Reflections on Justice in the Former Yugoslavia
By Brittney Hodnik
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America
WASHINGTON, United States – The strictest immigration laws in the country are found in the deep southern state of Alabama. Although some may assume the strictest laws would be in place in border-sharing states such as Texas or Arizona, Alabama instead holds the title. With a Supreme Court hearing pending, many compare the effects of these new laws to that of the Civil Rights Era of the 1950s and 1960s.
Probably the most controversial law is that requiring schools to check all students’ immigration status. While the courts have temporarily blocked this provision, reports Fox News, the Supreme Court must ultimately decide whether education of kindergarten to high school students is fundamental, even for undocumented immigrants.
It should be noted that this law does not in any way bar students from receiving an education. According to The New York Times, the law simply directs schools to obtain immigration status of incoming students through a birth certificate, other official documents, or an affidavit by the child’s parents. The information makes its way to the State Board of Education to create an annual report. No person or entity passes the date on to law enforcement at any time.
Fox News further reports, that although no conclusive numbers have been established, as many as 10% of school age children have withdrawn in the last month, since the law first came into effect. The New York Times says that absences in Shelby County ranged as high as 15% of the total Hispanic student population, and that 1,000 absences can easily be expected per day.
The state argues that the law really has nothing to do with race, but rather the need for jobs. Fox News reports that the provisions are simply a result of frustration with the federal government’s inaction and were made in an effort to open up jobs for the 10% of legal state residents who are currently out of work.
State Senator Scott Beason said that he is fine with the fact that the laws have driven immigrants out of the state of Alabama, but not necessarily out of the country. Sen. Beason said about the bill, “It was not designed to go out and arrest tremendous numbers of people. Most folks in the state illegally will self-deport and move to states that are supportive of large numbers of illegals coming to their state,” reports The Huffington Post.
Similar arguments are coming from Arizona. Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh is quoted as saying “Our intention is to make Arizona a very uncomfortable place for them to be so they leave or never come here in the first place…So rather than massive deportations, we are basically going to encourage them to leave on their own,” reported The Huffington Post.
There are indeed many supporters of the bills, saying that widespread enactments of these kind of laws will force immigrants elsewhere, and largely eliminate the United States’ problems of illegal immigration.
The realty of the situation is, now that immigrants have started to leave the state of Alabama, few Americans are actually taking their place. ABC News reports that Americans simply do not want these backbreaking, low-paying jobs. Many either show up late, take time off, or quit after the first day. Still others have failed to find any replacements at all, citing the fact that legal citizens simply do not want these kind of construction or farming jobs, reports Fox News.
ABC News reports that there are crops that have not been harvested after the law went into effect. Without the undocumented immigrants’ labor, blueberries and grapes have been left on the vine to spoil, and the agriculture industry has suffered.
What is more, the law is taking a toll on the children. For the few who have remained despite the law, bullying has become routine. The Associated Press reports that some students bully the undocumented children, telling them to go back to Mexico, when in fact they never lived there at all. Many of the children were born here in the United States, although their parents were not.
In any event, The New York Times reports, the law has certainly created a “chilling effect” on parents sending their children to schools. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to make a decision on the constitutionality of the law this year. There are adamant proponents on each side, and it will be interesting to see which way the Court comes out.
For more information, please visit:
Fox News Latino — Alabama Immigration Battle Mirrors Civil Rights Era — 29 Oct. 2011
Politico (AP) — Alabama Immigration Battle Recalls Civil Rights Past — 29 Oct. 2011
The Huffington Post — Alabama Lawmaker: Undocumented Immigrants Don’t Have to Go Home, But They Can’t Stay There — 27 Oct. 2011
The New York Times — Alabama Immigration Law’s Critics Question Target — 27 Oct. 2011
ABC News — Few Americans Take Immigrants’ Jobs in Alabama — 21 Oct. 2011
Press Release originally sent 23 Oct 2011
by The Hermitage Fund
23 October 2011 – Mrs. Natalia Magnitskaya, mother of the 37-year old anti-corruption lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian pre-trial detention center two years ago after being subjected to torture and denied medical treatment, has sued a senior Moscow judge for the denial of access to justice. A hearing of her lawsuit is scheduled for Monday, 24 October, 13:30 at the Moscow City Court (8 Bogorodsky Val).
Mrs. Magnitskaya is suing Judge Igor Alisov, Chairman of the Tverskoi District Court in Moscow, for failure to consider her legal action to stop the prosecution by Russian authorities of her dead son, a prosecution denounced as barbaric and medieval by friends of her late son. In refusing to accept Mrs. Magnitskaya’s claim, Judge Alisov said that the criminal prosecution of a dead lawyer does not violate his mother’s rights and does not obstruct her access to justice.
Explaining the grounds for her lawsuit against Judge Alisov, Mrs. Magnitskaya says:
“Judge Alisov, in his position as Chairman of Tverskoi District Court, deprived me of the right to protection from courts. I believe he was obviously aware that this denial of justice was against the law. I consider his actions as a hidden form of mockery and manifestation of his conflict of interest.”
“Earlier, the Deputy General Prosecutor of Russia issued an unlawful and unconstitutional decree to prosecute my dead son making me a participant in that criminal proceeding. The fact that it is directly relevant to my rights is evidenced by summonses for questioning that I have received from Interior Ministry Investigator Sapunova who personally prosecuted my son,” says Mrs. Magnitskaya in the lawsuit.
On 30 July 2011, Deputy General Prosecutor of Russia (whose name has been withheld by authorities from the public and the Magnistky family) ordered the reopening of the prosecution against Mr. Magnitsky, who had been dead for 20 months by then. This was done under the pretext of a recent Constitutional Court ruling which allowed cases to be reopened against deceased defendants on application from their relatives for the purposes of reinstating their good name and rehabilitation. However, Mr. Magnitsky’s relatives did not apply for the case to be reopened. Instead of rehabilitation, the case is being used by the Russian Interior Ministry to prosecute Mr. Magnitsky after his death, using the same evidence that the Russian President’s Human Rights Council concluded was fabricated, and led by the same team of investigators that the Human Rights Council concluded in its report in July 2011 had a gross conflict of interest. Prior to his arrest in October 2008, Mr. Magnitsky testified against these investigators for their role in the theft of his client’s companies and the embezzlement of $230 million of public funds. He later gave testimony from detention regarding their role in the cover-up of these acts.
Instead of prosecuting the officials named by the Human Rights Council for the false arrest of Mr. Magnitsky on trumped-up charges, Russian authorities are now prosecuting Mr. Magnitsky. As part of this case, in August and September 2011, Mr. Magnitsky’s mother was summoned for questioning as a witness by the same Russian Interior Ministry officials who arrested Mr. Magnitsky to silence him and who tortured Mr. Magnisky or authorised his torture while he was in custody.
On 5 September 2011, Mrs. Magnitskaya filed a lawsuit against the Deputy General Prosecutor for prosecuting her son after his death.
On 12 September 2011, Judge Igor Alisov refused to consider Mrs. Magnitskaya’s lawsuit against the Deputy General Prosecutor claiming—despite a very detailed filing setting out the grounds for her suit—that she was not a party to the proceedings and she did not justify how her rights have been violated by the reopening of the case against her son.
On 20 September 2011, Mrs. Magnitskaya filed a lawsuit against Judge Igor Alisov for failure to consider her lawsuit against Deputy General Prosecutor.
The lawsuit against Judge Alisov will be heard on Monday, 24 October, in the Moscow City Court. Mrs. Magnitskaya is represented by her counsel, lawyer Nikolai Gorokhov.
Judge Alisov is the same judge who in March 2011 absolved from any responsibility all of the officials named by Sergei Magnitsky as perpetrators of the $230 million theft. The judge instead convicted an ex-felon, previously convicted for burglary, of what has been called the largest financial crime in Russian history. This was done in a special proceeding that examined no evidence. Judge Alisov sought no compensation of the embezzled $230 million from the convict.
For further information please contact:
+44 207 440 17 77