Chertoff Pledges To Fight Border Security Lawsuits

Chertoff pledges to fight border security lawsuits
http://www.themonitor.com/news/border_6438___article.html/chertoff_se
curity.html

Associated Press
November 7, 2007 - 7:40AM
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
pledged Tuesday to fight all lawsuits against his efforts to secure
the border, ranging from building fences to requiring new driver's
licenses.

Chertoff blamed lawsuits like one blocking his department from using
Social Security information and another trying to prevent fence
construction on the Arizona-Mexico border as part of the reason the
federal government has had trouble getting control of the border for
the past 30 years.

"I will fight every lawsuit. I will deal with every procedural
roadblock. I will use every tool the law allows to continue to press
forward in the enforcement of laws," Chertoff said.

Chertoff conducted a multimedia presentation to give a status report
on his department's attempt to tighten immigration enforcement with
existing laws and regulations to "try to fill the gap left open by
Congress' failure to act to address the challenges comprehensively. "

He hinged some of the agency's future border security work, such as
building a total 670-mile border fence, on getting more money from
Congress.

But negotiators who drafted a compromise defense spending bill
stripped the measure of $3 billion in emergency border security
money.

The money is already in a Homeland Security Department spending bill
but President Bush is threatening to veto that measure.

The achievements Chertoff named for the fiscal year 2007 that ended
Sept. 30 include:

— Built more than 76 miles of fence, for a total of 106 miles of
pedestrian fence and 115 miles of vehicle fence on the Southwest
border.

— Hired about 15,000 agents.

— Apprehensions fell 22 percent at the U.S.-Mexican border,
indicating fewer illegal crossings.

— The number of businesses using a system that allows them to check
whether workers are legal rose from 11,474 in 2006 fiscal year to
24,463 this year.

Chertoff said the agency plans to send to the White House's Office
of Management and Budget this week proposed changes to rules for the
H2-A temporary agriculture worker program to relieve worker
shortages.

Chertoff declined to provide specifics on the proposal, but said he
is trying to "streamline some of the requirements with respect to
wages" and other requirements. He said he wants sensible changes but
also wants to keep worker protections in place.

Employers consider the H2-A program cumbersome and many hire
undocumented workers rather than use the program.

Growers and immigrant advocates had hoped Congress would pass
immigrant agricultural worker legislation known as AgJobs as part of
the farm bill.

But earlier this week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she
would not offer it as an amendment to the bill because it did not
have enough support.

Thanks to:
riograndeborderwinds
italiansun@yahoo.com

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD VOTES FOR IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD VOTES FOR IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY

Tuesday, November 5, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Marjorie Cohn, NLG President, Marjorie@tjsl.edu; 619-374-6923
Heidi Boghosian, NLG Executive Director, director@nlg.org 212-679-5100, ext. 11
James Marc Leas, NLG member who drafted the resolution, 802 864-1575 or 802 734-8811

November 5, Washington, D.C. The National Lawyers Guild voted unanimously and enthusiastically for the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney at its national convention in Washington, DC. The resolution lists more than a dozen high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush and Cheney administration and "calls upon the U.S. House of Representatives to immediately initiate impeachment proceedings, to investigate the charges, and if the investigation supports the charges, to vote to impeach George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney as provided in the Constitution of the United States of America."

The resolution provides for an NLG Impeachment Committee open to all members that will help organize and coordinate events at the local, state, and national level to build public participation in the campaign to initiate impeachment investigation, impeachment, and removal of Bush and Cheney from office without further delay.

The resolution calls on all other state and national bar associations, state and local government bodies, community organizations, labor unions, and all other citizen associations to adopt similar resolutions and to use all their resources to build the campaign demanding that Congress initiate impeachment investigation, impeach, and remove Bush and Cheney from office.

The full text of the resolution can be found at http://nlg.org/convention/2007%20Resolutions/Impeachment%20resolution.pdf

National Lawyers Guild President Marjorie Cohn said, "The war of aggression, the secret prisons, the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the use of evidence obtained by torture, and the surveillance of citizens without warrants, all initiated and carried out under the tenure of Bush and Cheney, are illegal under the U.S. Constitution and international law.”

Founded in 1937 as an alternative to the American Bar Association, which did not admit people of color, the National Lawyers Guild is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States. Its headquarters are in New York and it has chapters in every state.

# # #

Thanks to:
Bill Fulcher
fulcherbil@aol.com

VIDEO: Breaking Down The Military Industrial Complex

:r:e:p:o:s:t:e:d:

Thanks,
☆Liberate the Mind...let your Conscious be Free☆

here's a link to website that breaks it down further: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Military-industrial_complex

ARTICLE: Evo Morales Says Rich Nations Must Pay

Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, has stated that rich nations must pay in some way for the destruction and poverty they have caused on other countries through imperialism and the monopolizing of their natural resources. Morales has made history by becoming the first indigenous president in Bolivia which has an indigenous majority! Morales is also part of the socialist bloc in the Americas along with Venezuela, Ecuador, Cuba and Nicaragua.

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — The world's richest nations must be made to pay for the damage their profligate use of natural resources has caused in Bolivia and other developing countries, President Evo Morales said Friday.

"It's not possible that some in the industrialized world live very well economically while affecting, even destroying others," he told The Associated Press in an interview.

The first indigenous president of this country — whose rapidly melting glaciers scientists count among the most profound signs of global warming — said he and other Latin American leaders were exploring possible legal means for demanding compensation for the developed world's "ecological debt."

"If there is understanding, that would be great. But if not, there will have to be international legal responsibility," said the scrappy coca union leader, who turned 48 a week ago.

In a wide-ranging 70-minute interview in the living room of the presidential residence, Morales said his version of socialism requires state control of all basic services, including telecommunications.

He also reiterated his call for the United States, which he accuses of trying to undermine his government, to pull all of its soldiers out of this Andean nation.

Morales told the AP he was willing to help Colombia reach peace with its main rebel movement, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which he said was no longer justified in spilling blood after more than four decades of conflict.

On Bolivia's divisive domestic front, Morales said he ordered troops to withdraw from the main airport in the country's eastern lowlands last month to avoid bloodshed during a standoff over landing revenues. He said he received intelligence that the crowd that took over the airport included armed separatists looking to provoke a fatal confrontation.

Morales, an Aymara Indian whose father was a community leader, also said proudly that this majority indigenous nation will next week become the first to ratify the Sept. 13 declaration by the United Nations endorsing the rights of the world's native peoples.

The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were the only countries to vote against the declaration.

After winning the presidency in December 2005 with 54 percent of the vote, Morales has increased Bolivia's annual natural gas revenues from $300 million to $2 billion a year by exerting greater state control of the industry.

He has nationalized a tin smelter, most of Bolivia's largest tin mine and the country's railroads, and government officials have suggested they intend to move to nationalize electric utilities.

His government this year completed the re-nationalization of water companies, a demand sparked by widespread popular protests. It is currently negotiating the re-nationalization of the country's main telecommunications company, Entel, which is owned by Telecom Italia SpA.

"It's communication. You want to communicate, right?" Morales said. "It's a basic service. It's a human right."

"Just because you talk on the phone doesn't mean a few people are getting rich," said Morales, seated on a couch wearing fur-lined slippers he said were given to him by fans in a former Soviet republic whose name escaped him.

Morales has allied himself closely with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's leftist president, and Fidel Castro, Cuba's aging leader.

Asked if his vision of socialism follows the Chavez mold, Morales said the communal structure of Bolivia's indigenous societies and their "way of living in harmony with Mother Earth" set South America's poorest country on a different road.

"This is not the socialism of a leftist. It's the socialism of humanity."

His politics have not endeared him to the United States, which was his nemesis in the late 1980s and 1990s when he led coca-leaf growers in protests against Washington-directed forced eradication campaigns.

Expanding on public remarks last month in which he expressed his desire that all U.S. military personnel leave Bolivia, Morales said he wants all armed foreign troops out.
He said the only Venezuelan soldiers in the country are unarmed pilots who fly him around in loaned helicopters.

"As far as I know, the only armed soldiers I've seen are those from the United States," he said.

The U.S. Embassy would not say how many troops or military contractors it has in the country, but they are believed to not exceed a few dozen.

Blinking from a nap and blowing his nose when the afternoon interview began, Morales was asked how much sleep he gets nightly given his penchant for brutally long work days.

"Less than four hours," he said, though he said he always catnaps during helicopter flights.

"I'd like to get more rest, but you just can't."

Courtesy of:Saúl

ARTICLE: The Immigration Blame Game

The immigration blame game
John Buell: The immigration blame game
By BDN Staff
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - Bangor Daily News


A column of mine on immigration earlier this year provoked both an op-ed response and numerous e-mails to me, charging I "don’t get it" that illegal immigrants are the cause of working class woes. My critics raised thoughtful concerns in need of a careful response.

Those who attack immigrants because of their legal status forget that U.S. citizens are not especially law abiding. Long before Mexicans crowded our labor markets, our citizens were taking far more cash under the table than undocumented immigrants ever have.

Some citizens have good reasons. I recently interviewed a young single mother who, not surprisingly, could not support her two children on $400 a month in welfare and $200 in food stamps. If she reported income, however, she would lose benefits. She earns several thousand dollars a year "under the table." She feels guilty about her lawlessness, but, "I am not going to let my family starve."

Both undocumented Mexican immigrants and many full U.S. citizens take money under the table. Both find themselves in increasingly desperate positions. But are undocumented Mexican immigrants the reason some
single mothers in Maine must take money under the table?

Two recent books, Aviva Chomsky’s "They Take Our Jobs — and 20 Other Myths about Immigration" and Jane Guskin and David Wilson’s "The Politics of Immigration," provide extensive documentation from a wide range of historical and economic perspectives that the same global economic restructuring that has led to outsourcing the best U.S. jobs and attacks on unions here has also badly damaged societies in the developing world and led to widespread migration of the poor.

There is, however, a tradition, often informed by racist and nationalist stereotypes, that has led American workers to blame economic dislocation and joblessness on the newest arrivals. Chomsky reminds us that in the 19th century white workers in the South "clung to their status of legal and racial superiority, but the entrenched racial inequalities undermined the status of poor whites as well." Black job seekers per se did not hurt poor whites, but rather their disenfranchisement combined with racism prevented their organization into unions and political movements. Employers enjoyed a pool of poor and easily exploitable workers with which to break strikes and undermine all working-class wages.

Some academic literature does suggest that low-skilled immigrants undermine working-class wages. But a contrasting body of literature both from academics and from those in the trenches finds no or minimal impact
on working class wages.

My take on this controversy is: It depends.

The effect of immigrant incursions depends on the cultural and political setting. If every immigrant worker received, merely by the fact of having a job, full access to minimum wage protection, rights to union organizing, access to occupational health and safety guarantees, and a realistic path to citizenship, employers would find it harder to use the undocumented to beat down wage standards for all. Guskin and Wilson cite U.S. Department of Labor studies showing that following the 1986 amnesty, real wages of undocumented workers rose dramatically, exerting upward pressure on all wages.

The U.S. today has no shortage of urgent tasks, from fighting fires to rebuilding levees, to laying new track lines. If all such work is properly compensated, if the Federal Reserve cared as much about job creation as inflation, if governments at all levels worried as much about the health of the infrastructure as the profits of the financial sector, plenty of good new jobs would be created.

The question for progressives is this: Are reforms of trade treaties, enforcement of workplace laws, and establishment of adequate wage standards more likely if we somehow expel most undocumented immigrants
by militarizing our border and turning employers into border cops? These initiatives risk fracturing the very coalitions needed to enact progressive reforms. Just as unfortunately, they distract workers from the role that corporate tax evasion and workplace violations play in wage stagnation.

Earlier immigrants from Ireland and Italy, also much vilified, made great economic and political contributions to our society. The same is possible today. The Black Commentator recently pointed out: "In the countries [current immigrants] hail from there are traditions of working class militancy and solidarity deeper and more widespread than anything here, and traditions of broad left wing social movements tougher and more enduring than we see here in the U.S. In Mexico, Nigeria, Indonesia and Brazil, in South Korea and Colombia, farm, factory and service workers join unions… and fight for their own rights, often at great personal cost."

Unfortunately, the legislation derailed in Congress last summer moved in the wrong direction. Its path to legalization was so complex and burdensome that few would be able to navigate it. Its guest worker programs tie immigrants to specific jobs in ways that make them even more dependent and exploitable. A new president and Congress need to address this problem from a more humane perspective.


John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers may contact him at jbuell@acadia.net.

Courtesy of: Saúl

ARTICLE: The Case of the LA8: U.S. Drops Twenty-Year Effort to Deport Arab Americans for Supporting Palestinian National Rights

Link to article:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/02/1336234

The Case of the LA8: U.S. Drops Twenty-Year Effort to Deport Arab Americans for Supporting Palestinian National Rights via Democracy Now.

The LA 8's National Lawyer's Guild Lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout, said during the radio/tv interview with Amy Goodman:
"The government, from day one, tried to use this case to establish its right to go after immigrants in this country who have done nothing illegal. William Webster, the head of the FBI, admitted when he was being confirmed for the CIA that the government had done a three-year undercover operation -- surveillance of Michel, Khader and the others -- and had come up with nothing they had done illegal, no crimes committed.

"They turned it over to immigration and said, 'Can you figure out some way to deport these people? Why? Because we don’t like their views. We don’t like what they're doing, about their supporting the rights to a Palestinian homeland and their organizing efforts in the Los Angeles community.'

"So the government went after them. As you mentioned, the first statute, the McCarran-Walter Act, was declared unconstitutional. Then Congress passed a law saying we can deport people for providing material support for terrorist organizations, and it said in furtherance of their terrorist activity. We thought, 'Great! Case over.' They had never been accused of furthering terrorist activity. But the government used that to say, we're going to try to deport people and establish the right to deport people if they raise money for humanitarian causes, distribute literature of an organization that also has a military component to it. And that’s what this case has been about since day one."

Courtesy of: SKAndi;

ARTICLE: Labor Strikes Back

Labor Strikes Back

The AFL-CIO has filed a formal complaint with the International Labor Organization over the state of labor law in the United States. How have things gotten so bad?

David Moberg | November 1, 2007

When labor union leaders in countries like Guatemala and Colombia face death squads and draconian legal restrictions on workers' rights, they often turn to the Geneva-based International Labor Organization of the United Nations for help.

So it was a sign of real frustration, even desperation, that in mid-October the AFL-CIO protested to the ILO that a "sustained assault on workers' rights in the United States" was occurring at the hands of the very agency mandated to enforce this nation's labor laws--the National Labor Relations Board.

For the past six years the Bush-appointed majority of the NLRB has steadily reversed legal precedents and eroded the rights of workers in favor of management--limiting who can form a union, strengthening management power to harass pro-union workers, and refusing effective action against management abuses of worker rights.

One of the most significant attacks came in early October. The Board threw new roadblocks in the path of one of the labor movement's most productive strategies for organizing new workers--securing union recognition as soon as a majority of employees sign union membership cards.

"It's worse than a bad decision," says AFL-CIO organizing director Stewart Acuff. "It's further evidence of ideological bias of the Bush Board. It's incontrovertible evidence that this Board is determined to impede collective bargaining, not encourage collective bargaining, as the preamble of the [National Labor Relations] Act says."

For more than three decades, corporations -- retaining an army of lawyers and consultants -- have used America's labor laws to their advantage against workers. They insist on NLRB-supervised elections, then often delay any vote and exploit the election procedures to intimidate and frighten workers with legal and illegal tactics, so that even many who initially support forming a union eventually vote "no."

But when employers are neutral--as they are in most public employee elections--a vastly higher percentage of workers opt for a union. So more and more unions have decided that if they are going to have a reasonable chance of winning, they first have to persuade employers to be neutral with regard to unions--through pressure, if necessary. Then typically the employer recognizes the union when a majority of workers have signed union cards--what's known as a "card check."

As organizing efforts have shifted away from elections administered by the National Labor Relations Board to neutrality agreements and card checks, many unions have been scoring new successes. It's actually a return to the past: In the early years after Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, most workers won recognition through card checks, and the procedure remained a "favored element of national labor policy," as one court decision stated, even as employers increasingly demanded elections.

You might think that the NLRB, the agency responsible for implementing national labor law, would be happy about this card check revival. After all, one of the principal aims of America's labor laws is still, believe it or not, to encourage collective bargaining. And workers' right to organize is an international human right, which the United States is obliged to protect by virtue its membership in the ILO--not that such legal niceties matter much to the Bush administration.

But in keeping with the dark Bushian vision of government, the NLRB reversed established law, making it much harder for unions to win recognition through card checks, or "majority sign-up," and undercutting the incentive for employers to agree to that process.

The decision involved two companies, Dana and Metaldyne, who had agreed to recognize the United Auto Workers through a card check. Then a group of workers, encouraged and supported by the right-wing, anti-union National Right to Work Legal Foundation, petitioned for an election to decertify the union.

Under a 1966 NLRB decision, upheld by later Boards and Appellate Courts, such petitions were barred for a "reasonable period" after recognition to give the new union and the employer a chance to negotiate. Workers could always petition later to decertify the union.

The Bush Board majority rejected the rule that workers had to wait a reasonable period, such as a year, to petition for an election. They argued that if an employer recognizes a union through a card check, the information must be prominently posted. Then as few as 30 percent of workers can petition for an election within 45 days. With that option looming, it would become harder for a new union to negotiate a contract and easier for anti-union forces to try to influence workers. Also, since employers often agree to neutrality and card check to minimize disruption, they would have less incentive to cooperate.

Why this big reversal? The three-member Republican majority maintains they were simply refining the law, but their decision hints at only two relevant changes since the 1966 precedent was established: there are fewer NLRB elections, and unions are turning towards card checks again. They raise the bogyman that organizers could coerce workers into signing cards. But they admit there was no evidence of coercion in these two cases. And there already are ways to punish such coercion if it did occur.

The two Democrats in the minority argued that "nothing in the majority's decision justifies its radical departure," which will subvert both employee free choice and stable collective bargaining. "The majority decision cuts voluntary recognition off at the knees." Certainly the decision will make organizing more difficult, but union strategists say it will not stop them from fighting for neutrality and card check.

The ILO can't reverse the NLRB decision, only embarrass a shameless government in the court of public opinion. But unions may still bring court challenges, either on this decision or future related cases.

Equally important, the Board's decision -- and an ILO rebuke -- could add to awareness of both the public and politicians that Congress needs to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. That legislation would guarantee the right to card check recognition, strengthen unfair labor practice penalties, and provide arbitration if needed to reach a first contract.

All the Democratic presidential candidates have embraced EFCA, which passed the House earlier this year, but business and the Republicans are determined to block it. By overreaching in its curtailment of workers' rights, the Bush National Labor Relations Board may have inadvertently helped underscore the importance of electing a Congress that supports one of labor's top political priorities.

Courtesy of:
Bill Fulcher
fulcherbil@aol.com

An open letter to the Organization of American States

Good afternoon...

For over a year many of us in the U.S. have been actively opposing the border wall. Many of us have also been extremely active in opposing the concentration camps and prison camps that exploit the immigrant...in privatized "for-profit" detention facilities. Here in Texas, two such profit prisons are targets of our constant protests. T. Don Hutto in Taylor, Texas that has hundreds of children and their mothers from dozens of different countries...which receives about $10,000 per child per day. The other is in Raymondville, TX, which is a ten tent concentration camp, that has upwards of 2000 immigrants from some 50 different lands. This facility is expanding to add 1000 more beds.

Such facilities are being built all across the country. It is the intent of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to imprison (for profit) and deport the millions of undocumented immigrants that reside in our country. The operation is called the "End Game". ( http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dhs/endgame.pdf ).

On May 8, 2007, the UN Human Rights Commission, Special Rapporteur, Sr. Jorge Bustamante, came to Texas specifically to inspect the human rights violations against the immigrant children at the Hutto children's' prison. We collaborated with Sr. Bustamante and held a protest vigil in front of the prison camp. As you are no doubt aware, Sr. Bustamante was denied access by Secretary of DHS, Chertoff.

We would like you of the OAS to know that there is a vast network here in Texas and all across the US that are vehemently opposed to these crimes against our human family. We have attorneys, professors, journalists, business leaders, faith based organizations, human rights organizations, military and common citizens who are outraged over these atrocities.

Every day, all across the country, hundreds and sometimes thousands of immigrants are being rounded up and imprisoned like criminals...without any due process or civil liberties. The legislated goal of the ruling elite is to have a daily average of 41,000 immigrants in these for-profit prison camps. This is the darkest form of capitalism since slavery. Now, these facilities are "working" the detainees at the rate of $1 per day. These prison camps are turning into slave labor camps.

When the OAS does investigate the conditions here, we the grassroots citizens, would like to collaborate with your visits with some protests. Our network can provide you with information from all over the US that you would not other be able to gather up as a result of the prevailing secrecy. We have already done much of this info gathering and would be most eager to share the hard facts of this national and international tragedy with you. From some 30 states, we have been actively opposed to the trauma that is being conducted against innocent, desperate and helpless people.

Please help us as we try to help you...

In solidarity...

Jay

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Freedom Ambassadors
Connecting the Dots...Making a Difference
Jay J. Johnson-Castro, Sr.
jay@villadelrio.com
(830)768-0768 (when in Del Rio)
(830734-8636 (cell-when on the road)
Please read my column: Inside the Checkpoints http://www.riograndeguardian.com/columns3.asp

The Socialist Forum Monthly Meeting -- NOV 24

The Socialist Forum

Monthly Meeting

November 24- Saturday

7:00PM - 7:30PM - Dinner
7:30PM - Meeting

Golden China Restaturant

Alamo, Texas
(Expressway 83 & Alamo Rd)
Next to Peter Pipper Pizza

Items for Discussion:

* Continues Anti-War Organizing

* 2008 - What's Upcoming
* Marxist Reading Group - information
* Announcements - Community Actions and Cultural Events

For More Information

thesocialisforum@sbcglobal.net

Courtesy of:
Erik Carlos Toren
ectoren@sbcglobal.net

Please Help Give Rick Noriega an Influential National Endorsement

Dear Friend,

Click here to help give Rick the DFA's endorsement!

Democracy for America (DFA) is one of the largest grassroots, membership organizations in the country. DFA is a political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates at all levels of government -- from school board to the presidency.

The national organization took note in September when Rick became the first candidate to ever win an endorsement of Democracy for Texas, the DFA state level group.

Now, Democracy for America has promised to officially back Rick if we can collect 5,000 signatures on a petition hosted on DFA's website. Click below to help us reach that goal!

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/supportrick

This endorsement will send a huge message to people all across America about how Texans are ready for a new U.S. Senator. Winning this endorsement will have a strong impact on many other national organizations taking notice of what we've begun here in Texas.

Add your voice via the link below and join the chorus calling on DFA to endorse Rick!

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/supportrick

More voters, elected officials, and organizations have been pledging to vote for Rick every day.

Let's add Democracy for America to the growing list.

Sincerely,

Sue Schechter
Campaign Manager
Noriega for Texas
Democrat for U.S. Senate

Click Here To Help Get Rick The DFA's Endorsement!

Courtesy of:
Cesar Espinosa
hechoenmexico2@aol.com

Houston - Come Speak Out for Clean Air -- NOV 26-27

Courtesy of:
Juan Parras
parras.juan@gmail.com

ARTICLE: New Lawsuit Against Border Wall Has Huge Implications For South Texas

By Steve Taylor

No Border Wall spokesman Scott Nicol

BROWNSVILLE, November 2 - The No Border Wall group says a new lawsuit challenging the Real ID Act’s constitutionality could put a halt to fencing being erected along the South Texas border.

On Thursday, attorneys for Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club filed an amended complaint in federal court challenging the 2005 REAL ID Act. This legislation granted Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff the power to waive any law - federal, state or local - that would otherwise apply to border wall and road construction.

The amended complaint alleges that this unprecedented authority violates the fundamental separation of powers principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The environmental groups also argue that by delegating the power to pick and choose which laws will apply to border wall construction, Congress has unconstitutionally given away its lawmaking responsibilities to a politically-appointed executive branch official who is not accountable to the American public.

“This lawsuit is really important news for the fight against the border wall,” Scott Nicol, spokesman for the No Border Wall group, told the Guardian.

“The Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife are challenging the Real ID Act's constitutionality, and if they win Chertoff will be unable to issue further waivers of law along the border.”

The No Border Wall group has been leading the grassroots fight against the border wall being built in the Rio Grande Valley. In September, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued new maps showing 70 miles of proposed fencing, with the greatest concentration of “tactical infrastructure” to be assembled in the Brownsville area.

Nicol said it would be “virtually impossible” for the wall to be built along the Lower Rio Grande in a manner that complies with both the Secure Fence Act and the Endangered Species Act, not to mention state and federal laws that protect private property, - if the new lawsuit prevails.

“Under section 102 of the Real ID Act an unelected Administration appointee has the power to ignore all of our nation's laws. If this lawsuit is successful it will restore the rule of law,” Nicol said.

On October 10, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen S. Huvelle issued a temporary restraining order stopping border wall and road construction within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.

The Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife had argued that DHS and the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the San Pedro area, hadn’t properly analyzed the impacts of the construction on wildlife and other natural resources.

The groups also argued that the agencies had failed to include the public in their decision-making process.

Chertoff responded by invoking the REAL ID Act to waive 19 laws in order to resume construction of this particular wall segment.

“I want to stress that it’s not our intention to run roughshod over existing laws and regulations,” Chertoff said at the time. “But, Congress recognized the significance that secure borders have on our national security and provided legal authority for me to waive any restrictions that may impede our progress.”

Chertoff has invoked the provisions of the REAL ID Act twice before. He used it to finish construction of a fence in San Diego and another fence in Arizona.
Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife, said that in the case of the San Pedro conservation area, Chertoff rode roughshod over 19 laws.

“These laws were put in place to provide all of us with clean air and water and ensure our treasured places and wildlife are protected,” Schlickeisen said. “The Secretary’s action was a clear and unprecedented abuse of authority and demonstrated a profound disregard for the system of checks and balances assured in our constitution. The Secretary left us no choice but to address the unconstitutional nature of the REAL ID Act.”

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope agreed. “The Bush administration should know that we have the ability to protect our nation while at the same time preserving the unique wildlife and treasured lands along the border. Arbitrarily waiving environmental protections is an extreme path to tread,” Pope said.
In the case of the San Pedro conservation area, the statutes waived by Chertoff are:

The National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Clean Air Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Noise Control Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, the Antiquities Act, the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act, the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Farmland Protection Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act.

Nicol said he fully expects Chertoff to waive all federal laws again, should the City of Brownsville or various environmental groups succeed with their legal action against the border wall.

“Having exercised this unprecedented power three times already, it is certain that he (Chertoff) will do so again and again to build the 700 miles of wall called for by the Secure Fence Act,” Nicol said.

“In Texas, this will mean that cities and private landowners as well as wildlife refuges will feel the walls’ unmitigated impact. When walls slice through Roma, Rio Grande City, Granjeno, and Brownsville, all of the legal protections that U.S. citizens expect and deserve will be thrown to the wind.”

Write Steve Taylor

Courtesy of:
Rio Grande Guardian
www.riograndeguardian.com

ARTICLE: Banana Workers Union Leader Assassinated in Guatemala

Thanks to: David

Banana Workers Union Leader Assassinated in Guatemala
by Kimberly Kern / October 31st, 2007

On September 23rd Marco Tulio Portela Ramirez was brutally gunned down outside his home as he prepared to go to work at the Bandegua banana plantation, a subsidiary of Del Monte Fresh Produce.

Do you eat Del Monte bananas? Do you notice where your bananas come from? Are you willing to take a moment of your time to help the workers whose labor sends over a million tons of bananas to the Unites States each year?

The production of bananas in Guatemala takes place in large monoculture plantations where labor conditions are very poor. Workers receive low wages which often don’t cover the basic needs of their families and endure long 12-hour work days and exposure to dangerous chemicals. Yet employees lack the freedom to organize independent trade unions and negotiate agreements with their employers in order to improve these working conditions. Those who have tried to organize have come under attack from both transnational banana companies and independent banana producers. Illegal firings, plantation closures, temporary contracts, civil law suits, trumped up criminal charges, and violence targeting union leaders have all become commonplace. So far in 2007, four unionists have been assassinated and no charges have been made against the guilty parties.

According to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the Guatemalan Constitution recognizes workers’ freedom of association and states that all workers retain the right to form and join trade unions. Workers have the right to organize and bargain collectively under the condition that 25% of the total workers are in agreement and possess the right to strike provided that 50% support the strike.

The Constitution also provides for a judicial system to rule specifically on violations of the Labor Code. Unfortunately, the labor courts in Guatemala are overrun with backlogged cases that can drag on for years. Even when they issue rulings, the courts have insufficient power to ensure that their decisions are respected. Consequently, employers tend to dismiss the Labor Code and are rarely held accountable for illegal firings, negligent work conditions and violence against union organizers.

Del Monte, the third largest producer of bananas, is owned and controlled by the Chilean-based IAT Group (their capital is held in the United Arab Emirates) and maintains its headquarters in Miami, Florida. As of 2005, Del Monte controlled about 15% of the world banana trade. Along with the other major banana producers like Chiquita and Dole, they wield a great deal of power in Latin America and can sell bananas to the northern markets at an extremely cut-rate price. According to a French research institute CIRAD, “only 12% of the final retail price stays in the producing countries. An even smaller proportion goes to small farmers (5-7%) or to plantation workers (1-3%)”. The rest is profit in the pockets of the CEO’s and investors.

Bandegua, the Guatemalan subsidiary of Del Monte, is one of many companies with a long history of targeting trade unionists. In 1999, Bandegua dismissed 900 workers who were involved in the Banana Workers Union of Itzabal (SITRABI), the oldest and one of the most powerful unions in Guatemala. On October 13th of that year, a heavily armed attack was led against the union organizers who were planning a massive protest in response to the dismissals. Consequently, seven members of SITRABI fled to the US to defend their lives and pursued a case against Bandegua. As a response, the US government placed Guatemala’s trade benefits on probation until Guatemalan courts convicted the criminals. Unfortunately, due to the sustained violence in Guatemala, the seven organizers continue to live in the US.

On March 7th, 2000, The International Union of Food and Agriculture Workers (UIF) signed an agreement with Del Monte Fresh Produce, which set up local negotiations between Bandegua and SITRABI and committed the company to respecting minimum labor standards. The new agreement ensured that all 900 workers who were illegally fired be allowed to return to their jobs and explicitly stated that all workers had the right to join SITRABI.

Although all parties signed the agreement, acts of violence and intimidation continue. In November of 2006, Cesar Humberto Guerra, the Labor and Conflicts Secretary of SITRABI, was followed by three armed men while driving through the Chicasaw banana plantations in a vehicle owned by SITRABI. The men fired their guns in the air and threw a stone at the windshield of the car.

In July, 2007, military officers forcibly entered a SITRABI union meeting demanding to know the identity of the union’s leaders, the size of its membership and the nature of its occupation. In response, SITRABI filed complaints with the Public Ministry and the Ministry of Defense in Guatemala, who promised there would be an “internal investigation.” According to a statement by the Solidarity Center, “Military officers had been disciplined by the Ministry of Defense in response to SITRABI complaints about the unlawful entry.”

Five days later, on the morning of September 23, Marco Tulio Portela Ramirez was brutally gunned down in front of his house by armed masked men carrying high caliber weapons as he prepared to go to work at the Bandegua banana plantation. Marco was the Secretary of Culture and Sport at SITRABI and his brother Noé Ramirez is the General Secretary. According to STITCH, a nationwide group of women organizing for social justice, SITRABI strongly believes that this killing is directly related to their fight to end the intimidation and harassment of the union.

In his statement on September 30th, Noé Ramirez declared, “At the wake and burial of my brother’s mortal remains, I saw how hundreds of workers who were there with us cried at the loss of a fellow unionist, but also how we all committed ourselves to continue forward with our struggle, refusing to be silenced, because we are not alone: we are supported by allies all over the world….I would like to ask you all to keep pressuring the government and the rest of the Guatemalan authorities so that they will immediately investigate and solve Marco Tulio’s murder, and punish both the material and intellectual perpetrators of this crime and their accomplices.”

In response to this assassination, Solidarity Center Executive Director Ellie Larson said, “The systematic attacks on SITRABI constitute backsliding on worker rights enforcement in Guatemala. No worker should lose his life for exercising a fundamental right to participate in a union. Together we must break down the wall of impunity and rebuild respect for worker and human rights.”

Please take a moment of your time to contact the Guatemalan Ambassador in the United States and urge the Guatemalan government to investigate this case and bring those responsible to justice. You can mail this sample letter from STITCH or write one of your own to ambassador@guatemala-embassy.org.

Ambassador Jose Guillermo Castillo,

2220 R Street, NW
Washington , DC 20008

Tel:(202) 745 4952

Fax:(202) 745 1908
ambassador@guatemala-embassy.org

Dear Ambassador Guillermo Castillo,

I am writing to ask your government to take strong and decisive action to stop the violence against unionists in Guatemala. The recent assassination of SITRABI Executive Committee Member, Marco Tulio Portela Ramirez on Sunday, September 23 is a stark reminder of the incredible danger workers face when trying to exercise their right to organize for better wages and more humane conditions in their work places. I urge your government to thoroughly investigate and prosecute the murderers of Mr. Ramirez and other trade unionist in Guatemala, including Mr. Pedro Zamora of the port workers union.

As you may recall, the SITRABI union leadership was violently intimidated in 1999 and forced to leave their country. Their case became an important test case on impunity for the U.S. government.

The government of Guatemala must also publicly condemn the violence against Guatemalan trade unions.

In addition, it is vital that the Guatemalan government take responsibility for the safety of the remaining leaders of SITRABI and ensure that they are protected from all violence and intimidation. The Guatemalan government must protect those that organize for basic their human rights. I will be monitoring the news as well as following updates from labor rights organizations to ensure that this case is taken seriously and that labor unions are protected throughout Guatemala.

Sincerely,

Your name

Kimberly Kern (Austin, TX) is working as human rights accompanier for the Network in Solidarity for the People of Guatemala (NISGUA). She can be reached at kimika@riseup.net.

Say NO to "Plan Mexico"

Dear Readers,

Buried in the $46 billion supplemental war spending proposal that
President Bush submitted to Congress on Oct. 22 is a $1.4 billion aid
package to Mexico to be distributed over the next three years,
purportedly to fight drug trafficking and organized crime in Mexico. The
aid package, called Plan Mexico (http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4611)
for its resemblance to the $5 billion Plan Colombia, would consist
largely in advanced military training and equipment such as helicopters
and surveillance aircraft, according to the Mexican foreign minister.

We urge you to call, write, and otherwise notify Congress to oppose
funding for BOTH the Iraq War and Plan Mexico.

We are not against the US helping Mexico's people - if aid is aimed to
develop economic opportunities in their home communities. A massive
military build up in Mexico does nothing to help and will inevitably lead
to increased repression. As has been the case with Plan Colombia, there
is great concern that Mexico could use their new equipment in
counter-insurgency raids against both social movements and suspected
guerrilla forces, mainly in Mexico's indigenous and highly marginalized
south.

Please read and repost our brief report on Plan Mexico contributed by
Global Exchange Human Rights Media Fellow, John Gibler:

-----

Why We Oppose Plan America

This week the Bush Administration officially announced the Merida
Initiative, a $1.4 billion aid package to Mexico to be distributed over
the next three years purportedly to fight drug trafficking and organized
crime in Mexico. The aid package, called Plan Mexico for its resemblance
to the $5 billion Plan Colombia, would consist largely in advanced
military equipment such as helicopters and surveillance aircraft,
according to the Mexican foreign minister.

The plan has come under immediate attack on both sides of the border.

According to the Associated Press, Rep. Eliot Engel, chairman of the
House Foreign Affairs Committee's Western Hemisphere subcommittee
(http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/sub_westhem.asp), said Congress was "in
no way consulted" as the aid plan was developed.

"This is not a good way to kick off such an important bilateral effort to
combat drug trafficking and drug-related violence in Mexico," Engel told
the AP. "We will have to carefully comb over every detail of the
president's request in coming weeks and months."

Carlos Fazio, an expert on Mexican social movements and militarization,
writes that Plan Mexico would amount to "ceding national sovereignty and
the de facto subordination of the national armed forces," to U.S. will.

Drug violence in Mexico has reached truly harrowing levels over the past
two years, with over 2,000 people slain in the streets so far in 2007,
most of them public officials, police, reporters, and rival
drug-traffickers. Drug killings have made Mexico the second most
dangerous country in the world (after Iraq) for journalists, according to
Reporters Without Borders. Still, the most terrifying fact of Mexico's
drug violence has always been the depth of the drug cartel's penetration
into seemingly every facet of the Mexican police, military, and judicial
system.

Mexico's first anti-drug Czar, General Rebollo, was on the payroll of one
of Mexico's bloodiest cartels; he is now in a maximum-security prison. In
Tabasco state, drug gangs beheaded a local official who had made a
supposedly anonymous call to the authorities to denounce drug trafficking
through his region. The note written on poster board in his own blood and
left over his headless shoulders read: "This happened to me for making an
anonymous call to the authorities, and they were the very ones who did
this to me." In the past few months, local officials in Altar, Sonora
were threatened with death after calling state officials to denounce a
drug-gang kidnapping near Altar of 300 migrants on their way to the
border.

This past June, nearly 20 soldiers shot and killed three children and
their mother at a road block meant to detect drug traffickers in the
state of Sinaloa; seven of those soldiers tested positive for marijuana
use and one of the seven also tested positive for cocaine.

As has been the case with Plan Colombia, there is great concern that
Mexico could use their new equipment in counter-insurgency raids against
both social movements and suspected guerrilla forces, mainly in Mexico's
indigenous and highly marginalized south.

The Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR), a guerrilla force that first
appeared in 1996 in Guerrero state, has recently published repeated
communique's denouncing the disappearance of two of their members by
government forces. In retaliation, the EPR has detonated various
explosives placed in Mexico's national natural gas lines in July and
September of this year. There is great concern that Mexico could use
their increased military budget and additional military aid from the
U.S., to re-implement a "dirty war" counter-insurgency operation against
social movements, rural organizations, and indigenous communities
suspected of or used as scapegoats for guerrilla activities. Mexico's
repeated use of torture to force confessions in cases as distinct as
suspected guerrilla activity and the femicides of Ciudad Juarez has been
well documented by both nongovernmental and governmental organizations.

The Mexican army used anti-drug helicopters in military attacks against
the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in 1994. Within the last year
the Mexican Navy flew surveillance planes over the city of Oaxaca and the
Zapatista international gathering in La Realidad, Chiapas.

Moreover, paramilitary and para-police attacks continue in Mexico.
Mexican soldiers protected paramilitary forces that massacred 47 people
in Acteal in 1997; and para-police units killed over 20 people during the
mostly non-violent civil disobedience movement of the Oaxaca Peoples'
Popular Assembly (APPO) in 2006.

An on-going series of new reports by the Chiapas-based organization
Center for Political Analysis and Socio-Economic Research (CAPISE -
http://capise.org.mx/) document recent changes in military deployment,
paramilitary activity, and highway projects that combine to form a
counterinsurgency strategy to displace Zapatista communities. The army is
reinforcing military bases near Zapatista communities with Special
Forces, including airborne elite troops and special elite units from
Mexico City without jurisdiction to operate in Chiapas.

On October 27, it will have been a year since plain-clothes police, city
council members and a local judge were all photographed shooting at
protesters in Oaxaca. That day, gunmen shot and killed two Oaxacan
teachers, Esteban Zurita Lopez and Emilio Alonso Fabian and New York
Indymedia reporter Brad Will. A year later and impunity reigns
(http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/mexico/dispatches/5038.html). The men photographed still hold their jobs in local government; no one has been convicted of the murders; and the state and federal governments persist in their efforts to blame members of the APPO for killing Brad Will.

Mexican officials and analysts have long said that the U.S. should curb
the consumption of drugs within its own borders and the flow of high
caliber guns to the traffickers in Mexico. Plan Mexico would simply give
military equipment to the very Mexican forces that have so long been
implicated in drug trafficking without first addressing the U.S.'s active
role in drug violence by providing the market place for drugs and the
guns used to kill.

Courtesy of:
Carina
carina_souflee@hotmail.com

Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife Challenge Real ID Act

Contact: Robert Dreher, Defenders of Wildlife, (202)772-3225

Oliver Bernstein, Sierra Club, 512-477-2152

NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 1, 2007

Conservation Groups Challenge

Chertoff’s Waiver Power as Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON – Today, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club stepped up their efforts to save crucial environmental protections as well as unique wildlife and lands along the U.S.-Mexico border. The groups have filed an amended complaint in U.S. district court which challenges as unconstitutional the Bush administration’s power to single-handedly waive any and all United States laws to continue construction of border wall segments in environmentally sensitive areas.

On October 10, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen S. Huvelle issued a temporary restraining order stopping border wall and road construction within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, saying that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the San Pedro area, hadn’t properly analyzed the impacts of the construction on wildlife and other natural resources, and that the agencies had failed to include the public in their decision-making process. DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff responded by invoking the REAL ID Act to waive 19 laws in order to resume construction of this particular wall segment.

“Instead of fixing these shortcomings and incorporating environmental protection into national security efforts, Secretary Chertoff took it upon himself to waive 19 laws. These laws were put in place to provide all of us with clean air and water and ensure our treasured places and wildlife are protected,” said Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife. “The Secretary’s action was a clear and unprecedented abuse of authority and demonstrated a profound disregard for the system of checks and balances assured in our constitution. The Secretary left us no choice but to address the unconstitutional nature of the REAL ID Act.”

“The Bush administration should know that we have the ability to protect our nation while at the same time preserving the unique wildlife and treasured lands along the border,” said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. “Arbitrarily waiving environmental protections is an extreme path to tread.”

Under the REAL ID Act, Congress gave the DHS Secretary unrestricted power to waive any law—federal, state or local—that would otherwise apply to border wall and road construction. The groups’ amended complaint alleges that this unprecedented authority violates the fundamental separation of powers principles enshrined in the United States Constitution. They argue that by delegating the power to pick and choose which laws will apply to border wall construction, Congress has unconstitutionally given away its lawmaking responsibilities to a politically-appointed Executive branch official who is not accountable to the American public.

Despite the fact that the groups’ lawsuit was based on violations of only three laws, Sec. Chertoff responded by waiving 19 laws intended to protect wildlife and endangered species, clean water and air, safe drinking water, and cultural, historic and archeologically significant resources.

###

Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. With more than 1 million members and activists, Defenders of Wildlife is a leading advocate for innovative solutions to safeguard our wildlife heritage for generations to come. For more information, visit www.defenders.org.

The Sierra Club is America's oldest, largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization. Inspired by nature, the Sierra Club’s 1.3 million members and supporters work together to protect our communities and the planet. www.sierraclub.org

Courtesy of:
Scott Nicol
annikadel@hotmail.com

National Black Out Day -- NOV 2

FYI, as of yesterday Michael Bell was remanded back to jail by the same judge who tried him as an adult. He was sentenced to 18 additional months on a probation violation supposedly. As a result, his parents are being charged approximately $600 per month for each month that he is housed in prison. On Tuesday, Michael's father was fired from his job because his employer told him that he needed someone who could be at work and that he was taking off too much. We really need to stick together and make our voices be heard. This could be our children. We are regressing fast as a people.

This morning Al Sharpton vowed that he would make sure that the family would not have to pay the money, if it had to come out of his own pocket. This is so sad. Let's all try to be proactive in this matter. --

Please spread to at least five other people and make sure you inform them to send the info to five other people, to spread the word.

National Black Out Day
on November 2….

Do not make any purchases on this day but please do not make any major $ amount purchases, the day before or the day after because then the Black Out will be of no effect. This is from 102.5 Grown & Sexy radio station; they are asking their listeners to spread the word for those who may not listen to the station.

This is the second phase from the Jena 6 and many other cities and people of color are facing similar situation like the Jena 6.

Courtesy of:
INDIGENOUS NATIONS ALLIANCE-MILLIONS MORE MOVEMENT

From RICK NORIEGA FOR SENATE: John Cornyn's Vote is a DREAM Killer for Students

Last week, Senator John Cornyn voted against the children and the future of Texas by voting to kill the DREAM Act. This legislation would facilitate access to college for undocumented children and create a path to legalization for students enrolled in college or the military. In August, Senator Cornyn told an El Paso Times reporter that he supported the bill, but when it came time to demonstrate that support with action, he flip-flopped and voted against it.

The DREAM Act is a statement that Texans believe in education. Instead of doing the right thing, John Cornyn chose to reverse his position for political gain and exploit the education of Hispanic children to use as a political wedge issue.

In 2001, State Representative Rick Noriega passed a Texas version of the DREAM Act with overwhelming bipartisan support, which subsequently has allowed over 10,000 children to enter college and set them on the path to becoming educated, productive, and taxpaying Texans.

Cornyn Rejects Students

The Dallas Morning News reported last week that Senator Cornyn would not allow three undocumented students who traveled from Dallas to Washington, D.C. into his office because they were not legal residents. Cornyn said that neither he nor his staff would meet with students "who admit to not being legally in the country or are here in violation of immigration laws."

The junior Senator's intolerant and mean-spirited policy demonstrated a great lack of compassion. According to the newspaper, all three students were brought into the country by their parents before they turned 11. One of the students asked Cornyn to "Put yourself in our shoes. Try to imagine your life as an immigrant."

In contrast, Texas' senior Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, voted for Texas' children by voting for the DREAM act. While Senator Hutchison, a Republican, supported mainstream legislation that would help students who are doing their best and were brought to this country by their parents, Senator Cornyn opted to exploit Texans for political gain.

End the Nightmare

"The dream died last week, and Senator John Cornyn helped to kill it." Help us kick Cornyn out of office and end this nightmare once and for all. Tell your friends and family about Rick's campaign by clicking here now. It's time to end the politics of division and unite for a better future.

Sincerely,

Carlos Doroteo
Noriega for Texas

Courtesy of:

Connecting the latest Chertoff dots...

From border walls to raiding communities all across the country, imprisonment of children...Chertoff & the ICE company is a dictatorship that is violating the tenants of our country. Here's a current sampling.

Blackwater on the border...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/23/blackwater_border/print.html

Dallas editorial on immigration...with a conscience...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-mckenzie_30edi.ART.State.Edition1.42486fb.html

Austin TV coverage on Hutto Walk III and the Williamson County's decision to continue to profit off of imprisoning children...
http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=7286057&nav=menu73_2_4

Patty Burland's latest expose of Hutto, the sex scandal and the detainees' slave labor for a $1 a day
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A556552

Police arresting immigrants fleeing San Diego fires...
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/10/26/18456262.php

Ravaging of the Arizona desert environment with bombs and border walls...
http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2007/11/sonoran-pronghorns-between-bombs-and.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BorderAmbassadors.com
Connecting the Dots...Making a Difference
jay@villadelrio.com
(830)768-0768 (when in Del Rio)
(830734-8636 (cell-when on the road)
Please read my column: Inside the Checkpoints

Jay J. Johnson-Castro, Sr. wrote:

Howdy amigos...

Our borders are on the verge of being ruled by privatized corporatism, corruption and mercenaries...

Below you'll see two examples of how Chertoff, with dual US and Israeli citizenship is ceding our border with Mexico to one of Israel's private security companies. It is also putting the Environmental Impact Study in the hands of another private company. So...private companies, both foreign and domestic are controlling the present and future of our borders. Where's Congress? Where's our Texas Legislature?

Then you'll see that Blackwater is setting up on the border. This mercenary army which is devastating Iraq, committed heinous acts in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina...is now going to take over our borders. They better stay the hell out of Texas!!!

The first part below about the Israel spy towers on the border is from Brenda Norrell from Censored.
The second portion is from Stefanie Herweck and the NO BORDER WALL alliance.
The third part is directly from salon.com.

Please share with those who are opposed to this take over of our border by foreign and domestice private companies...

In solidarity...

Jay

First...Brenda's Norrell's expose...

Arivaca spy tower: Israeli firms providing US security

http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2007/09/another-israeli-company-providing-us.html

Now for the NO BORDER WALL expose...by Stefanie Herweck

www.notexasborderwall.com and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/noborderwall

Rather than attempt to comply with our nation’s laws, Chertoff chose to “waive in their entirety… all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements” related to the following 20 federal statutes:

National Environmental Policy Act
Endangered Species Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (aka Clean Water Act)
National Historic Preservation Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Clean Air Act
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Noise Control Act
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
Antiquities Act
Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act
Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Farmland Protection Policy Act
Administrative Procedures Act

Private company, E2m's, NEPA brochure is attached. It's been confirmed that they (this private company that messed up with the fax and online public comment ) will be doing the entire EIS process.

The Army Corps contact Charles McGregor told me that DHS wouldl not extend the comment period. He agreed that the fax and website glitches "make us look really bad." Ortiz's office called me very dismayed that they won't extend. It's pretty bad when people in government stop having faith in government.

Enclosed please find a fax receipt showing that the fax number for the Border Fence Environmental Impact Statement—Rio Grande Valley Sector is not a working number. The fax number to submit comments for the scoping process of the EIS had not been working since at least Saturday, October 13. The fax failure compounded the obstacles to submitting public comments, as lapses in the official website for submitting public comments have been well documented.

The public comment period offered for the RGV EIS was a mere 20 days, far shorter than the public comment periods of other environmental impact statements covering projects of this magnitude. These obstacles had the effect of shortening the period by at least another 8 days. We called on DHS to correct these glitches immediately and to extend the public comment period. We asked our border congressmen and our Texas senators to see that the people of the Rio Grande Valley had ample opportunity to make their voices heard by calling on the federal government to extend the comment period.

Courtesy of:
Jay J. Johnson-Castro
jay@villadelrio.com