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

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



28 February, 2011

Indians and Pakistanis in Britain also likely to be anti-immigration

Populous is a respectable public opinion poll but the fact that the report of their findings was written by Nick Lowles rather raises eyebrows. Lowles is editor of the "Searchlight" magazine. Searchlight is a fringe-Left organization.

The questions asked, sampling details and all the raw frequencies obtained would have to be independently examined before the findings could be fully credited. The abstract of the report gives no sampling details, which is unusual in an abstract, and the full report was not yet online at the time of writing.

More Asians are now opposed to immigration than white Britons, according to a new poll which reveals that opposition to new arrivals now transcends race.

Research commissioned by the Searchlight Educational Trust found that 39 per cent of Asians, 34 per cent of whites and 21 per cent of blacks believed immigration should be halted either permanently or at least until the UK's economy was back on track. The findings are a stunning rebuke to the Labour government, which opened the doors to untrammelled immigration and then sought to brand voters ‘bigots’ who questioned the pace of change.

The report, titled Fear and Hope: The New Politics Of Identity, reveals that a large proportion of voters, across all races and communities, now have concerns about immigration. Immigration was held to have been on the whole a bad thing for Britain by 63 per cent of whites, 43 per cent of Asians and 17 per cent of black Britons.

The report also reveals that the failure of mainstream parties to speak out about immigration has opened the door for the possible emergence of a far right party.

Almost half of those questioned, 48 per cent, were open to supporting a new far-right party as long as it eschewed 'fascist imagery' and did not condone violence. And 52 per cent agreed that ‘Muslims create problems in the UK’.

The poll, carried out by Populus, was one of the largest studies carried out on the subject, based on 91 questions to more than 5,000 individuals.

It found that peoples’ attitudes to immigration were largely shaped by their level of economic optimism. Those who fear for their jobs and longterm economic wellbeing are more likely to be opposed to further immigration.

The Searchlight Educational Trust said the report 'throws down a challenge' to mainstream political parties to better understand what is happening in the body politic, the Trust said, warning 'dangers' lie ahead if these issues are not addressed.

The report’s author Nick Lowles said young people are more open to living in an ethnically diverse society. But in a clear warning to the political class, he said: ‘This report gives those of us who are campaigning against extremism nowhere to hide.

'The harsh truth is we are in danger of losing touch with the public on race, immigration and multiculturalism. ‘The attitude of all sections of the community to these complex issues is now running far ahead of the politicians and community leaders.’

Labour MP Jon Cruddas said the findings should ‘ricochet through the body politic’ as they showed the potential for the rise of the far-right unless mainstream parties acted soon. In a forword to the report, he wrote: ‘Put simply, unless political parties step up and provide a new language of material well-being, of identity and belonging, then these political forces might refract into more malign forms. As such, the political class has been warned.’

The level of net migration into the UK rose by 36 per cent last year, Office for National Statistics figures show. An estimated 572,000 people entered the UK on a long-term basis in the year to June 2010 while 346,000 emigrated.

Ministers want to reduce net migration levels, the difference between the two figures, to tens of thousands by 2015. To help do this, the coalition plans to cap immigration from outside the European Union.

SOURCE





Australia: An immigration skeptic from the Left

A Labor backbencher says Australia should curb its population growth by slashing the immigration intake - including skilled migration - and abolishing middle-class welfare measures that encourage people to have children.

In his submission to the government's inquiry into population, the Victorian MP Kelvin Thomson says Australia can sustain an ageing population by increasing the productivity of its present population, especially older people, rather than importing migrants and workers.

He also calls for an end to the baby bonus, the large family supplement and family tax benefit A for third and later children. The combined $3 billion in annual savings should be used for building the skills and qualifications of young people and abolishing HECS, he says.

Mr Thomson backs the government's intention to reform the welfare system, especially the disability support pension, to ensure those who are able to work, do so.

But he criticises the government's decision to speed up the rules for importing skilled workers, who come in on 457 visas, to help repair the flood damage in Queensland. "The claim that we will need more skilled migrants in order to cope with the flood damage is insulting and ridiculous," he says. "We were able to build the roads, bridges, schools etc that have been damaged by the floods. To suggest we have lost the skills needed to rebuild this infrastructure is insulting."

Mr Thomson says the reliance on skilled migration is "dumbing Australia down" and driving population pressures. "New arrivals come with a big infrastructure requirement. They bring their families with them and all require houses, roads, schools, hospitals, and many require English language and other forms of assistance."

He says the 457 visa program has become a business, spawning migration agents, labour hire firms and cheap labour for employers. There should be a labour market test for employers to prove they cannot obtain the labour elsewhere.

Australia's unemployment rate is 5 per cent but Mr Thomson scoffs at economists who consider this full employment. He says suburbs such as Broadmeadows in Melbourne have 15 per cent unemployment and labour should be obtained from such areas before being imported.

SOURCE



27 February, 2011

Muslims are not the same as earlier immigrants to Australia

ALMOST everything George Brandis said this week about Australia's successful creation of an inclusive society "receptive and respectful of people of race and faith" is true.

In an opinion piece in The Sydney Morning Herald, the senator paid tribute to Australian tolerance by recalling his experience growing up in the suburbs in the 1960s. Amid the colonial terraces and semi-detached houses of Petersham in Sydney's inner west, Chinese, Greek and Italian families lived happily alongside their Anglo-Celtic neighbours, and half the youngsters at his local school came from non-English-speaking backgrounds.

The idea that Australia under the rule of Robert Menzies did not resemble apartheid South Africa or the segregated south of the US will shock those who subscribe to the popular view that the coming of Gough Whitlam changed everything.

Brandis usefully reminded us that a multicultural Australia pre-dated the official invention of that policy by the Whitlam government in the 1970s. He also reminded us that our proud and enviable history of integrating migrants since the end of the World War II is attributable in part to the essential decency of the overwhelming majority of ordinary Australians.

Australia became a successful nation of immigrants because the egalitarianism that is central to its national character -- the principle that Jack is as good as his mate -- was extended by "old Australians" to include "new Australians".

Hence there was no white flight from Petersham or other suburbs in response to the influx of migrants from southern Europe in the 50s and Indochina in the 70s because newcomers of all colours and creeds were made welcome and accepted into the workplaces, the schools, the churches and the sporting clubs of suburban Australia.

Brandis was also right to suggest that these achievements should not be put at risk by cheap populism that seeks to exploit prejudice for political advantage. However, the senator for Queensland went too far in trying to shut down the debate about multiculturalism.

The debate was sparked in Coalition ranks by the publication of Scott Morrison's alleged remarks in shadow cabinet about Muslim immigration and community concerns in western Sydney.

"I can still remember the playground taunting of Italian kids, from which I formed my lifelong detestation of bullies who pick on a vulnerable minority," Brandis wrote in a thinly disguised rebuke to his colleagues. "Whether they realise it or not, the same sentiment that drives those who bullied those kids then, animates those who beat up on Muslims now."

This is a variation on a common grievance aired by many members of the multicultural industry: "Australia is a racist country because kids teased me about what was in my sandwiches at lunchtime."

Judging how a civilisation treats minorities based on what eight-year-olds call each other is ludicrous. To equate this with a legitimate debate about the success or otherwise of Muslim integration is just as ludicrous.

This is especially so when this debate is belatedly being had in Britain, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Scandinavia, now that the evidence of non-integration and the failures of multicultural policy are undeniable.

Europe has discovered that a nation of tribes united by a common welfare state does not create the harmonious society multicultural theorists said it would.

Instead, divisions between native and immigrant populations have been entrenched and the social fabric frayed. Australia does not confront challenges on the same scale, but we are kidding ourselves if we think we have nothing to worry about.

From Petersham, it is a 15-minute drive southwest to Lakemba. It is 30 years since [mostly Muslim] refugees fleeing the civil war in Lebanon received asylum in this country, and still Lakemba and its surrounds remain ghettofied.

The usual pattern of dispersal by first-generation children of immigrants has not occurred to the same extent and the area is plagued with poor educational achievement, high unemployment and crime.

The community concerns that exist in western Sydney about Muslims and multiculturalism are based on these jarring realities on the disintegration of some parts of Sydney from the mainstream, and the failure to repeat the successful patterns of integration of other ethnic groups.

To blame racial or religious prejudice, whether formed in the playground or otherwise, is avoiding the real issue. So is reaffirming the national commitment to multiculturalism, as the Gillard government has done, as if that and the proposed anti-racism campaign will be a cure-all.

The conventional wisdom among most elites is that we should not discuss these issues because it will unleash the racist sentiments that still lurk in the hearts of most Australians.

I think the opposite is true. It is because most Australians believe in the immigration and integration of all comers that what is going on in southwest Sydney is of concern.

Perceptive politicians have picked up on this. Effective politicians will honestly address the issues and propose solutions. Ineffective ones will shut their eyes and lecture an unimpressed electorate about respecting "diversity".

SOURCE





CA: ICE to review fingerprints of everyone arrested statewide to check on immigration status

Fingerprints now reveal more than just who robbed the bank - linked to all California police agencies, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now has immediate acces to crooks' immigration status.

Under the Secure Communities program, the fingerprints of everyone arrested by local police are now sent automatically to an electronic database reviewed by ICE, whose agents go to county jails to pick up immigrants thought to be deportable, including illegal immigrants and legal immigrants who may have committed a crime.

"I oppose it because it forces local police to carry out the work, which is really the work of federal government," said Jose Calderon, professor of sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont. President Barack "Obama's administration said they only focus on criminals, but a lot of studies have shown that who they are picking up are individuals with minor offenses such as (expired) driver's license."

Immigration agents say the network has helped bring in and deport 32,645 immigrants from California, including 23,712 who were convicted of a crime since San Diego County became the first county in the state to join in spring 2009 and the 57 other counties followed suit.

Los Angeles County joined the effort in August 2009. Since then, ICE has taken into custody 13,378 immigrants, of which 7,083 were deported, in the county. "It helps people from falling through the cracks," said Capt. Gerald Cooper, who heads the inmate reception center for the county Sheriff's Department. "It helps prevent us from allowing very dangerous people from getting out of custody and back into the community when they should be interviewed by ICE and potentially held by ICE."

The using fingerprint-based biometric identification technology has helped police get accurate information on someone's identity and criminal records, Claremont police Lt. Dennis Smith said. "It will also tell you if a criminal warrant for detainment has been issued by ICE," Smith said. "In that case, if we have any pending charges, they would get resolved first and then ICE would take over the custody of the person. Otherwise, immigration status is not revealed, nor would we inquire about it. We simply don't do that, we are a municipal agency and (immigration) is not our mission."

Since San Bernardino County became a part of the network in April 2010, 577 people were take into ICE custody, of which 369 were deported.

When a person is booked into a county jail, the scan of their fingerprints is sent to Department of Justice, said Cindy Bachman, spokeswoman for the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. ICE is then able to review the data. "We have an excellent working relationship with them," Bachman said.

The Obama administration considers Secure Communities an important tool in combating illegal immigration, and the program contributed to record-high deportations in recent years. ICE has described the program as targeting the "worst of the worst," capturing immigrants who committed crimes - known as criminal aliens - and removing them from the country.

Immigrant advocates say ICE's own data contradicts that argument. Serious criminals are a minority among the thousands caught through the system and deported. They point out that 27 percent of the Californians picked up by Secure Communities have no criminal records and that some were sent to deportation proceedings for violations as minor as running a stop sign.

"This type of enforcement prevents local police from developing close relationships in the immigrant communities and pushes them in shadows rather than to open their doors," Calderon said.

Marc Rapp, the acting national director of Secure Communities, countered that ICE prioritizes the people it chooses to pick up, and even those with no criminal record might be wanted for overstaying a visa or illegally re-entering the United States after being deported. "Clearly we're not arresting and removing everyone we receive a match on," Rapp said.

The network has the support of Gov. Jerry Brown, who as state attorney general ratified and repeatedly defended the agreement with ICE to launch the network statewide.

This week, six rural Northern California counties - Alpine, Del Norte, Lassen, Sierra, Siskiyou and Trinity - became the last of California's 58 counties to link up. The agency plans have to Secure Communities activated nationwide by 2013.

SOURCE



26 February, 2011

Mexican Drug Gang Suspects Rounded Up after shooting

ICE can do it if they want to

Federal, state and local authorities across the country are sending an unequivocal message to Mexican drug cartel members in the U.S. and Latin America: If you kill a U.S. agent, there will be repercussions. "This is personal," Louie Garcia, deputy special agent with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Thursday as authorities arrested more than 500 people in a nationwide sweep. "We lost an agent, we lost a good agent. And we have to respond."

The massive search for people connected to any Mexican drug cartel working in the United States began Wednesday night as a direct response to the Feb. 15 killing of ICE agent Jaime Zapata in a roadside ambush in Mexico. Fellow ICE agent Victor Avila was wounded in the attack.

As part of the effort coordinated by the Drug Enforcement Administration and ICE, authorities seized at least $10 million in cash and confiscated millions of dollars' worth of illegal drugs. Authorities in Brazil, El Salvador, Panama, Colombia and Mexico conducted similar sweeps in concert with U.S. authorities.

By late Thursday afternoon police and federal agents around the U.S. had seized nearly 300 weapons and more than 16 tons of marijuana along with other drugs. The sweep was expected to continue through Friday.

In the Newark, N.J., area, authorities on Wednesday arrested at least one person with ties to Mexico's ruthless Zetas drug gang — the same gang believed responsible for the deadly attack on Zapata and Avila — and seized about $1 million they believe was bound for cartel bosses in Mexico. Former Mexican special forces soldiers are among the Zetas' members

During a traffic stop north of Los Angeles late Wednesday police arrested one man and seized $2 million in cash along with 86 kilos of cocaine, drugs worth millions of dollars on the street.

In operations in South Texas on Thursday, authorities recovered hand grenades, assault rifles and bulletproof vests.

An officer involved in a raid in Houston was shot and wounded Thursday, though the injury was not life-threatening. The shooting occurred during a raid by agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and Houston police. The suspected gunman was also shot and wounded and was in custody, police said.

Nationwide roundups of suspected cartel associates are nothing new. More than half a dozen such sweeps have been touted as blows to major Mexican drug gangs in the last 2 ½ years. But an Associated Press review of those operations showed the arrests have done little to slow the drug trade.

Zapata was killed and Avila was wounded in Mexico on Feb. 15 when the Chevy Suburban they were in was run off the road by at least two vehicles loaded with armed men. Authorities have said the agents, who were driving in a fortified vehicle with diplomatic license plates, identified themselves as U.S. diplomats in the moments before the shooting.

Mexican authorities have arrested three people in connection with the brazen attack.

"We are basically going out to disrupt narcotics distribution here in the United States no matter what cartel their allegiance is to," said Carl Pike, assistant special agent in charge of the DEA's special operations division. "It would be futile to send a message back to one cartel when they all are just as guilty."

Pike said that while the sweeps are a direct response to Zapata's killing, the majority of suspects were already targets of other investigations.

"People actually sacrificed a great deal of work" for these sweeps, Pike said. "For the lost agent's memory it's important, but we're also in a bully situation. If we don't push back, some other 18-year-old cartel member is going to think, 'They didn't do anything, so all U.S. citizens are fair game.'"

SOURCE




Record rise in immigration to Britain as 240,000 given right to stay in just one year

Labour's ‘shambolic’ stewardship of the immigration system was exposed last night by figures showing that almost a quarter of a million migrants were handed the right to stay in Britain last year.

Grants of settlement, which are one step short of a passport, rose 35 per cent to 238,950 in the year to September 2010 – the highest since records began in 1960.

The total includes tens of thousands given full access to Britain’s public services because of the catastrophic failure to deal with their asylum cases swiftly.

Official figures also showed migration added 226,000 to the country’s population in 2010. This net migration figure – the number of arrivals minus those departing – is more than double the level that would be needed if ministers are to fulfil their pledge to reduce the annual net total to ‘tens of thousands’ by 2015.

Among the arrivals were spiralling numbers of students. Study visas issued in Labour’s last year were up by 41 per cent. The Office for National Statistics stated: ‘Long-term immigration to the UK for formal study has trebled over the last decade.’

The backlog of more than 400,000 asylum cases was uncovered more than five years ago and only now are many finally being resolved. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch think-tank, said the settlement figures were ‘appalling’.

‘This is what Labour called “managed migration”. It would be hard to imagine a more shambolic inheritance,’ he said.

‘Around one in three of those granted settlement were failed asylum seekers who had been hanging around so long that they acquired a human rights case to stay.’

The ONS confirmed that the foreign-born population rose by 3.2million during Labour’s 13 years in power, as reported in the Mail this week.

Sir Andrew said: ‘These figures are Labour’s legacy to Britain – 3.2million immigrants, including a quarter of a million in their last year alone.

‘Over half a million students in one year with no interviews before arrival and no checks on departure, and a “points-based system” that has increased immigration, not reduced it.’

Immigration Minister Damian Green said that the figures reinforced the need for radical reforms of the immigration system.

SOURCE



25 February, 2011

Canada welcomes genuine refugees

Canada will welcome 50 Montagnard refugees who had fled persecution in Vietnam, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced Wednesday.

Montagnard hill tribespeople, who come from Vietnam’s Central Highlands, face reprisals in Vietnam because they fought beside the Americans and the Republic of Vietnam. This group fled in 2006 and crossed the border into Cambodia but had to be rushed to Canada because the refugee centre there is closing.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said the group was under risk of return to Vietnam. Kenney said he was pleased to welcome the Montagnard to settle in Quebec City. “Following the fall of Saigon in 1975, more than half a million Vietnamese fled Vietnam. Thanks to the outpouring of support from Canadians, we welcomed more than 60,000 refugees in two years from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia under the Private Sponsorship Program,” he said in a statement.

Kenney said Ottawa was committed to refugee protection and that the government had increased refugee settlement by 20 percent. He also took the opportunity to raise the issue of human smuggling, which he said is compromising the refugee system.

The Conservatives have introduced Bill C-49 to crackdown on fake refugees, but critics say it goes too far and blurs the lines between refugees and immigrants. Amnesty International takes exception with the bill’s mandatory detention provision which will see arrivals automatically detained if they come on ship that has been labelled as part of human smuggling event under the legislation.

Liberal Immigration critic Justin Trudeau says the Conservatives are using events like the arrival of the MV Ocean Lady, which brought Tamil refugee claimants into Canada, to create fear over fake refugees so they can get support for their legislation.

The government says the ship’s arrival was a human smuggling event and C-49 will take away the incentive for human smugglers to do something similar in the future. Kenney says the bill is needed to protect the integrity of the system and maintain popular support for immigration.

SOURCE




Most illegal immigrants arriving in Australia by boat win legal residency eventually

Nearly every asylum-seeker who arrived in Australian waters during the past three years was granted refugee status, according to figures released under Freedom of Information laws and reported on by The Australian.

According to the report, the figures show that the Immigration Department approved fully 94 per cent of all refugee claims from people arriving by boat between October 2008 and December 22 last year.

Compared with other forms of refugee claims, those seeking asylum by boat had a significantly higher success rate. The Immigration Department approved only 39 per cent of visa requests for non-boat asylum-seekers in the first half of the current financial year. In 2009-10, the department refused 49 per cent of non-boat asylum seekers, and rejected 55 per cent the year before.

Opposition politicians argue that overseas refugee smugglers are keenly aware of the success rate of those arriving by boat, and said the figures will only further contribute to the problem. A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said refugee claims are processed independently of how they arrived in Australia.

SOURCE



24 February, 2011

Arizona Senate panel OKs sweeping illegal immigration bill

An Arizona Senate committee late Tuesday narrowly approved a sweeping bill that would target illegal immigrants in public housing, public benefits and the workplace.

Republican Sen. Russell Pearce is the sponsor of the bill that the Appropriation Committee approved on a 7-6 vote. It now advances to consideration by the full Senate after a legal review and discussions by party caucuses.

Pearce also authored a controversial illegal immigration law enacted last year. The law touched off a nationwide debate on whether states can enforce federal immigration laws.

The Republican-led Appropriations Committee earlier Tuesday approved a bill designed to set up a U.S. Supreme Court case on automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

SOURCE





Canada's Immigration minister warns of immigrant enclaves

The children of immigrants must join mainstream society if Canada is to avoid the multicultural collapse now plaguing parts of Europe. That was the notion presented by Jason Kenney, federal minister of citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism, Tuesday in a meeting with QMI Agency's editorial board, where he said Canada needs to focus on reducing the amount of ethnic enclaves locked out of mainstream society for generations.

"I would say by and large Canada's approach to managing diversity has been pretty successful," he said, but added: "We can't take that success for granted."

With Britain and Germany recently declaring multiculturalism at failure in their countries, Kenney said it is crucial immigrants to Canada be provided the education and opportunities needed to integrate themselves into society here.

"There's a natural, inevitable pattern in the settlement of newcomers," he said. "It only concerns me if we end up seeing ethnic enclaves persist into two or three generations. "Eventually, you've got to see those enclaves dissipate."

An influx of Somali immigrants to Canada in the late 1980s and early 1990s was not approached properly, and though there are success stories stemming from some of those newcomers, assured Kenney, many have remained separate to mainstream culture or became involved in crime.

He said there is also a big push from the government for immigration via private sponsorship.

Churches and organizations sometimes spearhead bringing certain individuals or families to Canada, but the work does not stop at filing the papers, said Kenney.

The sponsors often help take care of clothing, language barriers, education opportunities, etc. for the newcomers, which is ideally what all immigrants would have to help them adjust to Canadian society, he said.

SOURCE



23 February, 2011

How three million migrants came to UK under Labour in biggest population growth in 1,000 years (... that's nearly one every minute)

Labour's open-door immigration policy led to the largest population explosion since the Saxon invasion more than 1,000 years ago. An audit of official figures last night revealed that during the party’s 13 years in power Britain’s foreign-born population increased by three million. At the same time, nearly a million British citizens left the country.

The report shows that net immigration, the number of immigrants arriving versus those leaving, had reached almost three million by mid-2009.

Campaign group MigrationWatch said figures to be published by the Office for National Statistics on Thursday will show that by mid-2010 that total had reached 3.2million. In recent years, migrants have been arriving at the rate of around ‘one every minute’, the group’s report says. It comes as a poll found, for the first time, that those in the 16-24 age group were more worried about migrant numbers than those in their 30s.

The 3.2million population increase does not include illegal immigrants – of whom there are around one million in the UK.

MigrationWatch says the ‘three million-plus extra people on this island equates to the creation of three cities the size of Birmingham’.

The open-door policy was pursued with no public consultation, the study says. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch, said: ‘This has been a clear failure of democracy due in large part to the Left’s deliberate tactic of stifling reasoned debate with accusations of racism. ‘In the years to come, immigration will be seen as Labour’s great betrayal.’

The MigrationWatch document says: ‘Immigration under Labour is certainly the largest ever in numerical terms and the largest in relation to population since the Saxon invasions over a thousand years ago. ‘The only two subsequent immigrations – the Huguenots in the 17th century and the Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries were minor by comparison with recent inflows. ‘Net foreign immigration over the past five years has averaged 24,000 a month.’

The report also says that of the 3.2million immigrants, 80 per cent came from outside the EU, and that, since 1997, 75 per cent of extra jobs created went to foreign-born workers. It states that more than a third of new households will be a result of immigration – requiring 330 new homes every working day for 23 years.

And it points out that the percentage of children born to a foreign mother almost doubled under Labour to 25 per cent. This comes as an extra 500,000 children arrived in our primary schools and a similar number do not have English as their first language.

The report says even New Labour’s favourite think-tank, the Institute of Public Policy Research, acknowledged last year ‘that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country’.

Sir Andrew said: ‘We would agree, the sheer scale of what has occurred is changing Britain fundamentally and irrevocably and in ways the majority of the population did not ask for, were not consulted about and did not wish to see.’

The MigrationWatch report estimates that 5.5million foreign migrants arrived in 13 years of Labour government, not accounting for those who left. That is the equivalent of 423,000 a year – or 48 an hour. In recent years, the figure rose to around 470,000 per annum – close to one every minute.

Last night, Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘Unlimited migration has placed unacceptable pressure on our public services over the years. ‘That is why we are currently carrying out major reform of the system to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.

‘We have already introduced an annual limit to the number of economic visas from outside the UK alongside new proposals to reform other routes of entry including student, marriage and settlement visas, which have in the past been subject to widespread abuse.’

Critics have insisted Labour adopted a deliberate policy of mass immigration to create a ‘multicultural’ country.

Last night, Labour’s immigration spokesman Gerry Sutcliffe said: ‘This is an unbalanced, misleading and highly political report. Migration levels increased initially because of the strength of the British economy over many years. ‘The most recent figures show net migration from outside the EU was coming down as a result of the points-based system and over a third of “long-term migrants” were in fact students, the vast majority of whom study, pay their fees, and then return home.’

SOURCE






Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Estimating the Size of the H-1B Population in the U.S. (Memorandum)

2. Two Governors and Immigration (Blog)

3. Lobbyists Spin GAO Report on H-1B (Blog)

4. European Multiculturalism's Lessons for the U.S.: The Psychology of Belonging (Blog)

5. Immigration and the 'Informal Economy'(Blog)

6. Let's Change the Conceptual Framework Used in Migration Decision-Making (Blog)

7. Wikileaks, Visa Fraud, and a Reverse Twist on the Anchor Baby Scheme (Blog)

8. A Statement of Principles for American NGOs dealing with Immigrant Assimilation (Blog)

9. Medicaid, Immigration Game of Chicken (Blog)

10. Reflections from the Border (Blog)

11. Immigrant Assimilation and NGOs: Mixed Messages (Blog)

12. Allowing Illegal Aliens Access to Driver's Licenses All Over Again (Blog)

13. A Little Good News from Social Security, Maybe, Later This Year (Blog)

14. European Multiculturalism's Lessons for the U.S.: The Role of NGOs (Blog)

15. No 'Truce' for Daniels on Immigration (Blog)

16. European Multiculturalism's Lessons for the U.S.: Double Standards (Blog)





22 February, 2011

Arab revolts raise new immigration fears in Europe

Boats full of illegals arriving fresh from the prisons of Tunis: Just what Italy needs

Europe voiced fears Monday about a new wave of illegal immigration after Libya threatened to break its cooperation on controlling the flow and more Tunisians landed on Italian shores.

With thousands fleeing from Tunisia to Italy in the past 10 days after a revolution ousted Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, European governments reacted with anger and dread after Libya warned that it could suspend its cooperation in retaliation for the EU's condemnation of a crackdown on protesters.

Heading into an EU foreign ministers meeting on the turmoil in the Arab world, German European Affairs Minister Werner Hoyer condemned the Libyan threat and said the EU would "not allow itself to be blackmailed".

Italy, an entry gate for African migrants seeking a better life in Europe, struck a controversial bilateral agreement with Tripoli last year allowing the Italian navy to intercept boat people and return them to Libya.

The European Commission has held talks with Libya for a broader cooperation deal and offered up to 50 million euros (70 million dollars) in aid last year, but no money has been disbursed so far, a commission spokesman said.

"We are extremely concerned about the evolution of the situation in North Africa," said Michele Cercone, spokesman for European home affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem, who visited Libya in October to agree a cooperation agenda.

Libyan officials summoned the Hungarian ambassador last week to warn that they would suspend cooperation if the 27-nation bloc continues to "encourage" protests.

Belgian Foreign Minister Steven Vanackere admitted that the threat made "many people nervous" but he dismissed it as ridiculous. However, diplomats warned that if Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi falls, the floodgates to illegal immigration could blow wide open.

As more Tunisian migrants arrived on the Italian island of Lampedusa on Monday, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini voiced fears that the Libyan unrest and other revolts across the region could increase the pressure. "We Europeans are very concerned about the migratory flows impact, that would be one of the consequences of the turbulences," Frattini told reporters.

Warning that Europe would be "paying the price" of economic collapse in Arab nations, he called for an EU pact to help improve the lives of people in the region, a sort of "Marshall Plan", in reference to the US-led reconstruction programme for Europe after World War II.

The upheaval in its southern neighbourhood marks a new test for European solidarity regarding migration flows, following years of unresolved debate about how to handle the issue. The EU at the weekend launched a mission to help Italy cope with the Lampedusa problem, supplying 30 people, a plane and ships.

"With the migratory pressure centred in some countries -- Greece, Malta, Italy and Spain -- we cannot say to them, 'you're on you're own," said France's European Affairs Minister Laurent Wauquiez. "If we have common borders, we have to exercise community solidarity," he said, noting that 25 European nations share a passport-free travel zone.

The ministers agreed to establish a new partnership with the region to support reform movements and issued conclusions stressing "the importance of strengthened cooperation with Mediterranean countries to address illegal immigration".
EU home affairs ministers will meet Thursday to discuss how to further help Italy with its immigration problem.

"We all agree that very special attention must be paid and very special efforts must be deployed regarding the emergency situation created by the influx of immigrants, for the time being, from Tunisia," said Hungarian Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi whose currently holds the EU presidency.

SOURCE




Ship stowaways in Canada must prove identity

Two stowaways discovered aboard a ship in Halifax harbour last week will be in custody for at least another seven days. The Immigration Refugee Board ruled that the men can't be released because they lack proper identification, said Julie Chamagne, executive director of the Halifax Refugee Clinic.

Chamagne, who represented the men at a closed-door hearing Monday at the Central Nova Correctional Facility, said the two men will appear again in seven days to see if they have identification documents.

The men speak Arabic, Chamagne said, but she doesn't know what country they're from. "If there is a lack of identification, the only thing I can do is show they have been compliant, show they have support to try and and find an alternative to detention," she said. "But, if identity hasn't been satisfied, there is no chance of release."

The men were found last Wednesday aboard the Swedish-owned Atlantic Concert after the ACL vessel arrived in Halifax from Liverpool, England.

"I think anyone who gets on a container ship in February and crosses the Atlantic has to be in a desperate situation," Chamagne said. The men are shaken by the crossing, she said, and by being locked up in the province's largest jail.

"Halifax doesn't have an immigration holding centre. These people are not incarcerated, they are detained on immigration grounds," she said. "But they are in the general population of a criminal facility here, and that's got to be a shock to anyone."

The shipping company has to pay $25,000 each time someone hides away on their ships to get into Canada. The Atlantic Concert left Halifax on Saturday for American ports of call.

SOURCE



21 February, 2011

UK to let in 20,000 skilled Indians yearly, bypassing government's new immigration caps

Britain would reportedly allow thousands of Indians to enter the country every year under a European Union (EU) trade deal.

The multibillion-pound EU India Free Trade Agreement, which was initiated by former Trade Commissioner Lord Mandelson in 2007, and is expected to be signed by the end of June, will allow Indian workers, mostly skilled IT professionals, to bypass the Government's new immigration caps, the Daily Express reports. he paper also said that Britain is preparing to accept 20,000 skilled Indian workers every year, 40 per cent of the proposed quota for all 27 countries in the EU.

The proposed deal is a contrast to last year's announcement made by Prime Minister David Cameron that Britain would put an annual restriction on at least 20,700 skilled non-EU workers.

The workers would reportedly enter via controversial "intra-company transfer visas" that allow foreign companies to send cheap homegrown labours to Britain for a maximum of five years.

Business Secretary Vince Cable had won a cabinet battle last November to ensure the visas were exempt from the Government's new points-based immigration cap, the paper said.

Meanwhile, the free trade deal has been criticized by many analysts in Britain who think that it would "punch a huge hole in our immigration controls".

Sir Andrew Green of campaign group Migration Watch said: "The negotiations over a trade agreement between the EU and India are threatening to punch a huge hole in our immigration controls. What is the point of the British government limiting economic migration to 20,000 a year and then letting in another 20,000 Indians?"

"Cable's Business Department seem to be blind to the impact on British workers. With unemployment now close to two and a half million it is shameful that these negotiations should be so shrouded in secrecy," he added.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber has urged Cable to urgently clarify the impact on British jobs, adding: "We have long held concerns about intra-company transfers as employers do not have to make a business case for importing oversees staff or look to recruit in the UK first."bout 30,000 intra-company transfer visas have reportedly been issued to Indian nationals in the past two years. (ANI)

SOURCE





Boat children key part of racket, says former Australian immigration minister

Former immigration minister Philip Ruddock says children are being used to pave the way for entire families of refugees

FORMER immigration minister Philip Ruddock says children are being used to pave the way for entire families of refugees following a near-doubling of unaccompanied minors in detention.

As the Immigration Department prepares this week to fly nine-year-old Seena Akhlaqi Sheikhdost, whose parents died in the Christmas Island shipwreck, back to Sydney, figures show the number of unaccompanied minors in detention has increased by more than 40 per cent since November, The Australian reports.

Mr Ruddock said yesterday a "significant portion" of those unaccompanied minors had been sent with a view to paving the way for other family members, although he conceded that some might be seeking to avoid forced conscription or other forms of persecution.

"By the time you've got an unaccompanied minor and they've got a claim up, they would argue that under the Convention of the Rights of the Child they've got a right to bring over their parents," Mr Ruddock told The Australian.

"I would suspect that in the majority of cases, they would not be intent on living here alone without their families once they have succeeded . . . I suspect a significant proportion would have been sent for that purpose."

According to the department, the number of unaccompanied minors jumped from 266 at the beginning of November to 453 as of last Friday -- a 41 per cent increase. Unaccompanied minors account for slightly less than half the 1036 minors presently in detention.

Pamela Curr of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre dismissed the theory that families were sending their children ahead as a way of ensuring their own lawful passage through family reunion schemes. "I speak to asylum-seekers in detention and their stories don't bear that out,' she said.

SOURCE



20 February, 2011

Canadian changes



Canada’s immigration system has changed profoundly since Prime Minister Stephen Harper took power five years ago. This week, the public got its first glimpse of who the winners and losers are.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney inadvertently pulled back the veil. He announced that immigration reached a 50-year high last year. “While other western countries cut back on immigration during the recession, our government kept legal immigration levels high,” he boasted.

Within a day, Kenney’s story started to unravel. New Canadians complained they were waiting longer than ever to reunite their families. A close look at Kenney’s figures showed why. The number of “family class” immigrants accepted into Canada has dropped by 10,000 since the Conservatives took power. “We can’t satisfy 100 per cent of our immigrant stakeholders,” the minister explained.

Two days later, a Vancouver lawyer released new figures, obtained through an Access to Information request, showing Ottawa planned to cut the number of visas issued to skilled workers.

That contradicted Kenney’s stated goal of increasing economic immigration. Employers were confused and anxious. The minister’s staff claimed the visa statistics understated the number of immigrants likely to be admitted.

By week’s end, Kenney’s good news announcement was in shreds, his credibility was damaged and the ethnic voters he had courted so assiduously were suspicious. But the rest of the electorate finally had enough information to see what the Conservatives have done to the immigration system.

They have made four main changes:

* They have converted a system with one gateway and one set of entry admission criteria into a system with a dozen entry points, each with different rules. The provinces can now nominate immigrants, employers can recruit foreign workers and international students can stay in Canada after university if they’re job ready and fluent in English or French.

* They have opened the floodgates to a stream of temporary foreign workers. What was once a modest program designed to bring in nannies, farm workers and foreigners with specialized skills, is now a major source of low-cost labour. Last year Canada admitted 180,000 “guest workers” to do everything from clean offices to program computers.

* They have made it harder for immigrants to reunite their families. Four years ago, spouses, children, parents and grandparents of new Canadians made up 28 per cent of the total. It’s now down to 21 per cent.

* They have diminished Canada’s role as a haven for people fleeing violence and persecution. The number of refugees allowed into the country has dropped by 25 per cent since they took power.

To their credit, the Tories have made needed reforms. They have better aligned immigration with the job market, reduced the backlog of applications from skilled workers and improved the distribution of immigrants across the country.

But they have deprived newcomers of the family support they need to integrate successfully, off-loaded responsibility for immigration, and given Canada a harsher, more forbidding face.

As Kenney struggles to regain control of his file, Canadians can judge the trade-offs he has made and the overtly self-interested immigration system that has emerged.

SOURCE






Islam's the problem, not Muslims, says conservative Australian Senator

A large proportion of the illegal immigrants to Australia are Muslims

Tony Abbott's official frontbench understudy has reignited immigration tensions by denouncing Islam as a "totalitarian, political and religious ideology".

Liberal parliamentary secretary Cory Bernardi revealed last night he had received death threats after making the comments.

While the immigration debate usually differentiates between the religion of Islam and extreme fundamentalist interpretations, Senator Bernardi confronted the issue head-on yesterday.

"Islam itself is the problem - it's not Muslims," he told radio station MTR. "Muslims are individuals that practise their faith in their own way, but Islam is a totalitarian, political and religious ideology. "It tells people everything about how they need to conduct themselves, who they're allowed to marry and how they're allowed to treat other people."

Senator Bernardi said Islam had "not moved on" since it was founded and that extremists wanted fundamentalist Islamic rule implemented in Australia.

The senator also inflamed the row over funeral expenses for asylum-seekers by declaring that it was "wrong" for taxpayers to foot the bill.

The remarks provoked a strong reaction from Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, who said Senator Bernardi had "crossed the line" with his attack on Islam.

"These comments are more than offensive; they are bigoted," Mr Patel said. "Cory Bernardi needs to have a good read of the Bible if he is a practising Christian. "This is hardly the language of a religious person."

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen also slammed the senator's remarks. "The Liberal Party professes to have said this week it would not make political points out of race and religion, but here we have Tony Abbott's parliamentary secretary launching an attack on a religion," Mr Bowen said.

SOURCE



19 February, 2011

ICE "silent raids" target illegals

In accordance with the Obama administration’s apparent preference, the Federal government through the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement is targeting illegal hires. The Wall Street Journal reported February 17 that ICE is expanding government audits to target employers hiring illegals.

Sources close to the Department of Homeland Security report that ICE is requiring 1000 employers to turn over their employee records. The indication is prospects for audit will be notified in the next few days.

The purpose of the audit is to examine the government form I-9 which requests employee identity and right to employment in the U.S. and is supported by two forms of identification such as social security card, driver’s license, or military service records.

These audits are termed “silent raids” and are the current preference to workforce raids to snag illegals. Both Democrats and Republicans are said to prefer these audits to provide proof of action to curb illegal hiring. This is in lieu of a failure to address the problems of illegal immigration with new legislation.

Denver based Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., was targeted in Minnesota last year according to reports in both the Wall Street Journal and The Denver Post earlier this month. The restaurant chain was forced to lay off hundreds of illegal workers. ICE has advised the company will be audited in Virginia and Washington, D.C. where they operate about 60 restaurants.

The ICE audits have resulted in thousands of illegal workers being caught not only in the restaurant businesses, but in retail clothing stores, apple growers in Washington and other food producers. This will probably result in an increase in the use of the Federal E-Verify system.

California, Arizona, Texas, Missouri, Georgia and Florida are states that now have 10,000 or more employers participating in the E-Verify program. The proficiency of this government run electronic database program has been less than stellar, although now claims greater accuracy. Currently only federal contractors are required to use it.

This accounts for 11% usage of the 7.7 million employers in the U.S. There is a push now among supporters of the system to expand the program on the federal and state level. It is reasonable to believe that innocent employees, with no opportunity to defend themselves are dismissed along with the violators of the system.

The Service Employers International Union, whose members are about 25% immigrants, is critical of the silent raids, stating this does not keep good people employed or help the economy. The SEIU supports amnesty for illegal workers according to a senior staffer, Ben Monterroso.

Companies can be charged with civil and criminal prosecutions if caught violating the hiring procedures. It is a difficult call, however, as prospective employees file false or stolen documents to support their employment-eligibility I-9 forms. Discovery of improper documents will result in immediate dismissal, to the detriment of both employee and employer.

SOURCE






Canada relies on "Guest workers"

This is absurd in a country with 7.8% unemployment

This week, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship rightly noted that immigrants are Canada’s ticket to economic growth in the coming years.

The untold story is this: Canada’s growing reliance on newcomers is increasingly turning to temporary foreign workers -- “guest workers” -- rather than new immigrants and future citizens to propel growth.

The rise in the number of temporary foreign workers has accelerated over the past decade, most rapidly since 2006. Today their ranks eclipse those of economic immigrants.

Labour market shortages will grow in the coming years, as boomers retire in record numbers. How we bring people into Canada to meet our labour market needs will shape the evolving nature of Canada itself. Immigration and temporary foreign workers are two very different answers to the problem of how to sustain our standard of living.

Immigration is driven by people wanting to settle in this country, and the entry quotas are set by public policy to meet the public interest of Canadians. Temporary foreign work permits are issued to meet the needs of employers who, ostensibly, face labour shortages that cannot be addressed by Canadian workers. This process is not based on quotas. In principle and practice, there are no upper limits.

These workers are brought into Canada as, essentially, the guests of the employer. They have few rights (of which they are often unaware). They have no access to services available to other immigrants. Theirs is rarely a path to permanent residency.

In 2010, Canada allowed 182,322 temporary foreign workers to enter Canada to meet employers’ needs. This is the second-highest number on record, the highest being in 2008.

Some temporary foreign work permits are issued for longer than a year, some only for months. Consequently the total number of temporary foreign workers to address employers’ identified labour market needs is higher than the number of entries in a given year.

In 2010, there were 283,096 temporary foreign workers in Canada, doing work that employers asserted there was no Canadian available to do. That is the highest number of temporary foreign workers on record, but only slightly higher than the number recorded in 2009, during the worst of the recession.

The highest demand for temporary foreign workers stems from the fastest growing economies in Canada: Alberta and Saskatchewan. But every jurisdiction except Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut has at least doubled their utilization of these “guest workers”.

The biggest growth in employer demand has been for basic labour or unspecified skills, especially since the recession. In 2000, 11 per cent of temporary foreign workers performed basic labour or unspecified skills; now 34 per cent of them do. They used to primarily fall into the categories of nannies and caregivers, or seasonal agricultural workers. Employers are now using the temporary work permit program to bring in workers for hotels, fast food outlets, janitorial services and factories -- typical Canadian jobs, albeit low-paying.

"The temporary foreign worker program is really about contracting out immigration," says Yessy Byl, a lawyer who volunteers with the Edmonton Community Legal Centre. “In fact the government is setting the stage for a bizarre non-immigration program because those workers can’t immigrate.”

Whether unintentional or not, the shaping of public policy seems to be increasingly off-loaded to private sector interests rather than handled by those charged with addressing the public interest, which include but are broader than employers’ needs.

Local economic needs are an important factor in shaping immigration policy, and the involvement of employers can and should reduce skill mismatches.

But there’s a danger in allowing employers, alone, to define Canada’s immigration policy: Employers are increasingly looking for average workers, not skilled labour. Cheap labour, that is. Workers who increasingly depend on the goodwill of their employer rather than the rule of law.

This week, the Law Commission of Ontario, in its ongoing efforts to make the law accessible to all residents, started looking at what can be done about the rise of vulnerable workers.

By allowing employers to drive the agenda based on their own short-term interests, the federal government has dropped the ball on Canada’s long-term interests and has taken immigration policy down a troubling path: the normalization of migrant labour in Canada.

For a country that has grown into one of the most diverse, peaceful and prosperous nations on the planet, this shift in immigration policy signals a troubling new direction. Throughout our history the long-standing offer to newcomers, through unifying families and providing citizenship, was the promise of becoming full participants in Canadian society.

In its place, official policy increasingly sanctions and supports employers who use newcomers as cheap and disposable labour. It's bad for diversity, it's a terrible trend for workplaces, and it affects everyone.

The role of government is to protect the interests of Canadian workers as well as Canadian employers. That includes protecting the powerless from those willing to exploit our vulnerabilities. Backing away from that job turns immigration into a potential source of social tension, just as Canadians increasingly turn to immigrants to assure our economic future.

Source



18 February, 2011

ICE insisting on local law involvement in tackling criminal illegals

After months of internal wrangling and confusion over an ambitious nationwide program allowing state and local police agencies to identify immigrants with criminal records, Obama administration immigration officials have decided to take a hard line against communities that try to delay or cancel their participation in the program, according to documents made public late Wednesday.

The program, Secure Communities, was initiated in late 2008 and is a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s strategy for enforcing immigration laws. The documents include e-mails and other materials showing deliberations among officials of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which runs the program.

The documents show that well into the second year of the program, as officials were moving forcefully to extend it to hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the country, the officials remained deeply confused over whether state and local governments could decline to join it. The internal discussions intensified as cities and states — including Arlington County, Va., San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Calif., Washington, and the states of Colorado, New York, Oregon and Washington — were considering whether to opt out.

But late last year, the documents show, officials from ICE, as the federal agency is known, reaffirmed its policy that every local jurisdiction in the country would be required to join the program by 2013. The officials developed a plan to isolate and pressure communities that did not want to participate.

One document, dated Jan. 2, 2011, suggests a “tactical approach to sensitive jurisdictions” for local immigration officers working to expand the program. It recommends that they bring nearby communities into the program, to create a “ring” around the “resistant site.”

The Secure Communities program connects the state and local police to Department of Homeland Security databases, allowing them to use fingerprints to check the immigration history, as well as the criminal record, of anyone booked after arrest. If a fingerprint match shows that the suspect is subject to deportation, both the immigration agency and the police are notified. As of this week, the program had been activated in 1,049 local law enforcement agencies in 39 states.

Agency officials said the program has led to the deportation of about 58,300 immigrants with criminal convictions since it was started in 2008.

Immigrant advocacy groups strongly oppose the program, saying it has led to deportations of thousands of illegal immigrants who had no criminal records, separating established families. Immigrants’ groups have held protests to dissuade local governments from signing on.

About 15,000 pages of agency documents were released through a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Center for Constitutional Rights and immigration lawyers at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. The Associated Press obtained the documents separately and reported on them on Wednesday.

Several dozen documents were culled for release by the groups, which oppose the Secure Communities program.

Sarahi Uribe of the laborers’ group accused the agency of misleading communities by sending mixed signals about whether they could opt out of the program. “The amount of dishonesty revealed in this process would make anyone question whether ICE recognizes it’s operating in a democracy,” Ms. Uribe said.

Immigration officials said they could not respond directly because a court case over the release of the documents remained open. But Brian Hale, an agency spokesman, said in a statement that “deliberative, internal correspondence should not be confused for final policy.”

He said that while communities could not opt out of the program, the police could choose not to receive the results of immigration checks performed when suspects are booked.

A Homeland Security official added that a state could legally refuse to participate in the program, but he said immigration officials were confident that no state would give up its access to national criminal databases.

SOURCE





Immigration laws must be enforced too

As a citizen of a country that boasts that it is a nation of laws, I am extremely concerned about its future, which is looking very grim at the moment because certain elements within our society are fighting tooth and nail to prevent enforcement of our immigration laws — laws, please remember, that were created to protect American workers.

Our immigration crisis exists because:

* Pandering politicians elected to represent the interests of their constituents show more concern and compassion for those who have no respect for our immigration laws and sovereignty but demand that the rest of us respect them.

* Mainstream media for years have portrayed illegal immigrants as victims of a "broken'' immigration policy. Nearly every day, Americans are subjected to news stories that ignore the media's own ethics and standards for fairness and balance, coverage that leaves readers and viewers with the impression that the only people now entitled to "search for a better life'' in this country are the foreign-born, especially those here illegally.

When was the last time you saw a news story and photos of our unemployed who must compete in a horrendous job market while our federal government continues each month to issue 75,000 work permits to newly arrived foreign workers who, for the most part, bring with them few skills and little education?

* A greedy and immoral business community that whines to anybody willing to listen that it can't exist without cheap foreign labor.

I repeat: If both Congress and the media had been doing their respective jobs; that is, being honest with a public entitled to know all the facts, I'm convinced we wouldn't be dealing with issues like whether illegal immigrants are entitled to in-state tuition and driver's licenses.

And we wouldn't be wondering why a president who sold a lot of people a bill of goods about "hope'' and "change'' and who says jobs for Americans are a "top priority,'' is permitting 7 million illegal immigrants to keep their nonagricultural jobs, while 22 million Americans and legal immigrants cannot find full-time employment.

Strict enforcement of our immigration laws, even during healthy economic times, is an absolute necessity if our immigration policy is to be viewed as credible by the rest of the world.

What does such credibility look like? This question was put to the late Texas congresswoman Barbara Jordan when she chaired President Clinton's immigration reform panel. She replied, "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.''

SOURCE



17 February, 2011

Utah: Immigration bill seeks middle ground in debate

In state legislatures across the country, most of the immigration bills being debated aim to crack down on illegal immigration. Legislators are trying to cut off illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits, deny their U.S.-born children citizenship and force them out of states by granting local police the power to enforce immigration laws.

One bill filed in Utah is being viewed as the possible middle ground that has proven so elusive in a hyper-charged immigration discussion. The Utah bill, known as the Pilot Accountability Permit Program, would grant work permits to illegal immigrants so they could legally work in the state but would require them to undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes and take English classes, and it would force them to leave the state if they lose their jobs.

Under the legislation, the state would report illegal immigrants who commit a major crime to the federal Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agency.

"It is very rare," Eric Rodriguez, vice president of public policy for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights group, said of the bill. "It just feels more meaningful than what we've seen in other states."

The bill was co-sponsored by state Sen. Luz Robles, a Democrat, and state Rep. Jeremy Peterson, a Republican, and has the backing of a conservative think tank in Utah.

Paul Mero, director of the conservative Sutherland Institute, said he became disheartened by the dozens of bills flowing through the Utah Capitol and other state legislatures that focused on trying to catch and deport illegal immigrants. He said the immigration system needs to be fixed by Congress, but meanwhile, Utah should focus on constructive ways to deal with the 110,000 illegal immigrants living in the state.

"You really have two paths," Mero said. "The one path leads to rounding them up or starving them out. Or, you can actually go down this other path of rationality and practicality."

Even though it has bipartisan support in Utah, it is receiving bipartisan criticism from outside.

Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which supports a path for some illegal immigrants to become citizens, was pleased by the general direction of the bill, but worried that some of the enforcement portions of the bill may go too far.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates lower levels of immigration, said the core of the bill is unconstitutional because states cannot regulate immigration numbers. He called the bill "de facto amnesty" and considered it a political gesture since it has little chance of surviving legal challenges.

Robles acknowledged that her proposal delves into uncharted legal territory and said that the state would need a waiver from the federal government to implement it. Even so, she said she is confident the legislation would survive constitutional challenges since it doesn't alter the immigration status of illegal immigrants and her state has been providing driver's licenses for illegal immigrants for years.

Robles said legislators from six states have inquired about the bill. And no matter the outcome of her bill, she said she hopes it changes the tone of the national immigration debate. "People are realizing that the extremes are just not going to work," Robles said. "You're seeing a shift on how people are talking about this issue."

SOURCE





Chavez Funding American Group That Assists Illegal Migrants

President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela is sending $1 million a year of his oil revenue to an American organization bent on keeping America's borders wide open. Casa de Maryland openly helps migrants illegally in the United States. It also receives $4 million from the state of Maryland and Montgomery County out of a total budget of $9.5 million a year.

Chávez is knee deep in potential lawlessness. Evidence has surfaced of his intentions to ship Russian weapons to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and criminal drug cartels such as FARC, to facilitate terrorist acts against the United States, including blowing up pipelines carrying oil to the United States. He has also promised to ship both uranium to Iran to help Tehran make nuclear weapons material and oil to help break a possible refined petroleum products sanctions law now before the US Congress. How much of this is just talk and how much real? The laptop on which these Chávez plans were found was a real computer, owned by a real FARC senior commander. How much risk do we want to face?

Open borders with the world pose grave dangers to the United States. The San Diego Union described the chaos on our borders this way: “Every night, the understaffed and outnumbered Border Patrol engaged in a losing battle of cat-and-mouse with thousands of illegal immigrants being led by ruthless smugglers. ... San Ysidro residents locked themselves in at night as smugglers and immigrants traipsed through their yards. Caches of drugs were carried across the border by smugglers and the people they were leading. Hundreds of illegal immigrants lingered in the median strip of Interstate 5 waiting for rides northward. Immigrants running across freeways were hit and killed by motorists."

A USA Columnist visited the border to examine the prospects for a fence. She wrote: : “The carnage makes one wonder why environmental groups aren’t out lobbying for a sturdy border fence — instead of arguing against tougher border enforcement.”

But we not only have a problem at the border. The United States still has no reliable system for verifying that foreign visitors have left the country. Federal officials estimate that “40 percent of the…illegal immigrants in the United States came on legal visas and overstayed.”

At a recent community event in Maryland, a veteran Democrat legislator told me there was no problem in Casa de Maryland receiving funding from Chávez because "Venezuela is a model for Latin and Central American development". I thought she must have been kidding. Inflation in the country is over 30% and may reach twice that. Unemployment is skyrocketing. Chávez has so mismanaged the economy the country does not produce enough coffee for domestic consumption for the first time ever. The currency has dropped in value by over half as Chávez prints money wildly.

Casa de Maryland condemns those who advocate effective limits on immigration as racists, as does Chávez. It has threatened civil disobedience should the US Congress not approve amnesty. It publishes pamphlets that instruct people to refuse to cooperate with immigration and law enforcement officials.

The Times Square bomber, or the Detroit underwear bomber, are just a couple of numerous examples of the latest example of the connection between lax immigration laws--or lax enforcement of the laws we already have-- and potential terrorism. In the case of the Times Square clown, it was a case of granting citizenship to someone from a known state sponsored terrorist hotbed (Pakistan) and apparently looking the other way when reviewing what appears to be a sham marriage. How much worse is it to give tax-exempt status to those who actively seek to leave unprotected our borders while supporting themselves with funds from terror supporting states?

Source



16 February, 2011

High-flyers to escape British migration cap

(For non-British readers: "The City" is London's financial district)

High-flyers earning more than £150,000 a year will be exempt from the yearly cap on economic migration, ministers will announce on Wednesday. The move comes in response to fears that the limit would hinder the City’s ability to hire global talent.

The concession will be welcomed by business leaders, who have warned the government that the limit on work permits for non-Europeans threatens to damage important trading partnerships and London’s standing as an international commercial hub.

Lady Valentine, chief executive of London First, a City lobby group that has led opposition to the cap, said: “It is refreshing to see that government is listening to business concerns. Many of London’s biggest global employers will be delighted with the restrictions on high earners being lifted.”

Yearly net migration rose recently to 215,000, although much of that could be attributed to Britons no longer emigrating to Spain.

There is also evidence that immigration from Ireland is rising, as well as from other EU countries such as Latvia and Lithuania, also outside the government’s control.

The points-based system will be ranked to favour jobs where there are skills shortages, scientific researchers and high earners.

More HERE






A much ignored petition in Australia

Political correctness trumps the voice of the people

The controversial petition calling for a ban on Muslim immigration has been tabled 48 times in Parliament, The Canberra Times can reveal.

ACT Liberal senator Gary Humphries angered the Muslim community when he tabled a petition on behalf of three Sydney residents last week, calling for a 10-year moratorium on Muslim migration to Australia. Several other senators had declined to do so.

However, an analysis of the history of the petition which appears to originate with the Christian Democrat Party reveals it is not the first time Senator Humphries has tabled it. Another 35 politicians 19 Liberals, six Nationals, eight Labor MPs and senators and two Independents have also tabled it since 2007, several more than once.

The petition calls for Christians to be given priority in immigration and for a 10-year ban on Muslims coming to Australia "so an assessment can be made on the social and political disharmony currently occurring in the Netherlands, France and the UK".

Senator Humphries said yesterday he would have tabled it the first time for the same reasons as last week. Although he disagreed with its sentiments, he had a responsibility to allow people's views to be presented to Parliament.

He was "not anxious to become the patron saint of ... extreme points of view" and sorry the publicity had given some people the chance to express bigoted or racist views, but stood by his decision to table it.

"I would do so, and in fact I will do so, again, because this situation is bound to recur in some form or another; not necessarily this issue, but something else that people consider to be controversial," he said.

Source



15 February, 2011

Thousands of illegal workers claiming British welfare payments: Loophole in the law costs taxpayers millions

Tens of thousands of workers with no right to be in Britain have been claiming benefits thanks to an extraordinary loophole in the law.

Ministers have discovered that Labour allowed 155,000 illegal immigrants to qualify for sickness benefits and maternity pay. Government sources put the cost to the public purse at ‘tens of millions of pounds’.

They say the shambles is a damning indictment of how Labour lost control of both the benefits and immigration systems with taxpayers left to foot the bill. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith will outlaw the practice in welfare reform legislation expected to be unveiled this week.

Ministers believe most of those abusing the system came to work in Britain for a limited period and overstayed their visa. Others managed to get a job without a work permit.

At present, someone could be illegally in the UK and able to claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), paid to those too sick to work, as well as statutory payments such as maternity or paternity pay and sick pay.

Astonishingly, the Work and Pensions Department has not in the past asked to see work permits when assessing claims for ESA. Employers, meanwhile, have not been asked to show proof that workers are in Britain legally when processing claims for maternity or paternity pay or sick pay.

A Whitehall source said: ‘It cannot be right that people who aren’t eligible to work here can get benefits that are a substitute for earnings.

‘This is a classic example of where the welfare system has been allowed to get completely out of control. It is difficult to track because these are illegal workers, but the cost is likely to be in the tens of millions. ‘Clearly it’s incredibly unfair and ministers are acting to legislate to close the loophole as quickly as possible. 'Work permits showing people are here legally will be needed for ESA claims or an employer will have to show one when they are putting claims through. 'The Bill we are bringing forward will start the root-and-branch overhaul needed to put fairness back at the heart of the system.’

Hundreds of thousands of National Insurance numbers were handed out under Labour to illegal workers as, alarmingly, there was no requirement on JobCentre staff to check whether a person was in the country legally. Many employers wrongly believed that having an NI number meant foreign staff were allowed to work in the UK.

Illegal workers should not be eligible for any state-funded benefit, housing, or anything other than emergency NHS treatment. At the moment, a ‘habitual residency test’ is used to establish whether migrants are eligible for other types of benefit.

To qualify for jobseeker’s allowance, employment support allowance, pension credit and income support, they must demonstrate that they have either worked or have a good opportunity to get a job.

However, the European Commission has warned ministers that the rules may infringe the human rights of EU citizens and are ‘not compatible’ with EU law. It has started legal proceedings against Britain to have restrictions on welfare claims by incomers scrapped.

The Welfare Reform Bill, ministers say, will bring an end to the complex, costly and inefficient series of benefits and tax credits, replacing them with a single universal credit. Cuts to housing and disability benefits will also be confirmed.

The scale of the welfare challenge facing Britain is laid bare today in figures which show at least 330,000 children – around one in 30 – are growing up with a parent claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Mr Duncan Smith said: ‘We know that family is the most important influence on a child’s life, so it is no surprise that with this many children growing up with parents on unemployment benefits we are facing intergenerational worklessness and benefit dependency on such a massive scale. ‘Our broken welfare system has reinforced this destructive cycle for generations.’

SOURCE








Border security fail could be fatal for the Australian Labor Party

After Federal Parliament returns next Monday, there are sufficient grounds for the opposition to move the first no-confidence motion in the Gillard government. The trigger is the disintegrating credibility of Australia's border security, and the compromising of Australia's territorial sovereignty. On this fundamental moral and political issue, the Gillard government is unfit to govern.

The majority of the electorate takes this issue very seriously as a matter of principle. If a federal government cannot maintain territorial integrity the electorate will inflict political pain. That's why the phrase ''we will stop the boats'' were the first words of the mantra constantly repeated by Tony Abbott when he outperformed the robotic Julie Gillard in last year's election campaign. If an Australian government is perceived to be capitulating to the tactic of fait accompli on its borders by people demanding a right of entry, the government faces political death.

This principle is non-negotiable for most Australians. Thus the Coalition's chief pollster and electorate researcher, Mark Textor, put the words ''stop the boats'' first when he wrote that mantra. ''I put them first because it was the issue voters were putting first,'' Textor told me.

Now, six months on from the election, the Middle East is yet again in flux and the legal sieve that passes for Australia's border security is spiralling out of control. Could the Gillard government stop a big influx of illegal entrants? No. It doesn't have the policies.

None of us know whether we are witnessing a political spring or autumn in the streets of Cairo and Tunis. While the euphoria of people power in Egypt and Tunisia allows for hope, the Middle East has been utterly consistent in delivering political dislocations that eventually wash up on Australia's shores.

Literally. Look no further than the 15 bodies that have found their way, at great expense, to a morgue in Lidcombe. They are the remains of people who tried to get into Australia illegally and died in the process when their boat foundered.

Even as arrangements are made for their burial in Rookwood cemetery this week, the bodies, mostly Iraqi nationals, are the subject of legal wrangling.

It is typical of the legal quagmire that the Gillard government, and the Department of Immigration, have allowed to occur. I used to assume that the Department of Immigration was rigorous, impartial and transparent. I no longer make that assumption. In my dealings with the department I have found it both opaque and politely useless. Because there appears to be no point in dealing with the media unit, I am preparing a list of questions for the secretary of the department, Andrew Metcalfe. He will probably fob off the questions but the process will be public.

Metcalfe's department is busy spending an unprecedented amount delivering an ineffective program on the scale of waste comparable to Labor's national roof insulation scheme or school building program. This time the failure is destroying lives and inviting more of the same on a greater scale.

Last Thursday, the Gillard government asked for another $290 million to fund its border protection program. The opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, responded: ''In 2010-11 the government will spend more than $760 million on people arriving illegally in Australia. This compares to less than $100 million in annual expenditure when the Howard government left office in 2007.''

At this rate of spending, the cost of keeping each detainee has rocketed to $150,000 a year. It is not just the ridiculous cost. It's the mindset. The overwhelming majority of Australians would regard the people smugglers' boats as illegal entries. Yet the Department of Immigration cannot bring itself to use the term ''illegal''. It refers to these incursions into Australian territory as ''irregular''.

No wonder there is backlog of 6000 humanitarian cases clogging the scrutiny and review system. No wonder the Labor government, which railed against the Howard government's detention policies, is opening more and more detention centres. No wonder the centres are all overcrowded, leading the 2010 Australian of the Year, Professor Pat McGorry, to describe them as ''factories for producing mental illness''.

They are mental illness factories, because the vetting process is painfully slow, legal appeals are also ponderous, families are separated, violent disruptions are routine, and self-harm is common.

More than 2000 violent incidents are happening every year in the centres. Last week, in the latest known incident, about 40 detainees were involved in scuffles at the Darwin Airport Lodge detention centre. Six people were hospitalised.

All because this government is achieving the worst of both worlds: encourage the people-smuggler trade then lock up the arrivals.

While the majority of the electorate appear to believe that the last people who should be allowed permanently into the country are those who try to come in illegally, the Gillard government does not even forcibly return people it has ordered to be deported.

It does not automatically reject anyone who arrives without identity papers. Instead, it follows policies laid down by the United Nations Convention on Refugees and other UN protocols.

The combination of more arrivals, more detentions and slow processes means the average time spent in detention has risen to 183 days. Six months. Two years ago the figure was 25 days.

The federal opposition might want to ask why should Australians would want to accept this expensive debacle? A no-confidence motion would also oblige the man who made all this possible, the independent MP Robert Oakeshott, to stand up and defend the indefensible if he voted with the government on this issue.

SOURCE



14 February, 2011

Enoch was right

Cal Thomas

In a speech to a security conference in Munich, British Prime Minister David Cameron declared state multiculturalism a failure. For good measure, Cameron said Britain also must get tougher on Islamic extremists. Predictably, this has angered Islamic extremists.

A genuinely liberal country, he said, "believes in certain values and actively promotes them. ... Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law, equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality."

Britain's policy should be to require -- yes, require -- immigrants to become part of a melting pot and not individual vegetables floating around in a multicultural stew. Otherwise, they should not be admitted.

When critics of multiculturalism and unbridled immigration warned of the inevitability of a loss of nationhood and national identity, they were denounced as alarmists, even racists.

The late British parliamentarian Enoch Powell suffered such attacks (and earned many kudos) when he repeatedly warned about the dangers of open-ended immigration without assimilation. In a controversial speech to a Conservative Party conference in 1968, Powell began his address, known as "Rivers of Blood," with what ought to be an obvious statement: "The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles, which are deeply rooted in human nature."

Powell argued that when it comes to multiculturalism and immigration, Britain had failed in that mandate. Looking into the future, Powell accurately predicted what has come to pass from mass and uncontrolled immigration: "Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population."

Powell wasn't so much railing against immigrants, though his critics read it in those terms, but against Britain's refusal to integrate them into British culture.

And then Powell let the timid class have it with this line: "There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it 'against discrimination', whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong."

In 1968, Britain still had time to reverse course, but because its leaders didn't want to be called "racists" and immigrants were doing jobs British citizens were increasingly reluctant to do (sound familiar?) the floodgates were left open. It may be too late for Britain, as it may be too late for France and Germany.

It isn't too late for the United States, though it is getting close. Too many American leaders suffer from the same weak-kneed syndrome that has gripped Britain. Who will tell immigrants to America that the days of multiculturalism are over and if they want to come to America, they must do so legally and expect to become Americans with no hyphens, no allegiance to another country, and no agenda other than the improvement of the United States?

Enoch Powell was right four decades ago. David Cameron is right today. If British leaders had listened to Powell then, Cameron would not have needed to make his Munich speech.

SOURCE





Senator's Bill Picks Up Administration’s Slack on Immigration Enforcement

Senator Orrin Hatch came to The Heritage Foundation on Friday to present his forthcoming immigration bill—“The Strengthening our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America’s Security Act.” His remarks, and the content of his bill, are a step in the right direction on immigration and border security—given that President Obama used his State of the Union address to make another case for amnesty.

The bill was written in collaboration with members of Congress from states along the southwestern border. As Hatch said, it’s important to work with those who, “of all people, know what resources we need to deploy to accomplish the job.” It is founded upon the conviction that federal immigration law needs to be enforced, not ignored. Senator Hatch emphasized the connection between liberty and the rule of law: “Most Americans believe that our laws ought to be enforced…. That’s one of the things that’s kept us so free.”

The bill addresses key areas in which law enforcement has been lacking under the Obama Administration. Enforcement has been weak, of course, because Secretary Napolitano’s model for immigration reform is an inherently unstable, metaphorical three-legged stool—premised largely on an expensive amnesty that would increase, not decrease the illegal immigration problem. Heritage has proposed an alternate “three-legged stool,” absent amnesty—and including internal enforcement, border security, and reforms to the legal immigration system. Senator Hatch’s bill helps to make the border more secure and increase interior enforcement efforts.

Specifically, the bill, among several reforms, would take actions such as remedying systematic abuse of the deferral/parole prerogative in immigration cases and ensuring that jurisdictions that take federal dollars for immigration enforcement aren’t actually acting as sanctuaries for illegal immigration. It would also track welfare payments to illegal immigrants and begin to combat identify theft. One way Hatch’s bill attacks identity theft is requiring the IRS to take a proactive approach to the theft of Social Security Numbers so that no citizen finds himself untangling an identity theft mess built up over fifteen years. Hatch says the IRS is “the federal agency that is best suited to track” identity theft.

Senator Hatch’s bill takes concrete steps to fill up gaps in the enforcement of immigration laws where the current administration will not act. Congress should move to restore the rule of law where it has lapsed.

SOURCE



13 February, 2011

Italy declares immigration emergency

Italy's government called a humanitarian emergency on Saturday after thousands of asylum-seekers sailed across the Meditarranean from Tunisia, overwhelming authorities on a remote island. "The cabinet today ... has proclaimed a state of humanitarian emergency following the influx of the large number of citizens from North Africa," the government said in a statement.

The statement said that the decision to call an official emergency would enable civil protection officers "to take immediate action needed to control this phenomenon and assist citizens who have fled from North Africa."

In particular, the move will enable the central government to release funds for local authorities in areas which have been inundated by the wave of refugees, most of whom have fled to the tiny island of Lampedusa.

The majority of the asylum-seekers have come from nearby Tunisia, in the wake of the North African country's revolution four weeks ago.

Nearly 3,000 illegal immigrants have landed in Italy since Wednesday, according to a number of sources, including 250 overnight. Most were packed into small fishing boats that were intercepted by coast guards and then taken to Lampedusa where they were given blankets and received medical care after stepping off the boats. Hundreds have had to sleep out in the open at the port because of a lack of facilities on the island, while others were taken to local hotels.

The Italian authorities have organised an airlift and put a ferry into service to take some of the immigrants off Lampedusa, transporting them to identification centres in southern Sicily.

However around a thousand immigrants were still stuck on Lampedusa on Saturday despite the efforts to clear the island.

Italy made a formal request on Friday for aid from the European Union to combat what it warned was a looming humanitarian crisis, saying the EU's justice and home affairs council should meet immediately.

In a joint statement, Interior Minister Roberto Maroni and Foreign Minister Franco Frattini also requested "the immediate deployment of a Frontex mission for patrolling and interception off the Tunisian coast," referring to the EU's border security agency based in Warsaw. [One has to laugh at Frontex being headquartered in Warsaw -- as far away as possible from where most illegal immigration actually occurs -- in the Mediterranean]

SOURCE






Canadian immigration boss accuses courts of undermining immigration system

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is lashing out at the judicial system, accusing judges and lawyers of undermining Canada’s immigration process by indulging spurious refugee cases.

In the text of a speech to the law faculty at the University of Western Ontario in London, Kenney says Federal Court judges are too often second-guessing legitimate policy decisions, working against the reforms legislators have made to improve the system. “If we can’t find a way to reduce the interminable process by which immigration cases creep through the courts, slouching from appeal to appeal, the changes will be of little use and the progress we have made will be for nought,” Kenney said.

In a speech heavy with legal references and stories of refugee claimants playing the Canadian courts for years, at a high cost to taxpayers, Kenney urged the judiciary to be more co-operative.

“We need the judiciary to understand the spirit of what we are trying to do,” he said. “There are serious criminals we have been trying to remove who have been able to delay their deportation through repetitive appeals for almost 20 years.”

Federal courts are flooded with appeals from would-be refugees who are manipulating the system to extend their stay in Canada. But only one per cent of those appeals are successful, Kenney notes. “So it concerns me when I hear that more than half of the cases that come before the Federal Court are immigration- or refugee-related,” he says. “It suggests to me that the integrity of the decisions made by my department is being questioned too often without sufficient justification.”

Both the government and the public are despairing over the ability of unacceptable refugee claimants to take advantage of Canada’s courts, he claimed.

Kenney says the Supreme Court has already told lower-court judges they should defer to a ministerial decision to deport someone — unless it’s obvious the decision was made in bad faith.

He warns that Parliament’s best efforts to design an efficient and fair immigration and refugee system won’t work unless the judiciary starts co-operating. “Even in easy cases, the removal process can be exploited by clever immigration lawyers who know that our courts are too often willing to indulge even the most creative and dubious claims,” he warned.

He accused the courts of “intrusive and heavy-handed” interference in well-reasoned decisions made by officials.

And he said it’s well known that judges will often hand criminals sentences of two years less a day — ensuring they stay in provincial jails, rather than federal — so that the criminals can delay deportation.

Parliament passed a major overhaul of the refugee system last spring, and it is due to come into force in the coming months.

The new system aims to speed the deportation of false refugee claimants, and also help legitimate refugees get their claims accepted more quickly.

Kenney is also hoping to see Parliament agree to a crackdown on human smugglers. But that proposed legislation has been blocked by opposition parties, who say it treats refugee claimants unfairly and would breach the Charter of Rights.

SOURCE



12 February, 2011

AZ: Governor countersues federal government

Gov. Jan Brewer sued the federal government Thursday for failing to control Arizona's border with Mexico and enforce immigration laws, and for sticking the state with huge costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants who commit crimes. The lawsuit claims the federal government has failed to protect Arizona from an "invasion" of illegal immigrants. It seeks increased reimbursements and extra safeguards, such as additional border fences.

Brewer's court filing serves as a countersuit in the federal government's legal challenge to Arizona's new enforcement immigration law. The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to invalidate the law. "Because the federal government has failed to protect the citizens of Arizona, I am left with no other choice," Brewer said as sign-carrying protesters yelled chants at her and at other champions of the immigration law.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler declined to comment on the filing. But a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is in charge of policing the country's borders, called Brewer's lawsuit a meritless action and said Border Patrol staffing is higher than ever. "Not only do actions like this ignore all of the statistical evidence, they also belittle the significant progress that our men and women in uniform have made to protect this border and the people who live alongside it," spokesman Matthew Chandler said. "We welcome any state and local government or law enforcement agency to join with us to address the remaining challenges."

Brewer's lawsuit seeks a court order that would require the federal government to take extra steps to protect Arizona — such as more border fences — until the border is controlled. Brewer also asks for additional border agents and technology along the state's border with Mexico.

The governor isn't seeking a lump-sum award, but rather asks for policy changes in the way the federal government reimburses states for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants who are convicted of state crimes. Such changes would give the state more reimbursement.

More HERE






Only 20% of immigration offenders actually kicked out of UK

Thousands of immigration offenders are being allowed to escape deportation every year, Government figures reveal.

The asylum system is supposed to take a strict stance against those who are caught living in the UK illegally. But fewer than one in five of those who claimed asylum only after they were caught living here without permission have been kicked out. Incredibly, more are being given permission to stay than are being removed.

Critics said the figures showed how the previous Labour government had turned Britain into a ‘soft touch’ for illegal immigrants. In the past three years alone, only 7,294 of the 40,000 who claimed asylum after being caught breaking immigration rules were kicked out. This compared with 9,869 - one in four - who were told they could stay. The remainder have either yet to have their cases decided or have dropped out of the system.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch, said: ‘These are astonishing figures. ‘These people entered illegally in the first place without bothering to claim asylum, so they can hardly be prime candidates. ‘Despite that, a quarter of them were granted some sort of protection. ‘Worse still, of all those detected, less than one in five have actually been removed. No wonder Britain is considered a soft touch and people are queuing in Calais to get here.’

The Home Office figures, obtained by Tory MP Priti Patel, detail what happens to people who are caught living in Britain illegally. They can be caught trying to enter the country in the back of lorries, or using other clandestine methods. Alternatively, they may have entered legally then overstayed their visas. Both categories are entitled to claim asylum when they are picked up by the authorities. However, the UK Border Agency is instructed to take a dim view of anybody caught in these circumstances.

Normally, there is a suspicion that anybody who does not claim asylum within a short time of entering the country may not be a genuine refugee.

One of the difficulties faced by the UK Border Agency is having enough staff to track down failed asylum seekers once they have been ordered to leave. Staff are told to prioritise those who pose the greatest danger to the public. That means foreign criminals are at the front of the queue.

The UKBA is preparing to axe 5,000 jobs over the next four years. This has led to concerns there will be even fewer staff dedicated to ­asylum removals.

In a blistering report published last February, the Parliamentary ombudsman laid the blame at the door of the last government. Ann Abraham said Labour was a ‘very long way’ from running a fast and fair immigration system that deports foreigners with no right to live here.

She found delays and incompetence at almost every level of the asylum and immigration process - with backlogs running to hundreds of thousands of cases.

The ombudsman warned the situation is such a shambles that illegal immigrants could soon benefit from an obscure rule which says those who avoid removal for 14 years can apply to stay here permanently.

Last night, Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘We have known for some time that the asylum system used to be chaotic and has been recovering slowly, and are committed to ensuring asylum cases are concluded faster, at lower cost, and that we continue to improve the quality of our decision-making. ‘Throughout 2011 we will be introducing extra controls to affect every immigration route.

‘We will exert steady downward pressure on immigration numbers through the course of this Parliament with the aim of reducing net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands.’

SOURCE



11 February, 2011

Missouri Ahead of the Game

I'm sure you've seen the headlines about Arizona's new law aimed at dealing with those who enter our country illegally. It has been called the strictest immigration law in generations. While Missouri hasn't gone to the same lengths as Arizona, our state has made significant policy changes that effectively deal with illegal immigrants who enter our state. Because of those changes, Missouri is ahead of the game when compared to many other states that are now dealing with this issue.

In 2007, the Missouri General Assembly approved HJR 7 to place on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri. Voters then went to the polls and approved the measure with nearly 90 percent voting in favor. With that, English became the official language for all governmental proceedings in Missouri. It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language other than English. A common language is the cornerstone of a cohesive and united state and country. Ensuring that English is our official language is simply common sense.

Another measure that directly addresses the issue of illegal immigration was passed in 2008. HB 1549 requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It also allows Missouri law enforcement officers to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. Furthermore, the bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will not have access to taxpayer benefits such as food stamps and health care through MO HealthNet.

With the passage of this legislation, Missouri sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are not welcome in our state, and that they are certainly not welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers.

2009 saw another significant piece of legislation passed dealing with illegal immigration. HB 390 ensures Missouri's public institutions of higher education do not award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all postsecondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Department of Higher Education that they have not knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States. The bill represents another common sense approach to the issue as it ensures taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize the education of someone who is in our country illegally.

So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it's important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem. The laws we have on the books help ensure the rights and benefits of Missourians are preserved for actual Missouri citizens. It's also important to remember that this country has always opened its arms to immigrants, which is why our nation is often referred to as the great melting pot. Immigrants from all parts of the world have helped make our country what it is today. However, our doors are not open to those who try to live in our country illegally. I believe Missouri's laws make that very clear and give our law enforcement officials the authority they need to deal with the problem.

SOURCE






Australia: High cost of weak-kneed Leftist policy

The cost of Labor's border protection policy has blown out by $480 million as a stretched Immigration Department struggles to cope with a record 6000 detainees. Taxpayers are forking out tens of millions of dollars in extra staff and to bolster patrol boat operations in northern waters, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Customs has also been forced to employ an extra 37 full-time staff to cope with the influx of asylum seekers who are mainly from the Middle East and Afghanistan.

The blow-out - which the Coalition claims could more than double in the next 12 months - follows last year's record arrival of 134 boats carrying 6535 asylum seekers.

It comes amid reports the first funeral will be held shortly following December's Christmas Island tragedy that killed up to 40 asylum seekers.

The high costs of processing people fleeing their homeland was highlighted with an additional $290 million outlay for the immigration agency, announced yesterday. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said this reflected "a rise in the estimated number of asylum seekers requiring processing in 2010-11, the extra time to be spent in detention as a consequence of [last year's] High Court decision, and the increasing number of people found not to be genuine refugees".

Another $190 million will be spent on building two new detention centres, including the new facility at Inverbrackie in the Adelaide Hills.

"As a result of the Government's failed border protection policies, more boats are coming, more people are in detention in record numbers and people are staying longer in detention." Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said.

Mr Morrison said the Government will now spend more than $760 million on people arriving illegally in Australia in 2010-11, compared with less than $100 million annually when the Howard Government left office in 2007. "The total budget blow-out since Labor started rolling back the strong border protection regime they inherited is now more than $1.4 billion and counting," he said.

Documents obtained through FOI show the number of patrol days involving Customs and border protection vessels has grown from 3092 in 2008 to 3529 last year. An extra 23 marine crew have been hired since August 2008, when the Labor Government abolished temporary protection visas - a decision the Coalition claims has contributed to the record arrivals.

"We do not apologise for requiring asylum seekers to undergo the required health and security checks before being released from detention," Mr Bowen said. "We will not apologise for providing alternative accommodation for vulnerable families and children, rather than the high-security detention centres and the barbed wire solutions of the Howard Government."

SOURCE



10 February, 2011

Document Forgery Factory in Virginia



I was sent information about two news reports from a number of my friends, including a former colleague who worked with me at the INS. The news reports appeared in the Loudoun Times and the Loudoun Daily Monitor on February 4th and are important on a couple of levels.

First of all the news is significant because it provides some details about an apparently successful investigation that was conducted by local law enforcement investigators in Virginia that has resulted in the identification and the subsequent shutting down of a document mill. Document mills produce various documents that can be used to provide individuals with documentation that would enable them to create false identities for themselves. The issue of the creation of false identities is of extreme importance because the only folks who would want to alter their identities are individuals who have reasons to attempt to conceal their true identities.

What I find interesting is that the news reports make no mention of DHS or ICE being involved in the investigation, other than noting police officers made use of the 287(g) program to identify the fact that the individuals who were arrested pursuant to the investigation are believed to be illegal aliens. Through this important program, the cops were able to lodge detainers against those who were criminally charged. This means that whenever their criminal charges are completely disposed of- perhaps after they serve out their prison sentences, presuming that they are ultimately found guilty of the crimes they are charged with and sentences to serve prison sentences that they will then come into the custody of ICE.

According to the Loudoun Daily Monitor, two of the defendants who were arrested by the police were previously deported from the United States. These individuals can be further prosecuted for unlawful reentry by the federal government.

Ultimately, the lodging of detainers will enable ICE to attempt to seek the removal of all of these individuals once they come into federal custody.

As I noted at the beginning of this commentary, are a number of possible reasons why someone might want to conceal his (her) true identity but generally it must be presumed that anyone who would attempt to obscure his true identity is someone who is intending to engage in illegal activities.

The use of false identities is a tactic employed by criminals, by terrorists and by illegal aliens who may simply be seeking unlawful employment or may be attempting to conceal that they have committed other crimes.

When law enforcement officials arrest a suspect in a crime, one of the first tasks to be undertaken is to photograph and fingerprint the person who has been arrested. Most criminals who have been arrested previously will attempt to prevent law enforcement authorities from easily knowing about their prior arrests and possibly convictions. The use of a false identity is used to obscure the career criminal's background. It is not uncommon for law enforcement to arrest and individual and find numerous false names that the person has used once the fingerprint records are found. I have actually arrested individuals who had used so many false names that the printout had pages of aliases!

Illegal aliens also attempt to utilize false identities to conceal the fact that they are illegally present in the United States or, perhaps, had been previously deported from the United States, making their mere presence in our country subsequent to that deportation a felony. (An alien who has been deported from the United States and has no criminal history is committing a felony that has a maximum punishment of up to two years in prison while an alien who has been previously deported and was removed from the United States because of criminal convictions faces a maximum of up to 20 years in prison.)

Illegal aliens also use false identity documents in order to procure illegal employment. This is one of the reasons that I am concerned about the administration's stated policy of seeking to punish employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens but through the "audit only" approach to worksite enforcement- conducting what have come to be referred to as "silent raids" are not focusing adequate attention on the way that likely millions of illegal aliens purchase counterfeit identity documents to enable them to pass themselves off as lawful immigrants or even United States citizens, who are entitled to work in the United States.

You may be interested to know that last year I agreed to assist a law firm that was retained by a farm in Hawaii because two of their managers were arrested and criminally charged with intentionally hiring illegal aliens. Generally I would not assist a defense attorney. I certainly have the right to assist any law firm I want to, but I would never assist in the defense of a person who, in my judgement, was guilty of wrongdoing- this is a matter of personal principle. I do not compromise on core issues and this is certainly one of them.

In the Hawaii case, however, all of the employees that were hired by the managers, who were subsequently arrested, showed the managers counterfeit Alien Registration Cards (Green Cards). In my judgement the cards were not flawless but were of sufficiently good quality that it would be easy to understand how a farm manager would not detect the fact that these documents were bogus. If you doubt this, consider the fact that the illegal aliens in this case, citizens of Mexico, were hired in California and flown by commercial airlines to Hawaii. Their counterfeit documents were accepted by the TSA employees at the airport who permitted them to board their flights to Hawaii. Interestingly the title of the employees of the TSA who made this decision is "Document Checker!"

In this particular case, the workers were all paid "on the books." There was absolutely no evidence of any sort of exploitation and there were no other factors usually associated with the intentional employment of illegal aliens. The entire case was based on the use of fraud documents proffered by the employees and by statements made by a few of the illegal alien employees who agreed to become cooperators. There were no audio or video tapes to substantiate any of the claims made by the few cooperators who, by cooperating with the government, were permitted to remain in the United States for over one year and work while the case was pending.

The two farm managers were ultimately acquitted of all counts of their indictments.

You should also know that according to the current law, an employer who asks to see additional identity documents of an employee whose identity documents may appear questionable could be charged with violating the civil rights of that employee! This places even honest employers in a bind- they can be charged with hiring illegal aliens or, if they ask too many questions about identity documents, may be charged with violating civil rights!

The employees get to decide on what documents to show their employer provided that the documents are listed on the I-9. The employer has no authority to ask to say any additional documents and, in fact, could be violating the law if he does ask for any additional documentation.

More HERE





A derisive Canadian comment on U.S. border control

A "rancid soup of incompetence, bickering, turf-protection and willful ignorance of the big picture"

It’s good that Joe Lieberman is retiring. There seems to be something wrong with his brain. As chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security, he was one of six senators who asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was faring in its efforts to coordinate and streamline law enforcement efforts along the Canadian border. In a 60-page report, the GAO replied, in effect: “Golly. Not very well.” As was widely reported this week, tourist visas for Canadian citizens are among the remedial measures Mr. Lieberman is eager to consider.

It’s difficult to overstate the extent to which the GAO report does not suggest this is a good idea — or a bad idea, for that matter. It hardly concerns itself with Canadians, and the threats we might represent to the U.S. homeland. It is more concerned about the various agencies charged with securing the border — agencies that don’t always seem to know what their jobs are, or what their partner agencies’ jobs are, or treat their partner agencies as partners in the first place.

A few examples: Border Patrol thinks it’s allowed to conduct interviews with people it apprehends without first calling in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); ICE disagrees. Border Patrol doesn’t think ICE should actually be patrolling the border; ICE considers that “an inherent part of [its] investigative role.” When Border Patrol officers seize contraband, they feel entitled to transport the dodgy goods to headquarters before calling ICE; ICE thinks it should be called immediately upon discovery.

Like a bickering old couple, the two agencies sometimes refuse to talk to each other. “ICE officials operating within the Detroit, Spokane [in Washington] and Swanton [in Vermont] districts said they are reluctant to share intelligence information with Border Patrol because they are concerned Border Patrol may adversely affect an ICE investigation.”

But aren’t they all playing for the same team? Well, frankly, no: “Border Patrol officials in three sectors and ICE officials operating within two sectors stated that competition for performance statistics was another barrier to overcoming coordination challenges as these statistics are the basis for DHS resource allocation decisions.”

Similar problems plague Border Patrol’s relationship with the Forest Service, which is responsible for patrolling significant stretches of the border — or that’s what the Forest Service thinks, anyway. Border Patrol thinks the rangers are stepping on its toes. The report found that in one sector in Washington, “Border Patrol does not share information in a timely manner due to concerns that Forest Service cannot be trusted.” And, naturally, vice versa.

Nor does ICE get along splendidly with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). ICE officials complain that because the DEA has separate inter-operational agreements with Border Patrol and with the RCMP, it’s kept out of the loop on international investigations and the DEA often gets “first right of refusal in referrals of drug seizures” — which naturally hurts ICE’s feelings.

On the bright side, the GAO says this state of affairs represents a not insignificant improvement in inter-agency cooperation. Actually, hang on, that’s not the bright side at all. It would be far more reassuring to think this was rock bottom. Anyone who’s read the 9/11 Commission Report will recognize this rancid soup of incompetence, bickering, turf-protection and willful ignorance of the big picture. It’s frightening. Or it would be frightening, except it’s the Canadian border.

Politicians obviously feel obliged to freak out about its lack of defences every now and again, but they clearly realize that it’s largely undefended because there’s no significant risk on either side of it to the other. (Some in the media have dismissed the GAO report as scaremongering, but the only time I rolled my eyes was when it said “the risk of terrorist activity” is “high” along the border. High compared to what? Alien abduction?)

If any significant number of Americans thought otherwise, then more than 32 miles of border would already have “an acceptable level of control” (as defined by Border Patrol), and more than 1,007 miles of it would have achieved what it calls “full situational awareness.”

Mr. Lieberman thinks that because the border is easy for criminals to cross, law-abiding Canadians should have to be issued pieces of paper to go shopping in Buffalo or skiing in Vermont. That’s just weird. But it’s no weirder than various Canadian politicians’ desperate efforts to allow us to use “enhanced” driver’s licences to enter the United States, as if spending the same amount of money on a passport represented some kind of existential threat to our great bilateral friendship.

It’s a bit scary to think such people are in charge of trying to streamline what used to be — and what could still be, if we wanted — a mere formality of a border. Much scarier, however, is the idea that the border-protection gong show laid bare in the GAO report also goes on among the people in charge of keeping the real baddies out of the United States, and by extension Canada. This would be a far more useful cause for Mr. Lieberman to take up as his political clock winds down.

Source



9 February, 2011

Are You Ready For Another Round Of Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

That's right, campers, it looks like one of our wishy washiest flip floppery Senators, Lindsey Graham, might give the whole shamnesty thing yet another try: Senators look for immigration deal

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have rekindled their alliance on immigration reform, taking some early steps to test the political will for addressing the contentious issue this year.

Their call list hasn’t focused so much on House and Senate members who’ve been reliable pro-immigration votes in the past. Instead, they’re looking to a strange-bedfellows mix of conservative and liberal constituencies that can provide a “safety net” of support, as Graham put it, once the issue heats up.

“It’s in the infant stage,” Graham told POLITICO. “I don’t know what the political appetite is to do something.”

Oh, we have a political appetite to do something, Lindsey, just not what you want to do. We aren't interested in discussing anything sort of pathway to citizenship until the borders are secured. Period. And, as we saw with the Arizona illegal immigration issue, most Americans prefer cracking down on illegals, not giving them a pathway to citizenship.

But, even if they could manage to get something passed in the Senate (remember, the DREAM Act failed by 5 votes), it will never make it through the GOP controlled house.

Democrats believe the November elections put a bit of a scare into Republicans, who failed to capture the Senate in part because of strong Latino turnout in California, Nevada, Colorado and Washington. If the GOP hopes to win the White House in 2012, it will need to reverse that trend.

Really? The GOP had a bit of a scare? Seriously? Any Republican who goes on to push "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" should be the one who is scared about being promoted to "unemployed political hack."

Source





Migration ban on welders and hair stylists in bid to protect British workers

Migrants will be refused visas to work as hair salon managers, estate agents and shop managers under proposals to protect British workers.

Government advisers have suggested cutting by a third the number of occupations which qualify as ‘skilled’ under immigration rules. If accepted by ministers, the number of visas issued to non-EU workers would drop by around 10,000.

Other occupations which could go from the list include beauty salon managers, laboratory technicians, florists, pipe fitters, steel erectors and welders. However, midwives, chartered surveyors and management accountants would remain, along with dancers, entertainers and environmental protection officers.

In its report, the Migration Advisory Committee proposed cutting the number of jobs eligible for so-called Tier 2 visas from 192 to 121.

But campaigners for tougher migration controls called for ministers to go further to protect British jobs. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch think-tank said: ‘The definition of graduate has been set rather low in these recommendations. ‘Given the extent of unemployment we now face, ministers should set the bar at university level. ‘Doing so would reduce the list of jobs that qualified from 121 to 87 to ensure migrants are genuinely highly skilled.’

Committee chairman Professor David Metcalf insisted the proposals would ‘ratchet up’ the required skill levels. He said: ‘Skilled foreign workers make a valuable contribution to the British economy but, in the context of limits on migration, it is essential that the immigration system is designed to select those migrants we need the most. ‘We have recognised this by ensuring our recommendations will allow the most skilled to continue to come and work here.’

It is part of Home Office efforts to slash net migration – the number arriving minus those leaving – from more than 200,000 last year to ‘tens of thousands’ by 2015. A cap will placed on all non-EU workers from April.

Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘This is a valuable contribution to ensuring the immigration system allows firms to bring in people with necessary skills without immigration becoming the first resort to fill a wide range of jobs.

‘As part of our package for limiting non-EU economic migration we are raising the minimum skill level at which people can come to work in the UK under Tier Two. ‘We asked the Migration Advisory Committee to advise the Government on graduate level occupations to ensure that only those who are able to fill skilled jobs can come to the UK.’

Source



8 February, 2011

Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. DOL Does the Right Thing (Eventually) on Wages for H-2B Workers (Blog)

2. Update on Digitization of Vital Records (Blog)

3. The 'One-Off' Migrants: A Proposed Fantasy Immigration Policy (Blog)

4. Ignoring the Answer in Plain Sight (Blog)

5. USCIS Ombudsman Doesn't Understand the Point of Numerical Limits (Blog)

6. DOJ Colluded with ACLU Against Arizona (Blog)

7. New Report: 287(g) Works (Blog)

8. JTA Bows to Reality: Damage Control or Rudimentary Integrity? (Blog)

9. The 'Next Great Pundit', Part II: What Detroit Needs (Blog)

10. GAO Confirms CIS on H-1B (Blog)

11. The 'Next Great Pundit', Part I: A Master of Immigration Non Sequiturs (Blog)

12. Let's Fund the Departure of Some Illegal Aliens (Blog)

13. Global Cooling (Blog)






Harsh Dominican crackdown on Haitian illegals evokes no known do-gooder protest

(Haitians are generally blacker than Dominicans. Dominicans have substantial European ancestry)

The Dominican Republic has deported thousands of illegal immigrants in recent weeks, sowing fear among Haitians living in the country and prompting accusations its government is using a cholera outbreak as a pretext for a crackdown.

In the largest campaign in years to target Haitians living illegally in the Dominican Republic, soldiers and immigration agents have been setting up checkpoints and conducting neighborhood sweeps, detaining anyone without papers and booting them from the country.

Erickner Auguesten, a 36-year-old father of three who has been in the Dominican Republic illegally since 1991, said agents stopped him as he exited a hospital where his pregnant wife was getting a checkup.

"When we left to get some food, the police pulled up and told me to get into the truck," he told The Associated Press in the border town of Jimani. He said a friend who works for the border patrol helped him sneak back in.

Hundreds of thousands of Haitians live at least part-time in the Dominican Republic, enduring frequent discrimination and the constant fear of being deported. A cholera epidemic in Haiti that has killed at least 4,000 people and sickened 200,000 has made matters worse.

Dominican officials eased border controls and halted deportations for humanitarian reasons after the Jan. 12, 2010, earthquake near Port-au-Prince that killed an estimated 316,000 people and devastated the already impoverished nation. But right at the one-year anniversary of the quake, the deportations resumed _ with greater enforcement than has been seen since 2005.

More than 3,000 people have been handcuffed and sent across the border in the past three weeks, including some legal residents who were simply caught without their documents, according to migrants and advocates.

"They grab them from the streets," said Gustavo Toribio of Border Solidarity, an organization that provides assistance to migrant workers. "They don't care if they have children, if they have property. They only ask them for their documents."

The government denies that any legal residents have been deported. Dominican immigration chief Sigfrido Pared defended the deportations, saying his country cannot be an escape valve for Haitians fleeing extreme poverty and political instability.

The United Nations estimated before the earthquake that some 600,000 Haitians were living illegally in the Dominican Republic, which has a total population of nearly 10 million. Dominican authorities say that number has since grown to 1 million, most of them there illegally.

"It is very easy for some countries or some organizations to criticize the situation in the Dominican Republic," Pared said. "No (other) country in the world has a border with Haiti. No country in the world has a Haitian problem like the Dominican Republic has."

Dominican officials say the immigration crackdown is necessary to prevent the spread of cholera from Haiti, which shares the island of Hispaniola with the Dominican Republic.

So far there have only been about 300 known cholera cases in the Dominican Republic _ with one fatality, a Haitian migrant believed to have contracted the disease back home. Even in Haiti, the disease has slowed in recent weeks amid a nationwide treatment and education campaign.

However infectious disease specialists warn that cholera could still rebound in Haiti, and the Dominican Health Ministry says it can't afford to take any chances

"The ministry is in charge of maintaining epidemiological vigilance and health control along the border, as in the whole country," spokesman Luis Garcia said.

Many Dominicans support the deportations, saying they are fearful of contracting the disease.

"It's a threat to our country," said Secondino Matos, a 50-year-old truck driver. "They (Haitians) are our brothers _ but not the illegal ones. This country is drowning in them already."

More HERE



7 February, 2011

California moving towards Arizona on Immigration Enforcement

Arizona’s immigration enforcement law is again setting the standard. This time it is California which wishes to not only adopt similar legislation, but feels the Arizona law should become the national immigration law enforcement norm.

Arizona’s SB 1070 drew national and international criticism for provisions backing the federal requirement to ensure appropriate identification was carried by legal aliens. A provision that the federal government later sued Arizona over and in turn placed into the DREAM Act where it went largely unchallenged by those including the federal government that once opposed it. Another highly contested provision of SB 1070 was the extension of law enforcement measures that enabled local law enforcement personnel to directly inquire about citizenship status. California is currently seeking to extend this ability to state law enforcement. The challenges for California are clear.

U.S. Congressman Ed Royce (R-Ca.) believes he currently has the votes to pass an Arizona based immigration law in the House of Representatives. Rep. Royce’s concern stem from a failing Mexican border and the Mexican government's inability to gain control of Cartels which has allowed violence to spill over into states that border the country. Allowing state law enforcement personnel to assist in areas of law enforcement they are currently prohibited from aiding in will aid in both immigration enforcement and provided additional needed security for American citizens. "We're basically giving them the option, if you're in local law enforcement, to assist," he told America’s Newsroom.

The proposed bill also includes the completion of a 700-mile fence on the border between California and Mexico that will eventually connect with Arizona and enhancement of the visa security program.
Citing the challenges faced in Arizona, Royce expressed his understanding that immigration enforcement measures are an uphill battle, but insists that all states should follow Arizona’s lead.

While Arizona has had its challenges, illegal immigration in the state has leveled off despite the cancellation of the virtual fence project and legal setbacks caused by the Obama administration that is seeking reform and amnesty over enforcement. Nevada now leads the nation in illegal immigration after heavy campaigning by Senator Reid for immigration reform in October of 2010. With immigration enforcement measures stemming from California and Arizona, it is predicted that the illegal immigration problem beginning to befall Nevada will only worsen forcing the state to seek immigration enforcement measures or suffer crippling state budgetary shortfalls similar to that of Arizona.

While illegal immigration continues to be a controversial issue, the financial impact is unforgiving and the security risks associated with it are causing reason for alarm. Recently, an Iranian book celebrating suicide bombers was found in the Arizona desert. It has long since been known that those from Middle Eastern countries travel to South America, learn the language and travel through Central America and cross the southern U.S. - Mexico border with other illegal immigrants to gain unhindered access into the United States. More telling is last year’s suicide bombing in a Mexican border town that used technology from Middle East.

While Arizona continues to lead in immigration enforcement, much needs to be done to bridge the gap of a heavily divided administration and legislative measures that equitably support constitutional rights of legal American residents. Each passing day that we fail to find common ground by politicizing immigration, we are putting American lives at risk.

SOURCE






Huge spike in illegal Indian traffic to US via Mexico

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Indians are sneaking into the United States across the Mexico border in what American authorities are saying is a sudden and unexpected spike in illegal immigration — from a country half way across the world which is said to be in the throes of an economic boom.

More than 1,600 Indians have been caught since the influx began in early 2010, while an undetermined number, perhaps thousands, are believed to have slipped through undetected, according to US border authorities cited in an account by the Center for Investigative Reporting and published by the Los Angeles Times on Sunday.

The report said Indians are now the largest group of immigrants other than Latin Americans being caught at the Southwest border. The influx reportedly is showing signs of accelerating: About 650 Indians were arrested in southern Texas in the last three months of 2010 alone. The "mysterious and rapidly growing human-smuggling pipelineis backing up court dockets, filling detention centers and triggering investigations," the report added.

The Indians are said to be flying into Latin American and Central American countries such as Equador, Venezuela and Guatemala via Dubai before arriving on the Mexico-US border, where they cross the Rio Grande River and hole up in US border towns, where they are usually helped by fellow Indians. Mexican organized crime groups are also suspected of being involved either in running the operations or in charging groups tolls to pass through their territory.

According to the report, most of the immigrants, surprisingly, claim to be from the Punjab or Gujarat, two of Indias (relatively) more prosperous states, but also ones associated with enterprise.

Many of them are "Sikhs who say they face religious persecution, or members of the Bharatiya Janata Party who say they are targeted for beatings by members of the National Congress Party," the report said, while citing experts who maintained that political conditions in India offered no evidence of the kind of persecution that would prompt a mass exodus. The immigration, they said, is clearly driven by economic opportunities.

The spurt in Indian human traffic into the United States, borne out by the Tri-Valley University scam, would also belie the assumption in some quarters about an unprecedented Indian economic boom accompanied by a purported American decline.

The CIR/LA Times account said the trend has caught the attention of anti-terrorism officials "because of the pipeline's efficiency in delivering to America's doorstep large numbers of people from a troubled region." Authorities interview the immigrants, most of whom arrive with no documents, to ensure that people from neighboring Pakistan or Middle Eastern countries are not slipping through.

But there is no evidence that terrorists are using the smuggling pipeline, it cited FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials as saying. Typically, the immigrants are released on their own recognizance or after posting bond.

US officials say the migration is the "most significant" human-smuggling trend being tracked by authorities. In 2009, the Border Patrol arrested only 99 Indians along the entire Southwest border. "It's a dramatic increase. We do want to monitor these pipelines and shut them down because it is a vulnerability. They could either knowingly or unknowingly smuggle people into the U.S. that pose a national security threat," Kumar Kibble, deputy director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was quoted as saying.

The CIR/LA Times report said in January, immigration court calendars at the area's two main detention facilities were full of the common Indian surnames Patel and Singh, and attorneys and judges struggled to keep up. Some attorneys had failed to file the necessary forms; interpreters were not always available. One judge more immigration judges would soon be assigned to handle the increased workload.

The report said it is not clear how many Indians have been granted asylum or deported; immigration officials did not provide that information. But it said judges and attorneys appear to be toughening up, bond amounts have risen sharply in recent months, and attorneys say asylum claims are increasingly being rejected.

SOURCE



6 February, 2011

Britons most opposed to further immigration

Their steadily falling standards of living leave little credibility in the do-gooder claim that immigration is good for the economy. It might be true if the immigrants were all highly skilled or hard-working but many are simply third-world parasites on Britain's welfare State

Politicians were yesterday urged to step up immigration control after a survey showed Britons were more fearful about the issue than people in other countries.

Nearly a quarter – 23 per cent – of British people questioned called immigration the most important issue facing the country.
This compares with levels of between three and nine per cent in America, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Spain.

Nearly half – 47 per cent – believed immigrants were a burden on schools and hospitals and a third felt that they increased crime.

The Transatlantic Trends survey, commissioned by the US German Marshall Fund and other organisations, quizzed at least 1,000 people in each country last year. Fund president Craig Kennedy said: “This report is a wake-up call for the governments.”

SOURCE





Sheriff Joe Blasts ABC Over Biased 20/20 Segment

Only hours before ABC is set to air a 20/20 story that portrays the Arizona immigration law as something it’s not, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio fired off a scathing letter to the man behind the segment, 20/20 correspondent John Quinones.

The text of that letter appears below:

I have seen a portion of your piece set to air tonight on 20/20 which shows how you think SB 1070 (Arizona’s new immigration law) will be enforced in Arizona by law enforcement professionals. This “staged reporting” couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, your story is replete with untruths and conjecture and has several nefarious motives – to enflame the public – to embarrass the State of Arizona in front of a national audience not unlike what New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg did earlier this week- and to bring discredit to law enforcement professionals in general.

This staged and silly report depicts a security guard who walks into a Tucson taco house demanding to see proof of the patron’s citizen papers because some of the people there “look Mexican” and if they are in the U.S. illegally, your actor claims they “should be deported.”

No law enforcement officer properly trained in SB 1070 rules and regulations would ever conduct himself in such a manner. If there were proof that one of my deputies did what this story shows, he would be severely disciplined and would likely lose his/her job. Law enforcement professionals cannot inquire about someone’s immigration status simply because we think someone may be here illegally. That’s what your story leads your viewers to believe and it is summarily untrue.

More HERE



5 February, 2011

Europe's judges have 'made UK a safe haven for terrorists'

European judges have turned Britain into a ‘safe haven’ for foreign terrorists, the independent reviewer of anti-terror laws warned yesterday.

Lord Carlile said rulings by the European Court of Human Rights had undermined efforts to deport dangerous individuals intent on causing mayhem.

The Liberal Democrat peer and QC attacked the court for refusing to allow the risk of harm to British citizens to be weighed in deportation hearings. Instead, only the human rights of the suspected terrorist can be taken into account. ‘The effect [of the court’s rulings] is to make the UK a safe haven for some individuals whose determination is to damage the UK and its citizens – hardly a satisfactory situation save for the purist,’ he said.

His comments will heap further pressure on ministers over relations with the Strasbourg court. Conservative MPs are already in open revolt over plans to give thousands of prisoners the right to vote following the court’s judgement that prisoners must have access to the ballot box.

Last night Dominic Raab, Tory MP for Esher and Walton, said European judges’ law making was ‘out of control’. He added: ‘It is not the job of an international court to re-write British laws on deportation, parental discipline or prisoner voting. It is high time we drew a line in the sand.’

Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights individuals are protected against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. The clause allows foreign terror suspects to fight deportation on the grounds that they would be tortured in their home countries if returned. A string of terrorists have taken advantage of the clause.

Britain has argued that the courts should be allowed to take into account the risks posed to its citizens. But the unelected judges ruled, in the 1996 Chahal judgment, that the only factor of importance was the protection of the human rights of terror suspects.

The European convention has been incorporated into British law in the Human Rights Act. British courts have to apply rulings of the European court.

Lord Carlile’s comments make clear how Britain’s efforts to deport foreign terror suspects have been hamstrung by the court.

In an attempt to deal with the issue, Labour made deals with countries with dubious human rights records in which they pledged not to torture anyone returned to them. These ‘deportation with assurances’ (DWA) agreements exist with Algeria, Libya, Jordan, the Lebanon and Ethiopia.

Home Secretary Theresa May has pledged to step up efforts to make more agreements and send more foreign terror suspects home. But Lord Carlile, in his sixth and final report as independent reviewer of terror legislation, wrote: ‘The negotiation of DWAs is a time-consuming process. ‘Even where successfully agreed, there is no guarantee the courts will accept them, given the relatively low threshold required for an individual to avoid deportation.

‘The Government sought by intervention in the European Court of Human Rights to argue that where a person seeks to resist removal on the grounds of risk of ill-treatment in their home country, this may be balanced against the threat they pose to national security if they remain. ‘And where the person poses a risk to national security, this has an impact on the standard to which he must establish a risk of ill-treatment. The court rejected both arguments. This leaves the UK reliant on DWAs.’

Lord Carlile’s comments angered human rights groups. Kate Allen, UK director at Amnesty International said: ‘The global ban on deporting people to countries where they’re at risk of torture exists for a very good reason – to protect us all from the threat of being tortured.’

The Tory manifesto included a pledge to abolish the Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, but this was kicked into the long grass after discussions with the Lib Dems over forming the Coalition.

SOURCE





French plans to strip immigrants who threaten police of their citizenship rejected

Nicolas Sarkozy’s plans for one of the toughest immigration laws in Europe has been thrown out by lawmakers - with one likening it to the brutal regime of Nazi-occupied France.

The law to strip people or their French nationality if they had been citizens for less than ten years and threatened police was approved by French MPs in last year. The proposed rules would also have seen immigrants expelled if they were an ‘unreasonable’ strain on the welfare state or guilty of ‘aggressive begging’.

The law presented by then hardline immigration minister Eric Besson had the full backing of the French president, and heralded the controversial police raids on Roma gypsy camps across France. But members of France’s upper house of parliament the Senate rejected the law yesterday by an overwhelming 182 votes to 156.

Centrist Senator said during the debate: 'It was the Vichy regime of occupied France which invented denaturalisation.' She told how members of her own family was stripped of its nationality in 1941 before being sent to the death camps.

Socialist David Assouline added: 'The National Front party has made proposals for a similar law, which would create two categories of French citizens.'

And centre-left Senator Anne-Marie Escoffier said the law broke with all the traditions of equality enshrined in the French republic.

The rejection of the law was later hailed as a ‘victory over inhumainty’ by French immigrants’ rights groups.

President Sarkozy’s support for the law and crackdown on Roma gypsies was widely viewed as a bid to woo voters from the right amid poor ratings in the opinion polls. The controversial policy forced dozens of Roma gypsy families to be deported from their camps in France and fly back to Romania. Rights groups claimes the Roma were demonised under illegal policies and Romania warned France against 'xenophobic reactions'.

His popularity has been affected following the strikes and protests that crippled the country last year. Unions were joined by students and angry citizens to demonstarte against the government's controversial pension reform plans.

French residents have also complained about Sarzoky's glamorous lifestyle with former model Carla Bruni-Sarkozy.

Sarkozy's ruling UMP party has now said a revised draft of the Immigration, Integration and Nationality Law would be written and presented to MPs later this year, before being presented to Senators for a second time.

Source



4 February, 2011

Migrants 'must teach their children English', says Britain's PM

Migrant families have an obligation to teach their children English before they start school, David Cameron has said. And the Prime Minister pledged that he would bring forward tougher rules to ensure those arriving in the UK had a reasonable standard of English. One in six children do not speak English as their first language.

Ministers believe that children brought up here stand a better chance of succeeding if their parents have a good grasp of the language.

Mr Cameron spoke out after a Commons exchange with Yorkshire Tory MP Kris Hopkins, who said: ‘Sadly in Keighley, too many children start school and don’t speak English.’ He then asked Mr Cameron: ‘Do you agree with me that there is a responsibility and an obligation upon parents to make sure their children speak English?’

Mr Cameron replied: ‘I completely agree with you. The fact is, in too many cases this isn’t happening. ‘The last government did make some progress on making sure people learned English when they came to our country. I think we need to go further. If you look at the figures for the number of people who are brought over as husbands and wives, particularly from the Indian sub-continent, we should be putting in place – and we will be putting in place – tougher rules to make sure they do learn English so when they come, if they come, they can be more integrated into our country.’

A recent study by MigrationWatch found that children who speak English as their first language are in a minority in some inner-city London schools. Birmingham, Bradford and Leicester all have more than 40 per cent of pupils in primary schools who do not have English as a first language.

To date, the Government’s policies have focused upon marriage visas. Since September, those coming to Britain to marry UK citizens have been forced to sit pre-entry tests proving a basic level of English.

Lawyers argue that the tests, which apply only to those from non-English-speaking countries, are discriminatory, and breach human rights law. But Immigration Minister Damian Green argued that the English language requirement would allow for a ‘more cohesive society’.

SOURCE






Number of illegal immigrants in the United States steady

The number of illegal immigrants in the United States leveled off at around 11 million last year, ending a two-year slide since the start of the recession, according to a study released on Tuesday.

The study by the Pew Hispanic Center noted 11.2 million illegal immigrants living and working in the shadows in the United States in March 2010, virtually unchanged from a year earlier.

The report, which drew on U.S. Census Bureau data, noted the number of illegal immigrants in the workforce remained steady at around 8 million.

The leveling off last year followed a two-year slide in the population to 11.1 million in 2009 from a peak of 12 million in 2007, at the start of the U.S. recession. "What we have seen in the past is that the flow of unauthorized immigrants, particularly from Mexico, has been very closely tied to the state of the U.S. economy," senior demographer Jeffrey S. Passel told Reuters. "We've seen large drops in the inflows when the U.S. went into a recession, and large increases when the U.S. economy was booming," he added.

The study found the decline in the number of illegal immigrants has been especially marked in Colorado, Florida, New York and Virginia -- which had previously noted growth in their unauthorized population -- as well as in Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Passel said factors including a struggling local economy, together with local initiatives to crack down on illegal immigrants, likely contributed to the decline. "We can point to the economy as perhaps the principal factor ... (although) Arizona and Virginia also passed restrictive legislation to limit undocumented immigration," he said.

SOURCE



3 February, 2011

Susana Martínez Tells Police to Check Immigration Status in New Mexico

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez is ordering police to check immigration documents and she wants the state to stop allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martínez is directing police to check the immigration status of people arrested for crimes. The Republican, who made headlines after the November elections when she became the nation’s first Latina governor, said she was eliminating an executive order by former Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, that prohibited law enforcement officials from asking people about immigration status.

"This order takes the handcuffs off of New Mexico's law enforcement officers in their mission to keep our communities safe," Martínez said in a statement. "The criminal justice system should have the authority to determine the immigration status of all criminals, regardless of race or ethnicity, and report illegal immigrants who commit crimes to federal authorities."

However, Martínez said law enforcement working for state agencies will continue to be barred from asking about the immigration status of someone who is a crime victim, a witness to a crime or seeking police assistance. Richardson had ordered that in 2005.

Martínez’s order coincided with a bill introduced Monday that says that undocumented immigrants no longer could obtain New Mexico driver's licenses that serve as government identification, but they could still drive legally under a compromise bill introduced today.

Rep. Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, proposed revoking the licenses of foreign nationals, then requiring them to obtain a one-year permit that would be good for driving only. Rehm, a retired sheriff's deputy, said he wanted a stricter measure that would deny undocumented immigrants any driving permit or license. "That wouldn't make it through this Legislature," he said in an interview.

Martinez, a career prosecutor before being elected in November, has called on the Legislature to repeal the 2003 law in which people can obtain New Mexico licenses without providing proof of immigration status. Rehm's proposal HB 261, does not go as far as she wanted.

As for the governor’s executive order regarding police checking immigration documents, Scott Darnell, a spokesman for Martínez, said state police will not ask about immigration status of motorists stopped for traffic violations such as speeding. The administration's policy applies only when someone is arrested for a crime, he said.

Martínez's policy drew criticism from a civil rights group.
"This executive order invites racial profiling by giving an incentive to police to arrest people who look and sound 'foreign.' New Mexicans should not have to fear that a broken taillight or other pretextual stop will lead to their arrest because of the color of their skin," said Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Mexico.

Before her election as governor, Martinez was district attorney in Dona Ana County in southern New Mexico.

During last year's gubernatorial campaign, Martínez criticized Richardson for having a "sanctuary" policy on illegal immigration.
New Mexico legislators who pushed for allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses said this would increase the number of drivers with auto insurance. Rehm said his plan for permits would still enable undocumented immigrants to buy insurance.

Eleven states once had laws allowing undocumented immigrants to receive driver's licenses. All but three have repealed those laws.
Utah issues permits for driving only. New Mexico and Washington state issue driver's licenses that also can be used as government identification, the type needed to board an airplane or enter a federal courthouse.

SOURCE





Australian Govt. has power to deport Afghan illegals to Afghanistan

The Federal government insists it does have the power to deport failed asylum seekers from Afghanistan under a new agreement with the Afghan government. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen signed the deal with Afghan Refugee Minister Jamaher Anwary earlier this month.

Mr Bowen hailed the deal as a major breakthrough in border security. But Dr Anwary appeared to back away from the deal in comments aired by the ABC on Tuesday. Dr Anwary says the deal does not allow Australia to involuntary deport failed asylum seekers back to Afghanistan and claims to the contrary are propaganda.

But Mr Bowen on Tuesday insisted otherwise. "Of course, it's the preference of the governments of both Australia and Afghanistan - and the United Nations High Commissioner - that these returns be voluntary wherever possible," Mr Bowen's spokeswoman said. "But the MoU does provide for involuntary returns."

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the agreement appeared to be unravelling after just two weeks. "Just like the never-never East Timor solution this is another foreign affairs mess in asylum policy," he said in a statement. "It remains an open question as to whether the government will now follow through, especially given the confusion surrounding the Afghan agreement."

The agreement, which is not legally binding, has been condemned by rights groups that fear returned Afghans will be put in danger.

SOURCE



2 February, 2011

Mi casa no es su casa: Why libertarians are wrong on illegal immigration

In a style reminiscent of Leftists, a lot of libertarians are quite abusive, arrogant and contemptuous in support of their open-borders beliefs. It's rather amazing really. Governments South of the Rio Grande are almost always very authoritarian and oppressive. Do libertarians want the sort of people who support such governments flooding into America and gaining the vote? Does the USA need Peronistas, Bolivarists and their ilk? Bolivar was Fascist long before Hugo Chavez reinvented him.

That influx has of course already happened to some extent and could well be a major factor in explaining the Leftward lurch of the Democratic party in recent years. So we have libertarians supporting authoritarianism in effect: Another instance of the madness that can result from following a rigid ideological line.

The post below offers another line of argument

Libertarians have been accusing me of being a “secular conservative” for having politically incorrect views on immigration. Mainly, I see illegal aliens as law-breakers, and like law-breakers they deserve a punishment instead of the defeated Dream Act.

While all libertarians respect the concept of private property when it comes to their homes, they don’t necessarily see America as a private property. They see it as a Wal-Mart where everyone can come in and spend their money. Yet America is not a Super Center, at Wal-Mart you have to pay for the doctor you see and leave when the store closes, not to mention that a baby born at Wal-Mart doesn’t become a stockholder with voting rights.

Now I will admit that to a business owner more people means more customers, banks today accept the Mexican ID to make sure that the illegals don’t put their money under the mattress. But if business is everything, why not tolerate fraud, tax cheating, money-laundering, drug dealing, white slavery, and plenty of other “business” practices that are quite illegal? Just like society didn’t tolerate Leona Helmsley when she cheated on her taxes, society cannot tolerate breaking and entering whether it’s a property or a country.

Yet in America we are being told that it’s racist to wear old glory on Cinco de Mayo, government forms must be translated into Spanish, and Hispanic kids in Arizona must get pro-Mexican education classes. If Mexico won’t teach the greatness of George Washington, why should they learn about Pancho Villa?

So as someone who loves America, I simply have to say, “mi casa no es su casa,” mi home is not your home. If you come here, do it legally, adapt to our culture, embrace our traditions, learn our language and don’t demand any special treatment because this is not the Minority States of America but the US of A.

And if you think I’m a racist for saying that, try getting a job in Mexico without knowing Spanish, try telling a Mexican school to give your child bilingual education, sue a company because they didn’t translate their legal disclaimer into English, or call people racist for wearing Mexican colors on the Fourth of July. Frankly, if the Mexicans can celebrate their culture, why can’t we? If they’re not afraid of offending us, why are we? The answer is we have been duped into believing that we are the bad guys and everyone else is the good guy. If that’s the case, why is everyone coming here?

So to my libertarian friends, wake up! Open borders is like free trade, it doesn’t work unless everyone else is doing it. Americans in foreign countries get VISAS or face deportation, while that may be unrealistic with 10 million illegal aliens, I propose they either pay a $20,000 fine or face prison, or they can simply go back to where they came from. That amount is based on how much a legal alien I know had to spend between student visas, H1-b’s and his greencard.

In the end, if it’s expensive to follow the law, it shouldn’t be cheap to break it.

SOURCE




Bill Introduced in Arizona challenges Birthright Citizenship

"Arizona is expected to set off another seismic immigration wave on Thursday, when both chambers of its legislature expect to hear the introduction of bills denying citizenship to U.S.-born babies of undocumented immigrants. Republican State Sen. Ron Gould said he and Republican State Rep. John Kavanagh agreed on a day for each to introduce the legislation, but Gould said that timetables for consideration of the bills by the separate chambers will diverge at that point."

Unfortunately, a site [RRND] which reposted this story did so with the commentary-type headline “Idiot pols think state legislature can amend US Constitution,” demonstrating that even people who claim to be libertarian can be guilty of prejudice and incredibly fuzzy thinking.

As the article makes clear, and discussion over the past few months amplifies, there is a growing number of people who believe that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment (an interpretation which dates only from about 1912 and was not accepted until much later (1982 - see the note, even though the amendment was ratified almost fifty years earlier) is wrong and was not intended by either Congress or the states.

Therefore, this is not an attempt to bogusly “amend” the Constitution as the libertarian site claims, but similar to the action taken by Montana and other states in the last couple of years to re-establish states’ authority under the 9th and 10th Amendments and force the reevaluation of the federal government’s claims of power under (and interpretation of) the Interstate Commerce Clause (a claim also dating from the 1930s).

Therefore, this sort of off-the-cuff, contemptuous commentary (and ad hominem attack) on some Arizona legislators does no service to the cause of liberty.

It is also important to at least try and be consistent in our opposition to the state: this 14th Amendment debate should no more be suppressed than the debate over the “militia clause” of the 2nd Amendment. The argument hinges on how “jurisdiction” is defined and the intent of the amendment itself, which clearly was to recognize that “other persons” as originally addressed in the Constitution (slaves) were citizens.

For those interested, this is an extract from an opinion piece [by Ann Coulter, a lawyer] published back in August of 2010. The facts appear to be accurate. My additional comments are in brackets.

In fact, this alleged right [birthright citizenship] derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay [or do we?].

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern [AND even sleazier Northern] states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. ...

Inasmuch as America was not [then] the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -- because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve -- the one you've heard so much about over the years. [sarcasm, folks!]) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book.

Why is this important? Yes, as Mama Liberty pointed out, it is closing the barn door while the barn is burning: the damage is already done, and it is too late for the dead Republic and Union.

But one of the peripheral benefits of such a debate as this legislation is promoting is that we lovers of liberty have a chance to help people see that there is no alternative to government as usual - except one: liberty. Just as we lovers of liberty have gained allies, friends, and co-workers from similar fights over the 1st and 2nd Amendment (or indeed, have been converted to liberty because of the fights over these, and other lovers of liberty who helped us see they were just part of a much bigger war), so WE can win new friends and allies and co-workers in this fight over the real meaning of the 14th.

Even better, we can use this to point out that “jurisdiction” at least implies voluntary and individual consent to a pact or compact - or even a Constitution. What a concept! But if we do not ourselves know the history, or if we dismiss things like this effort in Arizona with nothing but harsh words and contempt, we will have thrown away that opportunity.

SOURCE



1 February, 2011

Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Immigration and The New York Times (Backgrounder)

2. Worksite Enforcement: Audits Are Not Enough (Congressional Testimony)

3. GAO's Bland Review of H-1B Scheme Mostly Ignores Impact on Workers (Blog)

4. Ariz.-Style Immigration Law Proposed in Calif.; Republican Strategists Channel La Raza (Blog)

5. Technical Note: The Estimate of about 650,000 H-1Bs as of 9/30/09 (Blog)

6. GAO Hides Total Numbers of H-1Bs; I Say There are About 650,000 (Blog)

7. Your 'Jewish Priorities,' Not Ours: Establishment Responses to the SOTU (Blog)

8. The Jewish Establishment Seeks Consolation in Pointless Activity (Blog)





US announces record deportations

The United States deported more illegal immigrants than ever before during the first two years of President Barack Obama's administration, his government said Monday.

"In both fiscal years 2009 and 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed more illegal immigrants from our country than ever before, with more than 779,000 removals nationwide in the last two years," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said.

The Obama administration must prove it is tough on illegal immigrants and can secure the country's porous borders if it is to stand a chance of passing a comprehensive overhaul of America's tattered immigration system.

Napolitano announced the record figures in El Paso, Texas -- the border city which is the focus of a major drive by the administration to stem the tide of illegal immigrants flowing over the border from Mexico. "We have strengthened the southwest border in a way that many would not have thought possible," she said. "This approach focuses on identifying criminal aliens and those who pose the greatest risk to our communities, and prioritizing them for removal."

Napolitano highlighted huge increases in the number of border patrol agents, immigration and customs officers and intelligence personnel working on the US-Mexico border, but also said there were, "long-standing, systemic problems with our immigration laws."

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.