Little Eorthe Farm in Orting is having an open house, July 30, 2010 starting at 5pm!

Carrie and Ken Little opened Little Eorthe Farm this season as a completely organic and completely local CSA farm, as part of a conservation project for the land formerly occupied by the Ford Dairy Farm.

On July 30, starting at 5pm, there will be an open house POTLUCK at the farm, featuring farm raised organic chicken, veggies and salads from the farm. Bring something to share, but there is already plenty of salad and chicken!

There will be stand up comedy by Monica Aird, and music provided by Tacoma favorite Deborah Page (http://www.deborahpagemusic.com/) and San Francisco legend True Margrit (http://www.truemargrit.com/)

Little Eorthe Farm is located at 21415 Orville Road East, Orting, WA 98360 They can be reached by phone at 253-576-8950.

Devil’s Head a part of a broad initiative to open parks and shoreline to the public

Tacoma – Devil’s Head, a 94-acre jewel in the South Sound, will be preserved for public use thanks to a coalition of conservation partners who worked tirelessly to acquire the stunning waterfront property.

Located at the south end of the Key Peninsula, the property includes about a mile of breath taking Puget Sound shoreline. Other defining features include two bald eagle nesting sites, wetlands, active feeder bluffs for salmon, old growth timber, forested riparian habitat and a pocket estuary.

“This is an incredible achievement for the people of this region,” said Pierce County Executive Pat McCarthy. “People who are interested in conservation and recreation have dreamed for years of preserving Devil’s Head, which provides incredible views of the natural landmarks that make this such a special place to live. Thanks to a lot of hard work, those dreams are now a reality.”

The property acquisition is the result of years of cooperation among public and private partners. Key players include Executive McCarthy, County Council Member Terry Lee, Cascade Land Conservancy, the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office, the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, the Nisqually Tribe of Indians, the Greater Peninsula Conservancy, the Key Peninsula Parks District and the Washington Water Trails Association.

“All of this is being made possible for future generations and the health of our environment because of the leadership of many people and the compelling vision of The Cascade Agenda,” said Ryan Mello, Pierce County Conservation Director for the Cascade Land Conservancy. “The trust in our partnership and tenacity to keep moving forward has gotten this project through very uncertain times. Now we have this jewel in the Sound for the people of this region to enjoy forever.”

The Conservancy’s role included securing the grants, negotiations with the land owner and bringing all parties together. The property was purchased from Inspiration Inn, LLC, a limited liability corporation set up by Tim Jopp, who had envisioned a retreat and conference facility on the site.

The Devil’s Head sale closed on July XX-13-XX for a purchase price of $3.4 million. A majority of the funding came from the state, with the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program providing $1.65 million and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board contributing $500,000. The remaining $1.25 million came from the Pierce County Conservation Futures program, which is funded by a portion of property taxes that are dedicated to protecting certain lands from development.

Plans are in the works for a public celebration of the acquisition. Details will be announced soon.

“The acquisition of Devil’s Head has been a goal of mine for four years,” said Councilmember Lee, whose District 7 includes the Key Peninsula. “With a lot of persistence and great help from the Cascade Land Conservancy and the state, we are preserving nearly one mile of outstanding shoreline. Local citizens will be grateful to see Devil’s Head protected by Pierce County ownership for the enjoyment of all.”

The landowner will be the Pierce County Parks and Recreation Department. The property has been logged in the past and currently there is no direct access, parking or other facilities. The long-term intended use will be a regional park for passive recreational use, including shoreline access for non-motorized boats and kayaking, trails, hiking and beach walking, and protection of wildlife and habitat.

Future plans include some small development on the uplands portion of site for a picnic area, viewpoint and an easily accessed trail on the west edge of property leading down to the beach. A scenic viewpoint will offer views of Mount Rainier and the Olympic Mountains.

“Devil’s Head is one of those transformational projects that reflect the power of the Cascade Agenda,” said Gene Duvernoy, president of Cascade Land Conservancy. “Parks are important for our quality of life. Habitats for all kinds of wildlife are protected. A mile of shoreline on Puget Sound will remain open and natural forever. This will enhance the work of the Puget Sound Partnership and its efforts to restore and protect the Sound, which is so important to our local economy. A win-win-win.”

Two important trail systems will be enhanced by the acquisition.

The southern terminus of the planned Key Peninsula Head-to-Toe trail will be at the park. Estimated at about 20 miles in length, the Head-to-Toe trail will provide passive recreation opportunities and link to Joemma Beach and Kopachuck State Park.
The Cascadia Marine Trail extends from the waters at the Canadian border to Olympia. The public will greatly benefit from another site for water access. The $1.65 million from the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program came from the Water Access Category.

The Devil’s Head acquisition is part of a growing effort on the Key Peninsula that will result in the conservation of more than 200 acres and the opening of nearly 1.5 miles of Puget Sound shoreline to the public. Here is a summary of other recent acquisitions:

• The Great Peninsula Conservancy purchased 24 acres known as the Johnson South Sound Refuge, located on the western shore of Key Peninsula, just north of Devils Head.
• Great Peninsula conserved an additional 45 acres that include 1,500 feet of Puget Sound shoreline, two small streams and extensive forested wetlands.
• Key Pen Parks purchased the 39-acre Taylor Bay Park property, which includes more than 600 feet of shoreline access as well as wetlands, forest and meadows.

“These kinds of projects are tremendously important to the Sound,” said David Dicks, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership, the state agency charged with protecting the Sound. “The Recreation and Conservation Office played a key role here, and cooperation like this will help us reach our goal of a healthy Puget Sound by 2020. Acquisitions such as Devil’s Head are important markers on the road to success because protecting the property and limiting development is much better and cost effective than having to restore properties that have been disturbed so close to the Sound.”

Border Enforcement

 The tragic events of September 11, 2001 (9/11) forced the perception that Americans have become more vulnerable to attack than ever before in history. When 19 foreign nationals perpetrated acts of terror from within the nation’s borders, the government took swift and decisive action by placing our immigration functions under the same authority of the bureau charged with the prevention of future attacks. The President assigned the responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—a cabinet-level bureaucracy that coordinates executive branch efforts to protect the nation from terror.  When it was known that the hijackers had entered the country on valid visas, it became clear that new strategies were needed to control the entry of foreign nationals.  As of 9/11, US immigration policy intersects with our national security interests  along our Southern Border. 

The National Strategy for Homeland Security (2002) declares, “[Immigration] enforcement agencies should now assign priority to preventing and interdicting terrorist activity.”  As a result, Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement aka ICE agents find and deport illegal aliens in the interior while Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents interdict and exclude arriving aliens at or near the borders.  In keeping with the national strategy, the CBP introduced an array of border enforcement strategies based on the idea that border-crossers are potential terrorists.  Due to the space limitations of this article, I do not attempt an assessment regarding the efficacy of border security policy.  The plausible ideological effect; however, has been to reinforce the belief that border control is essential to the protection of the nation. The CBP Web site emphasizes a clear and present danger:

terrorists will try to enter our country across our Southern border. These reports are not new  . . .  and we have been preparing for the possibility and are taking appropriate actions to better secure our borders against the threat (Customs and Border Protection, 2007).

Among the actions taken were the mobilization of technological assets and enforcement personnel along US borders to halt the smuggling of “weapons of mass effect.”  Clearly, post 9/11 Web site rhetoric links terrorist weapons and immigration law.

CBP is charged with the management, control and protection of the nation’s borders . . . keeping foreign terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country while enforcing hundreds of US immigration laws (2007).

Implicit in the imagery of terror is that outside threats become internal ones through cross-border migration.  The compelling imagery; however, makes no reference to the fact that the vast majority of CBP activities involve apprehending low-wage workers who attempt to cross the southern US border without proper documentation.  Despite genuine security issues, the CBP’s definition of threat levels at our nation’s borders entails a conceptual manipulation of immigration policy that has recast all border crossers as potential enemies in the war on terror.  Extraordinary vigilance is necessary according to the CBP because,

al Qaeda and affiliated Sunni extremists continue to pose a strategic threat to the homeland and remain intent on carrying out another attack in the United States. (2005)

According to the CBP Strategic Plan, “another terrorist attack is inevitable. The intention of al Qaeda is to . . . surpass that of 9/11.”  The plan declares, “Al Qaeda continues to look for ways to circumvent US security enhancements to strike Americans and the homeland.”  According to the CBP, the al Qaeda network may seek to exploit the capabilities of established alien and/or smuggling networks, particularly on the Southwest Border.  The plan also states that al Qaeda has been recruiting “non-traditional” operatives that would draw less suspicion from border authorities, which implies that terrorists have made a pact with migrant laborers.  The CBP argues that “terrorists use established smuggling and illegal immigration routes.”

Post 9/11 enforcement rhetoric insists on a dangerous new world wherein the threat of terror and traditional immigration problems are mentioned in the same breathe.  The presence inside the country of millions of undocumented workers is portrayed as a breach of national security along with the relative ease of illegal entry.   Rhetorical imagery linking illegal aliens and terrorists illuminates an ominous composite of an internal immigrant enemy.   Fear of an internal enemy calls for aggressive interior policing and buttressed border protection.  Meanwhile, threats of terrorist infiltration, perceived and real, are co-opted by eager officials whose favorite agendas prosper from the resources they allocate to protect us.  Nonetheless, I argue that the creation of homeland security agencies in the face of widely perceived migrant dangers has more to do with strategic power display for the funding of enforcement technologies than it does to do with protecting the citizens from terrorist infiltrators.

Hence, the CBP has had no difficulty in funding projects on the US-Mexico border including a $2,000,000,000-plus construction project infamously known as the “virtual fence;” not to mention a fleet of unmanned drone aircraft like the kind used to assassinate Taliban operatives near the Afghani/Pakistan border. Technological solutions to immigration problems allow enforcement-industry companies such as Boeing and Northrop Grumman to reap heavy profits by helping to build the government’s border policing capabilities.  Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told immigration officials that we have “a whole range of technological solutions to the border, therefore we can continue to deploy thousands of sensors along with ground-based mobile radar units, and fixed ground-based radar units (2008).  In addition to allocations for technological enforcement solutions, the need for post 9/11 border control requires additional manpower.  The CBP has hired “more than 52,000 employees [to] protect the United States from terrorists.”  The need to increase staff and enforcement solutions is supported by reminders from the CBP itself that “the intention of al Qaeda is to achieve maximum casualties in a spectacular manner.” Fear of another terror attack justifies not only additional resource allocations, but includes the capture and expedited removal of a much broader sector of excludable aliens because immigrants have been effectively politicized with negative imagery of crime and terror. 

Border Control and Expedited Removal

In 2005, CBP and ICE announced a joint multi-year plan called the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) to control the US borders and to ensure interior enforcement and compliance with immigration laws.  A more recent ICE Annual Report states, “SBI bolstered our border infrastructure and streamlined our detention and removal procedures (2006).  SBI effectively extends the nation’s borders inland with a legal shortcut known as expedited removal.  Expedited removal requires mandatory detention and removal of certain arriving immigrants apprehended anywhere inside a 100-mile wide swath that runs along the inside of the US border.  Expedited removal is a procedure by which improperly documented immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers caught by ICE and CBP agents are removed from the country with neither the right to appeal nor access to legal representation.  

Arriving aliens, refugees, and asylum seekers without authorization face automatic exclusion in place of a formal hearing, thereby depriving them of even the few procedural benefits afforded in deportation cases.  Enforcement agents rather than immigration judges determine who should be excluded.  Armed with the procedural weapon of expedited removal, immigration agents become the judge, jury, and executioner.  An ICE Annual Report explains, “This expanded authority has greatly increased removal efficiencies by eliminating the time spent litigating a final order of removal before immigration judges” (2006).

Another legal shortcut known as Stipulated Removal also allows deportation without the benefit of an immigration hearing.  ICE agents pressure immigrants in detention into signing removal agreements regardless of their potential eligibility to remain in the US.   Approximately 96,000 stipulated removals during the three year period 2004-2007 have been executed in areas near the southern border.  Ninety-three per cent of those who signed agreements had been detained for presence in the US without documentation.  From a legal perspective, detainees who stipulate their own removals in lieu of formal hearings do so without knowledge of whether there are remedies which may prevent their deportation, e.g., family ties to legal US residents or fear of persecution upon repatriation. 

Still another legal maneuver dubbed Operation Streamline brings criminal charges against undocumented aliens apprehended by the CBP.  According to Former Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff,

The operation targets illegal immigrants apprehended in specific enforcement zones for immediate prosecution for illegal entry. Violators face punishment of up to 180 days in jail. Additionally, deportation procedures are initiated to formally remove the individual once they complete their jail sentence (2008).

All undocumented immigrants caught in areas of high traffic of the southern US border are bound over to federal court on criminal charges for entry without inspection (EWI).  The act of criminalizing the formerly civil offense of EWI turns undocumented laborers into felons if they should re-enter the US after being convicted.   From a legal rights perspective, the EWI charges leveled under Operation Streamline fabricate undeserved criminal histories for undocumented migrants because subsequent convictions incur felony charges and substantial prison time.  The shift from civil to criminal enforcement is reflected in federal courts where immigration cases now outnumber all other types of federal prosecutions according to the University of Syracuse Tracking Database.   The expansion of the use of immigration prosecutions is discussed in the next section of this article. 

Department of Homeland Security Prosecutions

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs enforcement (ICE) apprehend and deport deportable aliens under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).   Aliens who end up in deportation hearings are prosecuted by DHS attorneys.   At the same time, all-encompassing DHS mission statements emphasize that their core purpose is to interdict terrorists.  A well-circulated Homeland Security document affirms that “the mission . . . is to protect America and uphold public safety by targeting the people that support terrorist and criminal activities” (2006).   The mission statement sounds reasonable when applied only to violent criminals and terrorists.    However, court data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act shows in Table 1 below that the vast majority of DHS prosecutions in federal courts focus on traditional immigration matters.   The apparent gap between DHS claims about its role in fighting terrorism and what it actually has been doing in court  suggest that the agency blurs the distinctions between minor immigration violators and persons who possibly will be the next 9/11 hijackers. 

Table 1. How aliens were charged according to type of prosecution during the period 2004-2007.

Table 1 reveals that only 12 out of 814,073 were prosecuted for terrorism despite the claim that fighting terrorism is the essential mission of the DHS.  Only 114 of 814,073 were charged with national security violations despite the fact that the government constantly reinforces the threat of terror.   Table 1 shows that 704,275 out of 814,073 aliens were prosecuted either for entry without inspection (EWI)^[1] or other immigration charges and that the DHS elected to prosecute 86.5 of all cases for minor immigration violations.  Table 1 also shows that only 13.1 per cent of all prosecutions were filed with criminal charges.  It is important to remember that aliens charged under immigration law have fewer rights and defenses than they do as criminal defendants.  

What then do numerical comparisons of the types of DHS prosecutions tell us about post-9/11 immigration law enforcement?  First, the prosecutorial and removal weapons fashioned for terror prevention have significantly relied on the utility of minor immigration violations to protect the nation.  Standing legislation for immigration enforcement provides incentive for the government to deport non-citizens without officially charging suspects with criminal, terror, or national security violations.  There has been essentially no need for the government to legally demonstrate “the grounds of national security” because existing deportation mechanisms have been streamlined for ease in alien removal. 

Second, the true nature of DHS prosecutions suggests that there is little if any true correspondence between the domestic hunt for terror suspects and protection border crashers from Mexico. Virtually all post-9/11 deportations, including a few “suspected” terrorists have been ordered for illegal entry into the country, visa violations, and minor criminal convictions.   The government putatively fears terrorists but uses the pretext of terror prevention to deport Mexican economic immigrants who pose no security threat.  The DHS justifies the repressive enforcement actions in the form of worksite raids, racial profiling, and summary deportations for reasons of national security, thereby minimizing opposition from an insecure general public. 

Still, in the years since 9/11/2001, DHS rhetoric has maintained that the purpose of immigration enforcement efforts in the US is to intercept terrorists, terrorist weapons, smugglers, and violent criminals.  As a result of this rhetoric-turned-immigration-policy, public perception of the challenges facing the DHS, such as the need for enforcement funding and the special legal powers that enforcement agencies require to do their jobs have been given entirely too much importance.  The DHS’ attempt to represent prosecutions and removals of illegal aliens as victories in the far-reaching war on terror falls terribly short of its rhetorical billing.

Removal Hearing Observations

The EOIR (Executive Office of Immigration Review) Court is attached to the 1061-bed privately operated immigration prison known as the Northwest Detention Center (NWDC) in Tacoma.   The following composite descriptions of removal hearings are based on personal observations of 15 distinct sessions of deportation hearings conducted in the EOIR courtrooms at the NWDC during a two year period beginning in 2007 and ending in 2009.  On a typical day, 25 or more detainees wearing color-coded prison jumpsuits are seated in the courtroom, unshackled but under the stern supervision of a bailiff while waiting for the arrival of the immigration judge.  Most of the detainees are Mexican and Central American males who are waiting to be deported for working in the US without authorization.  Defendants appearing before this court wear prison suits because they rarely, if ever, appear at this court under their own recognizance or bond.  Instead, they are marched by prison guards from their confinement quarters into either one of two EOIR deportation courtrooms. 

The judge “enters,” only she is not always physically present, rather, her television image is broadcast from a video courtroom in Seattle.  She is an appointed judge—not an elected judge—a former DHS prosecutor wearing a dark robe—a well paid street-level bureaucrat in ceremonial black.  She is employed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to preside over deportations as prescribed by the Attorney General.  Until recently in Tacoma, the immigration judge was broadcast via video feed from the 25^th floor of a high rise located in downtown Seattle.  Deportation via TV screen used to cast an Oz-like spell of unchallengeable power upon the deportation candidates.   The TV judge, beamed from a big screen on a cart in front of an unmanned judge’s bench flanked by the American the eagle, the great seal, and the flag–all of which symbolically confer legitimacy upon the broadcast from Seattle.  

More recently, the Tacoma EOIR Court has had in-house Immigration Judges who preside live over the expulsion proceedings. During deportation court sessions, dozens of legal forms and documents were shuttled back and forth from Seattle by the bailiff who multitasks as fax-machine operator, the prosecutor’s minion, and headmaster over the detainees.  The prosecuting attorney representing the DHS is physically present in the Tacoma courtroom and very much the dominant participant in the deportation hearings.  He answers most of the judge’s questions and customarily objects to leniency, his eyes never leaving the detainees’ legal histories stored in his computer.  All this while the Spanish language interpreter translates the judge’s instructions as she mispronounces Mexican and Guatemalan surnames in an impatient tone of voice.  This judge is clearly just a bureaucrat in robes. The judge has seemingly no appreciation for the Spanish language or Latino culture.  This apparent disrespect manifests itself in gross mispronunciations of common Latino surnames—García, Gonzales, Tovar et al.  Thus, the court interpreter is quite essential because he is the only line of communication between the court and the detainees.  He answers yes or no for them in English as the judge bungles her way through her list of questions and statements. 

After swearing-in the detainees, there are a minimum of nine procedural communications from the judge in Seattle to each removal candidate via the interpreter in Tacoma.

1. Are you a US citizen?
2. Are you a citizen of (name of the birth country)?
3. Do you understand that the government alleges that you are in this country illegally and that the government has the power to deport you?
4. Were you on _____date apprehended by immigration authorities at________?
5. Were you on _____ date convicted of _________?
6. Based on the facts of this case, the court issues an order for your deportation.
7. The following forms of Relief from Deportation may be available to you at this time.
8. You may be eligible for Voluntary Departure under Safeguards.^[2]
9. You have the right to appeal the court’s decision to remove you while remaining in custody:

a)     if you been living continuously in the US for 10 years.

b)     if you have an ongoing visa petition.

c)     if you think you will be tortured if you are returned to your country.

The procedure contains provisions for appeal and cancellation of deportation; however, there are enough disqualifiers to ensure that deportable aliens rarely escape deportation.  The few aliens who appeal their cases endure months and often years in detention waiting for their hearing dates to arrive.  A Nigerian man who claims he would be tortured or killed upon return to Nigeria has endured three years in detention at NWDC while appealing his case.  A young Central American fearing persecution by street gangs in his native Honduras received a warning from the judge that frivolous or false asylum applications are criminally punishable.  His asylum hearing date is set forward 90 days; however, he remains in detention without bail or the benefit of an attorney.  Under the rare circumstances in which bails are granted, amounts are set unusually high and cannot be raised by most detainees.  Attorneys are not provided by the government in any immigration cases.  Even with pro bono or private legal representation, a successful appeal can take up to several years to process.

The appeals process is complex because all legal forms are in English and difficult to complete in an unfamiliar language by appellants in detention without legal counsel.  Linguistic, cultural, and economic constraints all weigh against a detainee’s ability to contest deportation on an individual basis.  The difficulties that the language barrier and cultural unfamiliarity with the legal process pose for immigrants are not assuaged by the judge’s explanations of the appeals process.  Immigration procedures are not easily understood—even when comprehended in English. 

 On a typical day in court, there are a few legal-resident detainees who have been arrested for offenses such as drunk driving, or attempting to possess a controlled substance, or working under the authorization of someone else’s Social Security number.  Their crimes are convertible to felonies for the purpose of deportation, which also bars them from reentry into the US for life.  By contrast, detainees who have no criminal histories or prior deportations recorded in the prosecutor’s computer database are granted a one-time benefit of Voluntary Departure provided they are able to pay for their own flight home.  Voluntary Departure is granted to a few of the 167 Del Monte produce workers who were apprehended in the Portland raid in June, 2007.  However, the majority is deported for entry without inspection (EWI).   Each member of the Del Monte group accepts deportation in deference to the both the length and relative futility of the appeals process.  One could argue that had the legal residents who are being deported for having criminal convictions not strayed from the straight and narrow course of work and family they would not have met up with a life altering fate in EOIR court.  However, the Del Monte individuals did nothing other than report for work on the day of the immigration raid.

Summary and Conclusions

The deportation hearings observed in the courtrooms of NWDC suggest that the plenary powers of the DHS to prosecute terrorists are predominantly used for expelling thousands of unauthorized meat packers and food processors.  Put another way, the overwhelming presence of Mexican and Central American suspects in court underscores the relative insignificance of anti-terrorism as the premise for expanded immigration control. The threat of terror has been carried forward as the pretext for deterring and expelling a surplus population of poor, unauthorized immigrants during a period of sharp downturn in demand for their labor.  Recall that government officials, industry leaders, and small business owners in the southwestern United States were hardly concerned with restricting migrant flows while the southern Border Patrol turned its head to the influx of millions of undocumented aliens for the purposes of satisfying economic demands for labor in the 1980s.  The economy has since changed so that decreases in demand for cheap labor have resulted in the unprecedented growth of the grounds for deportation.

This combined with a post 9/11 security preoccupation has transformed into a national obsession.  Consequently, the immigration enforcement agencies, DHS, ICE, and CBP have misused the AEDPA and IIRIRA laws to exploit collective fears and insecurities over crime, the economy, and terror so that executive branch’s power over non-citizens goes virtually unchecked.  Moreover, when ICE accomplishes its ambitious goal of “100 per cent removal” of all 12 million “deportable aliens by 2012,” the “Endgame” will presumably have been won in the name of national security.   Rounding up and deporting of all 12 million undocumented aliens in the 21^st century is in principle no less shameful than was persecuting and excluding the “vast hordes’ of “obnoxious Chinese” in the 1890s and Mexicans during the Great Depression. 

I have argued Mexicans were scapegoated for the economic hard times incurred in the Depression, as public xenophobia turned against them from having previously been fixated on the Chinese.  Calls to rid the country of the Mexicans resulted in a massive repatriation program, which, like the current approach to immigration enforcement, including raids on worksites in Portland and Pottsville, assume the logistics of full-scale paramilitary operations.  In May, 2008, when hundreds of ICE agents with helicopters rounded up and imprisoned 300 undocumented workers on felony identity theft charges in Pottsville, IA, government prosecutors completely disregarded the human and legal rights of their Guatemalan and Mexican captives in the process of coercing 297 felony plea agreements within just a few days of the raids.  Never before has unauthorized employment been criminalized in this fashion.  One Pottsville observer writes, “It is no longer enough to deport them . . . we first have to put them in chains.”  The current enforcement practices of worksite raids, criminal prosecutions of immigration violations, detentions without bail, and automatic deportations evoke imagery of the mistreatment of non-citizens who have been mistreated over the course the history of US immigration.   If concerned citizens wish to avert the shame attached to the mistreatment of immigrants such as in the cases of the excluded Chinese and repatriated Mexicans, policies that permit the legal subjugation of the foreign-born must be recognized and challenged as they occur instead of generations later. 

I have argued that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights should apply to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the Constitution.  If an individual has been in the US and has immediate family or has been working, he or she should be afforded an equal share of Bill of Rights protection when faced with immigration detention or deportation.  Nonetheless, the constitutional rights of non-citizens in immigration proceedings are far more limited than those of criminal defendants whose Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights are protected in the context of a criminal trial.   These limitations initially stemmed from judicial definitions designed to restrict labor flows of Chinese in the 19^th century.  Since that time, the courts have historically treated deportation as a civil remedy, not as punishment comparable to criminal sanctions.  Removed from the constitutional protections for criminal proceedings, the due process protections which govern deportation proceedings became arbitrary, reinforced by the Supreme Court’s early decision to give Congress the power to disregard constitutional guarantees at any time in Fong Yue Ting, (1893).  As a result, non-citizens in deportation proceedings are afforded only the limited share of legal protection that Congress sees fit to provide.  One crucial consequence is that non-citizens in immigration proceedings do not enjoy the protections of the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment; plausibly banishment to a foreign land, as I have argued should be considered double punishment for either a crime previously committed in the US or unauthorized presence.   Despite the procedural disparities in the shares of legal rights accorded to non-citizens in immigration and criminal law, this thesis has argued that full and the complete legal protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were intended by the Framers to be extended to all persons at all times.  It is not unreasonable to argue that the constitutional principles of due process and equal protection must be reconfigured into the legal proceedings of both undocumented aliens and documented aliens who incur criminal convictions.

I would argue

Private security guards block the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington

 that our justice system has the responsibility to rehabilitate instead of doubly punish aliens who have lived a long time in the US.  Injustices occur when resident aliens commit relatively minor crimes, serve their sentences, and their mandatory deportation becomes a second punishment.  As if banishment from the United States were not enough, the final punishment is not exacted until the airplane touches down on native soil.  Then, the finality of deportation precludes any lawful return to the US.   In the interest of justice, I would like to see deserving deportees given supervised second chances in lieu of banishment. 

My position is common sense compassionate, because deportation affects the real interests of real people who are better served if Congress and the President establish special hearings that would allow non-citizens facing deportation to remain in the country when their crimes are relatively minor and their connections to the US are strong.   Worthy aggravated felony cases should be adjudicated in the broader contexts of immigration openness, justice, and fairness.  A step toward fairness would limit the 1996 aggravated felony definitions and reduce the immigration effects of minor criminal convictions.  I conclude that aggravated felony deportations should be adjudicated in the context of the individual’s likelihood of rehabilitation.  Remorse, post-offense behavioral patterns, and family ties should be taken into account.  Congress should amend AEDPA and IIRIRA so that the DHS is instructed to ameliorate certain harsh consequences of deportation cases such as destruction of the family unit.  

These considerations have had some support in Congress. Senator Edward Kennedy, for example,  urged his Senate colleagues to amend certain provisions of IIRIRA because no public purpose is served by wasting resources detaining non-dangerous individuals—many of whom has lived in the country with their American families for decades.  Kennedy stated, “The changes made in 1996 went too far.  They have harsh consequences and violate individual liberty, fairness, and due process” (Kennedy, Congressional Record S5631, May 24, 2001).  This comment; however, was made before 9/11.

Still, every year thousands of American-born children lose a parent to deportation.  Women become single parents and entire communities live in fear of mass deportation.   Therefore, in the interest of fairness and justice, I recommend that we as a nation set up an immigration law adjudication system where we do not have to spend so much of our time and effort in enforcement activities dealing with people who are not terrorists, who are not threats to our national security, and who are for the most part economic refugees.

[2] Voluntary Departure refers to the one-time benefit of removal without stigma of criminality meaning the individual maybe eligible to apply for a visa to enter the US at some future date.  Safeguards mean that there is no bond pending the flight home based on the assumption that the removal candidate will flee when given the opportunity.

Check out our website: www.pugetcreek.org for more information. If you plan on attending, please call 253-779-8890 or e-mail pugetcreek@yahoo.com to RSVP. Thank you and we hope to see you soon!

Julie Anderson receives endorsements from the Pierce County Central Labor Council, Master Builders Association of Pierce County, the Tacoma-Pierce County Association of REALTORS and the National Women’s Political Caucus of Washington.

TACOMA, Wash. – May 21, 2010 – The Pierce County Central Labor Council, Master Builders Association of Pierce County, the Tacoma-Pierce County Association of REALTORS and the National Women’s Political Caucus of Washington have chosen Julie Anderson as their candidate for the Pierce County Auditor’s office in this 2010 election. Anderson’s hard work and nonpartisan administration have earned her a reputation for accountability, integrity, and exceptional customer service, throughout our community:

The Pierce County Central Labor Councilis a county federation of labor representing over 50,000 members of 85+ unions throughout Washington.

“Since taking office, Julie Anderson has improved the way essential government services are provided to the citizens of Pierce County.  Julie has brought professionalism, transparency and accountability to the Auditors office while delivering the highest level of customer service.  The Pierce County Central Labor Council is pleased to once again endorse Julie Anderson for the position of Pierce County auditor,” said Pierce Central Labor Secretary Treasurer, Patty Rose.

The Master Builders Association of Pierce County is comprised of more than 825 builder and associate builder member companies employing over 8,000 people in Pierce County.

“Julie Anderson has proven herself to be a fair, fully capable, and strong County Auditor, and MBA is proud to support her reelection this fall,” stated MBA President Gordon Neu.

The Tacoma-Pierce County Association of REALTORS has been the voice of real-estate in Pierce County for over 100 years.

“Julie Anderson has an outstanding background in organizational management which will serve her well in carrying out the multiple missions of the County Auditor’s Department,” said George McGilliard, 2010 TPCAR Government Affairs Chair.

The National Women’s Political Caucus of Washington is a multi-partisan grassroots membership organization dedicated to increasing the number of women in elected and appointed office at all levels of government.

“We are proud to have endorsed Julie Anderson for County Auditor.  Julie is a strong leader and a tireless advocate for all of the residents of Pierce County and her work to improve the efficiency and transparency of the Auditor’s office provides easier access for women and families to county services,” stated NWPC Pierce County Local Co-Chairs Amy Pivetta Hoffman and Monique LeTourneau.

“To receive support from so many diverse perspectives is truly an honor. I work hard to represent many interests – business, labor, and every political party. This small collection of endorsements tells me that I’m headed in the right direction.”

Anderson was elected as Pierce County Auditor in November 2009 during a special election. Now, in 2010, Julie campaigns for a four year term to ensure that County residents continue to receive the best elections, recording, animal control, and licensing services.  Anderson brings fair and practical leadership to Pierce County government, as well as the management experience to run an efficient, innovative office.

The organization is in need of volunteers, interns, items, and monetary contributions to continue its mission. Please visit their website www.pugetcreek.org for more information.

Around 10,000 soldiers will be returning to Fort Lewis from Iraq and Afghanistan over the next three months. These soldiers will be bringing home with them their cumulative experiences from an entire year of combat experiences. According to the Department of Defense, one in three of these soldiers will have post-traumatic stress disorder. This will undoubtedly manifest itself in the form of domestic violence, drunk driving, drug use, suicide, and violent crime. These members of our community will be in need of services that the Army does not provide.

Coffee Strong is gearing up to prepare to help these returning soldiers. We staff GI rights counselors, make referrals to mental health counseling, and Veterans Benefits Advocates. We provide links to services in the community for soldiers, veterans, and military family members. But this will all be for not if we fail to reach the military community to let them know that these services exist.

We need to advertise to ensure that returning soldiers utilize these services. We must raise $6,000 now to take out ads in local papers. Without your support this will not happen. We need your contribution to ensure that any soldier who needs help will get it, and many are denied services due them. Together we can save lives and make sure that no one falls through the cracks because nobody is there to listen.

To donate to Coffee Strong go to http://www.coffeestrong.org/you-can-help/make-a-donation/.
Please share this note far and wide.

Seth Manzel

Executive Director
GI Voice/Coffee Strong

The Coffee Strong community must raise $75,000 in total, in 2010. Your support is needed to ensure that any soldier who needs help gets critical, timely services.

This Tuesday, the Tacoma City Council will vote on whether Tacoma should boycott the State of Arizona over its adoption of SB-1070.

This recently adopted Arizona law requires law enforcement officers to detain anyone who “looks like” an illegal immigrant, and stands in stark contrast to our Constitutional values as a nation.

Many other cities, such as Los Angeles, Seattle, Sacramento, Boston and Washington DC have already passed similar boycott legislation, or are in the process of doing so.

Stop by at 5 PM to sign in and testify in favor of the boycott resolution. Citizen input only has to be a couple minutes long. Bring your friends, have some fun, and do your part for justice!

http://freedomcaravan.wordpress.com

Media Island is planning on taking two buses (maybe 3) that can hold up to 20 people each to the Allied Media Conference (AMC) and the US Social Forum (USSF). Leaving on June 13th and returning June 30th it is going to be an amazing trip with cool stops, great people and lots of good times along the way. This trip is for people who want to create a positive social environment dedicated to mutual aid, economic, environmental and social justice, ending all types of oppression and supporting each other and all peoples in solidarity.

We’re figuring the cost to be around $300 a person which will include food and housing during the trip and (possibly) in Detroit (we’re figuring out housing now). We’re striving to keep this affordable for everyone and are below the lowest estimate of cost on the USSF website. We’re having fundraisers in Olympia, Portland and Seattle to raise funds for partial scholarships. Raise funds and Tacoma too! We would also like to be able to make a contribution to Detroit organizations making a difference in a city on life-support by capitalism run amok. Check out the BBC documentary titled “Requiem for Detroit?” If you can’t go but would like to support others in going you can make a tax deductible donation to Media Island International.

There is taking a lot of planning and we need people who are willing to participate on the work involved. We are looking for people to take turns driving the bus and volunteers with preparations, food and fundraising. You can find out more and register online. We are having a fundraising meeting at Media Island tonight Wednesday, May 5th at 8PM, 816 Adams St. SE. We have weekly interest and planning meetings on Tuesdays at 7pm at Media Island as well. Don’t wait until it is too late! We have to know soon who is going with us. If you are not sure on how you are going to get there but want to go, let us know because we’re trying to help organize people in carpools as well. We understand that not everyone can take this much time off and are open for helping support people in need who want to go to the USSF in a shorter time frame and will hopefully have funding for that as well.

http://freedomcaravan.wordpress.com

Cascadia Freedom Caravan:

Sponsoring Organization:
Media Island International
Latin American Solidarity Organization
NAAME
Contact: 360- 545-3267
latinamericansolidarity@gmail.com
rick@mediaisland.org