Mexican Political Convention - Coming to LA During this exciting and unpredictable political season, there is a political convention scheduled for September 30th, in Los Angeles, California. It's not the Democratic Party, nor the Republican Party. Nor is it the Libertarian Party, the Green Party or the Constitution Party. It's not even the Labor Party, the Marijuana Party or the Socialist Alternative Party. No, the party holding its convention on that date is the PAN"”the Partido Acción Nacional, the National Action Party of...Mexico. (It's the party of Felipe Calderon and Vicente Fox). Now this is not an ordinary PAN convention, as they would hold here in Mexico. No, this is a convention specifically designed for Mexican PANistas living in the U.S.A."”some of whom are American citizens! What's going on here? What's going on is that the political worlds of the U.S. and Mexico are becoming more and more intertwined. Without debate, the U.S is marrying Mexico"”or, perhaps more accurately, Mexico is marrying us. With the growth of dual citizenship, and our failure to plug our anchor baby loophole, we can expect more and more of this.
Mexican president could play a role in U.S. campaigns
By JOSE de la ISLA Hispanic Link Wednesday, January 23, 2008
An unexpected factor in the presidential election this year might not come from a primary. Instead, Mexico President Felipe Calderon might play that role. Calderon's mid-February visit to the United States could set the stage.
He is scheduled to meet with immigration reform leaders in New York, Los Angeles, Boston and Chicago. Calderon will reveal at that time his strategy for approaching policymakers concerning migrant rights. He will also meet with key legislators on the issues. In these encounters, he could become a factor in the U.S. election.
Calderon's U.S. visit comes a week after Super Tuesday, after the primaries in 24 states will have decided more than half of the Democratic and 41 percent of Republican delegates to their nominating conventions. The nominees should be known by then, or at least the field narrowed to the final few.
The cities Calderon will visit are away from Washington's shadow. Without that hovering specter, friendly encounters might be possible with the people broadly referred to as "legislators" with whom he plans to meet.
Calderon's visit was announced four months after a similar tour was called off when disgruntled migrant leaders complained Mexico failed to support their efforts. Some of this leadership had been responsible for the 2006 immigration reform protests over the punitive immigration legislation authored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. It generated one of the largest demonstrations in U.S. history, but they led to a legislative thud.
Local immigrant leaders have called on consular help from their home countries about matters concerning legal status, human rights, workplace abuses and family break-ups when U.S. officials deport heads of households.
Humanitarian groups on both sides of the border have expressed alarm over the 437 lives lost last year by people trying to cross into the United States, mostly in unauthorized places.
In mid-November, Calderon exhorted the U.S. presidential candidates to stop holding Mexican migrants hostage by their references in hyperbolic campaign speech. Addressing the advisory committee of the Institute of Mexicans Abroad, he rhetorically called out for recognition of the contributions Mexican [B]*(AKA ILLEGAL ALIENS) workers make to the U.S. economy.
There, Calderon first disclosed his government would undertake expanded actions to cast *Mexican workers in a more favorable light before the U.S. public. He also announced an initiative to provide humanitarian assistance to children who have been deported to Mexico from the United States.
He said candidates running for the U.S. presidency ought to rise to the occasion and put forward their best proposals for understanding and resolving problems that involve *migrating workers.
Traditionally, Mexican migrants have turned to their government for consular help on labor rights issues. This dates as far back as the Roosevelt administration during World War II. But labor issues were specifically excluded from the North American Free Trade Agreement to placate organized labor.
Since the issue went unresolved in that treaty, the informal flow of workers has continued unabated across the border. The trade matter, became a labor issue, and has now transformed into one about illegal immigration.
This gives the Mexican president a legitimate opportunity -- an unprecedented one -- to go directly to community leaders and nominees.
Calderon appears to let the change get factored into the equation if any reform is coming. Given that all candidates running for president claim this is the year for change, this must be what it looks like.
By preparing to meet with immigrant leaders about a reform strategy further suggests Calderon recognizes the impact the 2006 demonstrations had. By taking his agenda to "legislators," he is creating an opportunity for party nominees to help defuse a potentially volatile situation if they agree to a reform agenda.
The Democratic and Republican candidates, whoever they turn out to be, could mitigate the immigration issue and avoid a misstep when they try to court the issue-sensitive, and crucial, Latino vote.
It remains to be seen which candidates will see this as a genuine opportunity, instead of a chance to bob and weave, fret and run.
Ironically, the political opportunity is not home-grown, but comes from abroad.
(Jose de la Isla writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service and may be contacted by e-mail at joseisla3(at)yahoo.com. For more stories visit scrippsnews.com) http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/30002
Chicago, 23 of January.- Leaders of the Mexican community in Chicago reported today that they will ask president Felipe Calderon for his support in diverse common actions that will undertake to show the importance of their social and political presence in the United States.
In a first meeting to define the approach that the President will do during his next visit to Chicago, the leaders agreed to give priority to the theme of the defense of the immigrant community before the defamatory climate and the pursuit that lives itself in diverse groups.
Counselors of the Institute of the Mexicans Abroad (IME) and common representatives considered the convenience to take the initiative and to propose forms of defense against that anti-immigrante climate, said journalists and sources of the meeting.
In the meeting, he added, he agreed to define the proposal in the next weeks, including the promotion of a greater participation of the community in the social life and American politics to show their force.
"For example, in this year's electoral process, where we should push people to vote, that is going to fortify us, make us more notorious, and show that our presence is not temporary", expressed Fabián Morales, counselor of the IME.
"Because the enemy is not at home, but outside, he is of white complexion, he thinks differently than us, they are the Minuteman, and those are the ones that we should attack", he said.
In the meantime, the counselor Salavador Pedroza commented that among the petitions that will be given to the President is to create the suitable conditions for a worthy reception to all the deported.
For that, he added, he would be able to create a center of welcome for the repatriated people, that facilitates and incorporates them to productive projects once they return.
Pedroza notified that the priority in the encounter will be to present viable proposals that head the community, but also to request the necessary support so that this benefit happens on both sides of the border.
President Calderon anticipates to visit Chicago on the 14 of February on a work tour inside the United States that also contemplates the cities of Los Angeles, New York and Boston. http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=5641 _________________
Mexico, 27 of January.- The PRI group in the Congress of the Union is promoting the creation of a special commission to establish a dialogue with its U.S. counterparts and with its presidential candidates to solidify the migratory theme and to avoid a greater radicalization against the migrant Mexicans and latin Americans.
On the eve in what the Democratic and Republican parties choose their candidates, Mexican legislators will seek to have an approach to promote that the migratory theme be a priority and go beyond the speeches and the campaign promises.
The coordinator of the working Party in Migratory Matter of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), Edmundo RamÃrez MartÃnez, said that the focus of the migratory debate in the American campaigns "is traditionally not to recognize the labor and economic contribution of the migrants".
The group of the PRI proposed the creation of the Bicameral Commission to Support the Mexicans that Reside in the United States. "This instance, conformed by senators and representatives, would seek to do approaches to the candidates of the neighboring country", he mentioned.
It said that beyond the speeches "of good will for the migrants" from people such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain, the certain thing is that in recent months, states governed by democrats and republicans have approved nearly 250 laws against migrants.
RamÃrez MartÃnez said that the 12 million undocumented migrants continue being utilized as "sacrificial lambs" in the electoral campaigns and they are not recognized in any slogan regarding the economic contributions of the Mexicans and Latin Americans to that country.
"The migratory reform is filled with border security reasons, but nobody speaks of the economic or cultural contributions, nobody in the campaigns speaks of the more than 800 groups of hatred againts Mexicans that exist in that country", he questioned. (With information of Notimex/CFE)
Illegal immigrant vows to stand ground HUMBOLDT PARK | Holed up in same church where Arellano held out
KARA SPAK Staff Reporter
Saying she hoped the fear of God would keep federal agents away, undocumented immigrant Flor Crisostomo on Monday vowed to stay in a Humboldt Park church indefinitely to keep Congress focused on immigration reform.
Tears streaming down her cheeks, a defiant Crisostomo said she did not believe she was breaking U.S. law, nor did she see herself as hiding.
Arrested in an immigration raid in April 2006, she was ordered to leave the country voluntarily by Jan. 28. Crisostomo sought "sanctuary" in the Adalberto United Methodist Church, the same church that housed undocumented immigrant Elvira Arellano and Arellano's U.S.-born son Saul, for more than a year.
"I am taking a stand of civil disobedience to make America see what they are doing," Crisostomo said in a statement that was translated into English. Speaking in broken English, she said immigrants are not terrorists but hard-working people contributing to the economy.
"The real problem is the color and the language," she said.
U.S. immigration officials saw the issue differently, releasing a statement that said Crisostomo was given a voluntary departure order Oct. 12, 2006. After an appeal failed in December 2007, she was given 60 more days to leave the country on her own.
"Ms. Crisostomo will be taken into custody at an appropriate time and place with consideration given to the safety of all involved," read the statement released by Gail Montenegro, spokesperson for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Children back in Mexico
Montenegro said that it is also illegal to "knowingly harbor an illegal alien," and those who do so can be subject to criminal prosecution.
Unlike Arellano, who was living with her son, Saul, at the church, Crisostomo's three children, ages 14, 11 and 9, live with their grandmother in Mexico.
Crisostomo, 28, left her children in Guerrero, Mexico, seven years ago to work illegally in the United States. She was arrested April 19, 2006, during an immigration raid at a pallet factory where she earned $300 a week.
Arellano lived in the church for more than a year. She left in August 2007 to attend an immigration rally in California, where federal authorities arrested and deported her.
Next she'll claim its our fault she had unprotected s-ex at the ages of 13, 16 and 18, has 3 children (probably by 3 different sperm donors and she has no clue who or where they are) she knew she couldn't feed and obviously had no business having. Oh and of course it's Our fault SHE ABANDONED HER CHILDREN AND SPLIT UP HER FAMILY . . . BUT SHE'S HIDING IN A CHURCH AND WANTS GOD TO PUNISH US? GOTTA LOVE HER CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES [/END SARCASM]
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Beverly,
Dear iperson: Its not an issue of using authority. I have no hesitation using it. The point is not Beverly. The point is that we have a community of 10,000+ members on this board (not including many more guests) and that if I am moderating it and enforcing its rules, and if I am fair, and am seen to be fair, then that is the best way for the community to grow and flourish. If I just use my authority it will be harder for the community to develop the spirit that it will need to grow many more fold. I am thinking ahead to a time when we have 100,000+ members. At some point, I hope that this board is volunteer-moderated, and that I am no longer full time on the board. But I want to set a proper standard for moderation, one that I as a poster would feel comfortable with (for example, our simple rule against foul language is one I believe to be reasonable). I never thought I would have this much trouble with fonts!! But the truth is that when I read a couple of hundred posts at a time, my eyes glaze over Beverly's posts. Anyways, even if I were to agree with you, it would still be right to ask politely first. - Sam.
I think most of these posters are not familiar with or maybe just have no concept of the 1st Amendment. I've noticed that they have a problem with anybody who does not agree with the illegal invasion of America and posts stories regarding the soaring crime rates, abuse of social services and the overal negative effects of illegal immigration.
In any case, I responded to your other requests and will limit my use of [b].
I would like to say that I have no problem with opposing views as long as they are posted in a tasteful manner. We are all free to express our opinions here. I believe we are all mature adults and can post articles and comments, bearing in mind that we are all human beings with feelings. If we can all agree to those terms, then I think we can move forward in a positive way where we can stop the confrontational b.s.
I have frequented many forums on the internet through the years and have never encountered such a lenient admin. It is shocking to say the least. Writing on a forum like this has nothing to do with 1st amendment. What I am saying, if you need to plead and repeat your request, the fastest way to achieve it is to be harsh. They will follow the rules once they learn they cannot play outside the rules. I have no problem with opposing views either. It is only that you are being too weak Sam. We are not buddies here, this is not a private chatroom.
the day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution- paul cezanne
To iperson: On the specific point under discussion, comment is now moot since Beverly has agreed to limit use of bold text. On the general point, however, I take your comment under advisement - perhaps firmness will be both advisable and appreciated in the appropriate context. Its true that we are easy-going here - otoh the usenet is still out there thats the true wild west! - Sam. P.S. I do agree that the 1st amendment has nothing to do with a privately owned and operated discussion board such as this one.
Originally posted by Sam U. of ILW.COM: To iperson: On the specific point under discussion, comment is now moot since Beverly has agreed to limit use of bold text. On the general point, however, I take your comment under advisement - perhaps firmness will be both advisable and appreciated in the appropriate context. Its true that we are easy-going here - otoh the usenet is still out there thats the true wild west! - Sam. P.S. I do agree that the 1st amendment has nothing to do with a privately owned and operated discussion board such as this one.
I said something to this effect a long time back in the thread: "ILW.COM will be more active in this community," in response to SOM. But it was miserably buried in the excitement of Sam's coming out into the open at that time.
quote:
Originally posted by Rough Neighbor: Posted 01-08-2008 04:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SonofMichael: ... But thank you for so easily revealing your bias.
But then again let's remember that although this forum is "public" in character, it's still "private" in nature. Our membership here is more of a "privilege" than a "right" - our intrinsic freedoms in the world outside are superseded by this site's "Terms of Service." Being so, it's the publisher's prerogative to advance whatever advocacies he deems appropriate. And it's the choice of each one of us to either "love it or leave it!"
___________________________________________________________________ "The letter of the law is a sword that killeth; its intent is a spirit that giveth life."
Regarding 1st Amendment rights, this is an interesting read for Beverly:
eBay, like other sites with discussion boards, has always had certain commonsense regulations: no ****ography, hate speech or threats of violence, no using JavaScript or other coding that could interfere with the site operations, no making repetitive posts or sending abusive messages.
And eBay has the legal right to restrict discussion on its boards, since it owns and operates them. Any charges of censorship would fall on deaf ears in the courts, because the First Amendment only prohibits the government from restricting speech.
"The law has endorsed in general the idea that it's eBay's forum and they get to write the rules," said Cindy Cohn, legal director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "If people don't like what eBay's doing, they should look for other places to do business."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- God Bless America - God Bless Immigrants - God Bless Poor Misguided Souls Too Mr S.U.
January 31, 2008 Day Laborers Sue Chicago By Akito Yoshikane Chicago day laborers look for work outside of the Home Depot on 47th St. and Western Ave. in Chicago. Share Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine On Dec. 5, two day laborers, in conjunction with the workers' rights group Chicago Committee for the Right to Work, filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Chicago. They charged city police with systematically harassing and falsely arresting workers who gather on the city's street corners in search of employment.
"Day laborers have been suffering from police harassment for decades in this city and it's come to a point where we want to do something to end it," says B. Loewe, planning director of Latino Union of Chicago, a workers' rights organization that helped prepare the lawsuit.
In the first lawsuit filed by day laborers against the city, the two workers allege wrongful detention, violation of First Amendment rights, conspiracy to violate civil rights and malicious prosecution.
The lawsuit cites examples of police intimidation, such as an alleged instance where a police officer forced an employer and three day laborers out of a car at gunpoint, and an alleged sting operation in which undercover officers, posing as contractors, lured workers to a Home Depot to discuss employment and then arrested them for criminal trespass.
At least 150 charges and arrests have been dismissed in court in favor of the day laborers, according to the Latino Union, highlighting the tenuous relationship between the police and workers' right to assemble on public space.
"We've seen workers being arrested repeatedly for nothing more than just trying to feed their families by looking for work on public property," says Jessica Acee, an organizer with the Latino Union.
As In These Times went to press, a city spokesperson was unable to comment on the lawsuit, stating that the city has yet to be served with the complaint.
The illegal arrests and harassment have made it more difficult for day laborers, many of whom work in a fluctuating urban economy that ignores workplace injuries, labor abuses and low wages.
Nationally, at least 117,000 people are employed or looking for jobs as day laborers, according to a 2006 report by UCLA's Center for the Study of Urban Poverty. In Chicago, about 800 day laborers"”predominantly immigrant, Latino workers, or jornaleros, who typically work in construction, moving and landscaping"”are looking for work on any given day.
"It's unjust for the police to arrest us because we're not criminals. We're simply people who are looking for work," says Quintin Moran, a day laborer who shows up six days a week looking for work on the busy Chicago street corner of Belmont and Milwaukee Avenues. "They treated us like we were robbers, like we were delinquents, threatening us with their police sticks."
Day laborers in the Midwest suffer the most police abuse in the country, according to the UCLA study. Of the day laborers surveyed in the Midwest, 34 percent reported that police forced them to leave the area where they sought work, 24 percent were photographed or videotaped, and 27 percent had their immigration status checked. But day laborer organizers see the harassment as more than a violation of a First Amendment right to gather on public property. (Chicago city ordinances prohibit citizenship inquiries.)
While Chicago doesn't have laws or ordinances prohibiting day laborers from seeking employment in public places, officials in other cities have tried to pass measures to curb them from congregating.
In April 2006, federal judges prohibited police in Redondo Beach, Calif., from arresting laborers seeking work on the street. And in November 2006 in Freehold, N.J., officials agreed"”after a three-year court battle"”to allow laborers to seek work in public places without fines. Also that month, a federal judge ruled that city officials in Mamaroneck, N.Y., discriminated against Latino day laborers by stepping up police presence, closing a hiring site and fining contractors who approached day laborers.
Despite these federal rulings, however, local officials have continued to push anti-day laborer measures in cities like Escondido, Calif., where members of the city council are attempting to pass an ordinance to keep workers from soliciting jobs on street corners, and in Herndon, Va., where the town closed a workers' center in September after ignoring a circuit court judge's ruling that it should remain open.
Still, with the help of various workers organizations, the jornaleros believe they can find a solution by meeting with police and city officials.
"I hope there will be a day when we can have negotiations with the city so that we will be able to find work in peace and keep this corner without any bad will toward us," says David, a day laborer who preferred to be identified by his first name only. "We have nothing against the police or businesses. We just want them to treat us like human beings."
Add to del.icio.us
