The Limits of the ICC

This article spotlights the powerlessness of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This article profiles two of the men in positions of power who led and supported the crimes against humanity committed by the Janjaweed militia in Sudan. While the ICC "issued arrest warrants" one year ago, the Sudanese government says the ICC "has no jurisdiction to try Sudanese suspects". What then is the role of the ICC? Is it enough to encourage member states to voluntarily extradite those who commit gross human rights violations to be tried in front of the national community? Sudan won't extradite the suspects, the U.S. isn't even a member (lucky for former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, among others): What is the proper role of the ICC?

Pennsylvania town taking immigration into their own hands

In Hazleton, PA - a town not too far from Lancaster - the mayor passed a measure that gave authorities "extraordinary power" when dealing with illegal immigrants. The law was actually targeted at employers and landlords who dealt with illegal immigrants. Since it passed in Hazleton, federal court has deemed it unconstitutional. Still, the desire to pass the law and the support it has received from Hazleton's non-Latino population has caused tension in the town. Hispanic residents who are citizens of the US are targeted the same as illegal immigrants, and discriminated against in town. Hazleton also blames increased crime on the illegal population.
I think this raises interesting questions about immigration control and policy in the United States. The mayor, Lou Barletta, (who now plans to run for congress) passed the bill because it was his duty to protect the (legal) residents of his town. He also mentioned that the officials in Washington weren't doing their jobs in this area. Should towns and cities be able to control the illegal immigrant population as they wish? Is it important for the safety of each municipality? Or should it be federally regulated? Hazleton's story suggests that towns want more control over their own populations, however unconstitutional it may seem.

A New U.S Border Patrol?

Should President Carter Have Met with Hamas?

The former president says that the issue is not that he met with Hamas, widely regarded as a terrorist organization, but that the United States and Israel refuse to. Should organizations considered to be terrorist be included in diplomatic dialogue if the goal is peace? Or would this encourage groups to employ terrorist tactics to gain a voice? Was former President Carter out of place and did his meeting legitimate a terrorist group, or are the policies of not negotiating with terrorists outdated and impeding the peace process?

Undocumented Immigrants & Health Care

A very interesting story -- a 21 year old undocumented immigrant with 4 liver transplants -- who should foot the bill? U.S. taxpayers?

What Issues Should DHS be Focusing On?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has recently placed even more emphasis on state compliance with the Real ID Act. Part of this initiative pushes for national IDs, as opposed to state IDs, in order to reduce the prevalence of identification fraud after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Many states are opposing this Act, claiming "bullying the states is not the answer, nor is threatening their citizens' rights to travel." State representatives are also rejecting the Act on the basis of the financial burden associated with it. However, if states fail to comply with the Act within a certain designated time frame, DHS has stated it will refuse to regard state ID cards as acceptable forms of federal identification.

Other issues addressed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in relation to DHS's practices included the current waiting list for naturalizations, meaning that many citizens-to-be who have paid their taxes and are productive members of society will not be able to vote in the 2008 Presidential Election.

Should DHS be concentrating on the Real ID Act when there are naturalization orders to process? Is the Department perhaps lending too much importance to the Act in light of Post-9/11 sentiment? Or should matters of national security actually be the focus of the Department of Homeland Security?

Should President Bush Boycott the Opening of the Olympic Games?

Protests have occurred around the world regarding the decision to hold the Olympic Games in Beijing. (This issue was brought to the blog earlier in the semester in an article about Steven Spielberg's opposition). China has been placed not only in a spotlight of prominence, but also under a microscope of international scrutiny, particularly regarding alleged human rights abuses. The argument is not only about China's human right's policies, but that like the title of the article in the link, the Olympics are "Worsening China Rights". How so? Well a perfect example would be the sentencing of activist of Hu Jia which this article suggests has occurred so that he will be silenced during the games.
With that context, I chose to post this article for the following section. The author writes, "US President George W Bush is facing calls to boycott the Games' opening. "It would be clearly inappropriate for you to attend the Olympic Games in China, given the increasingly repressive nature of that country's government," a group of 15 US politicians wrote in a letter to Mr Bush on Tuesday.Mr Bush has said he plans to attend the ceremony but Germany's Angela Merkel says she will not. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has not ruled out a boycott." This passage of the article stood out to me for several reasons. If the issue is China's human rights abuses, what substantive effect could a boycott of the Opening Ceremonies achieve? I don't personally believe there are any. The argument, I believe, would therefore be that heads of state should boycott for symbolic reasons, which leads me to several questions. How useful is a symbolic act? I don't think many would argue that President Bush boycotting the ceremonies would effect the human rights policies of a sovereign nation, but at the same time, what does it say to and about our nation if our President attends when other heads of state (perhaps more enlightened?) are not? Does it matter? Should it matter? Are we afraid to draw attention to our own human rights controversies? Is our president ignoring international protests? Do human rights controversies of the host country even have a role in the discussion of the Olympic Games at all?

Ex- ICE Agent Rapes Illegal Immigrant

On Thursday a former immigration agent Wilfredo Vazquez plead guilty to raping a Jamaican woman who was in his custody. Mr. Vazquez was suppose to be transporting his victim from a detention facility in Miami-Dade County to another detention center in Broward County, Florida. The ex-officer also plead guilty for "'placing the woman in fear' during the sexual encounter." By Mr. Vazquez pleading guilty it was recommended by the prosecutors office that he serve a sentence of seven years in prison.

Vazquez's victim was a Jamaican mother of two who had been living in the United States illegally for 12 years. Vazquez was responsible for transporting this women to a transitional detention facility as she waited to be deported back to Jamaica. Once the victim filed a complaint ICE authorities granted her parole. Right now Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center (FIAC) is helping the victim obtain a visa which could lead to her obtaining legal residency.

The thing which disturbs me the most about this story is the ideal that an ICE official would take advantage of a women who had already been through a major ordeal. The victim already had to deal with deportation and being separated from her children, then for a ICE official to take advantage of her sexually is completely inhumane. Just because this women was not a legal citizen does not make it right for her to be abused while in the custody of ICE. When hearing about incidents such as this it reinforces the ideal that our immigration system is failing once again.

What can we do as citizens to change the mistreatment of detainees at the hands of ICE?

Immigration Optimist

I have always found immigration policy to be a something of a Catch-22. If we open up immigration policy it is argued, with fair reason, that we open the flood gates for individuals we do not want walking the streets of our country. In today's terms this is a matter of homeland security and an obstacle for potential terrorist threats. Another aspect of this perspective argues that immigrants will rob hard working Americans of their jobs, undercutting the working class. Pragmatically, the current obsequious immigration gauntlet unnecessary. This article, really a blog, identifies many of the compromises and changes that can and should be made to contemporary immigration policy.

The suggestions in this article focus on the H1-B visa program, which allows for skilled workers to come to the US and work. However, only 65,000 of these visa's are granted annually. Proposed legislation recommends that we increase the annual number of H1-B visa grants to 115,000. A statistic given in the article states that, "(A Duke University study has found that 25% of American technology start-ups were founded by foreign-born entrepreneurs from 1995 to 2005; in addition, 26% of technology start-ups founded by immigrants had CEO’s, presidents, founders or lead researchers from India.)" Through H1-B visa's we can achieve increased economic efficiency and prosperity for all Americans, a point few people would rationally dispute.

This argument can then be shaped in an economic frame. There has been economic growth in many sectors directly correlated and attributed to individuals who immigrated to this country. As these numbers increase, the number of laborers needed to supply the demand of increased wealth and population must also increase. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle of economic growth for all socioeconomic classes.

I understand the need for homeland security to protect our country from terrorist threats. However, this should not have a dramatic an effect on the immigration policy. Any immigrant, whether a factory worker or an executive, should be allowed a fair chance to come to this country. If they have proven to be a productive members of society in their home country, why not allow them a chance to contribute to ours.

Children in Detention Centers

This video made by the ACLU shows a detention center used for political asylum seekers and their children in Hutto, Texas. Perhaps just as interesting as the video are some of the viewer comments:

"Not only does the inhumane treatment of innocent families and children in Hutto break an American tradition of protecting individuals from political oppression, it breaks an internationally accepted human rights standard of providing children access to medical and education needs to. This issue is not about immigration. Its about protecting the qualities that make America unique - A belief in human rights." -RichardParker72

"Are these people legal or illegal immigrants? Knowing that they were illegally trying to obtain entry the parents subjected their children to the possibility of Hutto. We, as a nation, can not be parent to all, cannot be responsible for the worlds suffering, and cannot be expected to alleviate it through indiscriminate open borders." Ssing45

What do you think? Should we be detaining children who come to the U.S. with their family members? Is there an alternative?