March 11, 2007

Kids Left Behind in Immigration Raids

Associated Press, March 11, 2007

by MONICA RHOR

(03-11) 12:54 PDT HOUSTON, (AP) --

They are the hidden side of the government's stepped-up efforts to track down and deport illegal immigrants: Toddlers stranded at day care centers or handed over to ill-equipped relatives. Siblings suddenly left in charge of younger brothers and sisters.

When illegal-immigrant parents are swept up in raids on homes and workplaces, the children are sometimes left behind — a complication that underscores the difficulty in enforcing immigration laws against people who have put down roots and begun raising families in the U.S.

Three million American-born children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant; one in 10 American families has mixed immigration status, meaning at least one member is an immigrant here illegally, according to the Pew Center for Hispanic Research and the office of U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano. Children born in the U.S. are automatically American citizens and are not subject to deportation.

This past week in Massachusetts, most of the 361 workers picked up in a raid at a New Bedford leather-goods factory that made vests and backpacks for the U.S. military were women with children, setting off what Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick called a "humanitarian crisis."

Community activists scrambled to locate the children, offer infant-care tips to fathers unfamiliar with warming formula and changing diapers, and gather donations of baby supplies. One baby who was breast-feeding had to be hospitalized for dehydration because her mother remained in detention, authorities said.

Child-care arrangements had to be made for at least 35 youngsters.

Officials of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement division released at least 60 of the workers who were sole caregivers to children, but more than 200 were sent to detention centers in Texas and New Mexico.

"What is going to happen to the children? These children are American-born," said Helena Marques, executive director of the Immigrant Assistance Center in New Bedford. "There are hundreds of children out there without their moms, in tremendous need. These babies have become the victims of a problem that legislators can't seem to fix."

One mother was located in Texas after her 7-year-old child called a state hot line set up to help reunite the families, authorities said. The Massachusetts governor said the woman would be returned to Massachusetts.

Massachusetts sent 37 social workers to Texas on Saturday to interview some of the women under arrest. Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary JudyAnn Bigby said the parents must be interviewed to make sure their youngsters are staying with responsible adults.

Authorities said some of the women might be so afraid their youngsters will be taken away that they have refused to disclose they have children.

ICE officials defended their handling of the raid, saying ICE made arrangements in advance with social service agencies to care for the children. ICE spokesman Marc Raimondi said all immigrants arrested by ICE are interviewed to determine if they are the sole parent of their children. ICE then can grant humanitarian releases, as they did in 60 cases in Massachusetts.

"We can only base our response by what we are learning by (the state Department of Social Services). What DSS has told us is they are not aware of any child who was left in an inappropriate or risky setting, nor have they had to put any child in foster care," Raimondi said.

As for the parents' ultimate fate, being a single parent or the family breadwinner offers no special protection against deportation, said another ICE spokesman, Mike Keegan.

"They made a decision to come into the country illegally," he said. "It's hard to believe that someone would not know of the consequences when they get caught."

U.S. Rep. William Delahunt said Sunday there would be a Congressional investigation into the raid.

Many of the New Bedford children are in the care of friends or relatives, who are juggling families and jobs of their own. One woman, who asked not to be identified for fear it would put her family in greater legal jeopardy, is looking after the three children of her sister, one of the workers detained in the raid. The children's father and another sister take turns watching the children.

"My sister calls every morning asking about her children," the woman said in Spanish. "She is usually a happy person, but now she is so depressed because she is separated from them, and they are so small."

Two of the children, 4-year-old Angel and 1-year-old Amanda, are U.S. citizens. A 17-year-old came with his mother from Guatemala. Their mother, who came to the United States 10 years ago, has worked in the factory for two years.

"The children go to sleep crying and asking for their mother. They feel her absence," the woman said. "And we can do is wait and wait, and hope they don't deport her."

Under pressure to crack down on illegal immigrants, ICE has intensified enforcement activity around the country. The efforts have yielded results — since last May, one particular crackdown, called Operation Return to Sender, has snared 13,000 people, while other federal initiatives have caught thousands of others. But the raids have led to a growing outcry from immigrant advocates and activists who say thousands of families are being split apart.

After nearly 1,300 people were arrested in December in raids at Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in Texas, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah, community activists reported hearing of scores of children left on their own. Swift donated $300,000 to United Way agencies to help the families affected by the raids.

Since the December raids hit the Swift plant at Greeley, Colo., Catholic Charities in Denver has provided assistance to about 160 families or individuals, said Ernie Giron, the charity's vice president for mission and ministry. That has included rent or mortgage checks, helping with utility bills, and providing phone and grocery store gift cards.

Giron said the number of people seeking aid has begun to drop from its peak in mid-February. "But a number of families are still hanging on just trying to get through until they have to make some kind of life choice in terms of which way they're going," he said.

In Houston, a newly formed coalition of community groups, churches and advocacy organizations is scrambling to help dozens of families struggling to stay afloat after a husband or wife was taken away. And residents of an apartment complex in Houston that has been raided several times have formed an emergency child care network, which jumps in to care for children left alone by a deported parent.

"The Department of Homeland Security is just carrying out the law they have to carry out. Under the law, there is no legal basis for considering the rights of families. Congress may have to act for that to change," Urban Institute demographer Randolph Capps said.

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., is sponsoring a bill now before the House Judiciary Committee that would give immigration judges more discretion in weighing the effect on families when deporting an illegal immigrant.

But any immigration reform legislation will probably have a tough time passing Congress in the current political climate, said Bob Stein, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston.

"Immigration reform seemed like something Democrats and Republicans could agree on, but partisan fighting and the presidential campaigns make it hard for any candidate to carry the battle," he said.

Until 1996, immigration judges were allowed to consider family hardship when deciding whether to deport legal residents charged with certain crimes. That changed under an immigration reform law.

Luissana Santibanez, a 23-year-old student at the University of Texas in Austin, has been taking care of three younger siblings while their mother, Sergia, held in a Houston immigration detention center for nearly 18 months, fights deportation.

Sergia Santibanez, a legal resident for more than 15 years, was ordered deported after she served four months behind bars for transporting illegal immigrants. She said the illegal immigrants were three friends who asked for a ride, and that she didn't know their immigration status and never asked.

"The hardest thing is that my children are suffering and I can't do anything about it," Sergia, who worked in a factory and cleaned houses before her arrest, said by telephone from the detention center. "This will destroy their future."

Luissana has been supporting her two brothers and one sister on food stamps and student grants. All are U.S. citizens.

"As a country, we should not put our youngest citizens at risk of hunger, homelessness and living without parents," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "Our immigration system has to be squared with values.

March 9, 2007

Hearings Set for Transferred C.I.A. Detainees

Reuters, March 9, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. military officials will start hearings on Friday for 14 prisoners transferred to Guantanamo Bay from secret CIA jails, including the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Reporters will not be allowed at the hearings at the prison camp in Cuba and will have to rely on edited transcripts, defence officials said on Tuesday, citing concerns that the suspects could reveal sensitive security information.

"I think everybody recognizes that these individuals are unique for the role that they have played in terrorist operations and in combat operations against U.S. forces,'' Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters.

A rights group condemned the hearings, which are also closed to defence lawyers, as "sham tribunals'' and complained that they could consider evidence obtained through coercion.

The 14 suspects were transferred to Guantanamo Bay from overseas CIA prisons in September.

They include Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and an Indonesian man known as Hambali, who is accused of planning the 2002 bombings that killed more than 200 people in Bali, Indonesia.

The Pentagon also announced that the latest annual reviews of every detainee's case had identified 55 inmates who could be transferred to their home countries.

AWAITING TRANSFER

The prison camp at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay holds about 385 suspects accused of fighting for al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated Islamist militant movements.

Indefinite detention and allegations of mistreatment at Guantanamo, which the U.S. military denies, have tarnished the image of the United States abroad. Many countries, including U.S. allies, have called for the camp to be closed.

More than 80 inmates are now awaiting transfer while the United States tries to work out arrangements with their home nations, the Pentagon says.

Lawyers for some of the Guantanamo prisoners said in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that the suspects had been unlawfully detained for more than five years and deserved at least a hearing to challenge their confinement.

The hearings due to begin at Guantanamo on Friday, known as Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), are to determine whether the 14 suspects should be designated enemy combatants. Such hearings were not previously closed to outside observers.

The Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents one of the 14, Pakistani national Majid Khan, condemned the hearings and complained that their client had not had access to a defence lawyer.

"Any suggestion that Khan's CSRT proceedings would comport with our values and traditional notions of justice is demeaning to all Americans,'' the New York-based rights group said.

"We might expect this in Libya or China, but not America.''

U.S. officials suspect Khan has had links with alleged September 11 mastermind Mohammed, according to Khan's Pakistani lawyer.

The hearings take place before a three-member panel of military officers. The Pentagon said it would release a transcript of each hearing together with an unclassified summary of the case against the suspect.

"The transcript of the proceedings will have to be redacted for any matters of national security,'' Whitman said.

Defence officials did not intend to release the name of the inmate under review in the transcript but, following complaints from reporters, said they would reconsider that plan.

March 6, 2007

U.S. Issues Annual Human Rights Report

New York Times, March 6, 2007

By BRIAN KNOWLTON

WASHINGTON, March 6 — The State Department declared today that the genocide in Darfur is the world’s gravest human rights abuse. It also issued tough critiques of Iran and North Korea, despite recent diplomatic openings to both nations.

The department, in its annual rights report, chastised Russia and China for a range of shortcomings, and it did not spare the governments the Bush administration supports in Afghanistan and Iraq from severe assessments. The rights report also castigated Pakistan, an American ally in the fight against terrorism, for multiple rights failures.

Unusually, the State Department acknowledged in the report that the United States, too, had fallen short of international standards in its handling of terrorist suspects. “Our democratic system of government is not infallible, but it is accountable,” the report said.

Barry Lowenkron, the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor matters, told reporters today: “We recognize that we are issuing this report at a time when our own record, and actions we have taken to respond to the terrorist attacks against us, have been questioned. We will continue to respond to the concerns of others.”

Amnesty International welcomed the new candor today. But its executive director for the United States, Larry Cox, said that “until the United States changes its own policies of holding detainees indefinitely, in secret prisons and without basic rights, it cannot credibly be viewed as a world human rights leader.”

The report listed a series of “sobering realities” affecting rights in countries including Russia and China. But it called genocide “the most sobering reality of all.”

“The Sudanese government and government-backed Janjaweed militia bear responsibility for the genocide in Darfur,” the department said.

An estimated 200,000 people have died as a result of the turmoil in Darfur, a region in western Sudan. The report cited “serious abuses, including widespread killing of civilians, rape as a tool of war, systematic torture, robbery and recruitment of child soldiers.”

Two senior American diplomats — Mr. Lowenkron and Andrew Natsios, the special envoy for Sudan — are scheduled to visit Khartoum in the next week, where they are each expected to meet with President Omar al-Bashir.

American diplomats are also due to meet with Iranian envoys soon at multinational talks on that country’s nuclear program. The report found that an already poor human rights record had worsened in Iran in the last year.

The report devoted 44 pages to Iraq, dealing largely with the dynamics of the continuing violence there.

As in last year’s report, serious accusations were leveled of extensive police involvement in disappearances and torture of prisoners in Iraq. Corruption was said found to be widespread at “all levels of government.”

Death squads affiliated with the Interior Ministry “targeted Sunnis and conducted kidnapping raids and killings in Baghdad and its environs, largely with impunity,” the report said.

The rights situation in Afghanistan was also said to have remained poor — violence there increased sharply last year — but the nation’s police were being more closely monitored and better trained, the department found.

The North Korean record also remained poor, the report said, including reports of executions of political prisoners and government opponents. American diplomats are meeting in New York this week with envoys from North Korea to disuss normalizing relations, an outgrowth of a six-nation agreement intended to halt the North’s nuclear weapons program.

Asked whether human rights issues would be part of the negotiations flowing from that agreement, Mr. Lowenkron said he would find it “inconceivable” if they were not.

A sweeping array of Russian abuses was noted, including the “contract-style killings of pro-reform Central Bank Deputy Chairman Andrei Kozlov and journalist Anna Politkovskaya,” as well as “political pressure on the judiciary,” corruption and “alleged government involvement in politically motivated abductions, disappearances, and unlawful killings in Chechnya and elsewhere.”

China’s record, the report said, included increased high-profile cases of harassment, detention or imprisonment of journalists, activists and defense lawyers and a tightening of restrictions on free expression. There were reports of extrajudicial killings, torture and the use of forced labor.

“Against the backdrop of 30 years, they certainly have made progress,” Mr. Lowenkron said of China, but “against the backdrop of last year, I am disappointed.”

Problems noted in Pakistan included including extrajudicial killings, torture, and an increase in disappearances of activists and political opponents.

The State Department also took note in the report of progress by some countries, notably Liberia, where the new government of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf moved to rehabilitate the justice system and oust corrupt officials; Morocco, where the government was dealing increasingly actively with rights complaints; Congo, which held its first democratic elections in decades; and Ukraine, which last March held parliamentary elections deemed “the freest in 15 years of independence.”

March 5, 2007

New Haven Welcomes a Booming Population of Immigrants, Legal or Not

New York Times, March 5, 2007

By JENNIFER MEDINA

NEW HAVEN, March 1 — The people have been arriving here for years from Mexico, Guatemala, Jamaica and Ecuador, some staying just a few months, but more settling in for years.

The way Mayor John DeStefano saw it, there were basically two choices: City officials could look the other way, as if the change were not happening, or they could embrace the transformation, doing whatever was possible to welcome the newcomers.

For now, this city is marching steadily toward becoming a safe haven for immigrants — whether they are in the country legally or not.

The Police Department has adopted a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding citizenship status. City Hall is sponsoring workshops to help illegal immigrants file federal income taxes. And this summer, New Haven plans to allow illegal immigrants to apply for municipal identification cards, in what immigration advocates describe as the first program of its type in the nation.

City officials and immigrant-rights advocates hope these and other initiatives will make immigrants feel more comfortable dealing with life’s bureaucratic necessities — and make them less wary of the police. Officials say the decisions are more pragmatic than ideological, even in this overwhelmingly liberal city of 125,000, where advocates estimate that 3,000 to 5,000 illegal immigrants live in Fair Haven, New Haven’s predominantly Latino neighborhood.

“It stems from a simple central fact that when you’ve got a lot of people living in one place, you have to have certain rules for stability,” Mr. DeStefano said. “You have this population that works hard and lives among us as neighbors; we ought to know who they are. The last thing you want is them not to talk to City Hall because they are afraid of us.”

New Haven’s welcoming policies have, in many ways, trickled down from larger cities like New York, Los Angeles and Houston, but stand in sharp contrast to the expanding crackdown on immigrants announced last week in Suffolk County on Long Island.

Saying that illegal immigrants were hurting Long Island’s economy and quality of life, Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive, called for antiloitering legislation to clear day laborers off the streets; vowed to enforce a county law penalizing businesses for hiring illegal immigrants; and welcomed federal immigration officials into the local jail to speed deportation of those who are arrested.

At the same time, immigrant groups in New Jersey are working with Hackensack, Paterson and other places to pass resolutions prohibiting the police or other city officials from questioning residents about their immigration status, joining Newark and Trenton in becoming so-called sanctuary cities.

As more immigrants have bypassed larger cities in favor of smaller cities and towns on the outer rings of urban areas, local governments are increasingly torn by questions like how building inspectors should handle overcrowded apartments and whether garbage collection and other services can be denied based on immigration status.

The issue seems less fraught with tension in New Haven, the home of Yale University and long a hub of liberal social movements. When Mayor DeStefano floated the idea of municipal ID cards here in late 2005, the news ricocheted on conservative talk radio shows, but there were no protests on the steps of City Hall or major outcries from residents.

Indeed, the city had been under pressure to formalize a longstanding policy that police officers would not ask for the immigration status of a person who reported a crime.

Police and city officials have long worried that immigrants had become targets for robbery because they often get paid in cash and carry large sums of money; some said that immigrants were viewed as “walking A.T.M.’s” because they were easy victims who probably would not report crimes for fear of deportation. Indeed, there were several instances in which robbery victims went to community centers for help rather than risk calling the police.

Even if confrontations with the police are isolated exceptions, reports and rumors of them ripple quickly through the immigrant community, which is centered in the Fair Haven neighborhood north of downtown.

“It’s simple. There are some police who want to help, who just want to get the criminals, and there are others who want to cause trouble and scare us,” Pedro Martinez, who has lived in Fair Haven for three years, said in Spanish. “We try to tell each other where it’s safe to walk, which are the good officers, but it’s not always right.”

Mr. Martinez said that he and his friends knew about the Police Department’s new policy, but that it was too soon to tell how much of a difference it would make.

Still, there were signs of reluctance in some quarters. When the Police Department moved to put its longstanding policy into writing, police union officials worried they could be held liable by the federal government. After the city had an immigration lawyer assure them that they were not legally obliged to go after civil law violations, the union said it would back the policy, but some doubters remain.

“Everybody is looking at this as if we were just one big happy family or as if we live in ‘Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood,’ but that’s not the case,” said Louis Cavalier, the police union president. “These are people who are breaking the law; when they find them they should put them in the car and ship them back home. Instead, you have people calling their relatives and saying, ‘Hey, come here, where it’s safe.’ ”

Immigration experts doubt a city’s policies could affect an immigrant’s destination more than, say, where relatives live or jobs can be found, but there is at least tacit acknowledgment here that there is political will to try things in New Haven that would be shunned in more conservative communities.

City officials essentially shelved plans for municipal identification cards while Mr. DeStefano was running as the Democratic candidate for governor, though he said he rarely heard complaints about them while campaigning.

Late last year, he hired Kica Matos, the former director of Junta for Progressive Action, an immigration advocacy and community center, as community affairs director at City Hall, and Ms. Matos plans to put several immigrant-friendly policies into effect, including the identification cards.

Like most states, Connecticut requires proof of legal citizenship or residency for driver’s licenses, making it nearly impossible for most illegal immigrants to have an official identification card to use in banks, bars or when dealing with the police.

Though other cities have long distributed identification cards for particular city services, like borrowing books from the library, this would be the first to be issued for general use.

There are still several kinks to be ironed out, including how to encourage legal residents to get the card so that it does not become a de facto scarlet letter for those here illegally. But officials are optimistic that children, Yale students and supportive New Haven residents will sign up; they have also considered asking local businesses to offer some kind of discount for those with the card.

“We know that there is interest from the immigrant community for something like this and that the need for an ID outweighs the potential nervousness about not wanting anyone to know who you are,” said Michael Wishnie, a law professor at Yale who has lobbied the city for immigrant-friendly policies.

For example, Professor Wishnie said, thousands of illegal immigrants have signed up for an individual taxpayer identification number with the Internal Revenue Service, which allows them to pay federal taxes. Many immigrants believe that filing taxes will allow them to prove that they have been working, law-abiding residents if they are eventually considered for citizenship.

This year, for the first time, the city used several workers to recruit immigrants to its low-income tax counseling program. Junta, the primary community agency running the program, has had dozens of applicants come through its doors in the last month.

Maria, who asked that her last name not be used, was fairly typical of the applicants. She said she had lived in the United States for eight years and had always had a job — sometimes for cash, sometimes for a check. As she sat down with a Junta tax counselor, she pulled out W-2 forms for each of the last five years, detailing how much money she had made in her job at a laundry.

“Can I pay for all of these years?” Maria asked, seemingly eager to send the government any money she might owe.

When the counselor replied that she would do the 2006 forms first, and then could do the last three years, Maria looked down at the stack of papers.

“See, this is what I hope,” she said a few minutes later, motioning to her young son sitting next to her. “That if I pay, I can do what they want me to do and become a citizen like my children.”

March 4, 2007

Inmates Will Replace Migrants in Colorado Fields

New York Times, March 4, 2007

By DAN FROSCH

DENVER, March 3 — As migrant laborers flee Colorado because of tough new immigration restrictions, worried farmers are looking to prisoners to fill their places in the fields.

In a pilot program run by the state Corrections Department, supervised teams of low-risk inmates beginning this month will be available to harvest the swaths of sweet corn, peppers and melons that sweep the southeastern portion of the state.

Under the program, which has drawn criticism from groups concerned about immigrants’ rights and from others seeking changes in the criminal justice system, farmers will pay a fee to the state, and the inmates, who volunteer for the work, will be paid about 60 cents a day, corrections officials said.

Concerned about the possible shortage of field labor, Dorothy B. Butcher, a state representative from Pueblo and a supporter of the program, said, “The workers on these farms do the weeding, the harvesting, the storing, everything that comes with growing crops for the market.”

“If we can’t sustain our work force, we’re going to be in trouble,” said Ms. Butcher, a Democrat.

The program will make its debut in Pueblo County, where farmers have been hit hard by the labor shortage. Frank Sobolik, director of a Colorado State University extension program that works with farmers in Pueblo County, said he expected that about half of the 300 migrant workers employed by area farms might not return this season.

“There’s a feeling, a perception that these laborers won’t be back because it’s safer for them to find work in other states,” Mr. Sobolik said. “The farmers are really concerned. These are high-value crops we’re talking about here with a high labor requirement.”

Last year, the Colorado General Assembly passed tough legislation that included giving local law enforcement broader powers to check immigration status and restricting access to social services for workers without proper documentation.

The Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition estimates that there are 150,000 illegal immigrants in Colorado, many of them involved in agriculture. Migrant workers typically travel here from Mexico, Texas and New Mexico for the crop season, where their labor can last from May through the late fall, before returning home to their families. But those numbers could soon be reduced drastically, as workers who are in the country illegally are unwilling to risk exposing their status.

Joe Pisciotta Jr., who owns a 700-acre produce farm in Pueblo County, said he had about 20 workers and expected to lose half of them. Mr. Pisciotta, a third-generation farmer, worried that such a reduction would undercut his ability to supply buyers with the watermelons, onions and pumpkins he grows.

“It’s very frustrating,” he said. “I’m definitely going to lose customers. We’ve never had an issue like this. With all of us trying to get enough workers on our farms, I’m worried this is going to turn into farmer against farmer.”

Although chain gangs and prison farms have long been staples of American correctional culture, the concept of inmates working on private farms is unusual. But there are signs that other states are following suit. The Iowa Department of Corrections is considering a similar program because of a migrant labor shortage in that state.

Several Iowa farmers called recently to request inmates in lieu of migrant workers, said Roger Baysden, the director of the state’s prison industries program. One farmer asked for as many as 200 inmates, Mr. Baysden said.

In Colorado, Ms. Butcher said she hoped that the program, which could send up to 100 inmates to Pueblo County farmers, would remedy a situation that might otherwise turn into an economic disaster.

Immigrant rights group, however, said the Colorado program was myopic.

“Many immigrants are leaving Colorado for other states that will actually embrace their contributions as good citizens and hard workers,” said Julien Ross, state coordinator for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. “This exodus from Colorado has profound negative consequences on our economy and the very fabric of our society.”

Mr. Ross said his group was organizing a weeklong boycott of Colorado businesses beginning March 25 to demonstrate the workers’ impact on the regional economy.

A group calling for changes in sentencing, the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, is also uneasy about the program. The group views the inmates’ pay as problematic.

“This feels like the re-invention of the plantation,” said Christie Donner, the group’s executive director. “You have a captive labor force essentially working for their room and board in order to benefit the employer. This isn’t a job training program. It’s an exploitative program.”

But Ari Zavaras, executive director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, said the merit of a hard day’s work outdoors was invaluable to an inmate.

“They won’t be paid big bucks, but we’re hoping this will help our inmates pick up significant and valuable job skills,” Mr. Zavaras said. “We’re also assisting farmers who, if they don’t get help, are facing an inability to harvest their crops.”

With the start of the farming season looming, Colorado’s farmers are scrambling to figure out which crops to sow and in what quantity. Some are considering turning to field corn, which is mechanically harvested. And they are considering whether they want to pay for an urban inmate who could not single out a ripe watermelon or discern between a weed and an onion plant.

“This is not a cure-all,” Mr. Pisciotta said. “What our farm laborers do is a skill. They’re born with it, and they’re good at it. It’s not an easy job.”

March 2, 2007

Australian Charged Under New Terror Law

Associated Press, March 2, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Australian man imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay by the United States is the first terror-war suspect to face prosecution under a new system of military tribunals and could spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted.

The Bush administration charged David Hicks, a 31-year old former kangaroo skinner captured in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on Thursday with providing material support for terrorism.

In Australia, Hicks' lawyer and family accused the United States of tailoring the charges against him to fit his actions and said there was no way he would receive a fair trial.

Hicks was not charged with attempted murder, as had earlier been recommended by military prosecutors.

Maj. Michael Mori, Hicks' Pentagon-appointed lawyer, said Friday that dropping the attempted murder charge revealed a lack of evidence against his client, and that the material support for the terrorism charge was unfair because it did not exist under the laws of war when Hicks was alleged to have committed it.

''The United States administration -- this military commission -- is fabricating offenses, they're trying to apply them retroactively to David,'' Mori told Australian Broadcasting Corp.

''It's disgusting that he has spent five years in Guantanamo for made-up charges,'' Mori, who is visiting Australia, told reporters later.

Hicks' father, Terry Hicks, complained the military commission would ''not be a fair process'' because hearsay evidence and statements made under coercion would be accepted.

The case has attracted wide attention in the United States and abroad and could become the one that opponents of the new military tribunal system use to challenge the system at the Supreme Court. Opponents of the military commissions say they are illegal because they do not afford many legal rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

''It all seems to be an intermingling of politics and pressure,'' said Jumana Musa, advocacy director for Amnesty International. ''But none of it screams to me to be in the interest of justice.''

Proponents of the new system say they expect the federal courts to rule in favor of the military commissions.

''I trust the system to judge Mr. Hicks fairly,'' said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a co-sponsor of the commissions legislation. ''It's long overdue this case be brought forward.''

Australia, a steadfast U.S. ally in the war on terror, has been pressuring the White House to return Hicks to his native country. But that apparently wouldn't come until after a trial, at Guantanamo.

Last month, Sandra Hodgkinson, the State Department's deputy director for war crimes issues, told reporters that ''it's certainly believed that Mr. Hicks may be able to carry out his incarceration, after the appeals process is complete, in Australia.''

President Bush and Congress established the new legal system last fall. Lawmakers set up the tribunals after the Supreme Court ruled an older version established by Bush was unconstitutional because it lacked Congress' blessing and violated international agreements.

There are an estimated 385 detainees remaining at the Guantanamo prison in Cuba. None of the men held there on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban has ever gone to trial.

Hicks was among 10 detainees who had been charged with crimes under the earlier law that the court struck down. Then, he had been charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy.

Another of the 10 was Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen, whose case ended up being the one the Supreme Court used to throw out the previous tribunal system.

According to Pentagon documents, Hicks went to Afghanistan in January 2001 to attend al-Qaida terrorist training camps. He also traveled to the southern city of Kandahar, the former Taliban stronghold, and stayed in an al-Qaida guest house where he met ''shoe bomber'' Richard Reid and other al-Qaida associates.

The Pentagon says that for about a year starting around December 2000, Hicks provided ''support or resources to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, an act of terrorism'' and that he ''knew or intended'' for the support to be used for terrorism.

Last month, military prosecutors recommended that Hicks be charged with attempted murder for fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan and with providing support for terrorism.

On Thursday, Susan Crawford, the head of the military commissions, formally charged Hicks only with providing material support for terrorism.

The Pentagon announcement did not explain why the attempted murder charge was dropped. But a package of talking points written for officials to answer questions on the announcement suggested Crawford didn't believe the evidence warranted it.

------

Associated Press writer Rod McGuirk in Canberra, Australia, contributed to this report.

February 6, 2007

Freed Prisoner: "I just thank God."

San Jose Mercury News, February 6, 2007

By FREDRIC N. TULSKY

A grateful San Jose man walked free on Monday after five years in prison, as prosecutors concluded they no longer are certain that he committed the 2001 robbery for which he was serving a potential life sentence.

"I just thank God,'' said Jeffrey Rodriguez, 29, emerging from the San Jose main jail to waiting family members. Rodriguez won his freedom after officials in the district attorney's office elected to drop charges against him, amid increasing indications that he had been wrongly convicted of robbing an employee behind a San Jose auto parts store in December 2001.

The doubts grew as a new laboratory examination cast doubt on a witness's earlier conclusion that Rodriguez's jeans were stained with a mixture of oils that probably had come from the scene. Investigators also re-enacted part of the crime, and that exercise heightened concerns that the victim's identification of Rodriguez -- the heart of the original prosecution -- was mistaken.

The new evidence was developed as the district attorney's office prepared to retry Rodriguez, whose 2003 conviction was overturned by the 6th District Court of Appeal last June.

At times during his years in prison, Rodriguez said Monday, he felt as though "I had just been put under a rock and kept there.'' But, he said, "I knew in my heart that one day I would be vindicated.''

Poor lawyering

Rodriguez's case was highlighted last March in the series "Tainted Trials, Stolen Justice,'' as an example of how questionable conduct by prosecutors, judges or defense attorneys can increase the small but significant risk of wrongful conviction. The case illustrated a recurring but unfortunate combination: Poor lawyering, coupled with a prosecution built on eyewitness identification, can often lead to wrongful convictions.

Rodriguez was arrested the day after the robbery when the victim, an assistant manager at Kragen auto parts, thought he recognized Rodriguez as the two stood in line at a Department of Motor Vehicles branch. Police discovered that Rodriguez had been released from prison days earlier after a previous robbery conviction, and he was arrested and charged.

At trial, the jury voted 11-1 in favor of acquitting Rodriguez, after his defense attorney, Paul Raj Gideon, aggressively challenged the prosecution and introduced evidence from family members that Rodriguez was with them at the time of the incident.

Prosecutors chose to retry Rodriguez, and in April 2003, Rodriguez was convicted and sentenced as a "three strikes, you're out'' defendant to 25-years to life in prison. The family had run out of money for Rodriguez's defense, and Gideon significantly curtailed his effort.

The 6th District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction last June based upon its finding that Gideon's performance violated Rodriguez's right to an adequate defense and undermined confidence in the trial's outcome.

Preparing for a third trial, the district attorney's office lost faith in the case. As Assistant District Attorney David Tomkins said Monday, "We felt there was a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Rodriguez's guilt, and we were prepared to resolve those doubts in his favor.''

Said Irma Castillo, the appellate lawyer who first raised the concerns about the case before the state appeals court: "I'm just so happy for Jeffrey. I'm just sorry it took so long for justice to be done.''

There were always questions about the identification of Rodriguez by Carmelo Ramirez, the victim of the robbery, which became increasingly evident as the case developed.

Rodriguez was not cleanshaven, as Ramirez initially told police; he was taller than the initial description. Initially, Ramirez testified that the suspect wore a hooded sweatshirt. But at the second trial, he testified that he recognized a leather jacket police confiscated from Rodriguez as matching a jacket worn by the robber.

Extensive review

Deputy public defender Andy Gutierrez, working with an intern from the Northern California Innocence Project, developed these and other discrepancies in an extensive review of Ramirez's statements.

At the original trial, defense attorney Gideon presented nine witnesses that included several family members who testified that Rodriguez was at home, playing video games with his son. Gideon also presented an expert on eyewitness identification.

On retrial, Gideon did not call those witnesses. He also failed to obtain the transcript from the first trial, which deputy defender Gutierrez said Monday was necessary to fully detail the discrepancies in Ramirez's testimony from one trial to the next.

In December, Gutierrez and Deputy District Attorney David Pandori -- who both had been assigned the case after the conviction was overturned -- conducted a re-enactment where a suspect wore the jacket to see how it appeared on the same auto parts store's video surveillance.

Gutierrez said Monday that the image from the re-enactment did not match the image taken of the robbery -- making it apparent the robber was not wearing Rodriguez's jacket.

At the earlier trials, Deputy District Attorney John Luft had relied on the testimony of Santa Clara crime lab examiner Mark Moriyama that Rodriguez's pants contained a stain including both motor oil and cooking oil -- a combination that Luft contended would have come from the oils splashed on the loading dock. But Friday, as he announced the office was dropping charges, Pandori provided Gutierrez with the report of a state Department of Justice laboratory that concluded "no foreign chemicals/oils were detected in the stain.''

Pandori on Monday referred all questions to Tomkins, who said that he had specifically reassigned the case to Pandori to offer a fresh look at the evidence. "That's just his MO,'' Tomkins said, referring to modus operandi -- his way of working. "He's a creative, bright, guy.''

Rebuilding life

Asked what he will do now, Rodriguez said: "A lot was taken from me. My son is 9, and I haven't been there for him. I look forward to rebuilding that relationship.''

As Rodriguez walked from the jail with his mother and sister, attorney Gutierrez said, "Whatever happened in the last five years, he has got such support that I feel hopeful he is not going to become a statistic,'' doomed to return to prison.

Gutierrez said the case of Rodriguez was only the latest in a series he has handled of suspects who appear wrongly charged, and added, "It makes you wonder how often this happens.''

February 13 , 2007

CNN, Lee Give Katrina Survivors Cameras

Associated Press, February 13, 2007

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Spike Lee handed video cameras to New Orleans area high school students and told them to capture their lives in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina for the world to see.

''Let them know what's happening down here, that everything isn't okey-dokey,'' said Lee, who directed ''When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts,'' a four-hour documentary chronicling the Katrina disaster.

The teens' footage will air monthly as part of a special CNN series ''Children of the Storm.'' The first segment, in which Lee and host Soledad O'Brien handed cameras to 11 students, aired Friday morning.

The series will run until the second anniversary of Katrina in August.

Students will document how the hurricane affected their lives and neighborhoods while also sharing their thoughts about the city's recovery and their future in New Orleans, O'Brien said.

''You're doing this for the world,'' Lee said in the first segment. ''Remember it's not just for yourself.''

The students were told to document the trials of post-Katrina life, as well as the triumphs, said O'Brien, co-host of CNN's ''American Morning.'' Students will be given general topics to discuss including family, their neighborhoods and crime.

''We picked kids who represented a lot of different parts of the city,'' she said. ''We really wanted to get a good cross-section.''

Lee's role is to inspire the students, she said.

''I wanted him to explain to them, 'This is how you tell your life, and this is what you think about,''' O'Brien said. ''We'll be telling their story, while they're telling their story.''

February 20, 2007

High Profile Raids Leave Immigrants Across U.S. Living in Fear

Associated Press, February 20, 2007

RICHMOND, California: Fear has gripped immigrant families across the United States as federal agents raid neighborhoods, work sites and jails in a nationwide crackdown on illegal immigration.

Tens of thousands of people have been rounded up over the past several months, and many more are afraid to leave home, answer a knock on the door or leave their children alone in fear they might be next. Churches and community groups are stepping in with legal advice and financial aid for families split up or left without an income because of the sweeps.

"My kids are asking me, 'Why is this happening, mommy? Why did they take uncle away?'" said Dinora Sanchez, whose uncle was taken by immigration officials in January while riding his bike to a construction job in this low-income city northeast of San Francisco. "I'm afraid. There are no explanations I can give them."

From California to Connecticut, federal officials have launched a full-scale offensive to find and deport illegal immigrants. It's part of a two-pronged approach, said Virginia Kice, spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: secure the nation's borders while stepping up enforcement within.

"We're attacking these issues on multiple fronts," she said. "It's definitely a priority now."

Documented immigrants like Sanchez, a native of Mexico, have nothing to fear, said Kice. But her uncle, who had been in the U.S. illegally for 10 years and did not have work authorization, was an obvious target.

"People who are in this country complying with our immigration laws have no reason to be concerned," Kice said.

Groups supporting a reduction in immigration have praised the shift toward more aggressive enforcement. "Enforcement actions like these play an enormous role in deterrence," said Steven Camarota, of the conservative think tank Center for Immigration Studies.

But many immigrants and their advocates say it's splitting families and hurting the legal relatives of immigrants who crossed the border illegally, as well as their co-workers, employers and the businesses that serve them.

"We have to stop this reign of terror," said Mark Silverman, director of immigration policy at San Francisco's Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Since launching "Operation Return to Sender" last May, Immigration and Customs has rounded up nearly 14,000 immigrants who entered the country illegally or were ignoring a judge's deportation order.

"They make a mockery of the system," Kice said, "and send the wrong message to those who follow the orders."

Some 4,400 others were rounded up in large-scale job site investigations, including immigrants working without proper authorization and those who hired them. More than 700 of those face criminal charges, including hiring illegal immigrants.

Searches of state and local jails over the past seven months identified another 5,500 immigrants who committed crimes, ensuring they'd go into custody of Immigration and Customs when they finished their sentences.

In one of the biggest sweeps so far, Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in six states were raided in December, resulting in the arrests of 1,282 immigrant workers. One of those plants was in Marshalltown, Iowa, where Mexican immigrant Juan Padilla runs a western clothing store. He says he went from selling $5,000 (€3,810) a month worth of cowboy boots, hats and slim-cut jeans last year, to just $600 (€460) in January.

His wife, who wasn't authorized to work, lost her job at the meatpacking plant and is awaiting a court hearing. Padilla is wondering how they'll be able to support their five American-born children.

"I want my children to go to school, to have better opportunities, so they don't end up cutting meat 14 hours a day," he said. "But what can we do? Where do we go from here? I just don't know."

The enforcement action hit the growing immigrant community in the town of about 26,000 hard. More than 30 children were pulled from the school system, presumably by families who decided to leave the area.

Parents were "frightened that the immigration officials were going to come to school and take their children," said Thomas Renze, principal of Woodbury Elementary in Marshalltown.

Sister Christine Feagan, director of Hispanic ministry at St. Mary Catholic Church, agreed that the raids have been particularly hard on children, whether they're legal or not.

"You can't explain the difference to a second or third grader," she said.

As enforcement actions unfurl across the country, churches and other community organizations have been a key source of support and aid to families.

The Colorado faith-based group Congregations Building Community made sure the children of parents detained during raids didn't go home to empty houses after school, and is helping families who lost jobs pay bills through the winter.

Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Community Organization, a coalition of 25 congregations in Northern California, protested the enforcement actions and rallied local officials to support immigrants.

Dozens of other organizations are taking donations, giving legal advice, and holding community meetings in response to the large-scale effort by federal officials to detain and deport undocumented immigrants.

"Our folks are really afraid," said the Rev. Carolyn Krantz of St. Peter Martyr Church.

The raids have targeted immigrants who have committed crimes or are evading deportation orders. But if in the course of tracking them down agents come across others they suspect of being here illegally, they will question, detain and deport them if warranted, Kice said.

"It's not uncommon for us to go to a location and discover that the target moved out weeks before," she said. "But we can find other individuals there who are immigration violators."

That's what happened to two of Maria Ramos' children, who were taken from their beds in San Pablo at dawn in January. The agents had come looking for an in-law, but instead they took Ramos' 17-year-old daughter, Elvira Mendoza, and 22-year-old son Victor Mendoza.

Elvira was released into the custody of an older brother who is here legally, but Victor Mendoza was deported back to Mexico, Ramos said.

"My heart is heavy," said Ramos, 64. "My children are what I have in life. I agree with looking for criminals, but there's no need to cause us so much pain."

While groups advocating a reduction in immigration are praising the stepped-up enforcement of existing laws, people on both sides of the debate questioned whether the crackdown would have any real effect.

Those detained add up to a tiny fraction of the millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States, and for every one deported another is there to take over their vacant apartments and jobs, they said.

"It's not like this ended immigration in Greeley," said Ron Marks, director of Congregations Building Community in Greeley, Colorado. "It just changed the individuals."

February 21, 2007

Guantanamo Detainees Lose Appeal

Washington Post, February 21, 2007

By JOSH WHITE

A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that hundreds of detainees in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, do not have the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts, a victory for the Bush administration that could lead to the Supreme Court again addressing the issue.

In its 2 to 1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld one of the central components of the Military Commissions Act, the law enacted last year by a then-Republican-controlled Congress that stripped Guantanamo detainees of their right to such habeas corpus petitions. Lawyers have filed the petitions on behalf of virtually all of the nearly 400 detainees still at Guantanamo, challenging President Bush's right to hold them indefinitely without charges. Yesterday's ruling effectively dismisses the cases.

Attorneys for the detainees vowed to quickly petition the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in the majority opinion that to overrule the new law, which Bush signed in October, would "defy the will of Congress." He and Judge David B. Sentelle also found that historical interpretations of habeas corpus do not apply to foreign nationals not on U.S. soil, determining that the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay is a leased property that falls under Cuban sovereignty.

"Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these cases," Randolph wrote in the combined cases of Al Odah v. USA and Boumediene v. Bush. "Our only recourse is to vacate the district courts' decisions and dismiss the cases for lack of jurisdiction."

In a lengthy dissent, Judge Judith W. Rogers raised two central questions of constitutional law that could form the basis of arguments before the Supreme Court, if it chooses to hear the case. She wrote that the writ of habeas corpus can apply to foreign nationals outside the United States and that Congress has not properly suspended habeas corpus, something it has done only four times, including during the Civil War.

Rogers wrote that Congress may suspend that right "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it" but that Congress has not invoked that power now, adding that its actions "exceed the powers of Congress."

Justice Department lawyers have argued for years that foreign detainees should not enjoy constitutional rights when they are detained in other countries amid accusations of terrorism against the United States and its allies.

"We are pleased with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholding the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) and dismissing the consolidated Guantanamo detainee cases for lack of jurisdiction," Erik Ablin, a department spokesman, said in a statement.

Shayana Kadidal, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of Guantanamo detainees, said defense attorneys will petition the Supreme Court "as quickly as possible." He said the decision grants government officials broad latitude in its treatment of detainees and gives detainees no legal way to address it.

"This decision allows the president to basically do what he wants to prisoners without any legal limitation as long as he does it offshore," Kadidal said. He said that his clients at Guantanamo have experienced "disgust and exasperation at the American legal system" and that their "feelings of desperation" now will only grow.

Washington lawyer David Remes, who also represents Guantanamo detainees, said he is disappointed by the decision but not completely surprised. He expects the Supreme Court to hear the case.

In two decisions, the Supreme Court has upheld Guantanamo detainees' rights to contest their incarceration in federal courts. But the court also made it clear that Congress could weigh in on the issue, which it did by approving the Military Commissions Act. That law mandated special military trials for the detainees.

Douglas W. Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, said it appears that Congress clearly intended to remove the court's jurisdiction. He said, however, that questions remain about the application of habeas rights and their evolution since the late 1700s.

"We're dealing with an area that has been subject to some difficult and subtle rulings from the beginning of the foundation of our country," Kmiec said. "The law has been a moving target."

Democrats, who now hold the majority in both houses, have vowed to quickly amend the Military Commissions Act with provisions that would restore habeas rights for detainees.

Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the committee's ranking Republican, Arlen Specter (Pa.), have introduced a bill that would restore habeas corpus rights. Specter urged congressional action because the Supreme Court could take months to hear the case.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, introduced a bill last week that would return habeas corpus rights to detainees while clarifying other parts of the law. Dodd said yesterday his legislation is now "even more critical."

It is unclear whether Bush would veto such legislation, which would challenge a central element of his anti-terrorism platform.

February 22, 2007

Immigrant Advocates Blast Raids, Crackdown

San Francisco Chronicle, February 22, 2007

By TYCHE HENDRICKS

Bay Area immigrant-rights groups denounced the arrests of illegal immigrants in the region and called for immigration reforms Wednesday, while San Francisco officials reiterated the city's long-standing pledge to give sanctuary to immigrants.

Leaders of the groups, assembled at a news conference at 16th and Mission streets in San Francisco, called for an end to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's crackdown, which has resulted in the arrests of 13,000 people nationwide in the past nine months, including several hundred in the Bay Area, for immigration violations.

The agency also conducts workplace raids aimed at finding undocumented workers and penalizing their employers.

"There should be no enforcement of immigration law until we reform our immigration law, because right now there's no way for people to become legal residents," said Renee Saucedo, director of the city's Day Labor Program.

San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly told the crowd of about 50 people, that San Francisco is a "city of sanctuary," where immigrants are welcome and safe, regardless of legal status. Under the 1989 City of Refuge law, meant to protect Central American war refugees, no city employee shall use city resources "to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law" unless required by law.

Mayor Gavin Newsom also expressed concern last week about immigration raids in the city, saying, "These raids jeopardize the public health and safety of the city by instilling fear in those who may come forward to report information about a crime or those who are in need of medical treatment."

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Lori Haley said the agency's efforts, including those in San Francisco, are continuing but that the city has not been specifically targeted.

"Operation Return to Sender" tracks criminal immigrants and those who have ignored deportation orders, she said, although 80 percent of arrestees in a recent push in Contra Costa County were not targeted fugitives but undocumented immigrants whom agents encountered during the raids.

The agency also does workplace enforcement, said Haley, including a raid in the past month where nine people were arrested at Dean's Services, a warehouse off Third Street in San Francisco.

"These investigations are based on leads," said Haley. "Where possible, we prefer to bring criminal charges against those responsible for hiring."

Concerned that federal raids are causing illegal immigrants who are crime victims to avoid contacting local police, the San Francisco Police Department said last week that it does not enforce immigration law. The district attorney's office is hosting an "immigrant resource fair" Saturday to encourage crime victims to come forward, regardless of immigration status.

The San Francisco Sheriff's Department does not allow federal agents to peruse its booking records or walk through the jail looking for illegal immigrants, spokeswoman Eileen Hirst said. But the sheriff will notify immigration authorities if detainees identify themselves as undocumented, if they have previously been deported or if federal agents are seeking them, she said.

A Bay Area activist for stricter limits on immigration said the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids are necessary because immigrants place a burden on social services and the environment.

"We should enforce our immigration laws," said Yeh Ling-Ling, director of the Diversity Alliance for a Sustainable America in Oakland. "We should apply employer sanctions, which was part of the law that passed 20 years ago."

At Wednesday's news conference, Ana Pérez, director of the Central American Resource Center, said the sanctuary law is important now not for political but economic refugees. "It's no longer about political persecution but trade deals that put out of work 1.5 million peasants in Mexico," she said.

The stepped-up immigration enforcement has political origins, said John Trasviña, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, with President Bush trying to win support from Republicans for a bill that would extend legal status to some of the nation's estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants.

Some activists are taking their call for legal status directly to Washington. Several groups plan lobbying days next month, including the National Council of La Raza, the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform and Voluntarios de la Comunidad, a San Jose immigrant rights group, which will visit members of Congress in March.