"A Family Divided by 2 Words: Legal and Illegal

This article tells the story of a family from Ecuador who uprooted their lives to move to the United States. As educated professionals in Ecuador, they gave up a comfortable life and rewarding jobs to live in a cramped apartment and work grueling jobs that are labor intensive. Despite the hardships, this family did it all to provide their daughter with a better education. As the mother notes, “My hopes are dead. Right now we’re just focused on the education of the children and their future. Let them reach their goals and have their dreams.”

Unfortunately, it is not that easy. This family represents nearly three quarters of 2.3 million undocumented families that have one child who is a United States citizen. Like this family, 400,000 of these “mixed-status families” have children that are both citizens and non-citizens. While the younger son lacks ambition, he is a US citizen and therefore can obtain a job in the country and has access to finical aid and scholarships to finance a college education. On the other hand, the daughter was one of the 65,000 young people that graduate from American high schools each year without immigration papers. Despite her stellar grades and obvious potential, her only options were the public universities in her state. Without a social security number, she was unable to obtain the kind of job her credentials merited after graduation. She now works as a bookkeeper, in a job that she is over-qualified for and underpaid.

Is it fair to these children that are brought to the United States by their parents to be so limited in their potential? This daughter had no say in coming to this country. Because of where she was born, she can continue to excel at school and work hard but she is extremely limited in where that work can take her. Since her brother was born here, he does not have this concerns and the sky is his limit. The New York State Youth Leadership Council is pushing Congress to pass the Dream Act, which would grant legal status to high school graduates who were brought to the United States by their parents before they were 15 years old and attend college for 2 years or serve in the military. Along with providing an incentive to work hard in school, it creates an essential opportunity. It is unfair to limit the potential of children of illegal immigrants who were given no choice in their situation and this act serves to create an equal playing field for these children in "mixed status families."

A Caudillo Comes to Justice

After experiencing many years of fiscal, political, and social peril, Alberto Fujimori came to power in Peru in 1990 and stayed there through 2000 with his strong-armed tactics. Fujimori bribed countless politicians and government agents, he embezzled $1 Billion U.S. dollars from the Peruvian government, and would often use the military and his Intelligence supervisor to get what he wanted. However, these were only a few of his most deplorable actions. What could be seen as his worst is what he has recently been found guilty of, not in an activist European Court, but in his own country.

Fujimori was found guilty, on April 7, 2009, of Human Rights abuses stemming from his knowledge that a death squad, the Colina Group, had killed a number of Fujimori's opponents, individuals associated with "The Shining Path," a Maoist terrorist group which started in the hills of Peru, but quickly became involved with politics and violence within it's cities, such as Lima. Though the Shining Path did not consist of angels, this was still a brazen act of unjustifiable violence. The Court also ruled on the kidnapping and murder of 10 students from a teacher's training center. These cases are only a few of a number of kidnappings that the Colina Group participated in during the years of Fujimori, and are two known cases in which he can be implicated as the "indirect perpetrator." 

This is a monumental ruling due to the fact that after being dissolved of power some nine years ago, and his subsequent fleeing of the country, Fujimori had been brought back to justice by the new government, which coincidentally is headed by the President he took control from, Alan Garcia. Not only does this help solidify his control of the country and the justice that he sought to bring the people, this is also a major issue for the region in general. After the circus that became the deportation of Pinochet and his subsequent trial before his last days of 2006, it is refreshing to see that justice may be served in the area. Though there are many factions within Peru that appreciate what Fujimori did for the government and the country, there are many more that do not appreciate his heavy handed means in which he achieved his ends. The murders and kidnappings of their own citizens by governments and indirectly their own President is never something that should be condoned or glanced over, not even for the members of The Shining Path. Though this is a recent ruling, it can only be hoped for Peru, and for the region, that this ruling is upheld and that Fujimori will pay for the Human Rights abuses that his regime inflicted.  

One country Two laws

It is terrifying, disgusting and heart wrecking to watch such a video so I suggest that you don't watch it. It made me feel sick in my stomach to watch something like this happening in my own country. The situation in Pakistan just gets worse by the day. It is shocking that within one country, there are two different laws. The parliament, which is actually another name for the President (Zardari), has allowed Sharia to be applied in Swat. This comes as a shock and horror story to all Pakistanis. Sitting in the capital you feel that you are safe and far away from all this, but that is not true now. It keeps getting closer and closer just like it did in Nazi Germany when one day they finally come and knock on your door to come and take you. It is truly terrifying. How is it possible for one country to survive on one law. What will come of this decision? WIll Sharia have to be implemented all over or will the Supreme Court over turn the decision. The irony is that this is an unlawful decision addressing the law. One thinks what can you do in such a situation. The Chief Justice was recently restored. It is time that he stands up to all the pillars he was supporting before he was reinstated and fights to unite the country under one law.

Refugee Camps inside the area of conflict: What is the purpose of safe zones when they don't protect civilians?

Recently, the conflict between the "Tamil Tigers" and the Sri Lankan military has intensified in the North-East area of the country. Appeals from the United Nations and the Red Cross have led the government to establish "safe zones" or "no fire zones" for civilians to ensure their safety form the fighting. This zone is about 20 sq km along the eastern coast of the country. However, this morning, 60 civilians were killed and more than 300 civilians were injured during Tamil-rebel shelling into the camps. According to foreign health officials who provide medical care inside the refugee camp, most of the injured were waiting in line to collect powdered milk for children from the clinic. Neither the Sri Lankan gov't nor the Tamil rebels are commenting on the situation. The Tamils have denied any involvment in the attacks. According ot the UN, more than 2700 people have been killed and over 3000 have been wounded in the last two months of renewed conflict.

I saw this article and it struck me as devastating and is an example how refugee camps established within the area of conflict just do not work. How can the government presume to protect its citizens from harm when the main camp is in the center of the conflict zone. I understand the desire to stay in their home region, but if it is ensure their safety, I would move the camp south of the line. Are we seeing another Korea? Or Cameroon? or Central African Republic? When does the violence end? When and more importantly how can we ensure the safety of populations affected by internal conflict?

Immigrants Looking For A Better Life Gunned Down

This past Friday, April 3rd, Jiverly Wong, a 42 year old man of Vietnamese decent entered the American Civic Center in Binghamton, New York and opened fire, killing 15 people (including himself) and injuring numerous others. The American Civic Association is an immigration support center that serves as an important resource for recent immigrants who are looking to learn English or receive other services. The suspect was reportedly a former student in English classes at the Civic Association. The majority of the victims, themselves were also immigrants searching for a better life in the United States.

Looking at these tragic events in the context of Human Rights/Human Wrongs, I cannot help but wonder if the United States is actually capable providing a better life for recent immigrants fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries. Stories have surfaced about the backgrounds of many of the victims of the Binghamton shootings. For example, Layla Khalil, a 57 year old wife and mother of three came to the United States after surviving a numerous car bombings in Baghdad. After only a few years in the U.S., she has become the victim of the same kind of violence that she sought to escape when leaving her home country of Iraq.

Furthermore, while it is hard to call a killer a victim after taking the lives of 14 other innocent people, it appears that he felt persecuted himself by law enforcement officials. According to a letter that he sent to a news station on the day of the shootings Wong states, "Of course you need to know why I shooting? Because undercover cop gave me a lot of ass during eighteen years." Obviously, it is hard to confirm or deny this apparent motive for the shootings or whether there is a mental health issue in this case, the letter indicates a feeling of isolation that produced anger because he could not speak English as well as a clear feeling persecution from police.

Thus, when looking at how the current immigration system can be amended or improved, does this story tell us anything about the necessity for assimilation and support in the process? Or is this sort of violence unavoidable? Can the U.S. accommodate all immigrants and provide the persecuted around the world with better lives? Should we be responsible for this as the most powerful nation in the world?

Is there a moral obligation to assist refugees fleeing persecution en route?

On Monday, a boat carrying African migrants from Libya to Italy capsized, resulting in the deaths of at least 200 people. Libya is a popular stopping point for migrants whose ultimate destination is Europe, with most continuing on to Italy as a base-point for other destinations in Europe. While many travel to Europe “first and foremost to help their families back home with a paycheck,” many of these people can also qualify as refugees.” Of the 36,000 people that arrived in Italy by sea from North Africa last year, 75% applied for asylum and 50% were granted from form of international protecting.

This is not just an isolated incident. Whether it be by being thrown off board by human smugglers trying not to get caught by navies in the Gulf of Yemen, by dehydration in the hot desert between the US and Mexico, or ships capsizing in dangerous water, thousands died each year on their journeys to seek asylum. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres is quoted as saying; “We are seeing it all over the world.” He believes that Monday’s tragedy shows the desperate steps that people are willing to take “to escape conflict, persecution and poverty in search of a better life.” Human smuggling is a very lucrative business that pries on the desperation of people, particularly those who lack the resources to obtain safe travel. Since it is underground, it lacks any regulation that ensures the safety of migrants. Even if they survive, many migrants are re-traumatized en route to safety. While interning at a human rights organization, I heard numerous horrific stories about what coyotes would do to migrants, particularly women.

Does the international community have a moral obligation to provide refugees with safe transportation between the countries they are fleeing from and where they wish to seek asylum? I believe that what happened on Monday is tragic, but it is even more tragic is that this is a story that happens more often than we realize. I believe the international community should come together and discuss some sort of system that could assist asylum seekers in arriving to safety instead of only providing assistance once they are able to flee themselves from the situation of persecution.

Justice for All?: Prosecution of Kaing Guek Eav

The Khmer Rouge ruled brutally in 1975 through 1979 in Cambodia. Kaing Guek Eav, known as "Duch," was one of the regime's brutal leaders. Eav served as the commander of the secret prison S-21 in the Cambodian capitial Phnom Penh, which is estimated to have killed over 14,000 people in that prision alone. It is estimated that the regime killed 1.7 million people.

Today thirty years later, Kaing Guek Eav is being tried in front of a U.N.-backed tribunal just outside the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh.

Without hestitation we think "Justice! Finally!" However, I want us to rethink this system. We punish the guilty for crimes that we have come to comprehend as inhumane and thus we almost unconsciously dehumanize these people. I am in not way or form excusing the horrific, brutal and uncomprehendable actions of the Khmer Rouge. Instead I am questioning if justice comes in the form of punishment? Punishing the guilty has somewhat been transformed into mission of separating and locking up the "guilty" and ultimately pretending that they do not exist. Because the expensive bars of the system, we are "safe."

In the deep trenches that has become the complicated and incomprehensible area of violence, is there ever simply a "good guy" and a "bad guy"? Much to our diappointment our world does not allow us to simply "fight for" the ultimate "good". Some even may argue that violence of mind is more brutal than any degrating violent torture.

People make choices that are horrifying. They may rob others of their innocence, their courage, their faith, and their hope. However, in putting these people on trial and sentencing them to life in prison or death, is justice being achieved?

As Eav stands trial and the verdict become known, are the 1.7 million people's lives brought to justice?

What is justice?

Every person has the power to do horrendous and horrible things whether we admit it or not.

Perhaps still, the trail of Eav is unquestionibly necessary, but is it justice?

Obama to Beef Up Mexico Border Policy

As our borders have become stricter since 9/11 it seems as though President Obama plans to continue the trend of maintaining our nations national security. As recent as Tuesday President Obama announced a plan to increase the structure of our nations borders in order to prevent drug trafficking by our southern neighbor.
By not condoning the admittance illegal drugs or fire-arms enter the U.S. from Mexico via the major drug cartels, which were deemed extremely dangerous and out of control, President Obama is sending a strong message of disapproval to the cartels themselves, but the Mexican government as well. The plan announced last year allots 7 million dollars towards the relief efforts in protecting our borders.
All of this comes days before Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is scheduled to visit Mexico City, and President Obama to visit shortly after sometime next month. By increasing the protection at the border, is President Obama through his actions endangering his diplomatic standing/relationship with Mexico?

Protest to Stop Deportation of 30,000 Haitian Immigrants.

Protest planned in NY to stop 30,000 Haitian illegal immigrants being deported in mass.

Watch:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/20/protest_planned_outside_ny_immigration_office

Advocates worry Obama easing human rights stand

by Steven R. Hurst

March 13th, 2009

Excerpts from the article:

"We fear she (Sec. State Hilary Clinton) may be setting this tone as a signal to the rest of the world that human rights are not going to be one of the main issues for the administration," said T. Kumar, Amnesty International advocacy director for Asia.  "Trade and security should not be promoted at the expense of human rights."

"Part of her challenge diplomatically is going to be able to work on many fronts," said Amnesty International's Curt Goering.  "The United States cannot be credible on any issue unless it remains credible on human rights."

Obama and Clinton will likely face even stiffer criticism as they move forward with a policy designed to repair U.S. standing globally.  They are trying to show world leaders that DC is once again determined to engage the world through diplomacy rather than what critics saw as the Bush administration's tendency to rely on diktat.

I thought this article was very interesting and a good talking point.  After the recent visit of Clinton to China and her announcements pertaining to human rights, do you think that the Obama administration will proactively become the diplomatic force in the world theater; one similar to Obama's platform prior to election or do you think that the status quo will not change?  Do you think that the new administration can mend relations with other countries concerning human rights and if so how long will it take to build these relationships?  Is there change that we can believe in?  Using Goering's rationale, if the administration does not gain credibility in human rights where else will it lack credibility, and with that can there still be change? Lastly, do you think the government will chose finances over human rights and do you think any nation would choose the latter before the former?