U.S. Supreme Court Has Agreed to Rule on State Immigration Laws

     The United States Supreme Court agreed today to rule on the issue of State immigration laws, particularly Arizona's, which targets illiegal immigrants. Arguments for this case are expected to begin in April and the case will be known as  Arizona v. U.S., 11-182.

    The following is a detailed report from the Gainesville Times concerning this case:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on Arizona's controversial law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for an election-year decision on an issue that is already shaping presidential politics.

    The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.

    The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.

The court now has three politically charged cases on its election-year calendar. The other two are President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and new electoral maps for Texas' legislature and congressional delegation.

    Justice Elena Kagan will not take part in the Arizona case, presumably because of her work on the issue when she served in the Justice Department.

    Arguments probably will take place in late April, which would give the court roughly two months to decide the case.

    Some 12 million illegal immigrants are believed to live in the United States, and the issue already is becoming a factor in the 2012 campaign. Republican Sen. John McCain said recently that large Hispanic populations in his home state of Arizona and elsewhere are listening carefully to what Republican candidates have to say on immigration.

    The immigration case before the Supreme Court stems from the Obama administration's furious legal fight against a patchwork of state laws targeting illegal immigrants.

Arizona wants the justices to allow the state to begin enforcing measures that have been blocked by lower courts at the administration's request.

    The state says that the federal government isn't doing enough to address illegal immigration and that border states are suffering disproportionately.

    In urging the court to hear the immigration case, Arizona says the administration's contention that states "are powerless to use their own resources to enforce federal immigration standards without the express blessing of the federal executive goes to the heart of our nation's system of dual sovereignty and cooperative federalism."

    Reacting to the court's decision to hear the case, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said, "This case is not just about Arizona. It's about every state grappling with the costs of illegal immigration."

Many other state and local governments have taken steps aimed at reducing the effects of illegal immigration, the state says.

    The administration argued that the justices should have waited to see how other courts ruled on the challenges to other laws before getting involved. Still, following the court's announcement Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "We look forward to arguing our point of view in that case when the time comes."

     Brewer signed the immigration measure, S.B. 1070, into law in April 2010. The administration sued in July to block the law from taking effect.

     In April, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge's ruling halting enforcement of several provisions of the Arizona law. Among the blocked provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.

     In October, the federal appeals court in Atlanta blocked parts of the Alabama law that forced public schools to check the immigration status of students and allowed police to file criminal charges against people who are unable to prove their citizenship.

Lawsuits in South Carolina and Utah are not as far along.

FMLN Supports the Increase in Troops but Not the Bill to Send Them to Afghanistan

    When the FMLN came into power they originally opposed the idea of a large Armed Forces. In fact, after the signing of the Peace Accords in 1992, the FMLN worked to reduce the number of Armed Forces. By the time that President Funes came into office, the number was down to 11,000 (El Faro). However, during his time in office Funes and his administration has passed three budget increases for the Ministry of Defense, which has allowed the number of Armed Forces to increase by 57%. At an additional $25 million a year, the Funes administration has allocated 6,300 seats in the armed forces so that it now totals roughly 17,000 soldiers. The increase is only expected to continue as the projected budget for the Ministry of Defense in 2012 is $144,000,000-a $29.4 million increase. The reason for the increase in the 2012 budget is that the Funes administration plans to hold a massive national recruitment aiming to recruit 5,000 at risk youth to send to "Citizen Education Centers" where they will be trained and receive a monthly stipend. When asked at what point will the government stop recruiting, the response was about 22,000, which will be double of what the Funes administration inherited and about 1,000 more than the National Civil Police.
    According to the former Minister of Defence David Munguia Payes, the reason for the increase in soldiers is to strengthen the National Civil Police in combating crime. The soldiers will be responsible for surveillance at penitentiaries and patrolling areas of high homicide rates throughout the country.
    Although the FMLN party is promoting military growth, they are not willing to support the decree to send more troops to Afghanistan. The previous decree expired in October of 2011 and the legislative body has developed a new one that will last until October of 2012. However, the FMLN party refuses to support it on grounds that "El Salvador has 'a moral obligation to the United Nations' because the international body helped El Salvador in the peace process" (El Mundo). The FMLN insists that Afghanistan is a country in conflict and by sending troops over they will be violating its sovereignty. The FMLN has always been opposed to infringing on another county's soveriengty, an example being Iraq (E.S. troops were stationed from 2003-2009). On the other hand, they are in favor of sending troops where there are signs of a peace process such as Haiti and Lebanon.
    Unfortunately for the FMLN, like with the Iraq situation, they were out voted. The WIN, PE, CN and ARENA parties voted in favor of the new decree that will send additional troops to Afghanistan until October 13 of 2012, totalling 43 votes against the 31 FMLN(La Prensa Grafica).
    The exact mission and number of soldiers to be sent will be determined by the Executive on a later date when he deems necessary.

President Funes Proposes Tax Reform

    The tax reform proposed by President Funes that eliminates income tax for those with the lowest income, has entered the Legislative Assembly. This reform is said to eliminate income tax for those in the lowest tax bracket, keep it the same for those in the middle, and increase it for those in the upper tax bracket.
     At the press conference on Sunday, San Salvador's Archbishop Monsignor Escabar Alas spoke on behalf of the Catholic Church and their stance on this reform. According to him, the Catholic Church is in favor of this reform as long as it contributes to human development and "alleviate[s] the economic crisis among people with greater needs" (DiarioCoLatino).
     According to El Faro, the government's proposal will eliminate income taxes for about 260,000 of those in the low wage/ lower income tax bracket. Most Americans are probably thinking right now 'So who is going to pick up the slack?' Well that would be those in the highest tax bracket such as companies, corporations and individuals that have higher incomes. Many Americans would probably detest this approach because it is too similar to the Robin Hood theme of steal from the rich and give to the poor. However, the Salvadoran government does not view this as stealing from the rich, as the rich are already making an exorbitant amount of money that this increase will hardly make a dent in their overall income. The current taxation, on the other hand, is the difference between an additional meal per day or money towards a child's schooling for those in the lowest tax bracket. Therefore, by eliminating the income tax for those with the lowest income the government will be improving its economy by allowing more money to circulate through the markets and education sectors, which will in turn ensure macroeconomic stability by creating jobs and boosting growth. At  least that is the idea promoted by those in support of this reform.
     In order for this reform to be passed 43 of the 84 deputies in the Legislative Assembly need to vote yes. If this reform is passed it will be the first change in the income tax collection since 1991 (El Faro). Unfortunately, it must be kept in mind that this reform is being introduced during an election period. Which means that many running for re-election will have to face difficult questions from the public regarding its effectiveness and when results can be expected (LaPrensaGrafica). If the public isn't on board, it is doubtful that Funez and the reform will acquire the 43 needed votes (especially considering the 84 deputies voting are most likely among those expected to receive the tax increase).

Spain Complies with Judge Vasquez and Agrees to Request for the Extradition of Military Officers Responsible for the Jesuit Murders

      Three months later, after heavy consideration, Spain finally agrees to fulfill the request made by Judge Eloy Velasco of the Spanish National Court, to request the extradition of the fifteen Salvadoran military suspects in the Jesuit murder case. Spain will be requesting extradition of two from the United States as well as the remaining thirteen from El Salvador for murder, terrorism and crimes against humanity.
      The following are the names of those Spain is seeking to extradite from El Salvador: General Rafael Humberto Larios, former Minister of Defense, and Juan Rafael Bustillo, former commander of the Salvadoran Air Force, sergeants Antonio Ramiro Avalos Vargas and Tomas Castillo Oscar Mariano Amaya Zarpate, Colonel Juan Orlando Zepeda, Francisco Elena Fuentes, Guillermo Alfredo Benavides, Joaquin Arnoldo Cerna, Carlos Mauricio Guzman and Oscar Alberto León Linares, and the lieutenants José Ricardo Espinoza Guerra, Second Lieutenant Gonzalo Guevara Cerritos and Corporal Oscar Mariano Guzman. As well as the two being requested from the United States, Colonel Inocente Orlando Montano and Lieutenant Hector Ulises Cuenca.
        Those that are seeking justice and are in support of Judge Velasco, are hoping that these extradition requests will be respected and honored so as not to have a repeat of the Aug 7 trial when 9 previously arrested soldiers were set free due to a failure to request their extradition before issuing arrest warrants. 

The Vulnerability of Latin America to Climate Change

       The United Nation's Climate Change Conference began at the beginning of this week in Durban, South Africa. 190 nations will be in attendance. As a result of recent weather events representatives of Latin America are attending this conference in search of answers and in effort to persuade other nations to commit to changes that will decrease the vulnerability of Latin America to climate change.The majority of Latin American nations will be taking their positions together with China and other developing nations in joint force called Group 77.
       According to the Climate Risk Index released earlier this week, the countries that are most vulnerable to climate changes are: Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, Pakistan, Russia . You will notice that three out of the five are Latin American because: "Latin America is highly vulnerable to extreme weather events. We've had masses of ice loss in the Andes that affect water availability for agriculture, (causes), severe storms and flooding in Central America and north-south droughts"(Brazilian coordinator of the World Wild Fund, Carlos). Slavadoran Minister of Environment Herman Rosa Chavez reports that El Salvador, along with the rest of Central America, has decided to take a joint position at the conference in order to gain true recognition of their vulnerability to climate change. Chavez points out that Latin America is one of the few areas left in the world that still has land and water available, and where food production can increase significantly. However, if nothing is done to counter climate change, by 2070 crops will decrease dramatically and areas like Brazil could lose up to 40% of their soybean production (El Mundo). Chavez also points out that Latin America (as has been said since the beginning of the climate change debate) is the home of the world's most significant oxygen producer and South America's water source-the Amazon. Which helps to combat and regulate climate change, and thus, is incentive for the rest of the world to protect Latin America from climate change.
     Group 77's main objective is to get the wealthier nations to renew their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol (expires in 2010) to reduce harmful emissions. In addition to this, they are seeking to enforce the Green Fund that was created in last year's conference in Cancun, to address the needs of those developing countries effected by climate change. "Those who got rich at the expense of sacrificing the global environment must now assume the responsibilities that fit," said Jose Arguello, Argentine negotiator of the G77.
      One of the largest emitters of harmful gases of the Latin American nations is not surprisingly, Brazil, who is choosing to group itself with other more developed developing nations like China, India, and South Africa.
      Another group outside of G77, consisting of other Latin American nations is Los ALBA. Los ALBA is a more ambitious group when it comes to propositions of climate change solutions, and is comprised of the following nations: Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
       In addition to attending this conference and persuading other nations to act on the climate change issue, El Salvador itself is working towards change. This morning a forum was held by the National Energy Council and the National Center for Agricultural Technology in order to suggest and analyse the region's experience with and development of biofuels(DiarioCoLatino). This is a very sensitive topic, especially to Latin Americans, who view bio fuel as a waste of agriculture that should be used as a food source. With that in mind, Rene Magana the Executive Director of the Center, stressed that this development of biofuel will be done with environment and food security in mind. So far the advances of biofuel in Latin America are by no means great. However, a bill is currently being considered which will provide the legal support that is needed for the introduction of a new energy source.