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



31 January, 2009

More on 'Latino Voting in the 2008 Election'

A few critical comments on the recent CIS Backgrounder, "Latino Voting in the 2008 Election: Part of a Broader Electoral Movement," (see here, for instance) have surfaced on various blogs in the last few days. This is a good thing, as it draws attention to the fact that the stories that are being told about the GOP losses in the 2006 and 2008 elections need to be challenged. Elections are complicated, and always subject to multiple interpretations as to why the results came down the way they did. The best way to gauge which interpretation is correct is to examine evidence for alternative explanations, not shout louder than the other person.

As an important sidebar to this discussion, I don't think anyone is arguing against the importance of the Republicans continuing to broaden their base. No one that I know of believes that one party should be all-European American (since many Latinos consider themselves white, it doesn't make sense to say "all-white" since that would not exclude Latinos). There are a few on the fringe who may believe in an all-European American party, but they have neither a following nor an audience.

That makes the real argument about the means for broadening the GOP's base. I don't believe that survey or other data have made a very convincing case that this should be accomplished by adopting libertarian positions on immigration policy, lenient views of border enforcement, or by adopting an amnesty for illegal immigrants. The data simply do not show what many observers want them to show.

Critical to the accumulation of knowledge on any subject is the importance of comparison. What we often lack in news and interest group use of survey data are the comparisons of other groups that would help adjudicate claims such as: Latinos voted Democratic because of Republican position-taking on immigration. How can we possibly know this is true if we do not look at other electoral groups to see how they voted?

A group might look unique in its response to a particular campaign when there are no comparisons. When the relevant comparisons are considered, this uniqueness fades. This is what the CIS Backgrounder tried to provide; a comparison of Latinos with other groups in the electorate. These comparisons show that Latinos were not at all alone in moving to the Democratic side in 2008 relative to 2004. Every group considered in the paper moved in that very direction. This makes it much less likely that the election was about immigration, since we know that many of these groups don't care much about immigration policy. Considered not just in isolation, but alongside the movement of so many other demographic groups, it appears that the election was about the economy and fears of joblessness and foreclosure, not about immigration.

The other comparisons we need are comparisons across issue salience. Certainly a survey tabulation may indicate that immigration is "an important" issue for Latinos, but there are probably many issues that are ranked as "important": education, health care, jobs, crime, perhaps even gun rights, national security, and gay marriage. But that doesn't mean that any of these issues influenced the voting decision or steered a voter toward one party or the other. Voters will regularly express a strong preference for Coke over Pepsi, or strawberry over vanilla. But that does not mean that these entrenched views have direct relevance for the vote decision.

Comparisons across elections, such as the House and Senate elections of 2008, are important too. One might carelessly to point to some Republican candidates who lost running on reform platforms as a repudiation of a particular policy view. But this ignores not only the Republican candidates who won with the same record, but the large number of Republicans who lost adhering to more liberal views on the subject, or whose views were unarticulated. Considered selectively and in isolation, observers will make a false inference from incomplete data. All of the contested outcomes need to be considered, those races where immigration was mentioned and those where it was ignored.

We do know from decades of research that party identification is relevant for vote choice. It is the dominant consideration by virtually every account of political behavior. At the very least, then, when considering the impact of an issue position on the vote, pundits and commentators should control for the influence of party identification as a significant rival explanation. Most of the Latinos who consider immigration a highly salient issue are committed Democrats, plain and simple. They would not have voted for the McCain/Palin ticket under any circumstances. There are always a few exceptions, but the data suggest that they are a small number. Other control variables should include socioeconomic status, and possibly religion. Concerns about the economy should be included as a rival explanation for the vote.

Voting decisions are often overly intellectualized by pundits, interest groups, and yes, even academics like myself. We probably want to believe that voters are more attentive to what's happening here in Washington than they really are. But the evidence for an elaborate issue-oriented worldview among anyone but the most elite voters is quite weak. Numerous investigators have found that respondents provide "off-the-top-of-the-head" answers to survey questions that do not have a deep anchorage in a lucid framework, but reflect temporary impressions, usually structured by a pollster's multiple-choice response options, that may change with the next survey. The resulting response instability doesn't mean we should abandon survey research, but we should be well aware of what simple survey tabulations can tell us.

Does this understanding of the survey response mean that voters, Latino or otherwise, are stupid or politically illiterate? Not at all, but they do live busy lives, concerned primarily about family, work, and school. The amount of attention that they devote to political affairs is finite. They frequently use information shortcuts, called heuristics, to make judgments, and party identification is one of the most convenient of those. Voters also consult others in their environment, which is the reason I have highlighted the role of location of residence as an important influence on political learning (see here, for instance). They have a sense of whether the economy is doing poorly or doing well. We may all wish that voters had the time to pay attention to politics as closely as an interest group advocate in Washington does, but if they did, we wouldn't need these interest group advocates trying to tell them what they should think.

In conclusion, we have every reason to doubt that immigration policy influenced the 2008 general election outcome. More generally, alternative explanations for election results go untested by the Washington advocacy and punditry corps. Comparisons with other groups, and comparisons with other issues are essential for evaluating specific claims. People express strong opinions about many issues, but this does not mean that their opinion is a determinant of their vote choice. Finally, interpretations of survey results should reckon with the knowledge we have accumulated about survey responses. Voters in open-ended discussion and deliberation on an issue will often shade and nuance responses that look clear-cut in a typical survey. This does not prove that voters are ignorant, but quite the opposite: they are preoccupied with more pressing things, and are often thoughtful.

SOURCE



British immigration chaos gives thousands the same birthday!

Tens of thousands of immigrants have been allowed to register the same January 1 birthday on official Government records, it emerged last night. They include at least 3,250 asylum seekers who told officials they did not know when they were born. Some asylum seekers destroy their papers and claim to be younger than they actually are, in order to increase their chances of remaining in the UK. Even failed claimants are not normally deported until they reach 18, if they arrived here alone. Also, judges do not recommend foreign criminals for deportation if they were still minors when their offences were committed.

Opposition MPs said the farce was proof the system remained in 'complete chaos' - almost three years after it was declared 'not fit for purpose' by then Home Secretary John Reid. Officials are supposed to record an accurate date of birth for every migrant arriving. But, if migrants insist their home country does not record their date of birth, officials are allowing them to register January 1.

In 2007, 21,652 people were logged as having this date of birth, including 3,000 asylum seekers. They represent one in every 25 entries on the immigration system, which records the details of asylum seekers, foreigners arriving on a visa and British nationals acting as their sponsor. Home Office officials said some countries recorded only a year of birth, and not the exact date. Others, such as China, do not recognise the British calendar year.

But police say that having so many migrants with the same date of birth is leading to problems of identification. One said: 'The amount of asylum seekers we pick up with the same birthday is ridiculous. It makes a complete mockery of the system.'

A case which highlights the problem is the 2005 killing of Zainab Kalokoh, who was shot through the head while cradling her six-month-old niece at a christening. Timy Babamuboni was jailed for 16 years for his part in the killing but will not be deported because of his age. He was officially 14 when he and fellow gang members carried out the killing in Peckham, South London. His brother Diamond, who claimed to be 18, was also jailed for 16 years.

But police believe both men were far older than their Nigerian birth certificates suggest. Officers think the original reason for the fraud was to enable the Babamuboni family to claim more state benefits in Britain and have a better chance of receiving housing.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'If ever you wanted proof this Government has created a system in complete chaos, it is this.' A UK Border Agency spokesman said: 'Less than 1 per cent of the people entered onto our systems in 2007 were asylum seekers with the date of birth of January 1. 'The vast majority come here to work, study or visit with passports which confirm their date of birth. 'One thing is clear - people cannot hide their identity by giving their date of birth as January 1.'

SOURCE





30 January, 2009

Britain opens door to 36,000 Gurkha veterans after policy U-turn

The heroic Gurkhas are much loved in Britain so this will be greeted with widespread jubilation as being justice done



Thousands more Gurkha soldiers and their families will be given the right to settle in Britain under a new policy to be announced by the Home Office. New settlement rights due to be announced could open the door to 36,000 Gurkhas who served in the British Army before 1997. Nepal is understood to be concerned that the loss of so many citizens and their army pensions could leave a huge hole in its economy.

The Home Office was forced to take action after a ruling from High Court judges in October that the Government needed to review its policy on whether Gurkhas who had served before 1997 could live in Britain.

Officials say that the forthcoming decision has such far-reaching consequences that concerns have been raised about the continuing recruitment of Gurkhas from Nepal. Defence officials have warned the Home Office that if the right to live in Britain were extended to every Gurkha who has served in the British Army Nepal might scrap the 1947 agreement under which its young men have been recruited each year. Since the tripartite agreement was signed with Nepal and India, the Nepalese economy has relied on income coming into the country from Gurkhas serving with the British Army.

The Home Office has come up with certain criteria for settlement that will keep the numbers down without flouting the judgment of the High Court. One Whitehall source said: “We can still meet what the judges want while keeping the criteria as tight as possible. We have no idea at this stage how many will want to come to live in the UK and how many members of their family they will bring with them.”

The MoD denied a report last week that it wanted to scrap the Brigade of Gurkhas because of the potential multimillion-pound cost of paying out bigger pensions to the Nepalese veterans if granted settlement rights. “We don’t want to scrap the brigade. Five hundred Gurkhas are serving in Afghanistan at the moment,” a defence source said. Gurkhas are needed, not just for their professionalism, but to boost numbers in an Army that is nearly 4,000 soldiers short. The Gurkha veterans who will be covered by the new policy are those who served in Hong Kong before the handover to the Chinese in 1997. After that date new Gurkha recruits from Nepal were based in Britain.

The MoD’s argument in the High Court case was that Gurkhas serving in the former British colony up to 1997 had no expectation of living in Britain and returned home to Nepal after completing their term of service. Only Gurkhas with strong links to Britain could be considered for residency. The judges accepted that 1997 was a reasonable cut-off date but insisted that the decision to deny Gurkhas who had served before 1997 the automatic right to live in Britain was discriminatory and illegal. They said that the Nepalese soldiers had displayed the same courage and commitment to Britain as those who had served after 1997.

Gurkhas have fought alongside British soldiers for nearly 200 years — 200,000 fought in the world wars and 45,000 have died in action.

The judges ordered a review of policy that was due to have been completed and announced two days ago, but the Home Office won a brief extension to the three-month deadline set by the judges. The MoD’s greatest concern with the decision is the impact that it will have on the Nepalese Government and the future of the Gurkha-recruitment programme. About 30,000 Nepalese families depend on the salaries and pensions of the British Gurkhas.

The average annual wage in Nepal is 235 pounds, and the 230 Nepalese recruited into the 3,500-strong Brigade of Gurkhas each year (28,000 applied last year) transform what would otherwise be an impoverished existence. After an increase, announced last year, a Gurkha rifleman with 15 years’ service receives a pension in Nepal of about 131 pounds a month. If they came to live in Britain, they would expect to receive the same pension awarded to other members of the Armed Forces — and to the post-1997 Gurkhas already living here. An official said: “They wouldn’t get a higher pension as of right. There will have to be further court cases to resolve this issue but if their pensions are increased, the money will have to be found out of the MoD budget.”

SOURCE



The British schools where NO-ONE speaks English as a first language

There are now ten schools in England without a single pupil who speaks English as his or her first language. Research reveals that there are almost 600 primary schools where 70 per cent or more of youngsters normally speak a foreign language. Across the country, one in seven pupils aged 4-11 does not have English as the first language, which is the equivalent of 466,620 children. But, following years of unprecedented levels of migration, ten schools have now reached a point where every youngster falls into this category.

Their locations range from London to Lancashire. One, St Hilda's in Oldham, is a Church of England school. Some schools are in areas with long-established Muslim populations. In others, the high number of non-English speakers is the consequence of large-scale immigration from Eastern Europe.

Labour MP Frank Field and Tory MP Nicholas Soames, co-chairmen of the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration, said: 'These figures make a nonsense of the Government's aim of integration and show the very real strain that uncontrolled large scale immigration is already placing upon our society. 'In hundreds of primary schools, English is the second language for over 70 per cent or more of the pupils. 'How can these children be expected to integrate into our society if they are being taught in schools where is English is the mother tongue of no pupils or a minority of pupils?' Mr Field asked the Children's Department to produce a list of all those schools where seven in ten or more pupils did not have English as their first language.

The 591 primary schools out of 17,205 which fall into this category represent around three per cent, or around one in 30. There are a number of local authorities where 20 per cent or more of their schools have at least 70 per cent of youngsters who do not have English as their first language. These include the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets (62 per cent), Newham (46.9), Brent (28.8) and Ealing (28), plus Blackburn (26.7), Leicester (25.9), Bradford (25), Luton (20.3) and Birmingham (20).

Shadow immigration minister Damian Green said: 'Two successful elements of any immigration policy should be to limit the numbers coming in so that the pressure on all public services is reduced, and to insist on English being spoken to a competent level by people coming here to get married. 'It is relatively easy to cope with a small number of non-English speakers, but incredibly difficult if there are large numbers. Scale matters.'

David Green, director of the Civitas think-tank, has warned that when a large number of immigrant children go into schools, it is very hard for the staff to accommodate them and specialist teachers have to be brought in. Last night, Dr Green said that when the Government was advocating the economic benefits of mass migration, it failed to take into account the impact on schools and other public services. He warned that one of the consequences of having schools where no pupils had English as a first language was that they and their families might lead a sectarian lifestyle.

A spokesman for the Children's Department said: 'It is important to remember that some of the schools with 100 per cent of their pupils with English as an additional language are actually doing very well, especially considering the extra challenges they face. 'Even if a pupil speaks another language they may still be highly competent in English, and many are. In cases recent arrivals from countries such as Poland have helped keep small rural schools open that may have otherwise closed because of falling pupil numbers. 'The language of instruction in English schools is English and this is vital in boosting community cohesion. 'The task is to get every child up to speed in English so that they can access the whole curriculum. 'We have listened to the concerns of head teachers and are increasing funding in the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant to 206million pounds by 2010, to bring students weak in English up to speed.'

SOURCE





29 January, 2009

Utahns favor immigration bill by wide margin

SB81: 78 percent of voters polled want the restrictions implemented

After hearing impassioned testimony from dozens of advocates on both sides of the immigration reform debate, one House member thinks more objective, factual information is needed before Utah allows a comprehensive immigration reform bill to become law this July. Rep. Stephen Clark, R-Provo, has proposed a bill that will fund a $150,000 study assessing the fiscal impacts of undocumented workers on the state in five, 10 and 25 years. The bill also would delay the implementation of immigration bill SB81. "We're putting a big burden on the state in implementing this, and on employers," Clark said. "We should know every piece of data that is out there. There is no appetite to rush this."

But 78 percent of registered Utah voters want to see SB81 implemented, according to a poll by The Salt Lake Tribune . The bill would, among other provisions, require all companies that contract with the state to check the immigration status of their employees and allow local police to enforce immigration law.

Just 12 percent of poll respondents said they oppose SB81, which was passed last year but doesn't take effect until this summer. Ten percent were undecided. "Most people have been supportive of SB81, and there was some opposition, but a lot of groups have asked for a stronger law," said Rep. Brad Dee, R-Ogden. "But SB81 is a reasonable compromise."

Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City, though, hopes the implementation date is pushed back. "It's a matter of practicality, budget and constitutionality," she said. Robles points to the bill's $1.8 million price tag in a tight budget year and a current court case over Oklahoma's law, which served as a model for several of the Utah provisions.

Other groups are taking a different approach. During testimony heard late this fall, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce proposed a statewide guest worker program, which would allow companies to hire workers from other countries if no American wanted the job and the workers passed background checks. A special tax on the workers would fund their health care. The idea resonated with Utah's registered voters, with 51 percent supporting such a program while 38 percent opposed it and 11 percent were undecided. "This is something that we can do now that will address solutions and address fundamental problems in our immigration system," Wesley Smith, policy director for the chamber, told lawmakers in December. "There are folks here that want to work and contribute. If that's the case, we can resolve a lot of issues by allowing that to take place."

SOURCE



Britain is too soft on Calais immigrants, says France

France yesterday called on Britain to toughen up its act against the tide of illegal migrants crossing the Channel. During a crisis visit to Calais, France's hardline new immigration minister Eric Besson criticised his London counterparts. He claimed that lax security in the Channel Tunnel and at ferry ports was encouraging thousands to try to enter Britain illegally, causing huge problems for the French.

In an upcoming meeting with British immigration minister Phil Woolas, Mr Besson will make it clear that there will be no new version of the Red Cross refugee centre at Sangatte, near Calais. He said a permanent hostel would only serve as a springboard for the migrants already in the northern French port - and as a magnet for thousands more to arrive. He hoped to silence repeated calls by aid agencies for a new shelter for migrants to be set up in Calais.

The original Sangatte hostel was blamed for becoming a stepping stone to Britain for more than 50,000 refugees over five years. It was finally bulldozed in 2002 in a joint agreement between Britain and France. Since then, refugee charities have provided food and clothing to bedraggled immigrants in Calais, but not given them overnight shelter.

Hundreds now live in filthy conditions in a woodland shanty town near the ferry port called the 'jungle'. The appalling conditions and fighting over food have triggered frequent clashes between rival immigrant gangs and police. A London journalist was raped by an Afghan refugee last year after visiting the camp to write a news article.

Mr Besson was in Calais today to explore ways to help solve the immigration crisis which has plagued the northern French coast for a decade. He said: "I don't pretend to have all the answer today but I am visiting Calais in the hope of finding them. "I hope to have made final decisions on what to do about Calais by May 1." He added: "But I will say now that it is out of the question to reopen a new hostel for immigrants in Calais. "This would only help the immigrants that are there already to remain there or cross illegally to Britain. "And it would become a powerful incentive for more immigrants to come there. "It would also not be a solution to the humanitarian problem. It would be an extra humanitarian problem. "I will meet with British officials in the coming days and I intend to make the ferries and channel tunnel watertight to illegal immigrants. "Our British partners must commit themselves more actively in the reinforcement of checks and security at Calais, in their own interests and ours."

Mr Besson also said earlier this week that he is set to bring in legislation that would allow DNA testing of new immigrants arriving in France. The tests would establish which foreigners were genuine refugees and which were claiming visas by making up fictious family ties with those already in France. The DNA scans will be for applications for visas of more than three months when there are doubts about an immigrant's birth or marriage certificates.

Civil liberties groups reacted furiously to the scheme, which was approved by the French parliament 15 months ago but does not come into effect until Mr Besson has signed the legislation - a move which until now has been delayed by protests. But Mr Besson has now said he wanted to enact the proposals, adding: "If the decree is accepted, I will scrupulously respect all individual liberties. It's not my obsession."

But immigrant welfare activist Daniele Lochak, former president of GISTI immigrants support group, said: "It's obvious that applicants who refuse DNA tests will have every chance of having their visas refused." The cost of up to 350 pounds per test would also to be beyond the reach of many immigrant families, he said.

France civil law also says that taking and examining a person's DNA can only be for medical or scientific research, meaning magistrates will have to authorise the new immigrant tests. Outgoing immigration minister Brice Hortefeux recently announced that France deported 30,000 illegal migrants in 2008 - a record number. It was a rise of more than 25 per cent on the number expelled the previous year.

SOURCE





28 January, 2009

It does happen

Mass. factory owner sentenced in immigration case

The president of a New Bedford leather-goods factory that was raided in 2007 by immigration agents was sentenced Tuesday to 12 months in federal prison for harboring and concealing illegal immigrants. Francesco Insolia, the owner of Michael Bianco Inc., was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock after Insolia agreed in November to plead guilty. Michael Bianco Inc. was also ordered to pay $1 million for 18 specific counts of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants between 2004 and late 2006.

Insolia told Woodlock he took full responsibility for not taking any action after being informed he had illegal immigrants working in his factory. "I'm responsible for the conduct," Insolia said, while more than 30 emotional supporters listened. "Never in my worst nightmare would I think I'd find myself in the position I am in today."

In March 2007, federal authorities raided the Michael Bianco factory and arrested 361 workers, most of whom were from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.

Immigrant advocates criticized the March 2007 raid for separating families and leaving children without proper care. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the raid was properly handled.

The company was sold to Eagle Industries of Fenton, Mo., more than a year ago.

Woodlock said he received an "extraordinary group of letters" from Insolia's supporters -- including former Latino employees -- who praised the Sicilian-born Insolia as a boss and for his community work.

SOURCE



Latino Voting in 2008

Part of a Broader Electoral Movement

In the 2004 general election, President Bush garnered perhaps 39 or 40 percent of the Latino vote. Four years later, after extensive debate on immigration, Sen. McCain received approximately 32 percent of the Latino vote. Some have suggested that the GOP's stance on immigration has hindered political gains among Hispanic voters.

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new Backgrounder challenging that assertion. "Latino Voting in the 2008 Election: Part of a Broader Electoral Movement," by Prof. James G. Gimpel of the University of Maryland, argues that GOP losses in the election were not limited to Hispanic voters and not affected by the immigration debate. Among the findings:

# Exit polls from Election Day indicated that President Barack Obama won 67 percent of the Latino vote, and John McCain 32 percent. This compares to estimates of Latino support for George W. Bush in the range of 39 percent or higher in 2004. In 2000, Bush is thought to have received 35 percent of the Latino vote.

# McCain's consistent history of advocating a legalization program for illegal immigrants made no impression on Latino voters.

# McCain lost the Latino vote by a wide margin even in his home state of Arizona, 56 to 41 percent. This was in spite of widespread news coverage of his immigration stance in that state.

# The drop in Republican support among Latinos between 2004 and 2008 was part of a broad-based electoral movement away from the GOP, and was hardly specific to that demographic group. McCain received only 57 percent of the white male vote, compared with 62 percent for Bush in 2004, and McCain's 55 percent of regular church goers was significantly lower than Bush's 61 percent.

# Credible surveys indicate that the major policy concerns of Latinos were no different than the concerns of non-Latinos: The economy and jobs topped the list.

# There is little evidence that immigration policy was an influential factor in Latinos' choice between the two candidates once basic party predispositions are taken into account.

# In 2008, Latino voters supported the GOP ticket at levels above the usual 30 percent only when they resided in states that were already safely in GOP hands.

# The size of the Latino voting population should be kept in perspective alongside other subsets of the electorate. An estimated 11.8 million voters were of Latino ancestry, compared with 17 million African Americans, 19.7 million veterans, 23.6 million young people, 34 million born-again white Christians, and 45 million conservatives.

The above is a press release from the CIS. Contact: Bryan Griffith, (202) 466-8185, press@cis.org





27 January, 2009

US authorities says rule lifted limiting immigration arrests

But will Obama reimpose it?

The Homeland Security Department reversed itself Monday, saying that weeks after the presidential election it lifted a new rule requiring high-level approval before federal agents nationwide could arrest fugitive immigrants. The Bush administration had imposed the unusual directive days before the election of Barack Obama, whose aunt was living in the United States illegally. The directive expressed concerns about "negative media or congressional interest," according to a newly disclosed federal document obtained by The Associated Press.

The unusual directive from Immigration and Customs Enforcement made clear that U.S. officials worried about possible election implications of arresting Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late father, who at the time was living in public housing in Boston. She is now believed to be living in Cleveland.

The directive was lifted at the end of November, after Obama's win, ICE spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said Monday. Nantel previously had told the AP the directive was still in place, and the White House told the AP late Sunday that Obama would consider whether to overturn it. Nantel said she had been under the impression the directive was still in effect. A copy of the directive, "Fugitive Case File Vetting Prior to Arrest," was released to the AP just over two months after it was requested under the Freedom of Information Act. It does not mention President Obama or any members of his extended family. The directive originally was distributed Oct. 31 by e-mail to immigration officers by an assistant director at the agency. Obama was elected president five days later. Nantel said the directive called for close supervision over any cases that could be high profile. She said it was not specific to Obama's relatives.

The White House said late Sunday that the Obama administration wasn't briefed on why the directive was issued. It said Obama "has not contacted any government agency regarding Ms. Onyango's case, nor has any representative of the president."

Obama's aunt was instructed to leave the country four years ago by an immigration judge who rejected her request for asylum from her native Kenya. The East African nation has been fractured by violence in recent years, including a period of two months of bloodshed after December 2007 that killed 1,500 people.

More here



Record citizenship ceremonies on Australia day (26th Jan.) mark an Australian immigration success

It is undoubtedly true that Australia has successfully assimilated proportionately huge numbers of people from overseas, with minimal problems and notable enhancement of Australian life. Recent changes to the immigrant mix -- including for the first time substantial numbers of Africans and Muslims -- mean that the past is no guarantee of the future, however

Today, on the 60th anniversary of Australian citizenship ceremonies, 13,000 Australian immigrants became lawful citizens of Australia. Over 300 citizenship ceremonies were held around the country, with Perth hosting the largest group at a record 1,881 people sworn into citizenship. Immigration and Citizenship Minister Chris Evans attended the ceremony, saying they were joining "four million others who have done it before you," reports the Sydney Morning Herald.

The ceremony was the second-largest citizenship ceremony in Australia's history, and Senator Evans says it is all thanks to the achievements of the Australian immigration system. "We are a great success story," Senator Evans added. "You go anywhere in the world and they say no-one has done it better than Australia at settling and promoting the success of its migrants."

Being a multicultural nation, celebrations for Australians at Hyde Park included munching on Aussie beef burgers and snags (sausages), Turkish gozleme, Spanish paella, and Thai curries.

In Canberra, Leo Sayer, a British-born musician who became an Australian citizen today, said becoming an Australian citizen is better than getting a number-one hit, while in Adelaide, men from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association shouted "Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi", and Samoan women wearing traditional Samoan dress danced to the beat of a drum. In Melbourne, Chinese dragons accompanied the People's March that used the theme "We are one, but we are many" as their focus. Perth will have the final celebrations in Australia, topped off with fireworks and a partial solar eclipse.

Over 90 countries were represented around Australia at the citizenship ceremonies, and Senator Evans reminded listeners at the ceremony it is an excellent opportunity to celebrate multiculturalism and to thank those who move to Australia for their contributions to Australian society. "It's a great day to think about what Australia means to you and what we can do to make Australia the great place it is.We have refugees and business migrants building Australia ... and tasting its success."

When a permanent resident of Australia has been lawfully resident for four years or longer, they may be eligible to become an Australian citizen. They must have remained in Australia for the twelve months prior to application as a permanent resident, and had no periods outside of Australia for longer than 12 months during those four years, including no absences of three months or more in the 12 months prior to application.

If the applicant has been confined in prison or a psychiatric institution for any period during their time of residence, they may not meet the residence requirements. Some residents may be exempt from the residence requirements as determined by the government, such as those who serve in the Australian army, navy or air force. The Government provides a Residence Requirements Calculator to help determine eligibility for Australian citizenship. Applicants must also prove that they are of good character.

The government will be holding events throughout the year to celebrate Australian citizenship.

SOURCE





26 January, 2009

Georgia's strict immigration law goes unenforced

The elite just ignore the wishes of their voters until someone puts a rocket under them

A key goal of Georgia's 2006 law cracking down on illegal immigration was simple and controversial: stop undocumented immigrants from earning wages paid by taxpayers. Supporters heralded the provision as one of the nation's toughest because it orders local governments, their contractors and subcontractors to confirm the legal status of new hires. But the provision has amounted to less than proponents hoped and critics feared. No one in state government is enforcing the law. No one at the state level has checked to see whether governments and businesses are complying. And nothing happens to them if they don't.

A year and a half after the law required every government in Georgia to sign up with the federal Homeland Security Department to verify the legal status of new hires, the Georgia Department of Labor has no idea what agencies or governments are complying. The department is tasked with setting guidelines for implementing the 2006 Immigration Security and Compliance Act. Supporters of the law say if this basic task isn't done, they can't have confidence that the rest of the law is being taken seriously. Other provisions call for illegal immigrants arrested for a felony or DUI to be reported to immigration authorities, and for governments to make sure they don't give welfare to illegal immigrants.

The reason for the lack of accountability: The Legislature never provided money to monitor the law. "As far as any enforcement responsibilities under the law, we don't have any," Labor Department spokesman Sam Hall said. Hall said the agency posted guidelines on its Web site and offered to do random audits - if it received funding. Asked whether anyone in state government knows which agencies and governments are complying with the law, Hall said: "There is no central agency that has the authority to do that."

Many sign up year late

The law, which started as SB 529, requires all government offices to sign up for the federal employment verification program called E-Verify. It's a free national database designed to check whether someone can legally work in the country. All businesses with more than 100 employees doing government work are supposed to be registered by now. The smallest businesses doing work with governments aren't required to sign up until July. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found most Georgia governments have signed up for the computer program that matches an employee's name against Social Security and immigration data. Many were a year late in doing so. But some smaller governments still haven't signed up. More importantly, no one has determined whether governments that have signed up are actually using it.

Local officials who routinely use the system said E-Verify hasn't had an effect on their hiring. In many towns, hiring has slowed because of the economic downturn. Most metro Atlanta governments have enrolled in the program. Notable exceptions include Doraville and Lithonia. College Park signed up Jan. 13 after being contacted by the AJC. Rhonda Blackmon, the city clerk of Doraville, said the city will sign up for the program. Lithonia Police Chief Willie Rosser said, "This is the first I've heard we had to do it."

`There is no stick'

The law contains other ways to crack down on illegal immigration. It uses the state tax code to tighten loopholes for those who declare themselves "independent contractors." Some employers use independent contractors as a way around hiring laws. If employers don't follow the new tax rules, they could be penalized if the state Department of Revenue audited their business.

The provision requiring jailers to check the legal status of anyone booked on a felony or a DUI also has problems. For instance, a prisoner may bond out of jail before the feds call to hold the person on immigration violations. "There is no state oversight of any of this stuff," said Terry Norris, executive vice president of the Georgia Sheriffs' Association.

Mark Newman, an attorney at Troutman Sanders who advises businesses about the immigration law, said "most businesses are clueless" about what the compliance act requires. He said he wasn't surprised by the slow response from counties and local governments. "There is no stick," he said. "It doesn't seem like there is much motivation or incentive."

The absence of enforcement has been frustrating to state Sen. Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock), who was the lead sponsor of the bill and a vocal opponent of illegal immigration. Rogers, who is Senate majority leader, said he does not plan to introduce any enforcement changes to the law this year. He introduced such an amendment last year that became mired in the House. Therefore, he's waiting for the House to take action. Rogers said he has had many conversations with local and county officials who say they didn't think they had to comply with the law. Many governments were slow to sign up. "The argument is always, `I didn't know I had to,' " Rogers said. "Some don't know they have to, and some simply aren't doing their job."

Enforcement funding iffy

Supporters of the law argue the Legislature needs to spend money on enforcement. In a news conference this month at the state Capitol, D.A. King, president of the Dustin Inman Society, a Marietta-based group pressing for stricter immigration laws, said the Immigration Security and Compliance Act "is being laughed at by many of the local officials in this state. . I never dreamed it would be the local governments of Georgia that would defy the law."

Opponents argue the lack of compliance is proof the legislation is unworkable. They contend the cash-strapped state shouldn't spend money on enforcement. "This is just a bad law and a bad idea," immigration attorney Charles Kuck said. "It's a waste of time and money and effort, and it gave the state a black eye."

Between the two sides are local government officials. "Small cities with few employees, or a part-time manager, may not know they have to comply with E-Verify," said Amy Henderson, spokeswoman for the Georgia Municipal Association. Janice Truhan, city clerk of Jonesboro, signed up in July and has been following instructions and tutorials ever since. Lately, she said, the E-Verify system has been acting up and won't let her process new applications after she enters her password. "It's not an easy system to use," Truhan said.

King said he will push this session for money to enforce the legislation or to authorize the state to withhold money if governments don't comply. But Kuck said that the state, facing a large budget shortfall, probably won't do anything to finance enforcement. "It will just sit there," he said of the law. "No one in the state of Georgia will vote to overturn it because it would be political suicide."

SOURCE



Gillibrand Already Taking Heat for Immigration Views



Kirsten Gillibrand, the newest member of the nation's most exclusive club [The U.S. Senate], is already stirring debate in the immigration community. As a Congresswoman from upstate New York, she co-sponsored the Save Act, a 2007 bill that aimed to crack down on illegal immigration partly by using military personnel and defense equipment to police the borders. Last year, she voted in favor of a measure to penalize "sanctuary cities," so-called because they are considered lax in enforcing immigration laws. Neither of the laws passed, but Gillibrand's support of these and other immigration measures has raised concerns among some immigration afficionados.

Sam Udani, publisher of the Immigration Daily newspaper, calls the Save Act "the kind of stuff you'd expect to come from a real Southern, anti-immigration, right-wing perspective." Deborah Notkin, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers' Association, notes that New York City is considered to be a sanctuary city. Gillibrand "is unlikely to be reelected in New York with a program that wants to penalize sanctuary cities," Notkin says.

Gillibrand's office did not return a call for comment. But Ted Ruthizer, head of the immigration practice at Kramer Levin, is more hopeful. He says he has spoken to the Senator several times. She is agreeable, he says, to finding ways that immigrants who have lived in the U.S. a long time can "regularize their immigration status." Plus, he says, she seems to be a savvy politician, who will likely move more to the middle on immigration now that she represents a broader constituency. "Gillibrand comes first from an [immigration] enforcement view, but she has indicated a willingness to look at the whole picture," Ruthizer says.

SOURCE

Another view of Gillibrand -- from an Hispanic publication. Sounds like she blows with the wind

An editorial published in the Saturday, Jan. 24 edition of New York's El Diario/La Prensa called the new state senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, a "disappointing choice" and a slap in the face to immigrant New Yorkers. However, the front page of the same newspaper announced on Sunday that the senator had "softened her tone" on immigration.

Gillibrand, who was chosen by the Governor David Paterson Friday to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate, was received with skepticism by leaders of the state's immigrant community for her support of local police officers taking on efforts to enforce immigration law.

On Saturday, however, she told New York's television channel NY1 that the United States needs to "ensure that anyone who wants to work in this country has a way to stay here legally." She said she would work to achieve this, and went on to describe the separation of families due to immigration policies as a tragedy. Gillibrand said she plans to meet with Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez to learn more about immigration reform.

SOURCE





25 January, 2009

80 foreign murderers welcomed to Britain: Albanian killers allowed to stay despite being on Interpol 'wanted' list

Eighty foreign killers are exploiting the chaotic asylum system to set up home in Britain, it was revealed yesterday. The convicted murderers from Albania have been given British passports despite being officially listed as 'wanted' by Interpol. Most slipped across the Channel from Calais to Dover hidden in the back of lorries on ferries. They used bogus names and false papers to claim asylum, often pretending to be from the war-torn Balkan republic of Kosovo.

The scandal came to light when Albania's chief of police complained that 100 criminals from his country have been granted British citizenship and now live here. The police chief said the criminals have been allowed to stay even though the Albanian government has informed the Home Office of the true identities of the men and their crimes, which also include rape and robbery.

Many of the convicted criminals have been living in the UK for up to ten years and have started new families here. As the revelations exposed the shambles within the asylum system yet again, campaigners expressed their outrage. Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch, said: 'It is a real concern that people accused of, or even convicted of, very serious crimes should apparently find it so easy to gain asylum in Britain.'

Rose Dixon, of victim group Support After Murder and Manslaughter, added: 'I'm astounded. If this is correct, I'm appalled that these people are walking the streets of Britain. I think we should be told a lot more about this.'

After the Home Office was informed about the true identity of the asylum seekers, extradition proceedings against them were lodged by the Albanian Government. But complex legal arguments and the need to find interpreters and psychologists has led to lengthy delays.

Albanian criminals use myriad loopholes in the extradition laws to avoid being sent home. Their lawyers often claim they will suffer human rights abuse on their return, or that trials in their absence were unfair because they could not give their side. The situation is even more complicated if they have become British citizens. Under the Human Rights Act 1988, this gives them further protection against being removed because their family life would be disrupted. Even when a case does finally go through a British court, it is the Home Secretary who decides the fate of the asylum seeker.

Meanwhile, many continue to live off state hand-outs while others have gone on to commit crimes in Britain. Ahmet Prenci, the Albanian chief of police, said he felt as if all his force's hard work in tracking down the culprits had been in vain. 'We have made a list of our people who are hiding in the UK,' he said. 'There are 100 criminals, and more than 80 per cent are wanted for murder and have been convicted in absentia. 'They have been given British citizenship despite our efforts to extradite them to serve prison sentences in our country. 'We are working intensively to identify, locate, and then to arrest wanted Albanian people in Britain. Unfortunately, many have British passports obtained after they claimed asylum by pretending to be Kosovans. 'We are unhappy that the courts repeatedly refuse extradition of these criminals. There is no reason for an Albanian citizen who has been involved in a crime not to be punished.'

Mr Prenci spoke out as a report by the National Audit Office revealed that Britain is struggling to cope with the growing numbers of asylum seekers. The UK Border Agency is overwhelmed with cases. More than 300,000 asylum claims have not been processed and nine out of ten foreigners refused asylum are not sent home.

Chris Grayling, Shadow Home Secretary, said: 'The Home Office has consistently been warned about undesirables entering our country both legally and illegally, yet they seem not to have a grip on it. While the Home Office is prepared to do nothing about this, we will introduce a dedicated UK police force to secure our borders.'

A Home Office spokesman last night refused to respond to the Albanian police chief's allegations that criminals from his country were being given British citizenship even though their past was known. He said: 'We cannot comment on individual extradition cases.'

SOURCE



150,000 foreigners swell UK workforce: Record number get permits as Britons lose jobs

Ministers were criticised last night for issuing a record 151,635 work permits to foreigners as Britain slid into recession. The document lets non-EU workers take or keep jobs here, even though hundreds of thousands of Britons are losing theirs. Unemployment rose by 290,000 in the same period, from December 1, 2007 to November 30, 2008, to reach 1.92m - the most since September 1997. Up to 2,500 workers a day are losing their jobs. MPs said it made a mockery of Gordon Brown's promise in 2007 to deliver 'British jobs for British workers'.

The number of permits given to non-EU citizens is crucial to protecting British jobs as ministers have no control over the movement of EU nationals. But rather than cutting the permits in 2008, the total increased. In 2007, when the economy was growing, 129,700 were approved. In 1997, the year Labour came to power, only 42,800 were handed out.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: ' This further undermines Gordon Brown's crass and unwise boast that he would deliver "British jobs for British workers" and is more evidence why Labour are not capable of guiding us through recession. 'This Government has run out of ideas and is taking Britain in the wrong direction.'

Tory MP Nicholas Soames and his Labour counterpart Frank Field, who jointly chair the cross-party group on Balanced Migration, said the Government had to ensure British workers got the 'first chance' to apply for any new vacancy. The Home Office can turn down applications for permits on the grounds that the job could be filled by a Briton or an EU citizen.

Some 43,880 of the work permits last year were for between 48 and 60 months, giving permission to stay even if the recession turns into a long-term depression. Of those who received them last year, the major beneficiaries were Americans (28,835), Indians ( 49,950), Chinese (8,090) and Australians (6,245).

Ministers are likely to be concerned by the impact the latest figures will have on public opinion. In a controversial interview last year, Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said strict limits would be imposed on immigration amid fears that rising unemployment would fuel racial tension. Last Sunday, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith sought to calm public fears by promising that vacancies for skilled workers will in future be initially advertised only in a Jobcentre for two weeks - where a non-EU national cannot apply.

Ministers have promised to bring non-EU migration under control with the points-based system that was introduced last year. But the policy will reduce an estimated population growth of ten million by just 250,000 over the next two decades.

A Government spokesman said: 'In difficult economic times we need a tough system that offers British workers the first crack of the whip for British jobs. 'The points system means only those with the skills Britain needs can come and no more.'

SOURCE





24 January, 2009

Sheriff Joe is at it Again!



Below is a report about sheriff Joe that has been circulating in emails for a year or more now but I think many readers here will enjoy reading it. Snopes has confirmed it as factually accurate, though you could almost hear the teeth grinding as they did so. They have a particular devotion to poking holes in anything that encourages conservatism

You all remember Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona , who painted the jail cells pink and made the inmates wear pink prison garb. Well.... there's MUCH more to know about Sheriff Joe!

Maricopa County was spending approx. $18 million dollars a year on stray animals, like cats and dogs. Sheriff Joe offered to take the department over, and the County Supervisors said okay.

The animal shelters are now all staffed and operated by prisoners. They feed and care for the strays. Every animal in his care is taken out and walked twice daily. He now has prisoners who are experts in animal nutrition and behavior. They give great classes for anyone who'd like to adopt an animal. He has literally taken stray dogs off the street, given them to the care of prisoners, and had them place in dog shows.

The best part? His budget for the entire department is now under $3 million. Teresa and I adopted a Weimaraner from a Maricopa Countyshelter two years ago. He was neutered, and current on all shots, in great health, and even had a microchip inserted the day we got him. Cost us $78.

The prisoners get the benefit of about $0.28 an hour for working, but most would work for free, just to be out of their cells for the day. Most of his budget is for utilities, building maintenance, etc. He pays the prisoners out of the fees collected for adopted animals.

I have long wondered when the rest of the country would take a look at the way he runs the jail system, and copy some of his ideas. He has a huge farm, donated to the county years ago, where inmates can work, and they grow most of their own fresh vegetables and food, doing all the work and harvesting by hand.

He has a pretty good sized hog farm, which provides meat, and fertilizer. It fertilizes the Christmas tree nursery, where prisoners work, and you can buy a living Christmas tree for $6 - $8 for the Holidays, and plant it later. We have six trees in our yard from the Prison.

Yup, he was reelected last year with 83% of the vote.

Now he's in trouble with the ACLU again. He painted all his buses and vehicles with a mural, that has a special hotline phone number painted on it, where you can call and report suspected illegal aliens. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wasn't doing enough in his eyes, so he had 40 deputies trained specifically for enforcing immigration laws, started up his hotline, and bought 4 new buses just for hauling folks back to the border. He's kind of a 'Git-R Dun' kind of Sheriff.

TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO

HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA COUNTY SHERIFF

AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER

THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (In Arizona ) who created the ' Tent City Jail':

He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights Cut off all but 'G' movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.

Then He Started Chain Gangs For Women So He Wouldn't Get Sued For Discrimination.

He took away cable TV Until he found out there was A Federal Court Order that Required Cable TV For Jails So He Hooked Up The Cable TV Again Only Let In The Disney Channel And The Weather Channel.

When asked why the weather channel He Replied, So They Will Know How Hot It's Gonna Be While They Are Working on My Chain Gangs.

He Cut Off Coffee Since It Has Zero Nutritional Value.

When the inmates complained, he told them, 'This Isn't The Ritz/Carlton......If You Don't Like It, Don't Come Back.'

More On The Arizona Sheriff:

With Temperatures Being Even Hotter Than Usual In Phoenix in the summer of 2003 (116 Degrees Just Set A New Record), the Associated Press Reports:

About 2,000 Inmates Living In A Barbed-Wire-Surrounded Tent Encampment At The Maricopa County Jail Have Been Given Permission To Strip Down To Their Government-Issued Pink Boxer Shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 Degrees Inside The Week Before.

Many Were Also Swathed In Wet, Pink Towels As Sweat Collected On Their Chests And Dripped Down To Their PINK SOCKS.

'It Feels Like We Are In A Furnace,' Said James Zanzot, An Inmate Who Has Lived In The TENTS for 1 year. 'It's Inhumane.'

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: 'It's 120 Degrees In Iraq And Our Soldiers Are Living In Tents Too, And They Have To Wear Full Battle Gear, But They Didn't Commit Any Crimes,So Shut Your Mouths!'

Way To Go, Sheriff!

Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.



90% of failed asylum seekers remain in UK... and backlog of undecided cases doubles in a year

As many as nine out of ten failed asylum seekers are being allowed to stay in Britain despite having no right to remain, a report from a Government watchdog reveals today. The backlog of illegal immigrants awaiting deportation is growing fast as the UK Border Agency fails to keep pace with the number of rejected applicants. The number of unprocessed cases is also growing. And Government rules stating that all successful asylum seekers must have their cases reviewed after five years - to see if their country is now safe enough to return to - have descended into farce, because the Border Agency has no way of tracking those living in Britain and no plans for a review.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling called the report, from the National Audit Office, a 'shocking indictment of the shambles that is our immigration and asylum system'. Meanwhile, the Commons Public Accounts Committee, to which the NAO reports, claimed the Agency was 'struggling to cope.'

Last year, the Home Office introduced the 'New Asylum Model' in a bid to streamline Britain's chaotic asylum system, by assigning each case to a single civil servant from start to finish. Today's report acknowledges that the œ800million-a-year system is now 'better organised than before', but highlights grave problems which in many cases are getting worse. A surge in the number of asylum claims saw the backlog of undecided cases more than double in a year, to almost 9,000. The NAO tracked more than 25,000 claims lodged from January 2007 to February 2008, of which almost 14,000 were refused. But of 10,719 cases processed in the seven regions around the UK, only 918 - less than 10 per cent - had actually been deported by the following August. The rate was higher for 3,000 false claimants who were fast-tracked in detention. Including these claims, the overall removal rate was just one in four.

A severe shortage of detention spaces is making removals harder, the report warned, with much of the available capacity taken up by foreign criminals who have completed their sentences and are awaiting deportation. The NAO also highlighted glaring inefficiencies, including:

Seventy per cent of planned deportations - where security staff accompany deportees on flights home - are cancelled, often due to lack of proper coordination, leading to 'additional work and costs'.

The Agency often has to buy emergency travel documents from foreign governments to deport failed asylum seekers, but 13,000 of these have been wasted because individuals absconded, or because the papers expired.

Since 2005, Britain has granted asylum for five years only - after which cases should be reviewed in the hope that some immigrants will be able to return home.

But astonishingly the Border Agency 'has no process' to track refugees living in Britain and 'no plans in place to review these cases'. There are 8,000 due for review next year. Last night, the Agency's chief executive Lin Homer confirmed there was 'no requirement' for asylum seekers to tell officials when they move house.

Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch, said: 'This is a shameful performance for the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds. It is no surprise that asylum seekers, many of them bogus, are queuing up in Calais.'

SOURCE



23 January, 2009

The "protesters" are out already

The article below is from HuffPo. They are getting surprisingly moderate at times these days

In the 48-hour time period between Monday and Wednesday three events will collide to put newly-inaugurated President Barack Obama in the crosshairs of those pushing the anti-"anti-illegal" immigration agenda in this country.

First, on Monday - in a stunning last-minute move - then-President George W. Bush granted clemency to the two border patrol agents who were serving eleven and twelve year sentences for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler in the buttocks back in 2005, then conspiring to cover it up. The campaign to "Free Ramos and Compean" was taken up both by rabid anti-immigrant types as well as by the more moderate sorts who - though they certainly don't advocate shooting people in the back - didn't believe that officers Jose A. Compean and Ignacio Ramos deserved to be put in solitary confinement for over a decade for their crime. Either way, the border patrolmen's plight was just one of the many points of contention that boiled over in the thick of the pro-vs.-anti-illegal-immigrant rhetoric that successfully drowned out July 2007's attempt at comprehensive immigration reform.

Next, of course, came Barack Obama's Tuesday inauguration when the world stopped to sigh happily that "a new day has dawned" not only in the United States, but also across the globe. Fast forward 24-hours and the honeymoon is over: Wednesday at 11am in Washington, DC, the "National Capital Immigrant and Fair Immigration Reform Movement" held an immigration rights march to demand (all together now!) quote:

"[A] Moratorium on the Raids and Deportations -Just and Humane Immigration Reform -Health Care for All -

Worker Justice Obama's decisive victory signals a sea change in U.S. politics.

This is a historic moment -not only because the U.S. will have its first African American president, but also because a decisive majority of Latino voters, and many white voters were central to Obama's victory. We are entering a new era-, one where real social change can happen. Mass movements for social justice must play a crucial role."

Not to be left behind, Chicago's very own March Mastermind Jorge Mujica - now best known for successfully engineering the takeover of the Republic Window factory and getting those employees the severance they were owed - has his own gig here in Chicago. The "Solidarity Rally" - to (altogether now!) "Demand an End to Raids and Deportations" - starts at 5:00pm Wednesday at Federal Plaza (corner of Dearborn and Adams, Downtown, Chicago, if you're interested in showing up).

Naturally, because I like to talk to the Devil's advocates - just a manner of speech, of course - the first person I called with this news was Rick Jones, the Deputy Director of the Illinois Minuteman Project.

Despite leading three years of protests in front of Illinois legislators' offices demanding Ramos and Compean be freed, he was none too impressed with Monday's surprise clemency. "No, we really don't feel justice has been served," Jones told me over the phone just a few hours after Obama had been sworn in as the 44 president, "I'm so happy this finally culminated in a happy ending - we're all elated - but we felt they should have gotten a full pardon."

Despite his partial disappointment, though, Jones did take the time to weigh in on what this new wave of demand marches and the new Presidency means for the future of the United States. "I dunno...I like Obama, I've met Obama, I've had him on my [radio] show, he's a popular guy," said Jones. "I don't know his philosophy on immigration but I do know his philosophies in general don't coincide with mine - I know he tends to run with the open-the-borders crowd but that doesn't mean anything. Still, I don't want to judge a book by its cover." "If I could give him one piece of advice," Jones continued, "it would be this: if he obeys the letter of the Constitution and puts American workers first - and I don't mean Anglo-Saxon only - by that I mean Hispanics, blacks, Guatemalan, Nigerian, American citizens and legal residents...if he puts them first, then who knows? Maybe things will change."

I'm going to stop while I'm ahead on this historic Inauguration Day - and going to go to sleep happy. I can't imagine I'll broker a warm embrace between Jorge Mujica and Rick Jones tomorrow - though I'm going to challenge myself to make that happen sometime this year. But I am witnessing a time where people will assemble peacefully and those who tend to be inflammatory are striking a moderate tone, so I hereby predict a better tomorrow. And if that's not audacity of hope, I dunno what is!

SOURCE



STOP IMMIGRATION FOR OUR SURVIVAL

By Frosty Wooldridge

(See how moderate I am: An article by Frosty and an article from HuffPo, both put up on the same day! I think that Frosty is one of the few who are looking to the future, though, and he has cause for alarm)

The main stream media sickens me! The media gags me! The media feeds the America public a line of nauseating politically-correct bull-you fill in the blank-that defies reality.

In the current issue of Time Magazine, January 26, 2009, "Refugees Who Saved Lewiston, Maine" by Jesse Ellison, he wrote a cock and bull story that spits and splatters falsehoods that defy reality. He writes how African Somalian refugees `saved' Lewiston from extinction.

That article SO angered me because I visited Lewiston, Maine for a totally different picture. Therefore, I wrote an LTE to Time and so can you: letters@time.com. I wrote:

If you asked the people of Lewiston, they mutter under their breaths and complain at every restaurant and bar that their town and way of life suffered destruction by a foreign invasion. Somalian immigrants have nothing in common nor do they assimilate. They've simply taken over. Lewiston's schools suffer disruption that has downgraded education for American kids while Somalians usurp exploded welfare rolls. Those Somalians implement their own culture, language and customs onto Lewiston. So much so, many citizens have moved away. For Ellison to pretend that all works well in Lewiston proves the height of PC journalism and what Mark Twain called, "Silent Assertion.the shabbiest of all lies when the media obfuscates, denies, ignores, clouds or suppresses a social wrong or situation." On a note of environmentalism, Maine does not need to grow or suffer human expansion. It does not need more immigrants. It has done well for 232 years without such outside migration. The more people added to Maine, the more damage to the environment."

Further into the issue, Henry Cisneros, an open borders advocate for ILLegal criminal aliens, wrote, "A Fence Can't Stop the Future." In his PC piece, he bragged about the fact that a fence cannot stop criminal aliens from breaching our sovereignty as a nation. He touted the fact that Mexicans make up 45 million in America, and because of the fact that Latino women birth eight children for every Latino that dies, versus whites birthing one child for every white that dies. That means by 2042, Latinos will become the new majority at 53 percent while blacks and whites will become the new collective minority.

And, we all know how Mexico's successful society and culture engages excellence in education, environment and human dignity!

But the harsh realities we face stem from 95 percent of the births in Texas, Arizona and California arrive from illiterate ILLegal alien mothers with no fathers. They birth kids like popcorn poppers! No way to feed, care or maintain responsibility for those children! Who pays? You pay! Total? Try $346 billion annually across 15 federal agencies!

Cisneros said, "U.S. growth will come from the Latino population-that's 100 million people."

He admitted that a major Latino population could, ".actually speed our national decline." California, overrun by Mexican migrants, plummeted from the top five schools systems in the USA 20 years ago to the bottom of the barrel of the worst five states. Why? Mexico, as a culture, rejects education. Most Latino immigrants quit school by age 16. It's been said, "The girls get pregnant and the boys deal drugs before heading off to jail."

Our dilemma grows as we add millions from Latin America and Africa that arrive from cultures of poverty, illiteracy, endless child birth, drugs and crime. Detroit suffers a 76 percent drop out/flunk out rate in their high schools. Chicago, New York, Denver, Miami, Dallas and other cities follow the same illiteracy path.

Six years ago, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm in a Washington DC speech on "How to Destroy America", said, "Here is how to destroy America. First, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way, "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon-all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons and Corsicans."

Lamm continued on how to destroy America, "Invent `multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences! I would make it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds."

At the end of Cisneros diatribe, he said, "We can learn English without forgetting Spanish, adopt American social practices and follow American laws without ignoring our obligations to our family and community." [i.e., maintain Mexican culture and language]

The hard fact remains that Mexicans in this country do not learn English, do not respect our laws, do not respond to educational opportunities, do not incorporate themselves into the American way of life. They force their customs into our communities.

Ditto for the Somalians in Lewiston! Even more disconcerting, they run Americans out of their own cities and communities. Somalians do not respect our language, culture or way of life. They simply invade and overwhelm while implementing theirs. They colonize and separate! Same in Miami, Chicago, Atlanta and New York!

Again, the MSM continues its `silent assertion dance' that obfuscates, suppresses, denies, ignores and clouds what's really happening in our society.

This immigration juggernaut portends an additional 138 million to 150 million more people into our country in 41 years-90 percent driven by legal and illegal immigration. Can you name one advantage for adding 138 million third world people to the USA in the light of current water shortages, energy and quality of life issues in every city? Who wins; who loses? In the end, we all lose the foundation of our language, our culture as well as sustainable civilization. Man! Are we in trouble!

SOURCE





22 January, 2009

Can anyone help? Arbitrary treatment of Polish immigrant

Below are two comments left on this blog that point to very poor treatment of a legal immigrant by the notoriously arbitrary U.S. immigration bureaucracy. I have a special feeling for the heroic people of Poland (How would YOU like to be the ham in the sandwich between Germany and Russia?) so I find this story quite upsetting. The comments can be found on this post

Debra Antoniak said on November 14, 2008

My husband, Robert Antoniak, came to the US legally. He made application for green card with his then wife, Christina. The marriage did not last and Rober and I were married Jan 2007. He has been a wonderful husband and father to my two children, one of which is severely disabled. His application for a permenant green card was denied in July 2008 based upon the opinion of a woman who appeared to be an immigrant herself. She told my husband off, took his green card and stamped "NO" on his folder. She would not allow him to speak (and he speaks perfect english) or to show her any of the documentation we had brought with us. In fact, she told me to sit "like a dog" and stay - I'm a US Citizen - I was born here.and I was shocked at how he and I were being treated. Now that she took his green card - he is unable to work. She told us we were to wait for a letter in the mail and that we could go before the Judge. It is now November and the letter has yet to arrive. My husband has been forced to leave the US and go back to Poland in an effort to find work to at least provide support to us. He left yesterday and I've been in tears. We love him so much. I'm trying to figure out why Poland is subject to obtaining a visa to enter? Perhaps I'm missing something? I sure hope that someone out there takes the time to fix this problem so I can have my husband back.

Debra Antoniak said on January 21, 2009

It is now January 20, 2009. My phone rings off the hook from bill collectors, they came and took Robert's truck and my car is next. I've had to make application for food stamps and any other welfare program I can find. Robert supported our family. Caring for my disabled daughter makes it impossible for me to find and keep a job. I'm trying to keep the mortgage payments up to date, but my money has run out. Robert is not fairing well in Poland either, so he can not send money back to us. It is middle of winter there and not much construction work going on. So, I mailed letters to every politition I could think of last week. No response yet, but I'm hopeful - I have nothing left but hope. I pray that someone with importance/influence will find and read our story. We love and miss you Robert.



Pew: Immigration Reform Not Top Priority for Hispanics

During the last presidential campaign, some believed conservative Republicans' opposition to comprehensive immigration reform turned off Hispanic voters toward the GOP. But this new survey from Pew suggests the issue ranks a little lower in the minds of Latinos than suggested by conventional wisdom. Pew released the poll last week and wrote:

Only three-in-ten (31%) Latinos rate immigration as an "extremely important" issue facing the incoming Obama administration, placing it sixth on a list of seven policy priorities that respondents were asked to assess in a nationwide survey of 1,007 Latino adults conducted from December 3 to December 10, 2008 by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

The top-rated issue among Latinos is the economy; 57% of Hispanics say it is an extremely important issue for the new president to address. Education, health care, national security and the environment all also rate higher than immigration as a policy priority among Hispanics, while energy policy ranks lower.

Like other Americans, Hispanics rated the economy as the top issue. Immigration ranked 6th on the list, virtually tied with the environment and well below education and health care.

These numbers suggest President Obama's lopsided support among Hispanics was not due to Latino anger toward Republicans about immigration but because they trusted the Democrats more on the issue most salient to them--the economy.

SOURCE





21 January, 2009

Foolish British crackdown on LEGAL immigrants

The REAL problem, hordes of illegals, is too hard -- so pointless diversionary tactics are being resorted to by BritGov

Britain's Home Secretary Jacqui Smith wants to create more jobs for British workers. She doesn't want them going to these nasty foreigners who keep coming over here and snapping up the best placements. So she wants to make firms advertise job vacancies at JobCentres first, and try that, before offering a job to non-residents. The government says that this could mean 60,000 or more jobs going to Brits rather than foreigners.

This smacks of posturing, like Gordon Brown's famous 'British jobs for British people' speech of a year back.It took about twenty seconds for the European Union to point out that such a policy was illegal - jobs in any EU country have to be open to residents of any other EU country. (Though try to get a good job in France and you will quickly find whether the reality matches the rule.)

The trouble is that government officials tend to treat politicians' headline-grabbing soundbites seriously, and actually try to put them into practice. Doing so this time would be a very bad thing.

Smith is focusing on all those people who come from non-EU countries - the sort who cause her department so much trouble, even at the best of times. Firms, she thinks, should be forced to discriminate against them, and hire them only when there is no alternative.

This is a Jacquboot policy. We are supposed to be opposed to discrimination. And I can't see what business it is of the government who firms choose to hire. Left to their own devices, businesspeople will hire the workers they think are best for the job. So the job will be done better, or cheaper, and British business will benefit from it - which means the nation as a whole becomes more competitive, trade expands, and we all benefit. If firms are forced to hire particular workers just because politicians demand it, then they'll be getting second best. Already, many companies hire foreign workers because they find them not just willing to work for less, but willing to work harder or longer than many of their British counterparts.

Perhaps the possibility of being pipped to a job by some non-Brit might be a useful lesson to us all, that in Brown's fake boom we all got rather flabby and lazy, but the key of keeping a job in this competitive world is hard work. [It is certainly a common Australian impression that Brits are a lazy lot. "A Pom wouldn't work in a iron lung" is a common, if paradoxical, saying in Australia. Australians visiting Britain certainly find employers eager to hire them precisely for their better work attitude]

SOURCE



Commutation of sentences upholds authority of Border Patrol

This was clearly a case of officers exceeding their authority but decisions made in the heat of the moment are not always wise so I think Bush's decision strikes a reasonable balance

Part of Bush's legacy, though, may not need a generation or two to formulate. He wrote this chapter in the 11th hour, and this significant passage in the history of his presidency could play into his theme, that he tried to keep us safe. By commuting the prison sentences of two Texas Border Patrol agents, his last set of pardons before leaving office, Bush upheld the authority of those protecting our borders. Terrorist experts agree that the border between Mexico and Texas could be the easiest for a terrorist to enter.

That's not to say Mexicans entering into the United States illegally are terrorists, although many conservatives who hailed the two Border Patrol agents as heroes used Ignacio Ramos and Jorge Compean as heroic figures in the fight against illegal immigration.

Ramos and Compean were convicted of the 2005 shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, who was trying to flee back to Mexico after abandoning a van that was carrying 743 pounds of marijuana near Fabens in West Texas, the Associated Press reported. A high-speed chase ensued, and Aldrete-Davila abandoned his van and fled on foot. The agents shot the drug dealer, who testified against them during the trial. Not that Aldrete-Davila was an ideal witness. He was later convicted on drug charges and is serving more than nine years in prison.

What happened next no doubt led to their arrest and conviction. The two, according to AP accounts, didn't report the shooting and threw away the shell casings. We pondered that decision, even while we demanded justice on their behalf. Ramos was sentenced to 11 years, Compean to 12.

Ever since their arrests, proponents of strict immigration enforcement have demanded leniency. If the agents empowered to protect our borders cannot level a fleeing drug dealer in and out of trouble, a constant menace, then what power do they have? Surely those who want more lenient immigration policies do not want Aldrete-Davila to serve as their spokesperson.

Bush stopped short of pardoning the pair, only commuting their sentences, which will end March 20. The two can be released before then, Bob Baskett, the Dallas attorney for Compean, told the AP. The commutation of their sentences, though, upholds the authority given to those who protect our borders, empowering them to chase down those who would do us ill. The incident did not involve terrorists from the Middle East, but a weak border with second-guessing agents would be a welcome mat for such ne'er-do-wells. Bush, in one of his last acts as president, reenforced their authority and moved to keep us safe in the immediate future.

SOURCE





20 January, 2009

American terrorist booted out of Canada

Murderous "Weather Underground" founder and Barack Obama supporter William Ayers was not permitted to clear customs at a Toronto airport Sunday. "Guilty as hell" but NOT QUITE "as free as a bird"

William Ayers, the 1960s radical whose ties to President-elect Barack Obama caused trouble for his campaign, was turned away from Canada Sunday night as he tried to enter the country for a series of educational events.

Jeffrey Kugler, the executive director for the Center for Urban Schooling at the University of Toronto, said Ayers was deemed not admissible after being pulled aside by Canadian immigration officials while trying to clear customs at the Toronto airport. Ayers had been invited to speak before the center. He was also scheduled to meet with the Toronto District School Board and do interviews with Canadian television and radio stations, Kugler said. Kugler said the center sent e-mails notifying guests who planned to attend Ayers' talk that he had been turned back. Kugler said the center will try to reschedule Ayers.

Ayers, a co-founder of the violent Weather Underground group and current education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told the Toronto Star that he didn't know why he had been turned away. According to Kugler, Ayers was told he could request a hearing but that would mean some sort of detention and a possible two week wait. Ayers opted to return to Chicago.

SOURCE



The flow of illegals into Australia has resumed

A conservative government stopped it. A Leftist government has restarted it

A vessel carrying 21 asylum seekers has been intercepted by a navy patrol boat near the Ashmore Islands off Australia's northwestern coast. Navy patrol boat HMAS Maryborough intercepted the suspected illegal entry vessel on Saturday, about 39km from the Ashmore Islands, which is some 320km off Australia's Kimberley coast, Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus said. An air force aerial patrol had earlier spotted the boat.

Twenty people were found aboard the vessel. The group has been taken to Christmas Island for health, security and identity checks, Mr Debus said. The interception demonstrated the effectiveness of Border Protection Command's surveillance program, he said.

A day before the latest vessel was intercepted, the Federal Government announced 28 boat people intercepted by border patrols in September and November last year would be resettled in South Australia in the next few days. [And every one of them will write home encouraging others to come] They are the first people to be granted asylum since the Government softened Australia's refugee policy last July.

Announcing a "more humane" approach, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd scrapped the automatic incarceration on arrival of asylum seekers and called for an end to the detention of children and their families - both legacies of the previous government.

The Immigration Department is currently processing claims for another 134 unauthorised arrivals on Christmas Island.

SOURCE





19 January, 2009

UK: Crackdown on skilled migrants

What a crock! It is not skilled migrants that are the problem but hordes of illegals and useless "refugees" living on welfare and committing crimes

Ministers are to tighten immigration rules in an attempt to force firms to hire unemployed British people rather than relying on overseas skilled workers. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said British people who were out of a job should in future get the "first crack of the whip" at tens of thousands of skilled posts which fall vacant every year. In particular, companies are to be told they must advertise vacancies in the JobCentre Plus network in Britain before filling them with skilled immigrants.

Government sources estimate that, had the planned crackdown been in force last year, between 60,000 and 80,000 posts would have been filled by Britons rather than immigrants. Currently, employers often rely on "tier two" immigrants - those coming into the UK from outside the European Union with a job offer - to fill a range of posts including primary school teachers, some categories of nurses, architects, farm managers, hotel managers, graphic designers, air traffic controllers and construction workers.

Ministers believe the "points-based" immigration rules must now be tightened to help fight rising unemployment among British people during the economic downturn. The jobless total rose to 1.9 million people in the three months to October, equal to six per cent of the workforce, with some experts predicting the total will hit three million before the economy recovers.

However, critics claimed that the tightening of the rules would not be effective without an annual cap on the number of non-EU migrant workers allowed into the country, as the Conservatives have proposed. Employers are already required, under the "resident labour market test" , to try to fill vacancies from within the UK before they are permitted to recruit immigrant workers. However, trade unions have complained that the rule is widely ignored by firms which find it cheaper or easier to take on staff from overseas.

Ms Smith and James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, are working "urgently" to develop a set of proposals which are expected to be announced within weeks. In a closely linked move, John Denham, the Skills Secretary, is working on plans to teach new skills to thousands of British workers so they have a stronger chance of being able to get back into the job market more quickly.

The Home Office initiative, which follows Gordon Brown's "jobs summit" last week, comes as ministers become ever more aware of a rising tide of discontent among British workers that more and more skilled jobs are going to people from overseas. Skilled workers are a key constituency whose support Labour must retain to have any hope of retaining power at the next election.

Ms Smith said: "At a time when people are worried about losing their jobs, and therefore worried about being able to get quickly back into another job, it's even more important that we can say and show that when jobs become available, it's British people who get the first crack of the whip of taking those jobs."

The resident labour market test should be strengthened, Ms Smith said. "We need to be very sure that a job is being actively marketed for a worker who is already here and who needs that job before we assume that migration is the only way we can fill those skill shortages. "That's one of the ways we can demonstrate that the points-based system is a more flexible way of controlling immigration for the overall benefit of the country than, for example a crude cap would be."

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "The points based system was only introduced five minutes ago. We warned then it would not work without an annual limit on immigration and, despite Jacqui Smith's rhetoric, this is still the case."

SOURCE



Hit-and-run killer cannot be deported from Britain

A failed asylum seeker who killed a former Royal Marines commando in a hit-and-run crash has escaped deportation because his crime is not considered serious enough by the Home Office. Jean Renee Mukadi was jailed for four months after fatally injuring Simon Lawrence while driving without a licence or insurance. Despite having his asylum claim rejected three times previously, Mukadi, 33, cannot be sent back to his native Democratic Republic of Congo because his sentence fell short of the minimum term that would qualify for automatic deportation. Foreign offenders can only be kicked out of the country if they have been jailed for at least 12 months or if they have been convicted of serious gun or drug crimes. The loophole means that Mukadi can remain in Britain while he fights a lengthy appeal against the decision to deny him asylum.

The Tories claim that about 3,000 foreign convicts are released back into society each year despite a pledge by Gordon Brown to deport all foreign lawbreakers. Within weeks of becoming prime minister, Brown said: "If you commit a crime, you will be deported. You play by the rules or you face the consequences."

Alison Roberts, Lawrence's sister, was so upset by the government's refusal to consider Mukadi for deportation that she asked her MP, James Arbuthnot, to write to ministers seeking an explanation. Meg Hillier, a Home Office minister, replied: "It appears that Mr Mukadi does not meet the criteria to be considered for deportation. "I recognise that this may not be the information that Ms Roberts wishes to hear. However, I am afraid that the UK Border Agency can only deport foreign national offenders in line with published policy and legal powers."

Last night Roberts, a former police officer, said: "This is ridiculous. Mukadi has had his asylum claim refused three times and in court it was said he had failed to get a driving licence seven times. So, by any estimation, he should not have been on the road. "He showed what kind of a person he was when he drove off after killing Simon because he didn't want to endanger his own interests. And yet apparently he cannot be deported."

Lawrence, 55, served with the Royal Marines during the 1970s, including two tours of duty in Northern Ireland and a period on board the aircraft carrier Hermes alongside the Prince of Wales. He was also a motorbike enthusiast and became a self-employed builder after leaving the armed forces. Lawrence was on his motorbike in June last year when he was struck by Mukadi's Toyota car in Harefield, west London. He suffered severe neck and head injuries that killed him instantly.

Mukadi drove off, but was traced and arrested several days later. He told police that he had failed to stop because he did not want to endanger a pending asylum appeal, and said he had not realised that he had hit a person. At Uxbridge magistrates' court Mukadi admitted charges of leaving the scene of an accident, driving without a licence and having no insurance. He was seen dabbing his eyes with a towel at the court hearing last October. Mukadi has already served more than half his sentence and it remains unclear this weekend whether he has been freed.

A woman at a house in Haringey, north London, which was supplied to magistrates as Mukadi's home address, said she had never heard of him.

A spokesman for the UK Border Agency said: "We will not tolerate those that come here and break our rules. Last year we exceeded the tough target set by government to remove 5,000 foreign lawbreakers. We are targeting the most harmful [offenders] first." Whitehall sources said that attempts to remove Mukadi from Britain via the asylum process were being pursued.

SOURCE





18 January, 2009

Immigration creates huge infrastructure costs

The United States will need $1.6 trillion to repair damage to its infrastructure from a massive influx of immigrants, a new report reveals. In his report titled, "The Twin Crises: Immigration and Infrastructure," prominent researcher Edwin S. Rubenstein examines 15 categories of infrastructure: airports, border security, bridges, dams and levees, electricity (the power grids), hazardous waste removal, hospitals, mass transit, parks and recreation facilities, ports and navigable waterways, public schools, railroads, roads and highways, solid waste and trash, and water and sewer systems.

Rubenstein, a financial analyst and former contributing editor of Forbes and economics editor of National Review, claims the nation is facing a crisis ? with immigration responsible for at least 80 percent of spending needed to expand the U.S. infrastructure before the middle of this century.

"If the infrastructure crisis could be fixed by spending money, there would be no crisis," Mr. Rubenstein explained in a statement. "Since 1987, capital spending on transportation infrastructure has increased by 2.1 percent per year above the inflation rate. At $233 billion (2004 dollars), infrastructure is already one of the largest categories of government spending. Our infrastructure is 'crumbling' because population growth has overwhelmed the ability of even these vast sums to expand capacity."

While immigration policy has been hotly debated for a number of years, Rubenstein writes that its impact on infrastructure is rarely discussed. Immigrants make up 21 percent of the school-age population in the U.S. "In California, a whopping 47 percent of the school-age population consists of immigrants or the children of immigrants," the report states. "Some Los Angeles schools are so crowded that they have lengthened the time between classes to give students time to make their way through crowded halls. Los Angeles' school construction program is so massive that the Army Corps of Engineers was called in to manage it."

According to the U.S. Department of Education, 18 percent of all schools are considered overcrowded, and 37 percent use trailers and portable structures to accommodate growing student bodies. Public facilities are an average of 40 years old. Cities with high populations of illegal aliens are spending large amounts of their budgets on constructing new schools. "Our anticipated gains in the number of foreign-born students alone will require us to build one elementary school a month to keep up," Miami-Dade, Fla., school Superintendent Roger Cuevas said.

Rubenstein cites a recent construction boom among the nation's hospitals. As many as 60 percent of America's hospitals are either under construction or have plans for new facilities. "But we have a two-tier hospital system in the U.S. Hospitals in poor areas -- that serve primarily uninsured immigrants and Medicaid patients -- cannot afford their facilities," he writes. "The uncompensated costs are killing them. In California, 60 emergency departments (EDs) have closed to avoid the uncompensated costs of their largely illegal alien caseloads." Illegal aliens use emergency rooms more than twice as often as U.S. citizens, and providing their uncompensated care has been the death of many emergency departments.

In 2006, more than 46 percent of illegals did not have medical insurance. Although illegal aliens are not supposed to be eligible for Medicaid, they receive Emergency Medicaid and their children are entitled to all benefits that legal immigrants receive. Because hospitals are forced to care for Medicaid recipients, the government program never covers full costs of service. It underpaid hospitals by $11.3 billion in 2006, he wrote.

Rubenstein referenced immigration trends revealing that aliens often choose to live in cities with strained water supplies -- especially near the border -- and their sheer numbers have made conservation efforts nearly impossible. "Cities like San Antonio, El Paso, and Phoenix could run out of water in 10 to 20 years," he writes. San Diego's water company has resorted to a once-unthinkable option: recycling toilet water for drinking." Due to immigration, demand for water exceeds the California State Water Project's capacity. Now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed building a $6 billion reservoir. Approximately one-fifth of the state's electricity is tied up in collection, storage and transportation of the water.

Electric utilities are expected to require an additional $142 billion to keep generator capacity at recommended levels before 2050 due to the increasing population.

America's national parks are also bearing the brunt of immigration. Illegals wear roads and paths through parks. "Their fires, trash, and vandalism have despoiled thousands of acres of pristine parkland," he writes. According to Rubenstein, illegals leave beer, water and milk bottles, personal hygiene items and medications, clothing and shoes, food and food cans, jewelry, paper trash, sanitary pads, disposable diapers, backpacks, blankets, towels, plastic bags, homemade weapons, disintegrating toilet paper and human feces on U.S. property while they journey into the country. They damage vegetation, leave abandoned vehicles and bicycles, spray paint trees and boulders and create campfires that turn into wildfires.

Costs for securing the nation's borders are expected to increase 20.6 percent in fiscal year 2009. These include expenses for border patrol, electronic surveillance, the border fence and other security needs. President Bush allocated $44.3 billion for the Department of Homeland Security ? a 4.5 percent increase from last year's budget of $42.4 billion. "While the U.S. builds a fence across much of the border, many illegals are taking a different route. Underground," Rubenstein reveals. "Authorities have discovered dozens of illegal tunnels across the international border in recent years. Smuggling of drugs, weapons, and immigrants takes place daily through these underground passageways."

Illegal aliens also use drainage systems to travel across the U.S.-Mexico border -- from El Paso to San Diego. "One tunnel, actually a system of two half-mile passages connecting Tijuana with San Diego, is by comparison a superhighway," he wrote. While the Border Patrol attempts to stop these underground incursions with steel doors, cameras and sensors, harsh weather conditions and human smugglers destroy the equipment and barriers.

These costs, and the expenses of providing "enhanced driver's licenses" as alternative passports for citizens, RFID chips, government databases and watch lists are expected to soar.

In his research, Rubenstein finds that the average immigrant household generates a fiscal debt of $3,408 after federal benefits and taxes are considered. At the state and local level, the fiscal debt amounts to $4.398 per immigrant household. "There are currently about 36 million immigrants living in about 9 million households, so the aggregate deficit attributable to immigrants comes to $70.3 billion," he writes. "? Immigrants could deplete the amount of funds available for infrastructure by as much as $70 billion per year."

Rubenstein cites figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, projecting that the U.S. population will reach 433 million by 2050 -- increasing 44 percent, or 135 million, from today's numbers. A full 82 percent of this increase will be directly attributable to new immigrants and their U.S.-born children. "The brutal reality is that no conceivable infrastructure program can keep pace with that kind of population growth," he wrote. "The traditional 'supply-side' response to America's infrastructure shortage ? build, build, build ? is dead, dead, dead. Demand reduction is the only viable way to close the gap between the supply and demand of public infrastructure."

He concludes, "Immigration reduction must play a role."

SOURCE



Is Illegal Tide Of Immigrants Finally Easing?

Evidence keeps accumulating that the tide of immigration is ebbing. Tough enforcement laws passed by states like Arizona and Oklahoma and localities like Prince William County, Va., have reportedly spurred Latino immigrants to move elsewhere. Tougher enforcement of federal immigration laws may be having the same effect. Classrooms in Orange County, Calif., are suddenly half-empty. Latino day laborers seem to be less thick on the ground at their morning gathering places. Remittances to Mexico and other Latin countries are down, and men are returning to some villages from the U.S.

Latinos appear to account for a disproportionate share of mortgage foreclosures. The Census Bureau estimates that net immigration in 2007-08 was 14% lower than the average for 2000-07, and those estimates don't cover the period after June 30, when the recession really started hitting. Demographic forecasters tend to assume that the long-term future will look a lot like the short-term past. That's why the Census Bureau estimates that there will be more than 100 million people classifying themselves as Hispanics in 2050, compared with 45 million today. But history tells us that trend lines don't go on forever. Sometimes they turn around and go downward.

We have had major Latino immigration now throughout the 25 years since the economic recovery of the early 1980s. But I think there is a possibility - not a certainty, probably not a likelihood, but a serious possibility - that we may be at an inflection point, at the beginning of a period in which Latino immigration will be substantially lower than it has been the past quarter-century. We have seen such inflection points in migration before. When Leonard Bernstein wrote "West Side Story" in the 1950s, it seemed that the flow of Puerto Ricans to New York City would continue indefinitely. But in fact net migration from Puerto Rico dropped to just about zero in 1961, when average incomes on the island were about one-third the level of the mainland U.S.

The huge flow of blacks from the South to the North, which started in 1940 due to the labor demands of war industry and the invention of the mechanical cotton-picker, seemed likely in 1960 to continue on and on. But it stopped suddenly in 1965, the year the Voting Rights Act passed, and today there is a small net migration of blacks from North to South.

Economics plays some role in this. The apparent downturn in immigration in the past 18 months is surely not unrelated to the recession that began, the National Bureau of Economic Research now tells us, in December 2007. The gaming industry in Las Vegas - then and for most of the preceding 20 years the nation's fastest-growing metro area - started declining in 2007, and net immigration to Nevada was down 16% in 2007-08 from the 2000-07 levels. And reports are coming in of Latinos leaving town as construction of giant hotels on the Strip is shut down by foreclosure.

But immigration is not just about economics. People move, I have come to think, in pursuit of dreams - or to escape nightmares. One of those dreams - home ownership in America - now seems much less attainable than it did just six months ago, with thousands of foreclosures and with subprime loans to low-income buyers presumably a thing of the past. Meanwhile, birth rates in Mexico and much of Latin America took a sharp turn downward around 1990, which means that those entering the work force there in years hence will have less competition for jobs - fewer nightmares.

George W. Bush has said that one of his regrets is that he was not successful in getting Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, with legalization, guest-worker and enforcement provisions. If Barack Obama and congressional Democrats seek such legislation, they should keep in mind the possibility that the situation they are addressing may be changing. So should those who oppose such a law.

Since Congress considered and failed to pass a comprehensive law in 2006 and 2007, we have learned that tougher enforcement of existing law is possible and can reduce illegal immigration. Now we face a sharply different economic situation, which is presumably less conducive to immigration. This may make the need for a comprehensive law less pressing and at the same time make it politically more palatable.

Our history is one of great surges of migration, immigrant and internal, which begin without much in the way of warning and which end unexpectedly. It's possible - not certain, maybe not likely, but possible - that we're witnessing the beginning of one of those endpoints now.

SOURCE





17 January, 2009

Napolitano gets easy ride in confirmation hearing

She loves the idea of cracking down on business!

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, the nominee to be Homeland Security secretary, pledged Thursday to get tougher with employers who hire illegal workers. "You have to deal with illegal immigration from the demand side as well as the supply side," she told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee during her confirmation hearing. The committee is expected to send her nomination to the full Senate for a vote early next week.

"You have deal with what is drawing people across the border, and that is a job," said Napolitano, a former federal prosecutor and state attorney general. Napolitano, who signed into law Arizona's employer-sanctions bill, didn't elaborate on her plans for dealing with employers who hire illegal workers. Some critics of immigration reform complain that law enforcement has been lax in prosecuting those employers.

Napolitano's comments dealt with aspects of a larger immigration strategy that she said would include fences along the southern border in some places, technology to track human movement and revisiting the controversial Real ID program, which called for national standards for state driver's licenses. Napolitano also said improving disaster response, enhancing transportation security and tracking emerging terrorist threats would be among her top priorities. If confirmed, she would be the nation's third Homeland Security secretary, a Cabinet-level position created after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

As secretary, Napolitano could face an early challenge. President George W. Bush was in office less than eight months before the 2001 terrorist attacks. Shortly after President Bill Clinton took office in 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center.

Napolitano's hearing was cordial, with committee members pledging to back her nomination. Despite criticism from opponents that she has opposed tougher immigration enforcement, there was no controversy at the hearing. She was flanked by Arizona's two Republican senators, Jon Kyl and John McCain, who praised her experience, her competence and, for climbing Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa and beating cancer, her stamina. "She will bring a wealth of experience to the department," Kyl said.

Napolitano was peppered with questions on immigration and border security, and she stressed the kind of practical approach that has won her praise from governors and national lawmakers. She said she would meet with the nation's governors and look for ways to improve the concept behind the Real ID program and lighten the burden it imposes on states. She has opposed the program's tamper-proof, more secure driver's licenses out of concerns they would cost Arizona too much. [What crap! I am sure almost any Arizonan could suggest other things that could be cut back to pay for it]

"We need to rethink, revisit and re-consult here and then come back to this committee if necessary," she said. Southern border fences, she said, could be valuable near urban areas. But she said a barrier spanning the entire southern border would be impractical and ineffective in remote regions where technology would work better. [Except that high tech barriers have been tried and didn't work]

Napolitano was not questioned about the politically charged issue of work-site raids conducted by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. President-elect Barack Obama has been highly critical of the raids. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said recently that Napolitano "will be looking very closely at what ICE has done."

It's not clear whether Congress will take up major immigration reform soon. If it does, Napolitano would be sure to play a central role. The debate died last year without resolution, and lawmakers now have a crashing economy to worry about.

SOURCE



Real Immigration Reform Needs Real Temporary Worker Program

I don't entirely agree with this article. Australia has got along fine without such workers for many years. But it may be a politically necessary compromise in the USA

Temporary worker programs can be a helpful tool for improving the legal means by which a foreigner can come to the United States to work. Previously proposed temporary worker programs have been problematic. Any new temporary worker programs must help, not hinder, immigration reform and bor-der security efforts. Temporary worker programs should be designed not as a substitute for amnesty, but to fill important niches in the national work-force, allowing employers the employees they need to help grow the economy and create more jobs for Americans.

In addition, a new temporary worker program can only be successful if there is a clear strategy for imple-mentation. Based on past experience, the right answer is to start with a pilot program that fills the gaps in existing programs and creates incentives for lawful non-immigrant work in the U.S. instead of illegal presence. An effective pilot program should also pio-neer measures to strengthen security and combat ille-gal immigration.

The Path to True Immigration Reform

No single aspect of immigration reform, whether workplace enforcement or border security, will solve the problem of the nation's broken borders. The fed-eral government has failed in one of its basic functions to control who enters the country, and has no account-ability for those already in the U.S. A snapshot of the immigration crisis in America shows approximately 11 million illegal aliens living in the country, and con-tinuing demand by some employersfor an illegal, shadow workforce. Successful immigration reform will require a strategy that includes:

Securing the border. A secure border alone will not solve the illegal immigration issue. Ensuring that no single individual will ever cross any inch of the U.S. border is not plausible with the govern-ment's limited resources. Securing the border will make crossing much more difficult and costly, thus reducing the incentives for people to enter illegally. Congress and the federal government should continue to invest in building infrastruc-ture at the border, adding border patrol agents, and collaborating with local and state entities.[1]

Enforcing the immigration and workplace laws. As long as there are no real disincentives, people will continue to break the law in order to come to the United States. Enforcing existing immigration laws, deporting illegal aliens when detected, and fining those who employ illegal workers will provide some real disincentives.[2] A report by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that since the government began dili-gently enforcing existing laws in the summerof 2008, the illegal alien population in the U.S. has shrunk by 1.3 million.[3]

Promoting economic development in Latin America. The constant growth in illegal immigra-tion to the U.S. is partly due to the "push-pull" effect. Slow economies in Latin America coupled with America's need for workers drives up the advantages of illegal entry. This can only be dimin-ished when Latin American economies grow and jobs are available in the home countries.[4]

Reform immigration services. Immigration reform is only possible if U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is effective and efficient. USCIS must be reformed to meet the needs of Americans, protect the interest of the nation, and be able to expand to adapt to surges in demand. A national trust fund should be cre-ated for USCIS programs that do not charge fees, as well as a revolving fund for infrastructure and workforce enhancements.[5]

Improving legal avenues for immigrants. As the government makes it more difficult to enter the U.S. illegally, there must be a greater empha-sis on improving legal methods of entry. The United States' visa programs have shown time and time again that they are not capable of meet-ing the needs of employers or employees. If we are to require that migrants come to the U.S. legally, we must ensure that the system works.

Elements of a Temporary Work Visa

Improving the legal options for immigrants is a crucial part of immigration reform and includes reforming programs for existing visas, such as the H-2A, as well as creating new and innovative tem-porary worker programs.[6] Ideally, any temporary worker program should accomplish the following: meet the needs of the users, ensure the security of the American public, and respect the rule of law and sovereignty of the United States. Any new program must not exacerbate the illegal immigration prob-lem, and thus should include these basic elements:

A temporary worker program should be for workers who are still in their home countries, waiting to come to the U.S. New programs can-not grant amnesty to illegal aliens in the U.S., as this would clearly undermine any attempt at immigration reform. This program cannot facilitate illegal entry. Those who are here illegally must return to their home countries in order to qualify for the program.......

Much more here





16 January, 2009

Napolitano to face immigration questions

Reluctant law enforcement seems to be what can be expected from her

During her Senate confirmation hearing today to lead the Department of Homeland Security, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano will likely face criticism that she has been lax on immigration enforcement. In her defense, she will be able to point to two major accomplishments: She was the first governor to call for National Guard troops to help shore up the porous U.S.-Mexican border, and she signed the toughest state law punishing employers of illegal immigrants. Still, there is more to those decisions than meets the eye. And Napolitano's maneuvering on the issues may offer a glimpse of how she would approach immigration and border security as head of Homeland Security.

As a first-term governor, Napolitano opposed putting troops on the border until her re-election rolled around, and she reluctantly signed the sanctions law under pressure. Republicans say both moves were designed to give her political cover. "Although supporters have tried to portray Napolitano as a centrist, her record shows she is anything but a centrist," U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said shortly after Napolitano was named as President-elect Barack Obama's choice to head the department. Smith, who sits on the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, said, "(Napolitano) opposed or weakened measures to enforce immigration laws."

Napolitano, who is expected to be confirmed easily, said she is ready to defend her immigration record. She said she had "good meetings" with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, ranking Republican on the committee, which will handle Napolitano's confirmation hearing. "I will lay out exactly what we've done on immigration and why and why some of the things that are broadcast as allegedly tough on immigration are really not good choices for us," Napolitano said.

Beginning in January 2003, as tighter border security in California and Texas turned Arizona into the main gateway for illegal immigration, some Republican state lawmakers began pushing a bill that called for National Guard troops along the border. Napolitano, who became governor in 2003, vehemently opposed the measure, arguing that border security was the job of the federal government and that putting the Arizona National Guard there would strain troops during a time of war.

In January 2006, however, Napolitano reversed her stance, stunning both Republicans and Democrats. During her State of the State address, Napolitano said she wanted to send National Guard troops to help support the Border Patrol with one condition: The federal government would have to pay for it. Some Republicans viewed Napolitano's change of heart as election-year posturing. They tried to force her hand by submitting a bill that allocated $10 million in state money to pay for National Guard troops on the border. The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the bill, but Napolitano vetoed it in March 2006. She argued the bill usurped her authority to command National Guard troops.

In April 2006, Republicans introduced a comprehensive immigration bill that included measures aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration, including state money to send the National Guard to the border. That same month, President George W. Bush announced plans to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border, including in Arizona, for a two-year mission to support the Border Patrol. Despite Bush's plan, the Legislature passed the bill of immigration enforcement. Napolitano vetoed that bill, calling the package "unconstitutional and ill-conceived."

In June 2006, the first National Guard troops began arriving in Arizona under Bush's plan, drawing praise from Napolitano. In May 2007, Napolitano criticized Bush for pulling off the border about half the 6,000 National Guard troops midway into their two-year mission. Last March, she criticized the Bush administration again for failing to keep Guard troops along the border until a border fence is completed.

Former Republican state Rep. John Allen, who sponsored one of the National Guard bills vetoed by Napolitano, says that the way the governor has handled the border issue shows she is "a very shrewd politician." "It was a brilliant move," Allen said. "Like everything she does, it has all the elements of success without really doing anything."

In July 2007, Napolitano signed the toughest employer-sanctions law in the country. The law requires employers to verify electronically that new employees are authorized to work, making it harder for undocumented workers to get jobs using fake documents. The law also permits revoking the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. Critics contend that Napolitano signed the law unwillingly because she was afraid voters would approve a ballot initiative that called for even tougher sanctions against employers.

In January 2006, with Napolitano's support, some Arizona Democrats began calling for a state law punishing employers who knowingly hired illegal workers. Former Democratic state Sen. Bill Brotherton, who sponsored a sanctions bill in 2006, said the measure was intended to counter Republican bills that targeted only illegal immigrants. "My position was that we weren't going to allow hypocrisy on this issue," Brotherton said. "If you were going to deal with the problem of undocumented workers, you needed to deal with both issues (supply and demand.)". Brotherton said he didn't think the GOP-dominant Legislature would ever approve the sanctions law, at least not "with any teeth in it, because of their relations with the business community."

In June 2006, the Legislature approved an employer-sanctions law that required employers to fire illegal workers, but the bill imposed no penalties. Napolitano promptly vetoed the bill, saying it provided "amnesty" to employers of illegal workers. Former Democratic state Rep. Steve Gallardo, who resigned his seat last week, said Democrats used employer sanctions as a "poison pill," threatening to attach it to every immigration bill put forward by Republicans. "That was our game plan . . . because it forced the business community to go to the Republicans they had influence on and get them to kill that bill," Gallardo said.

In the end, the strategy backfired, he said. With polls indicating voters strongly favored employer sanctions, and with all 90 lawmakers up for re-election, the measure gained momentum and was approved by the Legislature. In signing the bill in July 2007, Napolitano cited Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform just days earlier. The federal measure's demise gave states like Arizona "no choice but to take strong action to discourage the further flow of illegal immigration through our borders," she said.

If she is confirmed as secretary of Homeland Security, Napolitano says she plans to review worksite raids that have increased under the Bush administration. She said Obama has called the raids troubling. "My Number 1 priority will be working with (Obama) to find a good head for (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and then we will drill down and see what they have been doing and why," Napolitano said. "That being said, I will say that I believe that employer enforcement has to be an important component of any immigration (policy). You can't just deal with it on the incoming-illegal-immigrant side. You have got to deal from the demand side, as well. I think one of the failures of the 1986 Immigration Act was the total lack of enforcement on employers whatsoever."

SOURCE



Prosecuting lawbreakers is SUCH a bore

Or at least the NYT seems to think below

Inside a courthouse just north of the Rio Grande, federal judges mete out prison sentences to throngs of 40 to 60 illegal immigrants at a time. The accused, mostly from Central America, Brazil and Mexico, wear rough travel clothes that speak of arduous journeys: flannel shirts, sweat suits, jeans and running shoes or work boots. The prosecutors make quick work of the immigrants. Under a Justice Department program that relies on plea deals, most are charged with misdemeanors like improper entry.

Federal prosecutions of immigration crimes nearly doubled in the last fiscal year, reaching more than 70,000 immigration cases in the 2008 fiscal year, according to federal data compiled by a Syracuse University research group. The emphasis, many federal judges and prosecutors say, has siphoned resources from other crimes, eroded morale among federal lawyers and overloaded the federal court system. Many of those other crimes, including gun trafficking, organized crime and the increasingly violent drug trade, are now routinely referred to state and county officials, who say they often lack the finances or authority to prosecute them effectively. Bush administration officials say the government's focus on immigration crimes is an outgrowth of its counterterrorism strategy and vigorous pursuit of immigrants with criminal records.

Immigration prosecutions have steeply risen over the last five years, while white-collar prosecutions have fallen by 18 percent, weapons prosecutions have dropped by 19 percent, organized crime prosecutions are down by 20 percent and public corruption prosecutions have dropped by 14 percent, according to the Syracuse group's statistics. Drug prosecutions - the enforcement priority of the Reagan, first Bush and Clinton administrations - have declined by 20 percent since 2003. "I have seen a national abdication by the Justice Department," said Attorney General Terry Goddard of Arizona.

United States attorneys on the Southwest border, who handle the bulk of immigration prosecutions, usually decline to prosecute drug suspects with 500 pounds of marijuana or less - about $500,000 to $800,000 worth. As a result of Washington's decision to forgo many of those cases, Mr. Goddard said, local agencies are handling many of them and becoming overwhelmed.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that felony prosecutions of immigration crimes had increased 40 percent from 2000 through 2007 but that most other prosecutions had remained steady. But Justice Department statistics Mr. Carr provided to The New York Times did not include tens of thousands of misdemeanor charges and prosecutions conducted before magistrate judges. Data from the Syracuse group, known as the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, included those cases, which are driving the sharp growth in immigration cases.

Prosecutorial priorities are expected to change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office, said Mark Agrast, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research and policy institute that is closely associated with the transition team. "There will be a reassessment of whether aggressive targeting of criminal aliens through the use of federal criminal statues is an effective use of scarce law enforcement resources," Mr. Agrast said.

The Bush administration bolstered its enforcement of immigration crimes by increasing the number of Border Patrol agents from 9,500 in 2004 to 15,000 in 2008 and adding several hundred federal prosecutors assigned to immigration crimes. On heavy days, single courtrooms along the border process illegal immigrants on an industrial scale, sometimes more than 200 in a day. Misdemeanors usually carry a sentence of a few weeks to six months.

At the federal courthouse in Laredo, George P. Kazen, the senior judge, estimated that under Operation Streamline, the Justice Department program relying on plea deals for efficiency, he had sentenced more people to prison than any other active federal judge. But Judge Kazen said he was concerned about recent reports of the smuggling of firearms from Texas into Mexico by violent drug cartels. "The U.S. attorney isn't bringing me those cases," he said. "They're just catching foot soldiers coming across the border. They bust some stooge truck driver carrying a load of drugs, and you know there's more behind it. But they will tell you that they don't have the resources to drive it and develop a conspiracy case." "Every time the government puts a lot of resources on one thing, they're going to take away from another," he added.

SOURCE





15 January, 2009

Why We Need Secure Driver Licenses

For the past two years DHS has shown ramped up commitment to helping states diminish fraud and increase security by enhancing driver license issuance across the board. Using the monies Congress has provided to date, alongside final regulation guidance and contracts with individual states to move secure ID issuance forward, a key 9/11 Commission recommendation is being fulfilled. However, the incoming Obama Administration may begin backpedaling on our security. In 2008 President-Elect Obama stated that he does not support REAL ID "because it is an unfunded mandate, and not enough work has been done with the states to help them implement the program."

To date, states have received a total of $130 million from the federal government towards implementation, with Congress appropriating another $100 million in 2008. In an effort to continue progress, Secretary Chertoff released $48.6 million in December 2008 to all 56 U.S. jurisdictions based on driver license production, not compliance, as prior year grants had been. There is no doubt that to fulfill this 9/11 Commission recommendation, sustained federal dollars are needed to fully secure driver license and ID issuance. Rather than another program that drains the federal budget, REAL ID implementation is showing itself to be a return on investment, eliminating waste by reducing fraud. For example, in key areas such as digitization of vital record information (11 states online since March 2007) and proof of legal status (25 states in the last 20 months have signed up to check legal status), states are seeing positive results by cutting off vulnerabilities that made them magnets for fraud, counterfeiting, identity theft, illicit drug running, illegal immigration and alien smuggling activity. States that have failed to do so, like Maryland, are seeing a surge in fraud and depletion of resources that extends to education and healthcare, as was testified to by Maryland officials just a few weeks ago.

With the disconnect between the significant progress of states in securing their ID issuance processes and the on-the-record concerns of the President-Elect, the Center for Immigration Studies has produced a two-part educational video series narrated by the Center's Director of National Security Policy, Janice Kephart. These videos are the first in a series on border policy.

Why We Need Secure Driver Licenses Part I: The 9/11 Story (Jan. 13, 2009) How the 9/11 hijackers acquired their 30 state-issued IDs, and why our state and federal government need to secure ID issuance.

Why We Need Secure Driver Licenses Part II: REAL ID Fact and Fiction (Jan. 13, 2009) Discerning fact from fiction in the secure ID debate.

Press release from CIS above. Contact: Janice Kephart, jlk@cis.org, (202) 466-8185



Britain's black Archbishop of York deplores the failure to integrate immigrants

Immigrants to Britain in the past five decades have been treated like hotel guests who 'do not belong', the Archbishop of York said yesterday. Dr John Sentamu said the failure of migrants to integrate had contributed to the collapse of a common British culture and the lack of a national sense of direction. He called for recognition of the Christian heritage which used to bind the nation together and for a revival of the civic values once represented by myriad local clubs, churches and trade unions.

The Archbishop's powerful attack on uncontrolled immigration and on the Left-wing interpretation of multiculturalism that encourages migrants to ignore traditional British values, was made in a speech to Gordon Brown's think tank, the Smith Institute. Dr Sentamu, a trustee of the Institute, has previously criticised multiculturalism and official neglect of the importance of Christian thinking and history. But yesterday's speech was the first admission from a senior Church of England figure that large-scale immigration has brought serious problems as well as benefits.

Ugandan-born Dr Sentamu, who came to Britain in the 1970s, said it was important to remember that Britain had always provided refuge for economic migrants. He said 250,000 Jewish people had come before the First World War, and had integrated and been accepted. 'What happened after the Second World War was a different phenomenon,' Dr Sentamu continued. 'For the first time, significant numbers of immigrants from a non Judaeo-Christian background settled in the UK.'

He referred to the view of Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks that until the 1950s immigrants were like guests in a country house, who were expected to assimilate British values and to belong to the existing society. But with the decline of empire and the growth of Commonwealth immigration, the pattern had become more like a hotel. 'Guests are entitled to stay if they can pay their way and receive basic services in return for their payment,' he said. 'But they are guests - they do not belong. In the same way, migrants to Britain from the 1960s onwards have made their home with their cultural rights protected under legislation framed under a multicultural perspective. 'Consequently, any sense of a shared common culture is eroded, risking increasing segregation.'

The Archbishop, who is second in the hierarchy of the Church of England, was speaking at a time when Mr Brown and his ministers have been increasingly prepared to acknowledge problems linked to immigration. Dr Sentamu praised Mr Brown's view of Britishness but warned that the Prime Minister's vision 'flounders if it does not allow for participation, involvement and commitment from individuals and communities'. He also blamed leaders of the Church of England for failing to speak out over the future of the nation as well as ignoring 'the voiceless and the unheard in the market square'.

Dr Sentamu said that since 2001 there had been no fewer than five 'major government reports on social cohesion' all attempting to 'address the problems of a multicultural approach'. But few aims had been achieved. This was, Dr Sentamu said, because the Government has been wedded to central control and had been reluctant to see local communities have power. And, he said, 'there has also been a reluctance to acknowledge the strong Judaeo-Christian heritage which has shaped our language, our laws, our education and our hard-won civil rights.'

The Archbishop lamented the collapse of the vision of Britain developed in the 1940s that underpinned the creation of the welfare state. 'It is a tragedy to me that we have increasingly lost this big vision,' Dr Sentamu said. 'Memory loss has made Britain sleepwalk on streets supposedly paved with gold but sadly littered with promissory notes whose cash value is the credit crunch and the economic downturn as well as becoming a country that is not at ease with itself.'

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears has said since the New Year that many poorer white people feel betrayed and ignored by authorities and that they fear losing out in the share-out of public benefits. She has also admitted that Labour allowed a 'free-for-all' in immigration since it took power in 1997.

SOURCE





14 January, 2009

Untold Story of American Workers Vs. Illegal Immigration

By William Gheen

Across America a terrible story unfolds trapping honest and hard working Americans between the proverbial rock and a hard space. It is a story that I have gleaned from conversations with those directly impacted. It is a story I have learned from reading between the lines in the print media. Many of America's print media publications are now facing well deserved financial extinction due to their penchant for bias, censorship, and promotions of unpopular political positions, rather than reporting facts. No issue illustrates their heavy bias more than illegal immigration.

American readers are bombarded on a daily basis with the latest illegal alien sob stories about how illegal aliens are getting laid off, being profiled, discriminated against, or finding it harder to get licenses and government benefits from mean and hateful Americans, while the most important part of the story is conspicuously absent! The Americans who are falling down in historic numbers are not in these articles or publications!

The propagandists at the newspapers should take heed, when I remind them of two important things. One, people read the news to learn the facts and not the asserted political positions of the paper. Two, readers look for characters in articles, as well as in movies and books, who they can identify with.

Americans are losing their wages, jobs, homes, health, and sanity in numbers unprecedented since the Great Depression, yet you will not hear their trials and troubles in your elitist newspapers. And if you do get a glimpse of the horror of your neighbors and fellow countrymen, you will most certainly never hear of what I will speak of next. You will not hear about how illegal immigration is trapping Americans in a vise which is leading to the destruction of their lives. I hope no one in America needs a lecture on how horrible losing your job can be when there are no other jobs available and that not being able to provide health insurance or even food for your children is a life threatening situation. Marching your belongings and loved ones out of your house in front of a Sheriff's deputy is a story Americans are living out in larger numbers daily.

Many studies tell us that American workers work harder, longer, and more productively than many others on the planet. We are known for getting the job done and done well. Before the recent political invention of "jobs Americans won't do" we got the houses built, the landscapes tended, the chickens plucked, and the bathrooms cleaned without 15 million illegal aliens in the country. Here is the scenario and perspective you will not find in your newspaper that must be told to the nation.

It has long been a tradition in America for wage earners to take a menial job or an extra job, when times got tough for their individual families, a region, or during a national economic downturn. If your husband was injured, the wife would take on an extra job waiting tables or as a cashier. If you lost your job, you would seek another one no matter what it was, as long as it would help you keep food on the table and a roof over you and your family's head.

In 2009, when you go to look for a new job of any kind you will find that many jobs are not even listed in the Want Ads because those jobs are filled with illegal aliens and a surplus of legal immigrants. The employers have no desire to spend money on newspaper ads, if they have an opening they just tell the foreman, ask their existing workers, or in some cases call up the drug and human importing cartels in Mexico to order a new shipment of illegal aliens workers, as was the case with Tyson Foods here in North Carolina. So American workers are not even finding notices for many jobs in construction, landscaping, hospitality and food industries, agriculture, meat processing, textiles, raw materials production, etc...

And even if you do approach one of these employers, you may find yourself in the position that many ALIPAC supporters have reported. The employers of illegal aliens and H2B visa immigrants do not want Americans in the mix. There is rampant discrimination against America workers because they do not speak Spanish, are more concerned about worker health and safety laws, and might contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement to report illegal workers and visa fraud.

Even if you did go out on your own to find the non-advertised menial jobs, and you made it past the discrimination factors, you still have two major hurdles. One, multiple studies have documented the common sense knowledge that illegal immigration greatly depreciates wages for American workers and legal immigrants. As far back as 1968, the renowned labor leader Cesar Chavez patrolled the border and ordered his union to call Federal authorities to try and stop illegal immigration. Wages have been significantly depressed due to the intentional hyper inflation of the labor markets. If you are a full tax paying and debt carrying American, many of these jobs now offer wages that are insufficient for you to even make ends meet!

But illegal aliens are not just in the menial jobs or unskilled labor sector of our economy. We have seen countless news reports over the last few years documenting illegal aliens working on commercial jet engines, or in nuclear power plants, or the technical fields? With the almost minimal enforcement levels of our existing immigration laws, illegal aliens are working in jobs across the spectrum!

Anyone seeking a job in a call center or the Information Technology fields will find many of those jobs have been sent offshore to India. As for the jobs which remain here at home with Google, IBM, Microsoft, and many others, the positions are taken and being filled with H1B visa holders from India and China. According to our unenforced existing immigration laws, an H1B visa worker can only be used, if an American worker cannot be found for the position and if the immigrant will be paid the same as an American worker would. But, since nobody is enforcing those laws, many Global companies are intentionally throwing out their American workers and replacing them with foreign labor that will work for much less!

And if you go out in search of an American small business that plays by the rules and respects our laws, you will find fewer and fewer of them. Honest employers who hire Americans and legal immigrants have found themselves unable to compete with the low bids of less scrupulous competitors who hire illegal aliens. You won't hear their voices in this barrage of biased articles either!

Only through the valiant efforts of talk radio show hosts and brave men and women like Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Michelle Malkin will you hear these voices represented in the media. And each of them faces the same threat of smears and lies from the ideology fascists for speaking out for the innocent American workers and millions of victims of illegal immigration, corporate greed, and political corruption in our nation. So American workers are facing what I call "The Great American Replacement Act" where Americans are being replaced in jobs, homes, schools, colleges, and at the ballot box through rampant illegal immigration combined with historically high levels of new worker visas being issued.

To ad further insult to injury, the illegal alien Amnesty supporting groups and politicians are now trying to claim that even though 11 Million Americans are out of work, we need Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty right away for the approximately 7 million illegal aliens, which are currently holding jobs that our existing laws mandate are illegal for them to have in the first place!

How can so many politicians and people in the media ignore and neglect innocent Americans who are suffering and having their lives ruined? The dire consequences for Americans due to the bad economy combined with rampant illegal immigration are horrific. The fact that their stories are not told and their voices are censored by the print media is even more horrifying. For things to improve for Americans, we need our existing immigration laws, and all workplace and financial regulatory laws fully enforced. Those left in the media with a soul need to illuminate these problems and side with the American public before it is too late.

We need to know how much the influence the billions of dollars in perks, contributions, and payoffs coming into Washington, DC (See Bill and Hillary Clinton) from Global corporations and countries hostile to the United States like Saudi Arabia and China are responsible for these dastardly, illegal, and unconstitutional policies. The American public is no longer in control of our national destiny. We are no longer self governed or secure. We are not being asked for our support, we are being told we will suffer in silence or face aggressive ridicule. We are being dictated to by politicians who's pockets are lined with the gold of powerful bankers and foreign nations.

We are now entering an even more dangerous phase where many Americans are losing all faith in the political process. There is dangerous talk in private conversations, and many are saying "America has already been conquered without a shot fired." Perhaps America's most powerful enemies have discovered how to take us with a Trojan horse? No adversary would want to take us on militarily or do anything to awaken the ire of the American populace. Our own politicians, bureaucrats, and Wall Street leaders have already deeply wounded this nation more than Osama Bin Laden's attacks on 9/11.

Perhaps they have moved on America's Achilles heal of greed and corruption to incrementally reduce the American populace to such a desperate level surrounded by financially empowered subservient foreign workers that we cannot defend ourselves. If this is the case and if these atrocities are not corrected soon by political means, may God help us endure, survive, or prevail against whatever evil our conquerors have planned for us next.

SOURCE



Immigrant Feelings Project

(Wurtsboro, New York) Fifth-graders at Chase Elementary School have been indoctrinated in an immigrant feelings project. Teachers Marilyn Lounsbury, Karen Crofoot and Dorrie Lounsbury were faculty participants.

Students put together their "baggage," which included an autobiography and a letter of reference for their person to come into the U.S. They gave themselves pseudonyms. Students were to talk with their families about their family heritage and also to do research on their country of origin. They were to place artifacts, recipes, facts, the national flag, a map and other interesting things about their heritage and country in a shoebox as their suitcases. Students were given passports and asked to dress as immigrants for their Ellis Island experience.

When they arrived at Ellis Island, they went through a background information check station with Lea Walters and Marilyn Lounsbury where they were to present their important paperwork. They went through a vocation station with literacy coach Ann Kurthy, checking information about their job skills and plans for potential employment. Dorrie Lounsbury put them through the Character Station, where they were interrogated with such questions as "Were you ever arrested? Are you in debt? Did you leave sick relatives at home?"

Students had to be cleared by nurse Pam Shimer. They had their temperatures taken (with candy cane thermometers) and were checked for eye diseases, skin rashes or other health problems. Those who were not cleared medically or in any of the stations had to go to an Appeals Station manned by Karen Crofoot. Linda Holmes checked their baggage. She also did the Money Exchange Station and final welcome to America. Crofoot administered the Oath of Allegiance.

The project is part of a curriculum called "Where We Are in Place and Time."

Frankly, it would be prudent to include in the feelings coursework an exercise which replicates the experience of an illegal alien entering the United States. The experience of trekking through the desert, scaling fences, forging documents, hiding in the holds of ships, and dealing with snakeheads and coyotes (human smugglers) shouldn't be overlooked.

After all, we wouldn't want the youngsters to be confused about the difference between an illegal alien and a legal immigrant. Now, would we?

SOURCE





13 January, 2009

Huge illegal immigration has helped degrade Californian life

Both directly and indirectly. The brain-damaged California Democrats are kept in power by the Hispanic vote

Mike Reilly spent his lifetime chasing the California dream. This year he's going to look for it in Colorado. With a house purchase near Denver in the works, the 38-year-old engineering contractor plans to move his family 1,200 miles away from his home state's lemon groves, sunshine and beaches. For him, years of rising taxes, dead-end schools, unchecked illegal immigration and clogged traffic have robbed the Golden State of its allure.

Is there something left of the California dream? "If you are a Hollywood actor," Reilly says, "but not for us."

Since the days of the Gold Rush, California has represented the Promised Land, an image celebrated in the songs of the Beach Boys and embodied by Silicon Valley's instant millionaires and the young men and women who achieve stardom in Hollywood. But for many California families last year, tomorrow started somewhere else.

The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period - more than any other state, according to census estimates. That is about equal to the population of Syracuse, N.Y. The state with the next-highest net loss through migration between states was New York, which lost just over 126,000 residents.

California's loss is extremely small in a state of 38 million. And, in fact, the state's population continues to increase overall because of births and immigration, legal and illegal. But it is the fourth consecutive year that more residents decamped from California for other states than arrived here from within the U.S. A losing streak that long hasn't happened in California since the recession of the early 1990s, when departures outstripped arrivals from other states by 362,000 in 1994 alone. In part because of the boom in population in other Western states, California could lose a congressional seat for the first time in its history.

Why are so many looking for an exit? Among other things: California's unemployment rate hit 8.4 percent in November, the third-highest in the nation, and it is expected to get worse. A record 236,000 foreclosures are projected for 2008, more than the prior nine years combined, according to research firm MDA DataQuick. Personal income was about flat last year. With state government facing a $41.6 billion budget hole over 18 months, residents are bracing for higher taxes, cuts in education and postponed tax rebates. A multibillion-dollar plan to remake downtown Los Angeles has stalled, and office vacancy rates there and in San Diego and San Jose surpass the 10.2 percent national average. Median housing prices have nose-dived one-third from a 2006 peak, but many homes are still out of reach for middle-class families. Some small towns are on the brink of bankruptcy. Normally recession-proof Hollywood has been hit by layoffs.

"You see wages go down and the cost of living go up," Reilly says. His property taxes will be $1,300 in Colorado, down from $4,300 on his three-bedroom house in Nipomo, about 80 miles up the coast from Santa Barbara.

California's obituary has been written before - "California: The Endangered Dream" was the title of a 1991 Time magazine cover story. The Golden State and its huge economy - by itself, the eighth-largest in the world - have shown resilience, weathering the aerospace bust, the dot-com crash and an energy crunch in recent years. But this time, the news just keeps getting worse. A state board halted lending for about 2,000 public works projects in California worth more than $16 billion because the state could not afford them. A report by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month said the state lost 100,000 jobs in the last year and the erosion of home prices eliminated over $1 trillion in wealth.

"I don't think the California dream, per se, is over. It has become and will continue to become grittier," says New America Foundation senior fellow Gregory Rodriguez. "Now, perhaps, we have to reassess the California of our imagination."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is among those who say the state needs to create itself anew, rebuilding roads, schools and transit. "We've lived off the investments our parents made in the '50s and '60s for a long time," says Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at California State University, Sacramento. "We're somewhat in the position of a Rust Belt state in the 1970s."

Financial adviser Barry Hartz lived in California for 60 years and once ran for state Assembly before relocating with his wife last year to Colorado Springs, Colo., where his son's family had moved. "The saddest thing I saw was the escalation of home prices to the point our kids, when they got married, could not live in the community where they lived and grew up," Hartz says. "Some people call that progress."

SOURCE



Obama waffles on immigration

What he said would once have been called "motherhood" statements but motherhood seems to be rather disrespected these days so I guess I need another word

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon for Mr. Obama's first meeting with a foreign leader since his election in November.

President-elect Obama says he and President Calderon discussed immigration, cross-border security and other topics during their lunch Monday at the Mexican Cultural Institute in Washington.

The president-elect said he and Mr. Calderon discussed ways to have a comprehensive immigration strategy that ultimately strengthens both countries. Regarding security along the border regions, Mr. Calderon said the more secure Mexico is, the more secure the United States will be and that both nations need to work together to fight organized crime.

Mr. Calderon has waged a battle against drug traffickers in Mexico since taking office in 2006. In spite of the effort, drug violence has soared. Mexican officials say some 5,700 people were killed last year in drug-related violence.

The Obama transition office said the meeting Monday underscored the important relationship between the United States and Mexico.

Mr. Obama said the message he brought to the meeting is that his administration will be ready to build a stronger relationship with Mexico. He said the discussions with Mr. Calderon also covered the global financial crisis and its impact on Mexican and U.S. businesses.

U.S. President George Bush will welcome Mr. Calderon to the White House Tuesday. Mr. Bush has expressed disappointment with what he calls the failure to get a comprehensive immigration reform bill passed.

SOURCE





12 January, 2009

A wake-up call in liberal Montgomery County, Maryland

The leaders of Montgomery County, Maryland, where I live, have for years pledged not to enforce the nation's immigration laws. Any jurisdiction that elects such leaders deserves the consequences. According to the Washington Post, Montgomery County residents are coming to believe that one of such consequence is increased crime. Crime in the county is up 7.7 percent this year, and illegal immigrants have been charged with two high profile murders, the slaying of a teen-age honor student on a bus and of a 63 year-old woman in her home by one of her employees.

The country police chief has therefore proposed that police officers check the immigration status of suspects arrested for violent crimes and weapons offenses. This common sense proposal appears to have considerable support, although it is not clear that our liberal County Executive, Democrat Isiah Leggett, will approve the measure. It's hard to imagine the leaders of this county being more clueless than their liberal constituents, but that may turn out to be the case.

The influx of illegal aliens is changing our neighborhoods for the worse. Politicians ignore the problem at substantial risk to their careers and to society.

Source



Deployed And Deported -- Immigration law hurts military families

There is always a range of discretion in bureaucratic decisions -- with the commonest being deliberate inaction disguised as "insufficent resources" -- and in my view military families always deserve the maximum indulgence. Note that the U.S. army has a large Hispanic contingent, including some who arrived in the USA as illegals

Yolanda Guevara knows she could be called up at any moment. Guevara is a rear detachment commander for her Army Reserve unit, which has already been deployed to Kuwait. It's a matter of time before she would have to leave her husband and three children in North Carolina to join her unit. Even now, she is sent away from home for anywhere from three days to two weeks to various places in the country-a job she says would be difficult to manage without the support of her husband. "He works part time but whenever I have to go out . he's there for me," Yolanda says. "I don't think I could be in the military without him."

For many military families, the thought of being deployed would be enough to deal with, but Guevara also faces the possibility that her husband, Juan, will be deported back to El Salvador in a few months. Juan crossed the border into Arizona without inspection in 2000. A year later, severe earthquakes hit El Salvador, and he was able to apply for "Temporary Protected Status" that gives him permission to live and work in the U.S. Every year, the two fill out forms to renew this status.

In 2007, after saving up enough money, they decided to apply for Juan's permanent residency. But at the immigration appointment late last year, they were told he is ineligible for citizenship because he crossed illegally. When Guevara explained her situation to the immigration officer, the response was less than helpful. "I told him, `My unit is going to be deployed, so I'm afraid- what if I'm gone and I'm stationed over in Iraq or Kuwait, and my husband's [status] expires?'" she says. "What's going to happen to my kids?"

She says the officer responded, "You worry about that when that happens." [I suspect that the lady misunderstood the officer's reply. It sounds to me that she was being promised deliberate inaction]. Advocates say many military families are in the same boat. Though official figures aren't collected, Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney who helped establish the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Military Assistance Program, says she gets at least one phone call a day from military personnel with immigration troubles.

Stock says it is a problem that not only interferes with the lives of soldiers and their families, but ultimately also hampers military readiness. "You would not believe the amount of resources that are being spent right now trying to deal with these problems," says Stock, whose program provides military families with pro bono assistance. "We just have soldiers who are in tears-soldiers and sailors who just can't deal with their family situation being unsettled."

Most problems stem from the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which established a strict set of changes in immigration laws, including a rule that does not provide waivers for any offenses-such as crossing the border illegally-for immigrants who are seeking permanent residence or other legal status.

Stock says the '96 law is responsible for a large chunk of undocumented immigrants that the country has today. In testifying before Congress earlier this year, she referred to the "parole" policy for undocumented Cubans and said putting a similar policy in place for the military families could provide a solution.

In May, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren introduced a bill, H.R. 6020, that would provide such relief-by allowing for discretion that currently lacks in immigration law in handling noncitizen military families members.

But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think-tank that advocates for controlled immigration, says making exceptions for the noncitizen spouses of soldiers is like giving a criminal a "get-out-of-jail-free card." With 12 million undocumented immigrants, the country can't afford to look at each case and keep making exceptions.

"If you're saying the law needs to have wiggle room, I agree," he says. "But our immigration law is nothing but wiggle room. The immigration lawyers have a motto: `It ain't over 'til the alien wins.'" ...

Rather than sit back and wait to see what would happen, Guevara decided to look for help. She discussed the issue with her commander who then talked to her battalion commander. They decided to put her in charge of her unit from a station in the U.S. After two months of pushing for help, a battalion lawyer referred her to Stock's program. She's now working with a lawyer to find a way to reverse the deportation process.

Unless the case succeeds, the family's only hope is for the protected status for El Salvadorians to be extended before it expires in March. If it's extended, Juan would be able to reapply for his stay. If it's not, he faces his deportation proceeding. The deportation, Guevara says, would mean she'd have to quit the military and consider moving with her family to either El Salvador or Mexico. "I don't really want to leave the military because I've only been with it for seven years," she says. "I want to stay and get a career in it, but my family comes first. So it's kind of hard for me, but I will have to leave. There's no other way."

Source





11 January, 2009

U.S. legal immigrant worries in the recession

For foreign professionals, the rising unemployment rate is especially daunting. Laid-off foreign workers are scrambling for temporary visas and seeking advice from immigration attorneys about how long they can legally stay in the country while hunting for jobs. Even some foreigners here on visas or work permits are switching employers, fearing that an unstable job during a recession could ultimately lead to a one-way ticket home or kill their chance of getting a green card.

Thirty-eight-year-old Caron Traub of South Africa panicked after losing her job as a business development manager for an envelope manufacturer. With plans for an April wedding in Atlanta to her Canadian fiance, who has a green card, Traub worried that she could be forced to leave the country before then and be unable to get back in. "It's very scary stuff," said Traub, who applied for a temporary visa to stay in the country legally and look for a job.

An undetermined number of foreign workers have been casualties of the recession, which pushed the nationwide jobless rate to 6.7 percent in November, a 15-year high. Economists expect the jobless rate will continue to climb through much of 2009 and could surpass 8 percent. Foreign residents with valid visas that authorize them to work in the United States can qualify for jobless benefits if they meet the requirements of the state in which they file, according to the Labor Department.

Nearly half a million foreign professionals are working in the country on visas, known as H-1Bs, or have applied for green cards with support from their employers, said Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a policy research group in Arlington, Va. Many came to the United States to pursue graduate degrees and have lived and worked here for years. Those who lose their jobs in the downturn may head home or move to countries that have more lenient immigration rules. That could drive much-needed innovation in technology and engineering overseas in the years ahead, Anderson said. "What you may find is there are people who could be future entrepreneurs in the United States who end up starting these companies in other countries," he said.

Companies are required to notify the U.S. immigration agency when a visaholder stops working for them, but the government does not track how many skilled professionals leave their jobs because of layoffs, said Bill Wright, an agency spokesman. There are many reasons a foreign worker might leave a company in good economic times as well as bad - for example, to move to a better job, he said.

Immigration lawyers say they have received an increasing number of calls from foreign professionals who have been terminated - many in the financial services industry as investment banks slash payroll to stay afloat. Cyrus Mehta, an immigration attorney in New York, said he was fielding a call a week from foreign workers who lost their jobs in the last year. Carmita Alonso, a partner at corporate immigration law firm Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, said she's worked with at least 100 visaholders in the same predicament since late 2007. "This is definitely worse than we've seen in quite some time," Alonso said.

More here



British cabinet minister admits immigration `free for all'

A cabinet minister has admitted the government has presided over an asylum and immigration "free for all" and warned that the recession could be a recipe for racial tension. Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, said Labour had failed to manage the system effectively, allowing many people to enter the country under false pretences. "Initially it was a kind of free for all," she said. "We had a big surge of asylum seekers, a lot of people coming as economic migrants, but through the route of asylum seeking."

It is the first time a minister has made a bald admission that Labour mismanaged immigration in its first two terms. Blears's comments will be seized on by opponents of immigration policy and campaigners concerned at Britain's population growth. Official projections show the population will rise from 61m to 70m in the next 20 years.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Blears described the government's new points system as a "much more reassuring position for people".

Source





10 January, 2009

A small dent in legal delaying tactics

Seemingly endless legal challenges can make deportations of illegals very slow and very expensive -- and with millions of illegals in the USA that is very daunting. A new ruling however reduces one legal argument to extreme cases only

Attorney General Michael Mukasey ruled Wednesday that aliens have no constitutional right to challenge the outcome of their deportation hearings based on their lawyers' mistakes. Mukasey's 34-page opinion is binding on the nation's 53 immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals, which are overseen by the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review.

The ruling dispenses with a 15-year-old precedent, established in Matter of Lozada, that allowed aliens to obtain a new hearing due to lawyer error. While aliens have no Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Lozada acknowledged their right to effective assistance under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The opinion does not rule out aliens succeeding on a claims of ineffective assistance, but it is expected to sharply reduce their chances. Immigration judges and the BIA will have complete discretion in assessing the claims, and the the opinion raises the standard for prevailing under them. Aliens must show that their attorneys' failings were "egregious" and that they likely affected the outcome of the case. "Although the Constitution and the immigration laws do not entitle an alien in removal proceedings to relief for his lawyer's mistakes, the Department of Justice may, as a matter of administrative grace, reopen removal proceedings where an alien shows that he was prejudiced by the actions of private counsel," Mukasey wrote.

Immigrants rights groups were sharply critical of the opinion. "There's been a longstanding constitutional right recognized by the agency to obtain a new hearing due to counsel error," said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "The attorney general has no abruptly eliminated that constitutional right." Gelernt said he expects the opinion to be appealed. In the meantime, aliens may still try to appeal BIA decisions to the federal appellate courts, but Gelernt said most circuits will likely defer to Mukasey's ruling. The ACLU and other groups intend to lobby Congress and the incoming administration to scrap Mukasey's opinion, Gelernt said.

The attorney general signaled his intent to review the precedent in August, when he ordered the BIA to hand over three recent opinions that dealt with ineffective assistance claims. (Click here for Legal Times' previous coverage of the review.)

Mukasey, in his opinion, noted that the legal landscape has changed since Lozada was decided in 1988. While several federal appellate courts, including the 1st, 2nd, and 9th circuits, recognize either a statutory or constitutional right to effective assistance for aliens in removal proceedings, more recent rulings during the Bush administration -- from the 4th, 7th, and 8th circuits -- have rejected the notion. "I conclude, as have a growing number of federal courts, that the Constitution does not confer a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in removal proceedings," Mukasey wrote. "The reason is simple: Under Supreme Court precedent, there is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under the Due Process Clause or any other provision where -- as here and as in most civil proceedings -- there is no constitutional right to counsel, including Government-appointed counsel, in the first place."

The core of the argument is that due process clause only guards against actions that can be attributed to the government. But aliens have no constitutional right to counsel, unlike criminal defendants, so the government is not responsible for the conduct of their privately retained lawyers.

More than a dozen organizations and individuals filed amicus briefs, opposing a rollback of Lozada, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the American Immigration Law Foundation, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association. The groups argued that due process right to a full and fair hearing on the merits include a specific right to effective assistance.

Source



CA: Border Patrol to close plaza for new fence

Another hole plugged

A half-acre plaza that has stood for the goodwill between Mexico and the United States is closing to make way for a triple fence along the U.S. southern border, the California State Parks Department confirmed Thursday. A chain-link fence already divides Friendship Park, which separates Imperial Beach from Tijuana, Mexico. But the Border Patrol told local authorities at a Tuesday meeting that the plaza in Border Field State Park would be closed to the public for the construction of a larger fence structure, said Clay Phillips, superintendent of Border Field. "Their No. 1 mission is to secure the border, and that's the basis on which they're closing this portion permanently," said Phillips.

Friendship Park, which was dedicated by first lady Patricia Nixon in the 1970s as a symbol of binational goodwill, is a federal enclave accessible to pedestrians and motorists only by going through the 800-acre Border Field park. It is paved with cement on both sides of the fence, overlooks the Pacific Ocean and has an obelisk that was planted shortly after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War in 1848.

From the Mexican side, visitors on Thursday saw that crews had already torn up cement and some trees were gone. The agency plans to build a dirt road between the new fences, said Jonathan Hardy, who attended the meeting Tuesday as an aide to Democratic state Sen. Denise Ducheny of San Diego. "It's very saddening and very disappointing," Ducheny said Thursday. "Once you scar that landscape, it's very hard to undo."

The decision is a setback for state and local officials who argued to spare the plaza from a 3 1/2-mile stretch of fencing that the federal government is building to the Pacific Ocean. The Bush administration had pledged to erect nearly 700 miles of fencing and barriers along the 1,952-mile U.S.-Mexico border.

Efforts to confirm the closure from Border Patrol officials have been unsuccessful. U.S. Reps. Susan Davis and Bob Filner, both San Diego Democrats, along with Ducheny and other officials had urged President-elect Barack Obama's transition team in November to keep the plaza open, calling it "a place of great historic and cultural significance to the people of the U.S.-Mexico border region."

Source





9 January, 2009

IMMIGRATION LOBBYING: HOW AMERICA'S RICH TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS

By Frosty Wooldridge

How many Americans realize that Wal-Mart, General Electric, Time-Warner, Disney, Microsoft, Merrill Lynch, Exxon Mobil, John Deere and dozens of other "All-American" companies lobby Congress to vote for millions of added immigrants, amnesty and lower wages? How many of you would suspect that universities, labor unions, restaurants, hotels and construction firms in your communities pay hundreds of millions of dollars annually to depress your wages and screw you out of a job?

How many of you would be excited to learn that the very people you gave $700 billion to in the recent bailout--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Countrywide Mortgage and Lehman Brothers--used trade associations to lobby to give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, hundreds of thousands of H1-B, H2-B visas and the Dream Act for illegal alien students in hundreds of our colleges across the USA?

Their efforts work, too! Our government fails to enforce our immigration laws. U.S. House Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, attempted to pass an H2-B visa bill in October to allow another 550,000 more foreign workers into the U.S. in spite of the fact that we suffered a financial and job meltdown-with 15 million Americans out of work.

"According to lobbying reports that are required to be filed with the House Office of the Clerk and the Senate Office of Public Records, 521 corporations, trade associations, business groups, labor organizations, government entities, and nonprofit organizations engaged in lobbying on one or more pieces of the immigration-related legislation included in this report," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. "Only two percent of these organizations are known to have promoted positions in favor of enforcement of existing immigration laws, limiting the influx of foreign guest workers, and reducing overall levels of immigration.

"Ninety-eight percent of the interest groups had a direct financial or political interest in relaxing immigration enforcement, and/or expansion of existing immigration quotas - positions that are widely rejected by the public. Collectively, these organizations and associations reported spending $345 million dollars lobbying Congress during this time period. While it is impossible to determine how much of that considerable sum was spent lobbying on specific pieces of immigration legislation, virtually all of the lobbying money expended by these groups is directed at gaining some benefit for themselves."

Those groups fought for more immigration, amnesty, Dream Act, more visas and diversity visas.

Stein said, "A new report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that over the past three years dozens of well-known American corporations, representing virtually every sector of the economy, have committed extensive resources lobbying for increased immigration, more foreign guest-workers, and amnesty for illegal aliens. Many of these same corporations that have pressured Congress to provide them a cheap labor supply have recently been pink-slipping their existing workers and seeking federal taxpayer bailouts. The report, "Immigration Lobbying: A Window into the World of Special Interests," is the first and only study of lobbying on immigration policy and reveals a scope of influence previously unknown."

"In addition," Stein said. "FAIR's report shows that over 58 percent of the lobbying on immigration between 2006 and 2008 was carried out by American corporations and business and trade associations ranging from high tech to agriculture." Their primary goals included:

* Amnesty for the estimated 13 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S.

* Dramatic increases in both low-skill and high-skill foreign guest workers.

* Increased admission of foreign students to U.S. universities, and subsequent entry to the U.S. labor market.

"This new report demonstrates conclusively that the hallmark of corporate concern about immigration policy has been to increase their own access to cheap foreign labor," stated Dan Stein. "Equally evident from this lobbying investigation is that the public interest has been almost entirely absent from efforts to influence the direction of U.S. immigration policy.

"In the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, many of these companies are simultaneously asking for more cheap foreign labor while laying off existing U.S. workers. It's contradictory behavior and shows an appalling lack of community and corporate responsibility. With the exception of a small number of public interest advocacy organizations like FAIR, nearly every lobbying dollar spent on influencing immigration policy has been focused on bringing cheaper labor to this country, rewarding illegal immigration, and building ethnic political constituencies."

Stein added, "Given the damage that these interests have already inflicted on hard-working American families, we hope that the incoming Obama administration will restore some modicum of public interest to this important policy debate."

The full text of Immigration Lobbying: A Window into the World of Special Interests is available at FAIR's website. After reading this report, I discovered our own major companies, executives and other leaders undermine our nation by supporting illegal migration, amnesty for illegals, unending visas and a total disregard for our rights as American workers. I found myself distressed that John Deere or McDonalds or Wal-Mart and hundreds of `All-American" companies undercut our communities, our way of life and our governmental processes with money, power and greed.

Take time to read the report. You may find yourself astounded and enraged at the duplicity foisted upon our Congress and ultimately upon America's citizens and communities.

Source



U.S. to collect DNA samples of arrested immigrants

The Justice Department defends the new policy as an important crime-fighting tool. Activists see it as a violation of privacy.

Beginning today, the U.S. government will collect DNA samples from immigrants arrested and detained, despite concerns that the move violates their privacy rights. The new Justice Department policy also will expand DNA collection to people arrested on suspicion of committing federal crimes. Previously, the government only obtained DNA from people convicted of certain crimes. The samples will be added to the national database and used to make identifications through comparisons to crime scene evidence, according to the Justice Department. "The collection of DNA samples is an important crime-fighting and crime-solving tool," said Evan Peterson, a spokesman for the department.

The American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday it was considering filing a lawsuit and that it would closely monitor the collection of DNA samples. "We will be looking to see whether mistakes are made," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's technology and liberty program. Steinhardt said he had "grave concerns" about the rapid expansion of the DNA database to include immigrant detainees and people accused of committing crimes. "People who are merely accused of a crime or a civil violation of law but haven't been convicted of anything are being subjected to the most invasive [How invasive is a cheek swab?] sort of testing," he said.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has said the change is designed to prevent violent crimes by deportees who return illegally. Kyl wrote a 2005 law that authorized the department to include pre-conviction DNA samples in its national database.

Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian said Thursday that DNA was becoming a standard law enforcement tool that was better than fingerprints for identification. "It's especially important with regard to immigration because people are changing their names and presenting easily forged foreign documents," he said. "It's important to know who is who and when someone is lying."

More than 1.3 million samples from immigrants, detainees and federal arrestees are expected to be added to the database under the new policy, the FBI said. The bureau received more money to upgrade its DNA programs and software to accommodate the increased workload.

But Steinhardt said he thought the program would be impractical, saying there was already a backlog. "The more you expand these databases, the greater the returns diminish," he said. [Really?]

David Leopold, the national vice president of the American Immigration Lawyers Assn., said the DNA collection was part of a trend by the U.S. government to treat immigrants as criminals, even though they were civil detainees. Many detained immigrants, for example, are housed in county jails alongside suspected and convicted criminals. Leopold said he also worried that some of those detained and forced to give DNA would turn out to be U.S. citizens. "This rule is just a terrifying expansion of power," he said. [He's easily terrified. Accurate ID is terrifying? What does that say?]

Source





8 January, 2009

Haitians denied temporary immigration protection

If this had been granted, every storm worldwide would have become a pretext for a new influx of people from chronically backward countries

The Bush administration won't grant temporary protected status to Haitians living in the U.S. illegally while their Caribbean homeland struggles to recover from four deadly tropical storms. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff denied the status in a Dec. 19 letter to Haitian President Rene Preval, The Miami Herald reported Tuesday. Chertoff said his department tried to help Haiti by directing the Coast Guard to provide humanitarian relief and delaying deportations until last month.

Preval wrote Bush twice last year asking for the status that allows immigrants from countries experiencing armed conflict or environmental disasters to stay and work in the U.S. for a limited time. The summer storms killed hundreds, displaced thousands and severely crippled Haiti's infrastructure and agriculture.

Source



2 charged in Seattle with homosexual immigration fraud

Once again homosexuals are a privileged class

A federal grand jury has charged two people in an alleged immigration fraud conspiracy, saying they advised straight immigrants to claim homosexuality - and potential persecution in their home countries - when they applied for political asylum. Steven Mahoney, 41, and his estranged wife, Helen, 38, both naturalized U.S. citizens from Russia, were arrested Tuesday and pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court. Prosecutors say Steve Mahoney ran Mahoney and Associates in Kent, and held himself out as an expert in immigration affairs. They say he made money by advising immigrants on how to stay in the U.S.

According to an indictment unsealed Tuesday, from 2003 to 2005 Steven Mahoney advised two immigrants to falsely claim that they were gay and feared persecution if they returned to their home country. In two other cases dating to 1998, he is accused of urging clients to claim they feared being maimed or tortured, though the indictment does not say if they too falsely said they were gay.

His wife's only alleged involvement was to provide a client - identified in charging papers as AK - with documents about homosexuality in preparing for an asylum interview in 2005, when she knew AK wasn't gay.

"Steven Mahoney advised and directed AK to state, on AK's asylum application, that the militia in AK's home country attempted to rape AK's wife because AK was gay, when in truth and fact, as known by Steven Mahoney, such act was not committed against AK's wife," the indictment said.

Both defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, which carries up to five years in prison. Steven Mahoney was charged additionally with three counts of immigration fraud, which carries a maximum 10-year penalty.

The immigrants seeking asylum were identified only by their initials in the indictment, and their home countries were not identified at all. It isn't clear whether any remain in the U.S. Barry Flegenheimer, a lawyer appointed Tuesday to represent Helen Mahoney, said he had not had time to fully review the case. He said his client lives in suburban Auburn, cares for her invalid mother, and works out of her home as a seamstress. Steven Mahoney's court-appointed attorney did not take questions following Tuesday's arraignment.

Source





7 January, 2009

East Baton Rouge sheriff's deputies told to learn Spanish

If they can't speak any English, it seems unlikely that they are in the country legally so why not just hand them over for deportation? The Mexican police will understand them

As more Spanish-speaking people migrate to south Louisiana, law enforcement officers are finding themselves at a loss. Often, they cannot communicate with the people who need them. Now, East Baton Rouge Sheriff Sid Gautreaux has started a crash course for his deputies.

You may remember a local woman whose son was run over by a school bus on South Walker Court two years ago. She only spoke Spanish. "We have lots of cases where victims only speak Spanish and have to call in interpreters and that can be costly and it takes time," said sheriff's spokesperson Casey Hicks. It's cases like these that have Sheriff Gautreaux pushing his deputies to learn the language. "Sheriff Gautreaux said he absolutely wanted us to be representative of the community we serve," added Hicks.

According to the latest census surveys, Hispanics are now the fastest growing minority community in south Louisiana. Uniform patrol deputy Jack Stevens says he's seen the communication breakdown in neighborhoods like Gardere, where it can be tough to talk with the large Spanish-only population. "And that can be painstaking, especially if someone is injured or with legitimate concerns," Stevens says.

He was one of the 34 deputies who volunteered for the sheriff's first-ever two-week Spanish language crash course. "Really better serve the community with that, so why would I not want to do something like that. It helps us do a better job and it's more likely we can solve a crime." In the case of the bus accident, it would not have brought the woman's son back, but it may have served as some comfort during the calamity.

A sheriff's department spokesperson says Gautreaux plans to have another two-week course within the next few months. She also says the department plans to have an advanced session for those working toward fluency. A Baton Rouge Police Department spokesman says it has no plans to start a similar Spanish language program at this time.

Source



CA: Supreme Court to take immigrant tuition case

The justices have accepted the case that began with a lawsuit filed by out-of-state students and their parents, who argue that such a benefit violates federal law.

California's highest court is poised to be the next battleground in the debate over benefits for illegal immigrants as the justices have agreed to hear arguments on the constitutionality of a state law allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. The decision could affect hundreds of illegal immigrant students who attend community colleges, Cal State and UC campuses and who say they would not be able to afford a higher education if required to pay out-of-state tuition, which can cost more than triple the amount that residents pay.

But the outcome could have a broader effect -- at least nine other states, including Oklahoma, New York and Texas, have similar laws providing the reduced fees to illegal immigrants. Although a court decision would not be legally binding in other states, politicians around the country are looking at California as a litmus test for future legal challenges.

The state Supreme Court accepted the case late last month and will probably hear arguments later this year. In a letter urging the high court to take up the case, Utah's Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff wrote, "The implications of this decision extend far beyond California, and far beyond a state's ability to set educational policy, into the heart of the national debate about illegal immigration."

Martinez vs. Regents of the University of California began with a lawsuit filed in Yolo County in 2005 by out-of-state students and their parents. The lawsuit alleges that education officials are violating federal law by granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants while not offering the same lower fees to students from outside California. "U.S. citizens should have at least the same rights as undocumented immigrants," said one of the plaintiffs, Aaron Dallek, an Illinois native who graduated from UC Berkeley in 2006.

Another plaintiff, 2006 UC Davis graduate Onson Luong, said he didn't think it was fair that he, as a native of Nevada, had to pay higher tuition than illegal immigrants. Luong, who majored in biotechnology, worked two jobs during college and owes $15,000 in student loans. "If they are allowing illegals to pay in-state tuition when they aren't even citizens, what kind of message is that sending?" Luong asked.

For the 2008-09 school year, out-of-state undergraduates pay about $28,600 to attend a UC school, compared with about $8,000 for students who qualify for in-state tuition. Out-of-state undergraduate students at Cal State campuses pay on average $10,000 more than in-state students. At community colleges, California residents pay $26 per unit, while out-of-state students pay between $140 and $170.

Cora Orta, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who is a senior at UCLA, said she could not afford the school if she had to pay the higher tuition. As it is, the in-state fees are a stretch, she said. She is not eligible for loans, so she works part time, crams into a studio apartment with four other students and constantly applies for scholarships. "It's been the difference between attending college or not attending," Orta said of the in-state tuition.

Matias Ramos, who graduated from UCLA last year, said the out-of-state costs exceed the annual family income for many illegal immigrant students. Ramos, an illegal immigrant from Argentina, said that such students who attend public California colleges and universities are accepted based on their academics, talents and involvement and shouldn't be penalized because of a broken immigration system that leaves them few options.

The California Supreme Court case revolves around a 2001 state law, known as AB 540, that permits the tuition breaks. Under the law, illegal immigrant students qualify for in-state rates if they attended a California high school for three years, graduated here and signed an affidavit saying they will apply for permanent residency as soon as they are eligible. The law has remained in effect during the legal challenge.

Michael Brady, who represents the out-of-state students and their parents in the case, said California is "completely undermining the intent of Congress" and that the state law should be invalidated because it violates federal immigration law that prohibits states from providing college benefits to illegal immigrants based on residency unless all U.S. citizens are eligible for the same benefits. Brady said that in passing the strict immigration law in 1996, Congress sought to deter people from coming to the U.S. and staying here illegally. "When public benefits are provided, it encourages people to stay here," Brady said. "That is why we have all these laws."

But Ethan Schulman, who represents the University of California, said California's law was carefully crafted so it complied with federal law. U.S. citizen students are also eligible for in-state tuition, if, for example, they are from another state but attended a boarding school in California or if they attended high school here but then moved away for college and returned to the state for graduate studies.

In the 2006-07 school year, 1,639 UC undergraduate and graduate students received in-state tuition under AB 540 provisions. Of those, about 70% were here legally, while the others were potentially undocumented, in the process of obtaining residency or their status could not be determined, according to university officials.

Schulman defended the benefit as a way for illegal immigrant students who have excelled in the state's high schools to attend college. Schulman said he recognized, however, that the controversy wasn't just over the relatively small number of students who receive the tuition break. "The larger issue is a political issue, and that is how undocumented immigrants who live and work in our state are to be treated," Schulman said.

The undocumented students also have long-standing ties to California and have worked hard to make a better life for themselves and their families, often overcoming substantial obstacles, said Nicholas Espiritu, staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, also involved in the case. "They have earned the right to be there," Espiritu said. "These are students who are coming from, oftentimes, very low-income areas and underperforming schools, who are finding ways to really achieve and succeed in education despite almost every roadblock imaginable being put in their path."

Source





6 January, 2009

Britain 'must set population limit to safeguard national security' say Greenies

As if the Greenies cared about national security! The OPT is Britain's chief group of people-haters -- descended from the old Zero Population Growth freaks. Now that we have sub-zero population growth in most of the world, they aim at halving the population, at least. That will happen this century in many countries too. What will they do then? They will then aim at having only themselves around. And if that happens they will find that they don't like one-another very much either! LOL

Britain must set a maximum population level if it is to avoid destroying the environment and putting national security at risk, say experts. The Optimum Population Trust has written to ministers calling for a policy of 'zero net migration' - matching numbers allowed into Britain each year to numbers leaving. The UK's population is projected to increase from 60 to 70million over the next 20 years, and to 85million by 2081.

The trust, a panel of academics and environmentalists, says achieving zero net migration would cut Britain's population in 2081 to 57million. Mass immigration 'feeds through into rising greenhouse gas emissions' and more congestion, the experts say.

The trust warns that because Britain can produce only 30 per cent of the food, energy and other goods that it needs, it will become increasingly vulnerable to 'resource nationalism' as foreign powers hoard their own scarce resources. 'This imperils future national security as well as destroying the environment,' it says. The trust is demanding a Royal Commission to establish 'an environmentally sustainable level of population'.

The Home Office said its new points-based immigration system would help manage immigration, 'which will contribute to future population projections and control'.

Source



CA: Smugglers' gulch closed at last

A massive earth-moving project is transforming Smuggler's Gulch near San Diego from a narrow canyon used by cattle thieves, bandits and illegal immigrants into a plugged breach. For a century, the narrow canyon leading into California from Mexico provided cover for cattle thieves and opium dealers, bandits and booze runners. More recently, it has hidden thousands of illegal immigrants on their journey north, sealing its place in border lore. Now, it's a fading memory.

The canyon has been all but wiped off the landscape, its steep walls carved into gentle slopes, its depths filled with 35,000 truckloads of dirt as the federal government nears completion of an extensive border reinforcement project at the southwesternmost point of the United States.

In 2005, the Bush administration waived state and federal environmental laws to overcome stiff opposition to the massive earth-moving effort, which entails cutting the tops off nearby hills and pushing about 1.7 million cubic yards of dirt into the gulch and neighboring Goat Canyon.

Environmentalists and conservation groups fear that the project, scheduled to be completed in May, will harm the Tijuana River estuary, threaten endangered species and destroy culturally sensitive Native American sites. With construction well underway, it's clear that few of the 500 miles of new border fencing projects are transforming the environment as radically as the three miles from the Smuggler's Gulch area to the coast.

Once a breach in the coastal hills, the gulch is now more like a dam than a passage. Anyone attempting to cross confronts a 150-foot-high berm that will soon be topped with stadium lighting, video surveillance cameras and 15-foot-high fencing. Eventually, an all-weather road will run atop the filled-in canyons and smoothed-out hills and mesas all the way to the ocean.

For those who see the canyon border as blight, the gulch is a victim of its notorious past and deserves to be buried forever. "Good riddance," said Donald McDermott, a former U.S. Border Patrol assistant chief who once patrolled the area. "Anything that makes it easier to control the border is a good thing."

The canyon figured in some of California's earliest history. Charles W. Hughes, a local historian, said many of California's earliest settlers came through the pass. "It's very discouraging. We talk about trying to preserve our history . . . and yet they can come in and do this," he said.

Father Junipero Serra, on his first journey to what was then called Nueva California, probably passed through the area in 1769, according to historians who have studied the missionary's journals. "Serra described going over the hills in Tijuana and saying he could see the sails of the ships in San Diego Harbor. The only place you could possibly do that . . . comes out at Goat Canyon or that immediate area," said Harry Crosby, a historian who wrote a book on Baja California's history.

Smuggler's Gulch started earning its nickname in the 1880s after the U.S. government established customs duties at the port of entry at San Ysidro a few miles east. Ranchers took to the hills, leading their herds of cattle, horses and sheep through the canyon. Later, to avoid paying duties, people smuggled cigars and even Mexican-produced lace undergarments through the gulch.

In the 1980s, the canyon became a symbol of illegal immigration run amok as tens of thousands of immigrants funneled through the pass into California. It became a dangerous no-man's land, filled with bandits who raped and robbed immigrants and charged tolls for safe passage. The occasional sniper targeted Border Patrol agents. For many years, agents were not allowed to venture alone into the gulch, where their radios didn't work.

Rampant crime in the area prompted the formation of a daring San Diego police unit that was featured in the Joseph Wambaugh book "Lines and Shadows." They dressed as bedraggled illegal immigrants and pounced on bandits who tried to assault them. Border Patrol Agent Jim Swanson, who was not part of the team but patrolled the area, remembers hiding in a bush and jumping on suspected robbers, one of whom turned out to be a Tijuana police lieutenant. "That whole area was very chaotic," he said. Foot chases on the steep slopes caused numerous ankle and leg injuries for agents. One agent died in 2002 when her car toppled into the canyon.

In the mid-1990s, increased enforcement in the San Diego area pushed immigrant flows farther east, to other border areas. Smuggling has continued through the gulch, but at much-reduced levels.

Environmentalists for years stalled the $60-million plan to double-fence the three miles of border canyons and mesas. They pushed for projects that would improve border enforcement without harming the environment. In 2004, the California Coastal Commission refused to grant permits to complete the fence, saying the harm to sensitive habitats outweighed the security benefits. But the Department of Homeland Security in 2005 waived all environment laws, the first time it had done so since Congress granted it the authority. Border Patrol officials argued that thousands of people every year still tried crossing through that stretch of the border, and that the rugged terrain prevented agents from accessing the area.

When the project is finished, Border Patrol officials say, agents will be able to cut valuable minutes off the time it takes to get from the gulch to the coast, and some of them will be freed up to patrol other areas. They also say the project includes measures that will safeguard the environment, including retaining walls and other erosion-control measures to protect the Tijuana River estuary.

Environmental groups monitoring the construction say the recent floods in the Tijuana River Valley suggest that sediment from erosion is already filling the estuary. They plan to seek federal and state money to fix the problem. "We've lost sensitive habitat, and the estuary is now threatened," said Jim Peugh, conservation chairman of the San Diego Audubon Society. "I'm really disappointed that our system wasn't allowed to work the way it has historically and is required to by law."

One thing appears certain: Smuggler's Gulch won't live up to its name anymore. Though smugglers still live on the Mexican side, camping under tarps and charging tolls to cross or be guided across the border, the walls of dirt and the fencing will probably block most incursions, Swanson said. "It's logistically impossible," he said. "It'll be pretty much in a lockdown state."

Source





5 January, 2009

British PM's `bluff' on migrant permits

The Labour MP Frank Field has accused ministers of staging a "gigantic bluff" over new laws to curb the growing numbers of migrants entering Britain. Field said Gordon Brown's much-trumpeted controls on work permits for overseas workers would entirely fail to defuse the UK's "population time bomb".

The former Labour welfare minister dismissed claims by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, that a points system would keep the population below 70m. "We cannot afford to let our population grow at the extraordinary pace now officially forecast. The pressures on our public services and communities would be too great to bear," Field said. "This time bomb must be defused, and that requires radical action now. Government claims that they are taking effective action are no more than a gigantic bluff."

Projections of the UK population show a rise to 70m by 2028, with 70% of this due to immigration, which is running at 237,000 a year, up fivefold on the 1997 figure. Smith and Phil Woolas, her immigration minister, have said the work permits will keep the population below 70m. However, this weekend Field released research showing that even if all 96,000 overseas work permits granted annually were refused, the UK population would still rise from the present 61m to more than 70m later this century.

The new research, commissioned by the cross-party parliamentary group on immigration, which Field co-chairs, claims that existing work permit controls would only cut the number of migrants given work visas by 12%, or just 11,500. The research shows that in order for the population not to reach 70m, immigration would have to fall by 190,000 a year.

However, ministers recognise that imposing any kind of immigration quota is taboo in Labour circles.

Source



Philadelphia: Immigrant skit upsets sensitive souls



Geno's Steaks owner Joey Vento might make a delicious Philly cheesesteak, but he's not exactly the poster boy for good taste. So it's not surprising that a few people who watched this year's Mummers Parade took offense to Vento's starring role in a performance by Comics brigade B. Love Strutters titled "Aliens of an Illegal Kind." The skit featured Vento popping out of the top of a float labeled "Gewizno's Steaks" with a "When ordering, speak English" sign. Vento waved a poster reading, "What?" and tossed fake cheesesteaks into the crowd.

Then an announcer for B. Love Strutters cried out, "Uh-oh, here comes the Border Patrol!" Club members wearing Texas-sized cowboy hats and brandishing wooden rifles pretended to hold back a rioting crowd of "immigrants" from storming the border "fences." As the immigrants burst forth, they traded in their country's flag for an American flag, and a Mummer dressed as President-elect Barack Obama handed out Green Cards.

"It could be construed as bad taste," said Leo Dignam, parade director and deputy commissioner of the city's Department of Recreation. But Comics being Comics . . . "Sometimes they do things that are a little bit controversial," Dignam said. "It was intended to be funny."

Whether the skit was intended as a spoof on Vento's controversial "please speak English" sign or a tribute to what some view as Vento's anti-immigration sentiment depends upon whom you ask. "I couldn't believe what I was watching. Could the Mummers really allow that kind of blatant racism?" said Erica Vanstone, 33, who watched the parade on television at her New Kensington home. "Or, if you don't consider it racism, clearly it's a right-wing, conservative political statement. Is that really needed in the Mummers Parade?" Another parade watcher posted this comment on Philly.com: "The Joey Vento thing one club did was a real disgrace . . . The announcers seemed flustered when they saw that and tried to tone it down."

As the performance unfolded, Channel 17 anchor/parade host Steve Highsmith said, "Oh look, it's Joey Vento standing behind that very controversial sign." Highsmith added, "By the way, [Geno's staff] never turned anyone away who didn't [speak English]." A female commentator on air with Highsmith remarked, "This looks like a celebration of diversity."

When asked about that characterization yesterday, the 69-year-old Vento said, "Diversity? It's a celebration to get a message across that we love immigrants here, we just want you here legally and we want you to speak English."

Last week, Vento donated $40,000 toward the Mummers Parade to help prevent city budget cuts from ending the 108-year-old tradition. Vanstone said she believed Vento's contribution "not only bought him a spot in the parade, but it also purchased a platform from which to wax poetic about his anti-immigrant ideas."

But Vento and Bud Emig, captain of B. Love Strutters, said the idea for the act germinated long before Vento's donation. "He did not buy his way into the parade," Emig said. Emig's brigade, which operates out of Ray's Happy Birthday Bar next to Geno's, had toyed with the idea of doing a take on the "Please speak English" sign for the 2008 Mummers Parade. Ultimately, B. Love Strutters went with a Casino theme. This year the group wanted to do a space-alien theme. They switched gears after learning that another brigade had already taken the idea. Emig said the B. Love Strutters, which is a brigade within the Murray Comic Club, tried to be sensitive to cultural diversity in crafting the performance. "We had Canadians, Germans, Russians," Emig said yesterday. "We are all immigrants. This country is nothing but immigrants. It was about people from all over the world."

The majority of the crowd seemed to love the act; most cheered wildly when Vento popped out. "Maybe the [B. Love Strutters] were saying that Joey Vento is wrong and now Obama is going to come and save everybody," Dignam mused. "Some people, unfortunately, are just looking for a way to be offended." *

Source





4 January, 2009

British government is failing to count the 170,000 extra migrant workers in the UK

Ministers have dramatically under-counted foreign workers in Britain, it emerged last night. Whitehall officials have not bothered to include in official totals temporary workers who flock to this country for jobs such as fruit picking or labouring. The independent House of Commons Library, which carries out research for MPs, said including these workers would add 170,000 to Government estimates. The true figure could be even higher, as migrants living in ' communal establishments', such as boarding houses and hostels, are also excluded, despite this being the favoured accommodation among some short-term workers. Statisticians said they were unable to estimate how many foreign workers could fall into this category. As a minimum, the number of overseas-born workers in the UK is 3,852,000 - or 13 per cent of the total workforce, according to research carried out by the library for Tory MP James Clappison.

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'The Government should get a grip on these figures. Immigration can be of real benefit to the country but only if it is properly controlled, which is blatantly not the case at the moment. Ministers should stop arguing over policy and answer our calls for an annual limit on non-EU immigration as well as transitional controls for future EU immigration.'

It is the latest in a string of corrections to data on the number of foreign workers. Ministers have been accused of deliberately seeking to downplay the true figure. Temporary foreign workers were excluded from the Government's labour force survey (LFS) because they are difficult to keep track of.

The Commons library report said: 'There are two additional (but potentially overlapping) groups of workers not included in LFS estimates; those living in communal establishments, for which there is no estimate, and temporary foreign workers amounting to 170,000. 'In January to March 2008, the LFS estimated that there were 3,682,000 overseas- born individuals in employment - 12.5 per cent of all in employment. If we add an extra 170,000 to the foreign worker total from the LFS, the proportion of all foreign workers increases to 13 per cent.'

Ministers claim they will finally bring migration under control with a points-based system that was introduced last year. But last week the Daily Mail revealed how, according to the Commons library, the policy will reduce an estimated population growth of ten million by as little as 250,000 over the next two decades. It would leave a population of around 70,750,000 by 2031, compared to the current Whitehall prediction of 71million. It is the equivalent of reducing population growth by as little as 2.5 per cent.

Ministers have also been criticised for increasing the number of lowskilled workers from Romania and Bulgaria by 5,000 from January 1, despite the economic downturn. This is likely to lead to a further increase in the number of foreign workers living here under the Seasonal Agricultural Working Scheme.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: 'Over 90 per cent of people working in the UK are UK citizens, not migrants. Temporary migrants come here to fill short-term, often seasonal vacancies. 'The Government's new powerful and flexible points system controls the numbers coming here, taking into account the needs of the labour market and the country as a whole. 'If the tighter rules had been in place last year, close to 10 per cent fewer skilled and temporary migrants from outside the European Economic Area would have been allowed into Britain to work in equivalent categories - around 20,000. 'In addition, low-skilled workers from outside the EU are still barred.'

Source



Guantanamo Detainees fail Australian Immigration Criteria

Australia's government formally rejected Saturday a request by the USA to accept former detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison because they did not meet Australia immigration and security criteria.

Julia Gillard, Australia's Deputy Prime Minister, said the latest request came from the Bush Administration last month and followed a similar request earlier in 2008. Gillard said: ""Clearly when we deal with any movement into this country, we bring to bear very tough national security assessments, very tough character assessments. We will consider any future requests on a case-by-case basis against the stringent criteria".

The US government is desperately trying to find a permanent home for approximately 60 detainees. Out of a total of 250 believed to be still in Guantanamo Bay, around 80 will be charged with war crimes; 100 are believed to still pose some form of security risk, but won't be charged.

President-elect, Barack Obama, has pledged to shut down the detention centre once he takes office and on December 18th Robert Gates, the US Defense Secretary requested his staff put a plan together for closing the facility.

Source





3 January, 2009

The State of America's Borders 2008

If you think the bad economy has "solved" America's immigration problems, welcome to your end-of-the-year reality check. It's certainly true illegal crossings from the south are down and that many foreign workers are returning to their native lands as work dries up. But border chaos, haphazard enforcement, massive backlogs and deportation negligence remain the order of the day.

A half-million citizenship applications have been pending for more than nine months. Some 700,000 illegal alien absconders -- fugitives from deportation like Barack Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango -- are free. An estimated 4-5 million illegal visa overstayers from around the world remain in the country. Both Big Business and left-wing ethnic groups have colluded to prevent an employer verification program for workers' citizenship status from getting implemented nationwide. And the borders are still largely borders in name only.

In June, the White House pushed through a $1.6-billion border security spending plan ... for Mexico and Central America. While our own border fence remains incomplete, taxpayers shelled out for helicopters, surveillance equipment, computer infrastructure, expansion of intelligence databases, anti-corruption initiatives, human rights education and training, and anti-money laundering programs for our southern neighbors. So, how's the so-called Merida Initiative working out?

As terrorized citizens of Mexico will tell you, all hell has broken loose. Corrupt police officials and narco-insurgents have left a horrific trail of beheaded and bullet-ridden bodies in their wake on both sides of the border. Mexican Army incursions into U.S. territory are a regular occurrence. In Monterrey, bandits opened fire and threw a grenade at the U.S. consulate this fall. A top Mexican immigration official was arrested in October carrying about 77 kilos of pot in Arizona. On a single weekend in Tijuana, 40 people were murdered, including nine victims who were decapitated. Two weeks ago, famed American anti-kidnapping negotiator Felix Bautista disappeared from the "relatively safe" northern industrial city of Saltillo in Coahuila state. No word on his whereabouts.

The apocalyptic conditions have prompted some Mexican lawmakers to revisit the country's ban on capital punishment. That's right. Members of the same foreign government that took America to court over our death penalty laws -- and tried to block the state of Texas from executing illegal alien Death Row murderers -- are now open to the idea of imposing the death penalty on the thugs on their own soil. And after years of vehement protests against the United States for its meager attempts at immigration enforcement, Mexico is cracking down hard on illegal Cuban immigrants caught trying to enter the country from the south. They forged an agreement with Cuba to immediately send back illegal aliens -- none of that "undocumented worker" mushiness for them -- and punish human smugglers.

Such lawlessness, Mexico has apparently realized, is a grave threat to its people. Without order, there can be no peace. And chaos, as I've argued endlessly since September 11, is an invitation for those with far more nefarious intentions. Perhaps this is why Mexico slapped a 60-year prison term on a human smuggler who helped some 200 illegal aliens cross into the United States from Mexico -- including Hezbollah supporters. In a little-noticed announcement this month, Mexican prosecutors reported the stiff sentence against Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, a Mexican of Lebanese descent who operated a cafe in Tijuana and smuggled terrorist sympathizers into San Diego. Mucharrafille's accomplice was Imelda Ortiz Abdala, a Mexican foreign service official who helmed the Mexican consulate in Beirut.

No illegal alien demonstrations ensued following the sentencing. No cries of racism and xenophobia clouded the news. No demands for amnesty and open borders arose. One hopes the incoming Obama administration can learn from our neighbors to the south the hard lesson Washington has abandoned since 9/11: Immigration control is a national security issue. Blood-stained reality clarifies the mind.

Source



White working class feels ignored over immigration, says British Leftist boss

Communities secretary Hazel Blears says politicians need to reconnect with this group, as study shows resentment over impact of migration. As the name implies, the Labor party was once the party of the worker so it shows some glimmering of intelligence that someone in the party has rediscovered that group

Many white working-class people across the country feel their concerns about the impact of immigration are being ignored, according to the communities and local government secretary, Hazel Blears. Politicians need to start reconnecting with this group of people, Blears said today, as a study of attitudes to immigration was published finding a widespread sense of resentment, unfairness and disempowerment among white working-class communities in England. "White working-class people living on estates sometimes just don't feel anyone is listening or speaking up for them," Blears said. "Whilst they might not be experiencing the direct impact of migration, their fear of it is acute." It was the responsibility of politicians to challenge the myths about immigration spread by the far right, she said.

A report for the Department for Communities and Local Government based on interviews with people living on estates in Birmingham, Milton Keynes, Thetford, Runcorn and Widnes, found that some people believed that the same rules were not applied to everyone equally. Anecdotal evidence suggested many believed refugees and single mothers were more easily able to find a council house than working-class white people whose families had lived in the area for generations. People taking part in the focus groups said that when white people complained they were told that the system was fair and their concerns were racist.

Blears said that changes in communities could generate unease and uncertainty and needed explaining, otherwise the myths that currently surrounded the treatment of ethnic minorities "jumping the queue" would become harder to shift. The report found that some members of the white working class felt "betrayed" and believed politicians had washed their hands of them. A lack of "open and honest discussion" about the impact of immigration among politicians locally and nationally had created fertile ground for rumours spread by far-right groups about preferential treatment being given to ethnic minorities.

Blears warned that white people's concerns about the effects of immigration should not simply be branded "racist", as this would simply alienate them even more. Citing a "growing sense of unfairness and disempowerment among poor white people", the Communities and Local Government report found that hostility to immigrants was worst in the most deprived estates, as "people who have the least are more likely to be afraid of things being taken away from them".

Few of those questioned had frequent contact with people from ethnic minorities and few of them understood the idea of integration, the report said. Respondents found it difficult to speak openly about their concerns for fear of being branded racist or offending others. Blears said: "People who care about their communities and have lived there for generations have every right to ask questions about what is happening in their estate, street, neighbourhood. "We cannot allow people to exploit situations but where there are legitimate concerns or questions they should be able to express them without fear of being branded a racist when all they really want are answers or information. "The job of politicians and leaders is to listen and respond, to have the very debates that people in these estates are having or we risk losing touch with them altogether. "What the report shows is that there are real complexities around the perceptions held by the white working class and government is keen to look more closely at what can be done to ensure that grievances and misunderstandings are addressed."

A seminar is to be hosted by DCLG ministers in the coming weeks, bringing together government departments, councils and academics to look at how to "bridge the gap" between the authorities and the white working-class communities they serve.

In the past Blears has faced criticism for some of her remarks on immigration but the minister accused her political opponents of taking her comments out of context. Speaking later on the BBC's World at One programme, Blears admitted that the national housing shortage was at the heart of the problem. "People do want to see more housing in this country," she said. "That is a key problem that is causing a lot of the underlying tension with people. "When people have very little they feel insecure then you get myths and rumours peddled by those on the far right and that is what we are trying to prevent." Blears repeatedly dodged suggestions that councils should be instructed to give priority housing to local people but said plans to build more than 1 million new homes should ease the problem.

Labour MP Frank Field, co-chairman of the cross-party group on balanced migration, called on the government to address white working-class worries about immigration. He said: "Hazel Blears says that people on council estates feel ignored. That is exactly our point. And not only on council estates - 80% of the public want to see a substantial reduction in immigration, but the government refuses to address the issue. "No wonder people feel the government is riding roughshod over their wishes, and not only in the poorest areas, which are bearing the brunt of the present massive level of immigration. Unless further action is taken soon, immigration will add nearly 10 million to the population of England in the next 20 years. "If Labour wants to influence the outcome of the next general election, it had better start addressing white working-class concern about immigration, not simply reporting on it."

Responding to Blears's statement, Lady Warsi, the Tories' spokeswoman on community cohesion, said: "What an indictment of New Labour that they have to have an investigation to show that over the last 10 years they have completely lost touch with their so-called roots. "The danger for the rest of us is that this has now created a ticking time bomb of racial and class prejudice. "Amongst other things this has also demonstrated the dangers of Labour's past use of identity politics for electoral purposes. I do hope they take the right lessons from this and not use it as an excuse to go down the line of a new 'white relations industry' now to be built on yet another 'special needs identity'. "This should be a call to focus on the real core problems of worklessness, debt, welfare dependency, family breakdown and drug and alcohol abuse."

Source





2 January, 2009

Many illegal immigrants live in public housing

Untold thousands of illegal immigrants live in public housing at a time when hundreds of thousands of citizens and legal residents are stuck waiting years for a spot. Illegal immigrants make up a tiny portion of the 7.1 million people in federal housing, according to government statistics. But authorities may be unaware of thousands more, and critics say no illegal immigrant should get housing benefits. The issue made headlines in November with news that Zeituni Onyango, an aunt of President-elect Barack Obama, was living in Boston public housing while in the country illegally.

The federal government, which funds the lion's share of the nation's public housing, requires only that illegal immigrants share a home with at least one family member who is in the country legally and pay their share of the rent. While there are no hard numbers on illegal immigrants in public housing, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that 29,570 people - 0.4 percent of all those in federally funded housing - are "ineligible noncitizens." Some may be on temporary visas, such as highly educated workers or college students, but many are believed to be illegal immigrants.

Frank Bean, director of the University of California, Irvine's Center for Research on Immigration, Population and Public Policy, estimates at least half of ineligible noncitizens - or about 15,000 - are illegal immigrants with U.S.-born children. Anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen, making their families eligible for federal housing.

The HUD tally does not offer a full picture of how many illegal immigrants are in public housing. It doesn't include housing funded by state and local governments, where eligibility requirements vary. Massachusetts, where Obama's aunt occupied one of about 50,000 state-funded units, doesn't ask immigration status under a 1977 federal consent decree in a class-action lawsuit that prohibits the state from denying the benefit to illegal immigrants. Other illegal immigrants may live in public housing without notifying authorities. "It seems that the larger concern would be those who we don't know about that may be in the U.S. illegally and living in federal housing, yet never risk presenting themselves to HUD," said Jonathan Graffeo, a spokesman for Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

Some prospective tenants and advocates of immigration restrictions are angry about U.S. citizens waiting for housing aid that some number of illegal immigrants are enjoying. New York City has about 260,000 people in line for housing aid. Chicago recently opened its waiting list for the first time in about 10 years and collected 259,000 names in four weeks for 40,000 slots. "As long as that waiting list includes American citizens or legal immigrants, there's no reason an illegal alien should occupy any of that housing," said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, a group that supports curbs on immigration.

In San Diego, applicants are told they can expect to wait five to seven years. "I don't think we should take a second seat to anyone," said Daryl Ford, who applied for housing aid last year and lives in a San Diego homeless shelter. "We send money to everyone else in the world but we're struggling here."

Some say the costs of illegal immigration in public housing are overstated. Tanya Broder, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, said illegal immigrants are reluctant to seek government benefits because they keep low profiles. Even some legal immigrants shun public housing, fearing reprisals against them or their families, she said. Illegal immigrants get free public education through high school and emergency medical care, but are denied many other services, like food stamps and broad Medicaid coverage......

Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's late father, applied for public housing in 2002 while she was in the country legally seeking asylum from her native Kenya, said Lydia Agro, spokeswoman for the Boston Housing Authority, which has a waiting list of nearly 20,000 people. Onyango moved into federally funded housing in 2003 and stayed there after 2004, when, The Associated Press learned, an immigration judge denied her asylum application and ordered her to leave the country. Onyango transferred to an apartment funded only by the state, which cannot ask about immigration status under the court order. In November, her attorney said she was staying with relatives in Cleveland and would fight her deportation order.

Source



Cops want tougher immigrant policy

Montgomery County [Maryland] police are seeking approval to ask suspects arrested for violent crimes and weapons offenses about their immigration status, an about-face in a county whose leaders for years declined to do so even as police agencies elsewhere in the region began aggressive efforts to identify illegal immigrants. The proposal, developed by Chief J. Thomas Manger and his senior staff, comes after two alleged illegal immigrants were charged in the fatal shooting of a 14-year-old honor student on a county transit bus and after another alleged illegal immigrant was charged in a string of home invasions and the slaying of a 63-year-old Bethesda resident in her home. "All public officials have been receiving questions from citizens who are asking, 'Why are persons who are in the country illegally or unlawfully allowed to remain?' " said Wayne M. Jerman, an assistant police chief.

Jerman said the policy is not ideologically driven. Rather, he said, police officials see immigration violations as another tool to get dangerous criminals off the streets. The proposal will not go into effect without the approval of County Executive Isiah Leggett, who once angrily told a crowd that the county is "not in the business of enforcing immigration issues." Through a spokesman, Leggett declined to comment. It is unclear when he will make a decision.

Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery) said she and other immigrant advocates have met with Leggett to convey their opposition to the policy change. She said it could lead to racial profiling and constitutional violations. "What we are saying is: 'Hold it. You may be going down a slippery, slippery slope,' " she said.

From the opposite perspective, the proposal was also criticized yesterday by Brad Botwin, director of Help Save Maryland, a group that advocates stronger local enforcement of immigration laws. Botwin said he thinks police should inquire about immigration status whenever they detain someone for any reason. The proposal is "not sufficient," he said. "Any time they touch law enforcement, we'd like to know who these people are."

The proposal is being refined, but under a current version, it would kick in when a suspect is arrested in connection with a weapons offense or a violent crime, such as murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, first-degree child abuse, rape or various sex crimes. Jerman said that if the arresting officer thought the suspect was in the country unlawfully, the officer could inquire about immigration status and would be required to refer the matter to federal immigration officials.

As of yesterday, eight of 16 people held in the county jail on murder charges had immigration detainers placed on them, meaning federal authorities might move to deport them after their criminal cases have run their course. Such suspects are not necessarily in the country illegally.

Authorities have said that at least two of the suspects are illegal immigrants whose status went undetected during previous arrests in the county: Gilmar L. Romero and Hector M. Hernandez, alleged gang members charged with first-degree murder in the Nov. 1 shooting death of 14-year-old Tai Lam.

More here





1 January, 2009

Legal immigrants can be deported too

When Veasana Ath got busted for residential burglary in 2004, he had no idea that his future as a U.S. resident was imperiled. Ath came to this country with his family as a toddler. Although he never became a citizen, he never thought he was anything but American. After doing three months in jail, Ath was picked up by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, predecessor to the current Immigration and Customs Enforcement. By the end of the year, he was in Cambodia penniless, with no job, no family or friends and virtually no chance of ever returning home.

The story of Ath and 188 other Cambodian-Americans sent back to their homes has its roots in the 1996 presidential race, the aftermath of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the roiling world of immigration politics. When the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act was passed by Congress in 1996, among its main goals was expelling and stiffening penalties against aliens who overstay visa allowances and improving security against illegal immigration on the borders and internally. The law came in the wake of the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, when immigration was a hot topic in the run-up to the 1996 presidential election.

While the law achieved some its objectives, it also spawned a population of immigrants, green-card holding "lawful permanent residents," who could be more easily deported. One reason for this was a provision in the law that greatly expanded the list of crimes that qualified as "aggravated felonies" that would make aliens deportable. When the category of "aggravated felonies" was first added to immigration law in 1988, it encompassed only murder and trafficking in drugs or firearms. Those crimes along with a number of other violent and sex crimes remain as deportable offenses. But the 1996 law also added dozens of lesser offenses. These can include forgery, burglary, tax evasion, domestic abuse and any attempt to commit an aggravated felony. A number of crimes make aliens deportable if the sentence is a year or more, regardless of time served or whether the sentence was suspended. It even includes crimes that are misdemeanors in some states.

The legislation also reduced leeway for judges to consider providing relief. Issues such as immigration status, time lived in the U.S., existence of family who are citizens, ties to the community, or service to the U.S., including military, are not considered. Whether this was an intended consequence depends on to whom you talk. But the fallout has been substantial. According to a Human Rights Watch report in July 2007, deportation of legal immigrants convicted of crimes "has separated an estimated 1.6 million children and adults, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents from their non-citizen family members."

It has hit hard in the Cambodian-American community in Long Beach since 2002, when Cambodia began accepting deportees. Nationally, 189 Cambodians have been sent back since repatriation began. Another 1,700 are under deportation orders that can be carried out at any time. And it is believed a similar number may be eligible for deportation but have not been apprehended or charged. Only Cambodia's slow and deliberate process of accepting returnees keeps many of the local Cambodians from being removed more quickly. Many have been under deportation orders for years awaiting Cambodia's decisions.

Cambodians constitute a tiny portion of the overall number of deported aliens. In fiscal year 2008, 349,041 aliens were returned to their native countries, up from 288,663 in 2007. Of more than 111,711 criminal removals in 2008, according to ICE records, 30 percent were for "dangerous drugs" and 17 percent for violent crimes. Immigration officials have a different take on their role in splitting families. "We don't separate families," said Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for ICE. "We enforce the law."

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, who represents coastal portions of Long Beach, puts the onus on the families. "The only families being separated are those who don't want to stay with the loved one," Rohrabacher said. "They can go back to that country, there are no restrictions on that. "Early on I bought into the idea (of the hardship of splitting families.) But after looking at the reality, I found it to be a false premise."

Kice says the immigrants who break laws that make them deportable are the ones responsible for splitting families. "The vast majority of legal immigrants who come here adhere to the laws,"' Kice says. She wonders why "it becomes ICE's fault that these people came and made bad decisions."

Rohrabacher says the U.S. does its part by offering residency in the first place, but can't be responsible if the aliens commit felonies. "When someone comes (to the United States) legally, they sign a contract that they will obey laws," Rohrabacher says.

That explanation doesn't fly with some in the legal profession, who say deportation for minor crimes often outweighs the offense. John Hall, a professor at Chapman University who teaches international law and has visited Cambodia, says "The issue is legal proportion." "I see no benefit in splitting a family with U.S. citizen children and those citizen children having to grow up without loving parents, and the human consequences of that," said Yunie Hong, an attorney with Legal Aid who specializes in immigration law. "I feel people don't understand the human face behind the immigrant question. If people really knew what happened to people as a result, families, the children, the horrors people suffered in their home countries and the horrors faced coming here may think twice."

Rohrabacher says criminals have themselves to blame.

More here



RI: Judge dismisses ACLU suit over traffic stop

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union that challenged the detention of 14 Guatemalan nationals for possible immigration violations after the van they were in was stopped by a state trooper for a minor traffic infraction on Route 95 in Richmond. All turned out to be in the United States illegally. The ACLU said yesterday it will appeal.

U.S. District Judge Mary Lisi ruled that Thomas Chabot acted lawfully during the July 11, 2006, stop, in which the trooper asked passengers in a van for identification, then sought proof of citizenship among the people who had no ID, and then contacted immigration officials when most could not provide the information. The driver, Carlos E. Tamup, who was not wanted and turned out to have a valid driver's license and registration, was stopped, according to Chabot, for changing lanes without using a turn signal. Tamup had to act as a translator for many of the occupants.

ACLU Director Steven Brown said the organization will appeal because "this was a classic case of racial profiling" when the state bans the practice.

Judge Lisi, in a 20-page decision available on the ACLU's Web site (riaclu.org), rejected claims that the stop was tainted, that the driver should not have been repeatedly searched, and that the trooper had no business acting on his suspicions that the passengers in the van were illegal aliens. She said a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case found that "an officer did not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status during the execution of a search warrant," and the rule applied in this case as well. Inquiring about a person's name, date and place of birth, or immigration status does not constitute unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, she said.

Lisi said the trooper had a right to inquire about immigration status after all but four of the occupants of the van "had failed to provide any identification and Chabot's suspicions reasonably escalated." She said that under two Supreme Court decisions, "It is permissible for officers to inquire into the immigration status of individuals without triggering the Fourth Amendment or requiring independent reasonable suspicion." The men in the van said they were going to work in Westerly, and immigration was contacted only after learning that most people in the van lacked documentation.

"Based on how events unfolded, Officer Chabot's attention and his suspicion shifted from the original traffic citation to other concerns, namely to potential violations of federal immigration law. Such a shift in focus is neither unusual nor impermissible," the judge ruled. According to the decision, the trooper then contacted the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which instructed state police to bring the group to ICE headquarters in Providence.

Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch issued a statement yesterday focusing on the fact that Chabot was acting under the instruction of ICE. "While the law enforcement community is sensitive to and must remain sensitive to immigration issues, they must also be able to do their jobs," said Lynch.

The suit, filed on behalf of 11 of the van's occupants, argued that the state violated the Racial Profiling Prevention Act and that discrimination played a role in the traffic stop and subsequent events. Brown said state law prohibits the continued detention of vehicles during traffic stops unless there is a suspicion of criminal activity. In a statement, the organization said Lisi's ruling "does not explain what suspected criminal activity was involved, since [a] mere presence in the country illegally is not a crime."

The ACLU has also argued that Tamup, the driver, had been subjected to repeated pat-down searches, which were improper. The trooper, Lisi argued, "had reasonable suspicion to believe that [the people in the van] had violated federal immigration law" and Chabot had no way of knowing whether anyone in the van posed a threat - since they had no identification - and whether some type of weapon had been exchanged during the time he was away from the van making checks. "Under the totality of the circumstances that confronted him," the judge said, "Chabot's pat-down searches of Tamup were justified and therefore pass constitutional muster."

Source