The primary version of this blog is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Greenie Watch, Political Correctness Watch, Education Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Food & Health Skeptic, Gun Watch, Socialized Medicine, Eye on Britain, Recipes, Tongue Tied and Australian Politics. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing) See here or here for the archives of this site

****************************************************************************************



31 December, 2011

£42million bill to remove failed asylum seekers: How British taxpayer funding for secretive flights has QUADRUPLED in past seven years

The Government has spent £42million on secretive flights to send failed asylum seekers back home, it was revealed today. British taxpayers are forking out a staggering £500,000 each month to fund expensive air travel arrangements for foreign nationals who have lost bids to stay in the country.

Entire aircraft are rented by UK Borders Agency staff to send up to 100 immigrants back home at a time to prevent passengers on scheduled services witnessing 'distressing' removals. The average cost of enforcing the removal of a failed asylum seeker was £11,000 in 2005, but this figure had risen to up to £17,000 by 2009. Including accommodation and support costs, some cases that year cost as much as £25,600.

Figures obtained under Freedom Of Information laws show the shadowy flights - which do not show on airport departure screens - have quadrupled in the last seven years.

In 2004, the data shows £1.73million was spent on sending back those who had failed in bids to stay in the UK. That soared to £10.4million in 2009/10 and £8.5million in the past year. Over the seven year period the total is estimated to be £42million.

Figures show a record number of foreign nationals, 42,552, were either forcibly removed or went home voluntarily last year. Those journeys were undertaken on either charter or scheduled flights, mostly from UK airports.

A total of 306,535 had been repatriated in the seven years up to September, the data shows.

According to government data the charter flight programme 'initially' operated to Kosovo and Albania only. Now the scheme focuses 'almost exclusively' on long-haul destinations and regular flights are carried out to Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Jamaica.

But foreign governments have turned back some flights because of 'paperwork' problems. In one case an entire plane-load of Iraqis were refused re-entry to capital Baghdad because they no longer had documents to prove their nationality.

Planes are provided by commercial airlines for removals to countries including war-torn Congo and Afghanistan as well as Nigeria and Sri Lanka. It is thought a number of individuals were removed to Sri Lanka just two weeks ago by a European holiday airline. A full list of airlines involved in the scheme is not publicly available.

However, a series of 'regular flights' take off from major airports including Heathrow and Gatwick and are jointly co-ordinated by EU border agency Frontex.

Home Office officials have insisted the increase in expenditure is due to the expansion of the original scheme's destination list.

The National Coalition Of Anti-Deportation campaigns today accused the government of 'hiding' the flights from the public. Spokesperson Lisa Matthews said: 'We are extremely concerned about the increase in the use of charter flights to remove individuals from the UK.

'Charter flights are shrouded in secrecy, and if the UKBA believes it operates a robust asylum system that is fit-for-purpose, there is no need to operate in this deceptive way.'

Ms Matthews also expressed concern that private hire security firms are using 'dangerous force' to restrain foreign nationals after Angolan refugee Jimmy Mubenga died on a flight before it took off from Heathrow Airport last year. She added: 'There is clear evidence of dangerous use of force being employed by the escort companies enforcing removals, leading to speculation that charter flights are being used to hide these activities from the public, particularly following the widespread outcry at the killing of Jimmy Mubenga.'

And she criticised the government after 713 'disruptive removals' led to aborted attempts to send foreign nationals home from January to August this year. Ms Matthews added: 'These removals are disruptive because UKBA are trying to send back so many individuals to persecution, mistreatment and torture in their home countries and the individuals are therefore extremely distressed and fearing for their lives.

'Without access to justice, and without an asylum system that gets decisions right first time, the UK will continue to waste huge sums of money, huge sums it simply cannot afford.'

The UK Border Agency defended the removals insisting it was appropriate that those with no right to be in the country should be sent home. An agency spokesperson said: 'It is right that those with no right to be here should go home and flights of this type still represents the most cost effective way of removing people.

'The increased expenditure on charter flights from the UK reflects the general rise in the cost of air travel since 2004 and a greater number of flights to countries outside Europe.'

SOURCE






UK Immigration and Ireland sign agreement for enhanced border controls

The UK and Irish governments have now signed an agreement to continue with the Common Travel Area, a passport-free zone that comprises Ireland, Great Britain, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. According to UK immigration authorities, the agreement will help reduce illegal immigration. Although the stricter controls may make it more difficult to gain entry into the area, once you are in you can travel freely between the participating countries.

The agreement updates border controls for initial entry to the Common Travel Area which has existed between the countries since Ireland left the UK. The new agreement will feature enhanced electronic border control systems, which are aimed at identifying incoming passengers who do not already have the right to enter the Common Travel Area before they arrive at an international border.

People travelling within the Common Travel Area do not generally need to carry a passport or national identity document for immigration purposes.

The agreement also stated both countries immigration departments commit to sharing important immigration related information, such as fingerprint biometrics, particularly from 'high risk' individuals, as part of the visa issuing process and to help crack down on illegal immigration.

"This agreement will help us quickly refuse those with poor immigration records, identify asylum shoppers and speed up the removal process in those cases where people have entered the Common Travel Area," said Immigration minister Damian Green.

"The benefits the Common Travel Area brings to travellers and the economies of our countries are well-established but it should not be exploited by those with no right to be here," he added.

SOURCE



30 December, 2011

U.S. sets up hotline for detained immigrants

Not hard to see where this is going. More congestion in the courts and hence greater incentive to detain even fewer illegals

U.S. immigration authorities are setting up a telephone hotline to ensure that detainees held by local police forces partnering in a controversial federal immigration enforcement program are adequately informed of their rights.

The initiative announced by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency on Thursday provides a toll-free number to field queries from detainees held by state or local law enforcement agencies "if they believe they may be U.S. citizens or victims of a crime."

The hotline will be staffed 24-hours-a-day, seven days a week by ICE personnel at the Law Enforcement Support Center. Translation services will be available in several languages, ICE said in a news release.

"ICE personnel will collect information from the individual and refer it to the relevant ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Field Office for immediate action," it added.

Scores of state and local police forces partner with the U.S. federal government under the so-called 287 g program. It empowers participating agencies to enforce immigration law, although its implementation has been controversial.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department said a hard-line Arizona sheriff and his deputies violated U.S. civil rights laws by engaging in racial profiling of Latinos and making unlawful arrests in their bid to crack down on illegal immigrants.

In a separate move, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ended the 287 g agreement with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office that allowed its deputies to screen jail inmates for their immigration status.

As part of the initiative announced Thursday, ICE said a form will also be issued to all detainees -- with available translations in Spanish, French, Portuguese, Chinese and Vietnamese -- informing them that ICE will assume their custody within 48 hours.

"It also advises individuals that if ICE does not take them into custody within the 48 hours, they should contact the police agency or entity that is holding them to inquire about their release from state or local custody," it said.

SOURCE




Brussels rules let 11,000 migrants a year slip into the UK by the back door

Brussels rules are letting thousands of migrants into Britain ‘by the back door’. Nearly 11,000 moved here this year on the basis of having been given citizenship in another EU country.

The total, revealed in figures from the Office for National Statistics, is up more than a third on the 8,000 cases recorded in 2006. Many of the migrants would normally have been barred from taking up residence in Britain.

But under EU rules they are automatically entitled to come here once they have EU citizenship and start working – or claiming benefits. The data, compiled from passenger surveys, shows that 47,000 non-EU immigrants have found their way to the UK using this method over the past five years.

Priti Patel, the Tory MP who uncovered the information, said the loophole completely undermined Government efforts to curb the surge in immigration that took place under Labour. She urged ministers to raise the issue in Brussels and take action to wrest back control of Britain’s borders.

Miss Patel took up the issue herself after a BBC documentary in October highlighted the case of an Ecuadorean family who moved to London after gaining citizenship in Spain. The family of six were receiving £2,300 a month in housing benefit to rent a flat in Islington, as well as tax credits and child benefit.

Miss Patel said she was ‘astonished’ by the number of people entering the UK by this route. She added: ‘The Government has made a commitment to cut immigration from outside the EU into Britain. But those efforts are being completely undermined by this astonishing loophole which has already allowed 10,000 non-Europeans to sneak in through the backdoor each year.

‘The British public are living with the consequences of a decade of Labour’s open door policy on immigration which is why this Government must take on these EU laws that let non-Europeans come into Britain and access jobs and benefits. ‘It is in the British interest to reject these laws and on this issue, just say no to Europe.

‘This also raises the question of why these people are choosing to come here. They have entered the EU elsewhere and chosen to become citizens of other EU countries, yet they are still coming here. ‘Is it down to a benefits system which encourages people to come here and live off the state?’

The revelation raises fresh questions about the Coalition’s pledge to cut net immigration to under 100,000 a year. Last month official figures revealed that the figure had soared to a record 252,000 in 2010.

EU countries all have different requirements for migrants wanting to become a citizen, and there are fears that some could be a soft touch for those whose ultimate aim is to come to the UK.

EU rules mean that asylum seekers are meant to be dealt with in the country of their arrival. But in cases where a migrant or asylum seeker has been granted citizenship they are free to travel anywhere in the EU.

Critics claim that Britain’s generous benefits system acts as a magnet for migrants.

Ministers have introduced a range of measures designed to curb immigration, including a cap on the number of non-EU economic migrants coming here and a crackdown on bogus colleges providing a route into Britain for migrants posing as students.

But officials admit there is little they can do to curb immigration from the EU, because free movement of labour is a fundamental principle of the single market.

A landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice last week stripped Britain of its power to return asylum seekers to Greece. Under EU rules, British officials can return asylum seekers to the first European country they set foot in. But the ECJ last week said no one should be returned to a country if it did not uphold their ‘fundamental rights’. This would rule out Greece because its asylum system is in such a mess. Around 90 per cent of illegal migrants enter Europe through the country.

SOURCE



29 December, 2011

Latinos loyal to Obama despite anger over president's immigration record

Research shows Latino voters continue to favour Obama over GOP candidates in spite of policy of deporting illegal immigrants

The Pew Hispanic Centre, in its annual survey of Latino attitudes, found 59% disapproved of the way the Obama administration is handling deportations. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP
More than two-thirds of Latinos in the US disapprove of the Obama administration's record of deporting illegal immigrants, according to a Pew report published on Wednesday.

In spite of this, Obama and the Democrats continue to enjoy the overwhelming support of Latinos ahead of next year's White House and Congressional elections.

The findings come as Obama, after months of low ratings among the general public, is ending the year with a bounce in approval polls.

The loyalty of the Latino vote could prove crucial for Obama's re-election chances. With support for Obama near monolithic among African Americans and low among white males, the Latinos may hold the balance.

Obama put at risk Latino loyalty by pursuing an aggressive policy of deportations, the number of which are much higher than under the Bush administration.

After a backlash from Latino communities, the Obama administration earlier this year said it had rowed back on deportations, though Latino advocacy groups have expressed scepticism over whether this is the case.

Deportations have averaged 400,000 a year since 2009, when Obama became president, about 30% higher than under the Bush administration in his second term and double that of Bush, who courted Latinos, in his first term.

The Pew Hispanic Centre, in its annual survey of Latino attitudes, found 59% disapproved of the way the Obama administration is handling deportations compared with 27% who approve.

Many Latinos remain unaware that deportations have risen under Obama. Among those that do, the disapproval rate jumps to 77%. Bush attempted to win over Latinos to the Republican party, as did the 2008 presidential candidate John McCain. Bush and McCain backed proposals to reform immigration policy that would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but had to back down in the face of widespread hostility from Republicans in Congress and grassroots GOP members.

The rhetoric from the present Republican field, which largely hostile towards illegal immigrants with the exception of Newt Gingrich and, to a lesser extent, Rick Perry, has consolidated traditional Latino support for the Democrats.

The survey found that among registered Latino voters Obama enjoys the support of 68%, against 23% for Mitt Romney, the Republican frontrunner in the White House race. The ratio is almost identical if Obama were to face Perry.

Against McCain, Obama won 67% of the Latino vote against 31% for McCain.

Among Latinos who disapprove of Obama's handling of the deportations, his support drops to 57% to 34% against Romney, and 61% to 31% against Perry.

That drop is a warning for Obama. The Republicans do not have to secure a majority of the Latinos to win; they just need to make a significant inroad into the Democratic majority in swing states.

One option discussed among Republicans to win over Latinos is to appoint Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida who is of Cuban descent, as a vice-presidential running mate. But 54% of those surveyed said they had never heard of Rubio, or were unable to rate him. Rubio, one of the rising stars of the Republican party, has said he would not accept the vice-presidential job, insisting he is too young and that he needs to spend more time in the Senate.

The survey, carried out between 9 November and 7 December across the US, questioned 1,220 Latinos, of whom 557 said they were registered voters.

Obama's job approval ratings have, in line with polls of the general population, dropped among Latinos, from 58% in 2010 to 49%, according to the survey.

The survey was taken too early to reflect a general rise in Obama's approval ratings in recent weeks. The rise could be a result of public unhappiness with the Republican field or, more likely, tentative signs of improvement in the economy, the exit from Iraq or Obama's successful stand-off with Republicans in Congress last week over the payroll tax.

A Gallup poll showed his approval rating up to 46%, his highest since July. He stood at 41% at the start of December.

SOURCE






Georgia Counties Enforce Immigration Law

Georgia cities and counties are preparing to comply with the state’s new immigration law, known as HB 87. That will mean proving, among other things, they aren’t issuing contracts to companies that employ illegal immigrants. Some of the law’s provisions go into effect this weekend.

The law will require firms bidding for public contracts to submit affidavits that their employees are authorized to work here.

Starting in January, many companies will begin using the federal E-Verify database to vet employees’ immigration status.

Todd Edwards is with the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia. He says his group’s members also have to handle that part of the law.

“Like many of the other laws passed at the General Assembly, that primarily falls on your cities and counties to enforce," he said in an interview. "That’s because the mechanism by which companies were to sign up for a business license or an alcohol license at the local level, we’re in charge of checking that they have indeed used E-Verify, and we have to report that as well.”

Beginning in 2012, Georgia cities and counties will have to verify that every company receiving a business license or permit isn’t employing illegal immigrants. The municipalities will produce a report at the end of each year that identifies new license recipients and provides proof that they comply with the law.

The requirements are part of Georgia’s new immigration law.

Edwards says municipalities have spent months preparing for the procedures. But he says the law is still raising some administrative concerns:

“With the large counties, the sheer amount of benefits, the licenses, the permits issued," he said. "And for the small counties that don’t have the professional staffs, to have this along with all the other requirements coming from the state added to their work.”

An immigration enforcement board will review citizen complaints about how local governments are enforcing the law.

SOURCE



28 December, 2011

An informed comment on illegal immigration into Australia

I'd just like to point out, having just written my Masters thesis on this very topic, that while the majority of Australia's asylum seekers arrive by plane, this majority is much slimmer than imagined. Last year the spread was something like 46% boat and 54% air and the last few years have all been like this - I can provide some sources on this if you like.

Of those who arrive by plane, only a small percentage are actually illegal, in that they have no permission to enter - and those that are are removed from the country via the next available flight to their point of origin. The majority of our ASYLUM SEEKERS who DO enter by plane do so on tourist or short term working holiday visas and then apply for asylum, which it is perfectly legal to do.

To emphasise, boat arrivals are placed in detention NOT because they are seeking asylum. Seeking asylum in Australia is perfectly legal, they are in detention because they arrive without permission (unlike plane arrivals who largely show up with a valid visa of some kind). While I don't defend the morality of mandatory detention, this is an important distinction.

Boat arrivals fill our detention centres because they are the largest group of people who enter Australia illegally and are then detained (not sent home immediately).

More HERE




Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

1. Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange: The $100 Million Work Travel Industry (A Four Part Backgrounder Series)

2. Connecting the Dots (Memorandum)

3. Harvard Affiliate, DoL Gang Up to Lower Wages for a High-Tech Worker (Blog)

4. Assimilation: Erasing Differences? (Blog)

5. In Arizona, Our Tax Dollars at Work Stopping Immigration Enforcement (Blog)

6. Other Nations Deal With Immigration/Marriage Complications – U.S. Does Not (Blog)

7. National Harmony (Blog)

8. When All Else Fails, Sell Paranoia (Blog)

9. Propaganda Against GOP Immigration Control (Blog)

10. More Gibberish from Newt (Blog)



27 December, 2011

British taxpayer funding £100,000 a day for failed asylum seekers

The British taxpayer is spending more than £100,000 a day to house failed asylum seekers who have no right to be in the country

The Home Office spent almost £40 million last year supporting so-called “hard cases” – asylum seekers who have had their claims rejected but cannot leave for one reason or another. It is usually because of unsafe conditions in their home country, a medical condition or they have launched a judicial review on a legal point in their case.

But in the meantime the taxpayer must fund their accommodation and living allowances.

And the cost of the asylum system is growing after separate figures showed the number of asylum seekers who are still awaiting a decision and need accommodation increased in 2011.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: “This is a measure of the lengths to which people will go to stay in Britain. “But in the end, if their cases fail they must leave or the credibility of the whole system is completely undermined.”

Under what is known as Section 4 support, asylum seekers who have had their claim for shelter rejected but cannot currently return home are given accommodation and living support. In the 12 months up to September 2011, a total of 4,430 people were awarded such support – the equivalent of 12 a day. Some of those will have since left the country but others may be here indefinitely if their particular circumstances do not change.

Over the period, the Home Office spent £38.2 million on Section 4 support or £104,658 a day.

To be eligible for such support, a failed asylum seeker must be destitute and satisfy one of the following requirements.

They taking all reasonable steps to leave the UK, cannot leave because of a physical impediment to travel or for some other medical reason, cannot leave the UK because, in the Secretary of State's opinion, no viable route of return is currently available or have applied for a judicial review of their asylum application and been given permission to proceed with it.

As well as accommodation, recipients are given a payment card, worth £35.39 per person a week, which is used to buy food and essential toiletries. However, they cannot use the payment card to obtain cash from a cash point or car fuel.

It emerged in May that the public are paying more than £1 million a month to "bribe" illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers to go home.

Up to £74 million has been spent in the past five years on a voluntary return scheme for those who have no right to remain in the UK. The programme offers packages worth up to £2,000 of "in kind" support, such as help setting up home or a business, in return for them not fighting removal.

Destitute asylum seekers whose cases are still being considered and who are not detained are also given support. Some 2,406 applicants were given such support in the first nine months of 2011 suggesting the annual total will be higher than the 2,551 awarded it throughout the whole of 2010.

SOURCE






California Restaurant Owner Fined $400,000 for Hiring Illegals

Why come down so heavily on this guy? Did he vote Republican or something? They could have done the same to almost any eatery in CA

In a rare case of prosecutors going after a business for employing undocumented immigrants, a judge slapped the owner of a popular San Diego restaurant with a $400,000 fine for illegal hiring.

Michel Malecot, 59, was spared prison time and his fines and penalties were below the $650,000 sought by federal prosecutors.

Malecot, a naturalized U.S. citizen from France and a major donor to local charities, appeared to hire undocumented immigrants at The French Gourmet out of compassion rather than to take advantage of them, said U.S. District Judge Thomas Whelan, who also ordered five years of probation.

The case has drawn attention from restaurant owners because criminal prosecutions of employers are fairly rare. Federal prosecutors face high burdens of proof to show that employers knowingly hired undocumented immigrants.

Rebecca Kanter, an assistant U.S. attorney, urged a higher fine against Malecot to deter other employers from illegal hiring. The restaurant employed 91 undocumented immigrants over several years.

"This is the type of cost that can be absorbed," she said of the nearly $400,000 fine. [Easy for her to say}

The prosecutor challenged the judge's assertion that Malecot acted out of compassion, saying he had a financial motive. Kanter said it would have been illogical for him to hire undocumented immigrants at the same wages and conditions of those legally allowed to work.

Eugene Iredale, Malecot's attorney, said the restaurant owner learned his employees were working illegally after he hired them and "couldn't pull the trigger to fire someone." "His work has truly been dedicated to helping others," Iredale said.

Malecot, who pleaded guilty in October to a misdemeanor that carried a maximum penalty of six months in custody, apologized to the judge and said he took steps to avoid illegal hiring. The French Gourmet signed up for a program to verify the immigration status of new hires on a federal database.

Malecot's family, friends and employees packed the courtroom. A boyhood admirer of John Wayne, Malecot came to the United States as a young adult and found success in the restaurant business, opening his bistro in San Diego's Pacific Beach neighborhood in 1979.

SOURCE



26 December, 2011

Judge rules against Arizona sheriff in immigrant stops

A federal judge on Friday barred high profile Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio from detaining people simply for being in the country illegally, in a ruling that faulted the local lawman for enforcing federal immigration law.

The 40-page written opinion by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow came on the same day he issued legal sanctions against Arpaio over destroyed documents.

The decisions come as a further blow for the controversial sheriff, who already has faced rebukes from the U.S. Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

Both rulings by Snow stemmed from a 2007 civil lawsuit against Arpaio and his agency, which accuses his officers of racial profiling of Latinos in traffic stops the judge found were conducted as immigration sweeps.

The judge also said officers with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department (MCSO), which covers Phoenix and surrounding areas, circulated emails that "compared Mexicans to dogs" and portrayed them "as drunks."

"Local law enforcement agencies, such as MCSO, may not enforce civil federal immigration law," Snow said in his written opinion. He added that the sheriff's agency was "hereby enjoined" from detaining "any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States."

In his ruling, Snow also granted a request by plaintiffs to certify the lawsuit as a class action.

He defined the class action as encompassing all Latinos "stopped, detained, questioned or searched" by Arpaio's officers "while driving or sitting in a vehicle" on roads or parking areas in Maricopa County.

EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION

Snow also cited the admitted destruction of emails and patrol records by Arpaio's office related to the case. He noted the sheriff's agency never contested those documents were shredded rather than lost.

Further proceedings in the case are expected to be decided by Snow rather than a jury because the plaintiffs have not requested a jury trial.

Snow's sanctions against Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office were outlined in written opinions issued a day after the judge heard oral arguments on the matter.

Separately last week, the U.S. Justice Department issued a scathing report accusing Arpaio and his deputies of engaging in a "pervasive culture of discriminatory bias" and violating civil rights laws by singling out Latinos for unlawful detention and arrests.

The same day, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security barred Arpaio's deputies from screening jail inmates for their immigration status.

Arpaio was given until January 4 to agree to negotiations addressing the abuses cited by the Justice Department or face a request for a court order requiring compliance.

The Justice Department's report and the similar allegations raised in the lawsuit relate to Arpaio's controversial efforts to crack down on illegal immigration in Maricopa County.

Those efforts have earned him accolades in conservative political circles. Several candidates for the Republican presidential nomination sought his endorsement, which ultimately went to Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Arpaio has denied that his department engages in racial profiling and accused the Justice Department under President Barack Obama of undermining immigration enforcement.

The sheriff was a strong supporter of controversial new Arizona law SB 1070, requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain and suspect of being in the country illegally.

That law is under challenge by the Obama administration in a case the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide next year.

SOURCE





In family horror, some Canadians see culture clash

On a summer morning in 2009, in canal locks east of Toronto, police made a grisly discovery: In a submerged Nissan car were the bodies of three teenage sisters and a 52-year-old woman.

A joyride gone tragically wrong, claimed the father, Mohammad Shafia, 58, who reported the disappearance. An "honor killing," prosecutors allege. A murder trial is under way, heating up a national debate about how to better absorb immigrants into the Canadian cultural mainstream.

The prosecution accuses Afghan-born Shafia, his wife, and their 20-year-old son of killing the daughters because they dishonored the family by defying its disciplinarian rules on dress, dating, socializing and going online. The older victim was Shafia's first wife, Rona Amir Mohammad, who was living with him and his second wife, Tooba Mohammad Yahya, 41, in Montreal. It was a polygamous relationship, the court has been told, and if revealed, could have resulted in their deportation.

The parents and son, Hamed, have pleaded not guilty to four counts of murder.

The family had left Afghanistan in 1992 and lived in Pakistan, Australia and Dubai before settling in Canada in 2007. Shafia, a wealthy businessman, married Yahya because his first wife could not have children. The second marriage produced seven children.

The months leading up to the deaths were not happy ones in the Shafia household, the court has heard. Zainab, the oldest at 19, was forbidden to attend school for a year because she had a young Pakistani-Canadian boyfriend, and she fled to a shelter, terrified of her father, the court was told.

The jury heard testimony that Zainab's sisters, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13, were hounded and trailed by their brothers because the parents suspected them of dating boys; that Sahar repeatedly said her father would kill her if he found out she had a boyfriend; that she had bruises on her arms; that Mohammad, the first wife who was helping to raise the children, also was brutally treated.

Zainab ran away from home for a couple of weeks and her sisters contacted authorities, saying they wanted to be removed from the home because of violence and their father's strict parenting, the prosecution said.

Prosecutor Laurie Lacelle presented wire taps and cell phone records from the Shafia family in court. In one phone conversation, the father says his daughters "betrayed us immensely."

Fazil Javad, Shafia's brother-in-law, said Shafia tried to enlist him in a plan to drown Zainab.

"Even if they hoist me up to the gallows, nothing is more dear to me than my honor. There is nothing more valuable than our honor," Lacelle quoted Shafia as saying in an intercept transcript.

Taking the stand and speaking in his native Dari through an interpreter, Shafia portrayed himself as a loving father with his daughters' best interests at heart. He repeated his contention that the famil members were returning from a Niagara Falls holiday, were in two cars, and were overnighting at a motel when Zainab took one of the cars.

The daughters met an accidental but "rightful" death for their disobedience, he said.

"You believe there's no value in life without honor, don't you?" asked Lacelle in cross-examination. "My honor is important to me," Shafia replied. "But you can't regain your honor with murder, respected lady, you must know that. "I'm a strict Muslim, but I'm not a killer."

Other relatives — two of the children and a brother-in-law of Shafia — testified in support of the joyride scenario and portrayed the family as loving and caring.

The trial then adjourned for the holidays and will resume on Jan. 9.

Canada takes in 250,000 immigrants a year, more per capita than anywhere save Australia, and in recent years a number of so-called honor killings have prompted debate about absorbing immigrants into the mainstream and dealing with culture clashes between immigrant parents and their children. Even before the trial, Rona Ambrose, the women's affairs minister, had said the federal government was considering making such killings a separate category in the criminal code.

Her office has not replied to recent questions about whether the change is going through, and the debate continues about the larger issues the Shafia case has raised about assimilating immigrants.

More than 80 Canadian Muslim organizations, imams and community leaders have signed a call for action against "the reality of domestic violence within our own communities, compounded by abhorrent and yet persistent pre-Islamic practices rooted in the misguided notion of restoring family honor."

On the other hand, statistically, nonimmigrant Canadians have a higher rate of murdering spouses and children, in some instances, also over family dishonor. Jeffrey Reitz, a sociology professor at the University of Toronto who specializes in immigration issues, warns against using the term honor killings and equating it with any specific culture.

"If you label it an honor killing, the tendency is to say, 'Oh, what a terrible culture that is,' and the problem (of domestic violence) stems across cultural groups," he said.

The United Nations reports 5,000 females a year are victims of honor killings around the world. In Canada, social worker Aruna Papp says she has counted 15 cases since 2002, while psychiatrist Amin Muhammad, commissioned to write a report for the government about honor killings in Canada, predicts there will be more as immigrant communities grow, bringing in some newcomers with militant cultural beliefs.

"Immigrants who come here can't bring their own mindsets with them. They can't practice their own cultural ideologies if they go against the grain," he said.

The government must do more, and offer services that are more visible and accessible, especially to non-English-speakers, he said.

Tarek Fatah, the Pakistani-born founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, is a fierce opponent of Islamic militancy. He says it is shocking that honor killings are happening in Canada, calling them "a slap in the face of our fundamental value of what it is to be a human being."

Papp, the social worker who wrote a report on honor killings for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a privately funded conservative think tank, worries that domestic violence rooted in family honor has spread to second-generation families. She argues for tougher background checks on would-be immigrants, as well as teaching immigrants Canadian rights and values.

Papp, who is of Indian descent, speaks from experience. "I came here when I was 21, with a third-grade education. I had children when I was young. I didn't know how to properly parent," she said. "I did and said things I didn't know at the time were wrong, things my parents did and said to me growing up that were acceptable within the Indian culture. It's a learning process. Parents, especially immigrant parents, need to be taught parenting skills and what's acceptable behavior here."

SOURCE



25 December, 2011

Immigration should be conditional upon assimilation

At Christmas, we hear once again about refugees---this time the family of Joseph, Mary, and the soon-to-be born Baby Jesus. It is a touching story-and timelessly evocative of so many millions of people who have had to flee for their lives from persecution.

The 20th century has been a time of the largest dislocation of people in history. World Wars I and II uprooted millions, all seeking sanctuary in the West. However, there was no rush of refugees to the Middle East or to the Communist world; on the contrary, walls and laws were built to keep those people from leaving.

Today, for the first time since the Dark Ages, Europe is facing the same torrent of refugees that the United States and Israel took in after World War II: refugees who fled from monstrous abuse elsewhere. It is wonderful to be given such refuge, but with it comes responsibilities that some do not accept, with terrible consequences for the hosts.

President Obama recently quoted from the “Square Deal” speech by President Theodore Roosevelt. But there was another speech that we should know. During the refugee flood to America that peaked at the turn of the 20th century, President Roosevelt spoke on immigrant responsibilities. He said:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

It is too bad that European countries did not have such guidance. In naive liberalism, Europe has admitted a flood of migrants without attempting to compel them to make the choice: assimilate to our 200-year-old modern civilization or go back to your homelands. Although the majority of Muslim refugees in Europe want to remain, they are being seduced by an international movement, Jihadi Islam, that insists that yielding to Western culture is an insult to Islam.

Catholic schools displaying crucifixes on the classroom walls are being sued by Muslims who feel “insulted,” and nursery schools are harangued for reading “The Three Little Pigs” to children.

Something is wrong with this. When publications that dare to be irreverent toward Islam (as they are to all establishments) are fire-bombed by irate Muslims, freedom of speech is under assault. Too many are now afraid to offend these Islamists. All Europeans (and Americans) should respond with indignation and arrests.

Many Americans are concerned over our flood of refugees from Mexico and Central America. All prior immigrants to this country: Germans, Irish, Jews, Italians, Chinese, and Japanese, were initially feared by those already here. However, they took Theodore Roosevelt's admonitions to heart. All, including the present ones from Mexico, want to become good Americans. Secular Muslims (such as Iranians who fled from the Ayatollah's nightmare theocracy) have also become good Americans. Decent Muslim families from Somalia who have gone to the FBI to report the pied pipers who are seducing their boys into becoming Jihadi terrorists, are good Americans-despite attacks from Islamists activists such as CAIR, calling them “turncoats.”

There should always be room at the inn for those who want to join us. The others should not be given this sanctuary. One does not let wolves come in to take over the house.

SOURCE







LAPD Turns a Blind Eye to Illegal Aliens without Driver’s Licenses

There was a time in California when the law affected the number of illegal aliens coming over the border. Today it is the number that affects the law.

Things in Los Angeles have reached the point that illegal aliens — people who by all rights ought not to be living here in the first place — are nonetheless able to exert sufficient influence on politicians that public policy is altered to suit their desires. Witness the debate taking place (if one can truly call it a debate; the conclusion is foregone) over the impounding of cars driven by unlicensed drivers.

California law authorizes police officers to impound cars found to be driven by unlicensed drivers. It further authorizes the storage of those cars for 30 days so as to discourage the unlicensed drivers from returning to the roads. Under direction from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck is weighing a policy change for his department that would require officers, who having stopped an unlicensed driver, to allow him time to summon a licensed driver to the scene and release the car to him. This proposed change in policy was discussed at a Dec. 13 meeting of the Los Angeles police commission, the five-member civilian panel that oversees the LAPD. That meeting, which can be viewed here, was remarkable for its near-total obfuscation of the impetus behind the proposed change, which is to make Los Angeles more hospitable to illegal aliens.

There was a time in California and indeed the entire country when the law affected the number of illegal aliens coming over the border. How quaint that notion seems now, for today it is the number that affects the law. There are approximately 600,000 illegal aliens living in the city of Los Angeles, or about 15 percent of the total population. For the time being, California law does not allow non-citizens to obtain driver’s licenses, but many illegal aliens choose to risk the consequences and drive anyway. When they are stopped for a driving infraction and found to be unlicensed, they are cited and their cars are impounded in accordance with the Vehicle Code, which draws no distinctions between U.S. citizens who for whatever reason fail to obtain driver’s licenses and illegal aliens who are prohibited from doing so. Advocates for illegal aliens claim that enforcement of the laws requiring driver’s licenses and the consequent impoundment of cars place an undue burden on otherwise law-abiding people.

The illegal alien lobby has no better friend than Mayor Villaraigosa, who earlier this year put the camel’s nose into the tent on the issue of impounding cars driven by unlicensed drivers. At the mayor’s urging, the LAPD instituted a policy that allowed a sober but unlicensed driver discovered at a sobriety checkpoint to call for a licensed driver to take charge of his car and thereby avoid having it impounded. The proposed new policy would extend this procedure to all traffic stops.

“It’s a fairness issue,” Chief Beck told the Los Angeles Times. “There is a vast difference between someone driving without a license because they cannot legally be issued one and someone driving after having their license revoked.”

Indeed there is, and those differences are already recognized in California law, specifically in the punishments prescribed for each offense. But in seeking “fairness,” or his idea of it, the chief ignores the specific language of state law as it pertains to the seizure of cars from unlicensed drivers. Section 14607.4(f) of the California Vehicle Code reads as follows:

It is necessary and appropriate to take additional steps to prevent unlicensed drivers from driving, including the civil forfeiture of vehicles used by unlicensed drivers. The state has a critical interest in enforcing its traffic laws and in keeping unlicensed drivers from illegally driving. Seizing the vehicles used by unlicensed drivers serves a significant governmental and public interest, namely the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of Californians from the harm of unlicensed drivers, who are involved in a disproportionate number of traffic incidents, and the avoidance of the associated destruction and damage to lives and property.

It’s worth noting that in 2008 the city of Los Angeles was one of several cities and counties named as defendants in a federal civil lawsuit that challenged the current impound policy. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, a decision affirmed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court not widely known for being a friend to law enforcement. In so ruling, the Court stated, “This limited application [of the impound authority in the California Vehicle Code] accords with the California legislature’s determination that such a temporary forfeiture is warranted to protect Californians from the harm caused by unlicensed drivers — a determination we have no basis to reject.”

And yet now the LAPD’s chief, based on his own — and the mayor’s of course — sense of “fairness,” rejects this same determination.

So how “fair” will this new policy be to those who come to suffer for it? Just as I sat down to write this column I came across this story of a traffic accident in L.A.’s San Fernando Valley. A 60-year-old woman, Patricia Ellen Riedy of Wildwood, Mo., was struck and killed by a car driven by an unlicensed driver, 36-year-old Martha Cruz. The story makes no mention of Ms. Cruz’s immigration status, though one might draw an inference based on her surname. But whether a citizen or not, she had no right to be behind the wheel of the car that killed the unfortunate Ms. Riedy, whose survivors might offer instruction to Chief Beck on what is “fair.”

The people of the state of California, through their elected representatives, have decided that people who drive while unlicensed, whatever the reason, should have their cars impounded. It is not for the mayor of Los Angeles or his chief of police to decide otherwise.

SOURCE



24 December, 2011

States Looking for New Ways to Combat Illegal Immigration in 2012

2011 is coming to an end and many state lawmakers have their eyes on curbing illegal immigration in 2012. With several states -- Arizona, Mississippi, Indiana, Utah, South Carolina and Alabama -- already paving the way, lawmakers in other states are looking for similar legislation to remove "magnets" drawing illegal aliens to their states.

While lawmakers in Arizona, Mississippi, Indiana, Utah, South Carolina and Alabama have successfully passed strong enforcement legislation against illegal immigration, they still face tough challenges from the federal government. The U.S Department of Justice has moved forward with lawsuits against four of those states, and Arizona's well-known bill, S.B. 1070, will be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court some time next spring.

The main focus of the DOJ lawsuits are laws that give local police authority to check the immigration status for individuals during traffic stops and other minor violations. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach told USA Today that legislators will look at ways to restrict illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits, as well as expand the use of tools such as E-Verify.

Kobach highlighted that Alabama was the first state to legitimately prevent illegal aliens from conducting business transactions, and invalidated all their contracts. This is in addition to the withholding of public benefits to illegal aliens, and preventing them from acquiring a job.

North Carolina, which is estimated to have over 325,000 illegal aliens living in the state, is expected to be the next state to mobilize tougher enforcement legislation. North Carolina state Rep. Harry Warren said he is looking at Alabama's laws as he puts together a package for his state's 2012 legislative session.

"The only thing you can do in your state is make it less attractive [for illegal immigrants] to come to, a little harder to live here legally," Warren said.

SOURCE





Now migrants flooding OUT of Europe in search of jobs as tens of thousands flee Portugal, Ireland and Greece

Tens of thousands of Portuguese, Greek and Irish people are abandoning their homelands as job prospects look increasingly dire. Migrants used to see the EU as a top destination for work and a better lifestyle, but now a stream of Europeans are leaving the continent, figures show.

In the past year, 2,500 Greeks have left for Australia alone and at least 10,000 Portuguese people have moved to Angola, according to the Guardian.

Ireland's official statistics office predicted that 50,000 people will have deserted their home country by the end of the year, with many heading to Australia and the U.S.

The trend could become even worse, with Britain potentially losing its pull for workers who have vital skills to contribute.

With migration trends reversing, unusual routes have apparently become popular, including Lisbon to Luanda, Dublin to Perth and Barcelona to Buenos Aires.

Portugal's foreign ministry reportedly said 97,616 of its people are now registered at the consulates in Benguele and Luanda - almost double the number who were there in 2005.

The Portuguese are also heading in their droves to former colonies such as Brazil and Mozambique, with Brazil seeing a 50 per cent rise in foreign residents in just a year. Goncalo Pires, a graphic designer who moved from Lisbon to Rio de Janeiro, told the Guardian: 'It's a pretty depressing environment there [in Portugal]. 'In Brazil, by contrast, there are lots of opportunities to find work, to find clients and projects.'

Joy Drosis, who left her homeland of Greece for Australia, said she felt she would have been doomed if she had stayed.

In Ireland, where 14.5 per cent of the population are jobless, emigration has climbed steadily since 2008, with 40,200 Irish passport-holders said to have left in the 12 months to April this year, up from 27,700 the previous year.

There are reports of similar trends in Spain and Italy, and fears young European sports stars are leaving their birth countries for places such as Australia.

Experts believe the exodus from Ireland will only increase, given the £1.4bn tax rises and austerity measures just announced.

Greece lost 9.4 per cent of its doctors in just one year, with most immigrants arriving from poorer countries and often lacking the skills to replace them in the economy.

SOURCE



23 December, 2011

U.S. to cut three quarters of National Guard troops on the border in "cost-cutting" measure

The number of National Guard troops on the border between the U.S. and Mexico will be cut by three quarters over the next year, the government has announced. From next month the force of 1,200 border guards will be reduced to fewer than 300, a Defense Department official said yesterday.

The measure will cost $60million - compared to $1.35billion for the deployments so far, an average of over $200million per year.

The remaining troops will shift their focus from patrolling the border on the ground, looking for illegal immigrants and smugglers, to aerial surveillance missions using military helicopters and airplanes equipped with high-tech radar and other gear. 'We are basically going from boots on the ground to boots in the air,' said David Aguilar, deputy commissioner for Customs and Border Protection.

Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher said his agency is working on identifying the 'areas of greatest concern' along the border - including Arizona and southern Texas.

George W. Bush first ordered Guard troops to the southern border from 2006 to 2008, and his successor Barack Obama ordered another round of troops in August 2010. The second lot were supposed to be in place for about a year, but Mr Obama extended the deployment earlier this year, and the reduced force is now expected to stay until the end of 2012.

Republicans have objected to reducing the number of troops, arguing that the border isn't secure and reducing the number of people patrolling the area doesn't help security. 'If the Obama administration's goal is border security, their actions undermine their objective,' said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. 'The administration's decision to draw down the National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border makes an already porous border worse.'

Mr Aguilar, who previously led the Border Patrol, said there is still work to be done at the border but that successes in securing the frontier have allowed the government to reduce the number of troops and change the nature of the mission.

In the last year Border Patrol agents made 327,577 arrests, the fewest since 1972. There are also more than 18,500 agents patrolling the border, the highest number in the agency's history.

SOURCE





Justice Department Goes after Sheriff Joe

Eric Holder’s U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division has released the findings of its three-year witch hunt of America’s most popular and effective sheriff, Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona.

Among the findings were that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) used “racial profiling” in traffic stops, and that a Latino was “four to nine times more likely to be stopped than similarly situated non-Latino drivers.” According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Maricopa County has a population of 3.8 million residents, which is over half of all Arizona residents. Of that number, 29.6 percent are persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. By virtue of numbers, Latinos have a one-in-three chance of being pulled over for a traffic violation, regardless of the “situation.”

Further, I’ve never seen a black illegal Mexican alien or one that looked like he was born in China.

Throughout the Justice Department’s report of findings, the words “illegal alien” could be substituted easily for “Latino” because this is what it is all about. Holder’s headhunters are trying to intimidate Sheriff Arpaio and other border state law enforcement officials to back off from enforcing federal immigration laws.

The truth is that by virtue of location, Arizona, and Maricopa County in particular, have been plagued by illegal Mexicans. Citizen complaints and aggressive law enforcement have led to the arrest and deportation of thousands of illegal aliens. This is something Holder’s Department of Justice aims to stop, especially in light of being within a year of a presidential election.

Holder and his army of attorneys have already sued Arizona and other states for passing legislation allowing police officers to challenge persons lawfully detained to prove they are in the country legally if they have reason to suspect they are not. Holder’s U.S. Attorneys refuse to prosecute illegal aliens even when they have been captured numerous times. “Catch and release” is the preferred method of dealing with those pesky illegals who always seem to find themselves in custody by local law enforcement because the Department of Homeland Security refuses to deploy the necessary assets to take care of the problem.

Did I mention President Obama is sending home half the National Guard troops deployed along the border to assist the Border Patrol?

I didn’t read anything in the findings by Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez about ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious, in which assault rifles were allowed to “walk” across the border to fuel Mexico’s violent drug cartels and ultimately cause the death of a Border Patrol Agent in Arizona. Maybe if the MCSO had stopped a vehicle traveling southbound toward Mexico containing numerous weapons, they would have seized the weapons and arrested the driver. Oh, wait! I forgot that’s racial profiling according to Mr. Perez.

I also didn’t read anything about the Arizona rancher Robert Krentz, murdered on his own property by illegal Mexican aliens on their way through a known smuggling corridor. He also forgot to mention that the day before the shooting, the victim’s brother, Phil Krentz, reported drug smuggling activity on the ranch to the Border Patrol.

Nor did I read anything about the Border Patrol having reason to remove the warning sign 80-miles deep into Arizona that reads, “Danger – Public Warning Travel Not Recommended,” because “smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area.”

Mr. Perez does not have a $1 million bounty on his head offered by Mexican drug cartels like Sheriff Arpaio does. The sheriff did not earn that distinction for being America’s friendliest sheriff, but its toughest.

The Justice Department needs to stop focusing its energy on law enforcement officials doing their best to protect their citizens, and focus instead on the root cause of Arizona’s dilemma – lack of enforcement of federal immigration laws.

SOURCE



22 December, 2011

British government trying to cover up illegal immigrant status of killer

Not surprising in the light of their chronic failure to deport criminal illegals

A murder victim’s family who want to know if the man who shot their son is in Britain legally have been refused the information – to protect the killer’s privacy.

Wintworth and Lurline Deslandes are desperate to confirm suspicions that Saturday Hassan is a foreign national so they can ensure he is deported if he is released from jail.

But they have been told the killer – who shot their public schoolboy son Darren in the head after being thrown out of the family’s pub – must agree to details of his immigration status being handed over to their MP.

Officials said this ‘personal information’ needed to be ‘safeguarded’ and cited the Data Protection Act in their refusal to hand it over.

The UK Border Agency also insisted it needed ‘written authority’ from Hassan himself, who is serving life with a minimum term of 37 years, before any details could be released.

The Deslandes family are enraged by the response and their case has sparked a furious reaction at Westminster, with the couple’s MP branding the decision ‘ridiculous’.

Their son, a former Dulwich College schoolboy who attended Brunel University and worked for a housing association, was due to be married to Abigail Beresford earlier this year.

Last night Croydon North MP Malcolm Wicks said: ‘The logic of that answer is that I should write a nice letter saying, “Dear murderer, would you give me permission to find out if you are a foreign national, so I can make sure in the future you are deported”.’ The former Labour business minister added: ‘It’s ridiculous. The family of the murdered man had a suspicion for some reason he might have been a foreign national and it didn’t come out in court.

‘My experience as an MP is that if you find out some criminal is a foreign national, I do my best to pressure the Home Office to check the person out. That’s one reason an MP should be able to find out.’

Hassan, 31, was thrown out of the Deslandes family’s pub – the Newton Arms in Croydon, South London – on New Year’s Eve 2009 after threatening a customer. Minutes later he returned with a semi-automatic weapon, firing at Darren, 34, and his younger brother Junior, who had evicted him.

Darren was shot in the head and died instantly. Junior, 26, was hit three times in the head, neck and shoulder. He was left critically ill but survived.

Mr Deslandes – who bought the pub in 1999 after working as an insurance underwriter in the City of London for 25 years – was hit over the head with the butt of the gun.

Last year Hassan was found guilty of murder and attempted murder at the Old Bailey and jailed. Judge David Paget said: ‘What you did has taken the life of a thoroughly good and worthy young man with his life before him and has devastated the lives of the whole Deslandes family, of Darren Deslandes’s fiancée and I dare say of others near and dear to them.’

The family insist the question of Hassan’s immigration status never came up at the trial.

During the trial, Mr Wicks wrote to the Home Office asking for information on the killer’s immigration status after the family told him they believed Hassan was in the country illegally, having arrived here from Guyana in South America.

On December 2 last year the UK Border Agency wrote back. A letter signed by the then chief executive, Lin Homer, refused to divulge any details about Hassan’s past.

She wrote: ‘I hope that you will appreciate that in order to safeguard an individual’s personal information and comply with the Data Protection Act 1998, we are limited in what information we can provide when a request is made by someone, such as your constituent, who is not the subject of the application. Except in a few exceptional circumstances, we must ensure we have the written authority of the individual concerned before the information is divulged to anyone else.’

It also said the reply was a ‘proportionate response to protecting the privacy of the individual’.

Last night Mrs Deslandes, 57, said: ‘I do not see why he should have any data protection. He has killed someone. We are the victims and no one is there to protect us. He should be removed from the country.’ Mr Deslandes, 60, who is terminally ill with lung cancer, added: ‘He shot both of my sons and he tried to kill me as well, but he ran out of bullets.’

Raising the case in the in the House of Commons on Monday during a debate about the deportation of foreign nationals, Mr Wicks branded the decision ‘total nonsense’.

Immigration Minister Damian Green said he ‘rather agreed’ and described the situation as ‘absurd’. But officials admitted he was constrained by the Data Protection Act. Last night a Home Office official said: ‘The minister is able to discuss more in some cases but the Data Protection Act is what it is and he can’t act above that.’

A UKBA spokesperson said yesterday: 'Our immigration rules clearly state that a foreign national receiving a prison sentence of more than 12 months will automatically be considered for deportation.'

Mr Wicks raised the issue during a Commons debate on foreign criminals after a leaked Home Office report revealed foreign nationals allowed to remain in the UK have committed horrendous crimes including murder, rape and kidnap.

Ministers have pledged to increase the number of foreign nationals sent home but are being thwarted by the Human Rights Act, especially Article 8 which gives individuals a right to a ‘private and family life’.

SOURCE




Greens blamed for failure to stop illegal immigration to Australia

IMMIGRATION Minister Chris Bowen has attacked the humanitarian credentials of the Australian Greens after his attempt to end the stalemate over offshore processing failed amid fresh brawling with the Coalition.

Mr Bowen, struggling for a policy response to an ongoing flood of asylum-seeker boats arriving off northern Australia, described the Greens yesterday as "naive and out of touch" after the party's leader, Bob Brown, insisted offshore processing was no deterrent to people-smuggling.

The minister's comments came as government sources confirmed that they expected hundreds of asylum-seekers to enter Australia by boat over the coming holiday period and warned of a repeat of last weekend's sinking of an overloaded boat off Indonesia, in which as many as 200 Middle Eastern asylum-seekers headed for Australia drowned.

The tragedy continued to dominate political discourse yesterday as Labor and the Coalition parties insisted onshore processing was acting as a beacon to people-smugglers but remained deadlocked about the location for an offshore regime.

With the government promoting Malaysia and the Coalition sticking by its policy of reopening a processing centre on the Pacific island of Nauru, Senator Brown described their positions as "an anomaly" and said they were out of step with public opinion.

Senator Brown said that the most humane approach was to process asylum-seekers in Australia.

His position provoked a strong response last night from Mr Bowen, who said the Greens' view that the answer was to accept more refugees was "naive and not in touch with the practical reality and experience".

"He (Senator Brown) needs to consider that there is nothing humanitarian about a policy which says to people: your best chance of a new life in Australia is to risk your life to get here," Mr Bowen told The Australian.

"All the evidence shows that if you have proper offshore processing in place then it does discourage boat arrivals."

Earlier, Senator Brown said: "I say that Australia should be processing onshore because that is an international legal obligation."

When asked to respond to claims his policy attracted people-smugglers, the Greens leader said: "I'm not here to answer to The Australian's policy or the policies of the big parties; I'm here to promote our policy because it's humanitarian."

Asked for a solution to the fact that asylum-seekers were dying on their way to Australia, Senator Brown said: "There is none. Whether you take offshore or onshore. We know that from the terrible history."

Senator Brown said he was "mindful of the fact that the worst tragedy of this run of asylum-seekers to Australia, at least in recent history, was the SIEV X, which came after John Howard's policies of diverting people to Nauru".

Earlier yesterday, Labor revealed Julia Gillard had approached the Opposition Leader last Wednesday -- before the latest disaster -- for new talks to seek common ground to reinstate offshore processing.

Warning of worsening weather conditions north of Australia, the Prime Minister wrote in a letter to Mr Abbott: "I believe that in circumstances such as this the Australian people expect us to work together to ensure that the national interest is upheld."

In a written response, Mr Abbott refused: "This is a problem that you have created and it is your responsibility to solve."

Mr Abbott argued that the Coalition wanted processing of asylum-seekers on Nauru, a reinstatement of temporary protection visas and a policy of turning back asylum boats where possible. It was "pointless", Mr Abbott wrote, for new talks unless the government had a genuine new policy proposal to put forward.

Two further approaches this week by Wayne Swan, including one in which the Acting Prime Minister cited the parties' "shared responsibility" to find a solution, were also rejected.

Mr Bowen appeared to offer a compromise by saying processing on Nauru was impractical "in the absence" of processing under Labor's plan to send 800 asylum-seekers to Malaysia in return for 4000 approved refugees, which was taken to mean he was open to processing in both places.

But Coalition sources insisted they were not confident that the minister could win support from Ms Gillard for the position.

Mr Bowen last night told the ABC's 7.30 he would not place parameters around any "good faith" discussions with the opposition should they agree to talks.

"Our policy position is clear," the minister said. "We believe that temporary protection visas led to an increase in the number of people coming to Australia by boat because it denied family reunion and that said to people your only chance of coming is by boat. Turning back the boats is dangerous. The navy says it risks lives. I'm not going to walk away from those positions.

"But by the same token, I'm not going to say to the opposition 'come in and . . . these areas have parameters around them which we can't talk about'."

SOURCE



21 December, 2011

Alabama jobless rate falls amid immigration reform

Alabama’s unemployment rate fell at a record pace in November amid stepped-up efforts by President Barack Obama’s deputies to frustrate enforcement of the state’s popular new immigration reform.

The state’s unemployment rate fell 0.6 percent in November to 8.7 percent, according to new state reports, partly because the state’s employers opened up jobs to Americans after shedding illegal immigrants.

The unemployment rate is far below October’s rate of 9.3 percent and September’s rate of 9.8 percent.

“The continued drop is proof that people — American Citizens [and] legal migrants, have suffered at the hands of politicians who choose politics over economics,” said Chuck Ellis, a council member in Northern Alabama’s Marshall County.

“What’s really amazing is that in Marshall County, a county of 95,000 residents, 30,000 workforce eligible, there are over 600 people who now have jobs that they didn’t have 6 months ago,” he said.

In November the county’s unemployment rate dropped 0.7 percent, from 8.1 percent to 7.4 percent. “Is that a difference of great significance? Ask those families for an answer as they undertake the Christmas season,” Ellis said.

Department of Justice officials, including civil-regulation chief Tom Perez, have repeatedly visited the state to invite people to make claims of discrimination.

Perez is pushing ahead with a lawsuit intended to gut the reform, which was supported by members of both parties, and by both white and African-American legislators.

Perez’s efforts have been broadcast by many established media outlets, many of which have also highlighted the reform’s painful impact on illegal immigrants. Few outlets, however, have detailed the beneficial impact of the state’s falling unemployment rate.

Administration officials have cracked down on immigration enforcement by several states in partial exchange for promises by the Hispanic lobbies to spur turnout by Democratic-leaning Hispanic voters in 2012.

The lobbies had sought a federal amnesty, but rising public opposition has deterred Democrats from seriously promoting any amnesty since Obama’s 2008 election.

In compensation for their inaction, the federal government and allied Hispanic lobbies have already sued several other states, including New Mexico, South Carolina, Georgia and Arizona.

The Alabama reform copied federal immigration laws, making it more difficult for local entrepreneurs and businesses to hire or trade with illegal immigrants. Top state officials, including Gov. Robert Bentley, have said they’ll make some trims to the law in the new year to defeat the legal challenges by Obama’s deputies, business lobbies and immigration advocates.

In October, Alabama was ranked 37th-worst in the nation for unemployment. November’s numbers pushed the state up to 30th place, based on the October rankings.

In a complex economy, “it’s certainly plausible that immigration enforcement — and the subsequent drop in the number of illegals — enabled unemployed Americans to find work,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a D.C. -based advocacy group.

“Americans with the highest unemployment rates — young workers, less-educated workers, minority workers — are the ones facing the greatest job competition from illegal aliens, and thus would benefit the most from the departure of those illegal aliens,” he added.

The state’s new immigration reform gets much of the credit from local boosters, although stepped-up Christmas hiring likely played some role. However, Alabama reduced its unemployment much more than the adjacent states of Mississippi and Georgia.

In Georgia, the unemployment rate fell to 9.9 percent in November, down from 10.2 percent in October and 10.3 percent in September.

In Mississippi, the November numbers have not been released, but the state’s unemployment rate stayed steady at 10.6 percent in October and 10.6 percent in September.

In Alabama, the unemployment rate is lower in northern counties. For example, Madison County’s rate was 6.9 percent in November, down from a September level of 8.2 percent, according to the state’s Department of Industrial Relations.

The highest rate of unemployment are in the southern, majority-black districts of WIlcox, Perry, and Bullock. In November, their unemployment rates were 15.5 percent or greater.

SOURCE






Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange: Full Series Now Available Online

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) report, “Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange: The $100 Million Work Travel Industry”, is based on five months of reporting by CIS senior research fellow and Pulitzer Prize-winning former journalist Jerry Kammer.

Table of Contents

Part One: The Globalization of the Summer Job. The story of SWT’s role in international diplomacy and of the intense, sophisticated, and lucrative recruitment both of the students whose fees fuel the industry and the employers who provide the jobs.

Part Two: Young Americans 'Don't Know How the System Works'. The story of young Americans displaced by SWT, which uses international job fairs to line up summer workers months in advance. A second story tells of the culture clash at Hershey, where the legend of a benevolent chocolate baron met the harsh reality of SWT.

Part Three: SWT in Alaska: Fish Sliming as Cultural Exchange. The story of SWT in Alaska, where some 2,000 'cultural exchange' workers take jobs that used to be magnets for American college students, including 1969 Wellesley graduate Hillary Rodham, now overseeing SWT as Secretary of State.

Part Four: 'A Cavalier Attitude': The State Department's Legacy of SWT Failure. The story of the State Department’s long history of mismanagement of SWT, including its indifference to its effects on American workers. Included is an interview with Rick Ruth, the State Department’s new man in charge of SWT.

Epilogue: An open letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. CIS calls on Secretary Clinton, whose department oversees the SWT program, to reform it so today’s young Americans can enjoy the same summer work experiences as she did many years ago.

The series tells the story of the State Department’s troubled Summer Work Travel (SWT) program and its rapid growth over the past 15 years into a $100 million international industry that has spread around the globe. SWT is emblematic of a larger problem with the nation’s immigration system, where new programs are created and allowed to expand significantly without giving careful consideration to their impact on the labor market or the larger American society.

2011 was particularly turbulent for SWT. When the State Department issued new regulations in the spring, it acknowledged that some sponsors were neglecting their duties and that the existing regulations “do not sufficiently protect national security interests, the Department’s reputation, and the health, safety and welfare of Summer Work Travel program participants.” In short, the program had been infected by many abuses, leaving some participants defrauded and allowing others to be recruited by organized crime or strip club owners.

In the summer of 2011, Stanley Colvin, the State Department official who long directed SWT and other exchange programs, was quietly replaced. Then the Hershey protest brought global notoriety to the program. In November, the State Department, which had long promoted expansion of the program around the world, announced a freeze on participants at the 2011 level of 103,000. Finally, in December Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered an “extensive and thorough review” of the program.

Kammer, a former investigative reporter, tells the story of the State Department’s inability to establish proper management of SWT despite years of criticism by the Government Accountability Office and State’s own Inspector General.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Bryan Griffith, 202-466-8185, press@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization



20 December, 2011

Arizona Border Data

(Tucson, Arizona) Data indicate the Arizona-Mexico border continues to be porous.

Tucson Sector Border Patrol apprehensions were down more than 40 percent in 2011, which U.S. Customs and Border Protection attributes to technology, improved infrastructure and more employees, CBP announced Friday.

Border Patrol agents working along the 262-miles of international border in Arizona, apprehended 123,285 illegal immigrants during the fiscal year, a reduction of 42 percent from 2010, the Border Patrol said.

Agents also seized 1,039,443 pounds of marijuana, or nearly 520 tons, in 2011 — a slight increase over 2010, the Border Patrol said.

Note that the data only represent captured illegals and seized drugs. Heaven knows how many illegals and contraband slipped through the border undetected.

In any event, expect open-border advocates and the mainstream media to cite the 40 percent decrease in illegal apprehensions as evidence that border controls are working and additional measures are not warranted.




Australian farmers get Pacific guest workers

And who is going to make sure that they go home at the end of their work? Polynesians are a high-crime group

FRUIT and vegetable growers will be able to employ seasonal workers from the Pacific region and East Timor from the middle of 2012. But they will have to show they can't find local workers at harvest time before accessing a $21.7 million program.

The program, announced by the Federal Government today follows a successful pilot scheme. The Government will also conduct a small-scale, three-year trial with the tourism industry. Cotton and cane growers as well as fishing operators will be included.

The Government says growers in the horticultural sector will be able to access a reliable, returning seasonal workforce from July 1.

The program would contribute to economic development in participating countries, such as East Timor, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

Tourism Minister Martin Ferguson described the trial as a "win-win" outcome for Australian tourism operators and regional workers who would be able to improve their skills through education and training.

There are about 36,000 vacancies in the tourism industry, as the sector faces severe labour shortages brought about by a booming resources sector competing for workers.

Seasonal workers taking part in the permanent program will be employed in accordance with Australian work standards. Employers will contribute to travel costs.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

1. Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange: The $100 Million Work Travel Industry (A Four Part Backgrounder Series)

2. Declining Summer Employment Among American Youths (Backgrounder)

3. 'Enforcement first': A tough but fair immigration system (Op-ed)

4. Bespoke Visas for the Irish, Aussies, and Disney (Blog)

5. Worrying About the Wrong Citizens (Blog)

6. Congress Acting Dumb (Blog)

7. Iran, Hezbollah Also Responsible for 9/11, Rules Federal Judge (Blog)

8. Utah Attorney General Unable to Effectively Defend Utah's Enforcement Law (Blog)

9. Wholesome-Sounding Employer Caught Discriminating Against U.S. Citizens (Blog)

10. Law Prof Predicts Supreme Court Will Uphold S.B. 1070 (Blog)

11. Wanted by USCIS: Business Experts to Infiltrate USCIS (Blog)

12. Beam Me Up Scotty, Our Work Here Is Done (Blog)

13. Nibbling Around the Immigration Edges in U.S. vs. Big Ideas in U.K. (Blog)



19 December, 2011

Hundreds missing in illegal immigrant boat sinking off Indonesia

More deaths that can be laid at the feet of the "compassionate" Australian Labor Party -- for encouraging these boats to come

AN overloaded wooden vessel carrying about 250 migrants and suspected to be heading to Australia has sunk off Indonesia's main island of Java. So far only 33 people have been rescued, search and rescue officials said, with efforts to reach survivors hampered by bad weather and heavy seas.

"A boat carrying around 250 people has sunk south of Prigi beach in eastern Java and we have started a search and rescue effort," the national search and rescue team said in an sms message.

State-run news agency Antara quoted search team member Brian Gauthier as saying: "The boat sank Saturday evening. "It is somewhat difficult to go on with the search because extreme weather has caused reduced visibility," he said.

Thirty-three people have been rescued and are receiving assistance in the town of Prigi, about 30km from where the boat sank, Mr Gauthier said, adding that the rescue team believed some passengers were still alive and were likely suffering "severe dehydration". "They must be evacuated as soon as possible," he said. "They can't stay for long in the middle of the sea."

The boat is believed to be a traditional fishing vessel with a capacity of around 100. A survivor from Afghanistan, 24-year-old Esmat Adine, gave rescuers an estimate for how many passengers were on the boat. "He did not know exactly how many passengers there were, but he said that four buses with around 60 or more adult passengers each had turned up to the port where they set off," a translator for Adine said.

Adine said the boat had been heading towards Australia's Christmas island.

Because people were so tightly packed, they had nowhere to go, he said. "That made the boat even more unstable and eventually it sank," he said.

Adine said that he and others survived by clinging to parts of the broken vessel until they were picked up by local fishermen. He estimated that more than 40 children were on the ship. It was not immediately clear if any were rescued.

Watulimo sub-district police chief Muhammed Khoiril told Detik.com today: "After interviewing the passengers, we've learnt that they originate from Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There also are some from Dubai."

Thousands of asylum seekers head through Southeast Asian countries on their way to Australia every year and many link up with people smugglers in Indonesia for the dangerous sea voyage.

Canberra has failed in its efforts to set up a regional processing centre in neighbouring countries in an attempt to reduce the flow of asylum seekers heading to Australia.

Indonesia, a sprawling archipelago nation of 240 million people, has more than 18,000 islands and thousands of kilometres of unpatrolled coastline, making it a key transit point for smuggling migrants.

The private television station Metro TV reported that 33 people had been found alive and that perhaps 215 others were still missing.

Last month a ship carrying about 70 asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan capsized off the southern coast of Central Java; at least eight people died.

SOURCE




Gingrich says millions of illegal immigrants should leave

Newt Gingrich insisted Sunday that some illegal immigrants who have become full community members should be able to stay in the country, but he added that his policy would require 7 million or more to go back to their home nations before having a chance to return.

Appearing on the CBS program "Face the Nation," the front-running Republican presidential hopeful repeated his call for some kind of citizen review board to assess whether illegal immigrants would be eligible to get a residency permit and stay in America.

Gingrich, a former House Speaker, said the American people would not tolerate the forced removal of someone who has lived in their community for 25 years, has children and grandchildren, and belongs to a local church.

However, Gingrich said he expected about 1 million of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to qualify under the review board process to remain in the country, adding that they would have to be sponsored by an American family.

The rest would have to leave, Gingrich said. "My guess is that 7 or 8 or 9 million would ultimately go home to get a guest or worker permit and return under the law," Gingrich said.

His immigration policy has come under attack from some rival candidates who call it a form of amnesty -- a virtual dirty word for the conservative tea party movement.

SOURCE



18 December, 2011

British Judge rules new ban on immigrants who can't speak English IS legal

An Indian woman who argued that immigration rules preventing her husband from moving to the UK because he cannot speak English were a breach of the couple’s human rights has lost her case.

British citizen Rashida Chapti, 54, argued that her husband of 37 years, Vali Chapti, should be allowed to join her from India.

But immigration rules announced by Home Secretary Theresa May last year introduced new English language requirements for those moving to Britain to join a spouse.

Mrs Chapti, who has six children with her 57-year-old husband, argued in the High Court in Birmingham that the rule was a breach of the couple’s right to a private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Using legal aid to fight her case, she also argued that it was a breach of the right to marriage, and the right to be free from discrimination.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Beatson ruled that the English language requirement did not amount to a breach of the couple’s human rights and dismissed the case.

He said: ‘The new rule does not indirectly discriminate on the ground of nationality, ethnic origins or disability.’

Mrs Chapti, from Leicester, who speaks only halting English herself, vowed to appeal against the decision.

Through a translator, she said: ‘Naturally I feel very disappointed. It is Christmas and I will be alone without my husband. We will keep fighting for him to come here.’

She said it would be easier for Mr Chapti, a farmer from the Gujarati village of Valan, to learn English in Britain than India. He cannot read, write or speak the language. She has previously said that he was ‘too old’ to learn English even if he did get leave to stay in Britain.

Mrs Chapti, a machinist in a clothes factory, moved to the UK with her parents six years ago, using a British protected passport issued when they lived in Malawi, which was a UK colony. Mrs Chapti is believed to have been commuting between India and Leicester for several years.

After successfully applying for naturalisation as a British citizen, she attempted to ‘send for’ her husband and their youngest child. But under the new immigration rule, her husband was refused a spouse visa.

Previously, spouses and partners were required to demonstrate an ability to speak English two years after moving to Britain. Now they must speak a minimum level of English when they arrive.

Mrs Chapti and her husband were one of three couples who challenged the immigration law requiring people to be able to speak English before coming to Britain.

At an earlier court hearing, Mrs Chapti’s lawyer Manjit Gill QC said the rule was a breach of the couple’s human rights. He said: ‘The rule is particularly striking in that it prevents mere residence even though one of the parties is fully entitled to live in this country.’

He said it discriminated against people on the grounds of nationality and race.

Dominic Raab, a Tory MP spearheading a parliamentary campaign for human rights reform, said learning the language helped newcomers and encouraged ‘integration rather than segregation’. He said: ‘It’s extremely important that the requirements for newcomers to this country to learn English are upheld and maintained. ‘It is vital for those arriving in this country to be able to get on and for community cohesion.’

Mrs Chapti previously told the BBC: ‘It’s my right to be with my husband and I want to be with him. He is too old to learn English and he lives in a very remote place. ‘It is impossible for him to learn English.’

SOURCE





Sheriff Arpaio Fires Back at Obama Rights Charges

America's toughest sheriff is living up to his nickname in a battle against the United States Department of Justice over its report which accuses the Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff's Department of a pattern of civil rights violations involving Latinos.

County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he intends to fight allegations in the 22-page Justice Department report which claim his department has violated the civil rights of Latinos in enforcing immigration laws in Arizona, reports World Net Daily.

"Obama has just put a welcome sign on the United States border with Mexico," told Arpaio to WND referring to the president who back in September, in an inteview with a group of Latino reporters, said the sheriff and his department should not be viewed as a model for other law enforcement departments in how to enforce federal immigration laws.

Obama further told the journalists that the United States 50 states with 50 different immigration laws.

The DOJ report concludes the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department under Arpaio's watch has engaged in the racial profiling of Latinos, made unlawful stops and detentions in violation of federal civil rights laws.

Led by its president Randy Parraz, the group Citizens for a Better Arizona is urging the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to pass a resolution calling for Arpaio to step down. That same group spearheaded to recall effort against now former Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce who was part of the state legislature which crafted SB 1070, the state's new immigration law which has been tied up in the courts.

It was just last month though, that the United States Supreme Court said that next year, it will review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco which for the most part shut down SB1070.

Arpaio says while he is willing to engage in talks with federal officials over the report, he will not let them keep tabs on his office, according to a report in the Arizona Republic.

The sheriff describes incidents of racial profiling and discrimination outlined in the report as being, "a couple of bumps," reports the Republic. "We had some isolated incidents and they make it look like it's systemic. We thought we had this thing resolved. We gave them more files. Then we wake up in the morning and they do a press conference," added Arpaio.

He said he will cooperate with the Justice Department but, "one thing I am not going to agree to is to be controlled by some federal monitor or something. I'm the elected sheriff here and I report to the 4 million voters here in the county."

In a letter to Maricopa County, Justice Department officials have given Arpaio until January 4th to decide whether to cooperate in reforming his department. The letter also gave Arpaio 60 days for an agreement on a reform plan.

Arpaio was riled by the deadlines, pointing out the DOJ took three years to look at his department, came out with a 22-page report and he believes is giving him a relatively short amount of time to respond.

The Justice Department says if Arpaio does not comply, it will seek a court order to force reform and could revoke hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, according to the Republic.

On the same day the report came out, the county received a letter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton which said Morton had terminated the sheriff's participation in a federal immigration program. ICE is withdrawing immigration detainees from jails in Maricopa County, will not respond to sheriff's department traffic stops and other minor arrests which involve immigrants and has cut off the department's access to federal technology which is used to verify immigration status.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Mongomery said Friday those actions have, "an immediate and harmful effect on carrying out my duties." Montgomery says the moves would also be a threat to public safety. "Im asking the president to direct the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate this program now," added Montgomery.

ICE will continue to be informed of immigrant arrests but will make its own determination who it will detain and where, based on its own law enforcement priorities, the Republic reports.

SOURCE



17 December, 2011

Australia's Leftist government allows dangerous "excursions" for illegals from immigration detention centres

A Darwin MP has called on Immigration Minister Chris Bowen to suspend some asylum seeker excursions in Darwin. It is alleged a 28-year-old Iranian man inappropriately touched several young girls girls at the waterfront wave pool on Wednesday while he was on a supervised excursion.

The member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, says the Immigration Department should stop allowing detainees to visit places like swimming pools, in the interests of public safety. "The safety of my community, in particular young children, is absolutely paramount and situations like this can not be allowed to occur," she said. "He (Mr Bowen) needs to stop these pool visits immediately in light of these allegations."

Federal Opposition Immigration spokesman Scott Morrison says the excursions should be stopped. "The minister should be very much reviewing what the practices are where detainees are allowed to mix in the general community, particularly single males," he said.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has rejected the calls. "It is appropriate that people in detention from time to time participate in community activities," he said.

The Immigration Department says the excursions for asylum seekers being held at detention centres in Darwin are carefully supervised by security staff.

Spokesman Sandi Logan says the alleged wave pool incident should not make people worried if they see other asylum seekers on excursions. "This is very much an extraordinary circumstance," he said.

"It is not one that I would want the community to think in any way ... was indicative of the sorts of clients we have in detention."
The Iranian man was arrested by Northern Territory Police last night and is being questioned today.

SOURCE





Revealed: The 74 illegal immigrants who should have been sent home from Britain years ago and are costing the taxpayer millions

British taxpayers have spent millions of pounds housing 74 illegal immigrants who should have been deported years ago, it emerged this week.

Immigration Minister Damian Green revealed that each immigrant has been held for a minimum of two years. Nineteen have been on the deportation list for more than ten years, while one has been in Britain for 20 years beyond his legal right to remain.

It is unclear whether the 74 have been housed in detention centres or in prisons, meaning the cost of keeping them in Britain ranges from £6million to an eye-watering £22.5million.

Forty cannot be removed because they refuse to tell immigration officials which country they are originally from or because they do not have passports.

A spokesman for watchdog the Taxpayers' Alliance today called the figures 'staggering'. Jonathan Isaby said: 'Taxpayers will be shocked to learn that the Government is spending tens of millions of pounds of their money each year simply to keep people in removal centres who should have been deported years ago.

'Once a decision to deport has been made, the case should be processed quickly - within days or weeks, certainly not months and years. The system is clearly failing and ministers should urgently review its operation.'

The statistics, unveiled by Mr Green in Parliament earlier this week, also reveal:

* It costs £110 a day to house someone in a detention removal centre

* Almost one in three of the 74 is using human rights legislation while they fight in the courts to remain in the country

* Thirteen have been here five years longer than they should

* Ten should have left the country eight years ago

* Nineteen have been here more than a decade. Of these, one has been detained for 20 years and another two for 17 years.

Conservative MP Priti Patel today called for the Government to urgently address the situation.

She told the Daily Express: 'The British public will be deeply concerned to see so many foreigners staying in Britain for these incredible lengths of time at huge cost to the taxpayer when they should be deported. 'Human rights laws need urgent reform.'

A UK Border Agency spokesman said: 'Detention is a necessary part of the process. We always seek to remove as quickly as possible but if detainees give false or incomplete information it delays their return and extends their detention.'

SOURCE



16 December, 2011

Feds Kick Joe Arpaio Out of Immigration Enforcement Program

Kicking out America's most popular sheriff would seem to be a bit of an "own goal" for the Obama admin.

Hours after the release of a Justice Department report that said that Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio fueled a culture of anti-Latino bias in his office, the Department of Homeland Security said it was kicking him out of an immigration enforcement program.

Secretary Janet Napolitano said Thursday the department is ending an agreement with the Maricopa County sheriff's office that allowed trained deputies to enforce immigration laws.

It's also restricting the office's use of the Secure Communities program, which uses fingerprints collected in local jails to identify undocumented immigrants.

Napolitano's announcement came shortly after the Justice Department released a scathing report accusing Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office of committing a wide range of civil rights violations against Latinos.

The report, which includes findings from a three-year investigation by the federal agency, says the Arizona sheriff's office engaged in a pattern of racial profiling and discrimination, and carried out heavy-handed immigration patrols based on racially charged citizen complaints

The Justice Department's conclusions in the civil probe mark the federal government's harshest rebuke of a national political fixture who has risen to prominence for his immigration crackdowns and became coveted endorsement among candidates in the GOP presidential field.

Arpaio has prided himself on being as unceasingly tough on crime and pushing the bounds of how far local police can go to confront illegal immigration. He has been a hero to conservatives who prefer a tough approach to illegal immigration, and a worst-case scenario symbol for immigration advocates who oppose the trend of local officials enforcing immigration laws.

“Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s blatant disregard for the rule of law is nothing short of appalling,” said Dan Werner, deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center. “Sadly, though, the Department of Justice’s findings of serious constitutional violations are not surprising given his celebrity status among those who have been peddling and successfully passing unconstitutional anti-immigrant laws in several states.”

Apart from the civil rights probe, a federal grand jury also has been investigating Arpaio's office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009 and is specifically examining the investigative work of the sheriff's anti-public corruption squad.

The civil rights report said federal authorities will continue to investigate complaints of deputies using excessive force against Latinos, whether the sheriff's immigration efforts damage trust with the Hispanic community and a large number of sex-crimes cases that were assigned to the agency but weren't followed up on or investigated at all.

The civil rights said Latinos are four to nine times more likely to be stopped in traffic stops in Maricopa County than non-Latinos and that the agency's immigration policies treat Latinos as if they are all in the country illegally.

Arpaio, the self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America, has long denied the racial profiling allegation, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they have committed crimes and that deputies later find many of them are undocumented immigrants.

A review done as part of the investigation found that 20 percent of traffic reports handled by Arpaio's immigrant-smuggling squad from March 2006 to March 2009 were stops -- almost all involving Latino drivers -- that were done without reasonable suspicion. The squad's stops rarely led to smuggling arrests.

Meanwhile, calls for Arpaio's removal from office have grown louder in recent weeks.

On Wednesday, roughly 100 opponents of Arpaio turned out at a meeting of Maricopa County officials to urge the officials to call for his resignation amid reports of botched sex-crime investigations and other problems in his department.

Critics of Arpaio say he must be forced out for failing to adequately investigate more than 400 sex-crimes cases in the county, inappropriately spending $103 million from two jail funds over an eight-year period for other operations and leading failed corruption investigations against county officials who were at odds with the sheriff.

The Board of Supervisors didn't act on the request to put a resolution calling for Arpaio's resignation on its January agenda. The board has budgetary authority over the sheriff, but doesn't have the power to fire Arpaio, who has refused recent calls for him to quit and still plans to seek a sixth term next year.

The board's lack of power to fire Arpaio didn't stop the sheriff's critics from heaping on the criticism, nor did it stop a smaller number of Arpaio supporters from speaking up for him.

"What is your threshold for injustice?" asked Chad Snow, chairman of Citizens for a Better Arizona, a group that led the recall effort against former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce and recently launched a campaign to get other elected officials to voice their opposition to the sheriff.

Chief Deputy Sheriff Jerry Sheridan said the Arpaio critics are seeking his resignation based on misleading information about the sex-crimes cases and that the sheriff acted immediately to have 30 detectives investigate the cases after the problems surfaced.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva and two Democratic state legislators have called for Arpaio's resignation. Arpaio's re-election committee has said the calls for the sheriff's resignation are Democrats who are opposed the sheriff's immigration enforcement tactics.

Last week, U.S. Sen. John McCain and Jon Kyl said they were concerned about reports of the botched cases, though they didn't ask for the sheriff to quit. Arizona's two U.S. senators are Republicans, like Arpaio.

Linda Herrera, one of the Arpaio critics who called for his resignation, said the sheriff has been allowed to commit his abuses because elected officials haven't been able to stop him or decided to ignore him.

"We are all responsible for what is going on in Maricopa County," Herrera said.

Anna Gaines, an Arpaio supporter who launched an unsuccessful 2008 recall effort against Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, said the sheriff is responding to crimes committed by some undocumented immigrants when they come to the United States. She said undocumented immigrants steal people's identities so they can work in the United States, don't pay their share of taxes and use government benefits that are meant for U.S. citizens.

"It's not the sheriff's fault they came here illegally," Gaines said.

SOURCE






Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange

A Look at the State Department's Summer Work Travel Program

WASHINGTON (December 15, 2011) – Earlier this month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered an “extensive and thorough review” of the State Department’s troubled Summer Work Travel (SWT) program, which every year brings more than 100,000 college students from around the world to fill low-wage seasonal jobs in the United States. That followed last summer's protests by students working at a Hershey Co. warehouse in Pennsylvania that garnered worldwide attention.

Today, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) begins online publication of a four-day investigative series on the program. The report, “Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange: The $100 Million Work Travel Industry”, is based on five months of reporting by CIS senior research fellow and Pulitzer Prize-winning former journalist Jerry Kammer. It is online here

The series tells the story of the SWT program’s rapid growth over the past 15 years into a $100 million international industry that has spread around the globe. SWT is emblematic of a larger problem with the nation’s immigration system, where new programs are created and allowed to expand significantly without giving careful consideration to their impact on the labor market or the larger American society.

Also being released today is “Declining Summer Employment Among American Youths” by CIS Director of Research Steven Camarota. The report finds that fewer than half of native-born Americans ages 16 to 24 worked in the summer of 2011, down from nearly two-thirds in 2000. This decline began long before the current recession and very little of it can be ascribed to summer school or internships. Competition from foreign workers, both permanent and temporary (including through the SWT program), accounts for a significant share of this decline.

The past year has been particularly turbulent for SWT. When the State Department issued new regulations in the spring, it acknowledged that some sponsors were neglecting their duties and that the existing regulations “do not sufficiently protect national security interests, the Department’s reputation, and the health, safety and welfare of Summer Work Travel program participants.” In short, the program had been infected by many abuses, leaving some participants defrauded and allowing others to be recruited by organized crime or strip club owners.

Last summer, Stanley Colvin, the State Department official who long directed SWT and other exchange programs, was quietly replaced. Then the Hershey protest brought global notoriety to the program. In November, the State Department, which had long promoted expansion of the program around the world, announced a freeze on participants at the 2011 level of 103,000. Then came Secretary Clinton’s call for an internal investigation.

Kammer, a former investigative reporter, tells the story of the State Department’s inability to establish proper management of SWT despite years of criticism by the Government Accountability Office and State’s own Inspector General.

Here is a day-by-day preview:

TODAY: The story of SWT’s role in international diplomacy and of the intense, sophisticated, and lucrative recruitment both of the students whose fees fuel the industry and the employers who provide the jobs.

DAY TWO: The story of young Americans displaced by SWT, which uses international job fairs to line up summer workers months in advance. A second story tells of the culture clash at Hershey, where the legend of a benevolent chocolate baron met the harsh reality of SWT.

DAY THREE: The story of SWT in Alaska, where some 2,000 'cultural exchange' workers take jobs that used to be magnets for American college students, including 1969 Wellesley graduate Hillary Rodham, now overseeing SWT as Secretary of State.

DAY FOUR: The story of the State Department’s long history of mismanagement of SWT, including its indifference to its effects on American workers. Included is an interview with Rick Ruth, the State Department’s new man in charge of SWT.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Bryan Griffith, 202-466-8185, press@cis.org

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization



15 December, 2011

British businesses 'forced to hire migrants due to lack of skilled British workers'

The laziness of the English is proverbial in Australia so I have no doubt this story is true

Businesses are being ‘held back’ due to a chronic lack of ‘skilled workers’ in Britain and have to hire workers from overseas, a report reveals today.

The British Chambers of Commerce said nearly 60 per cent of businesses with more than 50 employees hire ‘some migrant workers’ because they ‘are unable to find the skilled workers they need in the UK’.

The damning verdict comes as the latest Office for National Statistics figures showed unemployment has hit a 17-year high of 2.62million.

John Longworth, director general of the BCC, said: ‘Many firms lack confidence in the ability of the education system to deliver the right people for the job. 'For some, hiring workers from overseas allows them to access the skills they need.’

These were not necessarily technical skills but some of the most basic abilities, from turning up punctually to an interview to being able to write basic English or to do the elementary maths, the BCC said.

According to ONS figures, the number of British-born workers with a job has crashed by 311,000 over the past year. But among foreign-born workers, the numbers jumped by 181,000 over the past year.

The majority of the migrant workforce of about half of businesses is from the outside the EU, the BCC said.

Mr Longworth said: ‘Business needs a migration policy for growth that allows UK firms to hire workers with the skills they need. 'This does not have to be at odds with promises to reduce net migration.’

The Department for Business said: ‘The Government is working with business to put practical skills at the heart of our education system.’

SOURCE






Australian immigration detention centre censors media reports

Soviet Russia in Australia?

IMMIGRATION Department officials will have the right to censor information gathered by journalists during a tour of the Inverbrackie detention centre today.

Strict rules have been imposed on media outlets that agreed to attend, including reporters being banned from interviewing or "engaging in any substantive communication with any detainee clients", or even moving away from their departmental tour guide.

The Advertiser will not be part of the tour because it refused to sign the department's 19-page "deed of agreement".

Every second of broadcast news segments about today's visit will be checked by Immigration Department censors, using "media content review forms" to order reporters to "pixelate, mute or delete" any material that identifies people or is not in the interests of the department.

The agreements have been controversial when used interstate and have been boycotted by some print media outlets.

But the Immigration and Citizenship Department has defended its use of the agreements as a protection of privacy for detainees and because the practical application of the deed was not heavy-handed.

It argued detainees could bolster their refugee status if media coverage of the tours in their home country identified them and put them at risk. "DIAC is willing to grant ... access to immigration detention facilities in a manner that respects the privacy of the detainee clients residing in such facilities," the deed states.

But the document also seeks to protect "the Australian Government's interests", "national interests" and the department's "responsibilities".

Newspaper Publishers' Association chief executive Mark Hollands said the deed was "appalling" because it censored final editorial content. "While access documents ... will often seek a certain behaviour or provide level of access, none that I have ever seen will demand the censoring of journalism at the end of access," Mr Mr Hollands said. "It brings shame and suspicion on the Australian Government.

"The association understands concerns that the department might have with regard to the identification of detainees and any repercussions that might have on their family and friends in their country of origin," he said. "However, the association believes media will be sympathetic to these issues."

SOURCE



14 December, 2011

Team Obama's Immigration Hypocrisy

Why is the Obama administration using its executive powers to implement a general amnesty for the vast majority of illegal aliens present in the U.S.? And why is it abusing its law enforcement power to try to prevent states from finding illegal aliens?

The Justice Department has sued Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah over their new laws that require police officers to check the immigration status of individuals arrested or detained for violations of state laws if there is a reasonable suspicion the person is unlawfully present in the United States.

On Monday, the Supreme Court has announced that it will hear challenges to the Arizona law.

Yet -- hypocrisy alert -- the State Department is doing everything it can to ensure that local law enforcement authorities determine the citizenship status of individuals they arrest in order to guarantee that foreign nationals, including illegal aliens, are notified of their right to assistance from their country’s consular officials.

Consider the lawsuit the Justice Department filed against South Carolina on Oct. 31. The complaint says that South Carolina’s requirement that the immigration status of arrested individuals be verified “will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens…It will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration and movement of aliens.”

But the Obama State Department is so concerned about providing consular access when non-citizens are arrested in the United States that it has put out a 144-page manual on “Consular Notification and Access.”

It is pretty difficult to provide arrested individuals with notification of their consular rights unless local police officers determine that they are, in fact, foreign nationals.

The State Department manual, published by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, contains detailed instructions for “Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement and Other Officials Regarding Foreign Nationals in the United States and the Rights of Consular Officials to Assist Them.” It even has a “model standard operating procedure” that it recommends be adopted by local police agencies as “a template.”

Page five of the manual lays out a flow chart for local police officers to follow when they arrest an individual. If the individual is not a U.S. citizen, it tells officers to “inform detainee, without delay, that he or she may have consulate notified of arrest/detention” (emphasis in original). In fact, in complete conflict with the Obama Justice Department’s litigation strategy against state immigration laws, the manual, in the “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) section, says that “[r]outinely asking every person arrested or detained whether he or she is a U.S. citizen is highly recommended.”

The entire manual and the model template make it very clear that the State Department believes that local law enforcement has a duty when it arrests or detains a foreign national, to “immediately or as soon as reasonably possible, and in no case longer that the end of the booking shift” to “[n]otify the nearest consulate of the foreign national’s country.” Pages 108 through 128 of the manual even provide the phone and fax numbers of foreign embassies to make it easier for local police officers to comply.

In justifying its lawsuits against the states, the Obama administration has also made public claims that state laws that authorize citizenship verification of arrestees will lead to racial or language profiling – that individuals may be treated as non-citizens just because they don’t speak English well.

However, in the FAQ section of the State Department manual, on page 13, in answer to the question of how an arresting officer may know “that someone is a foreign national,” the State Department says “unfamiliarity with English may also indicate foreign nationality.”

The State Department’s actions are in large part a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Medellin v. Texas in 2008, in which it refused to stop the execution of a Mexican national who gang-raped and murdered two girls in Texas.

Medellin, who was in the United States illegally, had not been advised of his consular access rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations when he was arrested. The Obama administration even went to the Supreme Court in June of this year to ask it (unsuccessfully) to stop the execution of another illegal Mexican national, Humberto Leal, who murdered a 16-year old girl in Texas, because he had also not been advised of his right to diplomatic counsel.

According to the State Department’s own website, the Department considers it important that state and local law enforcement comply with the Vienna Convention so that our own citizens will be provided with the same type of assistance by “U.S. consular officers” when they are abroad.

So while the State Department is doing everything it can to encourage local law enforcement officials to check the citizenship status of anyone arrested so that the U.S. can comply with treaty-provided consular access privileges, the Justice Department is suing to prevent local law enforcement officials from checking the citizenship status of anyone arrested even when they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is in the United States unlawfully.

This despite the fact that the State Department manual says on page 13 that it “is the arresting officer’s responsibility to inquire about a person’s nationality if there is any reason to believe that he or she is not a U.S. citizen.” “Any reason to believe” is a less strict standard than “reasonable suspicion.”

It’s time for the Obama administration to stop suing states and start cooperating with them, encouraging them to help the federal government find, detain and deport illegal immigrants. If it lacks the courage to do that, and it truly believes, as its litigation indicates, that authorities should not be checking the citizenship status of local lawbreakers, than the State Department should withdraw its “Consular Notification and Access” manual, and stop telling local police officers to comply with the Vienna Convention by checking the citizenship status of criminals. And it should quit asking the Supreme Court to prevent the executions of convicted murderers because local police did not identify them as foreign nationals.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

1. Secure Communities by the Numbers, Revisited (Memorandum)

2. Re-Authorizing the EB-5 Regional Center Program Promoting Job Creation and Economic Development in American Communities (Senate Testimony)

3. Visa Waiver Program Oversight Risks and Benefits of the Program (House Testimony)

4. Court: No Green Card from Abuse by Bigamous Spouse (Blog)

5. George Kennan, 2 NYT Alums, and Immigration (Blog)

6. Middle Eastern Threats Coming from South of the Border (Blog)

7. Interview with a Filmmaker on the Deportation of a Polish Illegal Immigrant (Blog)

8. Hiring Foreigners, Not Americans (Blog)

9. Social Security Inspector General, with Blinders on, Looks at H-1B Program (Blog)

10. Neither Rain Nor Snow Will Stay Amnesty Flacks from Their Appointed Rounds (Blog)

11. Another Look at the Grubby Innards of the H-1B Labor Market (Blog)

12. The 1st Immigrant Who Can Qualify for Newt's Amnesty Wins a Free Lecture on American Exceptionalism (Blog)



13 December, 2011

High court could look at state immigration laws

The Obama administration is waging a furious legal fight against a patchwork of state laws targeting illegal immigrants, and on Monday the Supreme Court has its first chance to jump into the fray.

Arizona is asking the justices to allow the state to begin enforcing measures that have been blocked by lower courts at the administration's request. Among those provisions is one that requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.

Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing Obama administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.

The Justice Department says regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states.

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

If the justices take the case, it would add another politically charged dispute between a Republican-dominated state and the Democratic administration to the court's election-year lineup. The immigration case would be heard and decided at roughly the same time as the constitutional challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. On Friday, the justices intervened in a partisan fight over redistricting in Texas. That case will be heard in January.

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."

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

But the administration argues that the various legal challenges making their way through the system provide a reason to wait and see how other courts rule.

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 Arizona's S.B. 1070. 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.

SOURCE






Illegals immigrants can exploit 'Lille loophole' to get in to UK on Eurostar



Illegal immigrants could be slipping in to Britain on the Eurostar because of a rule, known as the Lille loophole, that allows them to travel without any passport check.

Free movement rules between Belgium and France mean passengers travelling from Brussels to the Eurostar destination Lille [In Northern France] do not go through passport control.

But there is nothing to stop them staying on the train to London. Some 300 people were caught trying to do just that in the last year alone.

Full passport checks could now be introduced at St Pancras station in London, where the Eurostar service terminates.

The prospect was raised after Damian Green, the immigration minister, admitted the Government was powerless to close the so-called “Lille loophole” in Brussels without agreement with Belgium.

In an added farce, immigration officers in Brussels have reportedly been threatened with arrest after challenging suspect passengers to Lille.

It comes as the Home Office is still reeling from the scandal that some border checks had been scrapped at airports and ports against the wishes of ministers.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said he was “astonished” by the “most unsatisfactory” situation, adding: “If a simple railway ticket can give you entry into the UK, this is a cause for real concern.”

The loophole centres on the Schengen agreement signed between a number of European countries, including France and Belgium, which allows people to cross borders without passport checks.

The UK is not in the agreement can therefore check the passports of passengers travelling here.

As a result there are two gates for Eurostar trains in Brussels, one for those going to Lille, which does not have passport checks, and one for the UK, which does.

It means an individual could buy two tickets and then pass through the Lille gate but stay on the train to London without having their passport examined.

In evidence to the home affair committee, Jonathan Sedgwick, international group director of the UK Border Agency, admitted: “It is perfectly possible that people in some circumstances can get through.”

He said in the last year 140 people had been removed from the train at Lille and 160 had been stopped at St Pancras.

In June, an illegal immigrant was arrested after stepping off a Eurostar train carrying Theresa May, the Home Secretary, who was returning from inspecting border controls in Calais.

The Moroccan man, believed to be in his twenties, was held after UK Border Agency officers made a "sweep" of the train as Mrs May returned to London.

Sporadic passport checks are carried out at St Pancras but Mr Sedgwick signalled they could now become the norm. Asked if they were to be stepped up here, he said: “We intend to introduce tighter controls overall, yes.”

The move may be the only way to close the gap after Mr Green said rules around Schengen meant changes in Brussels could only be made with negotiation. He said: “It's one of those things that the British Government can't solve on its own ... that has to be solved in negotiations and that's what we're now doing.

"There are strict British immigration controls in place in France and Belgium and we have UK Border Agency officers based at St Pancras to target those we believe are intent on entering Britain illegally. "We are currently working closely with our Belgian counterparts and Eurostar to resolve this as quickly as possible."

Border force staff have also been threatened with arrest by the Belgian police for trying to close the loophole, emails seen by BBC Radio 4’s The Report programme showed. One officer, who tried to question two people suspected of trying to take advantage of the loophole, was told by Belgian police: "This has got to stop, you are not in Britain now, you are in Schengen. If they make a complaint, you will be arrested."

Another UKBA officer warned that staff were so scared of being arrested by the Belgian police that they "will now turn a blind eye to potential Lille loopholers".

SOURCE



12 December, 2011

Vermont: State, local policies emerge on illegal immigrants

The two Mexican farmworkers were nervous. Seated in a pickup truck whose driver had been stopped for speeding on a Vermont highway, they didn't know what to expect from the state trooper.

They'd heard of other farmworkers being detained or deported in the largely white state, whose $560 million dairy industry relies on Mexican farmhands like them. But one of the men also had been in a similar stop in New York and didn't get bothered.

They had no idea their detention by police and Border Patrol would prompt a protest by activists at the state police barracks, or the outpouring of support they've gotten with people offering them housing and help. The stop would lead Vermont's governor to change the state police policy on dealing with suspected illegal immigrants, making it one of the most restrictive on police in the nation, according to one policy expert who supports tougher immigration laws.

The combination of more illegal immigrants moving beyond the border states to follow jobs and a lack of federal immigration reform has some states and communities coming up with their own enforcement policies -- written or not.

They range from crackdowns to a hands-off approach where police are prohibited from asking about immigration status.

"Almost every community is like a border state because illegal immigrants are so much more mobile than they used to be. They go where the jobs are. They spread out across the country," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for tougher immigration laws.

The immigrants settle not in traditional urban areas but in places like Iowa, Missouri, east Washington state and Vermont, she said. "It has to do with where the jobs are where the recruiters are for these jobs," she said.

Under policy revisions made since the arrest, the Vermont State Police will not ask an individual about his or her immigration status when investigating a civil violation -- mainly a traffic stop -- but can ask about it in investigations of criminal offenses or suspicious activity in certain cases.

The changes were made to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all individuals in Vermont, said Vermont Public Safety Director Keith Flynn.

But troopers cannot launch a criminal investigation only because they suspect a person is in the country illegally.

If they respond to a 911 call about a domestic assault, for example, and see that a woman has been beaten up, they would do all they could to identify the suspected offender except ask about immigration status because it would not be relevant, said Stephanie Dasaro, state police spokeswoman. They could ask about it after an arrest has been made.

But if troopers were looking into a case of human trafficking in which immigration is relevant, they could ask about immigration status, she said.

The Massachusetts State Police have a similar policy, while states like Arizona and Alabama are taking immigration enforcement into their own hands, with tough new laws.

The Alabama law, considered the toughest in the country, requires police to detain people who can't prove they are in the country legally and prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving government services.

In Arizona, a federal judge has blocked enforcement of a portion of the state's 2010 immigration enforcement law that required police, while enforcing other laws, to question people's immigration status if officers suspect they are in the country illegally.

The laws have prompted protests and boycotts and legal challenges. Critics say they will lead to racial profiling.

States or communities that don't enforce immigration laws say they don't want local law enforcement tied up doing the work of the federal government. Advocates say it could also make communities less safe by deterring immigrants from reporting crimes out of fear of deportation.

"Local governments would prefer that it just be a federal issue that they don't have to come up with policies," said Sarahi Uribe, national campaign coordinator for the National Day Laborers Organizing Network.

But, she added, "the reality is that they just have no choice because immigration reform is not happening anytime soon."

Vermont's change comes as the federal government demands that states participate in a federal program aimed at identifying and deporting illegal immigrants.

Under the Secure Communities program, state and local law enforcement are required to send criminal suspects' fingerprints to the FBI, where they are run through a database to determine the person's immigration status. The Department of Homeland Security says it's an information sharing program that is focused on criminal offenders.

A handful of states, including Massachusetts and Illinois, have defied the federal mandate to participate, saying they should not be required to enforce federal laws.

Vaughan calls Vermont's state police policy one of the most restrictive on police in the country. "Because most law enforcement professionals would not want to restrict what their officers can and cannot do that broadly. That's definitely a minority," she said.

One of the men in Vermont who was found by Border Patrol to have been in this country illegally has voluntarily returned to Mexico. The other faces an immigration hearing in Boston. His lawyer did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Supporters of Vermont's new policy hope it will be adopted by local police and other states.

"If Arizona is going to go in one direction and Alabama in one direction, then our work really matters. You know if we're able to create a more just and sort of humane response to a sort of broken immigration system here, then it can have ripple effects," said Brendan O'Neill of the VT Migrant Farmworker Solidarity Project.

SOURCE





More boats ahead, Australia's Immigration department warns

Immigration Department secretary Andrew Metcalfe agreed it was "possible" 3600 boatpeople could be intercepted in the next six months. Picture: Ray Strange Source: News Limited
MORE than 3600 asylum-seekers could arrive in Australian waters in the next six months unless there are changes to border protection laws, Immigration Department secretary Andrew Metcalfe has warned.

As the 64th boat to arrive this year was intercepted in Australian waters yesterday, Mr Metcalfe told a parliamentary committee the flow of boats would not slow any time soon.

Under questioning from opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison, Mr Metcalfe agreed it was "possible" 3600 boatpeople could be intercepted in the next six months.

"I think we should expect a significant number of arrivals," Mr Metcalfe said.

He said the department remained concerned about overcrowding in immigration detention centres and was working on keeping detainee numbers down to prevent more riots.

The evidence came as the seventh boat in nine days was intercepted by Customs, carrying 49 people and three crew.


The arrival takes the total number of boatpeople to reach Australian waters this year to 4115.

Mr Metcalfe had previously warned the rejection of the government's Malaysia Solution could lead to 600 asylum-seekers making their way to Australia each month.

He told the committee into Australia's Immigration Detention Network yesterday that the recent High Court overturning of the Malaysia deal and its move to allow asylum-seekers appeal rights in court had "effectively unwound legislation" put in place in 2001.

Under the deal Australia was to send 800 boatpeople to Kuala Lumpur in exchange for 4000 processed refugees.

First assistant secretary Greg Kelly told the hearing the department was working at getting new arrivals off Christmas Island and into mainland detention centres within two weeks of arrival to prevent overcrowding.

"That is our aspirational target," Mr Kelly said.

"Obviously it depends on the weather conditions, the availability of charter flights and any other things dependent on ensuring detainees are safe to travel."

As of last night there were more than 1300 asylum-seekers on Christmas Island, with most of the more than 300 asylum-seekers to arrive this week yet to be on the island.

The latest asylum-seeker boat was picked up yesterday by HMAS Larrakia, northwest of the Ashmore Islands.

Customs said the passengers would be transferred to Christmas Island, where they would undergo initial security, health and identity checks.

Tony Abbott said yesterday Australia's border protection system was in crisis.

"The Prime Minister has effectively given up," he said. "She talks about offshore processing but she practises onshore release. The government's policy is Bob Brown's policy -- let people come, put out the welcome mat to the people-smugglers."

The Opposition Leader said the push to release more asylum-seekers into the community on bridging visas would only encourage more to come. "Handing out bridging visas, they might as well have a bridge between Indonesia and Australia," he said.

SOURCE



11 December, 2011

Initiative would give California illegal immigrants safe harbor

Nearly a million undocumented immigrants could live and work openly in California with little or no fear of deportation under an initiative unveiled Friday by a state legislator and others.

Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, D-Sylmar, is helping to spearhead the measure, called the California Opportunity and Prosperity Act.

The proposal was filed Friday with the state attorney general's office, marking a first step toward a drive to collect the 504,760 voter signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

Fuentes called the measure a "moderate, common-sense approach" necessitated by the federal government's inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform. "I hope this shows Washington, D.C., that if they fail to act, California will take the lead on this critical issue," Fuentes said in a written statement.

Supporters say the initiative could generate up to $325 million in new tax revenue from undocumented workers.

Regardless of whether Californians would support such a measure, implementation would depend upon the federal government agreeing not to prosecute participants at the state's request.

Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, blasted the proposal as an attempt to sidestep immigration law. He predicted that it wouldn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of winning voter approval.

"There's a proper process for coming to this country," Donnelly said of undocumented immigrants. "Why don't you respect that?"

The proposed initiative would apply to illegal immigrants who have lived in California for four years, have no felony convictions, are not suspected terrorists, pay a fee to administer the program, and can speak English or are learning it.

Since federal law makes it illegal to hire an undocumented immigrant, the program calls for the state to seek exceptions from the federal government that would provide a "safe harbor" for participants and people who hire them.

As job opportunities improve for the undocumented immigrants, so will California's tax coffers, proponents say. Supporters touted the measure as continuing California's tradition of enacting trailblazing policy in areas ranging from environmental protection to medicinal marijuana.

John Cruz, a proponent of the measure and former appointments secretary for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said it makes sense to allow undocumented, longtime California residents to "fully contribute to society by becoming taxpayers as well."

Donnelly countered that the federal government is not likely to carve out exceptions for a select group of illegal immigrants.

"It essentially asks the federal government not to enforce the law," Donnelly said.

The campaign has enlisted Mike Madrid, former California Republican Party official, to help lead the effort. Madrid said a campaign committee would be formed next week to begin soliciting donations.

SOURCE




Christmas rush of illegal immigrant boats expected in Australia

EIGHT boatloads of asylum seekers have sailed into Australian waters in as many days, as Immigration Department Secretary Andrew Metcalfe warned of a possible influx unless border protection laws were changed.

Mr Metcalfe said up to 3600 asylum seekers could arrive within six months and the flow of boats would not be stopped in the foreseeable future.

"There's no indication that I see that would show that the current high rate of arrivals is going to significantly decrease or increase," Mr Metcalfe said. "We seem to be back at a fairly steady state again."

The warning came days after the largest boatload of asylum seekers since Julia Gillard took over as Prime Minister arrived, with almost 170 people crammed on board.

Yesterday also marked the eighth arrival in eight days, when the Navy intercepted a boat with 49 asylum seekers.

Mr Metcalfe was quizzed by shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison and admitted it was "possible" 3600 asylum seekers could arrive within six months.

He previously said the failure of the Government's Malaysia solution could see 600 asylum seekers a month, but the rejection of the scheme to process asylum seekers in Malaysia had "effectively unwound" legislation from the Howard era.

"In the absence of any effective legislation we could expect to see numbers return to where they were last year and that's been proven to be correct," he said.

There are now more than 5500 people in either detention centres or in community detention. There are 1300 asylum seekers on Christmas Island and a quarter of detainees are housed in the community.

Assistant Secretary Greg Kelly said the department had a two-week target to get detainees off Christmas Island and into mainland centres.

"Obviously it depends on the weather conditions, the availability of charter flights and on ensuring detainees are safe to travel," he said.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said Australia's border protection system was in crisis. "The Prime Minister has effectively given up," he said. "She talks about offshore processing but she practises onshore release. The Government's policy is Bob Brown's policy: let people come, put out the welcome mat to the people-smugglers."

SOURCE



10 December, 2011

Quarter of asylum seekers in Australia moved to communities

In other words they are not detained at all. They are home free

About a quarter of immigration detainees who have arrived by boat are now being housed in the community, a parliamentary inquiry has heard.

Immigration Department secretary Andrew Metcalfe has given an update on the figures at an inquiry hearing in Canberra. He told the Joint Select Committee that around 800 asylum seekers have been approved for community detention since August.

Mr Metcalfe says in the past month the detention population has steadily increased to more than 5,500 people. "The large numbers of arrivals continue to place strain on the detention network," he said.

"We all understand the potential consequences of a return to an overcrowded and pressured detention network and you can be assured that the Department is doing all we can to avoid that."

A boat carrying more than 160 asylum seekers was intercepted off Christmas Island on Tuesday.

Mr Metcalfe estimates it will cost close to $1 million to respond to the detention network inquiry. The inquiry started in June and is due to report back by March next year.

Mr Metcalfe says his Department has made detailed submissions to the inquiry. "We've responded either in hearings or on notice to over 1,100 questions from the Committee, provided over 4,000 pages of written material and some 26 departmental employees have been made available as witnesses," he said.

"The total direct cost to the Department responding to and supporting the Committee is projected to be in excess of $970,000 by the end of this financial year."

SOURCE






Report Challenges Attack on Secure Communities

Allegations of Wrongful Arrests of U.S. Citizens Are False

A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies examines the outcomes of ICE’s Secure Communities program and how those outcomes have been misleadingly described in one widely circulated study published by the Warren Institute at the University of California, Berkeley Law School. The CIS report, first in a three-part series examining the Warren Institute's analysis, is based on the same database used by the Institute of actual case histories provided by ICE in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The groups that first obtained the ICE records have claimed that they reveal a disturbing pattern of abuse of authority by ICE, including wrongful arrests of thousands of U.S. citizens, a pattern of racial profiling against Latinos, and denial of due process for aliens in removal proceedings. These allegations have been uncritically passed on by major news media outlets and repeated by members of Congress. While the ICE database does provide an interesting and relatively rare snapshot of the actual Secure Communities caseload, we found that the records did not support any of the allegations of ICE abuse of authority.

Our first set of findings, online here, addresses the issue of wrongful U.S. citizen arrests:

* The database contains no records of U.S. citizens who were detained by or for ICE. It is impossible to assert based on this data, as the critics have, that thousands of U.S. citizens, or any number of U.S. citizens, have been arrested by ICE through Secure Communities.

* The Warren Institute report contains serious methodological and interpretive errors that lead its authors to unsubstantiated conclusions and cast doubt on the credibility of the entire analysis. For example, the authors analyzed only 23 percent of the original random sample requested from ICE.

* ICE’s failure to counter the report’s misleading statements is contributing to the spread of misconceptions about Secure Communities among the media, state and local leaders, and the public. This raises doubts as to the agency leaders’ commitment to full and effective implementation of the program.

* We agree with the Warren Institute authors on the issue of the need for improved transparency at ICE and its parent Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contacts: Jessica Vaughan, jmv@cis.org, (508) 346-3380 or Bryan Griffith, press@cis.org, (202) 630-6533. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization



9 December, 2011

Obama’s Christmas list rewards illegals

President’s policies favor border-jumpers over unemployed Americans

This holiday season, it seems President Obama is making a list and checking twice to find out who’s been naughty and nice. But unlike Santa’s list, Mr. Obama’s list is not based on merit. The president and administration officials are determined to make their own list that rewards lawbreakers and penalizes American workers.

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States and about 7 million of them work here illegally. At the same time, 23 million Americans are unemployed or cannot find full-time work. Jobs should be protected for legal workers.But the Obama administration places illegal immigrants ahead of the interests of American workers.

For example, last Christmas the Obama administration and then-Democrat-controlled Congress pushed for the enactment of the Dream Act. This bill is essentially a gift-wrapped jobs package for illegal immigrants. The Dream Act would prevent Americans from getting jobs since millions of illegal immigrants would have become eligible to work legally in the United States.

Under some Dream Act proposals, amnesty would be given to individuals under the age of 30 who supposedly were brought to the United States as children, though the government does not have the resources to check. This means an estimated 2 million illegal immigrants would be eligible for amnesty, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

The Dream Act penalizes American workers and forces them to compete with illegal immigrants for scarce jobs. It also encourages more illegal immigration and is a magnet for fraud. Fortunately, the Dream Act faced bipartisan opposition and was defeated. But this has not stopped the Obama administration from giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Recently, political appointees at the Department of Homeland Security issued new deportation guidelines that amount to backdoor amnesty and strike another blow at the 14 million unemployed U.S. workers.

This stocking stuffer could allow illegal immigrants to receive work authorization and could put even more U.S. citizens on the unemployment rolls. In fact, when illegal immigrants are allowed to stay in the United States and apply for work authorization, the Obama administration grants it 90 percent of the time.

Christmas has also come early for illegal immigrants through the Obama administration’s inaction. Under this administration, work site enforcement has plummeted 70 percent. This means there have been fewer arrests of illegal workers, fewer criminal arrests, fewer indictments and fewer convictions.

Without work site enforcement, we can’t stop employers from hiring illegal workers. If we don’t stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants, we can’t put a stop to the jobs magnet. And as long as the jobs magnet exists, millions of illegal immigrants will come to the U.S. and take jobs from lawful workers.

The Obama administration also hurts American workers by suing states that seek to enforce immigration laws instead of focusing on their duty to carry out all of our laws. In fact, the administration has sued Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah for their laws designed to reduce illegal immigration and protect American workers.

But at the same time, the Obama administration looks the other way when states and localities undermine federal immigration laws. The administration has ignored efforts by Illinois, Massachusetts and New York to stop participating in Secure Communities. This common-sense program keeps our neighborhoods safe by identifying illegal and criminal immigrants in police custody who have been arrested and fingerprinted. The administration also has refused to penalize sanctuary cities that blatantly defy federal immigration laws.

Mr. Obama and his administration are on the wrong side of the American people. According to a recent poll, two-thirds of the American people want to see immigration laws enforced.

This holiday season, Mr. Obama should give American workers the gift they want. He could give unemployed American workers an opportunity to go back to work if he simply enforced all immigration laws. But it seems he is determined to reward illegal immigrants instead.

SOURCE





Immigration Revisited

Armstrong Williams

Is it possible to be pro-immigration in this country and still support the principles of the State of Alabama’s immigration laws, dubbed some of the strictest in the nation? Absolutely. Sound paradoxical?

Not at all.

Being pro-immigration shouldn’t mean that you are an advocate of illegal immigration. It just means that you are sympathetic to the needs, dreams, and goals of those who come to our country to make better lives for themselves and their families. Try looking at it from their perspective, imagine if all you were trying to do was make a better life for you and your family? You too would do whatever it takes to make that a reality, and that’s all they wish to achieve. People can have these dreams and come into our country the right way, coming up with solutions to stop or slow the influx of illegal’s will help allay the belief that illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs and degrading our society.

Yes, the state’s laws are tough and in some cases, questionable, as in one provision that requires students to document their immigration status before enrolling in school. The fact that less than 10 percent of Hispanics failed to do so in recent weeks shouldn’t come as any surprise, if you believe that close to 10 percent of Alabama’s Hispanic population is here illegally. I don’t know the exact number in the state, but it’s not as if no one of Hispanic origin showed to school that day.

I hate to continue laying America’s toughest social problems – the economy, moral compass, immigration, etc. – at the feet of this president and Congress, but it’s their fault.

Alabama’s laws are based on a simple principle: If you’re in the state in such a manner that wantonly violates the laws of the land, then they’re going to do what the Feds are unwilling to do – step up and call you out. If you don’t like the current immigration policies, then change the law! Don’t just complain about more responsible governments like Alabama’s who step up and actually enforce the laws on the books. And listen, there is a role here for pro-immigration groups, both Hispanic and non – to play. It’s in everyone’s best interests to step up and clean up the immigration policies of the United States. Let’s end the confusion and the suspicious glances. Let’s end the mindless accusations such as one Alabama lawmaker, when he said he sponsored the bill because, “They were coming in here like thieves in the night and taking our jobs and tax revenue.” That’s a little over the top. Immigration violators are deserving of justice, not hatred. And when one slams into the other, problems arise.

Congress and the president have a responsibility to address this issue, not bat it around every two or four years to score political points. Easier said than done? It shouldn’t be. Just look at states such as Arizona, South Carolina, Utah and Georgia.

South Carolina is requiring all employers to register new hires with the Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system within three days of their employment or risk suspension, or revocation, of their business licenses. Arizona passed a bill making it a misdemeanor for an alien to be in the state without carrying the required documents while also requiring residency status to be checked for any legal violation, misdemeanor or otherwise. Utah’s laws were to be much more comprehensive and sympathetic. Under Utah’s laws undocumented non-criminal immigrants that were working would receive documents making them legal residents, police would only be required to check immigration status for felonies and serious misdemeanors, and illegal immigrants working before May of 2011 could obtain residency documents if they passed a background check and paid a fine up to $2500. Georgia also tried to pass a comprehensive, though significantly less sympathetic, set of laws that did nothing but thoroughly confuse the many employers in the state, and confusion does nothing but to lead to more problems.

Alabama isn’t even a border state, they just know the effect of illegal immigrants on their state and on their bottom line, and they’re just tired of waiting for the Feds to act. Aren’t we all?

SOURCE



8 December, 2011

Riding in the Desert: Child Sexual Exploitation, Drug Running, Human Smuggling and Violence

This week I was privileged to participate in a ride along with the Arizona Pinal County Sheriff’s Office and got a first hand look at what deputies are dealing with on a daily basis. Although we didn’t get into any major cartel chases during my time with them, the education I received about a number of border issues was eye opening.

I started off the day by driving to Florence, Ariz. where the Pinal County Sheriff’s headquarters is located. I met with Chief James Kimble and he gave me a tour of the adult detention center. He explained to me that the Department of Homeland Security uses this particular detention center to house illegal aliens on a contract basis. According to Kimbell, illegal alien inmates are in the detention center on average 28-32 days, but some stay longer based on certain criteria. The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office doesn’t conduct any activity outside of arrest and detention for illegals, the rest is handled by I.C.E. including classification and making a decision to deport.

Illegal aliens are classified three ways by I.C.E.:

Level 1: Crime-illegal entry
Level 2: Dangerous with criminal record but not repetitive
Level 3: Dangerous with a repetitive criminal record

Let’s just say taxpayers are shelling out a good amount of money to keep these guys in the system and to determine whether they should or should not be deported.

(Side note: The United States cannot deport an illegal alien back to their country of origin unless the U.S. has a treaty with that country. If a person is in the United States illegally from a country like Somalia, a country which the U.S. doesn’t have a treaty with, I.C.E. must either let that person stay in the U.S. or find a country that will take them. )

After touring the detention center, I met up with Lieutenant Matthew Thomas who is a member of the Pinal County SWAT team. Thomas gave me a ride to my car in the parking lot so I could follow him to the city of Casa Grande, which is a hot spot for cartel activity.

I hopped in his unmarked dusty Chevy SUV and one of the first things he said was, “Sorry about the mess, this is my real office.”

To which I responded, “Quite the office! I’ll take it.”

Thomas’s “office” was similar to a typical police car, but way better. He had an AR-15 style long gun rifle in a rack on the roof just behind the driver and passenger seats, with a multi-frequency radio in the front.

After I followed Thomas from Florence to Casa Grande, I parked at the Border Patrol station there, hopped in his office and we were off. We started down Interstate 8, which runs east to Interstate 10 and west all the way to California, making it the perfect freeway for drug runners to get their dope into Phoenix, and then to mass distribute to the rest of the United States. I-8 is about 30 minutes south of Phoenix by way of I-10. The cities near this intersection, which used to be predominantly ranching and farming communities, are Casa Grande, Arizona City, Maricopa, Hidden Valley, Eloy and Stanfield. Now, although some farms still exist, this area is inundated with cartel activity. The bad guys, members of the Sinaloa cartel, live in these communities, run stash houses and have turned access roads, literally right next to farms that have been in operation for decades, into major smuggling routes. Thomas called this the “city problem.”

Nearby is the infamous Vekol Valley, the largest hot bed of drug and human smuggling in the United States and where a Pinal County Deputy was shot in April 2010. Vekol is surrounded by nasty mountain ranges on both sides. There is wide-open desert starting from mile marker 160 on I-8 and stretching all the way to Mexico. Because of the terrain, Vekol acts as a funnel. As we drove into the area, I could feel that it just wasn’t a safe place to be.

Cartels also take advantage of the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation on the west side of Vekol Valley. They use it as an entry point, marry into Indian families so they can live on the reservation and if a village is small enough, cartel members will simply walk in and take property to use for smuggling activity, threatening death if confronted.

While we were driving near Vekol, Thomas explained the “terrain” problem to me after pulling off the side of the road to show me the “Travel Caution: Smuggling and Illegal Immigration May Be Encountered in This Area,” sign provided by Homeland Security. (Remember, according to Janet Napolitano, the border is secure) He said the cartels have a vast intelligence network. Men know as “spotters,” sit up on the top of hills and mountains with cell phones and radios, calling drug running crews in the U.S. and Mexico about where Sheriff vehicles are located and where Border Patrol is cruising. As soon as Thomas shows up on patrol, most of the time the cartels are watching and know exactly where he is. For the spotters, failing to identify where U.S. authorities are located can result in a beating or even death. If a spotter calls into the boss in Mexico or down the road, says that they are clear to come through with a load, but then the authorities show up and seize the load, that spotter pays the price for the loss.

But these cartels aren’t just targeting Border Patrol. U.S. citizens travelling along I-8 who stop for a restroom break, often find themselves car jacked right off the road. The area can’t be used for camping, hiking or hunting as it used to be because the area is dangerous and drug and human smugglers are carrying high-powered weapons like AK-47s.

“If you see too much you may get killed out here because they [cartel members] don’t want witnesses,” Thomas said.

Throughout the day, Thomas stressed to me the issues the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office deals with on a daily basis are so much more than just an illegal immigration problem or an illegal drug problem. They’re dealing with the Sinaloa Cartel, a large and very complex organization.

Over the past three years, Thomas has seen cartel members become increasingly defiant to U.S. law enforcement agents. Smugglers have become bolder, more brazen; they’re running more drugs and have no regard for obeying or submitting to authority. Thomas used to be able to tell a group of illegal aliens to sit down and they would obey, but now they just run. Pursuits used to be occasional, but now they happen on a daily basis if not more than once a day, endangering the public. Deputies are also finding more high-powered weapons.

In Mexico, cartel members have no problem using roadside IEDs, killing women, killing children, peeling off peoples’ skin while they are still alive or beheading people while they are still alive so long as their dope arrives on time. Thomas describes them as sociopaths and narco-terrorists.

“These guys are ready for a confrontation,” Thomas said. “They have no issue directing violence toward law enforcement.”

On top of the cartel, Thomas has to deal with rip crews, groups of men who steal human and drug loads from the cartel in order to make a buck for free. For example, the Sinaloa cartel is smuggling both humans and drugs in the Vekol Valley on a daily basis, which deputies are combating. Then, deputies have to worry about rip crews coming in to the scene to steal human and drug loads, which often occur violently with shootings, rapes, robberies and extortions.

An aspect of the cartel business that is often overlooked is sexual exploitation. Sexual exploitation of both women and children is occurring at an alarming level.

Thomas said sexual predators in the U.S. will order children from Mexico through cartels; cartels then send those children along with a drug run through the desert after payment and deliver that child to their new owner for sexual use.

“They [Americans] don’t understand how much activity is going on,” Thomas said.

Cartel activity in Vekol Valley has also taken a huge toll on the environment. Smugglers are constantly creating new trails and driving all over the desert to avoid U.S. authorities. The Arizona Game and Fish Department reported 14 tons of trash were hauled out of the area last year. Wildlife habit and water tanks have been destroyed.

So what is the solution to these problems?

According to Chief Kimble and Lieutenant Thomas: Secure the border, build a double layer fence with a paved road in between and enforce the law. You can’t begin to heal if you don’t stop the bleeding.

“This is not just an Arizona issue, it’s a country issue,” Kimble said.

Logistically, Thomas says the cartels have the upper hand. They have more men, more money, bigger weapons and more time. When the public sees a single big bust on the news, that's just one of many drug loads coming across the border everday. Once the Sheriff’s Department targets a specific area, smugglers move to another area; deputies follow, smugglers move again. The fence has been built, completed and is working in the Yuma Sector of the border, but not the Tucson sector, where Pinal County is located.

“The problem has been solved in other areas,” Thomas said.

Thomas and Kimble also made it clear border security is national security, and that with a porous border, bad people, including terrorsts like the ones who attacks us on 9/11, have easy access to the United States.

"We're screaming that something bad is going to happen," Thomas said.

SOURCE





British police cross-check just one in seven foreign criminals' records, even after they are arrested in the UK

Police are failing to check the criminal histories of tens of thousands of foreign offenders – even after they are arrested in the UK. Officers request details from a suspect’s home country in just one in seven investigations involving EU nationals, according to a Home Office review.

And each year, around 30,000 foreign offenders who pass through the courts do so without anyone knowing the full extent of their criminal past. Judges are therefore unaware if the offender they are sentencing is a convicted rapist, murderer or paedophile – or someone with no criminal history at all.

In the worst cases, it could mean the alert is not sounded when dangerous offenders wanted on the continent are picked up in Britain.

Without information on their criminal past, an offender could face a much shorter sentence, be bailed even though they present a threat to the public or escape deportation.

Details of the way officers are failing to carry out even basic checks emerged in a Home Office review of criminal records systems. Sunita Mason, the independent advisor on criminal records in England and Wales, said: ‘It is clear that we should be making such checks routinely when EU nationals are arrested and charged. ‘Even minor offending in the UK might lead to the disclosure of much more serious offending overseas.’

Under EU data-sharing rules, officers can ask to see the records of any EU nationals they arrest. Of the 35,000 EU nationals charged with criminal offences in England and Wales last year, checks were ordered on just 5,500. A similar proportion – 15 per cent – of the EU nationals arrested in this country had their criminal histories explored.

Astonishingly, police may not even be aware they can request the records, the report found. Miss Mason also warned funding for the UK body which handles requests to foreign forces is in doubt. She said: ‘To not address this issue is a potentially huge public protection risk.’

The same report showed EU countries alerted the UK to 20,000 Britons convicted of crimes overseas. That includes 450 Britons convicted of serious violent or sexual offences and 276 criminals who committed offences against children. Just 37 were already known to the UK authorities.

The Association of Chief Police Officers said many offenders refused to say where they were from or lied about their nationality, making it difficult for officers to find out about their past.

The ‘free movement’ directive means it is virtually impossible to stop EU citizens with criminal convictions from entering Britain. Even in cases where officials are aware of serious convictions, criminals cannot automatically be turned away.

Regulations say they can be barred to maintain public security, but ‘convictions in themselves do not constitute grounds for taking such measures’. In reality, they allow all but the very worst criminals free access to the UK.

Just two weeks ago a Latvian axe-killer was jailed after running down an innocent woman while drink-driving. Police had no idea Intars Pless, 34, was a convicted murderer and living in the UK until February this year when he ran his car straight into moped rider Valentina Planciunene, who died on the road.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘It is an operational matter for police to decide when to request information on foreign nationals. ‘The UK worked hard to implement an EU-wide agreement to share this information – but we know all countries do not currently comply fully. ‘That is why it is important that the new European legislation implemented next spring will require member-states to share this information.’

SOURCE



7 December, 2011

Too Big to Assimilate

In the most recent GOP Presidential debate on foreign policy, immigration policy created the biggest hubbub. The Republican candidates, now in their 11th debate, failed to properly clarify and scrutinize America’s immigration dilemma. To the overwhelming majority of Republicans as well as the majority of Americans, both parties have failed on the crisis of immigration reform. The doctrine of both parties professed that Wall Street was too big to fail, yet neither party is willing to forfeit praise to the elitists’ golden calf of diversity and admit that our immigration policy - both legal and illegal - is now too big to assimilate.

In the same asinine fashion that the GOP has donned on itself for a quarter of a century, Republican candidates berated the American people on why more immigration is always good, as long as it’s legal. In typical style of someone who’s been fooled more than once, Newt Gingrich, who voted for amnesty back in 1986 after promises of border control and workplace enforcement never materialized, harangued viewers that it is impossible to deport millions of illegal aliens. Gingrich stated that an illegal alien should be allowed to stay if he “pays taxes, has three children and two grandchildren and belongs to a church…”. It is ironic that Gingrich gives conservative WASP attributes of a small church-going family that pays taxes to millions of illegal immigrants who have broken into the country and through abuse of the welfare policy has ransacked billions of dollars in taxpayer assistance for education, healthcare, food, and living assistance. In the real world, the average illegal alien that has three children and two grandchildren is under 50 years of age, has avoided most taxes, and received hundreds of thousands of dollars in public education and welfare benefits. The church they belong to preaches asylum for millions of law breakers as does the US Catholic Bishops Conference and if had the power of the vote would almost surely be a Democrat.

Back in Gingrich’s home state of Georgia, Governor Nathan Deal had an illegal alien crisis. More than 425,000 illegal aliens resided in the state, a 123% increase from 2000 to 2006, at a cost of $2.4 billion annually according to Federation for American Immigration Reform. Governor Deal, unlike most Washington politicians, took the issue head on by signing into law HB87, “The Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Reform Act.” The law amongst other provisions mandates E-Verify to all Georgia businesses, has a stricter punishment for people who fake identification to get a job, new ID regulations in order to obtain welfare, and punishes businesses who knowingly hire illegals with a $10,000 fine. The result of this new tough enforcement has been that many illegal aliens have self-deported either back to their native country or to states that offer better safe havens. This may result in hundreds of millions of dollars saved for taxpayers per year in welfare and education costs saved to the taxpayers. Some call such laws effective, but Republican candidates call them heartless, as did Rick Perry when defending his decision to give in-state college tuition to illegal aliens in Texas.

None of the candidates on the stage in last week’s debate has been more tone deaf to the political realities of our immigration problem than Mitt Romney. Henceforth Governor Romney stated, “This is a party that loves legal immigration.” Governor Romney and most of the other GOP candidates for President may love legal immigration, especially for their business allies who depend on cheap labor, but legal immigration does not love the GOP. Between 1980 and 2008, Los Angeles County, the nation’s largest, had its immigrant share of the population increase from 22% to 41%. The Republican share of the votes fell from 50% to 29%. In Cook County, Chicago, the nation’s second largest county, the immigrant share of the population has doubled while the GOP share of the votes fell from 40% to 23%. In Manhattan, New York the immigrant share grew by 10% to 34% total from 1980 to 2008, but the GOP share of the vote fell from 26% to just 13.5%. The same is true for states like Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia which has seen a diminishing state GOP as the immigrant population aggrandized. If these trends hold true, which they have for three decades and Mitt Romney is the GOP candidate for President, every state will start to be as blue as the Governor’s home state of Massachusetts. But don’t expect Romney to go soft on supporting diversity and mass immigration; to paraphrase the governor, he can’t afford to because he’s “running for president for crying out loud.”

The issue of immigration goes far beyond the GOP. According to Gallup, a plurality of Americans and at times a majority have favored reducing the amount of legal immigration since 1987. Most recently in 2011, 43% of Americans said we should reduce the amount of legal immigration while only 18% said we should increase legal immigration. It calls into question, then, why almost all GOP candidates for president have declared that we need to make immigration easier and take in more immigrants. It might pay for a Republican to take note from the Bill Clinton playbook and at least say that until unemployment goes down we need to make immigration “safe, rare, and legal.”

When the citizens have had to vote on issues of immigration, they have mostly stood pro-enforcement. From Proposition 187 in California to voting for the re-election of Governor Jan Brewer who saw her poll numbers increase from 42% to 56% after signing SB 1070 into law. SB 1070, which was tepidly accepted by some Republicans and rejected by almost all Democrats, has been responsible for 100,000 illegal immigrants leaving Arizona in the two months that followed the bill’s passage. The Mexican government acknowledged the massive migration, in the month that followed SB 1070 becoming law, the Mexican government stated 23,000 illegal aliens returned home from Arizona. SB1070 while scorned by the political class was supported overwhelmingly by both the people of Arizona and Americans as a whole.

All GOP candidates are missing one vital element to modern immigration, that being assimilation. Assimilation is the process that took nearly 12 million German, Italian and Irish immigrants from 1865 to 1924 and turned them into the greatest generation of Americans. This process is lost today; immigrants are encouraged to keep their heritage, language, faiths, and tribal laws. Discrimination against women, anti-American bigotry, hatred of “old white men”, and refusal to become American have been well documented across the country; from Somali cab drivers in Minnesota, to a UCLA professors, to students who hang the American flag under the Mexican flag in a California high school.

ESL classes, ethnic balkanization, and anti-American sentiment have driven much of the uneasiness amongst most Americans. Yet this vital key of American immigration policy for 200 years has not only been abandoned, it is completely ignored by one party and viewed as racist white supremacy by the other. Assimilation is treason in the multicultural tower of Babel. To quote Congressman Allen West (R-FL), “ I think that anytime someone is coming across your border and they haven’t been invited, that can be considered what the founding fathers wrote as an invasion into your country.” By Congressman West standards, America is under mass invasion.

Robert Putnam, Harvard Professor and author of Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American Community stated in an interview at Harvard, “New unfamiliar diversity is to make everyone uncomfortable… We get less involved with our community and we trust everyone less." Putnam states the way to counter this is to "create a sense of shared identity."

However the question remains: When a nation is taking in two million legal and illegal immigrants per year, mostly from the third world, how can we create a common shared identity?

The breakdown of our common civic society and the evaporation of our social capital have caused trust of our community and our government to go into free fall. Take into account a Gallup poll in 1964 on the question of “Can most people can be trusted?” in which 77% responded yes. By 1996, only 8% of Americans said that “the honesty and integrity of the average American” were improving, and 50% thought we were becoming less trustworthy.

The United States may very well be balkanizing. Black self-segregation and white flight have been well documented throughout the country. The United States is turning into a high school cafeteria, where the jocks sit amongst themselves, as do the cheerleaders, as do the nerds, as do the dungeons and dragons fans. Not because they hate one another, but they prefer to be amongst their own based on “positive feelings” as described by Professor Robert DeFina of Villanova University on his study of African Americans’ self-segregating.

And as this crisis of confidence and cohesion engulf main street Americans, the ivory towers of Washington are immune. The Democratic Party is the party of “multiculturalism, mass immigration and the mortgage crisis”. It would just be in the interest of diversity if the Republican Party could offer a different solution. If amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants is the solution, then is it still the solution for 20 million or 50 million or 100 million? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “if you want more of something, have the government subsidize it.”

In 1924, Calvin Coolidge signed an immigration act that decreased the flow of immigrants to 2% of the population until it was overturned in 1965 by Lyndon Johnson. This 41 year gap on mass immigration allowed the unity of the American people; “out of many, one.” Such boldness is rare in modern political life. The only possible solution appears to be drafting Calvin Coolidge in 2012.

SOURCE







Immigration: An Artificial Stimulus For Homeownership

The phrase “jobs Americans won’t do” all too often serves as a rationale for maintaining high levels of immigration. Get set for an equally dubious idea to justify mass immigration: “housing Americans can’t buy.” Senators Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, among others, are believers. And they’re offering a sweet deal.

This October, the two lawmakers unveiled the Visa Improvements to Stimulate International Tourism to the United States of America Act, or VISIT-USA Act (S.1746). A key element of the bill would provide renewable three-year resident visas to foreign nationals who invest at least $500,000 in residential real estate here. The plan, they argue, would turbo-charge our flagging housing industry and without incurring a subsidy. Supporters seem not to have pondered the downsides.

Since the virtual collapse of home mortgage lending during 2007-08, boosting homeownership has become a growth industry in its own right, especially in Washington. Among key steps, the Bush administration created a temporary first-time homebuyer tax credit, which Congress and the Obama administration promptly expanded the following year. And the Obama White House, only a couple months in office, created the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which enables distressed mortgage borrowers to renegotiate loans at favorable rates. And several weeks ago President Obama revealed the “We Can’t Wait” phase of his anti-foreclosure campaign. Building on HAMP, it would reduce monthly payments for homeowners who currently owe more than their properties are worth, a phenomenon known as being “underwater.” The program would allow distressed borrowers to refinance their mortgages at rates as low as 4 percent. Some 10 million households – about one in four with a mortgage – are in this situation.


Before Congress gets on the bandwagon, it is important to remember that the first-time homebuyer tax credit and HAMP programs also enjoyed a “too good to fail” aura, yet experienced major unexpected roadblocks. Let’s have a brief look at each.

The tax credit, hurriedly created in the summer of 2008 during the Bush administration, provided a temporary credit of up to $7,500 to first-time homebuyers. In 2009, at the strong urging of President Obama, Congress twice extended and expanded the program as part of separate economic stimulus packages. The first renewal raised the ceiling to $8,000, repealed the repayment requirement, and broadened the definition of new buyers to include those who haven’t owned a home within the last three years. The second expansion raised the already-high income ceilings of $75,000 (singles) and $150,000 (married couples) to a respective $125,000 and $225,000, and also created a separate credit of up to $6,500 for existing homeowners.

The subsidy would prove unnecessary. A 2009 Brookings Institution study estimated that 85 percent of the (by then) nearly two million program participants would have bought a home anyway. Fraud also was extensive. IRS Inspector General J. Russell George testified before a House subcommittee in October 2009 that nearly 20,000 applicants falsely claimed a combined $139 million on their 2008 tax returns before (rather than after) purchase; another 74,000, contrary to program rules, had owned a home within the previous three years. More than 50 IRS employees, he added, had filed “illegal or inappropriate” claims. The program expired on April 30, 2010.

The HAMP program, in the process of being phased out, cuts monthly payments for potentially millions of at-risk borrowers, giving them a chance to rebuild their credit. Launched by the Obama administration in April 2009, it draws upon as much as $50 billion of Bush-era Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds and another $25 billion from secondary mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were placed under emergency federal conservatorship in September 2008. Yet only about $2.4 billion of that $75 billion had been spent by October. Think of that as a plus. Data collected by the Treasury Department, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision show unusually high rates of default in the program’s trial and permanent loan modification phases. This past March, the House of Representatives voted 252-170 for early termination (H.R. 839); the expiration date originally had been set at December 31, 2012. The Senate has yet to take action on an identical bill (S.527).

That brings us to the VISIT-USA bill. The mechanism is different, but the goal is the same: boosting homeownership demand. And it ostensibly would do so without imposing any taxpayer burden – at least not directly. Yet it’s important to read between the lines to see some likely unwanted consequences.

First, consider buyer composition. Who has $500,000 on hand to invest in American housing – be it a single-family detached, condominium or townhouse – and is willing to live in it for at least half the year? There are only so many legitimate businessmen, retirees and heirs from around the world to go around. Common sense dictates that any number of disreputable investors will participate to acquire a coveted resident visa. As the blogsite Diplopundit puts it: “Wanna guess who has that much cash floating around? Well, for starters, dictators, drug lords, drug traffickers and their girlfriends/boyfriends always have that much cash around, in case.”

Supporters of the bill respond that visa holders would include people who come here for legitimate work. But aside from the dubious wisdom of displacing native-born workers, we already provide work visas, E1 through E5, ranked according to priority. The VISIT-USA bill’s housing visa, at bottom, would function as the standard B-2 visitor’s visa all but in name. The people who have $500,000 to spend on American real estate would qualify for a B-2 anyway. Moreover, a B-2 carries no restrictions on home purchases. This program would be entirely redundant.

Much more here



6 December, 2011

Number of illegal Mexican migrants plunges

One must note that fewer arrests does not mean fewer illegals. The border patrol is under orders to fire beanbag rounds rather than bullets last I heard. That would certainly make me a lot more reluctant to approach illegals

Arrests of illegal migrants trying to cross the southern US border have plummeted to levels not seen since the early '70s, according to tallies released by the US Department of Homeland Security, a historic shift that could reshape the debate over immigration reform.

The Border Patrol caught 327,577 illegal crossers along the US-Mexico border in fiscal year 2011, which ended in September, numbers not seen since Richard Nixon was president, and a drop from the peak in 2000 when 1.6 million unauthorised migrants were caught.

More than 90 per cent of the migrants caught on the south-western border were Mexican.

The number of illegal migrants arrested at the border has been dropping over the past few years, but appears to be down more than 25 per cent this year.

Coupled with census and labour data from both countries that shows far fewer Mexicans arriving in the United States and many returning home, it appears the flood of Mexican migration north has slowed to a trickle.

''We have reached the point where the balance between Mexicans moving to the United States and those returning to Mexico is essentially zero,'' Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at the Pew Hispanic Centre, said. His conclusion was shared by many migration experts. [Pew is a Leftist outfit]

Such a steep drop in illegal crossings gives supporters of immigration reform ammunition to argue that now is a good time to tackle the issue.

The Republican presidential contenders Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have been sparring over the estimated 11 million people living illegally in the US.

Mr Gingrich says it would be heartless to kick out migrants who have worked and raised families here for years, while Mr Romney blasted Mr Gingrich for supporting ''amnesty'' for illegal residents, but he has not given a clear answer on what he would do.

Pew Centre research shows the number of Mexicans moving to the US, both legally and illegally, has fallen steeply.

About 150,000 Mexicans moved to the US last year, compared with 750,000 in 2000. The centre did not track how many returned home.

For the first time, according to US census data, the growth of the Hispanic population in the US is being fuelled more by births than immigration. Hispanics remain the fastest-growing group in the nation.

Data from Mexican surveys show that the amount of money sent back home from the US is falling, from a peak of $US24 billion in 2007 to $US21 billion last year, according to Mexico's Central Bank. [Because work is harder to find for everyone?]

The reasons for the downturn in migration are both obvious and complex.

Surging violence in Mexico has made the journey more perilous, and smugglers have increased their fees, now charging $US3000 for a quick hop from Mexicali. Increased enforcement and tough new laws against illegal immigrants in Arizona and Alabama are daunting, and some Mexicans are seeing better conditions at home.

But immigration experts say the biggest cause of the steep drop is the US economy, which dipped into a recession in 2008 and continues sluggish growth.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

1. The Use and Abuse of the Bible in the Immigration Debate (Backgrounder)

2. Latino Voting in 2010 Partisanship, Immigration Policy, and the Tea Party (Backgrounder)

3. Newt Gingrich Plan Would Mean More Illegal Immigrants (Op-ed)

4. Employer Proclaims He Profits from H-1B Workers (Blog)

5. Progress on (Somebody's) Border Fence (Blog)

6. Obama's Kafkaesque 'New Deportation Policy' Erodes Hispanic
Support (Blog)

7. Amnesty Creep (Blog)

8. Report: Open Borders Groups Spend Millions Lobbying (Blog)

9. Yet Another Border Tunnel under the Otay Mesa (Blog)

10. Questions for Newt Gingrich about His Immigration Proposal (Blog)

11. Tiring of the Huddled Masses (Blog)

12. Total Crash of Calif. EB-5 Project Makes USCIS Look Careless (Blog)

13. A New Yorker View of the Border (Blog)

14. There's a Steady Flow of New Spouses Among Those Migrating to the U.S. (Blog)



5 December, 2011

House votes to end country limits for skilled workers seeking green cards

The House voted Tuesday to end per-country caps on worker-based immigration visas, a move that should benefit skilled Indian and Chinese residents seeking to stay in the United States and the high-tech companies who hire them.

The legislation, which passed 389-15, was a rare example of bipartisan accord on immigration, an issue that largely has been avoided during the current session of Congress because of the political sensitivities involved.

The measure would eliminate the current law that says employment-based visas to any one country can’t exceed 7 percent of the total number of such visas given out. Instead, permanent residence visas or green cards would be handled on a first-come, first-served basis.

The bill, said its sponsor, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, “does encourage high-skilled immigrants who were educated in the U.S. to stay and help build our economy rather than using the skills they learned here to aid our competitor nations.”

Currently, the State Department issues about 140,000 such green cards a year to foreign nationals working in the United States, often after getting degrees from U.S. universities.

The bill also changes family-based visa limits from 7 percent per country to 15 percent per country, an adjustment that could slightly ease the backlog for naturalized citizens, particularly from Mexico and the Philippines, trying to bring relatives into the country.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who heads the Senate Judiciary panel on immigration, said he planned to move the bill as quickly as possible in the Senate, “where we expect it to find overwhelming support.” He said the legislation would “remove outdated constraints that prevent us from attracting the kind of innovators who can create job growth in America.”

The Obama administration in its first two years failed in several major efforts to change immigration law, and this year the issue has largely been off the table, with Republicans making clear that anything suggesting amnesty for those in the country illegally would be rejected.

The Chaffetz bill does not change the number of visas being issued, and groups representing immigrants said the bill would do little to resolve pressing immigration issues. However, they applauded Congress for showing it can act.

Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said that while the bill won’t bring significant changes, “we think this is a positive step forward.” He said it was a good sign that “Republicans and Democrats are actually working on solutions.”

Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the measure “makes the system a tiny bit fairer” and does “demonstrate that Congress can do something on immigration, however small.”

She cited estimates that while someone from England might wait two or three years for a green card, an Indian could conceivably be on the waiting list for decades.

Still, because there will be no increase in visas issued, there will be losers. Hosin “David” Lee, president of the Korean-American Scientists and Engineers Association, said the bill would force engineers from South Korea to wait an additional two years in their immigration process to get green cards.

But Compete America, a group representing high-tech companies such as Google and Microsoft Corp. and research institutes, said the bill would correct a problem in which very small countries are subject to the same 7 percent cap as large countries such as India and China, which account for more than 40 percent of the world’s population.

The lengthy waiting periods for people trained and working in the United States “are contributing to a reverse brain drain in the U.S. as frustrated professionals opt to return to their home countries to pursue their professional ambitions,” Kevin Richards, senior vice president of Tech America, which represents the technology industry, said in a letter to lawmakers.

U.S. employers are prohibited under law from hiring foreign workers unless they show there are not sufficient U.S. workers willing and able to take the jobs.

SOURCE






Mexico tough on illegals

Already unhappy with the Obama administration’s handling of illegal immigrants in the U.S., liberal lawmakers on Friday asked the government to go even further and make American aid to Mexico based on that country treating immigrants better.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, Arizona Democrat and a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, led a letter signed by more than 30 lawmakers, including Foreign Affairs Committee ranking Democrat Howard L. Berman, that accused Mexican authorities of everything from kidnapping and robbery to extortion of migrants crossing Mexico on their way to the U.S.

In the letter the lawmakers asked Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to put pressure on Mexico to clean things up.

“The current levels of abuse against migrants in transit in Mexico represent a humanitarian crisis that has been recognized by international human rights organizations across the globe,” they wrote, adding that because of its location and ties, the U.S. has “a clear interest and responsibility” to push Mexico.

Mexico has regularly fought for better treatment of its citizens who live illegally in the U.S., but reports have exposed rough treatment by Mexican authorities of Central American migrants who cross Mexico on their way to try to enter the U.S. illegally.

In addition, illegal immigrants are preyed upon by smugglers and sometimes fellow migrants themselves.

One worker at a shelter for illegal immigrants in Mexico told Amnesty International in 2010 that six out of every 10 women and girls who pass through the facility have faced sexual violence.

It’s unclear how many illegal immigrants cross Mexico to try to reach the U.S. The 2010 Amnesty report, citing Mexican government figures, said the number has been declining since 2006 — just as authorities in the U.S. believe the flow of illegal immigrants across its own border has decreased.

Up until several years, even Mexico pushed for lower penalties for its citizens living illegally in the U.S., Mexican law called for prison sentences of up to 10 years for illegal immigrants there. In 2008 that penalty was reduced to a fine.

Even with illegal immigration numbers leveling off in the U.S., the issue remains a hot topic.

SOURCE



4 December, 2011

US lawmakers clash over criminal illegal immigrants

US politicians Wednesday clashed over how many undocumented migrants who have may committed crimes are free in the United States pending deportation -- a key figure for gauging the success of immigration policies.

Republican House leaders in early November asked the Obama administration to hand over the names and details of about 300,000 illegal immigrants freed since 2008 and who may have committed crimes.

Republican Elton Gallegly stressed there was a need to determine how dangerous a person is before they are set free.

But an official with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said he was not aware of any figures.

"I'm not familiar with the figure you released, 300,000 criminal aliens back on the streets. I can tell you we've removed more criminal illegals last year than ever before. We're working at almost full capacity in terms of removals," ICE official Gary Mead told the hearing.

"It would be extremely rare for us to knowingly let a serious criminal offender walk loose in the community," he stressed.

The federal government recently said it would review pending deportation cases to prioritize those who are deemed dangerous.

An estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States. And immigration is a major issue ahead of the presidential elections in November 2012.

Republicans, who generally take a tougher tack on enforcing penalties for illegal immigrants, have slammed the ICE's current policy priorities.

Mead said President Barack Obama's administration has deported record numbers of undocumented people, about 400,000 last year.

SOURCE




California Dream Act: 3 times more costly than previously projected

New research suggests that the recently passed California Dream Act may actually cost taxpayers more than originally estimated. Due in part to continually rising tuition costs, the revised estimated figure stands at $65 million per year, starting in 2013. This is more than 3 times the initial estimate.

Consequently, the amount of funds available to legal California residents applying for student aid will be impacted. There will be less funding available which will be more widely distributed. The end result is less funding available for legal California residents per individual.

Critics have long asserted that in light of current economic conditions, passage of the Dream Act was and is a misguided option, unfair to legal residents, and representative of thinking based on unrealistic evaluations of current financial and economical trends. Many feel that financial aid to illegal citizens should only be considered in a scenario where a surplus of funding exists, not when state and federal budgets are in a state of extreme deficit.
Advertisement

Those who support a referendum on the Dream Act should contact their local state representatives before January 6th. At least 505,000 signatures are needed in order to put the measure on the November, 2012 ballot. The referendum, sponsored by State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of Hesperia, primarily deals with the second part of the Dream Act. This is the provision that allows for undocumented citizens to apply for taxpayer funded state aid. "This is a really, really bad idea," Donnelly said. “At a time when we're broke, when we have two million people unemployed, when state colleges are underfunded and overbooked, we're creating a brand new entitlement." Donnelly also believes the Dream act will create further incentive for increased illegal immigration.

SOURCE



3 December, 2011

The Arizona reality

It was the spring of 2010 when a media firestorm was ignited over the passage of a new law in the Grand Canyon State. The controversy? Simple enforcement of the federal law wherein the federal government has proven derelict: securing the border against illegal immigration.

In her new book "Scorpions for Breakfast," Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona explains the issue of illegal immigration in a manner unlike any found in the mainstream media. More than mere talking points, she opens the reader's eyes to terrible reality of crime and fear threatening to overtake citizens who live on the border.

The book begins with the gut wrenching death of Robert Krenz, murdered in March 2010. A prominent rancher, he sought to assist a seemingly imperiled illegal, only to be shot and killed for his kindness. As she recites the statistics, history, and figures you'd expect in a policy book, Brewer continually applies a human touch to the issue with the eulogy of actual victims. Her narrative dismisses the popular conception of illegal aliens as mere "victims" who wish for a better life, and exposes the grim reality of a border exposed to organized cutthroats. A border that is kept open by the sole discretion of the federal government.

The anecdotes are shocking-kidnapping, extortion, forced drug smuggling, murder and rape. Such has become the reality for Arizona. Having exposed the crisis as unseen by any media outlet, the governor transitions into a personal account, as a governor elected to deal specifically to deal with the situation.

With pleas to Washington falling on deaf ears, Brewer bears the mantle leadership upon herself; detailing the passage of a policy specifically targeted at the alien criminals who ravage Arizona, only to be sued for the effort by a hostile administration.

If one ever wondered what the "big deal" is about border security, "Scorpions For Breakfast" is an ideal primer. Through it, the invasion is made clear.

SOURCE





Gingrich fights back on immigration; signs pledge to build fence along Mexican border

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Thursday shot back at criticism he’s faced over his position on immigration by signing a pledge promising to build a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border by the end of 2013.

“In 25 years, we haven’t been able to build a fence on the border because we’ve not been a serious country,” Gingrich told about 500 employees in the cafeteria of Nationwide Insurance. “It takes serious leadership doing serious things. This is an example. There are dozens of things like this that have to get done for us to rebuild this country.”

The pledge by Americans for Securing the Border, a national advocacy group dedicated to stopping the flow of illegal immigration and enhancing national security along the U.S.-Mexican border, calls for presidential candidates to support and speedily expedite the construction of a secure, multi-layered fence across the southern border by the end of 2013.

Gingrich is seeking the 2012 Republican nomination for president and is the front-runner in Iowa, according to two recent polls.

He said if elected president, America will have “absolute control” of its border by the end of 2013. He’d suspend all federal regulations that would prevent completion of the border in one year. If necessary, he’d move half of the 23,000 U.S. Department of Homeland Security employees from Washington, D.C., to Texas, Arizona and New Mexico to control the border.

But he also joked about the issue with Nationwide employees, by comparing the tracking of illegal immigrants to the online tracking of 24 million UPS and FedEx packages each day while they’re moving.

“You have the federal government, which cannot find 11 million illegal immigrants while they’re sitting still,” Gingrich said to laughter and applause. “So one of my proposals is that we mail a package to every person who’s here illegally and then when they’re delivered, you pull it up in the computer, you know exactly where they are and it was done at no extra cost.” Gingrich later emphasized that was not a serious proposal.

Yet his signing of the pledge came as he is taking heat over his position on immigration. During CNN’s Nov. 22 foreign policy debate, he indicated that law-abiding, tax-paying illegal immigrants who had been in the country for a number of years should be able to become citizens.

In Cedar Falls on Wednesday, Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, who was the first candidate to sign the pledge and has portrayed herself as the only true conservative in the race, characterized Gingrich’s position as granting amnesty.

“What Newt Gingrich proposes is to make legal, overnight, over 11 million illegal workers in the United States,” Bachmann said. “He needs to take the heat.”

Van D. Hipp Jr., chairman of Americans for Securing the Border, came to Gingrich’s defense. Hipp said Gingrich approached his group about signing the pledge before the Nov. 22 debate. “Speaker Gingrich is no ‘Johnny come lately’ when it comes to border security,” Hipp said.

Former U.S. Rep. Duncan Lee Hunter, R-Calif., who was chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee from 2003 until 2007, this week told Hipp that Gingrich “deserves credit” for his efforts that resulted in the first secure double fence being built along the 14-mile stretch south of San Diego along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Americans for Securing the Border is less concerned about illegal immigrants already in the country. “Our focus is on securing the southern border,” Hipp told IowaPolitics.com. “There are a lot of other side issues that will have to be addressed. But right now, we’ve got to stop the hemorrhaging on our southern border. It starts with the fence. If we, as a people and as a country, if we had dealt with this issue before, we wouldn’t have the problems we’ve got today.”

The estimated cost of building a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border is $49 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The U.S.-Mexico border covers 2,000 miles, but Hipp said the focus is on the 854 miles along the nation’s major smuggling corridors. The ultimate goal is to extend that fence from Brownsville, Texas, to the Pacific Ocean.

Former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney also have advocated for building a border fence to stop the flow of people entering the United States illegally.

But Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul have said that a fence is not the answer. Perry has said that building a border-length fence would take “10 to 15 years and $30 billion” and would not be cost-effective.

SOURCE



2 December, 2011

French government hardens immigration stance as elections loom

France’s ruling UMP party is toughening its stance on immigration ahead of next year’s elections. By straying into the territory of the far right National Front, French Interior Minister Claude Gueant is playing a risky game.

As he presented his party’s campaign platform ahead of next year’s presidential and legislative elections, French Interior Minister Claude Gueant laid down the gauntlet to the far right by hardening the government’s position on immigration.

“It’s easier for immigrants to integrate if there are less of them,” Gueant told Europe 1 radio. “It’s obvious that we need to better manage the flow of immigrants. For immigration to work, we need to be welcoming fewer immigrants each year.”

The statement echoed the priority given to immigration issues during French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s successful 2007 election campaign. But it also rekindled accusations that the UMP, France’s ruling party, is trying to steal a march on France’s far-right National Front (FN) by playing the anti-immigration card.

According to recent opinion polls, the FN’s presidential candidate Marine Le Pen enjoys support ranging between 16% and 20% among French voters. For his part, the current president benefits from marginally less support than his main opponent Socialist Party candidate Francois Hollande, whom pollster LH2 gave 30% (a drop of nine points since he won the Socialist party primaries) in a survey last week.

As a result, Sarkozy - who has yet to officially announce his candidature - has a lot of ground to make up, especially among right wing swing voters. “The UMP is once more taking up its 2007 strategy of hunting on FN territory”, Jerome Fouquet, co-director of the French pollster IFOP told FRANCE 24 Wednesday.

A tougher immigration policy

Among the measures “for better management of the flow of immigrants” announced by Gueant are a toughening of the conditions necessary to obtain French citizenship and of the rules allowing an immigrant living in France to be joined by family members.

Other measures include increasing the number of expulsions of illegal immigrants and increasing the capacity of detention centres.

On November 27, Gueant announced that he wanted to reduce the number of legal immigrants coming to France annually from 200,000 to 180,000, a 10% decrease. (“Legal immigration” includes individuals coming to France on work and study visas and those seeking asylum).

After toughening the conditions on work and study visas, Gueant announced last week reforms to the asylum system in France, including a reduction in the asylum budget and a shortening of the time frame during which asylum applications have to be made. Currently, the asylum budget allows for 21,500 places in reception centres, 20,000 emergency lodgings and temporary social benefits for another 37,000 asylum seekers.

The reforms would also expand the list of “safe” countries, whose citizens would no longer qualify for asylum in France.

Voters’ concerns on economy and immigration

When Sarkozy took office in 2007, the focus of his party’s immigration policy was on fighting illegal immigration and the number of expulsions (with a target of 30,000 for 2011) increased steadily.

Gueant is now moving forward by targeting legal immigration even though opinion polls in France show that the immigration issue has taken a back seat to the more pressing issue of unemployment, which currently stands at a 12-year high of more than 2.8 million.

But in French politics “one should never dismiss the importance of immigration even if it gets a poor showing in opinion polls” Bruno Jeanbart, director of politics at market researcher Opinion Way, told FRANCE 24.

And according to Fouquet, “if French voters are more concerned about reducing unemployment and boosting growth in the economy, immigration is still an important issue for a certain segment of the electorate, notably the elderly and the working classes.”

Sarkozy’s record on immigration

On November 17 a CSA survey showed that employment was the top concern of voters in France (45% of those polled) while immigration lagged behind with 10% of respondents.

This 10% represents an important source of potential swing voters the UMP could woo away from the FN. According to Bruno Jeanbart, with just six months to go before the country heads to the polls, the UMP has realised that the immigration issue could be a vote winner at a crucial time for the party.

“It is not 2007. Sarkozy is not seeking election for the first time. He has to justify his record on immigration over his first presidential term”, Fouquet explained.

That very record has been heavily criticised by FN’s candidate Marine Le Pen.

“We have to thank Claude Gueant for reminding the French public just how bad the UMP’s immigration record is,” she said on Monday in a statement. “We now have 200,000 legal immigrants coming into France every year. This is an 80% increase since 2000 [114,000].”

Jeanbart points out, “Five years ago, Sarkozy said ‘yes, there is a problem and we are going to deal with it.’ His ministers are now opting for the line that ‘we are aware that there is a problem and we are trying to sort it out’.”

SOURCE






Australian Leftist's grand plan to keep the refugees coming

The Left will destroy Australia any way they can

IMMIGRATION Minister Chris Bowen says Australia should increase its refugee intake by 50 per cent. Mr Bowen will propose at the Labor Party's national conference this weekend to increase Australia's resettlement of refugees from 13,750 to 20,000.

"I have had the view for some time that we could and should take more refugees," Mr Bowen told ABC Radio today. "It's an aspiration ... there's no timeline that I'm putting on it." "I just think it's very important that the Labor platform, which is after all a statement of broad objectives, has that objective in it for the first time."

Mr Bowen said Australia's refugees intake was the highest per person of any country in the world. "But that doesn't mean I don't think we can do more still," he said.

He said his proposal would make it clear that Labor's view was to take more refugees. "We want to give more people a life in Australia but we need to tackle the dangerous boats coming to Australia," Mr Bowen said. "Then we can have that conversation with the people of Australia to increase our refugee intake further."

Mr Bowen said the offshore processing of refugees had to be one of several measures to reduce the number of people jumping onto boats heading to Australia.

"Just increasing your refugee intake is not a deterrent to getting on a boat to come to Australia, but if it is part of a broader mix, which included offshore processing, that would be important," he said.

Labor abandoned a plan to put its bill to allow offshore processing of asylum seekers in Malaysia to a vote in October after it could not guarantee its passage through parliament.

The minister's proposal comes after Australian authorities intercepted a boat carrying more than 100 asylum seekers east of Christmas Island yesterday.

SOURCE



1 December, 2011

Gingrich and Immigration

Thomas Sowell

Now that Newt Gingrich has become the latest in a series of Republican front-runners, he is getting the kinds of scrutiny and attacks that have done in other front-runners.

One of the issues that have aroused concern among conservative Republicans is that of amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially after Gingrich said that it would not be "humane" to deport someone who has been living and working here for years.

Let's go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.

There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively.

The usually sober and thoughtful Wall Street Journal, on issues other than immigration, outdoes Newt Gingrich's claim that it would not be "humane" to deport illegal immigrants who have been living here a long time. A Wall Street Journal editorial says that it would be "psychotic" to do so.

"No one honestly believes the government should or will mount a nationwide manhunt to deport millions of people," according to the Wall Street Journal.

What we have today is virtually the opposite of that. Cities that openly proclaim themselves "sanctuaries" for illegal immigrants put their own policemen under strict orders not to report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities, with the result that illegal immigrants who have committed crime after crime are free to stay here and commit more crimes, including murder.

You don't have to launch a "manhunt" when a known criminal is also a known illegal alien. What many local policies have done has been to virtually put illegal aliens in a witness protection program.

The more doctrinaire libertarians see the benefits of free international trade in goods, and extend the same reasoning to free international movement of people. But goods do not bring a culture with them. Nor do they give birth to other goods to perpetuate that culture.

Why do people want to come to America in the first place? Because America offers them something that their native countries do not. This country has a culture which has produced a higher standard of living and a freer life than in many other countries.

When you import people, you import cultures, including cultures that have been far less successful in providing decent lives and decent livelihoods. The American people have a right to decide for themselves whether they want unlimited imports of cultures from other countries.

At one time, immigrants came to America to become Americans. Today, the apostles of multiculturalism and grievance-mongering have done their best to keep foreigners foreign and, if possible, feeling aggrieved. Our own schools and colleges teach grievances.

European countries have learned the hard way how massive imports of a foreign culture can undermine your own culture, polarize your population and create internal dangers that are irreversible. Victor Davis Hanson's chilling and insightful book "Mexifornia" shows similar patterns in California.

Moreover, in an age of terrorism, everyone who comes across the border from Mexico is not Mexican. It is the height of irresponsibility to leave that border open and the people who cross it a protected group. Punishing employers who hire illegals is punishing an accessory to an illegal act more harshly than the one who committed the illegal act in the first place.

As for Newt Gingrich, his position on immigration is just one of the items in the "baggage" he has to overcome. But what the voters have to overcome is an insistence on a perfect candidate. Ronald Reagan, after all, supported an immigrant amnesty bill, but that did not prevent him from being a great president otherwise.

A Republican Congress would be unlikely to make that mistake again, even if a Republican president wanted to. The big question for 2012 is whether Republicans will win Congress and/or the White House. If Democrats win Congress and the White House in 2012, amnesty is virtually certain, along with other disasters.

SOURCE





Romney's Immigration Dodge Precludes Possibility of Reconciling Policy With Reality

"I don't believe in amnesty," Mitt Romney said in 2006, but "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country." Although Romney is loath to admit it, the underlying reality remains the same.

While mass deportation of everyone illegally residing in the United States is unacceptable for both practical and humanitarian reasons, Republicans are afraid to suggest an alternative, lest it be tagged with the a- word. Last week, Romney's campaign highlighted that danger by pouncing on Newt Gingrich for taking essentially the same position that Romney himself has repeatedly enunciated.

During last week's Republican presidential debate, Gingrich suggested appointing local review boards to decide which illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay. "If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, (and) you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out," he said. "I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, 'Let's be humane.'"

Unlike many other self-aggrandizing pronouncements by the former House speaker, that one, sadly, had an element of truth, as Romney's campaign promptly proved. "Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty," Romney's spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, told reporters after the debate.

Yet back in 2006, when he was governor of Massachusetts, Romney said, "Those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country." During his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, he criticized the 2007 immigration reform bill, co-sponsored by his rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., saying, "People should have no advantage by having come here illegally." But he continued to support the general idea of letting illegal immigrants apply for citizenship or legal residency -- a policy that the Romney of 2011 presumably would condemn as "amnesty."

We can't say for sure, because he refuses to address the issue. After the debate, The Examiner's Philip Klein repeatedly pressed Fehrnstrom to say how Romney would handle the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. Fehrnstrom would go no further than declaring that Romney "would not grant them amnesty," uttering that phrase or variations on it no fewer than five times.

This dodge precludes the possibility of reconciling U.S. policy with the reality that, as Gingrich put it in 2006, "millions of illegal immigrants are here because Americans are hiring them. They have jobs in your neighborhood, and you know it."

Romney knows it as well as anyone else. In 2006, he was embarrassed by the revelation that undocumented landscapers hired by a contractor were working at his home in Belmont, Mass. As Gingrich pointed out (regarding illegal immigrants in general), "Keeping these hardworking people illegal makes them vulnerable to criminals and keeps them from playing responsible roles in our communities."

Romney's chief complaint about the 2007 immigration bill, which aimed to bring these people in from the shadows, was that it would have let illegal immigrants "jump ahead of the line" to become permanent residents (after eight years) or citizens (after 13). He made a similar point at a debate last September. "We've got 4.7 million people waiting in line legally," he said. "Let those people come in first."

But if the U.S. government were prepared to let eager workers connect with desperate employers, 4.7 million people would not be "waiting in line." And if that line moved at a reasonable pace, 12 million people would not be living here illegally.

At last week's debate, there was general agreement that it should be easier for high-skilled foreign nationals to take jobs in the United States. The same thing is glaringly true for people who work on farms, in restaurants and in politicians' yards. Just don't call it amnesty.

SOURCE






Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.


The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.