Republican Border Amendments Defeated

Senate Democrats defeat Republican border amendments, set up war funds' passage

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 27, 2010; 4:11 PM

Senate Democrats defeated a string of Republican amendments Thursday designed to tighten security on the Mexican border, setting up final passage of a nearly $60 billion spending bill that will fund President Obama's troop surge into Afghanistan.

With 69 votes of support, the Senate cut off debate on the overall legislation. More than half the money in the bill will fund the infusion of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan, and $5 billion will go toward a disaster relief fund. A final vote on the legislation could come Thursday evening.

Most lawmakers support the war funds. The most heated political issue in the debate has been Mexican border security after GOP complaints about mounting violence related to the smuggling of illegal immigrants, drugs and weapons. Democrats, who favor a new security proposal from Obama, turned back each Republican amendment, including an effort by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to put 6,000 more security troops on the border.

The McCain measure, which needed 60 votes for approval, fell short on a 51 to 46 vote. He attracted the support of 12 Democrats, including several up for re-election in November: Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.).

Obama's former presidential rival said that his state -- which enacted the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants and set off a renewed national debate on the issue -- would require 3,000 of the security forces.

Sensing the shifting political ground, Obama proposed a plan Tuesday that would increase funding by $500 million and temporarily send 1,200 members of the National Guard to the border to help shore up the Border Patrol. Republicans rejected Obama's effort as insufficient to deal with something they say is a national crisis.

"While it's important to have additional resources there, even on a temporary basis, even on a limited basis, there's a whole lot more that we need to do. We need permanent solutions, not temporary solutions," Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), a member of GOP leadership and co-sponsor of McCain's amendment, told reporters Wednesday.

Most Democrats rejected the GOP offer of 6,000 more troops as unnecessary given the latest Obama proposal. "It's sort of throwing an enormous amount of money at the problem that is not as carefully thought out, not as targeted and as effective, quite frankly, as President Obama's plan," Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said moments before the vote.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the chamber's lone Latino senator, criticized the McCain plan as "militarizing the border" and the "definition of insanity" because it continued the previous efforts at building up a troop presence when a more compehensive solution is needed for immigration problems.

Democrats then also withstood a pair of other GOP border-security amendments, including Cornyn's effort to quadruple Obama's new border proposal with $2 billion in funding. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) proposed increased funding for a Justice Department program dealing with illegal immigration.

The Kyl and Cornyn amendments each received 54 votes, including 13 Democrats for each. The vulnerable Democrats voted with Republicans on those amendments as well, a potential sign of how some lawmakers up for reelection this fall feel a need to push for enhanced border security as a precondition to broader immigration reform.

"If they are strong on the border, it allows them to do a comprehensive bill," said Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Feelings toward Obama remained publicly raw after his Tuesday visit to the Senate Republican Conference, a 75-minute, closed-door huddle that provoked agitated Republicans to complain to reporters afterward about the president's efforts at bipartisanship. In particular, McCain made note Wednesday during a speech on the Senate floor, that Obama's aides announced his new border plan 30 minutes after he left the GOP meeting and yet did not tell the senators what he was about to do.

"You've got to laugh, in the spirit of bipartisanship," McCain said.

Welcome Ceremony for Migrant Trail

For Immediate Release

Contact: Lynda CruzMigrant Trail Media Representative: 520-437-7551

Welcome Ceremony for Migrant Trail Participants June 6, 2010

Tucson, AZ- Migrant Trail participants will arrive at 11:30am on June 6th at Kennedy Park (Intersection of Ajo and Kenny Rd), Ramada #3, for a closing ceremony.

The Migrant Trail is a non-violent event, and is free and open to the community. Participants and organizers of the Migrant Trail call on all people of conscience to stand in solidarity with our migrant sisters and brothers. On May 31, 2010, a diverse group of individuals began a 75 mile walk to call attention to the human rights crisis occurring on the southern border. The 7th Annual Migrant Trail: We walk for Life is a joint endeavor of community groups and individuals from both sides of the border walking in solidarity with migrants to demand an end to the deaths in the desert. Sponsors include the Migrant Trail Walk Committee, Coalición de Derechos Humanos, Mennonite Central Committee- U.S., Catholic Relief Services - Mexico Program, No More Deaths- Phoenix , No More Deaths Tucson, Coloradans for Immigrants Rights, BorderLinks, Cafe Justo, Humane Borders, JPIC Office of the St. Barbara Province Franciscans, Tucson SOA Watch, Casa Maria, AFSC Colorado, Shalom Mennonite Fellowship, Dhammaratanaram Buddhist Temple, El Centro Humanitario, Principe de Paz Church, Tucson Samaritans, Restoration Project, University Presbyterian Church, Fundación México, 8th Day Center for Justice, and Frontera de Cristo.

"The Migrant Trail is a call to action that shines light on one of the darkest chapters of our nation's legal and social history. Our failed immigration law and border policy causes hundreds of deaths per year. It punishes and dehumanizes hard working migrant laborers and destroys families," says Mel Rodis, a Phoenix attorney. "The walk helps others to empathize with migrants and to understand their plight."

Since the 1990s, it is estimated that more than 5,000 men, women and children have lost their lives attempting to cross the U.S./Mexico border. As the summer approaches, Arizona experiences triple digit temperatures and the number of migrants dying in the desert begins to increase dramatically. Many will die the horrible death of dehydration and exposure. These deaths, a direct result of failed and flawed border and immigration policies, must be prevented.

"The Migrant Trail is an act of solidarity. We refuse to let the deaths in the desert take place silently. As we work to end this inhumane system, we are speaking their names. We walk to remember. We walk to organize," says Stephanie Dernek of 8th Day Center for Justice, Chicago, IL.

National Guard to the Border

Border Communities Unite to Head Off Militarization

by Melissa del Bosque

Published on: Wednesday, June 02, 2010

National Guard troops are on their way to the border and Republican South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint can’t wait to build himself a 700-mile double layered fence. DeMint has attached his amendment to just about anything moving through the Senate – so far Democrats have defeated DeMint’s attempts.

But what happens when elected officials get down to horse trading over immigration reform? It may not come this year, but it more than likely will come in 2011. What happens when the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress need Republican votes to pass immigration reform?

Border residents already know the answer. They only have to look out their windows at the rusty 18-foot wall. “We’ll get the shaft,” is how one resident aptly summed it up.

Residents are already bracing to become the sacrificial lamb for Democrats desperate for Republican buy-in on immigration reform. They're already seeing it with the 1,200 guard troops and a Predator Drone dispatched to El Paso.

Anticipating this backlash, border community organizations from across the southern border will meet in San Diego this month to strategize. Their goal is to come up with a unified platform of issues important to their communities, and to try and head off a raft of bad border security policies that will only make life on the border more insufferable.

“We’ve got to separate border security from immigration reform,” said Louie Gilot, director of the Border Network for Human Rights in El Paso. “We need to have an independent voice for the well being of the communities and so the border isn’t sacrificed the next time immigration reform is taken up,” Gilot says.

Participants in the meeting will include the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium (CA), the Border Action Network (AZ), the ACLU Regional Center for Border Rights (NM) and the Border Network for Human Rights (TX) and Texas Rural Legal Aid (TX).

Gilot pointed out that El Paso, where she lives, is the second safest city in the country. This is the case for most border communities on the U.S. side of the border. Despite this fact, where she lives is depicted in the media and by politicians as a “war zone.” So the solutions that policy makers come up with for the border “would be more at home in a war zone,” she says.

“In my opinion what we have already at the border is working,” Gilot says. “The fear of spillover violence is very real but there hasn’t been any spillover violence.”

El Paso doesn’t need National Guard troops, she says. What it needs is more investment in the ports of entry so that goods and people can flow more securely and efficiently between Mexico and the United States. “People wait for hours to cross,” she says.

Border residents would also like to see better training for Border Patrol and U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents.

In my opinion this is something that has needed to happen for a long time. The Texas Border Coalition, which consists of elected officials and business leaders has been advocating for border communities in Texas for the past four years or so. They even have the high powered lobby firm Via Novo working for them in D.C. in an effort to penetrate the D.C. bubble. They’ve had some success but it’s difficult to break through the panic inducing rhetoric in the national media and among D.C. politicians whenever they want to ratchet the fear level up a notch and turn out voters.

A more unified voice from the border is needed to temper the national rhetoric. Because right now, the rest of the nation forgets that the border is the United States too. They seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable for the federal government to seize thousands of acres of private land to build an ineffective fence.

And they also don’t have a problem with the notion of armed troops patrolling American streets. If it weren’t for the Posse Comitatus Act we’d probably have soldiers in the streets today. Soldiers on the border matter to residents because in 1997, 18-year old Esequiel Hernandez, of Redford, Texas, was shot and killed by a U.S. soldier sent on a covert mission to patrol for drug smugglers. Every border resident knows it could happen again.

I remember getting on a plane in McAllen a few years back and having to board under the scrutiny of a National Guard soldier holding a M-4 rifle. It was something you’d expect in a developing country but not in the United States.

Last year El Paso, with a population of 612,374 had 4 murders, while Washington D.C. with a smaller population of 591,833 had 66, according to 2009 FBI statistics.

D.C. officials need to dial down the fear and panic and listen to the people who actually live on the border. Then they might actually come up with a border policy that works.

In the meantime, let’s send the National Guard to D.C.. Sounds like they’ve got a real crime problem. And while we’re at it, let’s build a double layered, eighteen-foot wall around Senator DeMint’s luxury brownstone and see how he likes it.

(Texas Observer) http://www.texasobserver.org/lalinea/border-communities-unite-to-fight-border-bashing

Legal Action Against Racist SB1070

ACLU And Civil Rights Groups Ask Court To Block Implementation Of Arizona's Racial Profiling Law During Legal Battle

June 5, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of civil rights groups asked a federal court late Friday to block Arizona from implementing its controversial new law, known as SB 1070, pending a final court ruling on its constitutionality. The law requires police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are "unlawfully present" in the U.S. According to the coalition, the law would subject massive numbers of people – both citizens and non-citizens – to racial profiling, improper investigations and detention.

The civil rights coalition includes the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is acting as co-counsel in the case.

Last month the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the extreme law and charging that it invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law. Friday's filing seeks to halt implementation of the law while the case is litigated. The coalition expects that the court will rule on its request before SB 1070's effective date, July 29, 2010.

The following quotes can be attributed to members of the coalition, as listed below.

Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project:
"SB 1070 is a disastrous law that would endanger public safety, increase racial profiling and create an un-American 'show me your papers' regime if allowed to go into effect. Every day this law would be in effect would be a day too long, and we're confident that the court will understand the importance of preventing its implementation, even while our lawsuit is pending."

Nina Perales, MALDEF Southwest Regional Counsel:
"SB 1070 is an unacceptable and short-sighted attempt to take over the federal immigration system within Arizona's borders. Instead of helping to fix our fundamentally broken immigration system, SB 1070 will decrease the safety and security of all Arizonans by draining the resources of state, local and federal law enforcement."

Karen Tumlin, managing attorney with the National Immigration Law Center:
"Arizona's thinly veiled attempt to institutionalize discrimination puts a target on the back of every immigrant and person of color within their borders. We cannot allow the basic rights and liberties of these members of our society to be undermined simply because an unconstitutional law is now on Arizona's books."

Julie Su, Litigation Director of the Asian Pacific American Legal Center:
"We seek a preliminary injunction to head off numerous harms that are imminent if SB 1070 goes into effect. As law enforcement officials from around the country, including Arizona, have stated, SB 1070 will lead to racial profiling of communities of color and unwarranted, prolonged detention of individuals. This will strain law enforcement resources in a way that compromises public safety for all."

Pablo Alvarado, Executive Director of National Day Laborer Organizing Network:
"Arizona can't pick and choose which portions of the United States Constitution to uphold. Federal law is very clear: Arizona can't subordinate the rights of Mexican-Americans or those with Latino appearance and it certainly cannot rewrite federal immigration laws. Throughout history, when states have gone rogue and when they have unjustly and unlawfully scapegoated their residents, the court has had to intervene to be the ultimate defender of bedrock constitutional protections."

Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:
"Latino communities and families in Maricopa County are already terrorized by the abusive and discriminatory practices of Sheriff Arpaio, who has blatantly used racial profiling to target them in his so-called 'crime suppression’ sweeps. With SB 1070, the state is seeking to mandate such unconstitutional practices by all local law enforcement agencies throughout the state, and immediate court intervention is necessary to prevent that from occurring."

Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and Chief Executive Officer of the NAACP:
"African-Americans know all too well the insidious effects of racial profiling. As a nation we should ensure equality for all rather than require police to investigate and detain people based on color and accent. Laws that encourage discrimination have no place in this country anywhere for anyone. SB 1070 has no place on the books, not now or ever."

Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Halliday et al., include:

• ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;
• MALDEF: Thomas A. Saenz, Perales, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu and Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal;
• NILC: Tumlin, Linton Joaquin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;
• ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai;
• APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo
• NDLON: Chris Newman;
• NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
• Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J. Neubauer and Benjamin Maro;
• Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.

The proposed brief in support of a preliminary injunction, can be found at:
www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-halliday-et-al-proposed-brief-support-prelim

The motion for leave to file the brief can be found at:
www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/friendly-house-et-al-v-halliday-et-al-motion-leave-file-motion-prel

More information about the Arizona law, including an ACLU video and slide show, can be found at:
www.aclu.org/what-happens-arizona-stops-arizona