|
| Volume 3, Issue 7-- April 14, 2006 |
|
From the JPIC Office If it weren’t for the multitude of banners and signs with pro-immigrant sentiments, I never would’ve guessed that I was at one of the largest immigrant rights rallies in the history of the United States here in Washington, D.C. Just how many people were there I don’t know, but everywhere I looked there was a sea of white T-shirts, symbolizing the desire among migrants to make a peaceful yet powerful statement. Columbans around the country including those in Chicago, El Paso and Omaha, among others, have shared reports of similar rallies. And peaceful it was. There were families and small children, including my own. There were teen-agers with their grandparents. People of all colors created a multicultural blanket on the Washington Mall, flanked by the Capitol building and the Washington Monument. Music played and people danced. There were shouts of enthusiasm as the animators reminded us that we are all migrants, and we all have a dream: a dream to live and work peacefully, a dream to provide a decent future for our children. And there was a moment of silence for the thousands of migrants who have died in the desert trying to make their dreams a reality. How appropriate that Holy Week is the week when hundreds of thousands of people came together to support our migrant sisters and brothers. Is that not the meaning of Christ’s Passion? Did He not die so that we may have life to the fullest? Is not this national debate over immigration policies an invitation for us to abandon our fears and insecurities and to welcome the stranger? Or will we deny Jesus as Peter did?
Migration The U.S. Congress is on recess right now and will return to Washington on Monday, April 24. Just before the break, the Senate voted down its version of the hotly disputed House bill, HR4437. There is much debate among immigrants’ rights advocates as to whether or not the Senate version was a good bill. Although there are some positive provisions, such as rejecting the criminalization of immigrants, and broader protections for those who provide humanitarian assistance to migrants, the bill raises other serious concerns, including increased border security and enforcement. Missing from this debate is a discussion about why migrants are coming in the first place. We can and should create legislation that addresses the current undocumented population in the United States, but as long as economic and social conditions are so poor in many sending countries, migrants will continue to look elsewhere for jobs. We must ask ourselves what role U.S. trade and economic policies play in either creating or maintaining economic disparity in developing countries. Until people are able to live and work in their home countries, they will continue to look beyond their borders for opportunities. To better manage future immigration, we need to reform our immigration system to recognize the invaluable contribution migrants make to the United States and to promote trade agreements that put citizens first rather than profits. While the Senate rejected the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, we share with you below an outline of its most important provisions as summarized by staff at for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (www.usccb.org) campaign called “Justice for Immigrants.” The current timeline for future debate on this issue is slightly unclear. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has promised that a new Senate version will be presented once Congress returns in late April. But many analysts are saying that the political moment has passed and that mid-term elections are looming too close for any significant movement on immigration legislation to happen. The Columban JPIC office will continue to follow the debate and share any developments with you.
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, Major Provisions Humanitarian Assistance: The Committee accepted an amendment by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) that provides wider protections to organizations and individuals providing humanitarian assistance to undocumented migrants. Ex Post Facto Enforcement: Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), recognizing the harmful impact of retroactive changes to the immigration laws, introduced an amendment to eliminate the retroactive application of criminal and removability provisions of the bill. It was approved on a voice vote. Increased Federal Detention: Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) introduced an amendment calling for the construction and development of 10,000 federal detention beds; passed on a voice vote. Refugee Exemptions: Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) previously introduced amendment #6491, providing refugees, asylum-seekers, trafficking victims, unaccompanied children, and victims of domestic violence exemptions from the bill’s document fraud provisions that impose strict penalties on individuals that fraudulently use any immigration or passport documents. The amendment, approved by voice vote on March 9, was amended by Senator Kyl with language offering prosecutorial guidance. Agricultural Workers: Senator Feinstein introduced amendment #6493, in response to serious concerns from the agriculture industry and the nation’s farm-workers regarding limited labor in this sector. The amendment reforms the current H-2A temporary worker visa, creating a 5-year program designed to facilitate the hiring of agriculture workers. Amendment passes by vote of 11-5. Protection of Domestic Workers: Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) introduced amendment #6465 that protects American workers in areas of high (11% +) unemployment by barring temporary worker visas in these areas. It passed by voice vote. Temporary Worker Program: In response to the growing need for foreign labor, Senator Kennedy introduced an amendment that provides employment authorization and non-immigrant status for able and willing foreign-workers. The H-2C visa allows foreign-workers to temporarily perform labor and services in the United States and to apply for permanent residency after the fourth year of work. The amendment was approved by vote of 11-6. Protection of Orphans & Widows: Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced amendment #6316, creating a special immigrant classification for children and women who are in a foreign state and suffering harmful conditions. The amendment was approved on a voice vote. Rejecting the Criminalization of Foreign Nationals: Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), stressed the importance of migrants in this country, through their work and their presence. He submitted an amendment that rejects the criminalization of undocumented individuals. The amendment passed by a vote of 11-6. From Student to Lawful Immigrant: Senator Durbin offered the DREAM Act as an amendment and was approved on voice vote. Earned Legalization for Undocumented Migrants: Senator Kennedy and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) previously introduced an earned legalization program that would address the national concern regarding the 11 million undocumented workers. Senator Graham of South Carolina offered the amendment to create an earned legalization program for the 11 million undocumented. Senator Kennedy agreed to language from Senator Specter that preserves the interests of those people already in line for legal status. The amendment passed 12-5. Judicial Review and Litigation Reduction: The Judiciary Committee struck Title VII from the bill, which would concentrate immigration appeals in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Hearings will be held on this matter in the near future. Final Passage: Committee reported out amended bill, 12-6. In favor: Specter, DeWine, Brownback, Graham, Leahy, Kennedy, Kohl, Biden, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin. Opposed: Kyl, Sessions, Cornyn, Hatch, Coburn, Grassley. Genetic Engineering
A Battle for Hearts and Mouths BANGKOK—There won't be any news conferences or popping flash bulbs when U.S. officials meet with their Southeast Asian counterparts here this week to discuss biotechnology. The meeting, sponsored by the United States, is intended to be a low-key discussion where participants “share and analyze their major concerns” about genetically modified crops, according to the invitation. But the larger context of the seminar is more important than the quiet preparations would suggest. Asia is caught in the middle of a high-stakes debate over biotechnology, the outcome of which could determine whether genetically modified food is adopted worldwide or remains primarily grown and consumed in the Americas. Sandwiched between skeptical Europe and gung-ho America, the world is watching to see which way Asia will tilt. “The fight is actually in Asia,” said Chee Yoke Ling, a lawyer based in Kuala Lumpur who has followed the issue of genetically modified organisms for a decade. “This is where you have the biggest market. If a country like China decides it can produce food without GMO’s, then it would swing the world away from the technology.” Asian countries are sending mixed signals on the issue. They are aggressively pursuing the next generation of biotechnology plants, conducting hundreds of field trials involving genetically modified rice, tomatoes, palms for palm oil and many other crops. And they are competing with each other for biotechnology investment. The Chinese government spends well over $100 million on biotech crop research annually, more than any other government outside the United States. But there is also growing caution in Asia about the technology. Thailand has refused to lift its moratorium on biotechnology crop testing, Japanese consumers remain skeptical, and the Malaysian government has been bogged down by eight years of debate over a law on biosafety. Many governments, especially in Southeast Asia, fear that if they adopt biotechnology crops there could be a backlash from Europe, where many consumers remain fiercely opposed. When experimental modified rice being cultivated in Hubei Province in China leaked into the food chain in April 2005, the European Union expressed its concern to the Chinese government, a possible harbinger of further trade tensions. “The government was alarmed and is now very careful,” said Xue Dayuan, a professor at the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science and an official at the State Environmental Protection Administration. The United States, which plants more than half of the world’s acreage of genetically modified crops, is seeking to influence the Asian biotechnology debate through conferences, sponsored trips for farmers and journalists, and trade negotiations. The U.S. government is paying for airfares and hotel rooms for some of the delegates attending the seminar next week, one example of its efforts to raise awareness of biotechnology. U.S. officials from several agencies meet monthly in Washington to coordinate programs promoting biotechnology, a campaign intended to open markets for large companies like Monsanto that sell genetically modified seeds and related products. Asian governments have their own reasons for embracing biotechnology. Some crops are genetically modified to be resistant to diseases or pests; others allow farmers to reduce the amount of pesticide they use. The overall effect can be higher productivity, say the champions of the technology, and thus cheaper and more plentiful food in a region that is home to nearly two-thirds of humanity. Much of the debate about biotechnology crops in Asia is centered in China, both because of its size and because Chinese scientists are leading the wave of experimentation in the region, with field trials of genetically modified cabbage, corn, melons, papaya, peanuts, potatoes, soybeans, tomatoes, tobacco and wheat, among others, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, a research organization based in the Philippines that promotes the use of biotechnology. In addition, Chinese farmers already grow genetically modified cotton across 3.3 million hectares, an area roughly the size of Belgium and the largest such plantings outside the Americas. But the biggest test will be the Chinese government’s decision on commercialization of genetically modified rice. A government committee is reviewing several varieties of rice, all of which have been engineered to resist insects or disease through the insertion of genes from other plants or bacteria. Approval for China’s modified rice was widely expected last year, but the government delayed its decision. “It will probably still take some time before it is approved—there are more studies that need to be done,” said Lu Baorong, a scientist who specializes in rice at the College of Life Sciences at Fudan University in Shanghai and a member of the government approval committee. The commercialization of modified rice would be an important milestone because it is such a crucial food in the region. Rice is different from soybeans and corn, which are often used in animal feed or, if consumed by humans, are heavily processed before they reach the consumer. Rice could be consumed directly, and thus the government is being cautious, scientists say. But Lu said in a telephone interview that caution should not be confused with fear of the technology. “China is really promoting biotechnology,” he said. “China is taking the North American policy or point of view in terms of biosafety and biotechnology.” The wild card in China, as with other countries in Asia, is the public. Experts are watching the evolution of public opinion as activist groups like Greenpeace seek to slow or stop the commercialization of modified crops. Greenpeace said in March that it had found traces of experimental rice in Heinz baby cereal, a charge that the company refuted by revealing test results from six separate laboratories. The Chinese government said Friday that its own tests had also found no evidence of modified rice. “I think the trend is that concerns are spreading and more and more countries are adopting stricter legislation,” said Isabelle Meister, a researcher on biotech issues in the Beijing office of Greenpeace. Japan, South Korea and China have enacted laws requiring labeling for food with a certain level of modified content, a move opposed by the United States. Activists say there are too many uncertainties surrounding modified crops: they could disturb wild species, especially in Asia where rice and soy are native, or cause allergies among consumers, the activists assert. A report released last year by the food safety department of the World Health Organization sought to allay some of these fears by concluding that “GM foods currently available on the international market have undergone risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health any more than their conventional counterparts.” Global awareness about biotechnology varies greatly. Consumers in the United States, where genetically modified corn, soybeans, squash, papaya, cotton and canola are sold in different forms, have been among the least conscious of it. A poll in November by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found that 58 percent of U.S. consumers were not aware that modified food was being sold in grocery stores. Consumers in China may not have any greater awareness. Xue, the professor at the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science, conducted a study of 1,000 consumers in 12 supermarkets in Beijing in 2004 and found that 65 percent of those surveyed were not “acquainted” with the idea of genetically modified products. Huang Jikun, director of the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said awareness was rising because of China’s labeling law, which was enacted in 2002 and stipulates that genetically modified soybeans, corn, rapeseed, cotton and tomatoes must be clearly labeled, including processed products in which the modified ingredient cannot be detected.
One important indicator of acceptance, he said, is modified soybean oil, which is made from imported soybeans and has carried special labeling for three years. As for rice, Huang conducted a two-year survey in 2002 and 2003, polling a total of 2,005 people in 11 large Chinese cities, and found that two-thirds “approve of GMO rice,” he said. Only about 10 percent were against, he said, and the rest were indifferent. If China goes ahead with commercialization of modified rice, it will be a major step toward wider acceptance of biotechnology crops, but it will not be a global first. Iran announced in February that farmers there had been authorized to grow a variety of genetically modified rice that was produced with help from the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. But Iran, too, is having second thoughts. A recent report in the newspaper Shargh said the government would slow or stop large-scale cultivation of the rice until approval from “relevant international organizations,” without explaining who that might be. Economic Justice New Life for All!: A two-week calendar of faith reflections and actions on economic justice. To view the full calendar, visit www.tradejusticeusa.org/easter/full-calendar.htm. This year the Jewish celebration of Pesach (Passover) coincides with the Christian celebrations of Holy Week and Easter Week. Each recount transformative events in the continuing journey of people of faith—a journey we walk with God, with each other and with our world. These holy days remind us of the foundational spiritual elements of preparation, liberation, just relationship and hope. The Interfaith Working Group on Trade and Investment has prepared a series of reflections on economic justice inspired by the Passover and Easter scriptures. Each of the 15 reflections will consider a contemporary trade or investment issue in light of the moral teachings of the Jewish and Christian traditions. The reflections are designed to develop insights and practices for seeking just and equitable economic and social relationships in all dimensions of life. The variety of topics will include the effect of trade policy on indigenous cultures, the food we eat and access to services. Since this is a season of hope, each reflection will include practical steps that each of us can do in our daily lives to respond to, and ultimately transform, the economic injustice in the world. In addition to the actions included in this series, you may consider joining trade activists in the United States during the U.S. Week of Action on Trade, April 16-23. The week is designed to promote education and action on current unfair trade policies and to envision alternatives through teach-ins, presentations, vigils, and other events. To learn more about the U.S. Week of Action, please visit www.interaction.org/campaign/week_action_justice.html Contact Us
We welcome submissions, comments and suggestions. |