arizona immigration law

Arizona’s immigration laws stir discrimination fears
When the prayers began outside Arizona’s capitol building in Phoenix, the Hispanic crowd who had gathered under darkening skies stopped talking and bowed their heads.

Placards and banners with bold letters saying “We Are Human” and “Work Is Not A Crime” were placed on the ground and a solitary drum beat that had sounded for most of the afternoon came to a halt
Other demonstrations in Arizona this week have been more raucous – nine students were arrested on Tuesday when they handcuffed themselves to the doors of the State Capitol museum. But as the week drew to a close the protests against the US’s toughest new anti-immigration law were muted, reflecting the fear that has gripped Arizona’s fast-growing Hispanic community.

The law, which will grant new powers to the police to stop and detain suspected illegal immigrants, has caused an outcry in Arizona where Hispanics make up 30 per cent of the population. The anger has spread across the US, with Latino politicians renewing calls for Barack Obama to enact immigration reform, one of his campaign pledges when he ran for president.

The stringent Arizona law will be ratified this weekend – assuming it is not vetoed by Jan Brewer, the state’s Republican governor who is known to support the bill – when it will become a crime to assist an illegal immigrant. The most contentious provision allows police to stop and arrest people if they have “reasonable suspicion” they are in the US illegally. If those stopped are not carrying the correct identification, they will be fined or sent to prison.

“It’s discriminating against an entire community,” said Robert Dias, who joined the Phoenix demonstration in front of the capitol building. “The police will be able to detain anyone based on the colour of their skin.” Nely Aguilar, who was attending the protest with her children – all of whom were born in the US, said she feared persecution by the police. “If you look brown they will stop you,” she said.

Supporters of the bill reject charges of racism and argue that the tough measures are essential. The Department of Homeland Security estimates 460,000 people are living in Arizona illegally – although that number has declined by 100,000 since 2008.

Its supporters say the new law will curb violent crime at the Arizona-Mexico border, freeing police to detain possible suspects. “I believe handcuffs are a wonderful tool when they’re on the right people,” said Russell Pearce, the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill. He added he wanted to “get them off law enforcement and get them on the bad guys”.

Opponents – including several police chiefs – say the legislation will divert police resources away from other, more serious crimes.

But Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County – which covers a vast swathe of Arizona, including Phoenix – said enforcing immigration laws had “not proven to be any additional strain of resources”. The self-styled “toughest sheriff in America”, who generated headlines when he forced prisoners at his jails to wear pink underwear, has made arresting illegal immigrants a priority, assembling a large “posse” of officers to round up suspects, earning broad hostility from Arizona’s Hispanic population.
source:ft website

UK”s Cameron hit by egg on election trail

LONDON: British Conservative party leader David Cameron was hit by an egg thrown by a young man on the campaign trail Wednesday.

He laughed the incident off, saying he now knew which came first, the chicken or the egg. Cameron was followed by a man in a chicken suit a day before, sent by the Daily Mirror newspaper.

“I don”t think he got upset about it,” said William Littlejohn, a local Conservative party spokesman who was present, but did not see the incident at Cornwall College in Saltash, in southwest England.

“There was quite a lot of sympathy among the students, saying they hope he will come back to Cornwall,” Littlejohn said.

A 16-year-old was briefly detained and then was released to his parents, a Devon and Cornwall police spokesman told media.

“Most of the egg landed on one of David Cameron”s protection officers. The protection officer didn”t want to press any charges,” said the spokesman, who declined to be named in line with police policy.

The young man “was taken home to his mother. I understand that she wasn”t very happy,” the spokesman said.

He did not know if the egg-thrower was a student at the college.

British voters go to the polls on May 6. The race between Cameron”s Conservatives and Prime Minister Gordon Brown”s Labour party appears too close to call, partly due to a recent surge in support for the Liberal Democrats, a smaller third party.

Flying eggs, custard, paint and ink have long been an occupational hazard of a political career in Britain.

US military option against Iran still on table: Pentagon

WASHINGTON: US military action against Iran has not been ruled out, a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday, after a top official said such an option was off the table in the “near term.”

The Defense Department faced questions about US policy on Iran after Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy, reportedly said during a visit to Singapore that a strike against Iran would be a “last resort.”

“It is not on the table in the near term,” Flournoy was quoted as saying.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said US strategy over Iran”s nuclear program remained unchanged, with Washington focused on diplomatic efforts to persuade Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment.

“I don”t think that”s anything new,” Morrell said of Flournoy”s remarks.

“It clearly is not our preference to go to war with Iran, to engage militarily with Iran.

“Nobody wishes to do that, but she also makes it clear it”s not off the table.”

He said the US preference for diplomacy over military action held true for the current administration as well as former president George W. Bush”s White House.

He acknowledged that nearly 200,000 troops deployed in countries bordering Iran — Afghanistan and Iraq — could face attacks from Tehran in the event of a possible US strike against Tehran.

“And we have troops in close proximity to Iran that are potentially targets of retaliation should action be taken,” he said.

Given Iran”s arsenal of short and medium-range missiles, the US military has missile defense systems in the region that “we think will protect our forces against such a threat,” he added.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and top military officer Admiral Mike Mullen have warned of the limits and risks of any military action against Iran, saying it would likely only delay Tehran”s program by a few years.

Belgium goes closer to banning Islamic veils

BRUSSELS: Belgian lawmakers are expected to start debate over legislation to ban the face-covering Islamic veil in public spaces on Thursday, a day after French President Nicolas Sarkozy ordered similar legislation in France.

Belgium may become the first European country to ban the face covering Islamic veil. In March, a parliamentary committee backed a draft law to ban the veil. Now Belgium”s full lower house takes up the bill, which has the support of all the country”s major parties.

There are very few Muslim women in Belgium who wear the full-face veil. But the bill”s main author, lawmaker Daniel Bacquelaine of the liberal Reformist Movement Party, says the legislation is critical for social integration.

“We think that this measure is essential to promote living together in our society. I think we need common values and human rights. And I think if we live together, we have to be recognized. It is not possible to encounter each other if I cannot see the other”s face,” he said.

Bacquelaine says banning the veil is also a security measure against potential Muslim radicals. He says it is not intended to stigmatize the Muslim community, but to promote women”s rights.

Belgium is hardly the only European country mulling a veil ban. On Wednesday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy ordered legislation banning the face veil in public spaces, despite misgivings it may be unconstitutional.

Presidential spokesman Luc Chatel said the ban should be generalized for all public spaces, but should not stigmatize Muslims. The legislation has drawn support from some Muslim lawmakers and women”s rights groups. Other European countries have considered similar legislation, but have not gone so far.

Wearing the full face-veil is deeply controversial in Europe, not least among Muslims.
But immigration expert Marco Martiniello of the University of Liege in Belgium, says many Belgian Muslims are united in opposing a veil ban.

“Even in that part of the Muslim community in which there is no support for niqab and burqa, the reaction is quite negative toward that law because it is seen as an additional stigmatization,” he said.

Martiniello believes the legislation is unnecessary. He says it reflects Europe”s inability to deal with its booming, Muslim community.

“Each European country seems to have a problem in finding the right balance between allowing space to Muslims and Islam and avoiding opening a new (door) to radicals,” said Martinello.

Lawyers” top guns come face to face on constitutional amendment

ISLAMABAD: 18th Amendment has sparked a controversy between the top guns of lawyers” movement, Aitzaz Ahsan and Akram Sheikh. Whether the Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution or not and can it be challenged in any court?

He said the Parliament is empowered to change the fundamentals of the Constitution, adding the apex court cannot nullify the Constitutional amendment.

His statements stirred a response from Akram Sheikh who said the Supreme Court has the authority to suspend an amendment. He had filed a petition on behalf of Nadeem Ahmed in the SC challenging the establishment of the judicial commission.

The former SCBA president said the apex court might at maximum propose an amendment, as it is up to the court to give suggestions, but it cannot on its own, rise to amend the Constitution.

Ahsan said, according to the Article-238, 239 no amendment in the Constitution can be challenged in any court, whatsoever; neither can the SC”s power to hear petition be challenged.

It was 2005 Lawyers Forum case verdict, where the court ruled that the SC couldn”t overrule the Constitutional amendment, Ahsan said adding the LFO was challenged in the case.

Zafar Ali Shah is the only case, which set limits for the constitutional amendments; but, these restrictions were meant for not the Parliament but for a single person i.e. Gen Pervez Musharraf (rtd).

The SCBA”s former president said formula of judges” appointment does not harm the independence of the judiciary, as the names of the judges are to be proposed not by the parliamentary committee but by a Judicial Commission headed by the CJP.

Next Page »