Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Immigrant Rights News - Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Immigrant Rights News – Tuesday, March 31, 2009


Today is César E. Chávez’s birthday; Celebrate & honor farm workers today!


César E. Chávez would have been 82 years old this year. To learn more about his work and legacy, visit:




1. Los Angeles Times: Homeland Security shifts focus to employers


2. The Monitor: Fence building in Brownsville leaves rough edges


3. Arizona Republic: Arpaio migration holds draw fire


4. ABA Journal: Immigration Courts Swamped With Cases Taking 2-10 Years to Reach Disposition


5. PBS Now program on Maricopa County Sheriff's abuses. Please watch the interview and leave a comment. So far only Arpaio supporters have been leaving pro Joe comments on the message board:




<><><> 1


Los Angeles Times



Homeland Security shifts focus to employers

A new policy will aim enforcement efforts at those who hire illegal workers. But immigration raids will continue, sources say.


By Josh Meyer and Anna Gorman

March 31, 2009


Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington — Stepping into the political minefield of immigration reform, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano soon will direct federal agents to focus more on arresting and prosecuting American employers than the illegal laborers who sneak into the country to work for them, department officials said Monday.

The shift in emphasis will be outlined in revamped field guidelines issued to agents of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, as early as this week, several officials familiar with the change said.

The policy is in line with comments that President Obama made during last year's campaign, when he said enforcement efforts had failed because they focused on illegal immigrants rather than on the companies that hired them.

"There is a supply side and a demand side," one Homeland Security official said. "Like other law enforcement philosophies, there is a belief that by focusing more on the demand side, you cut off the supply."

Another department official said the changes were the result of a broad review of all immigration and border security programs and policies that Napolitano began in her first days in office.

"She is focused on using our limited resources to the greatest effect, targeting criminal aliens and employers that flout our laws and deliberately cultivate an illegal workforce," the official said.

Homeland Security officials emphasized that the department would not stop conducting sweeps of businesses while more structural changes to U.S. immigration law and policy were being contemplated.

Agents, however, will be held to a higher standard of probable cause for conducting raids, the officials said, out of concern that at least one recent raid in Washington state and another planned sweep in Chicago were based on speculative information that illegal workers were employed.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the coming policy changes.

The new guidelines would mark a fundamental shift away from what was happening at the end of the Bush administration, said Doris Meissner, who served as commissioner of ICE's predecessor -- the Immigration and Naturalization Service -- under President Clinton.

The law governing employer enforcement requires proof that a business knowingly hired illegal workers. So without an effective way for employers to verify workers' status, Meissner said, "It is very easy for that 'knowingly' to be a big loophole."

Meissner, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute think tank in Washington, said the Bush administration also vowed to go after employers but rarely did so. In later years, it drew criticism by conducting large-scale raids at businesses across the country aimed almost entirely at workers.

The Clinton administration, in contrast, used a combination of laws to go after employers for smuggling, violating labor laws and engaging in criminal conspiracy, she said. "At the end of the day, when you make cases like that, you have more impact."

Advocates on both sides of the issue have been awaiting major changes in immigration policy since Obama's election -- particularly since he tapped Napolitano, a former border state governor and prosecutor, to head the Homeland Security Department.

Conservatives have warned that any easing of enforcement efforts will result in more arrivals of illegal workers, who will compete for jobs held by Americans.

And immigrant rights groups have complained that the lack of reform measures to date under Obama suggested the White House was backing down from campaign pledges to curb workplace enforcement efforts.

Those concerns ratcheted up dramatically when ICE agents swept into a manufacturing plant in Bellingham, Wash., in February and arrested dozens of people on suspicion that they were in the country illegally.

Napolitano suggested to Congress that she was unhappy with the raid and that she would "get to the bottom of this." But, she added: "In my view, we have to do workplace enforcement. It needs to be focused on employers who intentionally and knowingly exploit the illegal labor market."

Homeland Security officials confirmed that a planned raid in the Chicago area was delayed in recent weeks because senior administrators expected "a higher level of scrutiny to be applied," one official said. "Politics has nothing to do with it. It is all about the quality of the investigative work and the effectiveness of targeting the employers."

Michael W. Cutler, a retired senior special INS agent, said the Obama administration needed to go after workers and employers to send a message that it would not condone illegal immigration.

"Who is more responsible for prostitution, the hookers or the johns? It is a shared responsibility," said Cutler, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group opposed to illegal immigration.

He said it would be "dumb" to "go after employers and not the illegal aliens. That means they are going to make very few arrests. And the message that sends is that if you can make it across the border, you're home free. No one is going to be looking for you."

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said the Obama administration also needed to target employers who did not pay minimum wage and who exposed workers to unsafe conditions. But she said she hoped the new guidelines would mark a good first step by halting mass raids.

"What happened during the Bush administration is unconscionable," she said. "At the end of the day, it really targeted a group of vulnerable workers who just were trying to bring the food to the table."





Antonio Olivo of the Chicago Tribune contributed to this report.



<><><> 2


The Monitor



Fence building in Brownsville leaves rough edges


Kevin Sieff

March 27, 2009 - 10:04PM

BROWNSVILLE - Eva Lambert woke up one morning in late February to the sound of heavy machinery. When she stepped outside, she saw tractor-trailers and cranes along the levee behind her home in El Calaboz, 15 miles west of Brownsville.

Then she saw the border fence's steel beams - 18 feet tall and rust-colored. She watched as they were erected one by one on her property.

"I was shocked," she said. "They pulled out the hurricane fence in our backyard. They messed everything up."

But Lambert's biggest surprise was that the federal government began construction without giving her her any compensation.

Unlike her neighbors, who were awarded more than $10,000 in exchange for their assent, Lambert was never asked to sign a contract allowing fencing on her property.

"But that didn't stop them from starting construction," she said Friday, pointing to the steel barrier in her backyard. "In the end, the government does what it wants."

DHS did not respond to calls for comment.

Since February, the federal government has completed construction on several miles of fencing in Lambert's El Calaboz community, part of the government's plan to construct a 700-mile barricade on the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Department of Homeland Security has run into numerous legal obstacles in its attempt to construct the barrier in the Rio Grande Valley, making it one of the few places along the border where fencing plans remain incomplete.

In the last 18 months, DHS filed more than 230 land condemnation lawsuits in South Texas federal courts. Several of those cases, including one involving El Calaboz's Eloisa Tamez, are still unresolved. Tamez's court date was recently moved to October. Until then, her sliver of property will remain one of the few places in El Calaboz without fencing.

"(Homeland Security Secretary Janet) Napolitano and (President Barack) Obama have totally betrayed us," Tamez said. "Their opposition to the fence was just words. They haven't done a darn thing."

When she was governor of Arizona, Napolitano famously said, "Show me a 50-foot fence and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder." But since becoming secretary of DHS, she has done little to change the trajectory of the initial border fence plans.

"In terms of the wall itself, we are going to complete the sections that had already been begun and for which there already were appropriations," Napolitano said in a press briefing on Tuesday. "To the extent we request any other sections it will be part and parcel of a system that includes technology and manpower."

According to DHS spokesman Claude R. Knighten, contracts for all remaining segments of the barrier have already been awarded, including about 35 miles of fencing in the Brownsville-Harlingen area.

Eva Lambert still recoils at the sight of the fence in her backyard.

"It changes everything," she said. "We used to walk and ride bikes out there. ... Now we go outside and there's just that ugly wall."

On Thursday, a government official came by Lambert's house to confirm that she will eventually be compensated for her land. She sighed. It was a conversation she'd expected to have several months earlier, before steel beams lined the perimeter of her property.


<><><> 3


Arizona Republic



Arpaio migration holds draw fire

Data raise doubts about effectiveness


by JJ Hensley - Mar. 30, 2009 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic


The agreement between the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and federal immigration officials has become the focus of a national debate on immigration-enforcement efforts.

Complaints about the program, known as 287(g), which trains local police officers to enforce immigration laws, are at the heart of a Justice Department inquiry into allegations that sheriff's deputies discriminate against Hispanics and a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee to address similar allegations.

Many of the complaints center on two issues: The immigration-enforcement agreement doesn't come with enough guidance for local authorities to focus on serious criminal offenders - opening the door for racial profiling, critics say, and the agreement has led to the removal of illegal immigrants for relatively minor offenses.

One week's worth of data from the Sheriff's Office offers a glimpse at the latter argument and, one critic says, supports the disparity claim; Sheriff Joe Arpaio's officials are fighting the racial-profiling charge in federal court.

Of the 1,300 inmates booked into a county facility last week, 193 were tagged with holds after detention officers trained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement suspected them of being in the country illegally following a screening process.

The inmates were brought to the Fourth Avenue Jail from police agencies throughout the Valley. The data do not contain the identity of the inmates nor the arresting agency. None have been convicted of the crimes they were accused of when detention officers checked their immigration status.

The majority of the charges against inmates with ICE holds were for reported drug- and alcohol-related violations; failure to pay fines or appear in court; and allegations related to forgery and using false identification. One person was tagged with an immigration hold after being brought in, accused of fishing without a license.

"People are arrested every day for the initial violation of the law," Arpaio said. "If they come to the jail, we take one step further to determine if they are illegal."

This has been practice "for years and years," Arpaio said.

"The only difference is: Now we are the ones doing it (instead of ICE). Anybody booked into the jail who are illegal, they put a hold on them. It doesn't matter if it's for spitting on the sidewalk."

Arpaio's high-profile crime-suppression operations - when deputies flood neighborhoods using traffic stops to question drivers about their immigration status - have generated most of the outrage and allegations of racial profiling. But immigration-screening in the jails has resulted in the deportation of thousands more immigrants.

Through Friday, ICE-trained deputies and detention officers had placed immigration holds on nearly 23,000 inmates over two years, while the crime-suppression operations and work by the sheriff's human-smuggling unit resulted in the arrests of about 2,000 people suspected of being in the country illegally.

The data the Sheriff's Office released last week offer the first look at what types of reputed crimes landed the suspected illegal immigrants in jail in the first place.

Federal officials have said they will look at similar data from ICE as part the 287(g) program's review.

"I think that this data points to the wholesale failure of the federal government to engage in oversight and monitoring of how these police departments are using and abusing their authority under these types of agreements," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

The Department of Homeland Security announced plans this month to clarify language in the agreement with local police to re-enforce that 287(g) training is intended to aid in the removal of serious criminal aliens.


<><><> 4


ABA Journal



Immigration Courts Swamped With Cases Taking 2-10 Years to Reach Disposition


Posted Mar 30, 2009, 10:48 am CDT


By Molly McDonough

The backlog of immigration cases is so dense that it took at least two years for 90,000 people accused of being in the U.S. illegally to get a judge to decide whether they needed to leave.

In a review of immigration cases since 2003, USA Today found 14,000 cases that took more than five years and some that took more than a decade to reach disposition. And getting calendared by one of the 224 immigration judges can take more than a year.

The immigration courts, the paper observes, are on the verge of being overwhelmed.

"You could have a case that would take an hour (to hear). But I can't give you that hour of time for 14 months," says Dana Marks, an immigration judge in San Francisco and president of the National Association of Immigration Judges.

USA Today looked at immigration court cases between 2003 and mid-2008, using a copy of the court system's docket obtained from the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review. The information examined only included cases that have reached disposition.

Speeding up cases isn't necessarily a solution.

"Do you want to be expedient or do you want to be just?" San Francisco attorney Jacquelyn Newman tells the paper.

Hat tip Criminal Justice Journalists.


<><><> 5


From the National Day Laborer Organizing Network:

Check out the PBS Now program that was aired on Friday night the Maricopa County Sheriff's abuses.

Please watch the interview and leave a comment. So far only Arpaio supporters have been leaving pro Joe comments on the message board.




<><><> the end / el fin / tamat <><><>

Migrant boat sinks off Libya, hundreds feared dead

Migrant boat sinks off Libya, hundreds feared dead





TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — An overcrowded boat packed with migrants seeking a better life in Europe capsized in the stormy Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Libya, killing at least 21 and leaving 200 missing and feared dead four days after the accident, officials said Tuesday.


The boat, which a Libyan police official said had a capacity of just 50, overturned Friday in high winds with about 250 on board. Pictures showed six drowned bodies pulled from the water and stretched out among piles of nets and frayed ropes on the deck of a fishing boat that took part in the rescue. […]




Migrants drown off Libyan coast



At least 23 people were rescued when the boats capsized in high winds [AFP]


At least 21 people have drowned and 213 more are missing presumed dead after three Europe-bound boats sank in separate incidents, the International Organisation for Migration says.


The boats sank off the coast of Libya and were carrying migrants to Italy, IOM officials said on Tuesday.


"A boat with 257 migrants on board sank on Sunday off the coast of Libya. Twenty-three people were saved and 21 bodies were retrieved", Laurence Hart, the IOM chief of mission in Tripoli, Libya's capital, told the AFP news agency.


An earlier IOM toll out of the organisation's Geneva headquarters put the number of missing at 300. […]

Thursday, March 26, 2009

FW: Please Sign Open Letter to Obama on the Durban Review Conference by March 27th at 4pm EST

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.29/2024 - Release Date: 3/26/2009 7:12 AM

Dear NNIRR members, partners & allies,


We look forward to talking to you all on our monthly conference call later today. In the meantime, we urge you to consider signing onto this open letter that is being circulated to pressure the Obama administration to participate in the Durban Review Conference, which is a followup to the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) that many of you participated in in Durban, South Africa.


To add your personal or organizational sign-on to the letter, send an email to Ejim Dike (edike@urbanjustice.org) at the Urban Justice Institute, who drafted the letter and is coordinating its release etc. (see below.) Thank you.


Colin Rajah

International Migrant Rights & Global Justice Program Director

National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights (NNIRR)

310 8th Street, Suite 303

Oakland, CA 94607


tel: +01-510-465-1984 [ext. 306]

fax: +01-510-465-1885





From: Ejim Dike
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:08 AM
Subject: Please Sign Open Letter to Obama on the Durban Review Conference by March 27th at 4pm EST

Dear All,


I hope that you and/or your organization will sign onto the attached Open Letter to President Obama urging him to participate in the Durban Review Conference and its remaining preparatory meetings. Thank you if you have already indicated that you will be signing the letter.


Many of you signed onto a letter to Secretary Clinton in February urging the United States to participate in the Durban Review Conference. As many of you know, the Administration responded by sending a delegation to one preparatory meeting for the conference and announced upon its return that it would not be participating in the conference.


The Obama Administration’s reasons for deciding to not to engage were that it had “strong reservations about the current outcome document, as it singles out Israel for criticism, calls for unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression in the guise of preventing “defamation of religion” and calls for payment of reparations for slavery.” (The outcome document is the negotiated document with commitments made by governmental conference participants that is produced at the end of most UN conferences.) Subsequently, the outcome document for the conference was revised and cut from 45 pages to a 17-page document. The new document has addressed all the objections of the government and still, as of yesterday morning, the Obama Administration had not yet changed its mind.


The new outcome document has been weakened and many of us are not happy with it. We are trying to pressure the Obama Administration to not only participate in the Durban Review Conference, but to drop some of its objections. I hope that you will read and sign the attached open letter.


If you or your organization wishes to sign the letter, please send me an email (edike@urbanjustice.org) stating your name and organizational affiliation, or your organizational name as it should be listed.  We have extended the deadline for sign onto the Open Letter to President Obama until tomorrow, Friday, March 27th at 4pm (EST).  The signature list is still in formation and we may be rearranging signatories to draw some attention to particular individuals. We will be publishing the letter in the press and blogs over the weekend. After that, the letter will take the form of a petition online and on Facebook.


Thanks as always,




Open Letter to President Barack Obama

Why the United States Should Stop Refusing to Participate in a Global Conference on Racism


Dear President Barack Obama,


We, the undersigned individuals and organizations dedicated to fighting racial injustice and promoting human rights domestically and globally received your recent decision to boycott the Durban Review Conference with profound disappointment. Recognizing that your stated objections to the conference have been addressed, we are confident that your Administration will be reversing its decision in time to participate in the conference and its remaining preparatory meetings scheduled to take place in April.


Refusing to Discuss Racism on a Global Platform is Inconsistent with a Policy of Engagement with the International Community

As you know, the Durban Review Conference is one of the most important international platforms for discussing the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerances. Given the brutal history of slavery and Jim Crow in the United States, your Administration has much to contribute to this discussion. A boycott would be inconsistent with your policy of engagement with the international community. A policy of engagement requires discussion with governments and institutions even if one does not agree with them as demonstrated by your statement last week to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that your Administration is committed to seeking “engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect." How can your Administration engage in any manner with the international community if it has no representation at the discussion table?


The United States Should be Fighting for the Strongest Protections against Racism

The Durban Review process has offered a sophisticated and comprehensive framework for advancing racial equality including concrete guidelines for addressing the link between poverty, racism, sexism, and multiple forms of discrimination; advancing migrant rights; addressing youth violence; providing access to quality education, health care, and adequate housing; and advancing transparent governance in the fight for racial equality. We expect your Administration will not only engage in the process but will also work to ensure that the final outcome offers the strongest and most comprehensive platform for eliminating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerances. This is critical for progress in the domestic and global fight for racial and economic justice.


Specific Objections Raised do not Warrant a Boycott

We are concerned by the reasons put forth by your Administration for its refusal to engage in the conference. Notwithstanding that changes have been made to accommodate your Administration’s specific objections, we do not believe the objections warrant a decision to boycott the conference. As we mentioned before, you recently demonstrated your Administration’s willingness to engage in dialogue with governments that you do not always agree with such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we applaud that decision. Why would your Administration pursue a different policy now that it is time to discuss how to fight and eliminate racism for people in the United States and the rest of the world? How can the United States affirm freedom of expression - even for hate speech - if it refuses even to be present to listen to the views of others?


The United States Must Not Attempt to Ignore our History of Slavery

We are troubled that your Administration pushed for the withdrawal of language related to reparations, reference to the transatlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity, and the overall weakening of the efforts related to people of African Descent. We recall your own speech on March 18, 2008 that we need to “remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.” We urge you to consider the bill H.R. 40 reintroduced by Representative Conyers in January calling for the establishment of a commission to examine the institution of slavery and current forms of racial discrimination, as well as to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies. We believe it will help illuminate the importance of discussing these issues both in the United States and globally.


The United States Must Engage the Global Fight for Racial Justice in Good Faith

It is regrettable that your Administration made its current decision on whether to participate in the Durban Review Conference based on one meeting. One meeting is inadequate for meaningful engagement in the process especially since the process has been ongoing since 2006 not including the time and preparation put into the 2001 World Conference Against Racism (WCAR). The actions of your Administration leave the impression that you are willing to ignore an important opportunity to advance racial equality if it is politically expedient.


The Current Position of Non-Participation is worse than that of the Bush Administration

A boycott by your Administration would be the first time in recent history that the United States has refused to participate in a United Nations conference. This position is even more radical than that of the Bush Administration’s as the former Administration at least attended the preceding conference on race before withdrawing. We hope that your Administration will not squander this important opportunity to push for racial equality on the global stage and will instead send a diverse and high-level delegation including representatives from the non-governmental community.


A United States Refusal to Discuss Racism Encourages Other Countries to do the same

The current decision by your Administration not only affects the United States, but also provides cover for other countries that are reluctant to engage in a meaningful discussion on advancing racial equality to boycott the discussion as well. A United States boycott would have a long-term damaging effect on the global fight against racism.

In closing, we are reminded again of a speech you made a year ago insisting that race is an issue that this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We applauded your thought-provoking speech then as it echoed basic American values of equality and fairness, and reminded us of the importance of engaging in mature and constructive dialogue on race. We urge you not to ignore this global discussion on race. This is an issue that is extremely important for making genuine progress in the United States and advancing peace worldwide. It is also a priority for many of us who supported your campaign for change. Again, we look forward to your timely and substantive engagement in the Durban Review Conference.


Organizational Signatures for Open Letter

1.       Advocates for Environmental Human Rights

2.       Black Workers for Justice - Europe (BWJ-e)

3.       BLACK Advisors

4.       Center for Constitutional Rights

5.       National Rail Maritime and Transport Union 0543 Local Finsbury Park Branch

6.       Cidadao Global

7.       Coalition to Save Harlem

8.       Croydon African Caribbean Family

9.       Equal Justice Society

10.    Equality Now

11.    Global Afrikan Congressuk

12.    Human Rights Project at the Urban Justice Center

13.    Justice Now

14.    Movement for Immigrant Rights Alliance (MIRA)

15.    National Conference of Black Lawyers

16.    National Lawyers Guild

17.    National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights

18.    Norbertines of the Priory of St. Moses the Black

19.    NY Solidarity Coalition with Katrina & Rita Survivors and the Survivors Assembly

20.    The Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute

21.    United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)

22.    Women's International League for Peace and Freedom


Individual Signatures (with organization affiliation for identification purposes only)


1.       Ajamu Baraka, Executive Director, US Human Rights Network

2.       Aleyamma Mathew, Transnational Institute for Grassroots Research and Action

3.       Alice J. Palmer, Chicago, Co-Chair of the People Programme

4.       Amelia Parker, Program Coordinator, Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, American University Washington College of Law

5.       Amy Agigian, Center for Women's Health and Human Rights, Suffolk University

6.       André Degbeon, Founder, AFRO TV BERLIN

7.       Ann Fagan Ginger, the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute

8.       Anthony Gifford, Barrister (UK) and Attorney-at-law (Jamaica)

9.       Asantewaa Gail Harris, Community Vision Council

10.    Bill Fletcher, Jr., Executive Editor, BlackCommentator.com

11.    Brenda Stokely, New York Solidarity Coalition with Katrina & Rita survivors

12.    Charles Amjad-Ali, Ph.D., Th.D., The Martin Luther King, Jr., Professor of Justice and Christian Community, Director Islamic Studies Program, Luther Seminary

13.    Clarence C. Gravlee, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida

14.    David Gespass, President-Elect of the National Lawyers Guild

15.    David Kreindler, Vermont Workers' Center

16.    David Wildman, Executive Secretary, Human Rights & Racial Justice Mission, Contexts & Relationships, General Board of Global Ministries United Methodist Church

17.    Dawn Stanger, Vermont Workers' Center

18.    Denise Williams, Ph.D., Negotiation, Conflict Resolution & Peacebuilding, California State University Dominguez Hills

19.    Dianne Burnham, Ohio Valley PEACE, Outreach

20.    Donald H. Smith, Ph.D., Past President, the National Alliance of Black School Educators; Former chair, the Board for the Education of People of African Ancestry, the John Henrik Clarke House, New York City

21.    Dowoti Désir, Founder of the DDPA Watch Group

22.    Dr Martin C. Okeke, (PhD) Former President of the Organisation NIDOE-France, Vice President PanAFSTRAG-France

23.    Dr. Corann Okorodudu, Professor of Psychology & Coordinator, Africana Studies

24.    Dr. Gloria A. Caballero-Roca, Hispanic Studies, Earlham College

25.    Dr. Irma Loemban Tobing-Klein, President MDG Global Watch

26.    Dr. Lady Dhyana Ziegler, Professor of Journalism, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Florida

27.    Edith M. Jackson, Howard University

28.    Edward L. Palmer, Chicago, Co-Chair of the People Programme

29.    Emira Woods, Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies

30.    Erika Simard, Vermont Workers' Center

31.    Eva Paterson, President, Equal Justice Society

32.    Gary Orfield, Professor of Education, Law, Political Science and Urban Planning. Co-Director, Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA

33.    Gerardo Renique, Associate Professor, Department of History, City College of the City University of New York

34.    Gwendolyn Anderson, Member, NEA, WEAC and Milwaukee Teachers Association

35.    Ignatious Muhammad, Member, Nation of Islam

36.    Iwan Leeuwin, Chairperson, AAD Network in the Netherlands

37.    James Haslam, Vermont Workers' Center

38.    James Rowan, Northeastern University School of Law

39.    Jeanne Mirer, Secretary General of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers

40.    Jewel L. Crawford, MD, National Medical Association; Participant, UN World Conference Against Racism, 2001

41.    Jonathan Kissam, Vermont Workers' Center

42.    Kalin Williams, Malcom X Grassroots Movement

43.    K-C Nat Turner, Assistant Professor, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

44.    Kristine Suozzi, Ph.D., New Mexico Health Equity Working Group Coordinator

45.    Laura Roskos, Ph.D., Co-President of U.S. Section, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

46.    Loretta J. Ross, National Coordinator, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective

47.    Lucy Murphy, Convenor, Gray Panthers of Metropolitan Washington

48.    Marc Pilisuk, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, The University of California. Professor, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center

49.    Martin Y. Iguchi, Ph.D., UCLA School of Public Health

50.    Matt McGrath, Vermont Workers' Center

51.    Mavis G. Biekman, Board Member, African European Women's Movement Sophiedela, The Hague, The Netherlands

52.    Mr. Philip M. J. Baptiste, III, Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc

53.    Ms Diane King, Director, Seeking Joint Solution

54.    Ms Dra Barryl A. Biekman, President of the African European Women’s Movement “Sophiedela”; Chair of the National Platform Dutch Slavery; Past President of the Pan African Strategic and Policy Group (Panafstrag Europe EU/NL; Board member of Tiye International

55.    Nancy J. Bothne, Instructor, DePaul University

56.    Nancy Munger, Co-President of U.S. Section, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom

57.    Nina T. Harawa, MPH, PhD, Department of Research, Charles Drew University

58.    Nkem Dike, Northwestern University, IL

59.    Nzingha Assata, Founding Member, The Alliance of Afrikan Women in England

60.    Peg Franzen, Vermont Workers Center

61.    Professor Connie de la Vega, University of San Francisco, School of Law

62.    Queen Quet, Founder, Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition

63.    Raj Patel, Affiliation. UC Berkeley Center for African Studies

64.    Ramona Ortega, Executive Director, Cidadao Global

65.    Rev. Jeremy Tobin, Board Member, US Human Rights Network and Executive Board, Movement for Immigrant Rights Alliance (MIRA)

66.    Sam Anderson, Author, The Black Holocaust For Beginners. National Reparations Congress. Black New Yorkers for Educational Excellence

67.    Serfia Macnack, Comité Moederhart 1982, Suriname/Holland 

68.    Sharon Bator, Doctoral Student Southern University and A&M College

69.    Shawna Howell, MPH, ASPH/CDC Health Disparities Fellow, Community Health and Program Services Branch, Division of Adult and Community Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

70.    Shelby F. Lewis, Professor Emeritus, Clark Atlanta University

71.    Shulamith Koenig, 2003 Recipient of  the UN Human Rights Award

72.    Sylvanna Falcon, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Sociology, Connecticut College

73.    Tanisha Douglas, Malcom X Grassroots Movement

74.    Thomas B. Hall Jr., Peace and Justice

75.    Vernellia R. Randall, Professor of Law, University of Dayton

76.    Wendy Lopez, Malcom X Grassroots Movement



Individual Signatures (with no organization affiliation)


77.    Akosua Gyeaboa LCSW, MSW, Indianapolis, Indiana

78.    Angela Flynn, Bethesda, MD

79.    Dorothy Stephens

80.    Gail Lerner, New York, NY

81.    Ijeoma Dike-Young, Indianapolis, IN

82.    Jeanne Bergman, Ph.D., New York, NY

83.    Judith L. Killen, Educator, New York City

84.    Kawika Liu, MD, PhD, JD, Honolulu, HI

85.    Kwasigadyapay. F.R.Kotzebue, The Netherlands

86.    Lee Guest, New York, NY

87.    Lorraine Halinka Malcoe, PhD, MPH, Albuquerque, NM

88.    Ms. Lynda Wolfe Smith

89.    Naomi Blake, London, UK

90.    Pauline Park, transgender activist, New York, NY

91.    Terry Day,  anti-racist activist, UK

92.    Vrede Yvonne, Suriname



Ejim Dike
Human Rights Project
Urban Justice Center
123 William Street, 16th Floor
New York City, NY 10038
646.602.5628 (phone)
212.533.4598 (fax)