access - Rep. Gutenberg is sponsoring a bill to give companies not already on the Slope access to facilities. OK, that isn't completely clear, but I'm trying to give you a sense of being here and getting lots of information very fast and trying to put things into context. What I understood was that the current companies are making it difficult for companies that don't have facilities necessary for getting oil and gas to market. HB 138, from what I see, adds certain oil and gas facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, to the list of public utilities regulated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. The specific activities added to the statute in this bill would be:
(H) furnishing, to the public for compensation, the service
12 of
13 (i) oil, gas, and water separation;
14 (ii) gas dehydration, compression, and reinjection;
15 (iii) natural gas liquid production; or
16 (iv) water treatment and reinjection;
Restricting Drivers' Licenses for Non-residents to the length of their US visas.
House Bill 3 is sponsored by State Affairs Chair Rep. Bob Lynn and a bunch of others:
Does having Doogan as a co-sponsor make this a bi-partisan bill? Maybe now that Eric Cordero has become a Republican, he can have some influence on his new party's views on this. Here's the the whole bill:
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
01 "An Act relating to issuance of driver's licenses."
02 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
03 * Section 1. AS 28.15.101 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
04 (d) Under regulations adopted by the department, the department may issue to
05 a person a driver's license with a duration of less than five years if the person is
06 authorized to stay in the United States for less than five years or the period of
07 authorized stay is indefinite. The department shall issue the license for the period of
08 the authorized stay. If the period of authorized stay is indefinite, the department may
09 not issue the license with a validity of greater than one year.
I notice that although Rep. Millet is a co-sponsor, Rep. Johansen voted NR ("no recommendation") rather than DP ("do pass") when it was heard in the House State Affairs committee.
Divesting Investments in Iran, the Sequel
Rep. Gatto has reintroduced his bill to Divest State Holdings in companies doing business in Iran, though I was told a major supporter of the bill last year, David Gottstein, has changed his stance on this as a strategy given changes in the international situation.
[Update Feb. 22: I ran into David Gottstein on the stairwell in the Capitol today and asked him about this. My informant wasn't well informed. He said that he still supports the divestment, but that his focus is on gas pipeline and so he thought there wasn't enough time in the 90 day session to get the divestment bill through.] The summary of HB 2:
"An Act relating to certain investments of the Alaska permanent fund, the state's retirement systems, the State of Alaska Supplemental Annuity Plan, and the deferred compensation program for state employees in certain companies that do business in Iran, and restricting those investments; and providing for an effective date."
You can read all of HB 2 here. You can see my account of the debate in the State Affairs Committee where Gatto was a member and where the bill failed last year. A problem that Republicans had with the bill was that it would require the state to stop doing business with major oil related companies that are doing things in Alaska.
That should give you enough to chew on.
If anyone is asking, yes, I'm back in Juneau - as Harpboy so precisely commented in my previous post Where's This? And back in the Capitol. But only for a few weeks this year. Some good friends have offered me a place to sleep - and since I'm not an employee of the legislature, or even a volunteer, I can accept their offer - and I'll blog the Legislature while I'm here. But I want them to continue to be good friends so I can't mooch off them for too long.
It's a spectacularly beautiful today in Juneau. More fresh snow and a brilliantly blue sky. (I didn't bring my card reader with me to the Capitol so I can't post pictures, but I will.) I can tell how much I learned last year as I walked over to what are now familiar digs. So I walked around and visited different offices to let people know I was here and find out what people think is important this year. So, this is just a very superficial first take.
We haven't been to a movie almost forever - well since we left for Thailand in February. J wanted to go to a movie. The Visitor got the got the highest rating (4*) and had a bizarre enough description in the Anchorage Daily News that we decided to go.
A man sleepwalking through life discovers a way to open his eyes with the help of a Syrian man, his Senegalese girlfriend, an African drum and the myriad depths of friendship.
I guess that's all true, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) also play a big role in this. Anyone with an interest in immigration issues should see this movie. While it doesn't have anything good to say about ICE, it also raises some uncomfortable truths about the immigrants in the movie as well. But basically it tells the story from the perspective of the immigrants.
As a movie, it was a gem.
There were no actors - well, yes, there were. What I mean is that they were all totally the characters they were playing. The camera work was sublime. So much of what we needed to know unfolded naturally. Partly this was through the scenes the writers offered. Partly this was beautiful camera work and editing. We learn a lot about Walter in the scene in the office with the student. We learn his academic discipline through a poster at the conference.
I don't know how much longer it will be in Anchorage.
The New York Times has this new story about a European being detained by Customs when arriving in the US. This story brings to mind the Icelandic woman who was detained overnight in New York before being sent home because 12 years earlier she'd overstayed her visa by two weeks. It is also akin to the story of scholars who were denied entry into the US. A key problem is that
such “arriving aliens” are not considered to be in the United States at all, even if they are in custody, they have none of the legal rights that even illegal immigrants can claim.
But even American citizens are in a no-rights zone when they come back into the US. An issue that opens anyone with a laptop to privacy violations, Customs is searching some people's laptops when returning to the US.
Today's story is about an Italian attorney who has been visiting his American girlfriend:
But on April 29, when Mr. Salerno, 35, presented his passport at Washington Dulles International Airport, a Customs and Border Protection agent refused to let him into the United States. And after hours of questioning, agents would not let him travel back to Rome, either; over his protests in fractured English, he said, they insisted that he had expressed a fear of returning to Italy and had asked for asylum...
Mr. Salerno’s case may be extreme, but it underscores the real but little-known dangers that many travelers from Europe and other first-world nations face when they arrive in the United States — problems that can startle Americans as much as their foreign visitors.
“We have a lot of government people here and lobbyists and lawyers and very educated, very savvy Washingtonians,” said Jim Cooper, Ms. Cooper’s father, a businessman, describing the reaction in his neighborhood, the Wessynton subdivision of Alexandria. “They were pretty shocked that the government could do this sort of thing, because it doesn’t happen that often, except to people you never hear about, like Haitians and Guatemalans.”...
Though citizens of those nations [27 so-called visa waiver countries] do not need visas to enter the United States for as long as 90 days, their admission is up to the discretion of border agents. There are more than 60 grounds for finding someone inadmissible, including a hunch that the person plans to work or immigrate, or evidence of an overstay, however brief, on an earlier visit.
While those turned away are generally sent home on the next flight, “there are occasional circumstances which require further detention to review their cases,” Ms. De Cima said. And because such “arriving aliens” are not considered to be in the United States at all, even if they are in custody, they have none of the legal rights that even illegal immigrants can claim.
[Later: National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation has a show on right now about problems at the privately run detention centers for people detained by Customs.
The Washington Post began a series of investigative reports on Sunday revealing mistakes in medical treatment that may have contributed to 30 deaths in immigrant detention facilities in the U.S. Reporters Dana Priest and Amy Goldstein talk about their series, "Careless Detention."]
Last week I posted a copy of an email about a presentation in Chiang Mai entitled "Bio Fuel By Decree." Now I'm following that up with a little more substance. This is a report I got in an email from someone I met in Chiang Mai who works for EarthRights, a group that works to help Burmese Refugees in Thailand as well as Burmese still in Burma. I know a little about this organization and met various people who worked for them. They are dedicated and very competent. The people of Burma - including the last democratically elected President of Burma, Aung Sang Suu Kyi - have basically been imprisoned in their home by the SLORC for 20 years.
When people watched Schindler's List and other movies about the Holocaust, many asked, "How could people let this happen?" Well, variations of the Holocaust are happening now in various parts of the world, including Burma.
I'm posting here the EarthRights report. This report was done by people who have been working on these issues in and out of Burma for many years now. It is well documented. Certainly it does not tell everything because access to information in Burma and from Chevron is limited. But if you want to know what is happening in Burma, and how you support it when you buy Cheveron gasoline, read.
Below is most of the executive summary for those who don't have time to read the whole report. And for those thinking, "What can I do?" there is a recommendation highlighted in the executive summary below of recommendations "To the United States and the world community." [You can easily enlarge the pages of the document by clicking on the magnifying glass]
. . . EarthRights International (ERI) began documenting the human Residents and refugees from fourteen villages throughout the pipeline region, with whom ERI conducted over 70 formal interviews in the past five years as well as additional corroborative contacts, confirm that, for the people of Burma, “human energy” means human exploitation. Chevron and its consor- tium partners continue to rely on the Burmese army for pipeline security, and those forces continue to conscript thousands of villagers for forced labor, and to commit torture, rape, murder and other serious abuses in the course of
Part 1 describes the background of the Yadana Project, which involves a pipeline constructed to carry gas from offshore fields, across Burma, and into Thailand. In 2005, Chevron became part of the Yadana Project through its acquisition of Unocal, one of the original developers of the project. The Burmese military junta, a brutal regime routinely condemned by the United Nations and the world community for its widespread violations of basic human rights, is one of Chevron’s partners in the project through its military-run oil company, Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise.
Part 2 explains how the Yadana Proj- ect finances oppression. The project is the single largest source of income for the Burmese military; it was instru- mental in bailing out the junta when it faced a severe financial crisis in the late 1990s, and it has enabled the regime to dramatically increase its military spending and continue its rule without popular support.
Part 3 describes how Chevron was fully aware of the human rights abuses associated with the Yadana Project when it acquired Unocal in 2005, but nonethe- less chose to stay involved with the project and the Burmese military. The Yadana pipeline is guarded by the Bur- mese army, and the human rights abuses committed by the army in the course of providing security have been widely re- ported and documented; victims of the project sued Unocal in U.S. courts in the landmark case Doe v. Unocal.
Part 4 documents the continuing seri- ous human rights abuses by the pipeline security forces, including torture, rape, murder, and forced labor. Seventeen years after abuses connected to the Yadana Project were first documented, and years after they were highlighted in Doe v. Unocal, these human rights abuses continue in the pipeline corri- dor. Residents and refugees fleeing the pipeline region report that they are still forced to work for the pipeline security forces, who continue to commit acts of violence and terrorize the local popula- tion. This forced labor occurs thousands of times each year.
Part 5 debunks the oil companies’ claims that life in the pipeline region has improved. While some villages have re- alized minimal benefits from the compa- nies’ socio-economic program, the ben- efits do not reach the entire population affected by the pipeline security forces. Even for the chosen “pipeline villages” life remains so difficult and dangerous that families continue to flee for the rela- tive safety of the Thai-Burma border.
Part 6 discusses Chevron’s response to the 2007 demonstrations in Burma against the military regime and the re- gime’s crackdown. Despite its threefold status as the largest U.S. investor in Burma, the military’s direct business partner, and a partner in the project that constitutes the largest source of income for the regime, Chevron has failed to take any noticeable steps to condemn the violent repression or to pressure the military to respect human rights.
Finally, Part 7 describes Chevron’s ongoing potential legal liability for its role in the Yadana Project. Although the Doe v. Unocal litigation resulted in a settlement in 2005, that settlement only covers the claims of the victims involved in that suit; Chevron remains responsible for compensating the thou- sands of other residents of the pipeline region who have suffered abuse by pipe- line security forces.
Two appendices offer additional detail on oil and gas investment in Burma. Appendix A details the Shwe Project, a new gas project which could dwarf Yadana both in revenues for the military and in the abusive impact on the local population. The project is being devel- oped by South Korea’s Daewoo Interna- tional along with other companies from Korea, India and China. Appendix B briefly outlines China’s growing involve- ment in Burma, especially in the oil and gas sector. The Yadana Project remains a serious problem both for the people of Burma and for Chevron itself.
In light of this, EarthRights International makes the following recommendations: To the Burmese military regime: » The SPDC should cease human rights abuses against the people of the pipe- line region and throughout Burma, including extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, torture, excessive force, ar- bitrary detentions and imprisonment, forced labor, and forced relocation, and abide by its obligations under in- ternational law to respect fundamen- tal human rights and environmental protection.
» The regime should begin a full transi- tion to a system of government that allows for all of Burma’s peoples to fully participate in development deci- sions and freely determine their own futures.
To Chevron Corporation and its partners: » Chevron, Total, PTTEP, and all other oil and gas companies in Burma should suspend ongoing projects, cease de- velopment of new projects, and refuse to sell gas that enriches the Burmese regime until the SPDC fully respects internationally-guaranteed human rights and environmental protections and allows for a full transition to a participatory system of government as described above.
» The Yadana consortium and other com- panies should terminate any contracts that require them to provide monetary support to the military regime or that contemplate or require the use of the Burmese military as security forces.
» The companies should publicly con- demn past human rights abuses and use their influence with the SPDC, their business partner, to press for respect for human rights in the future, not only in the pipeline region itself but throughout the country.
» The companies should immediately stop relying on the Burmese military for any security or other services. If alternate security measures are taken, Chevron and its partners must provide adequate human rights train- ing and supervision in order to ensure respect for fundamental human rights (in accordance with international law and Chevron’s stated commitment to respect human rights).
» The companies should allow indepen- dent third-parties with experience documenting human rights abuses in Burma access to the pipeline region, without military supervision, in order to monitor the situation. Such moni- toring should include a mechanism to allow local residents to bring com- plaints to an independent body on a confidential basis.
» The companies should provide ad- equate compensation to all individu- als and communities harmed by the Yadana Project.
» The companies should demonstrate a serious commitment to their socio- economic program by expanding it to include all of the villages that have suffered adverse impacts from the Yadana Project, and by inviting groups experienced in documenting condi- tions in Burma to participate in de- veloping, implementing, and regularly evaluating the effectiveness of, their programs.
» The companies should support efforts that promote transparency through disclosure of payments to all govern- ment and state-owned or state-con- trolled partners.
To Chevron’s shareholders: » The shareholders of Chevron should support shareholder resolutions that promote policies and practices de- signed to improve the promotion and protection of human rights, the envi- ronment, rule of law, transparency, and the rights of indigenous peoples and affected communities to informed consent before projects begin and dur- ing operation phases.
» The shareholders of Chevron should communicate their concern over the situation in Burma, the reputational and legal risks it poses to their com- pany, and their wish for Chevron to follow the recommendations outlined above, to Chevron’s CEO and Board of Directors.
To the Royal Thai government: » Thailand should immediately cease purchasing gas from the SPDC and cease payments for such gas until the Burmese regime respects fundamental human rights and environmental pro- tections and begins a full transition to a participatory system of government as described above. Alternatively, Thailand should place all such pay- ments in escrow for the benefit of the people of Burma under a future gov- ernment.
» Thailand should immediately require that its state-owned company PTTEP suspend its ongoing natural gas explo- ration in the Bay of Bengal until the company conducts environmental and human rights impact assessments, and until appropriate preconditions for responsible investment in Burma are in place, such as a full transition to a participatory system of govern- ment as described above.
» Thailand should allow safe refuge to all Burmese refugees fleeing the abuses there, in accordance with in- ternational law.
» Thailand should provide legal mecha- nisms that allow Thai companies, such as PTTEP, to be held accountable for their responsibility and complicity in human rights abuses in Burma. Civil society organizations and citizens of Thailand should advocate for legisla- tion to create such mechanisms.
To the United States and the world community: » The United States and the world com- munity should make immediate efforts to cut the flow of money to the Bur- mese regime, including stopping the Yadana Project payments and other gas payments through targeted finan- cial sanctions.
» The United States and the world com- munity should condemn the abuses committed in Burma on projects ben- efiting multinational corporations, including Chevron, and pressure the companies to end these abuses and adopt the recommendations outlined above.
» The United States should continue to pressure the Burmese regime to respect human rights and the environ- ment and begin a full transition to a participatory system of government as described above; the world communi- ty, especially China, India, Korea, and Thailand, should join in these efforts. for complicity in abuses abroad, and enable access to justice for survivors of abuses abroad. Civil society organi- zations and citizens of these countries should advocate for legislation to cre- ate such mechanisms.
To Daewoo and its partners in the Shwe Project, and other gas compa- nies in Burma: [See Complete Document for more]
I haven't posted much about Burma - except the border runs - because what I did hear from people working with Burmese organizations in Thailand wasn't sharable. Thai officials can look away if nothing is explicitly out in the open, but if it is in their face they have to take action. That doesn't mean the new government isn't making nice to the Burmese government, but they also aren't fanatic about dealing with Burmese refugees in Thailand. Though I did hear stories about police having quotas for how many illegal Burmese they had to round up per day in one town. All this is word of mouth from people I don't know all that well. But I heard similar stories from different people.
But this was emailed to me and so it is a little more official, though I note that the location will be announced at the last minute. I don't think it's because they haven't found a place. I don't know if I'm being overly cautious, but I left out the name, phone numbers, and email as well.
INVITATION
Date:April 29, 2008
Dear Sir or Madam,
A warm greeting from ECDF
Ethnic Community Development Forum is cordially invite you to join us on the special event of launching our report "Biofuel by Decree: Unmasking Burma's bio-energy fiasco" on May 1 at (10:00) am to (12:00) am. For the conference place we will informing you on (30 April 2008).
Why we are launching the report on Labor Day, May first because in the implementation of SPDC Jet Suu plantation project is using forced labor, land confiscation and other human rights abuses,
During launching the report we will have some VIDEO show about SPDC forced to the people and including the video clips of interviewing from who are refugees by SPDC Jet Suu project.
However ECDF would like you to join our press conference and if you have any question, you can contact with the spokesperson as below address please.
I made a comment over at Independent Alaskan. It got fairly long and required a fair amount of time, so I thought I'd post my response here too. Independent Alaskan wrote about Gil Sanchez running for the Anchorage School Board. Rocknak commented:
Well, if this happens, I'm sure he will do whatever he can to make it easier for the illegal children in the district to make it through the system. Thank you NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND. Let's see how dumbed down our schools can get!
Here are some facts for taxpayers:
The ASD bilingual department currently serves about 4,700 students, plus there are another 2500 that "exited" the system last year who need to be monitored for two years. The current budget for this year is $11,015,820. It goes up to $11.77 million next year.
That 11.77 million would be a great help to the thousands of underpriviledged American children in this state.
It's pretty common for humans everywhere to divide people into us and them and then to pick facts that reinforce the how them are screwing over us. So here was my response to Rocknak:
Rocknak, here are some different facts for taxpayers:
The average home value in Anchorage is $275,999. We pay about 7/10 of one % of home value for ASD. I calculated this from the How to Read a Tax Bill page on the muni website. So the average household that pays direct property tax (not people renting who pay it through their rent) pays about $1,855 a year to the School District. I would also note that a portion of the bilingual education money is federal money, not from Anchorage property taxes. So the $11 million that you cite, Rocknak, wouldn't all be available if you cut the program to use the money elsewhere.
Now, if you have kids or grandkids, and most households in Anchorage do, that's an incredible deal. The Northern Academy tuition in Anchorage ranges around $12,000 (varies by grade levels). I couldn't find the tuition for Anchorage Christian Schools on their website.
But even if you don't have kids, the community advantages of kids having a public education available are significant, even if we only talk about the crime rate if large numbers of kids never went to school.
And let's remember that when comparing costs of private and public schools, that private schools don't have to admit the most expensive kids (one's with various severe disabilities - physical, mental, social, or emotional). And when comparing test scores of private and public students let's also remember (in addition to not having to keep 'problem' kids) private schools have kids whose parents care enough to pay more for them to go to private school and parental interest is a big factor in how kids do in school.
And some more facts. Rocknak suggests that we should reallocate the money we spend on "non-American" kids to "American kids." The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that Anchorage households spend an average of $529 a year on alcoholic beverages. That's 28%, or more than 1/4, of what my calculations above show they pay for ASD through their property tax. But I guess Rocknak thinks that it's better to take the money from the bilingual program rather than dipping into his beer money. I'm not saying we shouldn't consume alcohol, but when we compare how money is spent, we often restrict our comparisons. Why just look at other ASD expenditures? Why not look at all the other uses of our money? According to the same BLS list, Anchorage per household expenditures on entertainment were $4,297, more than twice the national average, and more than twice what we pay ASD through taxes.
Another way of responding to Rocknak is to ask: what is the difference between an American child and a non-American child?
What causes someone born in the US to be worthy of special privileges that someone, say born in Brazil, shouldn't have? Maybe Americans shouldn't be allowed to listen to Bossa Nova music since they weren't born in Brazil. It's just an accident of fate that one human soul gets born in the US as opposed to somewhere else. A human child is a human child. Why should a selfish, lazy American citizen (no I'm not saying all Americans are like that, it's an example) have more opportunities than a public spirited, hard-working non-American? (Nor am I suggesting all non-Americans are saints.) I'm just pointing out that in terms of human rights, national boundaries are completely artificial and change frequently over history. The US took most of California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona by military force from Mexico, for example. That raises other questions about who the illegal residents of those states really are.
And in your calculation Rocknak, you didn't distinguish between the American kids (legal US citizens born in the US) who get bilingual aid. I would guess that many if not most of the kids in the program are American citizens. So, the money spent on them IS money spent on underprivileged Americans. Though not all of them are underprivileged, just like the kids in speech or other special ed programs are not necessarily underprivileged.
The issue shouldn't be, take the money from these kids and give it to another group. The issue should be how do we pay for a reasonable education for all the kids. And it isn't just the kids that 'get' the education. We all get the collective benefits of kids who do well in school, feel good about themselves (and thus aren't as likely to cause trouble), and who can eventually make positive contributions to our community and society. If you don't believe that look at the economies of countries where kids don't get access to education.
The art at SeaTac International Airport (Seattle-Tacoma) has always been fun. Since so many flights out of Anchorage stop at SeaTac on the way to somewhere else, I’ve gotten to see it often. The video shows one I’ve always enjoyed, though I’m not sure why it’s titled High Wire. It’s in Terminal B.
Similarly, Fajans most well-known mural, High Wire, uses a repeated image to evoke a core concept embodied by the space it inhabits. Displayed along Concourse D of the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, High Wire is a one-hundred-eighty foot long explication of a vaudeville magic act that uses multiple appearances and manipulations of a large, decorated box by a magician and his assistant to celebrate our disappearances and reappearances during plane flight. Fajans could very easily use his mastery of representational technique to churn out pop visual quips or variations on the surrealistic still life, but he has never shown any interest in manipulating objective reality in this way. His career-long preoccupation has been with humanity and human character made accessible through carefully painted facial expressions and gestures with complementary extensions and backgrounds, sometimes involving very carefully and realistically painted objects, other times employing the techniques of minimalist abstraction.
Though he does not paint portraits per se, he almost always paints people, and the figural paintings he has created over the years involving one, two or more figures record a remarkable collection of objects as well: a crushed and smoldering cigarette, a zebra-striped vinyl purse strap, a map laid out on the hood of a car, sunglasses, a bathing suit, an inflatable plastic headrest or, quite richly, an extensive catalogue of beautifully realized and recognizable fabrics and hair style.
There was another great little exhibit - about 15 pictures of Ranier Valley immigrants. The photos were compelling as were the short biographies. Here are a couple. The exhibit shows how immigrants add so much richness to our culture and why it's a good thing the Assembly voted Tuesday against having the police intimidating people who might possibly be illegal immigrants
But, Anchorage’s airport has free wifi, but in SeaTac if you aren’t already part of ATT you have to pay. So this will wait til I get to LA.
Justice Talking had a pretty extensive discussion of laws requiring that police check immigration status of people who might be illegal immigrants when making routine traffic stops.
Overview (from the site)
The issue of immigration has been a flashpoint in the Presidential debates. Border fences, identification for illegal immigrants, and other reforms have all been debated. And Mitt Romney has been in the hot seat because some say he didn't act fast enough when he found out illegal persons were cutting his grass. All of these issues raise important questions about U.S. immigration policies, particularly the current crack-down on hiring illegal workers. What happens to workers caught working without papers? Join us for this edition of Justice Talking for a look at our nation's work rules and what they mean for illegal immigrants.
The link shows you who all was in the discussions and there's a link to the show. Given that Assemblyperson Bauer is trying to get this back on the agenda, I'd suggest Anchorage folks listen to this.
I really don't understand what drives people on an issue like this. An interesting point made - that is relevant to Anchorage - is that the purpose is overcome laws that prevent police from checking. At the hearing the Assembly had, the police chief, as I recall, said there was nothing to prevent police from checking, but they should be forced to check.
Listen for yourself. There's a Windows Player link and an MP3 download link.
Here's the beginning of the story of an Icelandic visitor who was chained and handcuffed at JFK held without sleep or food and very delayed phone contact, then taken to a jail in New Jersey. I found a number of other sites carrying the same story, but not futher corroboration of the story. It appears from the story that her crime was having overstayed a visit by three weeks in 1995. So let's withhold judgment at the moment, but put it into our Liberty Watch file as we watch Naomi Wolf's ten steps to dismantling democracy take place. This seems to fit 5. Arbitrarily detain and release citizens. Although this is not a US citizen, would American citizens expect this sort of treatment when visiting other nations? The whole story is at this site.
[Note: Later stories say it is Erla, not Eva]
The story of Eva, [Erla] Ósk Arnardóttir:
During the last twenty-four hours I have probably experienced the greatest humiliation to which I have ever been subjected. During these last twenty-four hours I have been handcuffed and chained, denied the chance to sleep, been without food and drink and been confined to a place without anyone knowing my whereabouts, imprisoned. Now I am beginning to try to understand all this, rest and review the events which began as innocently as possible.
Last Sunday I and a few other girls began our trip to New York. We were going to shop and enjoy the Christmas spirit. We made ourselves comfortable on first class, drank white wine and looked forward to go shopping, eat good food and enjoy life. When we landed at JFK airport the traditional clearance process began.
We were screened and went on to passport control. As I waited for them to finish examining my passport I heard an official say that there was something which needed to be looked at more closely and I was directed to the work station of Homeland Security. There I was told that according to their records I had overstayed my visa by 3 weeks in 1995. For this reason I would not be admitted to the country and would be sent home on the next flight. I looked at the official in disbelief and told him that I had in fact visited New York after the trip in 1995 without encountering any difficulties. A detailed interrogation session ensued.
I was photographed and fingerprinted. I was asked questions which I felt had nothing to do with the issue at hand. I was forbidden to contact anyone to advise of my predicament and although I was invited at the outset to contact the Icelandic consul or embassy, that invitation was later withdrawn. I don't know why.
Fortunately, there are a number of excellent cartoonists. One of the best is Paul Conrad. This 1999 (I think that's what it says) cartoon really captures how I feel about immigration. Were the passengers on the Mayflower 'legal'? With the right sophistry you could make the argument they were. But I just don't see any way to logically draw the line about which illegals should go home. The same arguments we hear today in the fashion of their day - whether about Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Chinese - were said from the beginning. And the basic argument about which immigrants to keep out boils down to "well, those who arrived later than when my family." Did you know that in the late 1800's and early 1900's you didn't even have to have US citizenship to vote? That's how the big city political machines in Boston and New York were able to organize the immigrants. The US Constitution didn't set the rules for who can vote, that is left up to each state. Women were not precluded from voting in the Constitution, only by the states.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
In fact:
A Boston city councilor wants the city to allow legal immigrants to vote in municipal elections, a move that could increase the number of eligible voters in the city by as much as a third and dramatically alter the city's political landscape.
A measure by Councilor at Large Felix D . Arroyo, supported by four other council members, would extend voting rights to about 95,000 immigrant residents who live in the country legally but are not citizen
I'm sure that will get some people riled up. That's not my intent. Rather, I just want people to think beyond their normal thought neighborhoods. If we really believe in democracy, then people who are affected by the policies should have a right to vote for the leaders. Is it fair that only Americans can vote for the President of the US when that office affects so much of the rest of the world? No, I'm not advocating this, but it is something to think about.
[Update September 4, 2010: Paul Conrad died today at age 86. We'll miss your wit and ability to capture truth in a few words and lines of ink.]
It was a very pleasant surprise to see Kotee helping out at the Thai Kitchen the other night. He's part of the Thai Kitchen 'family' who have finished school and worked at the restaurant under the guidance of Sommai and Orathai and Ben. This is a traditional Thai/Lao 'social service' model that gets no funds from government. Over the years, Sommai and Ben's four sons have worked in the family restaurant, learning lots of skills - running the cash register, good social skills dealing with lots of different customers, gaining lots of 'uncles' and 'aunts' among the customers of a wide range of professions and political persuasions. In addition to their own four sons, there have always been 'cousins' - sometimes kids who were having trouble at home or at school - who were brought into the family to finish school, have a job, and be with a family that set high standards of good behavior. And in return Anchorage has had a great Thai restaurant for over 20 years, plus the positive spillover effect for their landlord, their suppliers, and the school system. And don't worry Paul, they are all here legally.
Among these family members is Kotee. When he finished high school he joined the army and worked it out so he got stationed at Fort Rich. He's been in Iraq for the last 14 months. His main job was electronics support - communications, radios, night vision, optics... His stories were full of jargon and I had to ask him to stop and explain often. He was in a FOB (Forward Operating Base) in Iskandiriayh most of the time. They had a huge power plant right nearby that supplied power for much of Iraq. The pollution was awful and people downwind seemed to have an unusual number of physical ailments. But they could use the smoke as their windsock. He said the area is also known as the triangle of death.
He said his laptop kept him sane. He could go into his shared room (when he described it it sounded like one of those tiny Japanese hotel rooms, but it was air conditioned) and watch dvd's etc. But sometimes internet was closed down, when they were on "Rivercity." He explained that meant someone had died and all communication out was shut down until the family was officially notified. He showed us a video he made of his life in Iraq. He was in the thick of things, saw vehicles, buildings, and people blown up, but seems to have come home physically and mentally ok. He's back in Anchorage til early next summer when he goes to Fort Lewis where he's been assigned after reenlisting for five years.
He's a great guy and we were very happy to see him back and healthy.
Despite the fact that the Anchorage Assembly postponed public testimony regarding Paul Bauer's anti-sanctuary ordinance, Assemblyman Allan Tesche moved to postpone the ordinance indefinitely. The motion passed 8-3 (Bauer, Coffey & Sullivan voted no). A second vote for reconsideration was 8-3, so the issue will not be brought up again!!! It's done!
I guess after someone last week who claimed to be Debbie Bauer wrote things like this on the ADN blog:
As for my husband's anti-crime ordinance, what don't you understand? Google for yourself and find out just what illegal immigration has done to this country. It speaks for itself. Not a waste of time, but one man's effort in making our city a safer place in which to live. So if you want to live with illegal's move, cause this city is going to change for the better.
Are you here legally? Everyone that is making the issue of illegal immigrants has something to hide themselves. We are proud to be the decendents of immigrant familes that processed thru Ellis Island in the 1900's.
that wiser heads on the Assembly realized where this debate could have headed if not stopped now.
While getting the link to the ADN blog just now I noticed that Kyle Hopkins just blogged the same story with a sour note at the end:
In a surprise move -- surprise to me, anyway -- the Assembly voted to postpone indefinitely a proposal from Assemblyman Paul Bauer that would let police ask you for proof of U.S. citizenship.
That means it's dead.
Bauer just handed me a written statement in response. It says, in part:
"The eight Anchorage Assembly members voting to postpone indefinitely the ordinance "Local-Enforcement-Anti-Sanctuary" is a slap in the face of law-abiding, legal citizens."
If Paul Bauer is so strongly in favor of obeying the law he might want to work on the people who run red lights, speed past schools, and beat their wives. I suspect they, and drunk drivers, cause a lot more harm to Anchorage than illegal aliens.
Funny how things work. I got an email that linked me to a page with this video. It has quotes from the bible about how people should help 'aliens'. I had been recalling that there were a number of passages I recalled that said people should take in and help strangers (which I was taught meant something like people from other lands). I think the video is a little heavy handed. But it saves me the time of finding these quotes myself. I know that quotes can be taken out of context so I got my bible out to check on the passages. The wording is a slightly different, but the key difference in the passages I looked up was that the video uses the word 'alien' where my bible says "stranger.' But alien is probably a closer translation to what those words mean in modern American English.
As I looked at the video I had a couple of thoughts. Attending the Assembly work session on Paul Bauer's proposed ordinance to ask for people's proof of legal presence in the US whenever the police stop someone is making me think things I would never have thought of. Will someone watch this and ask what language is that? Who is that person? Why isn't she speaking English? Is she legally here? Yes, she's legally here, married to a native born US citizen, and making a positive contribution to the people of Alaska through her job and hard work. She's teaching her baby her native language in hopes that he will grow up totally fluent in both her native language and English. I wonder if Paul Bauer is fluent in another language besides English? He said he spent time in Germany in the military. I wonder if he spoke German when he was in German shops or did he use English? Maybe he did.
I find the paranoia about people not speaking English incomprehensible. The whole world speaks English. It's not going to die out. It's just Americans who don't speak other languages. Except immigrants and their children who are the people we have to depend on for translators. What would we do without Arab-Americans to help us understand what the Arab world is saying and writing?
And spending the evening with the baby and his family I had to think about what Tom Anderson will be missing when he leaves for prison. His youngest is a little older than I. Five years, minus whatever good time he manages to accumulate, will be a significant time in his child's life. Just as it is for people headed off for Iraq, people who might not come back to ever be in their kids' lives again. We should all be grateful for the many things we have that we take for granted, like being around our kids when they're growing up.
1. Paul Bauer has introduced an ordinance that would, among other things, require police to check immigration status of people they stop for traffic violations and to develop a working agreement with Homeland Security. This comes about because Anchorage has made itself a "Sanctuary City."
2. Hispanic civic organizations are strongly opposed because they believe they will be singled out as well as other people who 'look' foreign or have accents.
3. The Assembly Sub Committee had testimony from the following:
Paul Bauer, the Assembly member who introduced the ordinance, had 30 minutes to present a slide show.
Municipal Attorney said their analysis did not find constitutional problems, though there might be some problems with separation of powers issues - the assembly makes laws and the administration implements the laws. So if the ordinance would tell the police how they had to do their job, that might raise problems.
The Municipal Prosecutor had several issues
the negative effect it would have on police-community relations - that it would reduce trust of government and thus tips people give the police which is an important part of crime prevention and investigation
the effect on reporting domestic violence - women would not report their sponsors for fear of losing sponsor plus other issues
workload for his office
Chief of Police Heun said the would continue doing what they do now. If they stop someone they ask for a driver's license. If the person doesn't have one they call it in to check and talk to them to see if we have probable cause to detain them. We have a functional arrangement with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
Robin Bronin, Alaska Immigration Justice Project (my notes aren't too good at this point, she reiterated points about impact on community and also about domestic violence I believe.)
Angelina Estrada-Burney from Bridge Builders - Their organization's board has unanimously voted to urge the Assembly to vote no on this.
Margaret Stock -this was by far the most impressive testimony. She introduced herself as a conservative Republican. I shouldn't be amazed anymore when I meet someone from Anchorage who turns out to be a nationally recognized expert on a topic. In this case - checking the web after the work session - I've found all sorts of things about her. From ilw.com:
Margaret Stock is an associate professor of law in the Department of Law, United States Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.; an attorney; and a lieutenant colonel in the Military Police Corps.
She had a number of problems with the ordinance.
The term sanctuary city is not a legal term, but one created on talk shows and blogs
The Immigration Reform Law Institute that is pushing this 'ideological experiment' is using Anchorage as a Guinea Pig but if Anchorage gets sued, they won't help with the legal costs, and they are proud that Paul Bauer has introduced their ordinance.
Generally went through a list of practical implications of this type of ordinance, written, she alleged, 'by people with no practical experience with immigration law'
the illegal alien lists used are extremely unreliable
causes people who are not a problem to be reported
lawsuits will result as people are wrongly detained
The Cost Benefit analysis is way off - it will be a very expensive ordinance because of future litigation
I've said in previous posts that both my parents were immigrants to the US and that my grandparents were unable to get visas to the US and perished in Nazi Germany. So I'm come to this with a bias.
I did get a chance to talk to Paul Bauer alone after the meeting. He talks calmly, politely, and reasonably. He has a background in the security field and said he was stationed in Berlin for a while in the military and they gathered information from East Berlin. So it is quite believable that security is a high priority item for him, for which some individual liberties are legitimately sacrificed. And at some point I might agree with that general principle, but I suspect that on a continuum from 1 to 10, he would be ready to sacrifice liberties at 1 or 2, while I would be waiting for 8 or 9. He also talked about prevention - that he wanted to deal with gangs before they became an issue and the same here. Even if illegal immigration is not a problem yet in Anchorage - and everyone agreed that we don't have very accurate numbers - he wants to get ahead of the curve.
But his arguments about national security [he started with a slide of Al Qaeda terrorists] seem to be contradicted by other parts of his argument, particularly when he emphasized that 50% of the "illegals" were Mexican and another large percentage were of other Central/South American heritage. I don't think that we are worried about Mexican being terrorists.
I don't really understand why people get so emotional about immigration. All non-Native Americans were once immigrants. There is some primal fear that is at work here. I can't help but believe that for many it is the fear of 'the other.' This is legislation that the blatant racists can get behind and say is about "obeying the law," not race. Just because sites like Alaska Pride support this law, doesn't make it racist, but it doesn't make me feel more comfortable.
If you check websites on immigration, clearly this is a hot button issue. Is immigration the 'gay marriage' of the 2008 election? Is this one of the Republican wedge issues? Is this ordinance and the attacks on Begich over the budget part of the conservative offensive to tarnish the Deomocrats' most successful politician?
