Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Arizona Included In Human Rights Paper By The State Department UPDATED

To say I was shocked to learn that the State Department included Arizona in its section on Immigration in the paper the State Department presented to the Human Rights Commission. Surely, I misheard this. No way would the State Department include one of its own states on such a list to the United Nations. I did not mishear anything, or misread anything. Sadly, yes, the State Department did.

Let's be clear here: Arizona is now on the list for trying to uphold Federal Immigration Law, and for making it a law that people who have been stopped for violations can be asked for their papers.

What shocks me even more was Secretary Clinton's willingness to put Arizona in this category. Yes, she thought it would be a "model," according to this Fox News report:
[snip] Crowley said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included the dispute in the report because she thought the U.S. could serve as "a model" to other nations.

"The universal periodic review, we believe, can be a model to demonstrate, you know, to other countries, even other countries on the Human Rights Council, this is how you engage civil society,' Crowley told reporters. [enip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

A "model"? We have girls and their teachers being gassed in Afghanistan. Women in Iran being stoned to death for allegedly committing adultery. Hundreds of women being raped in Congo. And our State Department puts ARIZONA on a Human Rights list?

As if I didn't already have a headache from my root canal.

Oh, and speaking of Iran, I trust you recall that Iran - IRAN - is on the U.N. Commission on Women's Rights. WTH???

Do I even need to tell you how upset Governor Jan Brewer is about being included on this list? Yes, she called it "offensive," and has fired off a letter to Secretary Clinton. The State Department, though, is standing by its list, as PJ Crowley states below:



How is it that PJ Crowley is the spokesman for the State Department? Good grief.

Well, for my money, I'd rather have Martha MacCullum any day of the week. At least she is someone who thinks the US should be held to a higher standard than countries which engage in such horrific human rights abuses as detailed above and by MacCullum, herself. As she said, we SHOULD be held to a higher standard than these countries, and I couldn't agree more. Do we really want to be in the same category regarding Human Rights as Iran, Afghanistan, Congo, and similar countries? Hell to the NO, and why the State Department Spokesperson doesn't get that is troubling indeed.

Bottom line, though, Arizona fits nowhere in that list the State Department presented to the United Nations. This is a States Right v. Federal Right. Perhaps Gov. Brewer should turn the tables on the State Department, and the DOJ. Their refusal to abide by their Constitutional Duty to protect the borders and uphold federal laws are creating human rights abuses for people living in Arizona. How about that, huh? Yeah. I'm sure AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu would be more than willing to testify to that effect as he essentially does below:



That Secretary Clinton saw fit to put this into a report to the UN is disturbing. She needs to rectify this now, and apologize to both Arizona, and the country, for even considering what Arizona is trying to accomplish as a "human rights abuse." That is absurd, and I cannot believe she went along with this wrongheaded move.

As someone who supported Hillary Clinton 1000%, I am disappointed in her, to say the least. And this? Well, I'm waiting for that apology, Secretary Clinton.


UPDATE: In light of a recent comment about not providing a link to the actual report, and what the report said (though I think PJ Crowley DID state what was said about Arizona. So, in the interest of full disclosure, here is the LINK to the report, and here is where AZ came into the discussion:
94. Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS may delegate authority to state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law. DHS has made improvements to the 287(g) program, including implementing a new, standardized Memorandum of Agreement with state and local partners that strengthens program oversight and provides uniform guidelines for DHS supervision of state and local agency officer operations; information reporting and tracking; complaint procedures; and implementation measures. DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.

95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

96. President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.

Make of this what you will, but I stand by my post – I think it was irresponsible at BEST to include Arizona and the government’s case against AZ, in a report to the UN on Human Rights in this manner (making it clear that the Federal Gov’t has taken AZ to court, and all of the implications therein). I might add, I think #94 takes the wind out of the Fed’s sails in regard to suing AZ, don’t you? Could just be me, though.

I might add - I changed the title and beginning because I did not make clear what the report said. I struggled to find the words when I wrote this simply because I had a raging (post root canal) headache. I apologize for any confusion.

Anyway, there is the link – read it for yourself, and decide.

8 comments:

SFIndie said...

Leave it to the State Department to completely obfuscate the issue, which Martha MacCullum nailed Crowley on (and he ignored). The report was issued to the Human Rights Commission (which is a joke, in light of which countries are part of that commission!) to discuss human rights violations, which include genocide, torture, slavery, rape, enforced sterilization or medical experimentation, and deliberate starvation. We can also add stonings and floggings and honor killings and genital mutilation, while we’re at it.

Crowley mentioned that the U.S. included Arizona and its duly enacted law (which mirrors federal law, by the way, so I wonder why the federal government wasn’t included in that report) as a way to model how “issues of concern or controversy” are resolved. What, as Martha asked, does that have to do with human rights violations? Nothing.

It’s disgraceful that Arizona was included in this report. It’s disheartening that Secretary Clinton supported it. I have, I’m afraid, lost all respect for Secretary Clinton. If she truly believes that it was appropriate, then she is not who I thought she was. If she’s doing it only because she’s being told to by the administration, and chooses to obey rather than stand up and quit, then again, she’s not who I thought she was. I can no longer support her.

As bad as Bush was, I think he had greater respect for this country than The Pretender ever will. I don't remember Bush ever comparing any of the states of this country to Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, North Korea....

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

You said it, SF. I thought Martha did an OUTSTANDING job with PJ, and he showed his true colors. Especially when she said we SHOULD hold oursleves to a higher standard - hell to the yes, we should. I don't want to be in the same category as Congo, or Iran, in their treatment of women. Just ridiculous.

And yes, there is no REAL reason for the State Dept. to have ever included AZ in the first place. WTH kind of logic was Crowley trying to employ, anyway? Pitiful.

SF, it pains me to say it, really breaks my heart, but I have to agree with you abt Clinton. I expected so much better from her than to pile on to AZ in front of the UN's Human Rights Commission.

And abt Bush - I have to admit, GRUDGINGLY, that you are right abt him. I didn't agree with a LOT that he did, but he does really seem to care abt the US, but not for what it can do for him, like Obama seems to act.

Great comment, SF.

Becky said...

"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."

That is what is written in the report. THAT'S IT.

I have to disagree with you on this one RRRAmy. I believe you are doing everyone a disservice by piling on here and not providing a direct link to the report. At No Quarter you provided a link to a media report about the report. I don't rely on media to interpret ANYTHING for me after 2007-08. As a long-time Hillary supporter I will always do my own research and reading when it comes to her because I realize that people like to pile on her. So...that is what I did. I read the report. I think it was an excellent report and lifts up our country as a positive example of how we try to address our civil/social issues in this country. I don't know, perhaps I missed something, but I just don't have any problem at all with this report and the hysteria surrounding it.
I don't agree with the Obama administration's challenge of the Arizona law nor do I believe that the Arizona law discriminates against minorities. I support Governor Brewer in her struggle to protect the legal citizens of her state. However, I will not pile on here and contribute to the stirring up of people over this report. Hillary is getting a bum rap over this. Read the report before stirring the pot.
As always I thank you RRRAmy for being on the front line of reporting the controversial issues of our times, but on this one, I have to respectfully disagree with you. Thanks for allowing me to share my opinion.

SFIndie said...

LOL about "grudgingly"...it is so hard, isn't it, to have to admit that there might be something, the teensiest tiniest bit, that we have to give Bush credit for! I bet that wasn't the CHANGE The Pretender was talking about. Such lows he has brought us to.

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

SF, I know, right? Who in the world would have thought that all of these billboards would be cropping up with "Do You Miss Me Yet?" on there? Who knew? Not me. But yes - I doubt that is the "Change!" Obama thought was going to happen. But every time he opens his mouth...

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Becky, I appreciate your comment, and your perspective on this. As always, I encourage everyone to do their own homework, and to form their own opinions. You do just that, and I applaud you for it.

And of course, you are ALWAYS free to disagree with me. (And forgive the delay in posting this - I shut down my computer last night without checking here again.)

Here's the thing. WHY mention Arizona in the FIRST place in this report? I can understand you think I am piling on, but as I see it, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to even MENTION Arizona in a report to the UN Human Rights Commission. Not only is is an ongoing legal action (which itself is ludicrous - for the Fed. gov't to sue one of its states for upholding federal law is mind boggling. Or, what you said!), but to compare AZ's law to any of these other exceedingly egregious human rights violations is irresponsible at BEST. It does not belong in there, even in passing (and I believe PJ Crowley stated what it was, which was why I did not have a direct link. He IS the State Dept. spokesperson, after all.).

And that's the thing, Becky - even if the report is talking abt how we deal with things in the US, they are essentially saying that the way the US handles these "conflicts" is to sue states who are trying to do what the gov't doesn't - protect their borders, and uphold Fed. immigration law.

As always, I thank you for your thoughtful comment, and your take on this.

Here are the pertinent sections, in context, and the link for the entire report:

"94. Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS may delegate authority to state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law. DHS has made improvements to the 287(g) program, including implementing a new, standardized Memorandum of Agreement with state and local partners that strengthens program oversight and provides uniform guidelines for DHS supervision of state and local agency officer operations; information reporting and tracking; complaint procedures; and implementation measures. DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.

95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal
24
government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

96. President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end."
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Becky, I continue to think abt what you said. Here's the thing - it seems gratuitous to put AZ in there. Especially in context, I think the intent is clear. Never mind that there are other states with far more stringent laws (e.g., CA). There is a reason why Obama is going after AZ, and felt compelled to have that mentioned in this report. As I said, it seems a swipe gratuitous to me. Know what I mean?