NNIRR: Senate Immigration Bill Dashes Hopes for Fair, Just Reform

June 28, 2013

For Immediate Release

Senate Immigration Bill Dashes Hopes for Fair, Just Reform

'Border surge' approval further threatens border communities, migrant safety and well-being
 

(Oakland, CA) With the Senate’s passage of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, the Board of Directors and members of the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights voiced their disappointment and concern with the dramatic escalation of border enforcement negotiated to secure support from conservative Republican senators hostile to the legalization of undocumented immigrants.

Executive Director, Catherine Tactaquin, commented, “The Senate passed a historic immigration reform bill yesterday. We had hoped the bill would have been historic for upholding the human rights of immigrants, for providing fair and equitable access to visas, protecting their rights as workers, fueling resources to process the long backlog of pending family visa applicants, and ending flawed and punitive immigration enforcement policies at the border and in the interior.“ She continued, “Unfortunately, S. 744 was not that bill. This is not the kind of legislation and deal-making that we can support nor encourage.”

Susan Alva, a Los Angeles-based immigrants rights attorney, also criticized the immigration “compromise”: “Legislative deal-making is a given. But in this bill, the legalization carrot has been beaten to a pulp by an enforcement stick that staggers the imagination.  By shamelessly presenting this as a victory, proponents of this bill are banking on the toll that years of historic levels of enforcement have already taken on immigrant communities.  This is not compromise; this is blackmail."

Board member Christian Ramirez, Human Rights Director at Alliance San Diego, spoke to the Corker-Hoeven “border surge” amendment added in the final days of negotiations: "Despite this unwarranted aggression against 15 million people who call the border home and the irresponsible language of war and occupation used in the Senate floor to refer to the safest region in the United States, southern border communities will continue to ensure that rights and dignity are restored for the betterment of the people of the United States.” He continued, “The threat of militarization by policy makers has no place in a democratic society. Social and economic needs cannot and must not be resolved through military might if we are to preserve our morals and values as a society.”

Board Chairperson Eduardo Canales of Corpus Christi, Texas, added that the bill “perpetuates and enhances failed policies of increased enforcement on the border and will continue to increase migrant deaths.” He also warned that the expansion of the “E-verify” employment verification system would “allow further discrimination and racial profiling of immigrants and other workers of color.”

Other board members also raised an alarm about the consequences of the dramatic escalation of the border security program. Hamid Khan, based in Southern California, stated that the bill served as a model for what he termed as the 

“Surveillance Industrial Complex.”  “Under the guise of public safety and security,” he commented, “the bill is a political investment in the further strengthening and legitimization of the police state.”

Khan identified the huge transfer of public funds to be invested in surveillance equipment, data collection and data mining, enhanced communications interoperability and information sharing between federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. He said, “Intermixing current and new technologies, enhancing operational capacities, adding thousands of new customs and border patrol agents are key steps in a full spectrum of information gathering, storing, sharing and disseminating as necessary tools for social control.” 

Monami Maulik, Executive Director of the New York-based Desis Rising Up and Moving-DRUM, raised similar concerns. “This bill is not what thousands of our members, as South Asian immigrants, have been organizing tirelessly for years alongside so many communities,” she said. “Congress will send an alarming message to all of us and the world, that human rights are no concern to the U.S.” She continued, “This bill is using immigration as an excuse to further a national security state—to fly drones above us, surveil us, and set the stage for a national ID system and database. We need real human rights-based reform. The world is watching.”

Gerald Lenoir, Executive Director of the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, described the bill as “a nasty piece of legislation that attempts to codify repression on the border and wasteful spending.” He also expressed concern about the limitations of the legalization program: “It falls far short of the promise of a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. The onerous work and income provisions will disqualify millions of low income undocumented immigrants from accessing the path to a green card and citizenship.”

“S. 744 does not deliver even our minimum aspiration for immigration reform: bringing the undocumented community ‘out of the shadows’, commented Lillian Galedo, Executive Director of Filipino Advocates for Justice, based in Oakland, California. “The proposed legalization program will not legalize 11 million people.  The 10 to 20 year ‘path’ to citizenship will not benefit the mostly elderly Filipino caregivers in our base.’ She also stated that they “totally oppose the massive militarization of the border and border communities. The only beneficiaries of this boondoggle are the war and prison contractors whose successful lobbying resulted in a $46 billion set-aside for ‘border security’. This is a sad day for human rights.”

Bill Chandler, Executive Director of the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance and a longtime labor organizer, expressed concern about the bill’s drive to increase and continue guest worker programs. These, he said are “another form of indentured servitude and a benefit for employers, not workers.”

Board member Janis Rosheuvel, Executive for Racial Justice with United Methodist Women in New York, declared, “As people of faith, we call on our elected officials to end the criminalization of communities of color exemplified by this bill. We call for justice-driven legislation that delves into the root causes of migration and does not rely on punitive policies as a matter of course. Our communities and nation deserve more.”

The National Network pledges, as the immigration reform debate focuses on the House and where hostile representatives have declared their opposition to any form of legalization, to continue the fight for fair and just immigration reform.

“We will push back on the mean-spirited, xenophobic and punitive proposals that have already begun to emerge there,” said Tactaquin, adding, “The Obama Administration also needs to shoulder greater responsibility for the well-being and safety of immigrant communities, and break this downward spiral in the direction of immigration reform. We call on the Administration to start by suspending detentions and deportations and keeping families together as we continue on this difficult road to immigration reform.”

#

Click here to read NNIRR's May 20, 2013 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter outlined proposals and positions for a fair immigration reform policy.

******

The National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights is a nationwide alliance of diverse immigrant community, civil and human rights, labor, faith and other allied sector groups and individuals. NNIRR is committed to human rights as essential to securing healthy, safe and peaceful lives for all.

Connect/Support:                      

EEUU hace demanda para expropiar tierra indigena para el muro fronterizo en Texas

Contacto:

* Laura Rivas: 510-282-2500, xicanitatli@gmail.com

* Lawdefense1@gmail.com

Para difusión inmediata

30 Abril: Gobierno EEUU hace demanda contra mujer indígena en cortes de TX;

El gobierno busca expropiar inmediatamente más terreno para el muro fronterizo

Inmigración y Seguridad: Aún más usurpación de tierras indígenas para el muro fronterizo

Brownsville, Texas –26 de Abril, 2013 –Eloisa Garcia Tamez volverá a la corte federal el 30 de abril de 2013 para defender sus derechos contra el gobierno de Estados Unidos. En un intento gubernamental de tomar posesión inmediata de la propiedad del subsuelo de Eloisa Garcia Tamez para el dique y el muro fronterizo que divide sus tierras ancestrales, el gobierno de EE.UU. tendrá que convencer al juez federal Andrew S. Hanen que tiene el derecho a despojarla y para justificar que se requiere el subsuelo para la seguridad nacional.

El equipo legal de Tamez ya habían estado en diálogo con abogados del Departamento de Justicia de EEUU en los últimos meses para establecer las fechas para un juicio con jurado en el caso actual de Tamez. Simultáneamente a la solicitud de posesión inmediata, el gobierno propone un calendario de juicio con jurado que se extiende hasta mayo de 2014. Una declaración del abogado de la acusada, Peter Schey, que se presentó ante la corte el 15 de abril establece:

“El acordado Orden de Programación Propuesta establece fechas y el juicio bien hacia el futuro y no es claro por qué; el demandante no ha dado explicación de por qué necesita una orden de posesión inmediata para la pequeña franja de tierras adicionales implicadas en la moción actual.”

Mientras que EE.UU. tomó forzosamente las tierras de pueblos indígenas y otros pueblos vulnerables durante la primera ronda de la construcción del muro fronterizo en 2009, no tenía la autoridad para desposeer a Eloisa Garcia Tamez de sus derechos de propiedad del subsuelo, y la agresión del estado continua contra una dueña indígena de la propiedad con profundos lazos ancestrales a la tierra y su subsuelo.

Un comunicado emitido por Daniel Romero, Presidente del Consejo General de la Banda de Lipan Apaches de Texas (NDE) dice: "Pedimos que el gobierno de Obama y el Congreso incorporen las demandas del CERD [las Naciones Unidas] por una consulta apropiada y la consideración de los pueblos indígenas y comunidades de la región fronteriza. Solicitamos que el gobierno de EE.UU. incluya la solicitud de los pueblos Ndé [Lipan Apache] dentro de la reforma migratoria actual y nuestra propuesta de la política sobre tierras fronterizas la cual ha influenciado negativamente la forma de vida Ndé.”

###

Lipan Apache Women Defense http://lipancommunitydefense.wordpress.com/

Lipan Apache Band of Texas http://www.lipanapachebandoftexas.com/

Why We Walk

Reflections on the Migrant Trail

By Kathryn Rodríguez


I just returned from the 8th Annual Migrant Trail, a 75-mile walk from Sásabe, Sonora to Tucson, Arizona. The purpose of the Walk is to bear witness to the loss of life, the deaths of thousands of women, men and children on the US-México border by walking through the corridor where most human remains are recovered. Derechos Humanos has sponsored the Migrant Trail since the beginning, and I have been honored to walk every year.

Eight years ago, when a friend came to our weekly Derechos Humanos meeting with the idea for the Walk, I signed up to be part of the organizing committee. That first year, there were about thirty of us, and many of us had spent years working on the border.

Many of us have friends that have crossed the border here in Arizona, and some of us have known people who have died as a result. The idea of being in that space, of physically being present in an intentional way, was highly appealing to me.

It would be impossible for anyone who has never been a migrant to be able to understand what walking that trail feels. Besides the incredible amount of support that we have— water whenever we want it, support vehicles to carry our gear and anyone struggling to keep up, bandages and blister kits, and allies bringing meals out to us— we have the assurance that we will arrive safely.

[Primal Fear of Police]

Even stripping all of that from us, we exist free of the primal fear that I have seen in countless migrants. I once sat in a car with a woman so terrified that the smell of fear rolled off of her in long, powerful waves, and I finally understood what is meant when they say that animals can smell fear. I’ve talked to countless people who call to report a loved one missing, hearing fear lace every word they speak as they describe clothing and hair and eyes and teeth, hearing them desperately trying not to voice the fear that death will be the answer they are given.

Fear of law enforcement is something that is, for the most part, foreign to U.S. citizens — many of us assume that law enforcement is there to help us, and do not make conscious efforts to avoid any sort of detection or attention. I have learned, in my time at Derechos Humanos, the incredible lengths to which people must go to in order to live their lives. My privilege shames me when I think about this other reality, this sub-existence that we have carved out for the people that we so hypocritically depend on in this nation. I try to think about these things as we walk twelve to sixteen miles each day on the Walk.

There is something very cleansing about physical movement. The repetition of your heel, toe, heel, toe on the ground, and how that moves upward through your body. Many of us carry crosses bearing the names of individuals who have lost their lives on the Arizona border, and I try to think about how I can do justice to the ones I seek to honor. This year I walked with Alfonso Hernandez Ramirez, age 50, and Miguel Angel Rodriguez Ortiz, age 4. I thought about these two—a man in the prime of his life, most likely with a wife and children at home, and a little boy who would never have those things because he was never allowed to grow up.

[Migrants Dying on Border Are Not First Time Crossers]

I think about the fact that some of the migrants who die on the border are not first-time crossers who have traveled up from the south of México, but people who have been living for years in Phoenix or Chicago or Atlanta. Many view Arpaio’s crackdown on the immigrant communities as an unjust deportation, but it can also be a death sentence for those who struggle to return. Perhaps the officer who calls Border Patrol does not see it this way, but this is the reality. When a woman or man has lived here for fourteen years, gotten married, had children, bought a home or business and is then suddenly deported, where do we think they will go? Of course they will cross the border. Of course they will try to get home.

More and more of the stories I hear of relatives reporting loved ones missing are people who have created lives for themselves in this country, people who have become part of our communities.

We cannot forget, in denouncing the deaths on the border, to denounce the policies that send them to that unforgiving desert. Trade policies that have displaced agriculturally based workers from mostly Indigenous communities must be ended.

The militarization of the border must be halted, and the border wall removed. Deportations must no longer be permitted to tear families apart. Racial profiling and collaboration with Border Patrol must not be permitted, not just because it is unjust and unfair and racist, but because people are dying as a result.

After the first year of the Walk, we discussed doing it for a second year. It was a long, intentional discussion, and in the end we decided that we would only do it a second year if we were willing to commit to walking every year until the deaths stop.

To date, I have walked 600 miles to honor that promise. With every step we take, I hope that the hearts and minds of those who have turned hard hearts toward our migrant and immigrant sisters and brothers can be softened toward compassion and love, and I pray for the day that there are no deaths to denounce, no injustice to right, and for the day that we end the Migrant Trail.

*
Kathryn Rodríguez is the Program Director of Coalición de Derechos Humanos, based in Tucson, AZ.

These photographs were taken by Arnoldo García at the start of the 2010 Migrant Trail Walk.

U.S. Border Security Causes Record Migrant Deaths in Arizona

Arizona Fiscal Year Deaths: 253

For Immediate Release
October 21, 2010
Contact: Derechos Humanos: 520.770.1373

After a Decade of Denouncing Border Militarization,
Arizona Communities See Record Deaths Continue on the Arizona-Sonora Border
While Migrants Continue to Die, DHS Secretary Napolitano Brags About Militarization and Border Policies

Arizona-The final number of bodies recovered on the Arizona-Sonora border for the fiscal year that began on October 1, 2009 and ended September 30, 2010 is 253, the second highest on record for the Arizona -Sonora border, reports Coalición de Derechos Humanos. The data, which are compiled from medical examiner reports from Pima, Yuma, and Cochise counties, are an attempt to give a more accurate reflection of the human cost of expensive and lethal U.S. border and immigration policies.

Derechos Humanos has denounced the militarization of our border, even before we began to see the deadly effects. In 1994, there were 14 known migrant deaths in Arizona, and our communities were outraged, protesting the loss of human life. Only sixteen years later, we are recovering eighteen times that number in one year. That is a 1,707% increase. We cannot permit this to continue.



The final count includes 170 males, 32 females, 4 minors, and approximately 156, or 61.7% of unknown identity. Countries represented in the final count include México, Guatemala, Ecuador and the Dominican Republic.

This figure is higher than last year's total of 206 remains recovered, and while the true total number of deaths on the border is impossible to calculate, Derechos Humanos has documented at least 2,104 deaths on the Arizona- Sonora border since 2000. The number of remains recovered in neighboring states and south of the border is not currently available.



In reviewing the data from this year, an alarming piece that jumps out immediately is the staggering increase in the number of remains of unknown gender. Three years ago, that number was 5, 19 the following year, 31 last year, and this year we are at 51, an incredible 20% of the total recovered. It is unconscionable that our government not only continues with these policies, but openly brags about increasing militarization efforts on the border.

Unknown gender indicates that not enough of the remains were recovered to determine gender, and without DNA, it is impossible to know even this basic information about the individual, making identification and return to their families even more difficult. The dramatic increase in these unknown gender cases are a troubling indicator of what is to come, as people are pushed out into more and more isolated areas, making rescue and detection less likely, and the likelihood of death more certain.

There is information to suggest that the migration flow patterns are shifting due to the Funnel Effect, which has been documented by the Binational Migration Institute.* The high number of skeletal remains recovered this year, 59 (23.3% of total) support this likely shift in migration flow, and it is possible that the long periods of time before being recovered indicates that people are crossing in more isolated and desolate areas, with less chance of rescue or discovery. It is unknown how many remains are currently near the border but have not yet been discovered, and it is probable that some of these remains will never be recovered.

For more than a decade, border communities have cried out for justice, demanding change to the policies that funnel hundreds of men, women and children to their deaths every year. Not only have the human cost of these policies been acknowledged, but efforts have been increased every year. The Department of Homeland Security has been given a blank check every year-granted power, equipment, and resources that could further real security in our communities, such as education, health care and economic development-instead, they have become instruments of death.

A war has been waged not only on immigrants, but on the families that live in border communities-the Indigenous who find their lands red with the blood of native brethren, the desert animals and environment who see their homes destroyed by border infrastructure, and people of conscience who see death becoming horrifyingly normalized every day by our leaders and politicians. We stand united in grief and resolution over these unnecessary deaths, as we witness the fatal policies of division and xenophobia that continue to invade our sacred borderlands.

<|>

The complete list of recovered bodies is available on the Coalición de Derechos Humanos website: http://www.derechoshumanosaz.net. This information is available to anyone who requests it from us and is used by our organization to further raise awareness of the human rights crisis we are facing on our borders.

* The complete BMI study, The "Funnel Effect" & Recovered Bodies of Unauthorized Migrants Processed by the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner, 1990-2005, is available on the Derechos Humanos website.

###

Editors note: embedded links were added.

Letter to the DREAM Movement: My Painful Withdrawal of Support for the DREAM Act

By Raúl Al-qaraz Ochoa

17 September 2010

I have supported the DREAM Act, despite my critiques and concerns over the military service component. In fact, I was one of the arrestees at the sit-in at John McCain’s office in Tucson, AZ; an act of civil disobedience where four brave undocumented students risked deportation and put the DREAM Movement back in the national political stage. I made peace with my participation because I felt I was supporting the self-determination of a movement led by undocumented youth and I felt we could subvert the component that was to feed undocumented youth into the military pipeline if we developed a plan to support youth to the college pathway.

First, let me say that I applaud and admire the tireless work you have all done for the past 10 years. Your commitment and dedication parallels giant student movements of the Civil Rights era. Your persistence in organizing even when the world turned their back on you is inspiring; your creativity in tactics, visuals and media strategy is amazing. Your movement gives hope to hundreds of students I have come across here in Arizona and beyond. It is because of your grassroots efforts—not the politicians’ nor the national Hispanic organizations’—that the Dream is still alive and has come this far. As an organizer with permanent resident status privilege, let me assert that your cause for access to college and path to legalization is just. No one can tell you that what you are fighting for is wrong.

With that said, I want to share how I am deeply appalled and outraged at how Washington politics are manipulating and co-opting the dream. I understand that some folks may say, “we just want the DREAM Act to pass regardless”, but it is critical to examine the political context surrounding DREAM in its current state. It is disturbing to see how Democrats are attaching our community’s dreams for education/legalization to a defense appropriations bill. This is grotesque in a number of ways:

1) Democrats are using the DREAM Act as a political stunt to appeal to Latino voters for the November elections because it is seen as “less” threatening than a broad immigration reform. The Democrats have the political will to recently unite and pass a border militarization bill in a matter of hours ($600 million!), yet they won’t pass a broader immigration reform? And now they are up for the DREAM Act? I’m glad they feel the pressure of the Latino voting bloc, but they obviously do not care about our lives, they only seek to secure their seats in November—which by the way look very jeopardized if they don’t move quickly to energize their “base”. They are also seeking to secure the gay vote with the gradual repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy as part of this same defense bill. All in all, insincere, token political gestures only serve to stall real justice.

2) Democrats are telling me that if I support access to education for all my people, I must also support the U.S. war machine with $670 billion for the Pentagon? Does this mean I have to support the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? By supporting the DREAM Act, does this mean I automatically give a green light for U.S. forces to continue invading, killing and raping innocent people all over the world? This is really unfair. Here in Arizona I struggle with a climate of fear and terror. Yet even though I am so far away, I hear the cries of Arab mothers who are losing their children in U.S. sponsored bombings and massacres. There’s a knot in my throat because victims of U.S. aggression abroad look just like us… victims of U.S. aggression at home. This ugly and twisted political system is dividing us and coercing us into supporting the funding of more bloodshed and more destruction if we want the DREAM Act to pass. Does this mean that our dreams will rest upon the nightmares of people that suffer globally? Obviously, students that call their Senators are supporting their future NOT bloodshed abroad, but we have to be responsible to the larger political implications of this.

3) Democrats are vilifying and criminalizing our parents. A really insulting argument prominently used for passing the DREAM Act that I keep hearing over and over is that because undocumented students “didn’t choose to come to the U.S. to break the laws of this country” you shouldn’t have to pay for the“sins” or “illegal behavior” of your parents. Are they serious?!? It is not okay to allow legislation to pass that will stand on and disrespect the struggle, sacrifice and dignity of our parents. What about blaming U.S. led capitalist and imperialist policies as the reasons that create our “refugee” populations. Our parents’ struggle is not for sale. We must not fall for or feed into the rhetoric that criminalizes us or our parents. We all want justice, but is it true justice if we have to sell out our own family members along the way?

Again, I support this fight –- it’s part of a larger community struggle. It’s personal to all of us. Passage of the DREAM Act would definitely be a step forward in the struggle for Migrant Justice. Yet the politicians in Washington have hijacked this struggle from its original essence and turned dreams into ugly political nightmares.

I refuse to be a part of anything that turns us into political pawns of dirty Washington politics. I want my people to be “legalized” but at what cost? We all want it bad. I hear it. I’ve lived it. but I think it’s a matter of how much we’re willing to compromise in order to win victories or crumbs.

This again proves how it is problematic to lobby the state and put all our efforts in legislation to pass. We should know that this political route is always filled with racism, opportunism, betrayals and nightmares. History repeats itself once again.

So if I support the DREAM Act, does this mean I am okay with our people being used as political pawns? Does this mean that my hands will be smeared with the same bloodshed the U.S. spills all over the world? Does this mean I am okay with blaming my mother and my father for migrating “illegally” to the U.S.? Am I willing to surrender to all that in exchange for a benefit? Maybe it’s easier for me to say that ”I can” because I have papers, right? I’d like to think that it’s because my political principles will not allow me to do so, regardless of my citizenship status or personal benefit at stake.

Strong movements that achieve greater victories are those that stand in solidarity with all oppressed people of the world and never gain access to rights at the expense of other oppressed groups.

I have come to a deeply painful decision: I can no longer in good political conscience support the DREAM Act because the essence of a beautiful dream has been detained by a colonial nightmare seeking to fund and fuel the U.S. empire machine.

I am so sorry and so enraged that this larger political context has deferred those dreams of justice and equality that we all share.

In tears, rage and love,

-r

CDH Calls for Border Demilitarization on National Day of Action against SB1070

Coalición de Derechos Humanos

For Immediate Release May 28, 2010 Contact: Derechos Humanos (520) 770-1373 Communities Condemn Obama Administration's Decision to Further Militarize the U.S. - México Border We must stand together on May 29, 2010 to show our resolve against injustice Tucson - The Coalición de Derechos Humanos along with groups across the country, condemn Tuesday's announcement that the Obama Administration will send 1,200 National Guard troops to Arizona and will request an additional $500 million to "secure" the Mexican border. The decision by Obama to "up the ante" on the militarization scheme of over 16 years, not only follows his administration's record of continued attacks on immigrant families across the nation since he became President but his own DHS 800 ICE agent military-style assault on the communities in Arizona on April 15, 2010. Last year, President Obama also sent more than 700 new federal agents to the border, at that time responding to cries of non-existent "spill-over violence," feeding the continued growth of the militarization and of the anti-immigrant sentiment. "Our communities have borne the consequences of border security policies implemented since the mid-1990's-thousands of migrants who have been funneled to their deaths along the Arizona-Sonora border, dangerous spikes in xenophobia and the growth of hate groups, negative economic impacts and other tensions for border communities, the eventual election of anti-immigrant politicians and the enactment of anti-immigrant laws," stated Isabel Garcia, member of Coalicion de Derechos Humanos. "Now this new decision will be felt increasingly and devastatingly across the country." In July of 1994, Doris Meissner, then Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) released the "Border Patrol Strategic Plan: 1994 and Beyond," which clearly shows that their predicted effects of increased militarization would lead to the current political conditions in the state of Arizona. "Those of us who knew that Arizona was 'chosen' to become the laboratory for the anti-immigrant policies back in 1994, now hope that we can finally reframe the immigration debate by demanding that President Obama and the Congress engage in a dialogue that includes an analysis of our foreign and economic policies, such as NAFTA and the Merida Initiative (and the resulting migration), a review of our immigration laws and policies that have encouraged unauthorized migration, and an acknowledgement of the vast contributions made by immigrants," stated Garcia. "We must tell the U. S. public the truth about immigration. But if we follow the same framework and continued increases in police and other enforcement/prosecution measures such as Operation Streamline, we will continue the negative consequences as well, including the unprecedented expenditures." The decision to send military troops into civilian communities is also extremely dangerous. On May 20th, 1997, the nation was horrified by the murder of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil by the military. Eighteen year-old Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., who was tending to the family's goats on his family's ranch in Redford, Texas was stalked for twenty-one minutes and then shot and killed. The U.S. Marines, part of Joint Task Force Six, an INS/Department of Defense unit working along the border, worried that they had killed an innocent civilian and watched Esequiel dying for approximately twenty minutes before calling in to report the incident. A House Judiciary Sub-Committee subsequently made damaging findings, including accusations of obstruction of investigation, and clearly illustrates the dangers of placing military troops in civilian communities. Derechos Humanos and allies across the country call on each one of us to take responsibility to learn the truth about the immigration issues and to engage in dialogue in our own communities and families. While those in power focus on pitting us against each other, worker against worker, Big Oil and Wall Street get a free pass. We must not allow the attacks on our communities. We demand that the Obama Administration reverse his decision to send national guard troops to our border and the request for half a billion dollars to "secure the border." Our country needs real security - jobs, health care, quality education, housing, healthy communities - not measures that bring pain, division, hate and destruction.

Coalición de Derechos Humanos P.O. Box 1286 Tucson, AZ 85702 Tel: 520.770.1373 Fax: 520.770.7455 http://ww.derechoshumanosaz.net