Archive for May 17th, 2006

Mexico Threatens Suits Over Guard Patrols

Wednesday, May 17th, 2006

I’m telling you, folks, these types of things are going to be the “straw that breaks the camel’s back”. (That’s just an expression, no camels were unjured during the writing of this post, so PETA terrorist; Stay Away!)
Who does Mexico think it is that it has the right to not only tell us what we can do in our own country, but somehow feels they have the right to sue. Is our justice system that far out of control? I sure pray it isn’t.

Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants.
Mexican border officials also said they worried that sending troops to heavily trafficked regions would push illegal migrants into more perilous areas of the U.S.-Mexican border to avoid detection.
President Bush announced Monday that he would send 6,000 National Guard troops to the 2,000-mile border, but they would provide intelligence and surveillance support to Border Patrol agents, not catch and detain illegal immigrants.
“If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people … we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates,” Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station. He did not offer further details.
Mexican officials worry the crackdown will lead to more deaths. Since Washington toughened security in Texas and California in 1994, migrants have flooded Arizona’s hard-to-patrol desert and deaths have spiked. Migrant groups estimate 500 people died trying to cross the border in 2005. The Border Patrol reported 473 deaths in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30.
In Ciudad Juarez, Julieta Nunez Gonzalez, local representative of the Mexican government’s National Immigration Institute, said Tuesday she will ask the government to send its migrant protection force, known as Grupo Beta, to more remote sections of the border.
Sending the National Guard “will not stop the flow of migrants, to the contrary, it will probably go up,” as people try to get into the U.S. in the hope that they could benefit from a possible amnesty program, Nunez said.
Juan Canche, 36, traveled more than 1,200 miles to the border from the southern town of Izamal and said nothing would stop him from trying to cross.
“Even with a lot of guards and soldiers in place, we have to jump that puddle,” said Canche, referring to the drought-stricken Rio Grande dividing Ciudad Juarez and El Paso, Texas. “My family is hungry and there is no work in my land. I have to risk it.”
Some Mexican newspapers criticized President Vicente Fox for not taking a stronger stand against the measure, even though Fox called Bush to express his concerns.
A political cartoon in the Mexico City newspaper Reforma depicted Bush as a gorilla carrying a club with a flattened Fox stuck to it.
Fox’s spokesman, Ruben Aguilar, said Tuesday that Mexico accepted Bush’s statement that the sending in the National Guard didn’t mean militarizing the area. He also said Mexico remained “optimistic” that the U.S. Senate would approve an immigration reform “in the interests of both countries.”
Aguilar noted that Bush expressed support for the legalization of some immigrants and implementation of a guest worker program.
“This is definitely not a militarization,” said Aguilar, who also dismissed as “absolutely false” rumors that Mexico would send its own troops to the border in response.
Bush has said sending the National Guard is intended as a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up resources to more effectively secure the border.
In Nuevo Laredo, across from Laredo, Texas, Honduran Antonio Auriel said he would make it into the U.S.
“Soldiers on the border? That won’t stop me,” he said. “I’ll swim the river and jump the wall. I’m going to arrive in the United States.”

Protesters want citizenship now

Wednesday, May 17th, 2006

This is just too much. Who are these “protesters” and why are they trying to ruin things for the people, who although they came here illegally, are trying to make things right.
The only thing these comments are going to do, is make those of us who are legal citizens of this country angry enough to demand the exportation of all illegals NOW.
Cool the rhetoric and just maybe a settlement, that is beneficial for everyone, can be reached.

While a divided Congress wrangled over how to solve the immigration crisis, advocates of illegal aliens yesterday denounced all of the major legislation under consideration, along with President Bush’s proposals, demanding in protests throughout California that they be given full citizenship now.
Protest organizer Luis Magaña in Stockton, Calif., condemned the president’s guest-worker proposal, contending a similar program run from 1942 to 1964 was abusive, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
“If a program doesn’t give us the full rights accorded other workers in the United States, then we’re against it,” he told the paper. “They haven’t spelled out the details and there’s no discussion with the people who will be affected.”
Activists in several California cities held news conferences yesterday to denounce legislation under consideration in the Senate and passed by the House and to oppose the president’s call to deploy National Guard troops on the border.
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office in San Francisco was the site of one rally that featured signs and banners reading “Do Not Militarize the Border” and “No Human Being Is Illegal.”
The protesters said they would continue until senators hear their message.
The Mexican government, meanwhile, warned it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops detain illegals on the border.
“If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people … we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates,” Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said in an interview with a Mexico City radio station, according to the Associated Press.

President Bush addressing the nation Monday night
Yesterday, President Bush’s plan for a “comprehensive approach” to immigration, outlined in a primetime speech Monday night, took one step forward as the Senate rejected a call to secure the nation’s borders before addressing other immigration-related concerns.
In a 55-40 vote, the Senate dismissed an amendment by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga, to bar the federal government from altering the status of any illegal immigrant until every border security provision in the immigration bill had been implemented and the Homeland Security secretary certified the border is secure.
As WorldNetDaily reported last month, images of seas of illegal aliens marching in cities across the U.S. have had a far greater negative than positive impact on the foreigners’ cause, according to a poll.
A Zogby survey of nearly 8,000 people showed coast-to-coast protests against immigration proposals in Congress – particularly to make it a federal felony to be an illegal worker in the U.S. – have not persuaded a majority of likely American voters.
Asked whether the protests have made likely voters more or less sympathetic toward unlawful workers, 61 percent said they’re less likely to be sympathetic to the plight of illegals as a result of the protests, while only 32 percent of respondents said they’re now more sympathetic.

Scholars Grapple with Islam and Human Rights

Wednesday, May 17th, 2006

“Islam and Human Rights”. Isn’t that an oxymoron?

( – Dozens of academics, policy-makers and others are meeting in Malaysia this week to discuss “human rights in Islam” at a time when Muslims’ tolerance levels have come under scrutiny as a result of the Mohammed cartoon ruckus.
Many Muslim scholars promote an “Islamic view” of human rights, even though their countries — as U.N. member states — are expected to support the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
In 1990, the world’s Islamic countries signed a document called the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which asserts that all rights and freedoms must be subject to Islamic law (shari’a).
Since the furor over the satirical Mohammed cartoons erupted, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a grouping of more than 50 Muslim states, has led calls for defamation of religion and “prophets” to be outlawed.
The row has highlighted different perceptions of free speech, and human rights in general, in the Islamic and Western worlds.
Participants at the meeting in Kuala Lumpur have been discussing these issues, and some suggested that it was time Muslims were more open about the inconsistencies between the two worldviews on rights.
If [human rights] are contradictory with Islamic law, we have to say ‘no,’ ” said Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, a minister in the department of the Malaysian prime minister. (Most things, especially concerning women, that we in the U.S. accept as normal, would be banned under Islamic law. -ed.)
“We must be open about it and we can’t just sweep it under the carpet. We must explain and find [a] solution,” he told reporters after the meeting’s opening.
“Some people in the West don’t understand the Islamic way,” Nazri said. “In their view, human rights are unlimited, but when certain human rights are not consistent with the tenets of Islam, we must explain why we say ‘no.’ ”
(Two months ago, Nazri caused a stir when he said non-Muslims who make comments that are viewed as insulting Islam will be charged and jailed under Malaysia’s sedition laws.
“We do not want to take away your rights but religion is an important matter, especially to Muslims,” Malaysia’s Star newspaper quoted him as saying in March, in comments directed at the country’s sizeable non-Muslim minority.)
At this week’s gathering, Nazri said Malaysia supported the OIC’s efforts towards creating a rights standard such as the Cairo Declaration. He argued that such a document was not incompatible with existing rights mechanisms at the U.N., but would “complement” them.
Another participant, Prof. Masykuri Abdillah of Indonesia’s Syariff Hidayatullah Islamic University, acknowledged that “it is true that there are certain Islamic percepts that are not compatible with universal human rights.”
But he added that, in many instances, the “lack of political will” was to blame for violations.
Others also attributed human rights abuses in Muslim lands to autocratic governments rather than problems inherent to Islam.
“Many [countries] are generally poor in their record of religious tolerance and human rights because of the absence of democracy in the midst of the primacy of authoritarianism and dictatorship,” said Prof. Azyumardi Azra, rector of the same Indonesian Islamic university.
Dr Mashood Baderin of the University of the West of England argued that although the Islamic and universal approaches to human rights may be different in theory, they were “not vehemently incompatible.” (And the list of countries, with this poor record in religious tolerance, would be headed by Saudi Arabia, the Cradle of Islam. -ed.)
Islam and human rights shared the aim of enhancing human welfare, he said.
On the subject of the media, Nasir Tamara Tamimi, former editor of an Indonesian daily, said press freedom brought with it the need for “press responsibility.”
He also said Muslims relied too much on Western-based media organizations, adding that Islamic media groups like Al-Jazeera were needed to provide “balance.”
The meeting has drawn more than 40 scholars and others from mostly Muslim countries.
Organizers include Malaysia’s attorney-general, an Africa-Asian legal forum — and the government of Saudi Arabia, a country whose human rights record is among those in the Islamic world most frequently criticized by rights monitors in the West.
Saudi Arabia also was the only Muslim country at the U.N. to abstain when the General Assembly passed the UDHR in 1948. Others to abstain were Soviet bloc members and South Africa, then under white minority rule.