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

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



30 June, 2011

Mexifornia, Quite Literally!

By Victor Davis Hanson

“I love this country, it has given me everything that I have, and I’m proud to be part of it,” said Victor Sanchez, a 37-year-old Monrovia resident wearing a Mexico jersey. “But yet, I didn’t have a choice to come here, I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be.”

That’s a quote from an LA Times story on the booing of the U.S. soccer team by an overwhelmingly Latino audience during a U.S.–Mexico match at the Rose Bowl. Examine the odd logic: Mr. Sanchez is booing the country that gave him “everything” while cheering the country that apparently gave him very little. “I didn’t have a choice to come here,” he says; one immediately thinks, “But you most certainly do have a choice to return to the nation where your ‘heart will always be.’” Can Mr. Sanchez not even offer symbolic thanks to the country that blessed him, perhaps a clap or two at the Rose Bowl when the United States is mentioned? And if the immigration service arrived at the Rose Bowl to bus spectators without legality back to Mexico, where his “heart will always be,” would he boo or cheer?

He reminds me of a former student who, during the anti–Prop 187 marches years ago, was marching with a group waving Mexican flags — that is, the flag of the country he did not wish to return to, as a Mexican national — but desecrating the flag of the United States, the country that he most certainly wished to remain in.

That schizophrenia is what confuses so many about illegal immigration — the simultaneous furor over even the suggestion of compliance with federal immigration law and the occasional symbolic expressions of dislike for the United States in public fora, whether booing at the Rose Bowl at mention of America, or walking out of a California high school en masse at the sight of an American-flag T-shirt on Cinco de Mayo.

When a foreign nation is treated as the home team, and when the home team is booed in the Rose Bowl, I think we can see why the entire open-borders, non-enforcement, ‘La Raza’ paradigm of tribal chauvinism based on ethnic solidarity has been proven an abject failure — summed up by one word, “hypocrisy.” Of course, if America asks nothing of the would-be immigrant — no legality upon entrance, no knowledge of the English language or American customs, no proof of autonomy and independence from government entitlement — then tens of thousands of American residents booing the very mention of America is logical and would, of course, continue until and unless fundamental ideas about illegal immigration, assimilation, and national identity change.

SOURCE






The joke of 'secure Britain

Britain's powerlessness to control who has the right to be in this country was glaringly exposed last night by two extraordinary cases. In the first, an anti-Semitic preacher of hate whom the Home Secretary had banned from entering Britain was able to stroll in through Heathrow.

Last night, Raed Salah was giving a lecture organised by Islamist radicals to a large crowd in Leicester, and today he was due to speak at Westminster at the invitation of Left-wing Labour MPs.

In the second, a bombshell ruling by European judges blocked the deportation of some 200 Somali criminals back to their homeland. The Strasbourg court said the men, including drug dealers and serial burglars, might be persecuted in war-torn Somalia, and that they must be allowed to stay to protect their human rights.

So, irrespective of how heinous their crimes or the danger they present to the public, Britain has no power to expel them.

The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights stemmed from appeals against deportation by two asylum seekers convicted of a string of serious offences including burglary, making threats to kill and drug dealing. But it will now also apply to 214 other similar cases which have been lodged with the court using Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, is an 'absolute' right, meaning that it applies regardless of the offences committed.

The two men, who were both granted thousands in legal aid to fight their cases, will now be released from immigration detention centres and will be free to walk the streets. They were jointly awarded more than £20,000 for costs and expenses.

Critics accused the Government of rolling over to the demands of the court, and branded the Human Rights Act a 'criminals' charter'.

Backbench Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: 'The pathetic truth is that we do not have control over our borders, and these cases quite clearly show that we do not control not only who comes in to the country but who we choose to remove.

'My constituents do not want any more mealy-mouthed promises about getting a grip on this – they want to know what the Government is actually going to do. 'Successive governments have given all the promises on immigration you would expect of a second-hand car salesman. Ministers now need to start actually delivering on real promises and real control over our borders.'

UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten said: 'It is the absolute duty of the British Government to protect the lives and property of British citizens. 'If foreign nationals prey on people here they should be sent home to where they came from – no ifs, no buts.'

He added: 'For the European Court of Human Rights to give Britain orders is bad enough; knowing that the Government will roll over to their demands is worse. 'This decision confirms that the Human Rights Act is a criminals' charter.'

The case involves two Somalis whom ministers intended to return to the Somali capital, Mogadishu, because of their serial offending.

Abdisamad Adow Sufi, 24, entered the country illegally in 2003 using a fake passport. He claimed asylum on the grounds that he belonged to a minority clan persecuted by the Somali militia. His claim was rejected by officials and an appeal tribunal said his account was 'not credible'.

Since then he has amassed a string of convictions for offences including burglary, fraud, making threats to kill, indecent exposure and theft.

The second Somali, drug addict Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi, 42, was granted asylum in 1988. Since then he has committed crimes including handling stolen goods, fraud, robbery, carrying a replica gun, perverting the course of justice, theft and dealing heroin and cocaine.

Attempts to deport him began in 2006 and his appeal was rejected by an immigration judge. A deportation order was stayed in 2007 pending the outcome of his Strasbourg case, and since then he has been convicted of possessing Class A drugs and charged with drug dealing.

The panel of seven judges ruled that because the level of violence in Mogadishu was so high there was a real risk of the men coming to harm. In a unanimous judgment, the court also rejected the argument the men could leave the capital and return to safer parts of the country.

The judges said Sufi could not join his relatives because they lived in an area controlled by a strict Islamic group. If returned, he could face punishment according to their code – also a breach of his rights. He would also be particularly vulnerable if forced to live in a refugee camp because of his 'psychiatric illness', the court said.

Elmi claimed he would be at risk of persecution if he moved to an area controlled by the same group, because he wore an earring, which might lead to them thinking he was gay. If they found out he was a drug addict and thief he could face amputation, public flogging or execution, he said.

The court ruled he had no experience of living in a strict Islamic area because he has been in this country for so long and would therefore be at risk of harm. The ruling said: 'The court reiterated that the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was absolute, irrespective of the victims' conduct. 'Consequently, the applicants' behaviour, however undesirable or dangerous, could not be taken into account.'

The case will seriously hamper further attempts by ministers to deport foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants back to Somalia. Last year just 35 were kicked out.

Around two thirds of the 214 other cases are thought to involve criminals. Others are failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

A UK Border Agency spokesman said: 'We are very disappointed with the European Court's decision and are considering our legal position. 'This judgment does not stop us continuing to pursue the removal of foreign criminals who commit a serious crime, nor does it find that all Somalis are in need of international protection.'

SOURCE



29 June, 2011

Judge blocks key parts of Georgia immigration law

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday temporarily blocking key provisions of a new Georgia law that aims to crack down on illegal immigration, while allowing other parts of the law to move forward. Most of the law, known as HB 87, was scheduled to go into effect Friday.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr.'s ruling blocks enforcement of two of the most controversial sections of the law. "State and local law enforcement officers and officials have no authorization to arrest, detain or prosecute anyone based upon sections 7 and 8 of HB 87 while this injunction remains in effect," Thrash ruled.

Those sections would allow police to inquire about immigration status when questioning suspects in certain criminal investigations. They also would punish people who, during the commission of a crime, knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants. Something like speeding or driving without proper equipment could constitute a crime.

"The apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia," Thrash wrote.

In his 45-page ruling, the judge cited a previous court decision that said preliminary injunctions were in the public interest "when civil rights are at stake." He also wrote that state officials were attempting to overstep federal authority on immigration enforcement.

"I'm very happy, as are all those who believe the Constitution is important," said Charles Kuck, an Atlanta attorney whose firm represented some of the plaintiffs. He said the stayed provisions were poorly written and that it was unclear how they would have been enforced, if allowed to move forward.

Although the ruling was hailed as a victory by the plaintiffs, Thrash also tossed out a number of their arguments at the state's request, a point stressed by Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens soon after the decision. "I appreciate the speed with which Judge Thrash ruled, given the complexity of the issues. I am pleased with the dismissal of the 4th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 'Right to Travel,' and Georgia constitutional claims by the plaintiffs -- even after this ruling, 21 of the 23 sections of HB 87 will go into effect as planned," Olens wrote in a statement.

A part of the law that will still go into effect is a provision that workers convicted of using fake identification to get jobs could be sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined $250,000. The law will also require people applying for public benefits to provide certain types of identification.

Olens said his office will appeal the judge's ruling regarding sections 7 and 8.

The office of Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, which supports the law, also weighed in on the judge's ruling. "Beyond refusing to help with our state's illegal immigration problem, the federal government is determined to be an obstacle. The state of Georgia narrowly tailored its immigration law to conform with existing federal law and court rulings," said Brian Robinson, the governor's deputy chief of staff for communications. "Georgians can rest assured that this battle doesn't end here."

The Georgia lawsuit is the latest battle in a nationwide skirmish between state and federal officials over who controls immigration enforcement.

Arizona's controversial law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration catapulted the issue onto the national stage last year, drawing a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice, which argues the law is unconstitutional.

In April, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Justice Department and against Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed Arizona's law last year. Brewer announced last month that the state would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

SOURCE






Dems Push Ahead With DREAM Act, as ICE Offers New Guidelines for Illegal Immigrant Cases

Sen. Dick Durbin plans to make a full-court press Tuesday to revive the debate over a controversial proposal to give illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children a path to legal status, as the Obama administration moves on a separate track to grant what some describe as "amnesty" to the same group.

Durbin, D-Ill., in announcing the first-ever Senate hearing on the so-called DREAM Act, said his proposal would "make our country stronger." Under the plan, which passed the House last year but died in the Senate, illegal immigrants who came here as children and complete two years of college or military service could earn legal status.

Several top administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, plan to testify before Durbin's subcommittee. The hearing and a recent memo from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement suggest officials are moving on two fronts to give illegal immigrant students a chance at staying.

The memo issued June 17 from ICE Director John Morton instructs staff to consider 19 factors when exercising "prosecutorial discretion" -- or the discretion an ICE attorney has in deciding whether and how to pursue or dismiss an immigration case.

The factors include how long an illegal immigrant has been in the United States as well as their criminal history. But the list also includes factors similar to those in the DREAM Act -- like whether the suspect arrived in the U.S. as a "young child," whether the suspect is pursuing an education, and whether the suspect has served in the military.

The memo made clear that certain factors -- like whether a suspect came to the U.S. as a child -- should weigh in their favor, while other factors -- like a criminal history -- should weigh against them.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, decried the new set of instructions, describing it as a gift to DREAM Act proponents. Though Durbin is pushing anew to pass the legislation, the now GOP-controlled House is unlikely to approve any such bill, even if it clears the Senate.

"By administrative fiat, they are achieving a grand-scale amnesty for large classes of illegal aliens that they have been unable to accomplish with the stalled DREAM Act legislation," FAIR said in a statement last week.

But the ICE memo falls in line with an effort by the Obama administration to prioritize immigration cases, so that illegal immigrant criminals are typically deported while those not accused of serious crimes are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ICE statistics show that during the Obama administration, the number of removals for non-criminal illegal immigrants has gone down while the number of removals for illegal immigrant criminals has gone up.

ICE spokesman Brian Hale said the agency is trying to make the most of "limited resources" by going after the most dangerous illegal immigrants.

"The directive clearly states that the exercise of discretion is inappropriate in cases involving threats to public safety, national security and other agency priorities," he said.

Another ICE official said the agency has to set "sensible priorities" given that it receives a set amount of money from Congress with which to remove "a limited number of individuals."

The official said the administration is "doing more to keep criminal aliens who are threats to public safety -- including murderers, rapists and child molesters -- off our streets than ever before," as well as targeting employers who break immigration law.

ICE last week touted a series of raids in May that resulted in the arrest of 2,400 illegal immigrant criminals nationwide.

Hector Sanchez, director of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, cheered the administration for trying to make violent illegal immigrants the priority for deportation. He also said Latino voters are "very aware" that both parties have fallen short on addressing immigration reform.

As a backdrop, a recent Latino Decisions poll listed immigration as the top concern facing Hispanics. Census figures also show Hispanics changing the electoral map -- by 2012, they'll compose one-fifth of the vote in Texas and one-quarter in California.

The latest ICE memo comes as the Houston Chronicle reported Monday on a string of internal memos from an ICE official in Houston last August that ordered attorneys to dismiss immigration cases that did not meet the "top priorities" of the agency. Though the Houston guidance was later rescinded and the agency said they "exceeded" ICE's official guidance, the Chronicle reported that Houston's office was praised internally by ICE supervisors in Washington at the time until the dismissals became public.

SOURCE



28 June, 2011

‘Sheriff Joe’ orders AZ deputies to question undocumented immigrants about wildfires

Deputies in Arizona's Maricopa County arrested 20 immigrants making their way from Mexico to the U.S. last week, and detained them for questioning about the wildfires plaguing Arizona.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the infamously tough "Sheriff Joe," released a statement about the arrests, which occurred near the border where the wildfires blazed.

“It’s a long shot I know,” Arpaio said. “But since we already gather information from them about their U.S. entry points and traveling routes and methods, this is simply one more area of intelligence to explore that may help us to determine the origins of these fires.“

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has been criticized for the last week because he blamed undocumented immigrants as the cause of the fires.

"There is substantial evidence that some of these fires are caused by people who have crossed our border illegally,” he said at a press conference last Saturday. “They have set fires because the want to signal others. They have set fires to keep warm and they have set fires in order to divert law enforcement agents and agencies from them.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Az) backed him, up, saying "he is correct."

U.S. Forest Service officials have directly discredited McCain and Kyl's claims. Tom Berglund, the Forest Service official in charge of the Wallow blaze, told ABC News that it has been classified as an "escaped campfire." Asked if there was substantial evidence linking illegal immigrants and the fire, Berglund said, "Absolutely not, at this level." "There's no evidence that I'm aware, no evidence that's been public, indicating such a thing," he said.

SOURCE




Population in the UK will hit 70m even earlier than feared thanks to 'immigrant baby boom'

Runaway migration will drive the UK population above 70million in 15 years – three years earlier than previously predicted. In 2009 official estimates predicted it would take 20 years to reach this landmark level, a figure the Prime Minister has said the nation must not reach. But the latest calculation suggests it could hit 70.4million in 2026, placing huge pressure on public services and housing.

The projection was compiled by the House of Commons library after questions by Tory MP James Clappison. It assumes net migration - the difference between numbers arriving and leaving - remained around its current record level of 240,000 a year. Ministers pledged to cut it to the 'tens of thousands' by 2015.

Two-thirds of the population rise is due to immigration, including an 'immigrant baby boom' caused by higher-than-average birth rates among migrant mothers.

Commentators said the analysis shows the 'absolute necessity' of cutting the number of migrants coming here.

It shows the population, now thought to be around 62.8million, will rise to 65million in 2016, 67million in 2020 and 69million in 2024. The vast majority of the population increase would be in England. Today's figures show that even if net migration fell to an average of 180,000 a year, the population will hit 70million in 2029.

Immigration Minister Damian Green insisted net migration would fall to below 100,000 a year. 'We are fixing the broken immigration system. 'Our reforms will bring net migration down to the tens of thousands.'

SOURCE



27 June, 2011

Judge Blocks Parts of Indiana Immigration Law

In February, Indiana passed an illegal immigration bill that would allow local police to ask individuals for proof of citizenship after committing a crime.

A Senate panel heard more than four hours of testimony on a bill that Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, the bill's author, said would "put teeth into existing law — to say the citizens of Indiana welcome legal immigration but adamantly reject illegal immigration."

It would do so in part by having law enforcement officers ask for proof of citizenship or legal immigration status from anyone they stop for violating any law or ordinance, if those officers have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is not here legally.

"The inability to speak the English language, I believe, will be a key component or a key factor for law enforcement to establish reasonable suspicion," Delph told the committee.

Yesterday, thanks to the ACLU, a federal judge blocked important parts of the bill, citing immigration is a federal issue.

A federal judge blocked parts of Indiana's new immigration law Friday, saying the law was the latest failed effort of states to deal with a primarily federal issue.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker granted a request for an injunction blocking two provisions of the law, which was approved this year by Republicans who control the Statehouse.

A federal judge blocked parts of Indiana's new immigration law Friday, saying the law was the latest failed effort of states to deal with a primarily federal issue.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker granted a request for an injunction blocking two provisions of the law, which was approved this year by Republicans who control the Statehouse.

Barker wrote in the ruling that Indiana's law -- as well as laws enacted in several other states -- is an attempt to deal with what is seen as a failure of the federal government to deal with illegal immigration. She said the two provisions of Indiana's effort to deal with immigration "have proven to be seriously flawed and generally unsuccessful."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the National Immigration Law Center sued the state in May.

"We are gratified that the court recognized that Indiana has no place in making immigration policy and we are happy that the constitutional rights of Indiana residents have been vindicated," said Ken Falk, an attorney with the ACLU of Indiana.

According the the ACLU, illegal immigrants have Constitutional rights on the taxpayers dime at a rate of billions of dollars per year. Considering Arizona, Utah, Georgia, Indiana and Alabama have all passed legislation dealing with the illegal immigration issue on their own, with up to 20 states considering similar legislation, the ACLU is going to have its hands full.

SOURCE






Illegals leaving Georgia already

An entire wall at Village Wash and Dry Lavanderia on Atlanta Highway is filled with clothes dryers. But on a drizzling Thursday afternoon, only one is occupied with tumbling clothes.

A telenovela from a wall-mounted television is a distraction from the emptiness as Araceli Galuan, 29, folds her children's T-shirts.

"Before, in this laundromat, there used to be so many people, but now ..." Her voice trails off while a translator explains that Galuan, who came to Gainesville 13 years ago with her family from Guanajuato, sees a big difference in her adopted community since Georgia lawmakers this year passed an aggressive bill that targeted illegal immigrants.

Unless a federal judge agrees this week to temporarily block it, many of the provisions of Georgia's Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011 are set to go into effect Friday.

The bill is Georgia lawmakers' effort at stemming the amount of taxpayer dollars spent providing medical care to illegal immigrants or processing them in the state's judicial system.

But its constitutionality has been called into question by civil rights groups who have sued the state over some of the law's provisions, claiming it violates federal protections from unwarranted search and seizure.

The American Civil Liberties Union has also asked a federal judge to block the state from enforcing its new anti-illegal immigration law until the matter is decided in court.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Thrash has promised that if he issues that requested injunction, he will do so before Friday when the law is set to go into effect.

Barring that decision, as of Friday, local law enforcement will have the authority to check suspects' immigration status and arrest anyone found to be here illegally.

But members of Hall County's Latino community say a lot of people aren't waiting around for the ruling. Many are leaving, they say, and fear is filling the spaces left behind.

At Carniceria Tapatia, a Latino grocery store on Browns Bridge Road, Noe Covarrubias notices the impact that the law, House Bill 87, has already had on Hall County's once-thriving Latino community. "It's a ghost town," Covarrubias said.

Three years ago, Atlanta Highway, the arterial route through Gainesville's Latino commercial community, was so filled with cars that it was difficult for a pedestrian to cross, business owner Jose Luis Diaz recalls. "Today — now — you can cross with your eyes closed," Diaz said.

Hall County, with its ample poultry processing facilities and once-booming housing industry, has for years been an attractive destination for immigrants from Mexico and Central America.

Census figures show that between 2000 and 2010, Hall County's accounted-for Latino population grew by 72 percent, attracting so many immigrants it was one of the first counties in the state that federal immigration officials tapped to participate in the 287(g) program.

Since 2008, the local-federal partnership has allowed local officers to begin deportation proceedings for any arrestee who is brought to the county jail and determined to be in the country illegally.

And though community members say that partnership had its effect on the Latino population of Hall County, they say it's nothing compared to the fear House Bill 87 has inflicted on the community.

"I have never seen such a state of terror," said Father Jaime Barona, the leader of a largely-Latino congregation at Gainesville's St. Michael Catholic Church. "The people are trembling."

Almost daily, Barona says members of his congregation come to him with worries about family members who were deported. He tells of a seventh-grade girl, in the country legally, who had to move back to Mexico away from her family and way of life after her father was deported.

Like the groups that have filed suit against Georgia's efforts, Barona says Georgia's new anti-illegal immigration law invites racial profiling mostly targeted at Latinos. He takes the criticism a step further, saying the bill invites local law enforcement to "hunt" illegal immigrants and "corral" them like cattle.

"What they don't remember is that when the economy was pretty good, the immigrants worked in this county more than anyone else," Barona said. "The immigrants opened businesses. The immigrants came to Hall County and helped to build this county for the past 15 years. They don't remember that."

More HERE



26 June, 2011

David Cameron has claimed victory in blocking an attempt by Brussels to soften current asylum laws

The Prime Minister joined forces with Germany to force EU leaders to maintain the existing immigration rules, which allow countries to send failed asylum seekers back to the first European country in which they arrived.

The law change would have allowed illegal immigrants to make their way across Europe to Britain before claiming asylum.

Mr Cameron’s priority at the EU summit on Friday was to ensure Britain was not drawn into the second bail-out of Greece, but the Prime Minister was also concerned about changes to Europe’s border policy.

The Mediterranean countries of Greece, Italy and Malta, in particular, are battling to deal with a flood of immigrants. The “Arab Spring” crisis in north Africa and Libya has exacerbated the problem.

José Manuel Barroso, the European commission president, had hoped to amend the “Dublin regulation” which would prevent asylum seekers being sent back to certain named countries.

However, Mr Cameron blocked the plans to alter the immigration system. “I was worried before this European Council about potential proposals to suspend the Dublin arrangements that allow us to return asylum seekers to the countries from which they have come,” said Mr Cameron at the summit. “I’m glad to report that Britain and Germany together made sure that those proposals aren’t even referred to in any way in the Council conclusions.”

Mr Cameron’s stand followed a ruling from the European court of human rights which said that it was wrong to send failed asylum seekers back to Greece because of the state of its reception centres.

The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, has described the situation in Greece for migrants and asylum seekers as a “humanitarian crisis.” Greece approved only 11 out of the first 30,000 asylum applications received in 2010. The asylum backlog currently stands at around 47,000 cases.

More than one million people have fled Libya since the conflict began. Frontex, the EU border agency, estimates that 48,000 have already arrived in the EU.

Up to 50,000 immigrants are expected to arrive in Italy in the coming months, with up to 1,500 people dying at sea while trying to make the precarious journey to Europe.

“Britain is not in the Schengen area, we are not going to be joining the Schengen area,” said Mr Cameron. “We have by and large proper and sustainable borders and I want us to have proper and sustainable border controls.”

Under the Schengen Agreement, citizens in 25 mainland European Union (EU) nations are allowed to travel across borders without having their passports checked.

Tensions have risen over the fleeing migrants after Italy handed more than 25,000 Tunisians temporary permits to travel, effectively giving them unobstructed travel around the 25 EU nations. The UK and Ireland are not part of the Schengen agreement.

SOURCE






British PM has finally woken up to the disaster that is immigration. But he's left it too late

There are moments in the life of a government when the penny finally drops. When ministers realise a policy in an important area isn’t working and isn’t likely to either.

That moment has come for the Conservatives in relation to a subject their leader was much too keen to avoid in opposition: mass immigration and its deeply worrying implications.

David Cameron always feared his party being labelled ‘nasty’ if he mentioned immigration too much in the party’s botched general election campaign last year. Indeed, he avoided it until the last of the three televised leaders’ debates. Only then did he speak with clarity and conviction about it, but by that point it was far too late to persuade voters that he was seriously prepared to tackle the problem of our open borders.

But once in Downing Street, Cameron was confronted by research from his personal pollster, Andrew Cooper, which confirmed the true extent of public concern about high levels of immigration.

Ironically, Cooper was one of the very modernisers in the Tory Party who did not want Cameron to be tainted — as he saw it — by being seen as tough on immigration in the run-up to the election.

But now he has changed his tune — and taken the Prime Minister along with him. In fact, Cooper has recently become messianic on the subject, telling colleagues in recent weeks that the Government’s failure to reduce the numbers of immigrants flocking to Britain will badly damage Cameron’s reputation.

And as the problem worsens, the electorate will only get more angry, jeopardising the Prime Minister’s dreams of a second term.

It speaks volumes that voters’ concerns about immigration should come as a revelation to some in No.10, when for years it has been obvious to millions outside the Westminster village that Britain’s loss of control of its borders has been a disaster of historic proportions.

Labour’s criminally reckless open-door policy has meant more than 5.2 million immigrants arriving on our shores since 1997. When the departures of those moving abroad are taken into account, it has left the foreign-born population in the UK an incredible 3.2 million higher.

Future historians will be astonished that a once-great country subjected itself to such a sudden and socially unsustainable rise in population.

And what is worrying Downing Street is whether they can do anything about it. Under pressure from Tory MPs to say something about immigration in the run-up to the election, Cameron committed himself to reducing net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’.

But it is becoming horrifyingly clear that Cameron will not manage to get immigration below even 100,000 a year at the present rate of progress.

The Migration Observatory at Oxford University calculated this week that around 165,000 immigrants will still be arriving every year come 2015. The latest figures for the year to last September showed immigration actually going up, with 242,000 net arrivals.

Of course, a sensible amount of immigration would aid the dynamism of the economy, with talented people from abroad opting to come and work here. But that is not what has happened.

At the current astonishing rates of growth, the independent Office for National Statistics now estimates that the British population will rise from 61.8 million today to more than 70 million in 2026 — three years earlier than it has hitherto forecast. And a staggering 68 per cent of the rise will be attributable to immigration.

To put that in perspective, it is the equivalent of adding eight cities the size of Birmingham to the UK in just 15 years. Our leaders have no idea where all these new citizens are going to be housed nor how the already failing school system and struggling NHS are going to cope with them. Already, as we heard this week, a million children in British schools have English as their second language.

Inside Government, this is all causing something approaching panic. One worried minister described immigration to me as ‘the iceberg’ that could eventually sink the Government. There is also mounting concern that the welfare reforms simply won’t work if immigration continues at its current pace.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is implementing a programme to get some of the five million on benefits fit for work, but he is worried that migration could render it largely ineffective.

Unsurprisingly, many businesses prefer to employ ambitious, hardworking incomers rather than long-term unemployed Britons. This has meant that nine out of ten new jobs go to migrants.

If the flow of fresh arrivals continues, the fear is that bosses will continue to choose them rather than help get Britons off benefits.

What an appalling mess. A PM who could have won a majority had he focused more in the election campaign on immigration and other traditional Tory topics such as crime, controls on the welfare state and education reform now belatedly accepts the full seriousness of the situation.

His problem is that he is in coalition with the pro-immigration Lib Dems, who are hampering attempts to bring the situation back under control. The Tory Home Office minister Damian Green is trying to get the numbers down with a cap on work permits for those coming in from abroad. But the Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable has insisted that controls should not apply to vast swathes of workers — which makes it difficult to hit the target for reductions. The PM’s hands are tied in other ways too. First, there is Europe. Free movement within the EU means its citizens have a right to come here.

Even if there were to be a flood of Greek or Portuguese fleeing the meltdown of their Eurozone economies, there is nothing we could do to stop them.

Then there is the Human Rights Act. The Daily Mail reported last week that there are 3,200 criminals, failed asylum seekers and benefit tourists who cannot be kicked out because of their right to a family life. A Bolivian even said he couldn’t be forced to leave because he has a British cat. A Sri Lankan thief won the right to stay because he has a girlfriend here.

Even if the PM tried to repeal the Human Rights Act, he couldn’t. The Lib Dems wouldn’t allow it.

Cameron could try to crack down hard on the biggest source of immigration, the 75 per cent or so who come here from outside the EU. He could opt for much tougher measures on work permits, sham marriages, bogus students and by heavily fining companies who employ any of the one million illegal immigrants. But again, Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems wouldn’t have it.

Perhaps one day a British leader will be prepared to opt out of the EU’s free movement directives and to properly police our borders. But don’t hold your breath for David Cameron to do it. Tragically, it simply isn’t going to happen under this pantomime horse of a Coalition Government.

SOURCE



25 June, 2011

Census: Whites in minority among new births

For the first time, minorities make up a majority of babies in the U.S., part of a sweeping race change and a growing age divide between mostly white, older Americans and predominantly minority youths that could reshape government policies.

Preliminary census estimates also show the share of African-American households headed by women -- mostly single mothers -- now exceeds African-American households with married couples, a sign of declining U.S. marriages overall but also of continuing challenges for black youths without involved fathers.

The findings, based on the latest government data, offer a preview of final 2010 census results being released this summer that provide detailed breakdowns by age, race and householder relationships.

Demographers say the numbers provide the clearest confirmation yet of a changing social order, one in which racial and ethnic minorities will become the U.S. majority by midcentury. "We're moving toward an acknowledgment that we're living in a different world than the 1950s, where married or two-parent heterosexual couples are now no longer the norm for a lot of kids, especially kids of color," said Laura Speer, coordinator of the Kids Count project for the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation.

"It's clear the younger generation is very demographically different from the elderly, something to keep in mind as politics plays out on how programs for the elderly get supported," she said. "It's critical that children are able to grow to compete internationally and keep state economies rolling."

Currently, non-Hispanic whites make up just under half of all children 3 years old, which is the youngest age group shown in the Census Bureau's October 2009 annual survey, its most recent. In 1990, more than 60 percent of children in that age group were white.

William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution who analyzed the data, said figures in the 2009 survey can sometimes be inexact compared with the 2010 census, which queries the entire nation. But he said when factoring in the 2010 data released so far, minorities outnumber whites among babies under age 2.

The preliminary figures are based on an analysis of the Current Population Survey as well as the 2009 American Community Survey, which sampled 3 million U.S. households to determine that whites made up 51 percent of babies younger than 2. After taking into account a larger-than-expected jump in the minority child population in the 2010 census, the share of white babies falls below 50 percent.

Twelve states and the District of Columbia now have white populations below 50 percent among children under age 5 -- Hawaii, California, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Maryland, Georgia, New Jersey, New York and Mississippi. That's up from six states and the District of Columbia in 2000.

At current growth rates, seven more states could flip to "minority-majority" status among small children in the next decade: Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, South Carolina and Delaware.

By contrast, whites make up the vast majority of older Americans -- 80 percent of seniors 65 and older and roughly 73 percent of people ages 45-64. Many states with high percentages of white seniors also have particularly large shares of minority children, including Arizona, Nevada, California, Texas and Florida.

"The recent emergence of this cultural generation gap in states with fast growth of young Hispanics has spurred heated discussions of immigration and the use of government services," Frey said. "But the new census, which will show a minority majority of our youngest Americans, makes plain that our future labor force is absolutely dependent on our ability to integrate and educate a new diverse child population."

SOURCE




The Reckless Folly of the "Undocumented Immigrant"

Michelle Malkin

With great fanfare and elite media sympathy, Jose Antonio Vargas publicly declared himself an "undocumented immigrant" this week. "Undocumented" my you-know-what. In the felony-friendly pages of The New York Crimes -- er, Times -- the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist turned illegal-alien activist spilled the beans on all the illegal IDs he amassed over the years. He had documents coming out of his ears.

The Times featured full-color photos of Vargas' fake document trove -- including a fake passport with a fake name, a fake green card and a Social Security card his grandfather doctored for him at a Kinko's. He committed perjury repeatedly on federal I-9 employment eligibility forms. In 2002, while pursuing his journalism career goals, an immigration lawyer told him he needed to accept the consequences of his law-breaking and return to his native Philippines.

Following the rules would have meant a 10-year bar to reentry into America. Making false claims of citizenship is a felony offense. Document fraud is a felony offense.

Vargas, who frames himself as a helpless victim, freely chose instead to secure yet more dummy documents. He used a friend's address to obtain an Oregon driver's license under false pretenses. It gave him an eight-year golden ticket to travel by car, board trains and airplanes, work at prestigious newspapers, and even gain access to the White House -- where crack Secret Service agents allowed him to attend a state dinner using his bogus Social Security number.

At least Vargas tells the truth when he says he's not alone. Go visit a 7-11 in the D.C. suburbs. Or the countless vendors in MacArthur Park in East L.A. Or any of the 19 cities in 11 states from Massachusetts to Ohio to Kentucky where a massive, Mexico-based "highly sophisticated and violent" fraudulent-document trafficking ring operated until February 2011. "Undocumented workers" and "undocumented immigrants" have plenty of documents.

The persistent use of these open-borders euphemisms to describe Vargas and countless millions like him is a perfect illumination of the agenda-driven, dominant progressive media.

They're as activist inside their newsrooms as Vargas is out in the open now. Bleeding-heart editors were hoaxed by a prominent colleague, exposed to liability, and yet still champion his serial subversion of the law. San Francisco Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein bragged that he was "duped" by Vargas, but endorses his "subterfuge" because Vargas' lobbying campaign for the illegal-alien student bailout known as the DREAM Act "just might lubricate the politically tarred-up wheels of government and help craft sane immigration policy."

Who's insane? The Vargas deceit is not an object lesson about America's failure to show compassion. It's another stark reminder of America's dangerous failure to learn from 9/11.

Time and again, security experts have warned about how jihadists have exploited lax immigration and ID enforcement. Driver's licenses are gateways into the American mainstream. They allow residents to establish an identity and gain a foothold into their communities. They help you open bank accounts, enter secure facilities, board planes, and do things like drive tractor-trailers carrying hazardous materials.

It's been nearly 10 years since several of the 19 9/11 hijackers operated in the country using hundreds of illicitly obtained fake driver's licenses and IDs. Most states tightened licensing rules, yet Vargas easily obtained a driver's license not only in Oregon, but more recently in Washington State. He again used a friend's residence to pass muster. Washington State's licensing bureaucracy still does not check citizenship. The man sitting in the White House campaigned to keep driver's license laws as loose as possible for the open-borders lobby. He appointed illegal-alien lobbyists to top federal immigration positions. His head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement just signed a memo pushing the DREAM Act through by administrative fiat. And the privacy of illegal aliens still trumps national security. I ask again: Who's insane?

Vargas believes his sob story is an argument for giving up on immigration enforcement and passing a mass amnesty. It's a sob story, all right. Homeland security officials across the country should be weeping at the open mockery Vargas and his enablers have made of the law.

SOURCE



24 June, 2011

UK fears migrant influx as EU bids to break down border controls

Brussels bosses want to tear up European Union immigration rules, leaving Britain vulnerable to a new influx of migrants. The European Commission plans to use human rights laws to break down border controls.

David Cameron will today go into battle to face down plans to scrap the existing rule that means illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are supposed to be sent back to the country where they first enter the EU.

Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso will use a summit in Brussels today to press for the changes. He wants the rule suspended indefinitely, opening the door to thousands of immigrants heading for Britain to claim more generous benefits than they could get elsewhere.

British officials fear that suspending the rule will mean that countries on the edge of Europe make far less effort to police their borders, since they will not have to face the consequences themselves of letting in too many migrants.

The situation has been made more acute by the fighting in Libya, which has seen thousands of refugees fleeing Colonel Gaddafi’s regime to take shelter in the EU. More than one million people have fled Libya since the conflict began. Frontex, the EU border agency, estimates that 48,000 have already arrived in the EU. Italy is expecting another 50,000 to double those numbers.

Eurocrats are demanding the changes to the existing rules, enshrined in the so-called ‘Dublin regulations’, after officials lost a legal case in the European Court of Human Rights in January. On that occasion the Court ruled that Belgium and Greece had violated the rights of an asylum seeker in expelling him to Athens.

Both countries had been following EU policy by sending migrants back to the port where they first entered the EU to file their claim to refugee status. The policy was followed despite warnings from the UN refugee agency and the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner that Greece’s system was dysfunctional.

The Afghan asylum seeker, known to the court as M.S.S., said that Belgium and Greece had subjected him to degrading treatment in returning him to Athens, and that he had been denied an ‘effective remedy’ against expulsion. The court agreed.

Last night the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: ‘The Commission is proposing that the regulations are suspended. ‘We will be resisting that because we think it’s important to have proper border controls.’

The Prime Minister will join forces with French President Nicolas Sarkozy to block a bid by Mr Barroso to write the plans into the communiqué which will be issued at the end of the EU leader’s summit tomorrow. The French are keen to block the move because they have already fallen out with Italy after immigrants arriving from Libya crossed the border into France.

The No 10 spokesman said: ‘We do care because what happens at the border of Europe can impact on the border of the UK. ‘People who come into the EU through other countries can end up in the UK. 'We’ve got to have the right incentives in place so countries police their borders properly.'

SOURCE





You call this even-handed? Refugee series is strictly for the gullible

Misleading series from Australian public TV broadcaster

One of the most passionate and enduring debates in this country has been built on a falsity, a false choice that is being carefully recrafted, repackaged and re-presented on SBS this week, at taxpayer expense.

A comment that sums up the falsity at the centre of this debate and the three-part series Go Back to where You Came from came from one of the six manipulated participants in the show, Darren Hassan, who complained that the group was being subjected to enforced empathy.

He had seen the loaded dice at the centre of the progressive argument about boat people: that if you believe in stopping the small number of asylum seekers who arrive by boat, you are lacking in empathy, lacking in compassion, and probably anti-Muslim. The entire series is designed to enforce this maxim. The participants are lied to. The audience is lied to. This is an empathy forced march.

In the first part, on Tuesday night, the unseen narrator said the participants had just ''survived a sinking, burning boat''. In fact it was an obvious charade. We were told that ''at the last minute, the stricken boat is spotted''. Again, only for the gullible. The rescue was as false as the emergency.

The narrator told us that only ''1 per cent of the world's refugees are resettled by the UN''. Again, a highly misleading statistic.

The empathy argument is easily turned on its head, something the producers carefully avoid doing. Far from lacking empathy, the decision to send a punitive signal to the people smugglers and their clients has been proven to stop the people-smuggling trade. Detention centres, instead of being opened all over the country, would empty out. Lives would not be lost at sea. Hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent on people instead of policing. More refugees could come to Australia under less stress and for less cost.

Because this debate is not about empathy. It is not about numbers. It is not about race. It is about principle: control the borders. The biggest beneficiaries of strict border control would be legitimate asylum seekers.

Much to the chagrin of the progressive side of politics, this argument is the one that has carried the day in Australia. After 15 years of being bashed over the head, especially by the ABC and SBS, the public has not budged. The Gillard Labor government could fall on this issue alone, given how badly it has been handled for almost four years. This year it will spend more than $750 million on illegal entries, an increase of 700 per cent over the final year of the Howard government.

The bedrock opposition of Australians to the empathy argument is quickly evident from the questions asked by some of the participants in Go Back to where You Came from. Adam Hartup: Why didn't the boat people stay in Malaysia or Indonesia where they were in no danger? Why do 99 per cent of them arrive with no papers?

Darren Hassan: Once they leave Malaysia, and then Indonesia, they become economic migrants. We need to send a tougher signal. People who are destroying documents, what are they trying to hide?

Raye Colbey (after visiting settled refugees from Africa who had come via the UN process): These are real refugees. They came the right way.

None of these basic questions were seriously addressed by the producers in their opening salvo. They had carefully sifted through 500 people before selecting the six for the program, and carefully chosen the refugees the participants would visit in Australia. But it would have been possible to randomly select six Australians, take them to a refugee camp, or to a newly arrived refugee's home, and see a ramp-up in empathy in most cases. This series is about something else.

While the quality of the filmmaking is good, the laudatory descriptions of the program as being even-handed are overstated. It is stacked with commentary, from the narration, to the structure, to the guide, Dr David Corlett, who is immersed in the refugee industry, is highly political, and in 2003 wrote a Quarterly Essay, ''Sending Them Home'', with Robert Manne. This is the producers' idea of dispassionate objectivity.

Last August, the ABC's Four Corners presented a searing program, ''Smugglers' Paradise'', which presented a far more accurate and confronting picture of the people smuggling trade to Australia. It was reality TV that was real. This new series has real people in real places, but it remains an exercise in manipulation for everyone involved.

SOURCE



23 June, 2011

Feds nab 2,400 in immigrant sting

Federal officials announced Tuesday the arrests of more than 2,400 illegal immigrants in a seven-day crackdown targeting those who are convicted criminals. The operation, called Cross Check, was conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs officials in May, federal officials said in a press release.

"The results of this operation underscore ICE's ongoing focus on arresting those convicted criminal aliens who prey upon our communities, and tracking down fugitives who game our nation's immigration system," ICE Director John Morton said in a statement. "This targeted enforcement operation is a direct result of excellent teamwork among law enforcement agencies who share a commitment to protect public safety."

The announcement comes after ICE announced key reforms to its Secure Communities program, which had been criticized by community activists and state officials. "The big problem is that they were getting mostly noncriminals," Audrey Singer, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on U.S. immigration policy, told CNN Tuesday. "In many communities across the country, local police have made a lot of headway with local residents. Secure Communities made that relationship more fragile. In some cases, there was a fear that immigrants would not continue to go to police when a crime was committed."

Pablo Rodriguez, executive director of Communities for a New California, said Cross Check, if not carried out correctly, may have the same fundamental flaws as Secure Communities and may actually reduce crime reporting in the community.

"On a local level, people who have been victims of crime have stopped reporting because they know that any contact with law enforcement would result in their own deportation," he said.

On Tuesday, ICE statement said federal officials had been implementing Cross Check since December 2009 in 37 states, iresulting in 2,064 arrests of convicted criminals, fugitives and undocumented immigrants who have re-entered the country illegally.

The national debate on immigration policy has heated up since Arizona last year passed a law requiring noncitizens to have registration documents on hand at all times. Though key provisions of that law have been tied up in the courts, other states, such as Georgia and Alabama, have followed suit with similar legislation cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, a handful of states have rebuffed federal officials' plans to clamp down on undocumented immigrants. Earlier this month, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security saying that he would suspend his state's participation in Secure Communities due to "its impact on families, immigrant communities and law enforcement in New York."

"The heart of concern is that the program, conceived of as a method of targeting those who pose the greatest threat in our communities, is in fact having the opposite effect and compromising pubic safety by deterring witnesses to crime and others from working with law enforcement," he wrote. "Until the numerous questions and controversies regarding the program can be resolved, we have determined that New York is best served by relying on existing tools to ensure the safety of its residents," he added.

Cuomo's move was preceded by Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, who last month said his state was withdrawing from the program. Massachusetts also rejected it.

SOURCE




White House loosens border rules for 2012

President Barack Obama’s administration is quietly offering a quasi-amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, while aiming to win reelection by mobilizing a wave of new Hispanic voters, say supporters of stronger immigration law enforcement.

The new rules were quietly announced Friday with a new memo from top officials at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The “prosecutorial discretion” memo says officials need not enforce immigration laws if illegal immigrants are enrolled in an education center or if their relatives have volunteered for the US military.

“They’re pushing the [immigration] agents to be even more lax, to go further in not enforcing the law,” said Kris Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state. “At a time when millions of Americans are unemployed and looking for work, this is more bad news coming from the Obama administration… [if the administration] really cared about putting Americans back to work, it would be vigorously enforcing the law,” said Kobach, who has helped legislators in several states draft local immigration-related laws.

“We think it is an excellent step,” said Laura Vasquez, at the Hispanic-advocacy group, La Raza, which pushed for the policies, and which is working with other groups to register Hispanics to vote in 2012. “What’s very important is how the prosecutorial discretion memo is implemented” on the streets, she said.

The Hispanic vote could be crucial in the 2012 election, because the Obama campaign hopes to offset its declining poll ratings by registering new Hispanic voters in crucial swing states, such as Virginia and North Carolina.

To boost the Hispanic vote, the administration has enlisted support from Hispanic media figures, appointed an experienced Hispanic political operative to run the political side of the Obama reelection campaign, and has maintained close ties to Hispanic advocacy groups, including La Raza. For example, La Raza’s former senior vice president and lobbyist, Cecilia Munoz, was hired by the Obama administration as director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009.

On Friday, officials at ICE announced several new administrative changes to immigration enforcement.

The primary document was the six-page “prosecutorial discretion” memo, which provided new reasons for officials to not deport illegal immigrants.
Ads by Google

“When weighing whether an exercise of prosecutorial discretion may be warranted for a given alien, ICE officials, agents and attorneys should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to – the circumstances of the person’s arrival in the United States … particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child; the Person’s pursuit of education… .. whether the person, or the person’s immediate relative, has served in the U.S. military,” said the memo.

“The factors are extremely broad and very troubling … [it] look like a stealth DREAM Act enforcement through non-enforcement,” said Kobach.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act has been repeatedly rejected by Congress from 2001 to 2010. “The deliberate non-enforcement of our immigration laws in this administration certainly seems politically motivated,” said Kobach, adding “how exactly they expect to win votes by doing this is beyond me.”

In practice, the new memo won’t make much of a difference because “ICE isn’t deporting people now,” said Jessica Vaughan, an analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies. While pleading limited resources, “they only [deport] individuals with criminal charges,” such as felonies or several misdemeanors, she said.

There are roughly 10 million illegal immigrants in the United States, of which roughly 7 million are working. Business and Democrat-allied advocacy groups have stoutly opposed federal and state efforts to identify and deport the immigrants, but public opposition has repeatedly stopped proposals – including the Obama-backed DREAM Act – to provide the illegal immigrants with amnesties and residency permits.

On Friday, officials also announced a new advisory panel intended “to implement policies stopping the [deportation and] removal of individuals charged with, but not convicted of, minor traffic offenses who have no other criminal history or egregious immigration violations.”

Advocates for illegal immigrants have long argued that police should not deport illegal immigrants who are identified following a traffic violation. “It is not a crime to be be here illegally,” claimed B. Loewe, a spokesman for the National Day Laborers Organizing Network. “Local law-enforcement enforcing immigration laws is a bad idea.”

“It is a misperception that local police are going out to pull people who look like immigrants on trumped-up traffic violations,” countered Vaughan. “They’re not removing people who made a right turn on red light without stopping, because you don’t get arrested for that.”

The agency also announced new training policies for immigration officials, a new policy to shield illegal immigrants from deportation if they seek police protection during a domestic violence episode, and a new form to be given to detained immigrants which tells them they can’t be detained for more than 48 hours by state officials.

These announcements are solutions in search of a problem, said Vaughan. For example, illegal immigrants who successfully show they are domestic violence victims already can get a “U Visa” under an established law, she said. “This is absolutely unheard of for a law enforcement agency to be told to practically apologize for doing its job” of enforcing the law,” she said.

Immigrant advocacy groups said they want to get more from the administration. “We’re continuing to work with the administration for them to show strong leadership and advancing immigration reform,” said Vasquez. “We think there are further steps the administration can take.” For example, the administration should allow people to stay in the United States while their immigration cases are settled, she said.

The administration should end the “Secure Communities” program, which allows state and local police to detain illegals for subsequent deportation by federal authorities, said Loewe. “Secure Communities is an experiment they unleashed on the public without any safeguards or regulations… local law-enforcement of immigration laws is a bad idea,” he said.

Tougher enforcement of immigration laws shouldn’t be used to combat high unemployment among poor Americans, he said. Instead, the government should start a major spending program to build schools and libraries, and levy taxes on major corporations. “When were talking about a drain on the economy,” he said, “we should look at the corporations that refuse to pay back their due.”

But the overall goal of the new memos is victory in the 2012 election, not law enforcement, said Vaughan. It is “kabuki theater… designed [by the administration] to send a signal to these groups that they are taking their concerns very seriously.”

“Latino voters are very engaged and watching carefully what is happening with immigration policies,” said Vasquez, “because they’re deeply effected by it, either because they know someone impacted by it, or themselves are impacted by it.”

SOURCE



22 June, 2011

Migrants taking nine in ten new jobs since the election, British poverty czar reveals

Almost nine out of ten jobs created since the election went to immigrants, the Coalition’s poverty czar has revealed.

Former Labour minister Frank Field, brought in to advise the Government last year, criticised David Cameron’s plans to reform welfare as nowhere near radical enough – because they do not punish the workshy or reward those who have contributed to National Insurance. He also said he believed the public wanted tougher sanctions forcing the long-term unemployed back to work.

Mr Field dismissed proposals to simplify the benefits system as nothing more than ‘Gordon Brown’s approach, on speed’. ‘Good, reliable’ people who have worked hard and paid NI should be helped more than those who have not, he said.

Figures uncovered by Mr Field show that in the first year of the Coalition, 87 per cent of the 400,000 newly created jobs have gone to immigrants, because Britons are too lazy to chase work.

Embarrassingly for Mr Cameron, the proportion of new jobs going to immigrants is actually higher now than it was in Labour’s last year in office.

But his attempts to get to grips with the problem have to some extent been scuppered by Business Secretary, Vince Cable, who opposes an immigration cap.

In an article for the Daily Telegraph, Mr Field said: ‘I fear that, at the next election, we will still be having the same debate on welfare reform as we had at the last four.’ And he said tougher sanctions were needed to force back to work those who refused jobs that they believed ‘were only fit for immigrants’.

Mr Field said: ‘This group of recidivist, workless claimants know from past experience governments leave them alone.’

Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has unveiled plans to simplify benefits into a single universal credit designed to ensure those in work are always better off.

Last night, a source close to Mr Duncan Smith said the figures on immigrant workers were a Labour legacy. The source said: ‘When faced with young, sparky Eastern Europeans coming here to work, it is essential that Britons have the skills to compete.’

SOURCE






British government 'will miss its migrant targets' unless they rip up the rulebook

David Cameron will fail to bring annual net migration down to five figures unless he rips up the rule book and imposes tougher limits, academics warn today.

The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he wants to reduce net migration, currently 242,000 a year, to below 100,000 by 2015.

But estimates based on official Whitehall figures suggest current policy will cut it to 167,000 by then. The predictions, from Oxford University's Migration Observatory, are disputed by Home Office sources who say the figures 'don’t add up'. But they highlight the enormous scale of the challenge ministers face to rein in spiralling migrant numbers.

Net migration is the difference between the numbers arriving and those leaving. The 242,000 figure is the biggest since Labour opened the doors to workers from Eastern Europe when eight countries joined the EU in 2004. Barring the beginning of a new wave of Britons moving abroad, to bring net migration below 100,000 would mean a cut in arrivals of 142,000.

But Britain is hamstrung in its ability to influence net migrant numbers because it cannot restrict those coming from inside the EU. In recent months, the Home Office has unveiled a series of policy measures aimed at cutting the total arrivals from outside Europe.

Today's report, entitled Off Target, calculates the expected combined impact of those policies on the net migration figure.

The cap on migrant workers is predicted to reduce net migration by 11,000 and changes to student visas are expected to cut net migration by 56,000, the report says.

Rules on allowing migrants to bring family members with them are to be tightened this summer. But the report predicts these changes are unlikely to reduce net migration by more than 8,000.

Major shifts in so-called 'settlement rights' which allow tens of thousands of migrants to stay indefinitely will not have any significant impact before 2016, the report says.

Dr Scott Blinder, senior researcher at the Migration Observatory, said: 'The Government's current policies only look likely to reduce net migration by about 75,000 at best – which would mean that further reductions of more than 67,000 would be needed to meet the 'tens of thousands' net migration target.'

The report will raise fears that tough immigration policies advocated by Tory ministers have been watered down to placate the Lib Dems.

Home Office sources said the academics were wrong to base their predictions on the level of net migration now rather than the likely level in 2015. They also said the authors were guessing the impact of changes to rules for family members of migrants.

SOURCE



21 June, 2011

British Judges launch scathing attack on the 'abusive' way migrants exploit appeals and say most cases have no merit

They have either been ‘dreamt up’ by lawyers seeking to line their own pockets, or are a blatant last-ditch attempt to stop deportations taking place.

Many – including appeals made by foreign criminals – are brought under the controversial Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act – the ‘right to a family and private life’.

And despite the rampant exploitation of the system, the taxpayer is writing legal cheques worth £12million a year for immigration cases. Effectively – and farcically – the British Government is picking up the bill for the thwarting of its own attempts to control immigration.

In a single year, the public funded a staggering 37,300 immigration appeals, according to Ministry of Justice figures seen by the Mail. It is the equivalent of more than 100 cases every day.

Justice officials say the legal aid is being spent on ‘advice on how to get a visa to enter the UK, or how to avoid being deported once they’re here’.

It includes advice to immigrants from Europe looking to work in Britain, and migrants from outside Europe who want to study, get work experience or join their families who have emigrated to the UK.

In a devastating letter to Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, the Judges Council of England and Wales – which speaks for the judiciary – paints a picture of appalling abuse. The judges say that, out of 12,500 judicial review claim forms issued in the Administrative Court in 2010, about 7,500 concerned asylum or immigration.

The claims have been considered – and dismissed – by the Secretary of State and at least one immigration tribunal, making the judicial review a ‘second or sometimes the third or fourth bite of the cherry’.

The judges’ letter to Mr Clarke goes on: ‘Most claims fail, most of the claims which fail are without merit, and many are wholly abusive of the court’s process. ‘When the claim itself is publicly funded, two sets of publicly funded costs will be incurred – all irrecoverable. No-one derives any legitimate benefit from this litigation.

‘The intervention of publicly funded lawyers does not reduce the number of unmeritorious claims of this type to the extent that might be expected. Bad claims are advanced by publicly funded lawyers as well as by litigants in person – albeit litigants in person are responsible for a greater proportion of hopeless cases. Often, bad claims are advanced by lawyers which an individual would not have thought of for himself.’

One senior immigration judge, Sir Anthony May, said most claims he heard were the third or fourth time a person had been to a tribunal. They are brought by failed asylum seekers trying to block their removal at the last minute.

Sir Anthony said: ‘Sometimes we have to deal with 20 or even more such applications every day when there is a chartered flight going out of Gatwick, Stansted or wherever it is. Let us say that 85 per cent of them – that is a figure I rather pluck out of the air but it is of that order – are of no merit.’

Last week, the Mail revealed how the Human Rights Act was having a huge negative impact on the immigration system. Thousands of foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and EU ‘benefit tourists’ are using the legislation to thwart Home Office attempts to enforce the rules.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, they are using the controversial Article 8. Cases included hundreds of EU citizens who had no intention of working – but were permitted to stay here to potentially enjoy a life on benefits.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: ‘This is not just the right to family life. It is the right to family life at the expense of the hard-pressed taxpayer.

‘It brings the whole concept of human rights into disrepute. It is high time we took a critical look at the European Convention on Human Rights which is being exploited by lawyers in ways never remotely envisaged by its authors.’

'Bond with daughter' that allowed a thug to stay: Violent criminal Asim Parris beat deportation under human rights laws guaranteeing his ‘right to a family life – despite having little interest in his daughter and a string of convictions.

The 23-year-old convinced immigration judges and the Appeal Court that his ‘close bond’ with his daughter meant he should stay in Britain.

It thwarted an attempt by the Home Office to have him deported to Trinidad after a conviction for drug dealing.

Parris told an immigration tribunal and three Appeal Court judges that he was remorseful for his crimes and that his deportation would hurt his relationship with his daughter. The Appeal Court ruled that the impact on members of Parris’s family would be ‘disproportionate, especially since he has a child who has a strong bond with him’.

But Naomi Chambers, Parris’s former girlfriend and the mother of his daughter Reinaya, said: ‘It’s not fair for him to use her as an excuse for staying. He’s only started to see her more regularly since the court case started, to prove he’s got family ties. ‘It was ridiculous that he told the court he is so close to her because he never saw her when he was out of prison.’

Parris came to Britain aged three to join his mother, who had remained here illegally after attending a niece’s engagement party. She gained leave to stay and got British passports for Parris’s older brother and two sisters. However, she failed to obtain one for him.

After Reinaya’s birth in June 2007, Miss Chambers left Parris. Two months later, he attacked her while trying to snatch the child.

Parris was found guilty of battery and destruction. A string of offences followed, including possession of drugs, but an immigration tribunal found ‘there is no evidence at all that he has resorted back to drug taking, pushing or possessing’.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. New Online Feature: Center for Immigration Studies' Website Index

2. This Year’s Most Important Jobs Bill (Op-Ed)

3. Baptists Call for Amnesty (Blog)

4. Russian Ad: 'Come Work in the Best Strip Clubs in the U.S., on a J-1 Visa' (Blog)

5. Arizona Fires: Too Hot for Feds to Handle? (Blog)

6. Birth Tourism Fraud from China: 'The return on investment is higher than robbing a bank' (Blog)

7. Trying Again on Driver's Licenses (Blog)

8. DoJ Judge: It's OK to Fire a Good Man for Doing a Good Deed (Blog)

9. A Look Back to 1953 (Blog)

10. You Can Tell the Feds How to Change Our Immigration Policy (Blog)



20 June, 2011

Ending Illegal Immigration: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

Cutting off the benefits would be a lot cheaper and more effective than building fences

Wait! Don’t build that fence along our southern border just yet. We may not really need it any more than we need one on the northern border with Canada. In order to fix the problem of illegal immigration we must first understand why we have an estimated 12 million illegals in the United States. A Risk-Benefit Analysis model provides insight into both the causes of the problem and the solution to it.

We all make risk-benefit decisions every day. “Should I have the apple or the cheeseburger for lunch?” Or, “Should I send a Tweet with a risqué photo of myself to that young coed?” Millions of people on our northern and southern borders face the decision to enter the United States illegally, but we don’t have a fence with Canada because we don’t need one. Canadians are not streaming into the USA demanding ice cold Molson beer and raising maple leaf flags in front of public schools. Why not? It’s simple: Canadians enjoy a good quality of life at home, so the perceived benefit in coming here illegally is not worth the risk.

But the same is not true for our southern neighbors. Life in Central and South America is…well…bleak. America sits like a shimmering jewel on the horizon where benefits abound: healthcare, education, citizenship, and jobs, to name a few. The risk in coming here is perceived to be low in comparison to the benefits to be had. So they come. Politicians puff out their chests, call it an outrage, and demand fences be built. Unfortunately, fences have never worked in the past. But we’re ignoring the obvious solution: end the benefits, ratchet up the risk, and we won’t need a fence for the same reason we have none with Canada.

Let’s look at some of the benefits we provide to non-U.S. citizens and consider some solutions:

Healthcare: By one estimate, as much as 40% of the healthcare that goes unpaid for in the U.S. goes to people here illegally. That’s a nice benefit. Medical providers should continue to provide care to anyone who needs it, but they should also be required to inquire about a patient’s citizenship. Those who are suspected of being here illegally ought to be turned over to U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement following care.

Education: Current law requires that children of illegal parents receive a public education, and there are good arguments for providing it. But the practice only keeps a benefit in place, one that costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year. It may be time to rethink the law, and if faced with the prospect of no education in America, perhaps fewer non-citizens would risk coming here.

Citizenship: Long-term we need to repeal or change the 14th Amendment that gives citizenship to people born in the United States. Its original purpose has long-since ceased to be relevant, and the problems it sought to fix have been fixed. In the near term, we need to consider changing the 1965 Immigration Act which facilitates the permanent residency status of illegals who bear children in the U.S. Anchor babies have created an unintended humanitarian hostage situation, one that is a costly burden on taxpayers.

Jobs: It’s illegal to hire illegals, yet getting a job in America remains one of the biggest benefits to be had in coming here. We need to shift the focus away from rounding up illegals in the workplace to clamping down on those who employ them. By increasing the risk to employers (stiff fines and even jail time), they will be less likely to hire non-citizens. Surprisingly, the Obama administration appears to have started doing just that. It’s a good start.

If we were to eliminate the benefits to be gained by illegally entering the United States, while increasing the risk in coming here, we could solve the illegal immigration problem without a fence. These benefits are the causes of the problem, and their removal is the solution. Building the fence would only slow down the departure. We welcome legal immigrants, and we should reserve the benefits of citizenship for those willing to get in line and knock politely on the front door.

SOURCE






Even Iceland has immigrants

Mostly hard-working Poles

Although their numbers have been halved by the recent economic meltdown, Poles - who now number an estimated 10,000 - continue to be Iceland's largest ethnic minority.

"Na zdrowje," says Michal, lifting his beer glass high. "Na zdrowje," answers his friend Marek. The two men are on their second beer, but in a bit of a hurry since their wives are waiting for them at home with dinner. They will order their third drink soon.

"What else are we supposed to do here?" asks Michal rhetorically. In the small town of Akranes, just an hour's drive north of Iceland's capital, Reykjavik, there are really just two ways to spend an evening: either at home or at the "Mömmueldhus" (Mother's Kitchen) restaurant at 8 Kirkjubraut Street.

The restaurant is run by Gabriela and her husband Dariusz, who, like Michal and Marek, are not Icelanders, but Polish. They belong to Iceland's 9,496-strong community of ethnic Poles. Although this is an official count (made earlier this year), it is hard to be sure of its accuracy, since Poles require neither work nor residence permits to live in Iceland. In order to stay here, Polish citizens just need to obtain a valid kennitala, the Icelandic version of a social security number.

Before the financial crisis started in October 2008, there were more than 20,000 Poles in Iceland. And although their numbers have declined significantly over the past three years, Poles remain the largest minority on the island.

Michal was born in 1981 in Dabrowa Gornicza, Poland, and came to Iceland in 2007. He had previously worked in a factory, and had “always dreamed of experiencing Iceland.” Within three weeks of his arrival in Akranes, Michal had already found a job as a welder in a machine factory. But in 2009, the factory went bankrupt. Among those laid off were at least a dozen Poles, Michal included.

Michal used this time to take classes in business and Icelandic. Since March, he has been working in an aluminum factory in Walfjord. His wife, whom he met in Poland, works in a canning factory in Akranes. Six months ago, Michal, along with five (unemployed) friends, created a website for Poles living in Iceland: www.informacje.is.

The website is well-designed and offers a lot of information on current events, job offers and discount shopping. According to Michal, the website also tries to foster "a sense of togetherness" among Poles living in Iceland. He hopes that the site, which receives 9,000 visitors each day, will break even within the next two years.

Marek was born in 1969 in Tomaszow, Poland, and he came to Iceland out of love for a Polish woman he met in 2005 on the Internet. He divorced his wife, sold everything, and bought a one-way ticket to Reykjavik to be with her.

Their fling did not last long, but Marek found a job as a welder in the aluminum factory and met another woman, Patricia. A former flute student at the Music Academy in Krakow, she did not hesitate one moment when she was offered a teaching job at an orchestral school in Akranes.

"In Poland, I had to work 60 hours or more a week just to make ends meet. Here, I work 20,” Patricia explains. She works less, earns more, and has time to care for her family: Marek, her second husband; Peter, a son from her first marriage; and Stefan, who was born two years ago. They have a spacious condominium, a Japanese family car, and a satellite dish that gives them access to over 300 TV channels, including Polish ones in case they get homesick.

But Patricia and Marek have no intention of leaving Iceland.
Only their 17-year-old son Peter, who is fluent in Icelandic and plays drums in a rock band called "Made In The Time Of Crisis,” says he will return to Poland after his graduation. He plans to enroll in a Polish police academy. "I want to be a private detective,” he explains, adding that he finds Iceland, especially the small town of Akranes, to be “simply boring.”

No crime, no corruption

His parents don't necessarily disagree, but they also see a lot of advantages to living in Iceland. “It's a safe country. There is no crime, no corruption. You don't have to worry that you'll go broke in the middle of the month.” Their living room window overlooks the sea, and during the dark season, they can see the northern lights from the garden.

Gabriela, the owner of the Mömmueldhus restaurant, has no time for such frivolous pleasures. She works from early morning until late in the evening, and has done so all her working life. Born in 1975 in Gdynia in Poland, she married at 18 and had three children soon afterwards. She has worked as a telegraph operator, a cook, and a baker. Her husband, Dariusz, has been both a silversmith and a driver for an emergency medical service.

In the summer of 2005, he heard that workers were needed to build a new dam in Iceland. Two weeks later, he was working on a construction site in Karahnjukar, in the eastern part of the island. His family followed him the next spring, when he was working in a factory in Borgarnes, 30 km north of Akranes. The children were enrolled in local schools – all three of them now speak fluent Icelandic.

Gabriela found a job in a hotel in Borgarnes, but she explains that “I always wanted to run my own establishment.” Last February, she took out all her savings and bought Mömmueldhus. She renovated it, added a few Polish dishes to the menu, and now is looking forward to a tourist-filled summer.

"We live like Poles, but with an Icelandic twist," she says. Every weekend, the restaurant organizes a disco or karaoke evening. Once a month, a priest comes from Reykjavik to hold a Catholic mass.

Iceland’s 10,000 Poles live in a true "parallel society,” only they don't know it. They speak Polish, marry each other, watch Polish TV, and cling to their own culture. One can hear and see them everywhere – on the bus, on the street, in the supermarket, and in cafés. The fact that they are not as visible as one might expect is only partly explained by the extraordinary tolerance of the native Icelanders.

The reason why Poles blend in so well into their new country is that they understand the principle of Icelandic society: work.

People who do not work here are severely frowned upon. Until recently, there was virtually no unemployment on the island. The current figure of 8% is largely due to the financial crisis, and it is considered an astronomical number for the country. Economic difficulties have forced many Polish people to go back to Europe, but if the Icelandic economy recovers in the coming years, more Poles will certainly decide to come back.

In the town of Breiðholt, on the outskirts of Reykjavik, a supermarket offers Polish specialties. Piotr, the owner, a former bricklayer from Kashubia, came to Iceland 10 years ago at the age of 20 to work in construction. For the past six years, he has been providing the Polish community in and around Reykjavik with food "Made in Poland." He also hosts an annual "Polish Day" and organizes a Polish "Saturday

SOURCE



19 June, 2011

Oklahoma's high court upholds state's anti-illegal immigration bill

The state Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court's decision that determined virtually all of the state's anti-illegal immigration law is constitutional.

“It is not the place of the Supreme Court or any court to concern itself with a statute's propriety, desirability, wisdom or its practicality as a working proposition,” the 25-page ruling states. “Such questions are plainly and definitely established by fundamental laws as functions of the legislative branch of government.”

Rep. Randy Terrill, the author of House Bill 1804, said he was pleased the high court has validated virtually all of the measure. The law makes it illegal to knowingly transport illegal immigrants, creates state barriers to hiring illegal workers and requires proof of citizenship before a person can receive government benefits.

“For the most part, the multipronged attack that was initiated against House Bill 1804 has failed,” said Terrill, R-Moore. “This Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion has validated virtually all of House Bill 1804 with just a couple of exceptions.”

James C. Thomas, a Tulsa attorney who filed the lawsuit, said he is disappointed with the ruling.

“They still said the Legislature's free to treat people that the Legislature is fearful of in a draconian manner,” said Thomas, who recently retired as a University of Tulsa law professor. “I think it's a political decision and not a legal decision.

“I guess the consequences will be that the Legislature's going to feel free to become even more draconian,” he said. “We close our minds to humanity issues in these kinds of cases; that's what the court has done.”

Key portions of the law were enforceable despite the legal challenge. Enforcement has been sporadic and it's not clear whether that will now change.

What wasn't valid?

The high court in an 8-1 vote did strike down a provision of HB 1804, which took effect in 2007, which denies bail to illegal immigrants arrested on felony counts or driving under the influence complaints.

The Supreme Court ruled it should be left up to the courts to decide on bail.

“Whether a particular defendant is a flight risk is a determination to be made by the trial judge in that case,” the ruling states.

Chief Justice Steven Taylor dissented in that part of the ruling. He said he found HB 1804 “to be constitutional in all respects.”

Terrill said he plans to introduce legislation next year that would address the flight risk issue. He said he is considering seeking a proposed constitutional amendment that would be up to voters to approve that would deny bail for illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanors, felonies and driving under the influence offenses.

“I'm very concerned that it creates a public safety risk for the citizens and taxpayers of the state of Oklahoma,” he said. “They have very little if any ties to the state of Oklahoma so they have no incentive to remain here. They would therefore, upon being charged with a crime and upon being released, would flee the jurisdiction. So not only does it create the risk that they could commit an additional crime against the citizens and taxpayers of the state of Oklahoma but also that they would never be held accountable for the initial crime for which they were charged.”

What was validated?

Key parts of HB 1804 validated in the ruling, Terrill said, include:

* Illegal immigrants cannot get an official government-issued form of identification, such as a driver's license or occupational license.

* Illegal immigrants are ineligible for most forms of state taxpayer-funded public assistance or entitlement benefits.

* State and local law enforcement officials can cooperatively enforce federal immigration law. They can't decide who gets to come into the U.S. and how long they get to stay.

* The state can require employers to check the legal status of their employees.

Terrill said the opinion cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld an Arizona law penalizing businesses for hiring illegal immigrants, which is a key provision of HB 1804 that has been tied up in federal court. That ruling says federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

“This opinion when you couple it with the previous U.S. Supreme Court opinion ... seems to suggest that the state does in fact have a great deal of latitude to further crack down against illegal immigration if it chooses to do so,” Terrill said.

Other measures failed

Terrill and other legislators who tried to pass tougher anti-illegal immigration measures this past session had little success in the Republican-controlled Legislature. Instead, legislative leaders formed a special joint committee to develop a bill that included provisions to bar children of illegal immigrants from receiving tuition assistance for postsecondary education, allow state agencies to report illegal immigrants who apply for state or federal aid, require employers to verify the immigration status of potential employees, outlaw the practice of illegal immigrants seeking work as independent contractors, and making it a crime to pick up illegal immigrants for the purpose of employing them.

The final product ended up targeting human smugglers and others who take advantage of illegal immigrants; it was voted down in the House of Representatives.

The legal challenge to HB 1804 was filed in 2008 by Michael C. Thomas, of Tulsa, who worked for a local mental health association. He filed his lawsuit in Tulsa County District Court against then-Gov. Brad Henry, the state of Oklahoma and Tulsa County's board of county commissioners.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Tulsa County judge's ruling that one part of HB 1804 was unconstitutional because it didn't deal with immigration issues. That section dealt with denying resident tuition for higher education to illegal immigrants who successfully completed the General Education Development test.

Thomas argued in his challenge that the state constitution stipulates that the Legislature cannot appropriate public money to establish a bureau of immigration.

The high court said the constitutional provision written in 1907 prohibited appropriating state money to fund a state bureau of immigration with the purpose of attracting additional people to settle in Oklahoma. In this case, the state is not attempting to regulate immigration, but rather use a federal database to confirm the immigration status of a person accused of a crime, the justices said.

“HB 1804 mandates compliance with federal immigration laws and it seeks to establish cooperation with the federal government,” the opinion states. “States are permitted to enforce immigration laws.”

SOURCE




Big change in Mexican immigration law

The direction of law changes North of their border will obviously not be lost on them so the new move is most obviously to set an example for how they want their own citizens treated in the USA -- but they probably also realize that most illegals are simply in transit North so are not worth any trouble. How Mexican police treat illegals will be another matter of course

Perhaps attempting to persuade its powerful neighbor to the North to do the same, last month, major revisions to Mexico’s immigration laws came into effect.

The law has now become more “humane” and immigrant friendly. Among the changes announced are:

1) Illegal entry into Mexican territory is de-criminalized. This means that it is no longer a criminal offense to enter Mexico illegally, and violators will merely be sent back to where they last came from. Previously, illegal immigration was a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who were deported and attempted to re-enter Mexico could be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators could be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who helped illegal immigrants were also subject to criminal prosecution.

2) Illegal migrants will no longer be jailed. They will be taken to a facility run by the Instituto Nacional de Migracion (INM) where they will be fed, clothed, given medical care and the ability to contact their families in their country of origin.

3) Illegal migrants will have the right to seek political asylum or refuge in Mexico and will have a right to a hearing before a judge.

4) Local police, the military, customs and even the Policia Federal will no longer have the authority to question any foreigner’s migratory status. They no longer have any authority to arrest or detain any person suspected of being in the country illegally. Only officials from the INM can do this.

5) Illegal migrants can be given the opportunity to regularize their status and obtain a work/residence permit.

6) Controls are loosened for citizens/nationals of Belize who find an employment in certain Mexican states (i.e. Quintana Roo) to ease the process of a work/residence permit.

The official line from a Mexican government spokesman that my friend and business partner P.T. Freeman listened to on the radio was that Mexico has amended its immigration law to take into account human rights and refugee rights. However, I don’t believe this is the full story.

I think the real reason that Mexico changed its law was to send a message to the United States. Under federal law, any non-U.S. national who enters or attempts to enter U.S. territory in a manner other than through ordinary channels has committed a crime. Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison.

Numerous states, most notably my home state of Arizona, have attempted to enforce their own immigration laws. The most controversial aspect of the Arizona law – which never came fully into effect due to a successful court challenge – is that state and local police can ask anyone for proof of legal status in the United States. In other words, “your papers, please.”

SOURCE



18 June, 2011

Baptists' decision 'amnesty' by another name

An immigration reform organization says Southern Baptists, like any other religious denomination, have an obligation to respect the laws of the land when it comes to who has the right to live in the U.S.

At its annual convention in Phoenix, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution advocating a path to legal status for people are in the U.S. illegally. It also called on Southern Baptists to reject bigotry and to minister to all people, regardless of immigration status.

SBC spokesman Paul Jimenez said the main reason for the resolution was the desire to spread the gospel to immigrants. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), reacts to the SBC's resolution.

"Nobody is asking the Southern Baptists or any other church to enforce laws or to treat people without proper respect," he offers, "but they also have to respect the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation -- and it is the government of the United States that determines immigration laws based on the needs of the country, not based on the desire of a particular church seeking religious converts."

The resolution only passed by a broad margin after language was added saying it should not be construed as an endorsement of "amnesty." Mehlman says it is a question of semantics.

"The bottom line is that we're talking about taking millions of people who violated our laws, and in the end granting them legal status," says the FAIR media director. "I think most Americans would consider that to be amnesty. Other people might prefer to use euphemisms, but the American people understand what it is."

Mehlman says observing the laws of nations has been a principle going back to the time of both the New and Old Testaments.

SOURCE






Lawsuit over Indiana immigration law heading to court

Civil rights groups claim a new Indiana law set to take effect July 1 gives police sweeping arrest powers against immigrants who haven't committed any crime. The state attorney general's office argues such fears are exaggerated and based on misunderstanding of the law.

U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson is set to hear arguments from both sides Monday as she considers a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the National Immigration Law Center, which are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect next month.

The groups aren't fighting all provisions of the wide-ranging law, which also takes away certain tax credits from employers who hire illegal immigrants. The main bone of contention is arrest powers.

The new law allows police to arrest immigrants under certain conditions, including if they face a removal order issued by an immigration court. The lawsuit filed last month, however, says some of the conditions are too broad, can apply widely to thousands of immigrants and violate the constitutional requirement of probable cause.

For example, the civil rights groups contend the law's wording would allow the arrest of anyone who has had a notice of action filed by immigration authorities, a formal paperwork step that affects virtually anyone applying to be in the U.S. for any reason.

"The statute authorizes Indiana police to arrest persons despite the fact that there is no probable cause that such persons have committed crimes," the groups argued in a brief filed this month.

The Indiana law also makes it illegal for immigrants to present ID cards issued by foreign consulates as proof of identification anywhere in the state outside of the consulate, such as for buying alcohol or applying for a bank account.

The lawsuit claims the state is trying to step into immigration issues that clearly are the province of the federal government. The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed on behalf of two Mexicans and one Nigerian who live in the Indianapolis area.

ACLU attorney Ken Falk said Thursday that four countries — Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador and Guatemala — plan to file briefs in the case. The move would not be unusual, Mexico and 10 other countries recently joined civil rights groups' legal fight against a tough new immigration law in Georgia and there have been similar filings in other states.

State attorneys argue claims about the law are speculative and based on an "irrational" and "absurd" interpretation. They note Indiana's law doesn't go as far as the Arizona measure, struck down on appeal, that included provisions to compel police to check the citizenship status of anyone who they had "reasonable suspicion" to believe is in the country illegally.

"Indiana's statute merely gives Indiana officers the discretion to assist federal enforcement of immigration laws. Indiana's statute does not purport to give Indiana any ability to participate in federal removal or deportation proceedings, nor does it allow Indiana to pass judgment concerning the removability of an individual," the state said in its brief filed Wednesday.

In a response filed Friday, the ACLU dismissed state arguments that the law would be used only in cases where people otherwise faced arrest, repeating its claim that the statute authorized arrest for offenses that aren't crimes in violation of the Fourth Amendment and impinged on federal immigration authority.

"Immigration is not a state concern," the brief flatly stated.

State immigration enforcement laws have not recently fared well in federal courts.

Arizona passed its law in 2010, but parts of were put on hold by a district court judge before it went into effect. That ruling was upheld in April by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and last month Gov. Jan Brewer said she plans to appeal the rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last month, a Utah law giving police the authority to arrest anyone who cannot prove their citizenship was put on hold by a federal judge 14 hours after it went into effect. The next hearing is there scheduled in July.

SOURCE



17 June, 2011

GA asks judge to dismiss suit over immigration law

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal and other state officials asked a judge Tuesday to dismiss a federal lawsuit that seeks to block the state's crackdown on illegal immigration, one day after another lawsuit was filed seeking federal government intervention against the new law.

The earlier lawsuit, filed by civil liberties groups, asks a judge to declare Georgia's law unconstitutional and to block it from being enforced. The groups last week asked U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash to prevent the law from taking effect until the lawsuit has been resolved.

Thrash said Friday he will hear arguments June 20 on that request. He also said he would hear arguments that day on the state's motion to dismiss the case. The motion to dismiss says the civil liberties groups lack standing and have failed to state a claim. It says the state should be immune from such lawsuits.

Atlanta-area lawyer Jerome Lee filed another federal lawsuit Monday on behalf of the Association of Persons Concerned with HB 87. The suit says the organization consists mainly of attorneys who represent immigrants and also includes immigrants and civic organizations. It says the plaintiffs "stand to be injured economically and non-economically" by the law.

Lee's lawsuit names President Barack Obama, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as defendants. The Justice Department said Tuesday it had no comment on the suit.

Lee acknowledged the civil liberties groups' lawsuit in a statement and said that his suit is a "last, desperate plea for help to our President."

"Despite our hope and faith that the other lawsuit against HB 87 will prove to be successful, we still feel compelled to prepare for the worst, as the stakes are simply too high," Lee wrote in a statement.

Georgia's new law authorizes law enforcement to check the immigration status of a suspect who cannot provide accepted identification and to detain and hand over to federal authorities anyone found to be in the country illegally. It also penalizes people who, during the commission of another crime, knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants and makes it a felony to present false documents or information when applying for a job.

Most parts of the law are set to take effect July 1. A requirement for many employers to use a federal database to check the immigration status of new hires is set to be phased in starting in January.

Lee's lawsuit cites similarities between Georgia's law and another that was enacted last year in Arizona and is tied up in courts. The Justice Department intervened in Arizona, arguing the law intrudes on the federal government's exclusive powers to regulate immigration. The government also warned the Arizona law could disrupt diplomacy between the U.S. and Mexico. A federal judge last year blocked parts of that law from taking effect. A federal appeals court judge upheld the decision and Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has said she plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Despite the similarities between the circumstances in Georgia and Arizona, the federal officials named in the new lawsuit "have arbitrarily and capriciously decided not to undertake the discrete and obligatory action of intervening in the courts to halt the implementation of the State of Georgia's immigration law," Lee's lawsuit claims.

In response to backlash from its action in Arizona, the federal government has "consciously and expressly adopted a general policy" of not intervening when states encroach on immigration regulation which should be its exclusive domain, the lawsuit says.

It blames the federal government's failure to act in Georgia and Utah for a "flood" of similar state laws.

Neighboring Alabama last week enacted an anti-illegal immigration law that critics and supporters have called the strictest in the country. Multiple groups have already vowed to sue to block it.

The federal government did not intervene in Utah, where a law similar to Georgia's was enacted earlier this year. After civil liberties groups sued, a federal judge last month temporarily blocked that law, citing similarities to the most controversial parts of Arizona's law. A hearing is set for mid-July to determine if the law can go into effect.

SOURCE






Australian government refugee policy under challenge

THE Gillard government's proposed refugee swap with Malaysia has been challenged in the High Court, on the grounds it will separate a Kurdish man who has been recognised as a refugee in Australia from his newly arrived wife and four-year-old son.

The man's family are among 274 asylum seekers who have arrived since the deal with Malaysia was announced, and the Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, has said the group will be deported to another country. If sent to Malaysia, they will spend years waiting to be processed.

A lawyer for the asylum seekers, David Manne, lodged papers in the High Court yesterday. He later told the ABC's Lateline program: "This case is about stopping the government from permanently splitting up a family."
Advertisement: Story continues below

Last year Mr Manne won a High Court case that allowed asylum seekers who arrived by boat to be granted access to Australia's courts, opening the door for Federal Court challenges to adverse determinations on refugee status.

The man at the centre of the latest case arrived in Australia 18 months ago, and remains in detention in Melbourne awaiting final checks, although he has been recognised as a refugee.

Mr Manne told Lateline the family was desperate to be reunited and the Malaysia deal breached international refugee conventions.

The legal challenge came on a day the deal also came under attack in Parliament. Mr Bowen criticised the "coalition of convenience" between the Greens and the opposition after the parties combined to inflict an historic defeat, with both houses condemning the refugee deal.

The motion, tabled by the Greens MP Adam Bandt, cannot stop the refugee swap but is a curtain-raiser for a Greens move to seek to change the Migration Act and require Parliament's permission to send refugees to a "declared" third country.

Mr Bowen said the Greens and the Coalition were "diametrically opposed" on refugee policy.

He said it would be "extraordinarily hypocritical" if the Coalition were to support the next Greens bill because it could also block the "Nauru solution".

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has been pushing Nauru as an alternative to Malaysia.

The opposition's immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, said he would meet the Greens, and the Coalition would not form a view until the plan was debated.

Mr Abbott used the condemnation to attempt to censure the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, for acting in defiance of the Parliament if she continues with the Malaysia deal, which is yet to be approved by the UNHCR but will see 800 asylum seekers sent to Malaysia in exchange for accepting 4000 recognised refugees.

The vote was the first time both houses in the minority parliament had condemned government policy. It passed the House of Representatives 70-68 , aided by Andrew Wilkie and Bob Katter.

SOURCE



16 June, 2011

More 'Silent Raids' Over Immigration

The Obama administration intensified a crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants, notifying another 1,000 companies in all 50 states Wednesday the government plans to inspect their hiring records.

Businesses across the U.S. that rely on low-skilled labor are working to stave off Immigration and Customs Enforcement audits, which can lead to the loss of large numbers of employees, reduced productivity and legal expenses.

Wednesday's surge in so-called silent raids drew criticism from both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and immigrant advocates.

It brought to 2,338 the number of companies audited by ICE in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 and topped the prior year's record of 2,196. The audits, affecting such businesses as garment makers, produce growers and fast-food chains, result in the firing of every illegal immigrant found on a company's payroll.

For employers, the audits can lead to both civil and criminal penalties. The possibilities range from fines and being barred from competing for government contracts to criminal charges of knowingly employing illegal workers, evading taxes and engaging in identity theft.

Employers of all sizes were notified they must hand over I-9 employment-eligibility forms, which contain Social Security numbers, dates of birth and statements by employees of their citizenship status. ICE didn't identify the businesses because of "the ongoing, law-enforcement-sensitive nature of the inspections," said a spokeswoman, Gillian Christensen.

Officials of ICE, a unit of the Department of Homeland Security, said the audited companies operate in areas defined as "critical infrastructure and key resources," including food production, information technology, financial services and construction. Affected businesses could include cargo handlers, caterers of food for the military and builders of dams and highways, said immigration lawyers.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the past has refrained from making public comments about the audits. But on Wednesday, Randy Johnson, a senior vice president, said: "We are concerned the audits are being based more on a fishing expedition than firm facts."

He added, "Because these audits can cost millions of dollars in lost productivity and attorneys' fees, the government should move carefully and only when based on solid foundation that there is in fact illegal behavior." ICE doesn't reveal its criteria for deciding who gets audited.

The U.S. is home to about 11 million illegal immigrants; two-thirds participate in the labor force, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They typically use a made-up Social Security Number or the identity of a legal U.S. resident or citizen.

Entire sectors have come to rely on illegal workers. Clothing maker American Apparel laid off more than a quarter of its factory workers, or 1,500 employees, after an audit in 2009. It later blamed the audit for a loss of productivity that brought it to the brink of bankruptcy.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, which owns and operates nearly 1,100 outlets, has let go hundreds of workers since an audit that began last year in Minnesota and stretched to Virginia and Washington, D.C. Restaurant analysts expect the company's financial results to be affected as it seeks to hire and train new workers.

Illegal immigrants are the backbone of some sectors of U.S. agriculture. "Given the fact that, admittedly, 70% to 80% of our work force is improperly documented, ICE audits can eliminate that percentage of our productive capacity. You cannot stay in business," said Tom Nassif, president of Western Growers, an association of fruit and vegetable growers and packers in California and Arizona.

Many employers say they don't have the ability to police their work forces. They say they also fear discrimination lawsuits, which some have faced, for demanding additional documents from workers they suspect are in the U.S. illegally.

In the past, ICE agents have initiated audits in one region, and companies in the same business were unlikely to face inspection elsewhere. But "businesses can no longer assume an audit is isolated in one location. It's spreading nationwide," said Julie Myers, ICE chief during the Bush administration, who advises companies on immigration.

She said some companies are trying to do "proactive I-9 inspections" to ensure their work force is legal.

Larger employers have been increasingly targeted since the establishment earlier this year of an ICE audit office outside Washington.

Enforcement activity during the Bush administration focused on high-profile raids in which thousands of illegal immigrants were arrested and placed in deportation proceedings. Relatively few companies and their executives were prosecuted.

In contrast, the Obama administration has made employers the center of its enforcement strategy because jobs are the magnet for illegal immigration, officials say.

The strategy has been interpreted as an attempt by the president, who favors an overhaul of immigration laws, to show hard-liners he is cracking down on illegal immigration.

It draws flak from more than one part of the political spectrum. Advocates for immigrants say it forces workers to leave well-paying jobs with benefits for lower-paying positions in the underground economy.

"I-9 audits do not diminish the unauthorized work force. Instead, they disrupt operations and expand the cash economy, as workers find jobs with bad-actor employers who exploit them," said Eliseo Medina, International Secretary-Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union.

Peter Schey, an attorney for American Apparel, called it "a senseless policy in the name of making a down payment on comprehensive immigration policy."

Foes of illegal immigration, such as House Judiciary chairman Lamar Smith (R., Texas), say the audits are ineffectual because they don't result in deportations and enable dismissed illegal workers to find other jobs and displace Americans.

Rep. Smith introduced legislation this week to make mandatory the use of E-Verify, an electronic database run by the government, which checks the work-eligibility of hires.

Wendy Madden, a business immigration attorney in Montgomery, Ala., said several of her clients, in utilities and food production, had received notices of inspection from ICE, and were surprised because they have been participating in E-Verify. "The fact you participate in E-Verify doesn't mean you won't be audited," she said.

SOURCE





CA: Sheriff Frees “Low-Level” Illegal Alien Criminals

To honor local sanctuary policies the top law enforcement official in a major U.S. county is releasing jailed illegal immigrants, including those flagged by federal authorities for deportation.

San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey began freeing illegal alien prisoners a few weeks ago to protest against a federal program (Secure Communities) that requires local authorities to check the immigration status of arrestees. The idea is to deport dangerous criminals, many of whom have fallen through the cracks over the years.

Last month Hennessey, California’s longest-serving sheriff, announced that he would ignore federal detainer orders on illegal immigrants arrested for low-level crimes such as shoplifting, disorderly conduct or public drunkenness. Under Secure Communities, arrestees identified as undocumented are held by local jails until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials transfer them.

But the arrangement violates San Francisco’s longtime sanctuary law, which forbids public employees and police from asking anyone about their immigration status. The famously liberal city by the bay also offers illegal aliens official government identification cards and all sorts of taxpayer-financed public benefits.

Hennessy, who is an elected official, claims that all residents are equal and stresses that San Francisco is proud of its diversity and values the contributions of immigrants. “San Francisco has always been a city of immigrants,” Hennessey said, adding that all civic leaders work hard to serve all residents regardless of immigration status.

Notably absent in the rhetoric were cases in which violent criminals were protected by the sanctuary policies. For instance a few years ago a Salvadoran gang member with two felony convictions murdered a father and his two sons because he never got turned over to federal authorities for removal.

Judicial Watch obtained California public records that revealed San Francisco authorities knew the triple murderer (Edwin Ramos) was an illegal immigrant and active member of a deadly street gang known as MS-13. The records also show that Ramos had been previously arrested on gang-related and weapons charges yet

SOURCE



15 June, 2011

France to deport more Romanian Gypsies after discovering they are behind 80% of street crime

The vast majority of street robberies in Paris are now carried out by the children of Romanian immigrants, France’s Interior Minister has claimed. Claude Gueant said the notoriously poor and corrupt eastern European state is responsible for exporting some of the most notorious sneak thieves in the world.

Many operate in gangs around the Gare du Nord Eurostar station, preying on English travellers as they arrive by high-speed train from London.

Last year France launched an onslaught against illegal Roma camps full of Romanian immigrants which had sprung up around the French capital. In an interview with the Journal du Dimanche newspaper, Mr Gueant said: ‘Many illegal camps were evacuated. ‘However, we have to face up to another problem, that of Romanian delinquency. In Paris, 80 per cent of street robberies are committed by Romanian minors.

‘Along with the Romanian authorities, we are taking action against this delinquency, which is organised around cities and by mafia gangs.’ Paris police confirmed that there were now ‘dozens’ of Romanian gangs operating around major tourists attractions, and at transport hubs.

Passengers arriving at the Gare du Nord are often swamped by up to 10 Romanian girls asking ‘Do you speak English?’ and holding out their hands. Bodily contact is commonplace, with the girls delving into pockets and bags as they surround their victims.

Meanwhile, hardened male criminals will keep watch, or intervene with violence if anybody tries to fight the girls off.

Young boys also snatch phones and wallets from people sitting on the outside terraces of Paris cafés, while underground Metro passengers find themselves surrounded by crowd of youngsters who will pickpocket them.

‘Such scenarios take place all over Paris, and it is a growing problem,’ said a police spokesman. ‘We can disperse the children momentarily, but in the end they are minors and there is very little action we can take as far as holding them in custody is concerned.’

Mr Gueant, one of the most hardline French Interior Ministers in recent history, has not only pledged to deport immigrant criminals, but also wants to reduce the amount of legal immigration into France.

Earlier this month he met British Home Secretary Theresa May in Calais, where he pledged to reduce the number of migrants crossing over to Britain to claim asylum or disappear into the black economy.

Last year, the EU blocked Romania and Bulgaria from joining the EU’s passport-free travel zone because of fears of an influx of organised criminals.

Romania, which joined the EU in 2007, has also faced major problems as a centre for drugs and people trafficking.

Around 2000 Roma people, including many Romanians, are believed to live in France. Under EU citizenship rules, Roma people have the right to move to France but must have work permits to stay for longer than three months.

SOURCE






Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Mark Krikorian Discusses Alabama Immigration Law on FOX and Friends (Video)

2. Leo W. Banks Wins CIS 2011 Katz Award (Articles, Video, Transcript)

3. Butterflies Are Free, But Immigrants Too? (Blog)

4. A New Way for a State Government to Sabotage Immigration Enforcement (Blog)

5. It Takes a Heap of Immigration Law Violations to Keep a Slave at Home (Blog)

6. Mexican Complaint of U.S. 'Ignorance and Prejudice' (Blog)

7. Skills Gap Grows, Even as Immigrants Are More Educated (Blog)

8. USCIS Is to Be Commended for Taking Action Against Immigration Crooks (Blog)

9. Mormon Church's Efforts to Save Utah Amnesty Bill Could Pose Problems for Romney and Huntsman (Blog)

10. Secure Communities: Just Do It (Blog)

11. More Troubles for H-1B Users: A Roundup of Enforcement News (Blog)

12. Immigration Policy and Competitiveness: Two Nuggets (Blog)

13. Overseas Immigration News Roundup: Good and Bad Case Studies (Blog)





14 June, 2011

California: The Sanctuary State

Americans are familiar with sanctuary cities and counties but now California appears to be heading toward becoming the first sanctuary state. While Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona have passed legislation taking a tougher stand on illegal immigration, California is heading in the opposite direction with bills such as AB 540, AB 1081, AB 130, and AB 131. American Thinker interviewed several of those who are knowledgeable about the situation in California.

California AB 1081, recently passed by the Democratic majority Assembly, would require the Department of Justice to renegotiate its 2009 agreement: to participate in the Federal Secure Communities Act (SCA), which is an information sharing partnership between Federal, State, and local agencies.

An ICE spokesperson described the Act as a mandatory requirement for law enforcement to submit the fingerprints of anyone arrested to "the FBI to be checked against the Department of Justice's biometric system...and are automatically sent to DHS's biometric system to check against its immigration and law enforcement records." Those that support the bill want to modify the Secure Communities Act to stop the information sharing with ICE.

However, an ICE official insisted that their local field office, "and not the state or any local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate...The local field office in that jurisdiction will or will not take enforcement action based on the fingerprint results... State and local jurisdictions cannot opt out of the program."

Then Attorney General Jerry Brown supported this program, SCA, when he wrote to the San Francisco Sheriff last year, "You requested that the California Department of Justice block ICE from running checks on the fingerprints collected in San Francisco. The Secure Communities program is up and running...because I think this program serves both public safety and the interest of justice, I am declining your request." Now that he is Governor I hope that he will veto this bill, since it gives local law enforcement the option of not participating in the fingerprint-sharing program; essentially removing California counties from the mandatory Federal program.

Sheriffs Lee Baca, Los Angeles County, and Adam Christianson, Stanislaus County, also oppose AB 1081. They agree with Brown that jurisdictions should not opt out, since the Secure Communities Act is an effective tool for law enforcement that helps keep the communities safe. Christianson resents this legislation "because it interferes with my authority as the Sheriff to be able to protect and defend the community. The supporters of this bill are spreading misinformation, primarily to the Latino Community. They are the ones protecting the criminals." The supporters also claim that victims who are illegal and come forward will be deported.

However, the ICE official pointed out that only those arrested get finger printed so this is just a scare tactic. The supporters of 1081 are ignoring the real issue, public safety.

The statistics seem to be on the side of those who want to maintain this program, SCA. The ICE official cited as of April that "71 % of the aliens removed or returned through Secure Communities nationwide had criminal convictions. The remaining 29% were non criminal immigration violators, including individuals who had been previously removed, immigration fugitives, aliens who entered the US without inspection, visa violators, and visa overstays. In California, the program has resulted in the identification and repatriation of more than 41,000 deportable aliens, more than 70 % of whom had criminal convictions." Steve Whitmore, the spokesman for Sherriff Baca, noted that approximately 16,000 illegal aliens are incarcerated in county jails, costing the county $100 million per year; yet, the county is only reimbursed by the Federal Government $15 million per year.

A hidden benefit of Secure Communities, according to Whitmore, is that the county's cost is lowered when an illegal is transferred by ICE to a Federal holding facility.

This appears to be another instance of States rights versus Federal Rights. While Arizona is fulfilling its obligations to the citizens, going as far as denying State revenue money to jurisdictions that try to opt out, California is going in a divergent direction. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne sees 1070, the immigration bill, as an extension of the Secure Communities Act. California Assemblyman Tom Donnelly (R) tried to get a bill similar to 1070, AB 26, to the floor for a vote, but was thwarted by the Democratic majority.

By passing 1081 and not voting on AB 26, Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA), chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, feels that Sacramento is sending the wrong message and he cannot understand "How you can be opposed to checking fingerprints of people that are jailed, making sure these people are not in this country illegally? How can anyone be opposed to that? Justice, law and fairness no longer matter."

Other California bills that show how the legislators are crossing the line are AB 540, AB 130, and AB 131. The latter two allow for undocumented students to apply for both fee waivers at the community college level and also institutional aid from larger colleges and universities. This follows the passage of AB 540 that allows illegal immigrants to attend public colleges and pay in state tuition fees. There are a number of out of state US residents who tried suing the California University system, until the Supreme Court dismissed it.

One student, Onson Luong, a resident of Nevada whose parents immigrated to the US legally from China feels that that "this is completely unfair for someone here illegally to get benefits through a loophole, having attended high school in California for three years. Why are they allowed to pay in state tuition when citizens are not?" Donnelly feels that a vast majority of Californians would not approve of these measures if they knew about them, especially since the college system is taxpayer subsidized. As a result of these bills out of state students are recruited to pay for the extra debt incurred which means there are even fewer spots for California legal residents.

Furthermore, according to Donnelly these students who graduate will never be able to work or pay taxes "because they are illegal. The entire investment which is how they sell it is a poor use of resources."

Congressman Bilbray wants Congress to limit funding to those states which "actively violate our immigration policy. The Federal Government is no longer going to be sending money to anybody who is financing illegal immigration. Sacramento better wake up, that the days of depending on Washington to finance their political agenda is coming to an end."

Hopefully he is correct because the line between legal and illegal is being erased in California. An Arizonan legislator John Kavanagh (R) sarcastically commented that "We very much like California. We appreciate welcoming states like California because that deflects from us. We should put an ad in our newspapers showing how California has bestowed all sorts of benefits to illegal immigrants."

Matt Ramsey (R), a Georgia Legislator, is co-authoring a bill that prohibits any illegal from attending any Georgia college, was also sarcastic, noting that "I am not optimistic that our friends on the LEFT COAST will reverse course anytime soon and get some common sense." Unfortunately, both these legislators speak the truth since Sacramento legislators, in passing these bills, have shown that they represent the unlawful immigrants, not the lawful residents of California.

SOURCE





Texas Senate Hears Testimony on Sanctuary Cities Bill

A Texas Senate committee heard testimony this morning on legislation that would enable local law enforcement to question people about their immigration status during encounters such as traffic stops. The so-called “sanctuary cities” legislation died during the 2011 regular session but Governor Rick Perry put in back on the call for this month’s special session.

Democrats have been opposed to sanctuary cities legislation. Senator Wendy Davis (D- Fort Worth) questioned Texas Department of Public Safety officials this morning about the current language of the bill. She thinks it could give police officers too much power.

“My concern is that if it’s light-haired fair-eyed me, I might have a different procedure applied to determining my identity but if I am dark-haired and brown-skinned and dark-eyed, there may be a different procedure to determine my identity… that’s my concern,” Davis told DPS officials.

Senator Davis voiced concern that if passed, this bill would open the door to stops based solely on suspicion of illegal immigration status without probable cause for a criminal offense. DPS Highway Patrol officer John Rainey spoke of how officers handle these cases right now.

“The only time we would contact border patrol or ICE on a traffic stop is if we for the most part the person’s either going to tell us their not from this country or we have good reasonable suspicion that they’re not from this country,” Rainey testified.

Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa (D-McAllen) said the state could overreach its authority when it comes to immigration enforcement.

“The immigration laws state that being in this country illegally is a civil matter not a criminal matter and the federal courts have consistently ruled that the state’s don’t have the authority to enforce the provisions of the immigration laws and is limited only to criminal,” Hinojosa said.

Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez said the sanctuary cities bill comes with a price tag for local communities. Valdez worried about the burden on county jails at a time when many are making budget cuts.

“The undocumented stay longer in our jails than the others so therefore it’s going to give us more costs 60 dollars a day average. Who do I decide to put out when a hundred more a month come in? Who do I let out? We’re already stressed and we’re trying to hold as many people as we can,” Valdez said. ”And who’s going to make that decision on what are the categories on who we put out? I honestly believe the jails should have room for people we are afraid of not that we are upset with.”

Testimony is scheduled to continue for hours today since so many people signed up to speak.

SOURCE



13 June, 2011

Britain handed out 204,000 passports to foreign nationals, latest figures reveal

Britain gave citizenship to the highest number of foreign nationals in Europe, new research has found. A total of 203,600 foreign nationals were awarded British citizenship in 2009 - that is 50 per cent more than second-placed France and more than double the number in Germany.

The figures, from the EU statistics body Eurostat, followed predictions that Britain could become the most populated EU country by 2060 - with 79 million people.

UK passports were given to one in four of the 776,000 new citizens entering the EU in 2009.

The EU saw an 11 per cent rise on the number of people entering the euro zone from the previous year.

The 203,600 people who entered Britain was a 57 per cent increase on the 129,300 who came in 2008.

Critics have said the figures revealed that Labour's immigration policies had left borders 'wide open'. Ukip's home affairs spokesman Gerard Batten told the Daily Express: 'These figures show how Labour's uncontrolled, unlimited immigration policy is coming home to roost. 'David Cameron must get a grip and introduce radical policies to halt mass immigration.'

The Prime Minister has said wants to cut net immigration to the 'tens of thousands'.

SOURCE





102 foreign criminals and illegal immigrants Britain can't deport

More than 100 foreign criminals and illegal immigrants have beaten deportation under controversial “right to family life” laws in the past year.

For the first time The Sunday Telegraph can disclose how scores of people the Government wanted to remove from the country have been able to stay by claiming that they had a “family life” here under Article Eight of the European Convention of Human Rights.

A total of 102 people defeated the Home Secretary in the courts in 2010 on family rights grounds, including violent criminals and illegal immigrants who had no other right to be in the country. None claimed that they would be in danger of torture or abuse if they were sent home.

It can also be disclosed that one foreign criminal who used Article Eight was a violent thug and drug dealer who beat his girlfriend and failed to pay child maintenance – but was still allowed to stay in a ruling made by three senior judges.

Last night the figures fuelled the row over the use of the European Convention, which was passed into British law by the previous Labour government, and particularly Article Eight – the “right to private and family life”. Dominic Raab, the Conservative MP who obtained the figures, said: “Before the Human Rights Act, no criminal had ever claimed a right to family life to frustrate a deportation order in this country. “It is high time we changed the law, to restore some common sense and retain public confidence in our border controls.”

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, had ordered that the violent drug dealer, known only as AP because his identity was kept secret by the judges, should be sent back to Trinidad. Article Eight is the number one reason criminals or immigrants, who either entered Britain illegally or breached their visa conditions, managed to defeat deportation, the figures from HM Courts Service show.

There were 233 appeals against deportation in 2010, of which 149 were successful under human rights laws – 102 of them solely citing Article Eight. Thirty-five were under Article Three, which protects people from being killed or tortured if returned to an unsafe country, and the rest used a mix of Articles.

Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of MigrationWatch, said: “We must find a new balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of the community, which appear to have no weight at all. “The fact that seven out of 10 who succeed have used Article Eight underlines the significance of an effective review. It is not enough to kick this issue into the long grass yet again.”

The figures come after a series of Article Eight cases exclusively revealed by this newspaper, which is demanding reform in our End the Human Rights Farce campaign, including:

* A Nepalese killer, Rocky Gurung, allowed to remain here even though he was a single adult with no children, who lived with his parents.

* A Sri Lankan robber allowed to remain here because he has a girlfriend in Britain.

* An Iraqi killer who, it was ruled, should not be deported because he would be a risk to people in his homeland.

* A Bolivian man who avoided deportation partly because he had bought a pet cat.

Last week this newspaper disclosed how tens of thousands of asylum applicants had been allowed to remain in Britain under the Home Office’s backlog-clearing exercise because officials feared that challenging any case with “family life” factors would be overturned in the courts, and lead to expensive legal actions.

The latest case, involving AP, will again raise concern about how judges are applying the law. From north London, he has a five-year-old daughter and “did not provide care for her ... nor provide any funds for her maintenance”, according to the court, but still won his fight to stay in Britain because of his “right to family life”.

AP, who lives in a £500,000 housing association flat close to one of London’s most desirable streets, was jailed for 18 months by Ipswich Crown Court in May 2008 for possession of cocaine with intent to supply. His criminal record included battery of his partner in August 2007. He was handed a community sentence, which he breached and was later given a suspended two-year jail sentence.

Home Office officials notified him that they intended to deport him back to the Caribbean, but he appealed and after his release from jail in January 2009 told a tribunal he was remorseful and getting his life back on track. Two days later he was arrested for possession of cocaine and fined £75.

In March 2009 a tribunal ruled that AP should not be deported. The judges said: “We are satisfied that the effect of his proposed removal on all members of his family unit in the UK would result in removal being disproportionate, especially since he has a child who has a strong bond with him and he with her and we have heard credible evidence that he is a good and caring father.

“We therefore find, in striking a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community, that our assessment of proportionality is that a decision to remove the appellant is in all the circumstances not proportionate and we allow this appeal under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The Home Secretary appealed against the decision, but it was upheld by Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Carnwath and Lord Justice Rimer at the Court of Appeal last month.

AP came to Britain aged three, when his mother was already in the country. The mother, who also cannot be named, was living here after overstaying a one-month visa which was granted to come from Trinidad to Britain to attend her niece’s engagement party.

SOURCE



12 June, 2011

Alabama's Tough New Immigration Law Can Withstand Legal Challenges, Experts Say

Alabama's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants will likely survive legal challenges from advocacy groups that say it is unconstitutional and racist, analysts told Fox News. The law, which takes effect Sept. 1, empowers police to arrest people suspected of being an illegal immigrant if they are stopped for another reason and requires businesses and schools to verify whether workers and students are in the country lawfully. It also makes it a crime to knowingly transport or shelter illegal immigrants.

As soon as Republican Gov. Robert Bentley signed the bill into law Thursday, the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center were vowing to defeat it in court. "It is clearly unconstitutional. It's mean-spirited, racist, and we think a court will enjoin it," said Mary Bauer, legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

"By signing this bill into law, Gov. Bentley has codified official discrimination in the state of Alabama," said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "We will take action to keep this law from going into effect to ensure that the civil rights and liberties of all Alabamans are protected."

Legal experts told Fox News that they expect the case to head to the Supreme Court where they believe the state will prevail.
"I think the states have the right to do this," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. "I think it will be successful."

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates strict immigration laws, says the one in Alabama is fair. "It does not go too far," he said. "The ACLU will object to anything that involves immigration enforcement."

"There are a lot of different pieces to it but I think probably the most important part is completely fair and very neutral and very effective, is requiring all businesses when they hire someone to check that info, the Social Security number against the federal government online E-verify system. Common sense. It works well."

There are an estimated 120,000 illegal immigrants in Alabama, a nearly fivefold increase from a decade ago, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Alabama isn't the only Southern state cracking down on illegal immigrants. Georgia passed a similar measure a few weeks ago and that law goes into effect July 1. Civil liberties groups have already sued that state in an attempt to block the law.

The Alabama law was modeled on Arizona's. A federal judge blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's law last year after the Justice Department sued. The case appears headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. A less restrictive law in Utah also was blocked after a lawsuit was filed.

"The states are sick and tired of the federal government basically doing nothing to protect the individual citizens from what is a serious problem," Sekulow said.

Krikorian said these laws send a clear message to illegal immigrants. "The point is to make it as difficult as possible for an illegal alien to put down roots, to make it hard to live a normal life," he said, explaining that not being able to get a job or an apartment makes it less appealing to be an illegal alien.

"So if you are thinking of going there, you think twice, and if you are illegal already, you think seriously about packing up and leaving," he said.

SOURCE





Australian government trying to get tough

THE 274 asylum seekers and crew who have arrived on Christmas Island since the Malaysia policy was announced will be processed in another country, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen confirmed yesterday. Mr Bowen said the federal government would stand firm on its policy to close the door, despite uncertainty over Malaysia's acceptance.

Malaysia said yesterday it is considering taking at least some of the asylum seekers who arrived ahead of the swap deal being formally signed, a shift from its previous position.

A Malaysian official said the deal was all but sealed, with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees "on board". The UNHCR declined to comment. "We've made it clear that those 300 are not necessarily to be included in the 800 … our position is that they would be processed in a third country," Mr Bowen told ABC Radio.

There is little chance of a speedy deal with Papua New Guinea to reopen the Manus Island centre, as turmoil continues there following the sacking of Foreign Minister Don Polye, the main supporter of a deal.

Mr Bowen said the government was "in discussions with countries across the region" about stopping the people smugglers' trade.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison, who will travel to Nauru at the weekend with leader Tony Abbott, said there was "a taxpayer funded processing centre on Nauru which can be opened within weeks". He said asylum seekers sent to Nauru would not have to be tagged to avoid caning.

Mr Bowen told ABC Radio he had "said on many occasions" that people transferred to Malaysia would not be regarded as illegal migrants, and he and the Malaysian government had repeatedly guaranteed they would not be caned.

The 4000 refugees brought to Australia under the deal would be mostly Burmese, who "can't afford a people smuggler because they're in very difficult circumstances or they don't want to risk their life", he said.

The Age reported last week that the 800 sent to Malaysia would carry a UNHCR card and would not be classified as illegal immigrants. The federal government will pay for all their costs - including health checks, education, and monitoring by immigration officials. Asylum seekers in Malaysia live in the community "and can move freely", the UNHCR said.

Tomorrow, the UNHCR will launch a research report into alternatives to mandatory detention, highlighting the use of community accommodation to process asylum seekers.

La Trobe University contributed to the research, which found that asylum seekers rarely abscond while waiting for the outcome of a visa application, and rarely abscond from a transit country if they can meet their basic needs legally, are not at risk of being forcibly returned and remain hopeful of their prospects. They are more likely to comply with a negative decision if they have explored all legal options to remain in the country.

A joint parliamentary inquiry, pushed by the Greens, will examine Australia's mandatory detention policy and its alternatives. But it remains the policy of both the government and Coalition.

SOURCE



11 June, 2011

Tens of thousands of migrants will be barred from settling in the UK under Government plans to be 'more selective'

Tens of thousands of migrants will be asked to leave the UK under Government plans to clamp down on those abusing temporary visas to stay permanently. Immigration Minister Damian Green says Britain will be 'more selective about who we allow to stay' as immigration has hit record levels last year.

Mr Green has told MPs a clearer distinction was needed between temporary and permanent routes into the UK to ensure migrants do not take advantage of loopholes.

The number of people granted settlement in the UK reached an all-time high in the 12 months to last September, up 35 per cent from the previous year to 238,950 - the highest level since records began in 1960. 'We intend to break the automatic link between coming to the UK to work and settling here permanently,' Mr Green said.

Skilled workers coming to the UK from outside the EU, predominantly as a means of filling short-term skills shortages, 'should expect to leave the UK after a maximum of five years in the UK', he added. 'In future, only a tightly controlled minority will be permitted to stay permanently, where it is in the interests of the UK to do so.'

The Government is also considering bringing in an English language requirement for dependants of migrants who wish to settle in the UK.

And domestic workers coming to stay in diplomatic households as servants could be limited to just six or 12 months, while visas for domestic workers in private households could be scrapped altogether. 'This would oblige those wanting domestic workers to recruit instead from the UK labour market, with the rights and protections that affords,' Mr Green said.

The current system, which enables domestic workers to stay for up to six years and then apply for settlement, is 'exceptionally generous, and sits ill with an immigration system focused on meeting identified skill shortages and securing the brightest and best migrants', Mr Green added.

Temporary workers could also be restricted to 12-month stays 'to reinforce the temporary nature of the route'. They could also been banned from bringing their dependants, or have their dependants' ability to work restricted.

Dr Adam Marshall, director of policy and external affairs at the British Chambers of Commerce, said: 'Britain's migration system must protect our economy as well as our borders. 'Turfing out valuable migrant workers who are turned down for settlement would be incredibly disruptive to companies of all sizes, and to the UK's economic recovery. 'These proposals could also deter some skilled workers from coming to the UK in the first place.'

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of campaign group MigrationWatch UK, said the proposals were 'excellent news'. 'There will now be a real incentive for employers to train British workers rather than continue to take skilled foreign workers 'off the shelf' so as to avoid training costs,' he said.

Shadow home office minister Shabana Mahmood said Labour backed reform of the settlement regime. But she warned that changes would only be effective 'if they are backed up by strong and consistent enforcement of the rules' and highlighted recent critical reports of the UK Border Agency.

'On top of this, the Government has imposed a 20% cut on the UKBA budget, which will mean the loss of over 5,000 jobs,' she said. 'It is inevitable that enforcement will suffer as a result.

'The Government needs to be straight with the public. 'Its key pledge on immigration - to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015 - is in disarray, and they have once again failed to explain to the public how this will be achieved. 'The Government talks tough on immigration, but it is clear that it is failing to deliver.'

SOURCE





Australia's migrant intake to be more 'English'



AUSTRALIA'S migrant intake is set to become more "English" and less Asian because of a tough language test.

An Immigration Department report says fewer than one in five skilled migrants comes from major English background nations such as Britain, the United States, South Africa and Canada.

The skilled program is dominated by people from Asian countries including India, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Sri Lanka -- many of whom struggle with English. "This selection strategy has profound implications for employment outcomes in a knowledge economy," the report said.

But report author Prof Lesleyanne Hawthorne, from Melbourne University, said yesterday that things would change when tougher English standards for skilled migrants were introduced by the Federal Government from July 1.

Prof Hawthorne said people with high English fluency would get extra points and employer-sponsored migrants would move to the front of the queue. "So we will see a high proportion of our skilled migrants in the next few years from English-speaking backgrounds," she told the Herald Sun.

The make-up of the skilled migration program was being strongly influenced by employers, who tended to pick Anglo-background workers for temporary skilled visas. "Employers ... in the knowledge economy are picking people basically from OECD countries," she said.

The report, prepared for the Immigration Department, compared the skilled migration policies of Australia and New Zealand. It found that in recent years about 17 per cent of skilled migrants to Australia were from Anglo-background nations compared with almost half in NZ.

SOURCE



10 June, 2011

CA: SCOTUS declines immigrant tuition case

The US Supreme Court refused on Monday to examine a California law that allows illegal immigrants to attend state colleges and universities at preferential in-state tuition rates that are roughly one-third the cost charged to students from out-of-state.

Under the state law any individual – regardless of immigration status – who graduates from a California high school after attending for three years qualifies for the same tuition discount offered to California residents.

The discounts apply at all public universities in the state, including the system’s most prestigious and highly-competitive institutions.

Eight other states have enacted similar provisions, offering illegal immigrants in those states the same in-state tuition discount offered to state residents. Those states are Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, New York, Texas, Utah, and Washington. Oklahoma passed a similar law, but later repealed it.

A group of out-of-state students filed a lawsuit challenging the California law. The suit says the state measure conflicts with and is preempted by a 1996 federal immigration statute that forbids states from offering resident tuition rates to any illegal immigrant unless the state offers the same preferential tuition rates to all US citizens regardless of their state residency.

A state judge dismissed the suit, but a California appeals court ruled that the state provision was preempted by the federal immigration law.

The California Supreme Court reversed that decision, ruling that the state law did not confer a benefit on illegal immigrants based on their residence in California.

The state law based the preferential tuition award on criteria other than the student’s state of residence, the state high court said. The in-state tuition is granted on the basis of attendance at and graduation from a California high school. Although most graduates from California schools do, in fact, reside in California, the high court reasoned that not all graduates are residents.

Minor children of out-of-state parents who attend boarding schools in California qualify for resident tuition rates. So do students who live in an adjoining state or country and attend high school in California.

The state supreme court said if Congress intended to impose a ban on illegal immigrants receiving in-state tuition it could have done so. Instead, Congress restricted only the use of residence as a criterion, the court said, but it did not bar states from identifying other criteria to award the in-state discounts.

In urging the US Supreme Court to take up the case, Kris Kobach, a lawyer for the students, said the congressional measure is aimed at blocking the provision of benefits to illegal immigrants. He said Congress wanted to reduce any incentive for undocumented immigrants to enter or remain in the country unlawfully.

“Congress was concerned about states offering illegal aliens a particular benefit – resident tuition rates or the functional equivalent,” he wrote in his brief. “California spends in excess of $208 million each year subsidizing the tuition of illegal aliens under the [California law],” he said.

Julie Weng-Gutierrez of the California attorney general’s office urged the justices to dismiss the appeal, saying the out-of-state students lacked the necessary legal standing to bring the case. She said their lawsuit was aimed at fighting a generalized grievance over the state’s alleged noncompliance with federal law rather than a particularized and personal injury the resolution of which would directly benefit them. Even if they won their suit, a favorable ruling would not reduce their tuition rates, she wrote.

Ms. Weng-Gutierrez added that there was no disagreement among the circuit courts of appeal on the issue of in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants necessitating the high court’s intervention.

She noted in her brief that 500 children who are residents of an adjoining state or country are attending California high schools. She added that 5,000 to 6,000 children of undocumented immigrants graduate each year from California high schools.

Ethan Schulman, a lawyer for the regents of the University of California, also urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal. He said the California legislature did not defy Congress in passing the in-state tuition law. State lawmakers “carefully tailored that statute to comply with federal law,” he said.

The California law’s criteria (graduation from a California high school and three years attendance) are not the same as residence, nor are they a de facto or surrogate residency requirement, Mr. Schulman wrote, echoing the California Supreme Court decision. The state court opinion continues: “Congress specifically referred to residence – not some form of surrogate for residence – as the prohibited basis for granting unlawful aliens a postsecondary education benefit.”

SOURCE





TX: Perry adds immigration items to special session

Gov. Rick Perry added immigration legislation to the special session's agenda on Tuesday, including a measure that would remove local law enforcement agencies' ability to make immigration violations a lower priority.

Other items he added include how local police use the federal Secure Communities program to check people's immigration status when they are arrested, and checking an applicant's immigration status before issuing driver's licenses and personal identification certificates, according to a statement from Perry.

The governor had named similar items as emergency legislation in the regular session, but the bills failed to reach the full Senate for a vote.

Opponents say the measures will lead to racial profiling and the harassment of minorities.

Texas Democrats vehemently oppose all the measures and successfully used parliamentary procedure to stymie them until after the deadline passed for passage during the regular session. In a special session, there are fewer opportunities to slow a bill down. Republicans have a 101-49 supermajority in the House and a 19-12 majority in the Senate, making it easy for them to pass the measures.

Proponents call places where police do not actively enforce federal immigration law "sanctuary cities," a moniker local officials reject.

"Texas owes it to the brave law enforcement officials, who put their lives on the line every day to protect our families and communities, to give them the discretion they need to adequately do their jobs," Perry said. "Abolishing sanctuary cities in Texas, using the federal Secure Communities program and ensuring that only individuals who are here legally can obtain a valid Texas driver's license sends a clear message that Texas will not turn a blind eye to those breaking our laws."

The bill would forbid policymakers from telling law enforcement officers not to give immigration matters the same priority as other crimes. The bill currently filed in the legislature would allow a police officer to ask about someone's immigration status whenever they are being questioned about any kind of violation.

If a police officer or a citizen feels like an agency is not fully pursuing immigration violators, that person can ask the state attorney general to file suit. Agencies are also subject to litigation if someone believes officers are racially profiling people, creating what critics call a no-win situation.

The vast majority of police chiefs oppose the measure, which they say would prevent them from setting their own law enforcement priorities.

"The police chiefs and sheriffs have said this would diminish their ability in community policing because this would create distrust in the community and keep people from coming forth with information that is needed," said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, the Democratic leader in the Senate. "I think it's bad public policy."

The federal Secure Communities program allows local jails to check the immigration status of suspects when they are booked. All of Texas' 254 counties already use the program, but Perry would like to see it expanded to include city jails. The Obama administration has said it wants the program to be nationwide by 2013.

Critics say the program busies itself rounding up low-level criminals and discourages crime victims from coming forward, such as a domestic violence victim who won't call police for fear that a spouse will be deported.

Van de Putte also questions the driver's license measure, which would require all applicants to prove their citizenship status not just on the initial application, but for renewals and replacements as well.

SOURCE



9 June, 2011

Arizona Reporter Wins Immigration Journalism Award

Leo W. Banks is the recipient of the 2011 Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration. The award, presented annually by the Center for Immigration Studies, is intended to highlight good reporting in a field where so much of the coverage is formulaic and mawkish.

While writing about life in southern Arizona during the late 1990s, Banks began to notice the impact of illegal immigration. The human and drug smuggling networks, violence, and environmental devastation soon became unavoidable. But few journalists were willing to chronicle these historic events. Covering the border for the Tucson Weekly and contributing to other publications, Banks has used his intimate familiarity with the people and places of the Arizona and his skills as a storyteller to shine a light on places many policymakers and others would rather ignore. These skills came in especially handy during the controversy over last year's passage of the state's most recent immigration law, which prompted an enormous amount of superficial drive-by journalism by reporters wholly unfamiliar with Arizona's border.

Nicholas Stein, producer of the National Geographic Television series 'Border Wars' and keynote speaker at the award presentation, said of Banks, 'He’s the one who really covers these stories of the real life-and-death and day-by-day difficulties of the folks who live down there, and has followed these stories in a remarkable way.' Stein, whose program chronicles the work of the Border Patrol, also noted, 'I'm embedded with law enforcement but he’s embedded with the citizens.'

Award Ceremony Booklet here

Award Ceremony Videos here

Award Ceremony Transcript here

This award is named in memory of Eugene Katz, a native New Yorker who started his career, after Dartmouth and Oxford, as a reporter for the Daily Oklahoman. In 1928, he joined the family business, working as an advertising salesman for the Katz Agency, and in 1952 became president of Katz Communications, a half-billion-dollar firm which not only dealt in radio and television advertising but also owned and managed a number of radio stations. Mr. Katz was a member of the Center for Immigration Studies board until shortly after his 90th birthday in 1997. He passed away in 2000.

Previous winners of the Katz Award are listed here

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





Australian Labor party bigwigs now echoing conservatives on boatpeople policy

THREE senior Labor ministers have warned of the risk that more child asylum-seekers could drown in Australian waters without a change in border protection policy.

In a tacit admission that onshore processing of asylum-seekers attracts people-smugglers, the ministers, all from Labor's Right, rejected calls from Labor's Left for exemptions for minors under Julia Gillard's plan to deport 800 boatpeople to Malaysia.

Led by Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, they warned exemptions would encourage people-smugglers to target children -- comments that put them on the same ideological page as Tony Abbott, who will make the same points in a speech to the Lowy Institute in Sydney today.

For years, the government has attributed the increase in the flow of asylum-seeker boats arriving off northern Australian to "pull factors", including escalation of troubles in source nations.

But yesterday, as Right faction ministers sought to fight off pressure from the Left, they put themselves closer to the opposition's argument by insisting the government must remove incentives for people to travel to Australia in leaky boats.

Mr Bowen said it would not be possible to "break the people-smuggler business model" with a blanket exemption.

"We saw 50-odd people die in December on Christmas Island," Mr Bowen said. "We've got to stop people getting on those boats, and it is inevitable that we will see another tragedy unless we break the people-smugglers' business model."

The comments are similar to statements the Opposition Leader will make in today's Lowy Institute speech, where he will argue that Labor's dismantling of the Howard government's so-called Pacific Solution policy attracted people-smugglers and that the government had taken "a long time to learn" that the alternative to strict border protection is "tacit encouragement" for people to risk their lives at sea.

"The government can't be held responsible for the deaths of people in unseaworthy boats, but it is responsible for putting temptation in their way," says a copy of Mr Abbott's speech obtained by The Australian last night.

"Giving boatpeople what they want is not morally preferable to strict deterrence if it encourages more of them to take great risks making ocean voyages in leaky boats."

The key difference between the rhetoric of Mr Abbott and Labor is that the opposition wants asylum-seekers processed on the island of Nauru while the government is pursuing its plan to swap 800 boatpeople with Malaysia for 4000 established refugees.

Trade Minister Craig Emerson said MPs should be concerned about "children arriving unauthorised in very risky circumstances".

And Attorney-General Robert McClelland said the government's key aim must be to protect lives. "Those little children drowned obviously with fear in their eyes and terror, in circumstances we don't want to see repeated," he said.

During today's speech, Mr Abbott will reveal a plan to travel to Nauru this week to talk to its government about whether it was still prepared to reactivate an asylum-processing centre set up by the Howard government.

He will also argue that the Gillard government is yet to explain why it could be wrong to send asylum-seekers to Nauru for processing, but not wrong to send them to Malaysia.

"Under Malaysian law, immigration violations such as breaching conditions of entry are subject to caning with a rattan," he will say. "According to Amnesty International's 2010 report, tens of thousands of illegal migrants, including asylum-seekers, have been caned.

"If the government is serious about not allowing boatpeople to be caned, it simply can't send them to Malaysia."

SOURCE



8 June, 2011

We won't accept migrants fleeing turmoil in Africa, Brits tell the French

Theresa May last night insisted Britain would not accept thousands of migrants fleeing the turmoil in North Africa. The Home Secretary said the Government would not share the burden if European countries open their borders to asylum seekers.

In Calais to inspect joint immigration controls in the French port, Mrs May said: ‘I have made absolutely clear to my counterparts in Europe that we will not agree to so-called “burden sharing”. ‘Britain will not be accepting large numbers of North African migrants. Instead we will be working with other European countries to get these people safely back to their home countries. ‘We have not, and will not, opt into any proposal that would weaken our borders,’ she added.

Tens of thousands of people have fled the political instability in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia in recent months. Their arrival in southern Europe has put huge strain on the continent’s system of open borders, leading to proposals that it be scaled back.

France temporarily shut its border with Italy after the Italian government issued 25,000 temporary travel permits to Tunisian nationals. Commentators have suggested the crisis could lead to the end of the Schengen Agreement, which allows passport-free travel.

In a further worrying move, European Commission officials are also drawing up plans for a common asylum policy. But Mrs May said that Britain would not sign up to any agreement that would undermine border security.

Yesterday she met her French counterpart Claude Gueant, who warned illegal immigrants would try to exploit the influx of tourists for the Olympic Games to try to get into the UK. He said: ‘Of the eight million spectators expected in London, 800,000 will come from Europe and a third of those will be cross-Channel passengers. ‘We must therefore put into place [plans] on the French side to safeguard border security whilst also ensuring the free-flow of traffic.’

Around 3,500 immigrants have been found trying to cross the Channel hidden in the back of lorries so far this year. That compares with a total of nearly ten thousand discovered last year.

When Mrs May was at the port, a stowaway was found hidden in the back of a lorry after a search by a sniffer dog. The Iranian man, who was believed to have boarded the lorry in Belgium, was hidden among boxes of furniture.

Mrs May said action at the border had led to a fall of 70 per cent in the numbers trying to get into Britain. ‘We are committed to continuing to ensure the border is impenetrable,’ Mrs May added. ‘The fight against illegal immigration is one of this government’s highest priorities.’

Last week a report by the Home Affairs Select Committee said tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers had been allowed to stay in the UK in an immigration amnesty. Chaos in the UK Border Agency more than five years ago meant around 450,000 cases were left lying in boxes, and these are only now being cleared. Of the total, around 160,000 have been allowed to stay. Fewer than one in ten has been kicked out.

Labour’s home office spokesman Gerry Sutcliffe said yesterday: ‘Practical international co-operation is undoubtedly crucial for the effective policing of our borders. ‘But it will take more than a visit to Calais to get the fair enforcement of immigration controls right.’

SOURCE






Deport California's Illegal Immigrant Prisoners

Chuck Norris

In the classic movie "The Great Escape," a cluster of Hollywood manly men from yesteryear (including my friend Steve McQueen) played Allied POWs who escape from a German camp during World War II.

Today the great escape may be played out by more than 33,000 incarcerated inmates in California who don't escape the state's 33 prisons but are released by a computer error and the U.S. Supreme Court itself.

Many today say prisoners have too many rights and too many creature comforts while doing time and paying the penalties for their crimes. But the Supreme Court recently upheld the ruling of a district court panel that California prisons are sub-par environments for inmates. A 5-4 majority demanded that Golden State officials grant 33,000 of its 143,335 prisoners golden tickets to freedom because severe overcrowding has led to inadequate medical care.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "This extensive and ongoing constitutional violation requires a remedy, and a remedy will not be achieved without a reduction in overcrowding," he said.

Really? No remedy is possible without letting prisoners go free? No solution is possible without essentially expunging incarcerated criminals' crimes and penalties and releasing them into society?

It must be great to be an inmate in California, because the U.S. Supreme Court will not only fight for your medical welfare but also essentially pardon you from your crimes!

On the flip side, the court's four conservative justices were concerned that forcing the state to release 33,000 inmates could endanger the public.

You think?

Justice Samuel Alito was correct when he warned that the mass release of inmates would be "gambling with the safety of the people of California. ... I fear that today's decision, like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims. I hope that I am wrong. In a few years, we will see." Alito added, "The prisoner release ordered in this case is unprecedented, improvident, and contrary" to federal law.

The fact is that though five U.S. justices fight for the constitutional rights of California inmates, they abandon states' and their own governmental responsibilities, as outlined in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, to protect the lives, liberty and property of U.S. citizens.

Does the high court really believe that California officials can discern 33,000 nonviolent non-repeat offenders? And should we assume that California's liberal judicial system and sanctuary cities won't further coddle these criminals?

Ironically -- or, should I say, tragically -- just two days after the court's edict to release 33,000 California inmates, the Los Angeles Times reported that a computer glitch had prompted California prison officials to mistakenly release about 450 inmates with "a high risk for violence." To add insult to injury, more than 1,000 additional prisoners who possess a high risk of committing drug crimes, property crimes and other offenses were released. No efforts have been made to return any of these criminals behind bars.

While overcrowding and fiscal shortfalls prompt state lawmakers across the country to compromise harsher laws for criminals, I believe that only strictly enforcing law and order will promote deterrence and reduce crimes (and hence incarceration numbers). America's prisons, like our borders, need more reinforcement, not more laxity -- a fact that leads me to pose a possible better solution than the Supreme Court's allowance of inmates being released back into California cities.

Could it be merely coincidental that over the past two decades of California's liberal approach to border control, the state's prison population and economic status have gone down the tubes?

Here are a few statistics that should be entered into this debate:

In 2005, Heather Mac Donald, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security that nearly 25 percent of inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally. If that's true, that number alone exceeds 30,000 illegals in California's prison system.

Moreover, a 2004 report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform concluded that the education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens cost Californians $10.5 billion per year. That's $1,183 annually for every household.

And who can doubt that those figures have increased significantly in the past seven years?

So my question is this: What would the effects be on California's economy and prison population, immediately and in the future, if the illegal immigrants (Mexicans and others) were actually deported? Why can't that "solution" be considered as at least a remedy for the Golden State's economic and incarceration problems?

And if you assume that deportation costs would surpass costs of prisoner release within the state, compare the price of a plethora of one-way bus and plane trips of illegal immigrants with the years of continual costs to human life, property and our courts brought about by 30,000 criminals released on California streets and repeat offenders being re-incarcerated.

To me, it looks as if Californians have a big battle and choice on their hands, which I believe will cross state lines and turn into similar struggles in other states. Do Californians want 33,000 criminals back on their streets or roughly the same number of prisoners who are illegal immigrants deported back to their own countries?

SOURCE



7 June, 2011

Racist British immigration authorities

Asylum for black brute but not for white policeman

His British great-grandfather fought for his country in the Boer War and on the Somme before the family moved to Zimbabwe. Now Guy Taylor has sought refuge in Britain, fearing a return to his native land would leave him facing persecution.

But despite his pleas for asylum in this country, immigration judges have dismissed his bid and he faces being deported.
Being sent back: Former Zimbabwe police officer Guy Taylor has been refused asylum in the UK

The 31-year-old's case has provoked fury as it follows the decision to allow one of Robert Mugabe's former henchmen to stay in the UK indefinitely.

Phillip Machemedze was involved in 'savage acts of extreme violence', including smashing a man's jaw with pliers and then pulling out his teeth. But last month it emerged an immigration tribunal ruled he cannot be sent back to Zimbabwe, as he fears for his human rights and could face torture.

Mr Taylor, by contrast, fears he could be deported within weeks.
He was born in Zimbabwe but his great-grandfather was Welsh and served in the Army during the First World War. His mother's great-grandfather was born in Dublin and emigrated to South Africa at the turn of the last century.

In his asylum claim, Mr Taylor said that as a former policeman and member of the opposition MDC party he would be targeted by the Zimbabwean authorities who would suspect him of being a British spy. He left the police in 2000 after it came under the influence of Mugabe's ruling Zanu PF party and came to Britain in 2005, where his sister lives.

But judges dismissed his case, saying they were not convinced he was a member of the MDC and that his 'credibility' is damaged as he lived here illegally for two years after his visitor visa expired.

Last night Mr Taylor said: 'If I go back there I will be persecuted. 'I fear for my safety. They are notorious for their brutality. 'I was taken aback that this man, this torturer, can be allowed to stay in the UK and I’m not. I have got a genuine claim for asylum. 'I have put my fears across, I have proved what's going to happen to me, but they won’t listen.'

By contrast, Machemedze has won his case and – failing a successful appeal by the Home Office – will be allowed to stay here indefinitely. The 46-year-old former member of the feared Central Intelligence Organisation inflicted horrific injuries on Mugabe's political opponents.

He came to Britain in 2000 but didn’t claim asylum for another eight years. His wife has been granted asylum and the couple live in Bristol.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Built to Fail: Deception and Disorder in America’s Immigration Courts (Backgrounder, Panel Discussion)

2. Fewer Jobs, More Imported (Poverty-Class) Workers (Blog)

3. The Story of Q: The Greedy Search for the Most Exploitative Visa Category (Blog)

4. Awakening from the Dream Act: Sen. Rubio vs. Frank Sharry (Blog)

5. In-Secure Communities (Blog)

6. Misrepresentation in the Coverage Claimed for Secure Communities (Blog)

7. Iraqi Refugee Terrorists (Blog)

8. Two Types of Admission Decisions: the Sensible Way and the American Way (Blog)

9. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Deserves Our Thanks (Blog)





6 June, 2011

Australia: Has there ever been a policy fiasco this bad?

Greg Sheridan

Cane with dignity and respect cartoon. Picture: Bill Leak Source: The Australian
IS the Malaysian solution now unravelling in the same way as the East Timor solution, bearing witness to the astonishing amateurism of Julia Gillard and Immigration Minister Chris Bowen in international diplomacy?

Among a bewildering plenitude of chaos and confusion in the asylum-seeker/illegal immigrant imbroglio the Gillard government has created, one acute operational dilemma is obvious. How can it send unaccompanied minors, boys and girls, to an uncertain fate in Malaysia, with all the risks to them that this involves?

Yet if the government grants an exception for unaccompanied minors, it will create a massive incentive for people-smugglers. If a family sends a son or daughter on a boat, perhaps with secret supervision of an uncle or cousin on the boat, the kid will probably get permanent residency in Australia.

This will entail in due course, in fact probably in short order, the right to sponsor the rest of the family to come to Australia. In terms of the business model of the people-smugglers, this is the gold jackpot. Come on down, send the boats and send the kids.

This is an astounding mess the government has created. As soon as it announced the Malaysian solution, politicians and journalists asked about children. The government responded with customary contemptuous bluster, and refused to answer the question.

But it was always a critical question and it cannot be fudged. It now turns out that the government, in a positive rapture of incompetence and amateurism, had not even decided its own attitude to the question.

It certainly had not sorted out the matter with the Malaysians. It finally deigned to answer the question on the children only when confronted with a leaked draft agreement by the ABC's Lateline. Then the hapless Bowen said yes, kids would be sent to Malaysia. Cue the predictable outrage from the Greens, the illegal immigrant lobby and even sections of the Labor Party. And the Tony Abbott-led opposition, with Scott Morrison landing heavy blows at every turn, was able to contrast the superior human rights guarantees in its Pacific Solution and in the Nauru detention centre the Howard government ran.

So lickety split, Bowen started on his familiar confused retreat. Only some kids would be sent to Malaysia after all. There was nothing automatic about it. Kids in danger would be individually assessed and perhaps not sent.

Meanwhile the boats still come, the people-smugglers having worked out that this government is all bluff and no delivery. Since the government announced the deal with Malaysia a month ago, about 200 boatpeople have arrived. A quarter of the Malaysian solution has already gone, and the Malaysian solution does not yet actually exist because no agreement has been finalised.

Why did the government publicly announce the Malaysian solution before the details were negotiated and the framework worked out?

Surely not because it had to announce at the same time that the East Timor solution was finally dead? Surely not because there had just been a series of riots, fires and assaults in the detention centres, and it needed to look as though it was doing something? Surely after the slow-motion debacle of the East Timor solution collapse, this government could not possibly have been stupid enough to put spin, and an attempt to win one day's good media coverage, ahead of important diplomatic matters of real substance?

The contradictions in the government's position abound. Gillard fiercely assured the parliament the Malaysians would not have power of veto over which 800 individuals were sent to Malaysia.

Problem was, this contradicted the Malaysian government's view. And a moment's thought bears out the reasonableness of the Malaysian position. No government welcomes people to its soil without any power of choice, without even knowing who they are, leaving the choice to another government.

The Gillard government's inability to finalise the deal with Malaysia suggests it may be falling apart, and will certainly discourage other nations from engaging in such deals with it. At first there was some interest from the Thais and even the Indonesians. After all, it was a five-for-one swap to Australia's detriment, and Canberra was willing to splash out any amount of money to buy a result.

But the Thais and Indonesians saw how Malaysia's good name has been dragged through the mud in Australia on this business, and suddenly they lost interest.

The Malaysians should brace themselves for months, perhaps years, of relentless negative publicity and attack in Australia and internationally if this deal goes ahead. Because suddenly every aspect of Malaysian policy on illegal immigrants will be seen by the media as Australia's business.

I'm sure that's not what Kuala Lumpur had in mind when this deal was first broached with them, but it's what they'll be putting up with if the deal goes ahead.

At the same time the Malaysian opposition is starting to get serious about criticising its government on the deal.

But wait, there's more. The Gillard government did not even tell the UN High Commissioner for Refugees of its plan to send unaccompanied minors to Malaysia, and now the UNHCR says it can't support the deal.

Has there ever been a policy fiasco as comprehensive as this? Will they teach it at the Harvard Business School as the definitive case study of mismanagement?

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, sensibly, left for Europe and the Middle East at the weekend. This humiliating fiasco belongs to Julia Gillard and Chris Bowen.

SOURCE






With immigration reform, the consumer matters

By Armstrong Williams

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting highlights a fundamental and before now underappreciated factor in the immigration debate: Immigrants come here illegally because they know that U.S. companies will hire them.

While most of the immigration laws have focused on the illegal immigrants themselves, very few of them have focused on the consumers of their labor: companies, and, by extension, the consumers they serve.

Americans have become addicted to immigrant labor to fill jobs that Americans won’t do (at the wages and under the working conditions immigrants are subjected to), while complaining about the side effects — overburdened social services, crime and cultural dilution in the border states. But it’s not hard to spot the illegal immigrants in any given neighborhood. In fact, it’s quite simple. They are the only people tending your lawn, baby-sitting your children and running your restaurants on the cheap.

But up until now the focus has been on curbing the supply. The approaches have ranged from the pure silly — like trying to erect a wall along the Mexican border — to the downright diabolical — private citizens forming vigilante groups and terrorizing hapless brown people who may or may not be illegal immigrants. The recent Arizona law, which revokes the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants is the first real measure focused on the demand side.

Illegal immigrant labor is a performance enhancing drug with wide side effects. By hiring illegals, companies get an edge over other firms that don’t. They buy cheap labor from individuals who have no civil rights whatsoever: They cannot complain if they are cheated on their paycheck, protest unhealthy working conditions, or reject wages less than the minimum federal wage. If they do complain, they can be immediately detained and sent back to their countries of origin with none of the due process that would be accorded to an American citizen. And so this keeps them in their place — a place of legal limbo — and gives U.S. firms access to what is essentially slave labor.

Before now, we’ve had a tacit agreement between big business and big government to leave the immigration issue unresolved. After all, illegal labor has acted as a subsidy to businesses and consumers of the cheap labor. But that arrangement seems to be cracking, and that’s a good thing. The American people want their borders defended and their rights protected by the government that they, the citizens, have elected. This is especially true in a recession when Americans are facing unprecedented unemployment, debt and a decline in living standards.

The recent Supreme Court ruling was right for America - legally, factually and morally. But the Supreme Court’s vocal minority, along with a strange bedfellows’ coalition of big business and civil rights organizations would have you believe that a reasonable business regulation is an encroachment on the civil rights of legal immigrants.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The regulations are narrowly tailored in accordance with federal definitions of “illegal” status, and they accord appropriate due process for the offending corporations. No one can be rejected for a job because they “look” illegal. But businesses have the additional responsibility of verifying an applicant’s immigration status. All of the normal civil rights protections for workers have been undisturbed by the ruling.

Illegal immigration, while it has some short term benefits, ultimately dilutes the rights and privileges of Americans who pay their taxes and play by the rules. It’s not fair for employers to get the benefit of illegal labor at a cheap price, while the society as a whole has to bear the price of social services for people who do not vote or pay taxes in this country.

In the past, such unfairness caused such a rift in the union that it sparked a bloody war. The elites attempted to secede from the United States in order to keep slavery in place. Let’s hope we can avert such an abomination this time around.

SOURCE



5 June, 2011

More Hispanics go to federal prison

TUCSON, Ariz. — They shuffle into the courtroom in shackles, still wearing the dust-covered clothes and shoes from when they crossed the desert into the U.S. from Mexico. The 70 illegal immigrants, mostly men and mostly in their 20s and 30s, fill the 16-seat jury box and seven rows of wooden benches normally reserved for the public in Tucson's gleaming federal courthouse.

The courtroom is expansive, with a regally high ceiling, and is filled with the pungent smell of dried sweat.

In only an hour or so, the dozens of immigrants will agree to plead guilty and be sentenced in a process that could play out for months for most federal defendants.

The scene offers a window into a federal immigration enforcement effort that is pushing the limits of the U.S. justice system, overwhelming federal judges and escalating the ranks of Latinos sent to prison.

Expedited court hearings along the border are a major force driving a seismic demographic shift in who is being sent to federal prison. Statistics released this week revealed that Hispanics now comprise nearly half of all people sentenced for federal felony crimes, a number swollen by immigration offenses. In comparison, Hispanics last year made up 16 percent of the total U.S. population.

Sentences for felony immigration crimes, which include illegal crossing as well as other crimes such as alien smuggling, accounted for about 87 percent of the increase in the number of Hispanics sent to prison over the past decade, according to an analysis of U.S. Sentencing Commission data.

The trend has divided lawmakers and officials in the courts and along the border. Some politicians believe the en masse hearings should be expanded to deter illegal immigration. Others question whether the system actually affects people seeking to cross the border, while some contend the programs distract prosecutors from pursuing more serious crimes.

Some of the expedited border court hearings are part of a program called Operation Streamline that began in 2005 in Del Rio, Texas, and soon spread to other Border Patrol sectors. It is a departure from the old "catch and release" policy and aims to stem the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Before 2005, illegal crossers were sporadically charged with federal misdemeanors, but many Mexican immigrants were often simply driven back across the border.

Operation Streamline and other fast-track programs speed illegal immigrants through accelerated legal proceedings, where most guilty pleas come in Spanish and thousands of Mexican citizens end up locked up each year for entering the country without papers.

The first time someone is caught entering the country illegally usually results in a misdemeanor that leads to deportation or a maximum of six months in federal custody. If they are caught again — as often happens — they are charged with a felony count called illegal re-entry that carries at most a two-year prison sentence or more if they have a criminal history. Some felony charges ultimately are reduced to misdemeanors through plea bargains.

U.S. attorneys in numerous states, including the four flanking the southern border, have authorized accompanying fast-track programs for felony offenders that allow cases to be resolved at warp speed. The programs have raised concerns about defendants' constitutional rights and the sheer volume of work flooding the courts. Critics say the programs overburden the court system and distract authorities from prosecuting major crimes.

Just before 8 a.m., buses roll into the parking lot, ferrying dozens of illegal immigrants from a nearby prison and border detention facility, where they've been held since they were caught crossing.

On a recent day, 70 defendants crowded into a second-floor courtroom, their ankle and wrist shackles clanging. Lawyers whispered to their clients, who wore black headsets to facilitate Spanish translation.

Federal Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall called up the men in groups of five to read them their rights and accept their guilty pleas to illegally entering the country. Most were sentenced to time served and likely would be taken to Mexico for deportation the same day.

The shackled men said only "No" or "Si" almost simultaneously when Marshall asked them questions. When she asked them how they plead, they said, "Culpable (KUHL'-pah-blay)," Spanish for guilty. And in a few hours, they had been counseled, arraigned, convicted and sentenced for misdemeanor illegal entry.

In another courtroom in the same building, at almost the same time, another group of immigrants still clothed in their dusty jeans was being prosecuted for felony immigration charges and other federal violations through a separate fast-track program that would allow them to begin serving time more quickly.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission tracks the number of people who repeatedly enter the country illegally in a broad sentencing category called immigration crimes. The number of people sent to prison for the primary crime of unlawfully entering or remaining in the U.S. jumped from 6,513 in fiscal year 2000 to 19,910 in fiscal year 2010. Many people also were sentenced for that crime plus other, more serious offenses.

Many federal prosecutors in border states say those penalties are making illegal immigrants think twice about trying to cross again.
"We've made tremendous progress and are moving in a direction where there are consequences of continuous efforts to cross the border illegally. The message has gotten back," said Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, whose office has hired 17 new prosecutors since he assumed his position in late 2009. "If that has resulted in a higher number of individuals in the overall aggregate system being of Latino descent, I would say that is a separate issue."

Arizona Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain recently introduced a bill to expand Operation Streamline in the Arizona courts and potentially elsewhere along the Southwest border. Kyl has often cited border patrol figures showing that immigrant apprehensions dropped 93 percent since the program began in Yuma in fiscal year 2006.

"Everybody knows where the bulk of the illegal immigrants are coming from, and if you're going to deal with the deterrent effect of putting some of those people who cross in prison for a while ... then naturally you're going to have a majority of those people be Hispanic," Kyl said. "Let's just stop illegal immigration and we won't have that problem."

More HERE






Australian PM's Malaysia plan falling apart

Labor now urged to revive Howard's Pacific Solution by refugee activists

LABOR'S support base on border security is crumbling, with a key critic of the Howard government's Pacific Solution calling for its partial revival in preference to Labor's "nightmare" plan to send unaccompanied children to Malaysia.

Marion Le, a refugee lawyer, last night urged Labor to reopen the Nauru processing centre - the same facility she demanded be shut in 2005 because of concern about the treatment of asylum-seekers.

She was backed by human rights lawyer Julian Burnside, who accused Labor of failure on refugees and said asylum-seekers would receive better treatment in Nauru than Malaysia.

Meanwhile, in Western Australia, 14 state Labor MPs signed a petition condemning the plan to send unaccompanied minors to Malaysia as part of the refugee swap.

Opposition to Julia Gillard's Malaysian solution hardened yesterday after news that a draft agreement over her plan to exchange 800 boatpeople for 4000 confirmed refugees processed in Malaysia excluded any reference to human rights.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen guaranteed the final agreement would address human rights concerns, but further inflamed his critics by revealing he would send unaccompanied minors to Malaysia.

Labor announced its plans to transfer asylum-seekers to Malaysia last month as a means of discouraging people-smuggling. It argued that if asylum-seekers knew they could be sent to Malaysia once they reached Australia they would be less likely to risk the voyage. But refugee advocates and the Australian Greens have condemned the deal, noting that Malaysia did not observe UN protocols for handling refugees and, in the past, asylum-seekers had been publicly caned.

Yesterday, Ms Le said it was time for Labor to "bite the bullet" and reopen Nauru, which was mothballed in 2007 after Kevin Rudd took office. Her position puts her in agreement with Tony Abbott, who has demanded the Prime Minister "pick up the phone" to the government of Nauru.

"The place itself is not the problem . . . the situation on Nauru is much better than on the mainland and in Malaysia," Ms Le told The Weekend Australian. "The detention centre needs to be operated by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Reopening Nauru would be far better than all the nightmare ideas this government has put forward."

Ms Le, who visited Nauru in 2003 and 2004, said children and unaccompanied minors on the island were properly fed, taken to school and given access to sporting activities and fishing. According to the UNHCR, child refugees in Malaysia do not go to school and are not housed in refugee camps, surviving instead in low-cost flats.

Mr Burnside said if it was a choice between Malaysia and Nauru, he would choose the latter. "Nauru is certainly the less worse, but both are unacceptable." Mr Burnside said Labor should be ashamed of the "scandalous" Malaysian deal, which was "as bad as the Pacific Solution".

"In one way, it is worse because we know Malaysia has a bad track record in its treatment of asylum-seekers," he said. "The idea of sending unaccompanied minors there as well makes it more disgraceful. This is being driven by raw politics. They're behaving like the Howard government."

Mr Bowen said the final agreement with Malaysia would reflect Ms Gillard's insistence that there must be proper regard for the human rights of asylum-seekers. "Let's see this agreement play out," Mr Bowen told ABC radio. "There will be a range of protections to operationalise the commitment given by the Prime Minister of Malaysia about respect for human rights."

Mr Bowen said he was not prepared to make exemptions for children because this would encourage people-smugglers to entice children on dangerous voyages to Australia in leaky boats.

He said the use of Nauru would not break the people-smugglers' business model. "If you go to Nauru, you would end up back in Australia - that's what happened before," he said.

In 2001, there were 44 unauthorised boat arrivals in Australian waters carrying 5516 people, including the Tampa. The Howard government then brought in the Pacific Solution, and in 2002 there was just one unauthorised boat arrival carrying one person. From 2003 until 2007, when Labor won power, there were 17 boats carrying 287 people. As of last night, there were 5976 people in immigration detention in Australia. There have been 25 boat arrivals this year.

Former Howard government immigration minister Philip Ruddock said Labor had attacked the Pacific Solution and was not prepared to "lose face" by reopening the Nauru centre. "In my judgment, they should have simply pocketed their pride and said, 'We made a mistake in criticising the Howard government and the approach they took. We now have to put all of those measures in place to bring this insidious people-smuggling trade to an end'."

Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young declared Labor was providing no leadership or compassion. "I think compassionate thinking Australians are sick to death of being taken down this false road of a race to the bottom with no true leadership," she said. "I would be suggesting no one is sent back to Malaysia. That's the Greens' position."

Labor faced criticism on the issue from 14 West Australian Labor MPs, with frontbencher Ben Wyatt saying he was appalled and embarrassed by the federal government's position.

"Federal Labor has lost its way by now making the decision to brutalise and penalise children caught up in terrible circumstances of asylum," he told AAP. "I'm a former army officer, and I fully understand and support strong border protection policy . . . but this is an appalling decision and I'm embarrassed."

SOURCE



4 June, 2011

Italians show benefits of immigration, says Australian PM

I myself have the highest opinion of Italians and heartily agree with what my Prime Minister has said about them below. As well I might do: Italians are the heirs to TWO great flowerings of civilization: The Roman empire and the Renaissance. And to this day Italy is a powerhouse of culture. So it is NO surprise that Italian immigrants have made a great contribution to Australian life.

But when we look at illiterate Afghans and their primitive 7th century religion, we are at the opposite end of the scale. And it is mainly Afghans who are flocking to Australia as illegal immigrants at the moment. They are a disaster waiting to happen. They should be sent back to their native hellhole

There are undoubtedly many worthy Afghans but those who try to force themselves on Australia are ipso facto unlikely to include many of those

JULIA Gillard says the integration of Italian migrants in Australia shows the strength and the benefits of immigration to the nation.

The prime minister acknowledged the contribution Italian migrants have made to Australia at a dinner marking the 150th anniversary of Italy's unification.

Ms Gillard said thousands of Italians have made the "momentous decision" to sacrifice their home to journey across the globe and realise their hopes in Australia.

"But if Australia was a land of opportunity, it only came at a price," Ms Gillard said at the Italian National Day Ball in Sydney today. "Years of backbreaking labour in places like the Snowy or the cane fields, working two or three jobs, sometimes facing misunderstanding and discrimination. "But in spite of these difficulties, you held fast and saw Australia as it could be."

She said Australia changed for the better as the nation absorbed these migrants. "That is why we must always regard immigration as a source of strength," Ms Gillard said. "Because it renewed and enriched our nation at its core, precisely at the time when the world was opening up and our old insular habits could no longer be sustained.

Ms Gillard said the unification of the city-states into the nation of Italy in 1861 led the way for the prosperous, innovative European country of today.

"Friends, Italy has given many great gifts to the world: her culture, her food, her sense of style - but the greatest gift of Italy has been her people," she said.

"Around 60 million people outside Italy claim Italian heritage. "And for this gift, Australia will always give thanks."

SOURCE





More on the British immigration chaos

The former official in charge of a “shambolic” immigration system earned around £1 million in the five years she presided over it, it emerged yesterday. Lin Homer was earning £208,000 when she stepped down as chief executive of the UK Border Agency last year. She also received bonuses including one of between £10,000 and £15,000 despite the department being subject to regular criticism.

One MP said it was a case of “stuffing the pockets” of civil servants and rewarding failure.

Damian Green, the immigration minister, yesterday said it would take “years” to sort out the “shambles” the Coalition inherited from the Labour government.

He also signalled that there has been a delay in finding a permanent replacement for Ms Homer because “it is one of the more difficult jobs” in Whitehall.

It comes a day after MPs said tens of thousands of asylum seekers have been granted an effective amnesty because of the blundering service. More than 160,000 people have been allowed to stay as part of an attempt to clear a backlog of 450,000 cases, first discovered in 2006, while up to another 75,000 may never be traced because of the time lapse.

The Home Affairs Select Committee said the scale of those missing was “indefensible” while the high number being allowed to stay was "in effect to an amnesty".

Mr Green insisted there was no amnesty and that the overall grant rate for asylum had remained stable at around 40 per cent for the last six years. Asylum claims are at their lowest in 20 years, he added.

He said the Government "inherited a shambles", adding: "The immigration system, which was completely chaotic, is getting better. "Inevitably, when you are turning around as big a problem as this it is going to take a few years, but we can see measurable progress in the first year of this Government."

Keith Vaz, the chairman of select committee, said: “The problem with the UK Border Agency, which predates this government, is a lack of administrative control. “It is an administrative issue rather than a political problem and we would like to see it resolved so the government can meet the targets it has set out."

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Green was also grilled on why there was still no new permanent chief executive of UKBA almost five months after Ms Homer, left. She left to become permanent secretary at the Department for Transport.

The minister said: “It is clearly, as everyone admits, one of the more difficult jobs in the public service and it is clearly essential that we get the right person for the job.”

But Mr Vaz said: “The minister has said the immigration system has been in chaos for years. “Yet the person in charge has been paid more than the Prime Minister and has just been promoted. “She and her colleagues have also been receiving bonuses. “They are stuffing these civil servants’ pockets with bonuses. It is rewarding failure rather than success.”

The committee’s report yesterday said the immigration department was "still not fit for purpose", in reference to a phrase first used by John Reid, who was home secretary when the backlog was discovered.

It also criticised the agency for not carrying out checks on all employers sponsored to bring in migrant workers and failing properly to follow up intelligence on suspected illegal immigrants.

The report said: "The net result is that a very large number of people remain in the UK who either have no right to be here or who would have been removed had their cases been dealt with in a timely manner."

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, said: "David Cameron has previously slapped down fellow Conservatives for daring to suggest an amnesty for illegal immigrants yet it appears this is exactly what is happening.

"In order to maintain an effective immigration system, those that have overstayed their visas and therefore have no right to legally be in the UK need to be removed, not covertly merged into society.

"The system is not working and with cuts to the UK Border Agency's budget, it can only get worse."

SOURCE



3 June, 2011

161,000 asylum seekers allowed to stay in the UK in amnesty after blunders by Border Agency

Tens of thousands of asylum seekers have in effect been granted an amnesty to stay in Britain because of blunders in the immigration system, MPs said last night.

They are among 450,000 whose case files were found abandoned in boxes at the Home Office five years ago. Of these, 430,000 have now been considered, and 161,000 immigrants have been given the right to stay – many simply because they have been here so long.

On top of that, another 74,500 people have been ‘lost’ because officials do not know whether they have left the country or died. They are placed in a ‘controlled archive’ for six months while checks are carried out before they are put in storage – in effect, written off.

In a damning report, the Commons home affairs select committee said: ‘In practice an amnesty has taken place, at considerable cost to the taxpayer.’

But as the committee’s chairman, Labour MP Keith Vaz, described the UK Border Agency as ‘still not fit for purpose’, ministers insisted they were clearing up the last government’s ‘chaos’.

After the files were discovered, Labour pledged to clear the backlog by this summer. The MPs’ report said this target would be met, but only at huge expense to the taxpayer, and as a result of relaxing the rules on who can stay.

Of the cases processed, just 38,000 have led to individuals being removed from the country. The report also raised concerns about the lack of action to remove up to 181,000 people whose visas have expired.

SOURCE




La. Lawmakers approve Arizona-style immigration bill

A sweeping immigration proposal, similar to an Arizona law being challenged in the courts, has received approval from a House committee.

Independent Rep. Ernest Wooton says his bill would help secure the borders. Citing a recent Supreme Court decision that declined to wholly reject the states' role in immigration policy, Wooton told the House labor committee that states must take on more responsibility in the absence of federal reform.

But critics say the bill poses a significant unfunded mandate on local governments and law enforcement agencies and would lead to racial profiling.

The bill, which heads next to the House floor, would create new requirements and crimes under state law.

The legislation would make it a crime to harbor, conceal, shelter, transport or hire immigrants. It also would establish crimes for illegal immigrants seeking work; for willfully failing to carry a registration document; and for failing to report fraud in obtaining public assistance.

The bill would also require certain employers contracting with parties that don't use the federal E-Verify system to verify the status of employees. It would require the Louisiana Workforce Commission to provide training in using the system and also to investigate complaints of violations.

Similar to a bill withdrawn by Rep. Joe Harrison, R-Houma, Wooton's bill would require law enforcement officers to jail someone they suspect of being in the country illegally until their citizenship status can be verified. But Wooton's bill goes beyond that, requiring officers to make a judgment call on whether "reasonable suspicion exists that the person stopped is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States."

The Legislative Fiscal Office said the bill would pose significant upfront costs due to the training of the E-Verify component, and that enforcing that system and requiring a sworn affidavit for all payments of public assistance would also be extremely costly. The state cannot force applicants to pay for the cost of an affidavit, and so it must incur the costs.

"Together, they are expected to cost the state upwards of $11 million and also cause some local entities to increase expenditures in order to comply," according to the bill's fiscal note.

Fees for violations under the bill would be deposited into a new trust fund. But the Legislative Fiscal Office says it is impossible to estimate the revenue, since some of the violations will be paid by state or local agencies themselves — representing zero net gain — and "the level of noncompliance cannot be anticipated with the confidence necessary to budget the funds."

In addition to the cost of implementation, immigration advocates say the bill would prompt an immediate lawsuit, leading to significant costs for defending it in court.

"Our national partners have been monitoring the situation very closely and are committed to bringing any types of lawsuits necessary to stop bills like this from passing," said Jacinta Gonzalez, an organizer for the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice.

She said the main legal problem for Wooton's bill is that several of the provisions are preempted by federal law.

"There are some provisions that actually mirror provisions in Arizona's SB 70, the now-notorious anti-immigrant bill that was passed, that have been struck down by U.S. district courts," said Rob Tasman, associate director for the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops. He said the bill includes several provisions that are also in the Arizona immigration law.

They include the requirement for law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of a person they stop based on reasonable suspicion, and the criminalization of a non-citizen's failure to apply for or carry registration papers.

"Do we want to inherit the cost associated with trying to uphold a bill that will probably be struck down at the federal level? Because, again, that is the proper forum to address this problem," Tasman said.

But Wooton defended his bill, reading from a May 26 Supreme Court ruling sustaining Arizona's state law requiring businesses to use E-Verify.

In addition to the legal complaints, law enforcement officers oppose the measure because of costs for incarceration and officer training. The Louisiana Workforce Commission, the main state agency targeted under the bill, also expressed concerns over the cost.

Curt Eysink, the executive director of the commission, said the costs could actually rise to $10 million in the first year alone for his agency, but other state offices would feel the effects.

"I think other agencies would be in a similar situation when it comes to awarding benefits by having to prove the legal status of the applicants," Eysink said.

Despite the concerns, the committee approved the bill by a 5-3 vote, after amending it to require mutual funds that comply with Sharia law to disclose that fact to investors.

SOURCE



2 June, 2011

Deception and Disorder in Immigration Court

Report Offers Solutions to Broken Appeals System

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing two weeks ago on the immigration courts, the Justice Department's appeals system for aliens challenging deportation. To contribute to this reassessment of an important component of America's immigration infrastructure, a new report from the Center for Immigration Studies examines the serious problems in our immigration courts and offer solutions to address them.

The report, “Built to Fail: Deception and Disorder in America's Immigration Courts,” is authored by Mark H. Metcalf. Metcalf is a former immigration judge and former Special Counsel at the Domestic Security Section within the Justice Department. The report as well as a transcript and video of the panel discussion are available online at the Center’s website.

Report: here

Transcript: here

Video: here

Metcalf's report finds that there are inherent flaws in the immigration courts that lead to widespread disregard of its rulings by the aliens who appear before them. What's more, Justice Department statistical reporting downplays these shortcomings, making solutions less likely. Metcalf also offers recommendations for reform.

Among the findings:

* Very few aliens who file lawsuits to remain in the United States are deported, even though immigration courts — after years of litigation — order them removed.

* Deportation orders are rarely enforced, even against aliens who skip court or ignore orders to leave the United States.

* Aliens evade immigration courts more often than accused felons evade state courts. Unlike accused felons, aliens who skip court are rarely caught.

* From 1996 through 2009, the United States allowed 1.9 million aliens to remain free before trial and 770,000 of them — 40 percent of the total — vanished. Nearly one million deportation orders were issued to this group — 78 percent of these orders were handed down for court evasion.

* From 2002 through 2006 — in the shadow of 9/11 — 50 percent of all aliens free pending trial disappeared. Court numbers show 360,199 aliens out of 713,974 dodged court.

* For years, the Department of Justice (DoJ) has grossly understated the number of aliens who evade court. In 2005 and 2006, DoJ said 39 percent of aliens missed court. Actually, 59 percent of aliens — aliens remaining free before trial — never showed.

* Since 1996, failures of aliens to appear in court have never dipped below 30 percent.

* Immigration judges cannot enforce their own orders. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials may order alien offenders arrested and deported. Immigration judges — the system’s sole judicial officers — have no such authority. Judges seldom know if their orders are enforced.

* No single federal agency is exclusively tasked with enforcement of removal orders. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) executes removal orders only when its enforcement strategy says so, not — as it should — in obedience to court orders. ICE’s enforcement strategy does not mention immigration courts or deportation orders.

* Enforcement of deportation orders is now nearly non-existent. Removal orders are not enforced unless aliens have committed serious crimes.

* Unexecuted removal orders are growing. As of 2002, 602,000 deportation orders had not been enforced. Since then, another 507,551 have been added to the rolls. Today, unexecuted removal orders number approximately 1,109,551 — an 84 percent increase since 2002.

* U.S. immigration courts rule in favor of aliens 60 percent of the time. DoJ suggests aliens win 20 percent of the time.

* The Department of Justice tells Congress that aliens appeal deportation orders only 8 percent of the time. In fact, over the last 10 years aliens appealed deportation orders 98 percent of the time.

* Since 1990, immigration court budgets have increased 823 percent with taxpayers footing the entire bill. Aliens pay no more to file their cases today than they did in 1990.

* From 2000 through 2007, tax dollars — slightly more than $30 million — paid aliens’ court costs. Taxpayers underwrote the appeals of aliens ordered removed for criminal convictions and fraudulent marriages.

* U.S. immigration judges carry huge caseloads. In 2006 — the courts’ busiest year ever — 233 judges completed 407,487 matters. All work of DoJ’s trial and appellate lawyers combined equaled only 289,316. By comparison, federal district and circuit courts, with 1,271 judges, completed 414,375 matters.

* Aliens face the real prospect of not receiving a fair trial. DoJ’s attorney discipline scheme — a scheme applicable only to the alien’s lawyer — denies aliens the right to effective assistance of counsel and fair trial.

* The only possible way the Justice Department’s misrepresentations will be corrected is for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit America’s immigration courts.

* An Article I court — a court created through Congress’s constitutional authority over immigration — is the surest solution for those fleeing persecution, while balancing America’s fundamental interest in secure borders and an effective immigration system.

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




Lawns with Greek statues, a computer suite, hairdressing lessons... inside Britain's newest holding centre for illegals

Its manicured lawns and gravel paths decorated with stone statues would look at home in even the grandest of rural estates. But Morton Hall is not a plush country pad – it is the Government’s latest centre for foreign detainees awaiting deportation.

The immigration removal centre, in Swinderby, Lincolnshire, will eventually house around 400 men, including former prisoners, illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers.

New arrivals will be greeted by impressive lawns and extensive gardens, patrolled by a flock of ducks. They will be housed in private rooms with access to television, games consoles and private washing facilities.

Detainees can sign up to lessons in a well-equipped computer classroom and even hairdressing classes in a mock salon. And if they fancy some downtime, they can play football in the grounds, take a walk or simply sit on a bench and enjoy the view.

Even the centre’s menu offers detainees something a bit special, featuring dishes inspired by global cuisine – from Greek feta quiche and Afghani marinated chicken to Nigerian fried plantain and Egyptian falafel.

Immigration Minister Damian Green triggered a furious row last night as he unveiled the centre, a former women’s prison on the site of an old RAF base.

Critics said taxpayers will be angry that their money has been spent on conditions some hard-working families struggle to afford for themselves.

Emma Boon, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said the costs of opening and running immigration removal centres ‘need to be kept under control’. She said: ‘Immigration removal centres are for people who have no right to be in the UK. ‘Taxpayers will be angry that their money is being spent on top-of-the-range equipment and grand surroundings like landscaped gardens for those detained.

Tory MP James Clappison, a member of the home affairs committee, also questioned whether the cost of the conditions could be justified. "Of course detainees should be safe and use their time productively before returning home, but this does not require a level of facilities that some hard-working families in the community outside the centre do not have access to themselves' He said: ‘People should be treated decently and humanely but at the time of public spending constraint that should not extend as far as standards that are beyond the reach of ordinary taxpayers.’

The Government said the new centre would increase the nation’s capacity to hold illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers to 3,400. Like Colnbrook near Heathrow and Yarl’s Wood on the outskirts of Clapham, Bedfordshire, it holds people with no legal right to be in the UK who refuse to leave. Speaking as he opened Morton Hall, Mr Green said it will ‘help us remove more individuals who have no right to be here’. He said: ‘We all know the present Government inherited a chaotic immigration system. We’re getting to grips with it.’

Officials refused to disclose how much Morton Hall cost to refurbish or operate. An official report into a smaller detention centre, which held just 124 people, found it cost £1.6million every year.

The opening comes after the Prime Minister’s pledge to reduce net migration – those entering the country minus those leaving – to tens of thousands by 2015 was threatened by figures released last week. They revealed net migration hit 242,000 in the year to September 2010, the third highest on record.

SOURCE



1 June, 2011

Immigration Fueling Poverty in the U.S. Finds New Report

Forty-five years after Lyndon Johnson declared a "War on Poverty," the United States maintains a policy of mass immigration that perpetuates and increases poverty in the United States, finds a new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

According to Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners: The Harmful Effects of Unskilled Immigrants on American Workers, the United States is importing millions of poorly skilled immigrants who remain mired in poverty, while further eroding wages and economic opportunities for similarly skilled native workers.

Both legal immigration policies and the failure to enforce laws against illegal immigration contribute to the increase in poverty among immigrants and similarly skilled native workers. America's immigration system is "not responsive to the socioeconomic conditions of the country," notes the report.

Family chain migration accounts for the vast majority of legal immigration. These new arrivals are admitted irrespective of education or job skills to join other recent immigrants, many of whom live in or near the poverty line. The situation is only exacerbated by a massive influx of illegal immigrants, most of whom are poorly skilled and work in the underground economy.

Among the key findings of Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners:

* Fewer than 6 percent of legal immigrants to the United States in 2009 were admitted because they possessed skills deemed essential to the U.S. economy.

* Nearly 31 percent of foreign-born adults lack a high school diploma. Among illegal aliens, 75 percent have a high school diploma or less.

* The median annual income for all immigrant workers in the U.S. is just $30,000. For illegal aliens it is $22,500.

* Low-skill immigrants are more likely to live in poverty, lack health insurance, and utilize welfare programs than their native-born counterparts. Immigrants and their children make-up 32 percent of those without health insurance in the United States.

* Low-skill immigrant workers compete directly against similarly skilled native workers, undercutting their wages and employment opportunities.

"What we see is an immigration policy that is completely divorced from the economic realities of the United States in the 21st century," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Our immigration policies are driven entirely by the demands of the immigrants themselves and narrow business interests that profit from the presence of immigrant workers who must be heavily subsidized by American taxpayers.

If union leaders truly cared about the plight of American workers, they would honor the long history of the labor movement in the U.S. and oppose immigration policies that undermine wages and conditions in the workplace and put Americans out of work."

"The United States maintains an immigration policy that admits millions of people who are unlikely to succeed in this country. At the same time, our immigration policy is having a devastating impact on job opportunities and wages of millions of low-skill native workers," Stein continued.

"We are deliberately inflicting grievous harm on our nation and many of our citizens through immigration policies while our leaders refuse to enact sensible reforms, or even enforce many existing laws."

Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners: The Harmful Effects of Unskilled Immigrants on American Workers can be found on FAIR's website here

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Reining in Zadvydas v. Davis (Memorandum)

2. The Hispanic Vote in 2010 (Memorandum)

3. Immigration and ‘Secure Communities’ (Op-ed)

4. Mixing a Sub-Par Deal with a Ticket to the USA (Blog)

5. Obama's Emerging Un-Border Policy: 'Acceptable Levels of Illegal Immigration' (Blog)

6. Open-Border Groups in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (Blog)

7. Arizona Catches a Break from the Supreme Court (Blog)

8. Creating Facts on the Ground (Blog)

9. The Magnitude of the E-Verify Win (Blog)

10. Arizona 1, Open-Borders Lobby 0 (Blog)

11. Musings on Migration Statistics (Blog)

12. Lamar Smith Acts to 'Keep Our Communities Safe' (Blog)

13. Dear Mr. President: How About a Border Strategy? (Blog)








Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.


The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.