Writings
Home
Current Issue
TMA Commentary
TAE Commentary
TMA Newsletter
A Mixed Blog
A Mixed Blog Archive
Guestbook
TMA Forum
Facebook Group
Advocacy Efforts
Advocacy and Letters
News and Press Releases
Government
Online Market
Book Store
Online Market
Cafepress Store
Miscellaneous
About Us
Contact Us
Links
Get Involved
Meetings and Conferences
News Feeds
Palm OS Downloads
Search
Administrator
TMA Forum and Chat
multiracial.com Webrings
Syndicate
Who's Online
We have 11 guests online
CB Login
CB Online
No Users Online
Last comments by AkoComment Tweaked SE
"Law and Order" Prog...
Comment from the Netherlands about ...
07/01/08 09:22 More...
By Brian Amsterdam

The Misidentificatio...
I enjoyed reading your article and ...
17/01/08 02:56 More...
By Alice Glass

Growing up biracial
Hello, I am a student at the Uni...
15/11/08 16:26 More...
By ajbutterfly

Growing up biracial
The "biracial advantage" only holds...
30/08/08 02:21 More...
By gordongreg

Growing up biracial
general
Look like people is a poem that tou...
23/08/08 03:09 More...
By mike5

Immigration Chaos
User Rating: / 0
TAE Articles and Commentary - TAE Commentary and Articles
Written by Fergus Hodgson   
Monday, 01 August 2011
Immigration Chaos
 The Abolitionist Examiner - August 1, 2011 
by Fergus Hodgson
 
The presence of illegal immigrants in the United States continues to generate ineffectual political initiatives, from employment verification mandates to referendums against in-state tuition access.
 
These fail to resolve the underlying causes for the presence of illegals, such as the arbitrary (see the immigration lottery), expensive, and humiliating immigration process (and I speak from experience). They also tend to ignore what happens to the individuals caught in the bind — the supposed deportation process — as though they’ll just disappear from America.
 
Last week, however, the Center for Immigration Studies released a lengthy report, “Deportation Basics: How Immigration Enforcement Works (Or Doesn’t) in Real Life.” This report is particularly revealing because CIS scholars tend to oppose “current, high levels of immigration,” in favor of a “low-immigration, pro-immigrant” vision.
 
Despite the apparent low-immigration, pro-immigrant contradiction, CIS scholars deserve credit for at least addressing the touchy deportation subject. In doing so, they present the thinking of those who sincerely believe stricter enforcement of the prevailing laws is the way to go, and they are perhaps the most prominent organization with that perspective.
 
That perspective, though, is fraught with confusion and prejudices, and it begs for a rebuttal.
 
The author uses a pseudonym, “W.D. Reasoner,” which seems unnecessary, but he notes that he is a retired government employee with many years of experience in immigration administration. Presumably, that allowed him to observe what he admits is a cumbersome and dysfunctional process of deportation.
 
That description leads to his and CIS’s most important confusion. Despite the abject failure of federal officials to curb illegal immigration — about 11 million live here — even with multiple agencies on the job, he wants to divert more Justice Department resources to them. The call for expanded budgets goes to show how these agencies have an incentive to maintain the problem, not end it.
 
Reasoner notes at least 20 required forms to initiate an immigration charge, greater than one-year backlogs for hearings (which only 41 percent of defendants attend), and a scarcity of detention space. This fecklessness matches that of the E-Verify program, where even U.S. Customs and Immigration admits 54 percent of unauthorized workers receive approval for employment. Yet, he does not call for legislative changes, nor does he acknowledge that they are fighting a futile battle.
 
Reasoner also points to a “significant review and restructuring” of another agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This has been going on for nearly two years, and its claim to success is the cancellation of many contracts, but total spending has continued to climb.
 
Reflective of the entire report, the term “alien,” which legally refers to any non-citizen, appears throughout. Even jargon such as “alienage” arises — whatever that means. Offensive to many, “alien” dehumanizes immigrants and promotes a fallacious us-versus-them mentality that undergirds the report.
 
This collectivist mentality manifests itself with repeated calls for the dismissal of due process “trappings” in immigration disputes. Apparently, benefit of the doubt and presumption of innocence are less relevant when someone may be born outside of the country.
 
Additionally, the supposed adverse impacts of illegal immigrants on health and social service systems merit mention, while their cultural and economic contributions do not. Contrary to popular perception, illegal immigrants are not heavy users of welfare, and the majority pay income taxes. Cato Institute research also suggests that legal status would enable higher wages and greater tax contributions.
 
The irony is that what Reasoner describes as “thousands of productive hours” toward deportation are a waste of time, and they divert our attention from real problems. Already Puerto Ricans immigrate to and work in the United States without impediment. And any Cuban that arrives here receives permanent residence status within one year. Do we lose sleep at night over that reality?
 
Of course not; nor should we — just as we would not seek to impede someone moving from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. Far from being a plague, migration elevates human prosperity and helps to hold governments in check.
 
I remember a visit to Ellis Island, the place where so many people without documentation once found welcome in the United States. Sadly, millions of people now assume grave risks to immigrate illegally, and they testify to a legal route that no longer greets immigrants with open arms.
 
Fergus Hodgson is a policy advisor with The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org).

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (255) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1167

Last Updated ( Monday, 01 August 2011 )
 
Coalition Letter in Opposition to Section 4 of H.R. 1981
User Rating: / 0
Advocacy and Letters - Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition   
Wednesday, 27 July 2011

July 27, 2011


Chairman Lamar Smith
U.S. House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Ranking Member John Conyers
U.S. House Judiciary Committee
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Sign on Letter in Opposition to Section 4 of H.R. 1981

Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers:

The undersigned groups write today to express our opposition to section 4 of H.R. 1981, the ―Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.‖ We believe that any data retention mandate is a direct assault on bedrock privacy principles.

Section 4 of H.R. 1981 would impose sweeping new requirements on companies that provide internet access, forcing them for the first time to keep large volumes of records on their customers — impacting hundreds of millions of individuals who have no connection to the sexual exploitation of children whatsoever. The scope of this new requirement is very broad. Contrary to the title of the legislation, there nothing in the bill that would limit the use of these records to child exploitation cases. In fact, the records would involve all internet users everywhere and they would be available to law enforcement for any purpose.

This new mandate is a direct assault on the privacy of internet users. Temporarily assigned network addresses, also known as IP addresses, are the direct link between individuals and their online activity. In many ways, an IP address is similar to an individual’s name or other identifier online. Access to this information can allow anyone to determine the websites users visit and, consequently, what their interests are, where they bank, what online accounts they have.

For more than 40 years it has been a core privacy principle that records should only be created for a specific purpose and deleted as soon as that purpose is complete. But the data retention mandate of H. R. 1981 moves in exactly the opposite direction and creates a true slippery slope. If law enforcement officials are faced with the tempting prospect of access to such a vast treasure trove of private online records, they will be hard-pressed not to desire more retention of those records. And who could blame them? Some internet records – such as identifiers for email and other services – could be useful in criminal investigations – or they could more easily be irrelevant to any criminal investigation. Location information from cell phones could certainly provide help to law enforcement in many cases – but the vast majority of such data has no bearing on any crime. While any record could in theory be useful in nvestigating some crime somewhere the vast majority are simply the records on innocent Americans.

We live in an age where our devices and the way we use the internet are constantly generating records – what we read, where we go, who our friends are. If those records must always be saved for future use, they become a persistent and pervasive assault on our privacy and an irresistible temptation to law enforcement. That is why best practices in privacy demand the deletion of records as soon as they are no longer necessary – exactly the opposite of the mandate of H. R. 1981.

Existing laws are wholly insufficient in protecting against access to such records. As this Committee has recognized in previous hearings, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) has not been substantially updated since 1986, while the type and detail of records have increased dramatically since that time. The data retention mandate of H.R. 1981 would exacerbate ECPA’s problems, making records available and identifiable for even longer periods of time.

For all of these reasons, we urge the committee to withhold approval of H.R. 1981 in any form containing section 4 or any other data retention mandate.

Sincerely,

Advocacy for Principled Action in Government
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
Association of Research Libraries
Bill of Rights Defense committee
Center for Democracy & Technology
Center for Digital Democracy
Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights
Center for Media and Democracy
Center for National Security Studies
Consumer Action
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Watchdog
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Defending Dissent Foundation
Demand Progress
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Friends of Privacy USA
Liberty Coalition
Muslim Public Affairs Council
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
National Workrights Institute
Patient Privacy Rights
Privacy Activism
Privacy Journal, Robert Ellis Smith, Publisher
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
World Privacy Forum

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (171) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 929

 
By-Products of Segregation, Integration and Pasteurization
User Rating: / 4
TMA Articles and Commentary - TMA Commentary and Essays
Written by Shannon Palmer Bennett   
Thursday, 30 June 2011

By-Products of Segregation,
Integration and Pasteurization

by Shannon Palmer Bennett
July/August 2011 in The Multiracial Activist

 

My mother & I hang out by the pool.

My mother and I just returned from a ten-day journey together. If you’re an introvert pretending to be an extrovert like me, you can understand the sheer horror in spending ten days with anyone other than the one who shares your fingerprint profile.

The issue of race came up quite often during our conversation. She wants me to recognize that she is a product of segregation. I want her to recognize that I am a product of integration. Our personal experiences provide two very different points of view. She is frustrated. I am silent. We agree to disagree on most things related to race and the perception thereof.

Our travels took us to Texas. Abilene. ACU, where I was scheduled to attend a week of classes as part of a distance learning program. Our travels took my mother back to the school that grudgingly admitted her, one she left after a grueling and oppressive semester.

It’s kinda poetic. The unfulfilled prophecy of the militant, black, coed is fulfilled through her biracial daughter.

The story reads like a script. This is not the same Abilene Christian University. My favorite professor is half of an interracial marriage and we converse about diversity, multiculturalism and biraciality. Her dear friend and professor is an advocate of equity and inclusion and we converse about my role as a minority woman making moves in higher education. There are signs of progression all around and I am comfortable here, as comfortable as I am at my alma mater, a historically black university; maybe even more so.

This feeling saddens and confuses me because questions of my purpose rise and fall like turbulence over the southeast.

When we return home, exhausted and dehydrated from over a week of 100 degree weather, I reach for the pitcher of cold water on the second shelf and accidentally knock the gallon onto the floor. Standing in the sea of milk, I crack and the emotion of the week, what I have learned and where I go from here overwhelms me. By the time I have dried the mess, my eyes are also dry and the empty jug in the recycling bin catches my eye.

June 22, 2011.

Sitting on the stairs at Jacob's Dream

There is no sense in crying over spilled milk, especially when it was sour.

I’ve got some sour milk in my life. There are circumstances and situations that have long since expired. There are also a few expiration dates that are approaching. Like July 15, 2011, on which my 32nd year of life will expire. Some dates are not as exact but the time has passed for me to pour some things out.

I’m not crying over spilled milk. In fact, I’m looking through the refrigerator to see what else needs to be tossed. Then I’m gonna clean out the refrigerator and make room for some new, fresh, wholesome goodies. Please don’t mistaken this as a profession of “dieting”, it’s a metaphor for my life, specifically…my career.

Sometimes our milk is the circumstances of our past and the experiences in our history, and they too need to be spilled because they spoil the circumstances of our future and the experiences of our present.

By the end of our adventure, a crazy hotel manager, a flat tire and misread paperwork united us in our frustration over the spilled milk but the joy in “swimming” together for the first time, finding that special bargain and landing at home safely allowed us to keep from being soured by our ordeals.

Shannon Palmer Bennett is a single mom, student, student affair professional and blogger of mixed race championing for common sense in the midst of common stupidity.

Originally published at mulattotude.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (136) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1850

Last Updated ( Thursday, 30 June 2011 )
 
Coalition Letter to Congress re: E-Verify
User Rating: / 0
Advocacy and Letters - Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition   
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
June 29, 2011

United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Oppose E-Verify and any Mandatory Provision Expanding the System

Dear Senator/Representative:

We write today to express in the strongest possible terms our opposition to H.R. 2164,  the “Legal Workforce Act”. H.R. 2164 would mandate the use of the bureaucratic E-Verify system and for the first time in history require every American to be checked against an error prone government database. If a worker’s information is incorrect in E-Verify, he or she can’t work until the problem is resolved. In addition to the harmful effects this process would have on workers and the economy, we believe the risks to individual privacy are too great and the likely benefits are too small to justify inserting the federal government into every hiring decision made by every employer across the country.

A nationwide mandatory E-Verify system would be one of the largest and most widely accessible databases of private information ever created in the U.S. Its size and openness would present an irresistible target for identity thieves. Additionally, because the system would cover everyone eligible to work in the United States, it could quickly expand to a host of other uses for the intelligence community, law enforcement, and corporate America.

The current E-Verify system, implemented in a small fraction of the country’s
workplaces, contains an enormous amount of personal information including names, photos (in some cases), social security numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, workers’ employer and industry, and immigration information like country of birth. It links to a variety of other databases such as the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) TECS database (a vast repository of Americans’ travel history) and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) BSS database (all immigration fingerprint information from US VISIT and other sources).1 CIS has recently announced the inclusion of drivers’ license information from at least one state.2

Because E-Verify contains photos and will very soon contain drivers’ license information
it could quickly evolve into a national identity system. E-Verify is internet-based and hence available almost anywhere. If the system is expanded, it could easily be used to verify drivers’ licenses at airports or federal facilities and combined with travel, financial, or watch list information. The errors and problems with E-Verify would then transform from employment issues to problems with travel and other fundamental freedoms.

Additionally, the system must guard against data breaches and attacks by identity thieves.
Since the first data breach notification law went into effect in California at the beginning of 2004, more than 510 million records have been hacked, lost or improperly disclosed including Everify databases.3 In October 2009, and again in December 2009, Minnesota state officials learned that the company hired to process their E-verify forms had accidentally allowed unauthorized individuals to gain access to the personal information of over 37,000 individuals due to poor authentication practices and web application vulnerabilities in their system.4 If the Department of Homeland Security and states are unable to provide proper data security, we cannot possibly expect small business across America to do so.

H.R. 2164 also contains a pilot biometric ID card program. This program would allow
any employer to fingerprint all employees and would create private sector “enrollment providers”. These providers would combine biometrics, information from employers, commercial databases, and information from DHS and Social Security Administration – all for the purpose of identity verification. Such a card would exacerbate the existing problems with EVerify by adding additional sensitive information and allowing it to be kept in private hands.

For all of these reasons, we oppose H.R. 2164 and any expansion of the E-Verify system and we urge you not to move the bill from committee.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
American Policy Center
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Center for Digital Democracy
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Consumer Action
Consumer Watchdog
Cyber Privacy Project
Defending Dissent Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Gaurdian I-9 And E-Verify Blog, May 4, 2011.
The 5-11 Campaign
Identity Project
Liberty Coalition
The Multiracial Activist
The National Center for Transgender Equality
National Workrights Institute
PrivacyActivism
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
Privacy Times
The Rutherford Institute
United Sikhs
Former Congressman Bob Barr
Law Professor Chip Pitts, Stanford Law School & Oxford University

Footnotes

1 73 Fed. Reg. 75449.
2 Notice of Privacy Act System of Records, 76 Fed. Reg. 26738 (May 9, 2011), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-05-09/html/2011-11291.htm
3 Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Chronology of Data Breaches, http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches.htm .
4 John Fay, FTC Settlement Highlights the Importance of Protecting Sensitive I-9 Data in an Electronic World,

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (162) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1051

 
Coalition Letter to House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform re: Faster FOIA Act
User Rating: / 0
Advocacy and Letters - Letters to Government Agencies Signed by TMA
Written by Coalition   
Friday, 24 June 2011

June 24, 2011

The Honorable Darrell Issa

U.S. House of Representatives

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee

2157 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515


The Honorable Elijah Cummings

U.S. House of Representatives

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee

B350A Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

 

 

Dear Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings:

 

In recognition of the upcoming 45th anniversary on July 4th of the signing of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the undersigned organizations write to ask that you support and move forward the Faster FOIA Act, which would establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays (the Commission). The Senate unanimously passed the legislation, co-authored by Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Cornyn (R-TX), earlier this year.

 

In our experience, agency backlogs impose one of the greatest impediments to access under the FOIA and create a disparity across the federal government in the administration of the FOIA.  Moreover, while backlogs have presented a longstanding problem in agency implementation of the FOIA, we still do not understand fully the conditions and practices that create those backlogs.  Particularly in light of President Obama’s directive to agencies to reduce significant backlogs of outstanding FOIA requests, it is imperative that we identify the root causes of FOIA processing delays.

Toward that end, the Commission established by the Faster FOIA Act would examine agency backlogs and recommend to Congress and the President steps that should be taken to reduce delays and make the administration of the FOIA equitable and efficient throughout the federal government.  By including representatives of the FOIA requester community, the Commission would bring a fresh perspective to a persistent problem.

The Commission would also be tasked with examining the current FOIA system for charging fees and granting waiver fees.  In our experience, an agency’s refusal to recognize a requester’s entitlement to a fee waiver all too often causes further processing delays and imposes yet another unreasonable bar to access under the FOIA.  Additionally, the Commission will examine and determine why the Federal Government’s use of the exemptions under FOIA increased in Fiscal Year 2009, what efforts were made by Federal agencies to comply with the Administration’s guidelines and whether those efforts were successful, and the extent to which political appointees have been involved in the FOIA process.

We welcome the opportunity this legislation presents for meaningful study of this problem, specifically considering whether the current statutory provision should be reformed.

Thank you for your ongoing commitment to transparency and open government by strengthening the Freedom of Information Act.

Sincerely,


American Association of Law Libraries

American Association of University Professors

American Library Association

Association of Research Libraries

American Society of News Editors

Californians Aware

Center for Democracy and Technology

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Defending Dissent Foundation

DC Open Government Coalition

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Essential Information

Fund for Constitutional Government

Government Accountability Project

iSolon.org

Justice Through Music

Liberty Coalition

Minnesota Coalition on Open Government

MuckRock

The Multiracial Activist

National Coalition for History

National Freedom of Information Coalition

National Security Archive

North Carolina Open Government Coalition

OMB Watch

OpenTheGovernment.org

Project On Government Oversight

Public Citizen

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

The Rutherford Institute

Sage Information Services

Society of Professional Journalists

Special Libraries Association

Sunlight Foundation

U.S. PIRG

Velvet Revolution

Washington Coalition for Open Government

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (148) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 988

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 1 - 5 of 699