———————————————

Hello All,

The relative silence here, during Davis’ hearing, is now over. Thanks to everyone who never stopped working. For those of us who did, now’s the time to start again.

Please help flood the various media wires with the news and your thoughtful, concise objections. Keep up your work.

This is a piece I’ll be sending wherever I can, links are at the bottom.

——————————- The Background

In October of 2008, as Sentaor Obama readied to take the ballot, the campaign to save Troy Davis from Georgia’s death chamber was spiking – again. Whatever species of fear and nostalgia pump through a person on the eve of their execution, Troy discovered them for the first time in 2007, coming within 24 hours of his scheduled killing by the state of Georgia. It would begin Troy’s familiarity with pending death that desperately few in America ever experience. In September, 14 months later, two hours stood between him and Georgia’s most lethal cocktail. One month after that, his third appointment with the State Executioner was suspended – this time with three days remaining – and that stay expired in May of 2009.

Facing four execution dates in 2 years, Troy Davis received a rarely granted evidentiary hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer – not a new trial, but a hearing where Davis would be presumed guilty, and the burden of proof on the defense. Amnesty International, Democracy Now, and the various agencies around the world watching Troy’s case, received and reported news last Tuesday that Georgia Federal District Judge William Moore Jr did not see evidence of “clearly established innocence” and set Davis back on the trajectory of execution for the fifth time.

Davis’ placement on death row came by the alleged killing of Mark McPhail, a white off-duty Georgian police officer, in 1989. The trial’s legacy is dominated by its comprehensive lack of physical evidence tying Davis to the killing, and the recantation of testimony by 7 of 9 of its non-police witnesses since the trial.

————————–The Discussion

In October 2008, the Amnesty Int’l chapters at Saint John’s University and the College of Saint Benedict joined 200,000 other people around the world – including figures like Desmond Tutu, Pope Benedict, and Jimmy Carter – in calling for Davis’ clemency.

I spoke to multiple newspapers around the twin cities about Davis’ trail. None were interested. One editor asked me to point out the hook. Where is the bait for interest? What does a Georgian man have to do with Minnesotan readers?

Its a strange thing to be asked for rationale with regard to why I don’t want innocent people executed by our government – purportedly, the most successful democracy in the history of the world. To articulate why Minnesotans should care if citizens in Georgia are executed despite profound doubt over their guilt seems like retrograde motion to the tables of Sunday school, and 9th grade Civics lessons on the functionality of a federalist republic. But I went there anyway.

The system itching to execute Troy Davis in Georgia is the same system which presides over me in Denver, over my brother in Seattle, over that editor in St Paul. Legally, to say nothing of morally, he is our neighbor. We cannot afford to let the question be, s<em>hould we care about executing the Other </em>when the reality is <em>we’re executing our Own</em>. Troy’s case testifies to the primitive character of capital punishment in America: either we take the system to be infallible, or we’re all willing to stomach the execution of innocent Americans. There is no third reality to choose. At this moment, Troy Davis represents the body We condemned to death in the river, and upon reexaminging his innocence, we’re fighting to pull him out of a judicial current that may prove stronger than our efforts.

America has lost herself if she’s absent in the hour of her son’s unjust execution. This conversation is not one on the legitimacy of capital punishment, though certainly a footnote in that story. This is the narrative of deadly inertia, an inability within ourselves to go back and rectify our mistake once its been made. In his evidentiary hearing, four witnesses from Davis’ original trial testified that they’d lied, that under coercion or fear of repercussion, they’d given up Troy for a crime they didn’t see him commit. The only non-police witness that maintains his testimony – excluding the testimony of Sylvester Coles, the chief alternate suspect – maintains inconsisent testimony. Originally he told police that he could only say for sure the color of the shooter’s clothing and that he wouldn’t recognize the shooter if he saw him again, “accept for his clothes.” Two years after that statement to the police, he pointed out Troy Davis in the courtroom.

America struggles with her identity endlessly, but without doubt, the American conception of justice – as trumpeted by our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights – grounds that identity. The rule of law that we exalt wells from an interest in the liberation of people from the failures of government. One such failure goes like this: the enormity of government cannot slow itself to attend to the plight of one citizen. And so we hope and strive for systematic change in the interests of all people. Death row affords no convenience like this slow hope, and without the intervention of the people, its wrongly-sentenced inmates are killed under the banner of justice while the bureaucracy of law – not our concept of justice – presides.

Troy Davis needs a commute of his sentence by the Geogian Governor, the Georgian Board of Paroles and Pardons or the President of the United States. But first he needs (enough of) the American public to recognize his struggle as theirs too.

Amnesty USA’s Coverage of the Hearing
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/deathpenalty/speak-out-for-troy-davis/

Amnesty International’s 2009 Report on Troy Davis
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/069/2009/en/71011b30-0b83-4a23-932b-2fc205546d1c/amr510692009en.pdf

There were other people in Greenland during those cold winters — the Inuit. They had no problem eating fish. They lived while the Norse died.” – from 5 Fixes America Needs Right Now by Sean Brodrick on uncommonwisdomdaily.com.

I think it is important for Americans to realize that things need to be changed.

I am listing this article under “Immigration Reform” because illegal immigration is mostly about unauthorized employments, which is one kind of underground economy. I don’t know why the author did not mention it.

But there is something fundamental that makes Republicans unable to accept immigration reform. They are afraid of an increase in the size of the work force in the US. Although they need foreign workers to come to the US to work, they do not want foreign workers to become permanently part of the US work force and so increase the size of the work force in the US. This is because they think that the US work force is demanding and costs the US government money (thus cost them money).

Basically, the Republicans hate the very people they need to work for them and the very people who they will make money from. They want their labors and money. But they do not want their votes.

The Democrats do not want foreign labors because they view foreign labors as competitions that will bring down their wages. But they do want their votes. And they make it very clear about that to the Republicans. It may be unwise for the Democrats to make it so clear about their intention. But an increase in the size of the US work force is an inevitable result of bringing in foreign workers. And it will help boost the US economy, reduce the deficit, increase the values of the properties in the US, the values of US stocks, and the value of the US dollar. Republicans have to accept the fact that the US work force has to be increased for all of these to happen. It is foolish for the Republicans to hate the very people they need to work for them and the very people who they will make money from.

“This law clearly challenges citizens’ freedoms, and it does so by putting some Americans at risk of losing their freedoms while others stand little or no chance of being affected.”

“During World War II, … this country put Japanese Americans in detention camps. … We did so under the guise that we were at war and in crisis. But it is precisely at such times that we must take extra measures to safeguard our rights, our freedoms and our nation. Instead, America took away the constitutional rights of citizens — a shameful overreach of the government.”

“The Arizona immigration law reminds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the private sector and our private lives.”

“… trampling on the rights of some Americans to protect the majority conflicts with the values our nation was founded upon.”

“Our Constitution protects individual freedoms and liberties. Nowhere does this document speak of protecting the majority over the minority. Anger about the economy, increased crime and security concerns are fueling this law, not constitutional principles.”

“Conservatives’ most important responsibility is to remember to protect freedom, liberty and the rights of every citizen. The Arizona immigration law doesn’t do that, and that’s why I oppose it.” – I hope that those who claim to be conservatives understand this.

“As the wise saying goes, he who sacrifices freedom for security ends up with neither.”

Read more here: “Arena Digest: Why is the Arizona immigration law so popular?”

Now you see why democracy can not be the equivalent of the rule by the majority.

Putting New Yorkers Back To Work Career Fair

Date: Tuesday, May 18

Location: New York Society for Ethical Culture, 2 West 64th Street, New York, NY 10023

Time: 10 AM – 3 PM

Over 200 positions will be available at this event! For a list of attending companies, fill out a brief registration form on eastcoastcareerfairs.com. Bring at least 20 resumes to the event!

East Coast Career Fairs, 228 Park Avenue S, Suite #37945, New York, NY 10003

A: This is the biggest country in the world that can still have room for more people. Do you think China or India should be taking in more people? Which country do you think has more space to take in people than America? The point I want to make is not for America to do other people a favor and take in more people though. America needs more people to grow the economy. Without taking in more people, more Americans will be out of work, and the US government will get more deeply into debt. Taking in more immigrants is to serve American interests.

Q: How can America take in people from all over the world?

A: There are 300 million Americans who are allowed to come to New York City. And New York City does not have a problem with that. Why? Because people come and go. Not all of them stay in New York after they come. Mexicans used to be able to come to the US to work and go home when there are not so many jobs. Now they don’t go home when there are not so many jobs because they can not come back easily when there are jobs. Also, it is now very easy to overstay visa and have to face three or ten years ban from coming to the US again. This makes people hesitate to leave. Without this ban, many people may have left after their businesses here are done. It is immigration restriction that makes the illegal immigration problem so out of control.

Q: Our resources are limited. How can we take in so many more people?

A: Talking about resources, do you think that Americans need more food and gas etc. so that they can gain more weight? Then it will cost Americans more to treat all the diseases caused by obesity.

Q: Illegal immigrants are mostly uneducated and unskilled. Why do we need people with little education and skills?

A: Why do we need to buy clothes made in other countries? People in other countries who have been making clothes that we wear have no more education or skills than the people that come to America illegally. Low skill workers who can make clothes are not allowed to come to the US to work legally. That is why we don’t make clothes in America any more. We have lost a lot of jobs in the garment industry because we don’t make clothes here any more.

Q: Illegal immigrants can not speak English and do not have skills. Why should they have rights?

A: Even people who can not speak and have no skills have rights. All people have rights.

Q: Why do we allow people who broke the laws to get away with breaking the laws?

A: There used to be laws that forbid slaves from getting married. Do you think that slaves should have and could have been able to abide by such laws? Women were not allowed to vote before. If we never tried to change laws that forbid women from voting, women still can not vote. Laws are made to protect people’ interests. But if they are against humanity and so against the interests of the society as a whole, they should be changed. It used to be much easier for people to come to the US. It is not fair to now make it so much harder for foreigners to come and then blame them for the problem. By the way, people want to keep the status quot because they think it is better for them. But laws are changed when it is time to change them. No one will be able to stop change from happening.

Q: Why do we need to legalize illegal immigrants?

A: When illegal immigrants are legalized, they will get a chance to find better paying jobs or set up their own businesses and make more money. The reason why they are poor is that they have limited rights and can not fight for their rights. If you keep them illegal, you keep them poor, and you have to take care of them more. It makes no sense financially for the US government to keep them illegal.

Q: Are we going to welcome anyone in the world to come?

A: If they can afford to pay for the trip to come and pay for the rent to stay looking for jobs, they should be allowed to come. The main problem Americans have with them is that they bring down wages. But they bring down the cost of living as well. And this will bring down the cost of labors, and so invite businesses to move their operations back to the US and keep jobs and create jobs in the US. Look at China. In the next ten years there will be 500 million people moving to the cities to work in China. China’s economy keeps growing because of that. The more workers there are, the more jobs there will be. If we continue restricting immigration, more and more people will be out of work for a long period of time. The government will have to spend more and more on unemployment benefits and receive less and less tax revenues. This is not the right direction for this country to go.

Q: Check out Mexico’s immigration policies. Why should we be a lot nicer to illegal immigrants than Mexico?

A: Mexico is not our role model. Why don’t we check out Australia where immigration is easier and the jobless rate is the lowest among developed countries right now?

Final words: Those who are already American citizens are like children of mother America. Some of them want to keep all mother America has to offer for themselves. They do not want mother America to have more children and thus have to share her love with their new brothers and sisters. But not wanting to share it not a good character.

You can not ask for a change in immigration laws unless you can change Americans’ views on whether America benefits from immigration. Most Americans think immigration is bad for America, even though they do not want to admit it. They insist that they are only against illegal immigration. But when any law that will allow for more immigration is proposed, they fight it with all their might.

I guess I can only say that democracy should not be equal to the rule by the majority. It should rather be the respect for principles. Otherwise, we will have Nazi Germany type of “democracy” and still think that we have a democracy.

By the way, this comment has not been allowed on The Huffington Post.

PS: In fact, only when our democracy is not equal to the rule by the majority will White Americans feel safe enough to prepare to give up their majority status in this country and reform immigration.

How does the Arizona Governor think that she can come up to a person and tell him that he “looks illegal” without offending that person? Or, does she not know that people can be offended by being told that they “look illegal”? And, does she think that there is a group of people who deserve to be harassed just for “looking illegal”? Does she not know that by laws, people can not be bothered just for looking certain ways?

Also, how can she be sure that this law will help root out illegal immigrants if a large number of people will not be questioned because they “don’t look illegal”?

By passing such a law, she is making it more of a crime to “look illegal” than to be illegal.

Comment: I guess this guy was suspected to be illegal because of his accent. I recently met a man who was born and raised in New York but has a foreign accent. He told me that his parents immigrated from Europe and that he spoke their language, not English, until he went to school, and so he always has an accent.