From the Restore Fairness blog-

Guest blogger: Azadeh Shahshahani from the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia

When I testified before the Special Joint Committee on Immigration Reform, a committee of 14 Republicans convened to draft legislative proposals for the upcoming legislative session, I reminded them about the continued obligation of Georgia under international human rights law to protect and preserve the human dignity of all people regardless of immigration status.

As documented by the ACLU of Georgia, racial profiling and other human rights violations against immigrants or those perceived to be noncitizens continue in Georgia. In Gwinnett County, many Latinos have been stopped without reasonable suspicion or probable cause by the police in their cars or on the street.

Juan Vasquez, a legal permanent resident who lives in Sugar Hill, reports having been stopped and harassed by police on multiple occasions for no apparent reason. On one occasion, rather than tell Vasquez why he was pulled over, the officers screamed at him for asking questions before releasing him without any citation. Vasquez now avoids certain areas of Sugar Hill where he has come to expect harassment by the police.

Prompt action by the state is necessary to combat racial and ethnic profiling in Gwinnett and Georgia. The Legislature should pass anti-racial profiling legislation to give law enforcement agencies, policymakers and the public the tools necessary to identify and address the problem of racial profiling in the state. Data collection about traffic stops is an important supervisory tool. You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Annual training for law enforcement regarding racial profiling will also help ensure that stops and arrests are undertaken in a fair manner.

The Georgia Legislature should also carefully consider all the proposed bills in the upcoming session to ensure that they are consistent with the Constitution and our international human rights obligations, as reaffirmed by both Republican and Democratic administrations. In February 2008, the Bush administration told the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that “United States is in profound agreement with the committee that every state must be vigilant in protecting the rights that noncitizens in its territory enjoy, regardless of their immigration status, as a matter of applicable domestic and international law.”

Last month, the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) issued a set of recommendations for the U.S. to bring its policies and practices in line with international standards. The recommendations are the result of the first-ever participation by the U.S. in the Universal Periodic Review process, which involves a thorough assessment of a nation’s human rights record. State and local laws, such as Arizona’s SB 1070, that aim to regulate immigration and lead to racial profiling were examined and decried by the Human Rights Council.

One of the recommendations issued by HRC was for the United States to end racial and ethnic profiling by law enforcement, especially with respect to immigration. Harold Koh, the U.S. State Department legal adviser, stated in response to this recommendation that “we will leave no stone unturned in our effort to eliminate racial profiling in law enforcement.”

Georgia legislators should be wary of any measure similar to Arizona’s racial profiling law that would encourage law enforcement to stop people on the street based on how they look, rather than based on individualized suspicion or evidence of criminal activity.

Laws that promise to turn the state into “show me your papers” territory would violate the Constitution and human rights commitments and tarnish Georgia’s reputation as a state welcoming to new immigrants.

Photo courtesy of epier.com

Learn. Share. Act. Go to restorefairness.org

 

 

2 minute mark, "it may take a no vote in order to get people back on board" HRC.

This via David Dayden on Wed. Over on RCP, Jay Cost looks at the vote tally in the House, and it does look pretty tough.

My contention has been that the HCR bill as written in the Senate is a Democratic slayer of a bill. Its mandate provision makes it constitutionally questionable, and easily is framed as yet another corporate giveaway.

Right now, it looks like Brown has the momentum and that he could win in MA next Tuesday. And that is going to have huge repercussions in DC for HCR. Does it make it DOA?  It could, but it could also mean that the progressives in the House say the public option way, or no deal.

Would no deal be better?  That begs a whole different argument about whether there is political will to make it better later. Electorally though, without a doubt. Democrats could vote this down, come back with some of the popular reforms that are in the bill and widely backed, and vote that through next month.

 

I've been pretty fed up with the Human Rights Campaign (hereafter HRC) for a while now.  If you are unfamiliar with them, or what exactly they are (since the name is, well, rather vague), the HRC is the largest GLBT Rights advocacy/lobbying group in the U.S.  And, frankly, they've been incredibly ineffective over the years.  As Rachel Maddow has repeated over the years, "Human Rights Campaign?  Really?  We're so marginalized that we can't even say who we are in our title?"

Seen in that light, the milquetoast efforts to 'not offend anyone' from the offical No on 8 folks is totally unsurprising.  So it its inefficacy.

Which makes me really excited about The Impact and what it accomplished over the weekend.  I'd really like to the The Impact's energies directed towards pressuring Congress and the Adminstration to repeal, at the very least, the portion of DOMA that restricts the Federal Government from recognizing gay couples.

There's more...

While nothing is set in stone now, it looks like there are rumbling about a new healthcare plan to be pushed through Congress.  Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is said to be the point man on the issue and it's pretty much Hillary's plan.  

There's more...

Update [2008-9-17 15:1:18 by January 20]: Thanks to duende for reminding me that Lynn Forester de Rothschild is, in fact, a lady. Diary appropriately amended.

Just as most of the rational world is tearing into McCain for runnning one of the most blatantly dishonest and dishonorable campaigns in recent history, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is set to endorse him.

Just as most of the rational world is disgusted by McCain's irresponsible and baldly political pick for Veep, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is set to endorse him.

Just as NOW endorses the Democratic ticket specifically because [Palin's]"positions on so many of the issues are really anathema to ours." Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild is set to endorse McCain/Palin.

There's more, of course, but I'll stop it there.  

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Hillary supporter, friend, and Democrat, has decided that, somehow, McCain/Palin is a better fit for her view of the country.

And why is Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild turning her back on every issue and policy that Hillary and Democrats in general hold dear?

"This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him," she said of Obama in an interview with CNN's Joe Johns. "I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him."

She just doesn't like him.

As for being elitist, well, others have pointed out that it's hard to be more of an elite than Lady Lynn Forrester de Rothschild.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_ banking_family_of_England 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee's Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

More elitism after the bump.

There's more...