30 Years of Distinction in Travel Journalism. Executive Editor: Imtiaz Muqbil
Launched in August 1998, Travel Impact Newswire provides unmatched, thought-provoking coverage of big-picture issues and trends that impact global travel & tourism. Distributed every week to 45,000 senior industry readers worldwide, mainly in the Asia-Pacific and Middle East.
24 Soi Chidlom, Bangkok, Thailand 10330. T: (66-2) 2551480, 2537590. Fax: (66-2) 2544316. Email: imtiaz@travel-impact-newswire.com
To UNSUBSCRIBE, please see links right at the bottom of this dispatch
| In this dispatch: 1. 30 Privacy And Civil Liberty Groups Seek End To Usage Of Body Scanners At Airports 2. Israeli Airline El Al Sued For Racial Profiling 3. Arizona Legalizes Racial Profiling 4. U.K. Government To Compensate Pilot Wrongly Detained After 9/11 5. 2009 Worst Year for U.S.Tourism Since 9/11To SUBSCRIBE, please hit the "reply" button and request inclusion on the mailing list, providing email address, company name and title. Please inform us of any changes in email address, and add imtiaz@travel-impact-newswire.com to your list of approved senders to ensure this dispatch is not blocked by spam filters and/or does not go into the "junk" folder. Unauthorised lifting of material by other commercial media for onward distribution is STRICTLY PROHIBITED under international copyright regulations. Would You Like To Reward This Effort? This dispatch is the result of dozens of man-hours expended in research, compilation, editing, structuring and emailing.
| HOW TO RESTORE THE BALANCE, FROM A UNIQUE ASIAN PERSPECTIVE "The travel & tourism buzzword of the 21st century will be the search for balance." That forecast was made by Imtiaz Muqbil, Executive Editor, Travel Impact Newswire, in the monthly strategic intelligence publication of PATA, the Pacific Asia Travel Association, way back in February 1999. Today, it is proving spot-on as the word "balance" resonates across all industry sectors today. Travel industry conferences seeking a speaker who can offer some unique historical hindsight, unconventional foresight and thought-provoking insight on the past, present and future of the Asia Pacific travel & tourism industry can contact Imtiaz Muqbil at imtiaz@travel-impact-newswire.com |
1. 30 Privacy And Civil Liberty Groups Seek End To Usage Of Body Scanners At Airports
A group of more than 30 privacy and civil liberty groups earlier this month asked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to suspend the full body scanner (TSA backgrounder) program being implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). According to a report in the Jurist, the journal of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, the petition states that use of the full body scanner program is an invasion of privacy and that:
deployment of Full Body Scanners in US airports, as currently proposed, violates the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), the Privacy Act of 1974 ("Privacy Act"), and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). As described below, the FBS program effectively subjects all air travelers to unconstitutionally intrusive searches that are disproportionate and for which the TSA lacks any suspicion of wrongdoing.
According to the petitioners, the scanners are a step toward doing away with individualized suspicion and are particularly offensive to devout individuals. As such, the scans are opposed by religious groups. The petition also alleges that the scanners themselves have two major flaws: they cannot detect powdered explosives, and the operating systems are vulnerable to attack.
The Jurist reported that last February, the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) announced that full body scanners in use at two UK airports may be illegal. The body scanners were introduced in part as a response to the failed US bombing attempt on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day. The attempted attack prompted President Obama to announce tighter security measures, which civil rights groups opposed as a pretext to racial profiling.
The following is the full text of the petition which can also be downloaded (with full footnotes and references) here: http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/petition_042110.pdf
April 21, 2010
Secretary Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528
Chief Privacy Officer Mary Ellen Callahan, The Privacy Office, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528
Re: Petition for Suspension of TSA Full Body Scanner Program
Dear Secretary Napolitano and Ms. Callahan,
We the undersigned privacy, consumer rights, and civil rights organizations hereby petition the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and its component, the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") to suspend the ongoing deployment of the TSA's Full Body Scanner ("FBS") program. The TSA program uses FBS devices (also called "whole body imaging" machines) to screen air travelers in the United States.
We strongly object to the TSA's use of full body scanners as primary, mandatory screening at security checkpoints. On May 31, 2009, twenty-four privacy and civil liberties groups wrote to the DHS requesting, inter alia, that the DHS conduct "a 90-day formal public rulemaking process to receive public input on the agency's use of 'Whole Body Imaging' technologies."
The DHS failed to initiate a rulemaking. Instead, the TSA recently announced its intent to deploy approximately one thousand additional FBS devices to American airports.
Although the TSA failed to conduct a formal rulemaking, it is clear that the TSA has established a rule mandating the use of body scanners at airport checkpoints as primary screening. EPIC petitions the TSA to repeal that rule, and suspend the Full Body Scanner program.
The deployment of Full Body Scanners in US airports, as currently proposed, violates the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), the Privacy Act of 1974 ("Privacy Act"), and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). As described below, the FBS program effectively subjects all air travelers to unconstitutionally intrusive searches that are disproportionate and for which the TSA lacks any suspicion of wrongdoing.
The FBS Program also violates the RFRA because it requires those of sincerely held religious beliefs to be subject to offensive intrusions by government officials. The program violates the Privacy Act because the system gathers personally identifiable information – a detailed and unique image of the human body easily associated with a particular airline ticket – yet the TSA failed to publish a System of Records Notice. The TSA Chief Privacy Office violated its statutory obligations to ensure that new technologies "sustain and do not erode" the privacy of Americans when it effectively approved the program.
Further, substantial questions have been raised about the effectiveness of the devices, including whether they could detect powdered explosives -- the very type of weapon used in the December 25, 2009 attempted airliner bombing. The full body scanning program is enormously expensive, costing taxpayers at least $2.4 billion dollars. There are less intrusive and less costly techniques available to address the risk of concealed explosives on aircrafts. For example, last week, U.S. Senators asked the DHS to evaluate alternative technologies that could "address many of the privacy concerns raised by the scanners DHS is currently testing."
I. The Agency is Undertaking an Aggressive Plan to Deploy Full Body Scanners in US Airports without regard to Effectiveness, Traveler Complaints, Privacy Risks, or Religious Objections
A) The Plan to Deploy Approximately One Thousand Full Body Scanners to American Airports
The TSA operates Full Body Scanners at airports throughout the United States.
The TSA uses two types of FBS devices: backscatter x-ray and millimeter wave.
Both types of FBS devices can capture, store, and transfer detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals' naked bodies.
Experts have described full body scans as "digital strip searches."
The images captured by FBS devices can uniquely identify individual air travelers. The TSA uses FBS devices to search air travelers as they pass through the TSA's airport security checkpoints.
FBS devices are currently deployed at: Albuquerque International Sunport Airport, Boston Logan International Airport, Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, Denver International Airport, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Detroit Metro Airport, Indianapolis International Airport, Jacksonville International Airport, Kansas City International Airport, McCarran International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Miami International Airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Raleigh-Durham International Airport, Richmond International Airport, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, San Francisco International Airport, Salt Lake City International Airport, Tampa International Airport, and Tulsa International Airport.
In March 2010, the TSA began deploying additional FBS devices in American airports.
In March 2010, the TSA announced its decision to further deploy approximately one thousand additional FBS devices to American airports.
As a matter of pattern, practice and policy, the TSA requires air travelers to submit to FBS searches once they have entered the security zone in airports equipped with FBS devices.
As a matter of pattern, practice and policy, the TSA employs FBS searches as a primary search of air travelers in airports equipped with FBS devices.
As a matter of pattern, practice and policy, the TSA does not offer air travelers a meaningful alternative to FBS searches in airports equipped with FBS devices.
As a matter of pattern, practice and policy, the TSA does not offer air travelers with religious objections to Full Body Scanning a meaningful alternative to FBS searches in airports equipped with FBS devices.
B) The TSA's Full Body Scanner Program Collects and Retains Detailed Personal Information About Air Travelers
The TSA requires air travelers to disclose their full name, birth date, and gender when purchasing a ticket.
The TSA obtains additional information about air travelers from airlines, government agencies, and other third parties. The TSA collects and stores this information, linking it to air travelers' itineraries. The TSA requires air travelers to submit to searches of their bodies and carry-on luggage at TSA airport security checkpoints.
The TSA requires that air travelers present a boarding pass and government-issued photo identification card at airport security checkpoints.
The boarding pass displays air travelers' full names, travel itineraries, and bar codes containing machine-readable versions of travelers' personal information.
As a matter of pattern, practice and policy, the TSA visually matches air travelers' photo ID cards with their boarding passes when travelers pass through airport security checkpoints.
As a matter of pattern, practice and policy, the TSA scans air traveler's boarding passes, collecting air travelers' personal information, when travelers pass through airport security checkpoints that are equipped with paperless boarding pass scanners.
As described above, the TSA employs full body scanners to search air travelers at airport security checkpoints.
As described above, FBS devices can capture, store, and transfer detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals' naked bodies.
As a matter of pattern, practice, and policy, the TSA requires air travelers to possess and often display boarding passes contemporaneous with FBS searches. The TSA is therefore able to associate a specific FBS image with the full name, birth date, gender, and travel itinerary of the scanned traveler. The TSA failed to publish a "system of records notice" concerning the FBS Program in the Federal Register.
C) The TSA Misrepresents the Full Body Scan Program
The TSA claims that FBS devices cannot capture, store, and transfer detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals' naked bodies.
In fact, the FBS devices employed by the TSA can capture, store, and transfer detailed, three-dimensional images of individuals' naked bodies, as per the TSA's own requirements.
The TSA claims that FBS searches are "optional."
In fact, as a matter of pattern, practice and policy, the TSA does not offer air travelers a meaningful alternative to FBS searches in airports equipped with FBS devices.
In 2007, the TSA stated that FBS searches would not be mandatory for passengers, but rather "a voluntary alternative to a pat-down during secondary screening."
In fact, as a matter of pattern, practice and policy, the TSA employs FBS searches as a primary search of air travelers in airports equipped with FBS devices.
The TSA has claimed that "a security algorithm will be applied to the image to mask the face of each passenger."
In fact, the FBS devices employed by the TSA can capture images without any security algorithm and without masking the face of each passenger.
The TSA claims that air travelers prefer FBS searches.
In fact, hundreds of air travelers have lodged objections with the TSA, alleging a host of law and policy violations arising from the TSA's FBS searches.
Air travelers object to the invasiveness of the FBS searches.
Air travelers state that they are not informed when they undergo a FBS search, or of a pat-down alternative.
Air travelers object to the use of FBS devices to search vulnerable individuals, including children and pregnant women.
Pregnant air travelers objected to the TSA's FBS search after the TSA scanned them without identifying the machine or informing them of how it operates.
D) Full Body Scanner Technology is Flawed
The FBS devices employed by the TSA are not designed to detect powdered explosives.
The FBS devices employed by the TSA are not designed to detect powdered pentaerythritol tetranitrate ("PETN") -- the explosive used in the attempted December 25, 2009 bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253.
The FBS devices employed by the TSA have profound technical flaws that allow the machines to be breached and create the risk that sensitive traveler images could be leaked.
The FBS devices employed by the TSA run Windows XPe, which contains security vulnerabilities.
The FBS devices employed by the TSA are designed to transfer information via highly transportable and easily concealable USB devices.
The FBS devices employed by the TSA are equipped with Ethernet network interfacing capabilities that are vulnerable to security threats.
The FBS devices employed by the TSA permit TSA employees to disable built-in "privacy safeguards."
II. The Plan to Deploy Full Body Scanners is Widely Opposed, Violates the Fourth Amendment, and Several Federal Acts, including the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, The Administrative Procedures Act, and the Privacy Act
A) Religious Leaders Object to Full Body Scanners
On February 20, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI objected to FBS searches because they fail to preserve the integrity of individuals.
Agudath Israel, an Orthodox Jewish umbrella group, objects to FBS searches, calling the devices "offensive, demeaning, and far short of acceptable norms of modesty" within Judaism and other faiths.
On February 9, 2010, The Fiqh Council of North America objected to body scanners, announcing that "general and public use of such scanners is against the teachings of Islam, natural law and all religions and cultures that stand for decency and modesty."
American air travelers have filed objections with the TSA on religious grounds.
On February 19, 2010, two Muslim women refused to submit to a body scan at the Manchester Airport, forfeiting their tickets to Pakistan rather than undergo the scan.
In March 2010, a six-member Pakistani parliamentary delegation from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas refused to submit to full body scanning at the Washington Dulles International Airport, stating it was an insult to parliamentarians of a sovereign country. Instead, they ended their visit to the US and returned to Pakistan.
B) The TSA's Full Body Scanner Program Violates the Fourth Amendment and the RFRA
The TSA's FBS program subjects air travelers to unreasonable searches. The program requires air travelers to submit to a uniquely invasive search without any suspicion that particular individuals have engaged in wrongdoing. Courts have upheld some invasive airport checkpoint searches, but typically on the basis that the searches are part of a progressively escalating series of screenings.
Full Body Scanners are part of no such program. Instead, they employ the intrusive, degrading digital strip search as mandatory, primary screening.
The TSA program particularly burdens devout air travelers. As noted above, many religious leaders condemn digital strip searches as incompatible with religious tenets. Yet the TSA's practice of requiring Full Body Scans as mandatory, primary screening leaves religious travelers without a meaningful alternative. The program violates RFRA because the TSA's interest in conducting a Full Body Scan is limited, particularly given that the scanners' are not designed to detect powdered explosives. Further, Full Body Scanners are not the least restrictive means of furthering the TSA's interest in safeguarding air travel.
C) The TSA's Full Body Scanner Program Violates the Privacy Act
As described above, the TSA's Full Body Scanner Program creates a group of records containing air travelers' personally-identifiable information. The group of records is under the control of the TSA, and the TSA can retrieve information about air travelers by name or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. The TSA's FBS program has created and/or revised a "system of records" under the Privacy Act. The TSA unlawfully failed to publish a "system of records notice" in the Federal Register, and otherwise failed to comply with its Privacy Act obligations concerning the FBS Program.
D) The TSA's Full Body Scanner Program Violates the Administrative Procedures Act
The DHS Chief Privacy Officer has a statutory obligation to "assur(e) that the use of technologies sustain, and do not erode, privacy protections relating to the use, collection, and disclosure of personal information."
The DHS Chief Privacy Officer has a statutory obligation to "assur(e) that personal information contained in Privacy Act systems of records is handled in full compliance with fair information practices as set out in the Privacy Act of 1974."
The DHS Chief Privacy Officer has a statutory obligation to "conduct() a privacy impact assessment of proposed rules of the Department or that of the Department on the privacy of personal information, including the type of personal information collected and the number of people affected."
The DHS Chief Privacy Office prepared an inadequate Privacy Impact Assessment of the TSA's FBS test program.
The inadequate assessment, which was subsequently revealed through Freedom of Information Act litigation, failed to identify numerous privacy risks to air travelers. The DHS Chief Privacy Office failed to prepare any Privacy Impact Assessment concerning the TSA's current FBS program. The TSA's current FBS program is materially different from the TSA's FBS test program. The TSA's use of full body scanners fails to comply with the Privacy Act. The program erodes, and does not sustain, privacy protections relating to the use, collection, and disclosure of air traveler's personal information.
III. Petition for Relief: Suspend Purchase, Deployment, and Operation of Full Body Scanners
The undersigned hereby request and petition the DHS and TSA for relief. As set forth above, the TSA's Full Body Scanner program violates the Fourth Amendment, the RFRA, the Privacy Act, and the APA. We request that the DHS and TSA immediately suspend purchase and deployment of Full Body Scanners to American airports. In addition, we request that the DHS and TSA cease operation of already-deployed Full Body Scanners as primary screening.
SIGNED: Electronic Privacy Information Center; American Civil Liberties Union; American Policy Center; Asian American Legal Education and Defense Fund; Bill of Rights Defense Committee; Calegislation; Campaign for Liberty; Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights; Center for the Study of Responsive Law; Citizen Outreach; Consumer Federation of America; Consumer Travel Alliance; Consumer Watchdog; Council on American Islamic Relations; Cyber Privacy Project; Essential Information; Government Accountability Project; The Identity Project; Liberty Coalition; Muslim Legal Fund of America; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Workrights Institute; Patient Privacy Rights; Privacy Activism; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse; Public Citizen Litigation Group; Republican Liberty Caucus; Rutherford Institute; U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation; World Privacy Forum
2. Israeli Airline El Al Sued For Racial Profiling
Jonathan Cook, The Electronic Intifada, 20 April 2010
Two Palestinian citizens of Israel have won $8,000 in damages from Israel's national carrier, El Al, after a court found that their treatment by the company's security staff at a New York airport had been "abusive and unnecessary."
Brothers Abdel Wahab and Abdel Aziz Shalabi were assigned a female security guard who watched over them at the airport's departure gate for nearly two hours, in full view of hundreds of fellow passengers, after they had passed the security and baggage checks.
Later, El Al's head of security threatened to bar Abdel Wahab, 43, from the flight if he did not apologize to the guard for going to the toilet without first getting her approval. Abdel Aziz said he had been humiliated and "cried like I've never cried before in public."
Although surveys of Palestinian Arab citizens, who comprise one-fifth of Israel's population, show that most have suffered degrading treatment when flying with Israeli carriers, few bring cases to the Israeli courts.
The brothers are now planning to sue El Al and its New York staff in the United States over Israel's racial profiling of passengers in a country where the practice is illegal.
"I'd rather go to New York by donkey than fly with El Al again," said Abdel Aziz, 44. "We will keep fighting this case until Israel is embarrassed into stopping its policy of discriminating against its Arab citizens."
The brothers, who live in northern Israel, were the only Arabs in a party of 17 Israeli insurance agents on a two-week business trip to Canada and New York in 2007.
They arrived four hours early at John F. Kennedy airport in New York for their return flight with Israir, an Israeli charter company, to allow time for the additional checks they expected from El Al's security staff.
El Al has special agreements with most countries' airports to carry out its own security checks for passengers flying with Israeli airlines.
The brothers said they were questioned, searched and had to wait two hours while their bags and carry-on luggage were subjected to lengthy inspections.
"The Jews with us went through in minutes," said Abdel Aziz, in his home in the village of Iksal, near Nazareth. "The difference in treatment was very clear."
After they had passed the checks, an El Al security guard, Keren Weinberg, was assigned to them until they boarded the plane. They were told to make sure she could see them at all times.
When Abdel Wahab visited a toilet without her permission, a noisy argument broke out between the two, with Weinberg accusing him of "roaming freely." He said he told her to "either arrest me or go away."
Ilan Or, the head of El Al security, was then called and issued him an ultimatum that he apologize or be prevented from catching the flight. Abdel Wahab told a magistrate's court in Haifa this month that he broke down in tears and finally said he was sorry.
"I was in shock. One minute I was made to feel like a terrorist and then the next like a naughty child," he said.
Judge Amir Toubi said the security staff had admitted that neither brother was deemed a security threat and that Israeli law did not allow checks to continue after passengers had passed the security area.
"With all due understanding of security needs, there is no justification for ignoring the dignity, freedom and basic rights of a citizen under the mantle of the sacred cow of security," the judge ruled.
El Al told the court that it had been "asked by the state to conduct security checks abroad on behalf of (charter companies) Arkia and Israir airlines, and is acting under the security guidelines set by official bodies of the state."
Abdel Wahab praised the court's decision but said the damages were minor and would not act as a deterrent against El Al repeating such behavior in the future. He said the brothers would appeal to a higher court in Israel and were planning to initiate a legal action in New York, too.
"I will not rest until we get an apology from El Al and they acknowledge that what they did is wrong," he said. He called on all Arab citizens to boycott El Al until it committed to stop its discriminatory policy.
A 2007 report on racial profiling by Israeli carriers, published by the Arab Association for Human Rights and the Centre Against Racism, concluded: "This phenomenon is so widespread that it is hard to find any Arab citizen who travels abroad by air and who has not experienced a discriminatory security check at least once."
The two groups found that Arab and Muslim passengers typically faced long interrogations and extensive luggage searches, and were also regularly subjected to body and strip searches, had items including computers confiscated, were kept in holding areas and were escorted directly on to the plane.
The report noted that foreign countries that allowed Israel to carry out its own security checks at their airports failed to supervise them and preferred to "ignore their discriminatory nature and the human rights violations committed on their own soil."
New York's JFK airport was one of the airports that refused to answer questions from the groups about incidents of discriminatory treatment of Arabs and Muslims.
Israel has also come under harsh criticism for the standard racial profiling policies it uses against its own Arab citizens and foreign Arab nationals at Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv.
The practice of putting different color-coded stickers on Jewish and Arab passengers' luggage ended three years ago. However, airport guards still write a number on uniform white stickers indicating the level of security threat. Critics say higher numbers are reserved for non-Jews.
Faced with a lawsuit from Israeli human rights groups, Menachem Mazuz, the attorney general at the time, instructed the airports authority in early 2008 to implement "visible equality" by ending discriminatory screening policies.
However, observers have noticed no change in practice. "This was a very cynical exercise. 'Visible equality' simply means making it look like there's equality when the inequality persists," said Mohammed Zeidan, director of the Association for Human Rights, based in Nazareth.
In December an airport official told the right-wing Jerusalem Post newspaper: "Profiling makes the biggest difference. A man with the name of Umar flying out of Tel Aviv, whether he is American or British, is going to get checked seven times."
Two years ago Israel's racial profiling policy made headlines when a member of an American dance troupe with a Muslim-sounding name was forced to dance at the airport to prove he was who he claimed.
The incident with the Shalabi brothers follows on the heels of a diplomatic crisis between Israel and South Africa over revelations that spies posing as El Al staff have been operating at Johannesburg airport, gathering information on non-Jewish passengers visiting Israel.
El Al has threatened to close the route after South African officials stopped providing the airport guards with diplomatic immunity.
South African TV reported last month that two of the Mossad assassins suspected of killing a Hamas commander in Dubai in January may have used Johannesburg airport to fly back to Israel.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
A version of this article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi.
3. Arizona Legalizes Racial Profiling
Courtesy: University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
By Marjorie Cohn, Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law and immediate past president of the National Lawyers Guild. www.marjoriecohn.com
Arizona's new immigration legislation - requiring law enforcement officers to stop everyone whom they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is an undocumented immigrant and arrest them if they fail to produce their papers - demeans us all by effectively legalizing racial profiling.
The conservative "states' rights" mantra sweeping our country has led to one of the most egregious wrongs in recent U.S. history. New legislation in Arizona requires law enforcement officers to stop everyone whom they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is an undocumented immigrant and arrest them if they fail to produce their papers. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"? When asked what an undocumented person looks like, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who signed SB 1070 into law last week, said, "I don't know what an undocumented person looks like." The bill does not prohibit police from relying on race or ethnicity in deciding who to stop. It is unlikely that officers will detain Irish or German immigrants to check their documents. This law unconstitutionally criminalizes "walking while brown" in Arizona.
Former Arizona attorney general Grant Woods explained to Brewer that SB 1070 would vest too much discretion in the state police and lead to racial profiling and expensive legal fees for the state. But the governor evidently succumbed to racist pressure as she faces a reelection campaign. Woods said, "(Brewer) really felt that the majority of Arizonans fall on the side of, 'Let's solve the problem and not worry about the Constitution.' " The polls Brewer apparently relied on, however, employed questionable methodology and were conducted before heavy media coverage of the controversial legislation. No Democrats and all but one Republican Arizona legislator voted for SB 1070.
Undocumented immigrants in Arizona now face six months in jail and a $500 fine for the first offense – misdemeanor trespass – and an additional $1,000 fine for the second offense, which becomes a felony.
By establishing a separate state crime for anyone who violates federal immigration law, the new Arizona law contravenes the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which grants the federal government exclusive power to regulate U.S. borders.
SB 1070 creates a cause of action for any person to sue a city, town or county if he or she feels the police are not stopping enough undocumented immigrants. Even if a municipality is innocent, it will still be forced to rack up exorbitant legal fees to defend itself against frivolous lawsuits.
The bill also makes it a misdemeanor to attempt to hire or pick up day laborers to work at a different location if the driver impedes the normal flow of traffic, albeit briefly. How many New York taxi drivers impede the flow of traffic when they pick up fares? The law also criminalizes the solicitation of work by an undocumented immigrant in a public place, who gestures or nods to a would-be employer passing by. This part of the legislation is also unconstitutional as courts have held that the solicitation of work is protected speech under the First Amendment.
The new law effectively compels Arizona police to make immigration enforcement their top priority. Indeed several law enforcement groups oppose SB 1070. The Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, an organization of police officials who favor federal immigration reform, condemned the law, saying it would probably result in racial profiling and threaten public safety because undocumented people would hesitate to come forward and report crimes or cooperate with police for fear of being deported. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police also criticized the legislation, saying it will "negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner;" the group believes the immigration issue is best addressed at the federal level.
Many civil rights and faith-based organizations also oppose SB 1070.
The Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (MALDEF) called the law "tantamount to a declaration of secession." The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders Legal Defense Fund - which represents 30,000 evangelical churches nationwide - as well as MALDEF, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are preparing federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070.
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles called the ability of officials to demand documents akin to "Nazism." Former Arizona Senate majority leader Alfredo Gutierrez said, "This is the most oppressive piece of legislation since the Japanese internment camp act" during World War II. Representative Raul M. Grijalva (Dem.-AZ) called for a convention boycott of Arizona. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) complied. AILA is moving its fall 2010 conference, scheduled for Arizona, to another state.
Even though SB 1070 will not take effect for at least 90 days, undocumented immigrants in Arizona are terrorized by the new law. A man in Mesa, Arizona looked around nervously as he stood on a street corner waiting for work. "We shop in their stores, we clean their yards, but they want us out and the police will be on us," Eric Ramirez told the New York Times.
Ironically, expelling unauthorized immigrants from Arizona would be costly. The Perryman Group calculated that Arizona would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs if all undocumented people were removed from the state.
"This bill does nothing to address human smuggling, the drug cartels, the arms smuggling," according to Democratic Senator Rebecca Rios."And, yes, I believe it will create somewhat of a police state," she added.
"Police in Arizona already treat migrants worse than animals," said Francisco Loureiro, an immigration activist who runs a shelter in Nogales, Mexico. "There is already a hunt for migrants, and now it will be open season under the cover of a law."
SB 1070 is the latest, albeit one of the worst, racist attacks on undocumented immigrants. The federal program called 287(g) allows certain state and local law enforcement agencies to engage in federal immigration enforcement activities. But a report released earlier this month by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found a lack of oversight and training without adequate safeguards against racial profiling.
We can expect SB 1070 to be replicated around the country as the ugly wave of immigrant-bashing continues. Lawmakers from four other states have sought advice from Michael Hethmon, general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, who helped draft the Arizona law.
"SB 1070 is tearing our state into two," said Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, who called the bill "bitter, small-minded and full of hate."
He thinks "it humiliates us in the eyes of America and threatens our economic recovery." More than 50,000 people signed petitions opposing SB 1070 and 2,500 students from high schools across Phoenix walked out of school and marched to the state Capitol to protest the bill before it passed. On Sunday, about 3,500 people gathered at the Capitol, chanting, "Yes we can," "We have rights," and "We are human."
President Obama criticized SB 1070 as "misguided," saying it will "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe." He called on Congress to enact federal immigration reform.
But Isabel Garcia, co-chair of the Coalition of Human Rights in Tucson, told Democracy Now! that there have been more deportations under the Obama administration than in any other administration. "This administration continues to follow the flawed concept that migration is somehow a law enforcement or national security issue," she noted.
"And it is not. It is an economic, social, political phenomenon." She mentioned that NAFTA has displaced millions of workers in Mexico who flood into the United States.
Instead of expressing gratitude for the back-breaking work migrant laborers contribute to our society, there is an increasingly virulent strain of racism that targets non-citizens. Republican lawmakers are joining together to oppose federal immigration reform, opting instead for a "states rights" approach where each state is free to enact its own racist law.
Let us join the voices of compassion and oppose the mean-spirited actions that aim to scapegoat immigrants. Laws like SB 1070 demean us all.
4. U.K. Government To Compensate Pilot Wrongly Detained After 9/11
Courtesy: University of Pittsburgh School of Law.
April 23, 2010 – Officials from the UK Ministry of Justice announced last Friday that the government will award compensation to Lotfi Raissi, an Algerian-born UK man wrongfully detained in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Raissi was jailed in September 2001 on a US extradition warrant after being indicted by a federal grand jury on accusations that he provided pilot training to 9/11 hijackers.
In February 2008, the UK Appeals Court ordered the Ministry to consider Raissi's appeal for compensation, reversing a 2007 High Court ruling that he was ineligible for compensation because his detention stemmed from an extradition order. The Appeals Court held that the issue of extradition is not relevant to the question of compensation so long as it still results in a miscarriage of justice by UK courts. Last month, the Appeals Court gave Justice Secretary Jack Straw 28 days (full text of judgment) to decide whether to compensate Raissi. An independent assessor will now determine the amount of the award, which some expect to be several thousand pounds.
Raissi was arrested in his home with his wife and brother on September 21, 2001. He was granted conditional bail five months later because the US government was unable to adduce any evidence to support its allegations. He sought compensation under a government scheme allowing payment to any "person whose convictions are quashed on appeal or who, following charge, have not been proceeded against or have been acquitted of crime at trial."
5. 2009 Worst Year for U.S.Tourism Since 9/11
Even as U.S.-funded consultants seek to help the ASEAN countries enhance their tourism competitiveness, the tourism competitiveness of the United States itself is facing a challenge, with clear indications that its own security-related measures are becoming an issue. The U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries last week released its annual Year in Review report for 2009 which summarised the situation thus: "Simply put, the global economic slowdown created the most difficult environment for the (U.S.) tourism industry since the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001."
The report said that the U.S. welcomed 54.9 million international visitors in 2009, a decrease of 5% when compared to 2008. Total international visitor spending ($121 billion) "dropped precipitously in 2009, resulting in a record-setting yearly decline of nearly $21 billion (-15%)."
Total spending (domestic and international) by the U.S. travel and tourism industries were $100 billion less than in 2008, "by far the single largest contraction the industry has experienced." The industry also lost nearly 400,000 industry-related jobs in 2009, essentially eliminating all employment gains since 2004, the report said. It added, "Total industry employment closed the year at 8.2 million jobs, down from a record-setting 8.6 million in 2007 before the onset of the economic slowdown. In fact, the industry employed more people in 1999 than in 2009."
The ripple-effect of the downturn was felt all the way through the leisure industry.
The report said that after seven consecutive years of growth, the food services/drinking places industry cut its workforce by 2% in 2009. This, too, is the largest decline on record. The passenger air transportation industry downsized its workforce by nearly 6% in 2009; and "though not the largest reduction in labor, the industry has reduced the size of its workforce in seven of the last ten years."
The traveler accommodations industry was hardest hit, scaling back its workforce by nearly 6% in 2009. Total employment for this industry, after reducing its workforce by nearly 100,000 in 2009, accounts for 1.6 million American jobs.
According to the report, "Americans curtailed their travel-related spending, too, spending nearly 12 per- cent less while traveling abroad in 2009. Subtracting exports from imports, we are left with a $22 billion balance of trade surplus for travel and tourism, about $7 billion less favorable than in 2008.
The Department of Commerce is projecting a pick-up in inbound travel this year as U.S. business and destinations step up their promotions in the wake of the passage of the U.S. Travel Promotion act, which will see the U.S. get its first dedicated national tourism organisation. However, the Department is admitting that the new security-related entry procedures are beginning to pose a problem.
Since 9/11, the U.S. has stepped up visa-processing and border control measures that have added significantly to the "hassle-factor" in visiting the country. This is being clearly identified as a factor in at least two key source markets, Japan and Germany.
According to the Department of Commerce-sponsored Japan Travel Trade Barometer, bookings to the U.S. were down 4% to 9%, on average, in the fourth quarter 2009 compared to the same period in 2008.
The Department said in a media release that 81% of Japan tour operators reported (as of January 24 – March 3, 2010) that bookings decreased in the fourth quarter 2009, with 38% of the trade reporting that bookings decreased more than 10%.
Said the release, "The primary barriers for travel to the United States were reported to be airfare and fuel charges, visa processing time, the requirement to implement the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) and pandemics/epidemics issues." Both visa processing times and the ESTA requirement are new security-related measures.
Another media release said actual 2009 arrivals from Germany totaled 1.7 million, decreasing 5% over 2008. However, 4th quarter 2009 arrivals from Germany totaled 423,000, up 1% over 4th quarter 2008. This marginal growth rate was calculated as a result of a 4% decline in October, a 4% rise in November and a 1% rise in Decmeber 2009.
Said the release, "The primary barriers for travel to the United States were reported to be the requirement to collect 10 fingerprints for visitors, the economy in Germany and entry and exit requirements." The collection of fingerprints and the new entry-exit requirements are both security-related measures.
Other markets are also being affected, for reasons that may not necessarily be related to security concerns.
According to the Department of Commerce, "The U.S. welcomed an alarmingly fewer number of travelers from the United Kingdom in 2009. In total, 3.9 million U.K. residents visited the U.S. last year, down 15% over 2008." At the same time, visitor spending declines from the U.K. market alone ($4.6 billion) surpassed the combined declines from Africa and the entire Asia and Pacific region."
powered by phplist v 2.10.10, © tincan ltd
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder