Rep. Stockman: If Immigration Bill Passes, GOP Can Kiss AZ, TX, and FL Goodbye
Representative Steve Stockman (R-Tex.) predicts that the Republican Party will lose Arizona, Texas, and Florida if the Senate Gang of Eight’s immigration bill passes.
“If that bill passes in the current form from the Senate side, you can kiss Arizona, Texas, and Florida gone – that’s why the Democrats are so interested in this,” Stockman said during an interview last week with Iowa radio host Steve Deace.
“It has nothing to do with fairness and it has everything to do with election politics . . it was really to be used, along with the gun bill, in 2014 as the reason to turn over the House to the Democrats.”
Stockman noted that Republicans lost control of California following the amnesty bill signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. “None of the people voted for us. They did the exact opposite – it was like we did it and then we got punished for it.”
When asked about the fate of the Senate immigration bill in the House of Representatives, Stockman said that the Gang of Eight cannot withstand the “gang of millions” of Americans who donot support amnesty for illegal aliens.
When Deace asked him if “there was any chance at all” the GOP House leadership would pass the Senate bill, Stockman replied that House Speaker John Boehner assured him that it would not even be brought up in the House chamber.
“I had a meeting with the speaker, and it’s entirely possible that, you know, he could be lying to me, but he tends to agree that this is the way the Senate bill is, and the way I understood his communication to me... the Senate bill was not palatable and would not even really be brought up in the House. I hope he keeps to his word on that. We’ll see.”
The Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill, currently consisting of 1,922 pages, would provide a pathway to citizenship for approximately 11 million illegal immigrants. Republican Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) support it. But GOP Senators Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Rand Paul (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) , who have labeled the reforms as amnesty without border security, are among its chief critics.
The House of Representatives has introduced its own package of immigration legislation, including the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement (SAFE) Act, the Legal Workforce Act, the Agricultural Guestworker Act, and the Supplying Knowledge-based Immigrants and Lifting Levels of STEM Visas (SKILLS) Act., which have been assigned to various House committees for consideration.
SOURCE
Britain's education system is feeling the force of mass immigration
The population explosion in England and Scotland, fuelled by mass immigration, has affected our society in many ways. Education is one of them, with it being revealed today that 250,000 extra primary school places will need to be found by September 2013, according to the Commons Public Accounts Committee. The phrase "ticking time bomb" springs to mind.
The likely outcome of this mad, unnecessary rush? Schools that are performing poorly will be relied upon to increase their intake out of desperation. Kids have to go to school, even if it is a terrible one.
The whole situation demonstrates the utter chaos that open border EU migration is having on Britain. We don't know how many kids year-to-year are going to need schooling in this country, we can only guess. The result is sheer pandemonium that puts a ridiculous strain on the system and is unfair to the kids who will probably end up getting shoved anywhere that will have them.
The increase in class sizes is likely to make the job of teaching that bit harder too. How many of the children in this generation of exploding numbers will even speak English? The task is daunting and absurd in equal measure.
The British education sector is currently experiencing the type of chaos also faced by the NHS, the police force, the border agency and so many other pillars of British society. There is one simple way to restore some sanity to proceedings: bring back proper border controls and control the numbers coming into Britain, so that we can plan and deliver quality for our children.
SOURCE
Friday, June 28, 2013
Secrecy in plain sight
Promises, Promises
The track record on enforcement guarantees is not encouraging
The core criticism to S.744 has been that it places amnesty before enforcement. The concern is that once the illegal population has been legalized, it will be highly unlikely that the bill's promises of enforcement will be honored. The Center for Immigration Studies finds the long track record of broken promises regarding immigration enforcement suggests this concern is warranted. Here are highlights from a long list of those broken promises:
1986 - Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which for the first time prohibited the employment of illegal aliens. This was part of a package that included amnesty for long-term illegal aliens who passed criminal checks, paid fees, and took classes on English language and U.S. civics and history. The promised enforcement started weakly and petered out. It got so bad than in 2004, only 3 employers in the entire nation were fined for hiring illegal aliens. An estimated 7-8 million illegal immigrants continue to hold jobs.
1996 - In the wake of the first World Trade Center bombing, Congress passed a wide-ranging enforcement law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Among its provisions was a requirement to develop an automated check-in/check-out system for foreign visitors, so the government could identify those who stayed past the time they were supposed to depart. Congress mandated such a system five more times, including in the USA Patriot Act, which required a biometric system (using fingerprints or photo recognition, for instance), in line with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. No such system yet exists.
2005 - The REAL ID Act required that state driver's licenses meet certain minimum standards to be acceptable for federal purposes, such as boarding airplanes. The standards included requiring proof of legal presence in the United States before issuing a license; this is an important immigration enforcement objective, because the driver's license is essential to illegal aliens seeking to embed themselves in American society. The original deadline for state compliance was 2008, later postponed to 2011, then 2013, and now 2017. It seems likely the deadline will be extended yet again, permitting several states to continue issuing licenses to illegal aliens.
2006 - The Secure Fence Act of 2006 required "at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing" along a total of roughly 650 miles of specifically designated stretches of the Mexican border. So far, less than 40 miles of such double-layered fencing have been built. The remainder is a mix of single-layer "pedestrian" fencing (designed to prevent people from infiltrating on foot) and vehicle barriers, which are low fences intended only to prevent trucks from driving across the border.
View the article 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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Secrecy in plain sight
Promises, Promises
The track record on enforcement guarantees is not encouraging
The core criticism to S.744 has been that it places amnesty before enforcement. The concern is that once the illegal population has been legalized, it will be highly unlikely that the bill's promises of enforcement will be honored. The Center for Immigration Studies finds the long track record of broken promises regarding immigration enforcement suggests this concern is warranted. Here are highlights from a long list of those broken promises:
1986 - Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which for the first time prohibited the employment of illegal aliens. This was part of a package that included amnesty for long-term illegal aliens who passed criminal checks, paid fees, and took classes on English language and U.S. civics and history. The promised enforcement started weakly and petered out. It got so bad than in 2004, only 3 employers in the entire nation were fined for hiring illegal aliens. An estimated 7-8 million illegal immigrants continue to hold jobs.
1996 - In the wake of the first World Trade Center bombing, Congress passed a wide-ranging enforcement law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Among its provisions was a requirement to develop an automated check-in/check-out system for foreign visitors, so the government could identify those who stayed past the time they were supposed to depart. Congress mandated such a system five more times, including in the USA Patriot Act, which required a biometric system (using fingerprints or photo recognition, for instance), in line with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. No such system yet exists.
2005 - The REAL ID Act required that state driver's licenses meet certain minimum standards to be acceptable for federal purposes, such as boarding airplanes. The standards included requiring proof of legal presence in the United States before issuing a license; this is an important immigration enforcement objective, because the driver's license is essential to illegal aliens seeking to embed themselves in American society. The original deadline for state compliance was 2008, later postponed to 2011, then 2013, and now 2017. It seems likely the deadline will be extended yet again, permitting several states to continue issuing licenses to illegal aliens.
2006 - The Secure Fence Act of 2006 required "at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing" along a total of roughly 650 miles of specifically designated stretches of the Mexican border. So far, less than 40 miles of such double-layered fencing have been built. The remainder is a mix of single-layer "pedestrian" fencing (designed to prevent people from infiltrating on foot) and vehicle barriers, which are low fences intended only to prevent trucks from driving across the border.
View the article 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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Rise in Illegal Crossing Roils Immigration Debate
There was a striking moment in the Senate Judiciary Committee's debate on the Gang of Eight's comprehensive immigration reform bill when Republican Jeff Sessions and Democrat Charles Schumer argued over the number of immigrants who would be allowed into the country under the new legislation.
Sessions cited reports suggesting the figure would be more than 20 million over the next decade in addition to the 11 million or so who are already in the United States illegally. Schumer took issue with that, although he wouldn't name a figure of his own.
Then Schumer declared the whole dispute beside the point. "It is not that, 'Oh, this bill is allowing many more people to come into this country than would have come,'" he said. "They are coming. They're either coming under law or not under law."
The Democratic leader of the Gang of Eight continued: "This argument that there are going to be 20 million new people in this country under this bill ignores the fact that there are going to be lots of millions ... in the country illegally if we don't have a bill."
What made the exchange notable was that many Democrats who oppose more stringent border security measures argue that after recent increases in spending and resources the U.S.-Mexico border is already pretty secure -- "as secure now as it has ever been," in the words of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. They also suggest that the number of illegal crossers is at an all-time low and will likely never rise again to levels seen in the 1990s and 2000s.
What Schumer conceded, perhaps in an unguarded moment, is that the border remains quite porous, and the U.S. can expect "lots of millions" to cross illegally in coming years if nothing more is done. The disagreement on Capitol Hill, of course, is over what should be done, but Schumer's off-the-cuff analysis provides a lot of material for Republicans pressing for a guarantee of greater security measures before millions of illegal immigrants are given legal status.
That GOP position received an even bigger boost with a recent report from the border in The New York Times. The crux of the story is that the number of illegal crossings is rising, and in response to greater security measures in Arizona, the flow from Mexico has shifted east to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
Yes, the number of illegal crossers is down from a dozen years ago as the U.S. economy remains a less powerful magnet than it once was. "But after nearly a decade of steady declines, the count has started to rise again over the past year," the Times reported. "The Rio Grande Valley has displaced the Tucson enforcement zone as the hot spot, with makeshift rafts crossing the river in increasing numbers, high-speed car chases occurring along rural roads and a growing number of dead bodies turning up on ranchers' land, according to local officials."
"There is just so much happening at the same time -- it is overwhelming," a Brooks County, Texas, sheriff's deputy told the Times.
Border Patrol agents are outnumbered; extensive, passable stretches of the border are unwatched; whole groups of immigrants cross unseen. "People are just crossing without fear," said an alderman in La Joya.
It's happening in part because the American economy, hit so hard by the economic downturn, is finally improving, becoming a draw again for immigrants, especially those from Central America who travel through Mexico on their way to the Texas border. Also, crime remains a terrible problem in many immigrants' home countries. And word is spreading that the U.S. Congress is contemplating a measure to legalize millions of illegal border-crossers.
That is the backdrop for this week's Senate debate on border security in the Gang of Eight plan. Democrats are dead set against any proposal that would make permanent legal status and a path to citizenship contingent on measurable improvements in border security. On the other side, many Republicans believe those improvements will never happen unless the law says legalization won't be allowed without security first. The only question is whether Republicans will stick to their guns or give in to Democrats.
In the debate, supporters of the Gang of Eight bill will almost certainly pronounce the border more secure than it has ever been; such rhetoric is a staple of such debates. But the situation on the border remains troublesome, and if the American economy continues to improve, as everyone hopes it does, the problem could become worse.
Schumer is probably right. In coming years, "lots of millions" will seek to come to the U.S. illegally unless something is done.
SOURCE
Australia: Illegal imigrants dilute charity resources
PROCEEDS from the $5.3 million Vinnies CEO Sleep Out will be shared with asylum seekers, leaving one high-profile participant "disappointed".
Dozens of high-profile business leaders slept rough for a night last week to raise the money for the St Vincent de Paul Society's homeless services, which also help asylum seekers.
Australian Hotels Association CEO Paul Nicolaou, who is also a former Liberal Party state candidate, raised $88,000 and says he is "disappointed" a charity like Vinnies is needed to help asylum seekers paid 89 per cent of the dole.
"There are 100,000 people who are homeless across the country. If we are allowing refugees to go on the streets and not providing for them and it has to be funded by charities like St Vincent De Paul, there is a huge problem, the federal government needs to pick up its act," said Mr Nicolaou, who is nursing a cold after his night on the streets.
"The resources (of St Vincents) are needed to help existing people."
The Coalition condemned the government for putting more than 14,000 asylum seekers into the community and leaving charities to provide additional support.
"Labor's community dumping policy of illegal boat arrivals is occurring without any consultation or thought for the consequences on communities and organisations like St Vincent de Paul who do their best to provide much needed services to our most needy," Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said.
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor's spokesman said the welfare payments to asylum seekers were "adequate but not generous" because the government did not "want the provision of support to be an incentive that encourages people to put their lives in the hands of people smugglers".
A spokeswoman for the charity said it did not discriminate and some of those assisted would be refugees living in the community.
"The St Vincent de Paul Society provides assistance to the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our community and has done so, without discrimination, for close to 160 years in Australia," she said.
"The Society in NSW runs over 30 homeless services across the state assisting men, women and children including rehabilitation and learning centres. The society assists all people at risk of or experiencing homelessness and this would include people living in our community as refugees."
Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr told caucus colleagues that Iranians were coming to Australia by boat to escape an economy crippled by international sanctions, not to flee persecution.
Mr Carr also told colleagues people smugglers were fuelling the trade and the economic boat migrants were taking places from the humanitarian program for genuine refugees.
Of the more than 13,000 people who have arrived this year, 4136 have been from Iran, compared to just 2749 for all of last year.
Mr Carr's comments came during a fiery caucus meeting, during which Victorian backbench MP Laura Smyth told Mr O'Connor the government's no-advantage policy was "indefensible."
Under the policy, asylum seekers could be left in the community without their refugee claims being processed for as long as they would have waited if they were in an overseas camp.
SOURCE
Rise in Illegal Crossing Roils Immigration Debate
There was a striking moment in the Senate Judiciary Committee's debate on the Gang of Eight's comprehensive immigration reform bill when Republican Jeff Sessions and Democrat Charles Schumer argued over the number of immigrants who would be allowed into the country under the new legislation.
Sessions cited reports suggesting the figure would be more than 20 million over the next decade in addition to the 11 million or so who are already in the United States illegally. Schumer took issue with that, although he wouldn't name a figure of his own.
Then Schumer declared the whole dispute beside the point. "It is not that, 'Oh, this bill is allowing many more people to come into this country than would have come,'" he said. "They are coming. They're either coming under law or not under law."
The Democratic leader of the Gang of Eight continued: "This argument that there are going to be 20 million new people in this country under this bill ignores the fact that there are going to be lots of millions ... in the country illegally if we don't have a bill."
What made the exchange notable was that many Democrats who oppose more stringent border security measures argue that after recent increases in spending and resources the U.S.-Mexico border is already pretty secure -- "as secure now as it has ever been," in the words of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. They also suggest that the number of illegal crossers is at an all-time low and will likely never rise again to levels seen in the 1990s and 2000s.
What Schumer conceded, perhaps in an unguarded moment, is that the border remains quite porous, and the U.S. can expect "lots of millions" to cross illegally in coming years if nothing more is done. The disagreement on Capitol Hill, of course, is over what should be done, but Schumer's off-the-cuff analysis provides a lot of material for Republicans pressing for a guarantee of greater security measures before millions of illegal immigrants are given legal status.
That GOP position received an even bigger boost with a recent report from the border in The New York Times. The crux of the story is that the number of illegal crossings is rising, and in response to greater security measures in Arizona, the flow from Mexico has shifted east to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
Yes, the number of illegal crossers is down from a dozen years ago as the U.S. economy remains a less powerful magnet than it once was. "But after nearly a decade of steady declines, the count has started to rise again over the past year," the Times reported. "The Rio Grande Valley has displaced the Tucson enforcement zone as the hot spot, with makeshift rafts crossing the river in increasing numbers, high-speed car chases occurring along rural roads and a growing number of dead bodies turning up on ranchers' land, according to local officials."
"There is just so much happening at the same time -- it is overwhelming," a Brooks County, Texas, sheriff's deputy told the Times.
Border Patrol agents are outnumbered; extensive, passable stretches of the border are unwatched; whole groups of immigrants cross unseen. "People are just crossing without fear," said an alderman in La Joya.
It's happening in part because the American economy, hit so hard by the economic downturn, is finally improving, becoming a draw again for immigrants, especially those from Central America who travel through Mexico on their way to the Texas border. Also, crime remains a terrible problem in many immigrants' home countries. And word is spreading that the U.S. Congress is contemplating a measure to legalize millions of illegal border-crossers.
That is the backdrop for this week's Senate debate on border security in the Gang of Eight plan. Democrats are dead set against any proposal that would make permanent legal status and a path to citizenship contingent on measurable improvements in border security. On the other side, many Republicans believe those improvements will never happen unless the law says legalization won't be allowed without security first. The only question is whether Republicans will stick to their guns or give in to Democrats.
In the debate, supporters of the Gang of Eight bill will almost certainly pronounce the border more secure than it has ever been; such rhetoric is a staple of such debates. But the situation on the border remains troublesome, and if the American economy continues to improve, as everyone hopes it does, the problem could become worse.
Schumer is probably right. In coming years, "lots of millions" will seek to come to the U.S. illegally unless something is done.
SOURCE
Australia: Illegal imigrants dilute charity resources
PROCEEDS from the $5.3 million Vinnies CEO Sleep Out will be shared with asylum seekers, leaving one high-profile participant "disappointed".
Dozens of high-profile business leaders slept rough for a night last week to raise the money for the St Vincent de Paul Society's homeless services, which also help asylum seekers.
Australian Hotels Association CEO Paul Nicolaou, who is also a former Liberal Party state candidate, raised $88,000 and says he is "disappointed" a charity like Vinnies is needed to help asylum seekers paid 89 per cent of the dole.
"There are 100,000 people who are homeless across the country. If we are allowing refugees to go on the streets and not providing for them and it has to be funded by charities like St Vincent De Paul, there is a huge problem, the federal government needs to pick up its act," said Mr Nicolaou, who is nursing a cold after his night on the streets.
"The resources (of St Vincents) are needed to help existing people."
The Coalition condemned the government for putting more than 14,000 asylum seekers into the community and leaving charities to provide additional support.
"Labor's community dumping policy of illegal boat arrivals is occurring without any consultation or thought for the consequences on communities and organisations like St Vincent de Paul who do their best to provide much needed services to our most needy," Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said.
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor's spokesman said the welfare payments to asylum seekers were "adequate but not generous" because the government did not "want the provision of support to be an incentive that encourages people to put their lives in the hands of people smugglers".
A spokeswoman for the charity said it did not discriminate and some of those assisted would be refugees living in the community.
"The St Vincent de Paul Society provides assistance to the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our community and has done so, without discrimination, for close to 160 years in Australia," she said.
"The Society in NSW runs over 30 homeless services across the state assisting men, women and children including rehabilitation and learning centres. The society assists all people at risk of or experiencing homelessness and this would include people living in our community as refugees."
Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr told caucus colleagues that Iranians were coming to Australia by boat to escape an economy crippled by international sanctions, not to flee persecution.
Mr Carr also told colleagues people smugglers were fuelling the trade and the economic boat migrants were taking places from the humanitarian program for genuine refugees.
Of the more than 13,000 people who have arrived this year, 4136 have been from Iran, compared to just 2749 for all of last year.
Mr Carr's comments came during a fiery caucus meeting, during which Victorian backbench MP Laura Smyth told Mr O'Connor the government's no-advantage policy was "indefensible."
Under the policy, asylum seekers could be left in the community without their refugee claims being processed for as long as they would have waited if they were in an overseas camp.
SOURCE
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
French government cuts immigrants welfare by 83%
It seems that migration policies of a leading country in Europe, France, are seriously changing. The country is no longer able to hold back the crowd of migrants, many of whom do not want to integrate into the social and economic life of their new home country. The upcoming radical changes for migrants were announced by French Interior Minister Manuel Valls.
After a meeting on the National Immigration and Integration, French Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced significant changes in the country’s migration policy. The government will reduce financial assistance to immigrants, and this reduction will be substantial. Starting March 1 of next year, French immigrant benefits will be reduced by 83 percent. The amount of compensation to immigrants who voluntarily want to return home will be also reduced. If earlier the government paid 300 euros for every adult and 100 euros for every minor, in March of 2013 these amounts will be reduced to 50 and 30 euros, respectively.
One of the main provisions of the new immigration rules in France is the reduction of unemployment benefits. New rules will directly affect many of the immigrants who do not want to be of real assistance to the country and whose main goal is the existence at the expense of French taxpayers. Now immigrants who are EU citizens receive an allowance of 2,000 euros per adult and 1,000 euros per child.
Under the new policy, according to Valls, the payments will be reduced to 500 and 200 euros, respectively. Manuel Valls said that the previous immigration policy did not lead to the desired effect, and the existing outreach programs for immigrants do not work as they were expected to, therefore, the rules must be changed. If this is not done, the costs for the maintenance of migrants now paid by the French Treasury will continue to devastate the economy of France that is already suffering from the crisis caused by international factors.
Earlier this year, during the election campaign in France, Nicolas Sarkozy, the then President, strongly advocated for the changes in migration policies in France. He stated that the delays could adversely affect the entire domestic policy of France. Francois Hollande, the current President of France and at that time the main opponent of Sarkozy, spoke on the subject more softly, avoiding naming any specific measures. Does this mean that life itself supports the statements of the eccentric ex-president of France?
According to the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, in the second half of 2010, France was home to over five million migrant workers, or about 8 percent of the total population. The largest number of migrants arriving in France, according to the data for 2007, was from Algeria, Morocco and Portugal. In 2011, French citizenship was granted to 66,000 people. It is getting increasingly more difficult for the government to provide financial assistance to migrants, given that many of them do not work or study. In fact, this is not surprising given the amount of aid that the government was ready to provide to its new citizens.
With a growing number of migrants, mainly from Muslim countries, France is experiencing many internal problems. They include rising unemployment and crime, and increasingly greater sums of money from the state treasury spent on support of migrants and their families, which has a detrimental effect on the economy. Finally, France is simply awash with the migrant population with an alien ideology, reluctant to accept European values and often hostile.
Sooner or later, the government had to take measures. It seems that the time has come. On the wave of changes in French policy towards migrants, in 2007 Nicolas Sarkozy won presidential elections. Since his arrival to power, the government began to pursue a policy of the so-called selective migration, whose aim was to attract to France mainly skilled personnel. Under Sarkozy a quota system was introduced in the country that determined the number of required workers. In March of 2012, during the presidential campaign, Nicolas Sarkozy reiterated the importance of addressing domestic problems of migrants. Sarkozy, a son of an immigrant from Hungary, suggested cutting the amount of social assistance provided to migrants and reducing the number of issued residence permits by 50%. In addition, he threatened that France would leave the Schengen Treaty in order to prevent infiltration of unwanted migrants into the country.
Francois Hollande, the current president of France, was not that radical in his vision of the issues associated with migrants. He was not ready to control all categories of migrants, but in March of 2012 called for limiting migration for economic reasons. It looks like it is the economic conditions that are forcing the French authorities to toughen the policy towards migrants. This is indicated, in particular, by the disappointing data in the Global Competitiveness Report on the state of competitiveness of France, which the government discussed in November. According to the report, the competitiveness of the French industry is falling. In 2000, the share of industry in the economy of the country accounted for 18 percent, and now – 12.5 percent as companies are going bankrupt. In part, it is due to the heavy burden of social security contributions that businesses are required to make.
French business payroll taxes are among the highest in the world at approximately 50 percent. It could not have been different because the country had to feed a large number of migrants.
In March of 2012 Sarkozy suggested reducing the number of migrants from 180 thousand to 100 thousand. A significant decrease in the number of migrants could be expected in five years. It seems that the government of Hollande has adopted such measures and is moving towards action.
A significant decrease in the amounts allocated for subsidies for migrants might be somewhat effective. The treasury will have more resources that can be allocated to job creation and overall economic recovery. There is a likelihood that the reduction in benefits will be an incentive for some workers to step up their job search.
There is another side to the coin. Many migrants, especially those from Arab countries-former colonies of France, are used to living on government subsidies. They have been doing it for years, and have been teaching their children this model of social behavior. According to the National Institute of Statistical Studies, children from immigrant families tend to be weaker students than their peers who are not immigrants. This is especially true for migrants from Turkey. In the labor market, only 14 percent of children of immigrants attain high social positions.
Reduction of benefits would hurt many migrant families. Will this provoke antisocial behavior where migrants would outpour their anger in the streets of French cities, destroying everything around them? Will the migrant riots of 2007 be repeated? There is an obvious need in new approaches towards migration policy. However, in their implementation the government should take into account various possible consequences. Only a balanced approach will lead to positive results.
SOURCE
One reason why Britain should make more of an effort to deport its many illegals
An illegal immigrant was jailed today for breaking the neck of a young ballet star in a violent street mugging.
Doctors feared Jack Widdowson, 19, would spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair after being robbed for his mobile phone on a night out.
He was found unconscious on a canal path and paralysed after being targeted in the robbery of his iPhone.
But the court heard that nine months later Mr Widdowson - an apprentice with the Bern Ballet in Switzerland - had fought back to full health due to his extreme fitness, strength and flexibility.
His attacker Mohammed Mohamoed, 27, was jailed for 13 years after being found guilty of attacking Mr Widdowson. Egyptian-born Mohamoed will be deported from the country when he is released from prison.
Judge Justice Wyn Williams told him: 'You as a dangerous offender. You caused Jack extremely serious injury and he was very fortunate he didn't suffer permanent, devastating effects.
'You left him lying in the street which was callous in the extreme. Much credit is due to the young man who came across him and helped him and the medical staff who treated him afterwards.
'You will be subject to an automatic deportation when you have served your sentence - that will be in the hands of the home office.'
Mr Widdowson, one of the youngest apprentices to be taken on by the Swiss company Bern:Ballet, was attacked while visiting his brother who is studying at Cardiff University.
The day before the attack he had his 'big break' when he was called up as an understudy for a leading ballet role.
But Cardiff Crown Court heard his night came to a violent end when he was attacked by Mohamoed who took his Apple iPhone and left him for dead in the street.
A jury was shown a video interview with the rising star, from Bath, Somerset, as he lay in a hospital bed wearing a neck brace after the attack.
He told police: 'I have broken neck, that's going to have to have a hell of a lot of rehab and physio to get back to where I was.
'I've been told I'll make a full recovery and that's what I want to do - I just want to put this whole thing behind me.'
The court heard that minutes after the alleged attack Mohamoed was seen laughing and joking in the city centre, even kicking a football around with a group of boys.
Unemployed Mohamoed was later arrested at his home in Splott, Cardiff. The court heard Mohamoed was born in Egypt and his parents, who are farmers, still live there.
He drifted through Europe first moving to Italy before settling in Cardiff where he claimed to be a Palestinian refugee.
Mohamoed lied to the UK border agency giving them a fake name and date of birth - he later tried to mislead the police in the same way.
Prosecutor Michael Mather-Lees QC told Mohamoed: 'You broke his neck, then you lied to police because you realised you had committed a dreadful offence.'
Mohamoed was caught on CCTV prowling Cardiff city centre looking for a victim to attack.
He admitted meeting Widdowson and stealing his mobile phone which he later used to make a call to a friend in Italy before selling it at a market.
But he denied attempted murder and told the court the young ballet dancer was unharmed when he left him in the dark alleyway in Cardiff Bay.
Mohamoed, who admitted theft, was found guilty of grievous bodily harm and jailed for 13 years. After the case his parents Julian and Celia, who have since set up a charity called the Dance Again Foundation, praised Jack for his recovery.
It said: 'Jack has made an amazing recovery from a horrific injury and we would like to htank the many people who have helped to achieve that.
'He has been performing for some time now and has already performed publically on a number of occassions. We and he are just delighted that he has been able to resume his career as a dancer despite what happened to him.'
Detective Constable Mike Owens of South Wales Police said: 'Jack had been enjoying a night out with family and friends when he was subjected to a shocking level of violence by Mohammed Mohamoed.
'Amazingly Mr Widdowson, who is such a talented young man, has made a full recovery and we are delighted that he is back dancing again.
'Today's decision will hopefully allow Jack and his family to finally put this incident behind them.'
SOURCE
French government cuts immigrants welfare by 83%
It seems that migration policies of a leading country in Europe, France, are seriously changing. The country is no longer able to hold back the crowd of migrants, many of whom do not want to integrate into the social and economic life of their new home country. The upcoming radical changes for migrants were announced by French Interior Minister Manuel Valls.
After a meeting on the National Immigration and Integration, French Interior Minister Manuel Valls announced significant changes in the country’s migration policy. The government will reduce financial assistance to immigrants, and this reduction will be substantial. Starting March 1 of next year, French immigrant benefits will be reduced by 83 percent. The amount of compensation to immigrants who voluntarily want to return home will be also reduced. If earlier the government paid 300 euros for every adult and 100 euros for every minor, in March of 2013 these amounts will be reduced to 50 and 30 euros, respectively.
One of the main provisions of the new immigration rules in France is the reduction of unemployment benefits. New rules will directly affect many of the immigrants who do not want to be of real assistance to the country and whose main goal is the existence at the expense of French taxpayers. Now immigrants who are EU citizens receive an allowance of 2,000 euros per adult and 1,000 euros per child.
Under the new policy, according to Valls, the payments will be reduced to 500 and 200 euros, respectively. Manuel Valls said that the previous immigration policy did not lead to the desired effect, and the existing outreach programs for immigrants do not work as they were expected to, therefore, the rules must be changed. If this is not done, the costs for the maintenance of migrants now paid by the French Treasury will continue to devastate the economy of France that is already suffering from the crisis caused by international factors.
Earlier this year, during the election campaign in France, Nicolas Sarkozy, the then President, strongly advocated for the changes in migration policies in France. He stated that the delays could adversely affect the entire domestic policy of France. Francois Hollande, the current President of France and at that time the main opponent of Sarkozy, spoke on the subject more softly, avoiding naming any specific measures. Does this mean that life itself supports the statements of the eccentric ex-president of France?
According to the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies, in the second half of 2010, France was home to over five million migrant workers, or about 8 percent of the total population. The largest number of migrants arriving in France, according to the data for 2007, was from Algeria, Morocco and Portugal. In 2011, French citizenship was granted to 66,000 people. It is getting increasingly more difficult for the government to provide financial assistance to migrants, given that many of them do not work or study. In fact, this is not surprising given the amount of aid that the government was ready to provide to its new citizens.
With a growing number of migrants, mainly from Muslim countries, France is experiencing many internal problems. They include rising unemployment and crime, and increasingly greater sums of money from the state treasury spent on support of migrants and their families, which has a detrimental effect on the economy. Finally, France is simply awash with the migrant population with an alien ideology, reluctant to accept European values and often hostile.
Sooner or later, the government had to take measures. It seems that the time has come. On the wave of changes in French policy towards migrants, in 2007 Nicolas Sarkozy won presidential elections. Since his arrival to power, the government began to pursue a policy of the so-called selective migration, whose aim was to attract to France mainly skilled personnel. Under Sarkozy a quota system was introduced in the country that determined the number of required workers. In March of 2012, during the presidential campaign, Nicolas Sarkozy reiterated the importance of addressing domestic problems of migrants. Sarkozy, a son of an immigrant from Hungary, suggested cutting the amount of social assistance provided to migrants and reducing the number of issued residence permits by 50%. In addition, he threatened that France would leave the Schengen Treaty in order to prevent infiltration of unwanted migrants into the country.
Francois Hollande, the current president of France, was not that radical in his vision of the issues associated with migrants. He was not ready to control all categories of migrants, but in March of 2012 called for limiting migration for economic reasons. It looks like it is the economic conditions that are forcing the French authorities to toughen the policy towards migrants. This is indicated, in particular, by the disappointing data in the Global Competitiveness Report on the state of competitiveness of France, which the government discussed in November. According to the report, the competitiveness of the French industry is falling. In 2000, the share of industry in the economy of the country accounted for 18 percent, and now – 12.5 percent as companies are going bankrupt. In part, it is due to the heavy burden of social security contributions that businesses are required to make.
French business payroll taxes are among the highest in the world at approximately 50 percent. It could not have been different because the country had to feed a large number of migrants.
In March of 2012 Sarkozy suggested reducing the number of migrants from 180 thousand to 100 thousand. A significant decrease in the number of migrants could be expected in five years. It seems that the government of Hollande has adopted such measures and is moving towards action.
A significant decrease in the amounts allocated for subsidies for migrants might be somewhat effective. The treasury will have more resources that can be allocated to job creation and overall economic recovery. There is a likelihood that the reduction in benefits will be an incentive for some workers to step up their job search.
There is another side to the coin. Many migrants, especially those from Arab countries-former colonies of France, are used to living on government subsidies. They have been doing it for years, and have been teaching their children this model of social behavior. According to the National Institute of Statistical Studies, children from immigrant families tend to be weaker students than their peers who are not immigrants. This is especially true for migrants from Turkey. In the labor market, only 14 percent of children of immigrants attain high social positions.
Reduction of benefits would hurt many migrant families. Will this provoke antisocial behavior where migrants would outpour their anger in the streets of French cities, destroying everything around them? Will the migrant riots of 2007 be repeated? There is an obvious need in new approaches towards migration policy. However, in their implementation the government should take into account various possible consequences. Only a balanced approach will lead to positive results.
SOURCE
One reason why Britain should make more of an effort to deport its many illegals
An illegal immigrant was jailed today for breaking the neck of a young ballet star in a violent street mugging.
Doctors feared Jack Widdowson, 19, would spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair after being robbed for his mobile phone on a night out.
He was found unconscious on a canal path and paralysed after being targeted in the robbery of his iPhone.
But the court heard that nine months later Mr Widdowson - an apprentice with the Bern Ballet in Switzerland - had fought back to full health due to his extreme fitness, strength and flexibility.
His attacker Mohammed Mohamoed, 27, was jailed for 13 years after being found guilty of attacking Mr Widdowson. Egyptian-born Mohamoed will be deported from the country when he is released from prison.
Judge Justice Wyn Williams told him: 'You as a dangerous offender. You caused Jack extremely serious injury and he was very fortunate he didn't suffer permanent, devastating effects.
'You left him lying in the street which was callous in the extreme. Much credit is due to the young man who came across him and helped him and the medical staff who treated him afterwards.
'You will be subject to an automatic deportation when you have served your sentence - that will be in the hands of the home office.'
Mr Widdowson, one of the youngest apprentices to be taken on by the Swiss company Bern:Ballet, was attacked while visiting his brother who is studying at Cardiff University.
The day before the attack he had his 'big break' when he was called up as an understudy for a leading ballet role.
But Cardiff Crown Court heard his night came to a violent end when he was attacked by Mohamoed who took his Apple iPhone and left him for dead in the street.
A jury was shown a video interview with the rising star, from Bath, Somerset, as he lay in a hospital bed wearing a neck brace after the attack.
He told police: 'I have broken neck, that's going to have to have a hell of a lot of rehab and physio to get back to where I was.
'I've been told I'll make a full recovery and that's what I want to do - I just want to put this whole thing behind me.'
The court heard that minutes after the alleged attack Mohamoed was seen laughing and joking in the city centre, even kicking a football around with a group of boys.
Unemployed Mohamoed was later arrested at his home in Splott, Cardiff. The court heard Mohamoed was born in Egypt and his parents, who are farmers, still live there.
He drifted through Europe first moving to Italy before settling in Cardiff where he claimed to be a Palestinian refugee.
Mohamoed lied to the UK border agency giving them a fake name and date of birth - he later tried to mislead the police in the same way.
Prosecutor Michael Mather-Lees QC told Mohamoed: 'You broke his neck, then you lied to police because you realised you had committed a dreadful offence.'
Mohamoed was caught on CCTV prowling Cardiff city centre looking for a victim to attack.
He admitted meeting Widdowson and stealing his mobile phone which he later used to make a call to a friend in Italy before selling it at a market.
But he denied attempted murder and told the court the young ballet dancer was unharmed when he left him in the dark alleyway in Cardiff Bay.
Mohamoed, who admitted theft, was found guilty of grievous bodily harm and jailed for 13 years. After the case his parents Julian and Celia, who have since set up a charity called the Dance Again Foundation, praised Jack for his recovery.
It said: 'Jack has made an amazing recovery from a horrific injury and we would like to htank the many people who have helped to achieve that.
'He has been performing for some time now and has already performed publically on a number of occassions. We and he are just delighted that he has been able to resume his career as a dancer despite what happened to him.'
Detective Constable Mike Owens of South Wales Police said: 'Jack had been enjoying a night out with family and friends when he was subjected to a shocking level of violence by Mohammed Mohamoed.
'Amazingly Mr Widdowson, who is such a talented young man, has made a full recovery and we are delighted that he is back dancing again.
'Today's decision will hopefully allow Jack and his family to finally put this incident behind them.'
SOURCE
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
How Come Mexico Can Require Voters To Prove Citizenship And Arizona Can’t?
The news from the U.S. Senate is bad enough: the new 1200 page Hoeven-Corker “Border Surge” amendment to the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill will be voted on Monday—requiring Senators to read 24 pages an hour for 16 hours a day over the weekend. But the Supreme Court made things even worse last week by striking down Arizona’s attempt to require voters in federal elections to prove citizenship.
Let that sink in just a moment. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was bad for the state of Arizona to require proof of citizenship for voters. In a serious country, this wouldn’t even be an issue. And it isn’t —in Mexico.
The real culprit here, legally speaking: the Motor Voter Act, passed in 1993, to “make it easier” for folks to register to vote by letting them register when applying for driver’s licenses. According to our Supreme Court, nothing besides the actual Motor Voter form can be added by any state, without special permission.
And, incredibly, all the Motor Voter act requires is for an applicant to state that he is a citizen—without requiring any proof whatsoever! Which means it’s easier to register to vote in this country than apply for a video rental card. Well, priorities are priorities.
In the Supreme Court hearing on the case in March, Thomas Horne, Attorney General of Arizona pointed out that the Motor Voter form, “…is extremely inadequate. It’s essentially an honor system. It does not do the job.”
Wise Latina Sonia Sotomayor, however, responded that “Well, that’s what the federal system decided was enough.”
As VDARE.COM readers are well aware, Arizona has been Ground Zero in the battle to resist the illegal invasion, and has put up a bigger resistance than the other three border states (California, New Mexico and Texas) put together. That’s why the state is the target of federal mugging on immigration–related matters.
In 2004, the voters of Arizona passed Proposition 200 which required applicants to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. That sounds totally fair and logical. But the voting registration part has now been struck down.
To their credit, two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, displayed some common sense in voting no. Justice Thomas wrote that the Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.”
Arizona still has an option: to ask the federal government to add state-specific material requiring additional documentation on the Motor Voter form. The state of Louisiana successfully obtained that. The problem: the Election Assistance Commission, to which Arizona would apply, currently has no members. New members are supposed to be nominated by the president.
El Universal, Mexico’s paper of record, combined the Arizona story with one about in-state- tuition-for-illegals in New Jersey. It began:
"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled yesterday against an Arizona law that requires persons to present proof of citizenship to register for the voter rolls, the same day that legislators in New Jersey approved a proposed law to permit immigrants that are in the country without authorization [AW: i.e. illegal aliens] to have access to lower rates in state universities. [AW: i.e. to discriminate in favor of illegals and against Americans from other states].
Note, though, that in the comments section, a reader remarked: “In Mexico they are stricter and nobody says anything.”
Which is simply the truth. Mexico’s voter registration system is much better, and much stricter, as I have observed firsthand and described several times:
In Mexico, every registered Mexican voter has a Voter ID card, supplied by the government, complete with photograph, fingerprint, and a holographic image to prevent counterfeiting.
At the Mexican polling station, the card is used in conjunction with a book containing the photograph of every voter in the precinct. This book is available to the poll workers and observers from various parties. If there's a doubt as to someone’s identity, the poll workers can simply look up the person's name and see if the photo matches up.
When he votes, the Mexican voter's thumb is smudged with ink. That way, if he shows up at another polling site to vote, they know he's already voted elsewhere. (The ink wears off after a few days.)
Notice, that the Mexican government supplies the card. Apologists for slipshod voter registration claim that it’s too hard for many minorities to use photo ID. Given today’s inexpensive photo technology, I really doubt that. But, in Mexico the government provides the card anyway, at government expense.
In order to register for the voter card, a prospective Mexican voter must prove his citizenship. And Mexico doesn’t just take his word for it. Documented proof must be provided. According to the website of the Mexican IFE (Instituto Federal Electoral), the applicant must either produce
(1) A “certified copy of a birth certificate”, or
(2) A “document that authorizes the Mexican nationality by naturalization.”
Isn’t that great? Why can’t we do that? What’s so difficult about it? If Mexico can do it, why can’t we?
SOURCE
Australia: Tony Abbott (conservative leader) attacks Gillard (Leftist leader) over restrictions on legal immigration
Pauline Hanson is a generally conservative independent politician who is known for her criticism of Asian immigration into Australia. Many of the skilled workers whom Gillard wants to bar are also Asian. Abbott is generally sympathetic to minorities so is appalled by Gillard's stance
OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has called Julia Gillard worse than Pauline Hanson and used the government's chief spin doctor's foreign worker visa to attack and mock legislation to crackdown on 457 visas.
After accusing the government of "dog whistling" and creating a distraction from its failure to stop tens of thousands of asylum seekers arriving on boats, Mr Abbott told Parliament the Prime Minister was dividing Australia.
"I never thought I would see the day it wouldn't just be an independent Member of Parliament, a disendorsed member of a political party but it would be the PM of this country (seeking) to deliberately divide Australian from Australian to serve a political purpose, it is an embarrassment," he said.
The proposed laws which would force employers to market test and advertise to prove no Australian was available to fill a position was "false patriotism from a failing government," he claimed.
Mr Abbott mocked Ms Gillard's head of communications John McTernan, who is working in Australia on a 457 visa, calling his employment a case of "complete hypocricy."
"I've got nothing against the Prime Minister having someone working in her own office on a 457 visa, if he is the only person who can do the job, fair enough," he said, mocking the new legislation.
"For all I know there wasn't a single Australian capable of giving political advice to the current Prime Minister. For all I know not a single Australian wanted the job.
"I don't say that person is stealing the job of an Australian, I assume that person is making a unique and special contribution to our country. But if it is right in the PM's office, why isn't right for the other employers in this country?
"If the PM didn't have to advertise, if the PM didn't have to engage in six months of labour market testing why should every other employer in this country?"
He claimed the government "can't get tough on illegal arrivals by boat so they've decided to get tough on legal arrivals by plane."
"It is happening because this government has a political problem. Never mind the facts, never mind that everyone who has seriously looked at this knows the system is working well and if there are one or two problems or abusers they can be sorted out in the normal course of events," he said.
"The government has got a political problem, so what do they do? They look for someone to blame, they look for more people to demonise in their attempt to hold onto office.
"This government has a serious political problems, it's the border protection disaster which has meant since August 2008 we've had more than 700 illegal boats, we have had more than 44,000 illegal arrivals by boat. A problem this government cannot solve, a problem this government has effectively surrendered to the people smugglers."
SOURCE
How Come Mexico Can Require Voters To Prove Citizenship And Arizona Can’t?
The news from the U.S. Senate is bad enough: the new 1200 page Hoeven-Corker “Border Surge” amendment to the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill will be voted on Monday—requiring Senators to read 24 pages an hour for 16 hours a day over the weekend. But the Supreme Court made things even worse last week by striking down Arizona’s attempt to require voters in federal elections to prove citizenship.
Let that sink in just a moment. The Supreme Court has ruled that it was bad for the state of Arizona to require proof of citizenship for voters. In a serious country, this wouldn’t even be an issue. And it isn’t —in Mexico.
The real culprit here, legally speaking: the Motor Voter Act, passed in 1993, to “make it easier” for folks to register to vote by letting them register when applying for driver’s licenses. According to our Supreme Court, nothing besides the actual Motor Voter form can be added by any state, without special permission.
And, incredibly, all the Motor Voter act requires is for an applicant to state that he is a citizen—without requiring any proof whatsoever! Which means it’s easier to register to vote in this country than apply for a video rental card. Well, priorities are priorities.
In the Supreme Court hearing on the case in March, Thomas Horne, Attorney General of Arizona pointed out that the Motor Voter form, “…is extremely inadequate. It’s essentially an honor system. It does not do the job.”
Wise Latina Sonia Sotomayor, however, responded that “Well, that’s what the federal system decided was enough.”
As VDARE.COM readers are well aware, Arizona has been Ground Zero in the battle to resist the illegal invasion, and has put up a bigger resistance than the other three border states (California, New Mexico and Texas) put together. That’s why the state is the target of federal mugging on immigration–related matters.
In 2004, the voters of Arizona passed Proposition 200 which required applicants to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. That sounds totally fair and logical. But the voting registration part has now been struck down.
To their credit, two justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, displayed some common sense in voting no. Justice Thomas wrote that the Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.”
Arizona still has an option: to ask the federal government to add state-specific material requiring additional documentation on the Motor Voter form. The state of Louisiana successfully obtained that. The problem: the Election Assistance Commission, to which Arizona would apply, currently has no members. New members are supposed to be nominated by the president.
El Universal, Mexico’s paper of record, combined the Arizona story with one about in-state- tuition-for-illegals in New Jersey. It began:
"The Supreme Court of the United States ruled yesterday against an Arizona law that requires persons to present proof of citizenship to register for the voter rolls, the same day that legislators in New Jersey approved a proposed law to permit immigrants that are in the country without authorization [AW: i.e. illegal aliens] to have access to lower rates in state universities. [AW: i.e. to discriminate in favor of illegals and against Americans from other states].
Note, though, that in the comments section, a reader remarked: “In Mexico they are stricter and nobody says anything.”
Which is simply the truth. Mexico’s voter registration system is much better, and much stricter, as I have observed firsthand and described several times:
In Mexico, every registered Mexican voter has a Voter ID card, supplied by the government, complete with photograph, fingerprint, and a holographic image to prevent counterfeiting.
At the Mexican polling station, the card is used in conjunction with a book containing the photograph of every voter in the precinct. This book is available to the poll workers and observers from various parties. If there's a doubt as to someone’s identity, the poll workers can simply look up the person's name and see if the photo matches up.
When he votes, the Mexican voter's thumb is smudged with ink. That way, if he shows up at another polling site to vote, they know he's already voted elsewhere. (The ink wears off after a few days.)
Notice, that the Mexican government supplies the card. Apologists for slipshod voter registration claim that it’s too hard for many minorities to use photo ID. Given today’s inexpensive photo technology, I really doubt that. But, in Mexico the government provides the card anyway, at government expense.
In order to register for the voter card, a prospective Mexican voter must prove his citizenship. And Mexico doesn’t just take his word for it. Documented proof must be provided. According to the website of the Mexican IFE (Instituto Federal Electoral), the applicant must either produce
(1) A “certified copy of a birth certificate”, or
(2) A “document that authorizes the Mexican nationality by naturalization.”
Isn’t that great? Why can’t we do that? What’s so difficult about it? If Mexico can do it, why can’t we?
SOURCE
Australia: Tony Abbott (conservative leader) attacks Gillard (Leftist leader) over restrictions on legal immigration
Pauline Hanson is a generally conservative independent politician who is known for her criticism of Asian immigration into Australia. Many of the skilled workers whom Gillard wants to bar are also Asian. Abbott is generally sympathetic to minorities so is appalled by Gillard's stance
OPPOSITION Leader Tony Abbott has called Julia Gillard worse than Pauline Hanson and used the government's chief spin doctor's foreign worker visa to attack and mock legislation to crackdown on 457 visas.
After accusing the government of "dog whistling" and creating a distraction from its failure to stop tens of thousands of asylum seekers arriving on boats, Mr Abbott told Parliament the Prime Minister was dividing Australia.
"I never thought I would see the day it wouldn't just be an independent Member of Parliament, a disendorsed member of a political party but it would be the PM of this country (seeking) to deliberately divide Australian from Australian to serve a political purpose, it is an embarrassment," he said.
The proposed laws which would force employers to market test and advertise to prove no Australian was available to fill a position was "false patriotism from a failing government," he claimed.
Mr Abbott mocked Ms Gillard's head of communications John McTernan, who is working in Australia on a 457 visa, calling his employment a case of "complete hypocricy."
"I've got nothing against the Prime Minister having someone working in her own office on a 457 visa, if he is the only person who can do the job, fair enough," he said, mocking the new legislation.
"For all I know there wasn't a single Australian capable of giving political advice to the current Prime Minister. For all I know not a single Australian wanted the job.
"I don't say that person is stealing the job of an Australian, I assume that person is making a unique and special contribution to our country. But if it is right in the PM's office, why isn't right for the other employers in this country?
"If the PM didn't have to advertise, if the PM didn't have to engage in six months of labour market testing why should every other employer in this country?"
He claimed the government "can't get tough on illegal arrivals by boat so they've decided to get tough on legal arrivals by plane."
"It is happening because this government has a political problem. Never mind the facts, never mind that everyone who has seriously looked at this knows the system is working well and if there are one or two problems or abusers they can be sorted out in the normal course of events," he said.
"The government has got a political problem, so what do they do? They look for someone to blame, they look for more people to demonise in their attempt to hold onto office.
"This government has a serious political problems, it's the border protection disaster which has meant since August 2008 we've had more than 700 illegal boats, we have had more than 44,000 illegal arrivals by boat. A problem this government cannot solve, a problem this government has effectively surrendered to the people smugglers."
SOURCE
Monday, June 24, 2013
The Amnesty Mob vs. America
by MICHELLE MALKIN
You can try to put "conservative" lipstick on the lawless amnesty mob. In the end, however, it's still a lawless mob. The big government/big business alliance to protect illegal immigration got a lot of mileage using foolish Republicans Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan as front men. But the true colors of the open-borders grievance-mongers always show through.
After America said no to a pork-filled security-undermining amnesty bill in 2007, the No Illegal Alien Left Behind lobbyists changed their overtly thuggish tactics. They put down their upside-down American flags, stopped wearing their commie Che Guevara T-shirts and cloaked their radical "Aztlan" aspirations in the less divisive rhetoric of "reform" and "opportunity."
It was all just an act, of course. Inevitably, the mask has slipped. Over the weekend, illegal alien protesters descended on the private residence of Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement lawyer Kris Kobach. As Twitchy.com reported on Saturday, 300 amnesty activists marched into Kobach's neighborhood and barged up his driveway and right onto his doorstep. It's how the Alinskyite "community organizers" roll.
Shouting into a bullhorn and waving their fists from his front porch, the property rights-invaders dubbed Kobach "King of Hate" for his work representing border security activists and federal customs enforcement agents who are fighting the systemic sabotage of immigration law. Thankfully, Kobach, his wife and their four young daughters were not home at the time.
But the aggrieved amnesty demanders are not done yet. And Kobach is not the only one in their crosshairs.
After tea party activist turned Kansas state representative Amanda Grosserode condemned the mob action publicly on Facebook, racist insults and threats littered her page. Roberto Medina Ramirez wrote: "I'll give her something to be disgusted about!" Doris Lynn Crouse Gent chimed in: "OMG! Maybe her drive should be next." Matt S. Bashaw echoed the call: "Maybe her house should be next." Facebook user Jude Robinson also ranted on Grosserode's page: "Since Kobach steals taxpayer money spreading hate around the country, he deserves what he gets."
Dennis Paul Romero left this message for Grosserode: "(N)azi kkk and she is proud of it." A user writing as "Paul-says Fckmarkzuck" left death threats under Romero's comment: "Gotta start killing all the Nazis. Politicans (sic), bankers, and priests. Cops, lawyers, and Judges. ASAP." The same user added: "Just another b*tch that needs to die off already."
The radicals of Occupy Kansas posted an inflammatory photo of Grosserode with the race-baiting caption: "Kansas State legislator Amanda Grosserode says she is 'disgusted' by Hispanic protesters." Grosserode wasn't disgusted by their ethnicity. She was disgusted by their actions. No matter. Race/ethnic card: activated.
Gina Long pounced: "(S)he is stupid and doesn't like brown people." So did Diana Bauer: "Ah, poor Ms Grosserode; sorry that you find our Constitution so difficult to stomach. Or is it only whites that have the right to freedom of speech." One Lupe Ramirez left his own message for Grosserode: "We are starting our fundraising and campaign to unseat you. Do you not realize how many Hispanics are in Kansas. You no longer live in Dorothy's Kansas. You cannot represent your state, you don't even know who they are."
Grosserode isn't backing down. She told me Tuesday that she will remain "vigilant" and has given local law enforcement a heads-up. The conservative mom and lawmaker notes sadly that "there are some who would say that when you are in elected office that you should expect this kind of thing. I would disagree. No one deserves threats nor threats to their home and family."
But the amnesty vigilantes have no respect for borders, let alone private front porches, in their quest for another massive federal illegal alien bailout. They have no respect for law-abiding U.S. workers. They have no respect for law-abiding foreigners applying to get into our country the right and proper way.
As they besiege Capitol Hill this month demanding more rights and payoffs, take note: These groups do not stand for the American dream. They are a nightmare conglomeration of George Soros-funded social justice operatives, transnationalists and La Raza militants who detest U.S. sovereignty. National People's Action, which spearheads progressive "direct actions" at the private homes of their political foes and led the march on Kobach's home, is a "community organizing" nonprofit based in -- you guessed it -- Chicago.
NPA's past shakedowns have involved busing in protesters and schoolchildren (using public school buses) to invade the private property of their victims and intimidate their families. They relish their brass knuckles with this anthem:
Who's on your hit list NPA?
Who's on your hit list for today?
Take no prisoner, take no names.
Kick 'em in the (a--) when they play their games.
As I first reported in 2004, NPA is funded by the Tides Foundation, the Ben and Jerry's Foundation, and the MacArthur, Ford and Rockefeller foundations. It's also funded by your tax dollars. My research found that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Education had all given tens of thousands of dollars in grants to NPA members for left-wing activism, identity politics and illegal alien benefits.
Rubio, Ryan and other Republicans who've made common cause with these welfare-state goons have betrayed fundamental principles of limited government and the rule of law. They've allied themselves with the mob. There's nothing, not one thing, "conservative" about mass illegal alien amnesty. It's the complete Chicago-ization of America.
SOURCE
Oh Say Can You See The Contradiction?
by GABRIEL GARNICA
As a proud Latino Conservative (yes, we do exist), I often find myself simply mystified by the blatant and despicable contradiction and hypocrisy so inherent in the entire illegal immigration campaign waged by the Left and its pet media, including Univision and Telemundo, the two powerful Spanish networks who clearly exhibit the same liberal bias so prevalent in mainstream media. Imagine CNN, CNBC, and ABC wearing sombreros or dancing salsa and you have Univision and Telemundo.
Whenever I have my parents over for a visit, they ask me to turn on one of these channels so they can hear the news, and I reluctantly agree knowing full well that I am about to get a cold reminder of not only the despicable bias mentioned above but, perhaps worse, a healthy dose of the ridiculous hypocrisy and selective ire so fundamental to the mainstream media's pathetic liberal propaganda. Worse still, to hear and see Latinos claim to care about Latinos and then ignoring or bashing any who do not kneel at the altar of the Democratic Party is nauseating.
No sooner had I turned on Univision when I was hit with a report on the ignorant rants against 11-year-old Sebastian De La Cruz, the precocious and quite talented singer of America's Got Talent fame who was blasted in racist tweets after singing the national anthem before Game 3 of the NBA Finals in full Mariachi gear. There is no doubt that these despicable, ignorant rants directed at an innocent, talented boy in particular and Latinos in general are idiotic and wrong. However, what I cannot for the life of me understand is the hypocritical contradiction of those who sing Cielito Lindo out of both sides of their mouths.
The Univision reporters and anchors were outraged by the racist rants assuming Sebastian was an illegal immigrant, lumping all Latinos together, and demonstrating a profound resentment, intolerance, disdain, and even hatred of immigrants through a slew of names, labels, and vulgar references. To punctuate their point, the network recounted Sebastian's wise suggestion that we should never judge a book by its cover, that respect and tolerance are instilled at home, and that he loves this country while equally loving his cultural roots as well. It was very touching to see this child's classy response to hate, but you would have to be touched in the head to not realize the laughable contradictions of Univision's backlash.
To begin with, Mexico's vile hypocrisy in demanding wide-scale immigration reforms, lecturing Arizona on how to treat its immigrants, while treating its own illegal immigrants like trash is well-documented and utterly embarrassing. Not surprisingly, the Univision report did not happen to mention Mexico's terrible record of abuse toward those who enter its borders illegally, perhaps because this reality does not fit the Left's script. This hypocrisy is so blatant that even liberals recognize it.
Secondly, the report expressed disgust that anyone would assume that a Latino child was an illegal immigrant simply because he is a Latino or dressed as a mariachi. This follows the common liberal sentiment that profiling is inherently wrong because it lumps people together and makes assumptions about them, ignoring individuals' unique traits and backgrounds in the interest of some overriding agenda. Never mind that legal immigrants joining ranks with illegal ones, often demanding that the latter not be differentiated from them in any way promotes the very discrimination and profiling that the Left claims to abhor. If legal immigrants lock arms with illegal ones, often singing the same tune of protest, are they not themselves promoting the notion that an immigrant, legal or not, is an immigrant? Taken as a whole, this absurd situation results in legal immigrants lumping themselves with illegal ones and then arguing that it is wrong to lump all immigrants as illegal.
To listen to Univision, the liberal mainstream media, and all liberals, there is no distinction between illegal immigrants and legal ones. This is the context and the core of all arguments against the term "illegal immigrants" and in favor of using the term "undocumented", which is like calling a burglar a temporary possessor, a forger a creative financier, or a radical terrorist murdering his fellow soldiers a case of workplace violence. This should not surprise anyone familiar with the Left's penchant by creative euphemistic spin and semantic gymnastics to perfume what is fishy in their arsenal.
Lastly, Univision and Telemundo, the other major Latino network, gleefully splash images of crying children, hysterical wives, confused grandparents, wasted laborers, and frustrated scholars all lamenting the evil forces that are preventing them from realizing their dream of a better life. For every Sebastian De La Cruz proudly singing the National Anthem, happy to combine his cultural roots with being an American, there are many other immigrants stomping and cursing on the American flag and defiantly declaring that America will soon be all theirs. Again, not surprisingly, Univision did not provide a report showing immigrants burning or spitting on the flag, which would have perhaps been a negative backdrop to their claims that all immigrants are just peachy about integrating and eternally grateful to this country for their new lease on life. Where are the reports on illegal immigrant crime rates?
Do not get me wrong; I believe that some kind of reform is needed whereby honest, hard-working, law-abiding immigrants sincerely trying to integrate and enhance our country with their virtues can be provided with a logical, fair, and clear path to citizenship. However, unlike liberal Latinos such as journalists Jorge Ramos and Maria Hinojosa, who have the dangerous combination of being Mexican mouthpieces with a powerful influence over Latino opinion in this country, I can objectively see both sides and seek a more balanced, fair, accurate, and unbiased portrayal of the immigrant issue.
The kind of blatant bias that we saw during the last major election whereby ABC let Jorge Ramos bash the Republican Party while ignoring a powerful speech by Latina Governor Susana Martinez is the sort of vile, one-sided propaganda that renders Univision and Telemundo nothing more than the Spanish versions of CNN, CNBC, ABC, and NPR.
It is ignorant to bash a talented, proud kid singing the National Anthem just because of his culture or background while folks like Roseanne Barr, Michael Bolton, Hillary Clinton, and Cristina Aguilera, among others, have butchered it. I will take Sebastian's version any day over Roseanne's infamous crotch-grabbing rendition. At the same time, it is despicable to ignore the fact that many immigrant protestors have burned and spit on the flag and illegal immigrants do, contrary to liberal fiction, actually commit crimes. Likewise, it is the height of vile absurdity to protest lumping all Latinos together while, you guessed it, lumping all Latinos together. With the increasing power and influence of the Latino vote in this country, conservatives who want to see the inside of the White House as tenants rather than tourists had better figure out a way to counteract this insidious propaganda..... pronto.
SOURCE
The Amnesty Mob vs. America
by MICHELLE MALKIN
You can try to put "conservative" lipstick on the lawless amnesty mob. In the end, however, it's still a lawless mob. The big government/big business alliance to protect illegal immigration got a lot of mileage using foolish Republicans Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan as front men. But the true colors of the open-borders grievance-mongers always show through.
After America said no to a pork-filled security-undermining amnesty bill in 2007, the No Illegal Alien Left Behind lobbyists changed their overtly thuggish tactics. They put down their upside-down American flags, stopped wearing their commie Che Guevara T-shirts and cloaked their radical "Aztlan" aspirations in the less divisive rhetoric of "reform" and "opportunity."
It was all just an act, of course. Inevitably, the mask has slipped. Over the weekend, illegal alien protesters descended on the private residence of Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement lawyer Kris Kobach. As Twitchy.com reported on Saturday, 300 amnesty activists marched into Kobach's neighborhood and barged up his driveway and right onto his doorstep. It's how the Alinskyite "community organizers" roll.
Shouting into a bullhorn and waving their fists from his front porch, the property rights-invaders dubbed Kobach "King of Hate" for his work representing border security activists and federal customs enforcement agents who are fighting the systemic sabotage of immigration law. Thankfully, Kobach, his wife and their four young daughters were not home at the time.
But the aggrieved amnesty demanders are not done yet. And Kobach is not the only one in their crosshairs.
After tea party activist turned Kansas state representative Amanda Grosserode condemned the mob action publicly on Facebook, racist insults and threats littered her page. Roberto Medina Ramirez wrote: "I'll give her something to be disgusted about!" Doris Lynn Crouse Gent chimed in: "OMG! Maybe her drive should be next." Matt S. Bashaw echoed the call: "Maybe her house should be next." Facebook user Jude Robinson also ranted on Grosserode's page: "Since Kobach steals taxpayer money spreading hate around the country, he deserves what he gets."
Dennis Paul Romero left this message for Grosserode: "(N)azi kkk and she is proud of it." A user writing as "Paul-says Fckmarkzuck" left death threats under Romero's comment: "Gotta start killing all the Nazis. Politicans (sic), bankers, and priests. Cops, lawyers, and Judges. ASAP." The same user added: "Just another b*tch that needs to die off already."
The radicals of Occupy Kansas posted an inflammatory photo of Grosserode with the race-baiting caption: "Kansas State legislator Amanda Grosserode says she is 'disgusted' by Hispanic protesters." Grosserode wasn't disgusted by their ethnicity. She was disgusted by their actions. No matter. Race/ethnic card: activated.
Gina Long pounced: "(S)he is stupid and doesn't like brown people." So did Diana Bauer: "Ah, poor Ms Grosserode; sorry that you find our Constitution so difficult to stomach. Or is it only whites that have the right to freedom of speech." One Lupe Ramirez left his own message for Grosserode: "We are starting our fundraising and campaign to unseat you. Do you not realize how many Hispanics are in Kansas. You no longer live in Dorothy's Kansas. You cannot represent your state, you don't even know who they are."
Grosserode isn't backing down. She told me Tuesday that she will remain "vigilant" and has given local law enforcement a heads-up. The conservative mom and lawmaker notes sadly that "there are some who would say that when you are in elected office that you should expect this kind of thing. I would disagree. No one deserves threats nor threats to their home and family."
But the amnesty vigilantes have no respect for borders, let alone private front porches, in their quest for another massive federal illegal alien bailout. They have no respect for law-abiding U.S. workers. They have no respect for law-abiding foreigners applying to get into our country the right and proper way.
As they besiege Capitol Hill this month demanding more rights and payoffs, take note: These groups do not stand for the American dream. They are a nightmare conglomeration of George Soros-funded social justice operatives, transnationalists and La Raza militants who detest U.S. sovereignty. National People's Action, which spearheads progressive "direct actions" at the private homes of their political foes and led the march on Kobach's home, is a "community organizing" nonprofit based in -- you guessed it -- Chicago.
NPA's past shakedowns have involved busing in protesters and schoolchildren (using public school buses) to invade the private property of their victims and intimidate their families. They relish their brass knuckles with this anthem:
Who's on your hit list NPA?
Who's on your hit list for today?
Take no prisoner, take no names.
Kick 'em in the (a--) when they play their games.
As I first reported in 2004, NPA is funded by the Tides Foundation, the Ben and Jerry's Foundation, and the MacArthur, Ford and Rockefeller foundations. It's also funded by your tax dollars. My research found that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Education had all given tens of thousands of dollars in grants to NPA members for left-wing activism, identity politics and illegal alien benefits.
Rubio, Ryan and other Republicans who've made common cause with these welfare-state goons have betrayed fundamental principles of limited government and the rule of law. They've allied themselves with the mob. There's nothing, not one thing, "conservative" about mass illegal alien amnesty. It's the complete Chicago-ization of America.
SOURCE
Oh Say Can You See The Contradiction?
by GABRIEL GARNICA
As a proud Latino Conservative (yes, we do exist), I often find myself simply mystified by the blatant and despicable contradiction and hypocrisy so inherent in the entire illegal immigration campaign waged by the Left and its pet media, including Univision and Telemundo, the two powerful Spanish networks who clearly exhibit the same liberal bias so prevalent in mainstream media. Imagine CNN, CNBC, and ABC wearing sombreros or dancing salsa and you have Univision and Telemundo.
Whenever I have my parents over for a visit, they ask me to turn on one of these channels so they can hear the news, and I reluctantly agree knowing full well that I am about to get a cold reminder of not only the despicable bias mentioned above but, perhaps worse, a healthy dose of the ridiculous hypocrisy and selective ire so fundamental to the mainstream media's pathetic liberal propaganda. Worse still, to hear and see Latinos claim to care about Latinos and then ignoring or bashing any who do not kneel at the altar of the Democratic Party is nauseating.
No sooner had I turned on Univision when I was hit with a report on the ignorant rants against 11-year-old Sebastian De La Cruz, the precocious and quite talented singer of America's Got Talent fame who was blasted in racist tweets after singing the national anthem before Game 3 of the NBA Finals in full Mariachi gear. There is no doubt that these despicable, ignorant rants directed at an innocent, talented boy in particular and Latinos in general are idiotic and wrong. However, what I cannot for the life of me understand is the hypocritical contradiction of those who sing Cielito Lindo out of both sides of their mouths.
The Univision reporters and anchors were outraged by the racist rants assuming Sebastian was an illegal immigrant, lumping all Latinos together, and demonstrating a profound resentment, intolerance, disdain, and even hatred of immigrants through a slew of names, labels, and vulgar references. To punctuate their point, the network recounted Sebastian's wise suggestion that we should never judge a book by its cover, that respect and tolerance are instilled at home, and that he loves this country while equally loving his cultural roots as well. It was very touching to see this child's classy response to hate, but you would have to be touched in the head to not realize the laughable contradictions of Univision's backlash.
To begin with, Mexico's vile hypocrisy in demanding wide-scale immigration reforms, lecturing Arizona on how to treat its immigrants, while treating its own illegal immigrants like trash is well-documented and utterly embarrassing. Not surprisingly, the Univision report did not happen to mention Mexico's terrible record of abuse toward those who enter its borders illegally, perhaps because this reality does not fit the Left's script. This hypocrisy is so blatant that even liberals recognize it.
Secondly, the report expressed disgust that anyone would assume that a Latino child was an illegal immigrant simply because he is a Latino or dressed as a mariachi. This follows the common liberal sentiment that profiling is inherently wrong because it lumps people together and makes assumptions about them, ignoring individuals' unique traits and backgrounds in the interest of some overriding agenda. Never mind that legal immigrants joining ranks with illegal ones, often demanding that the latter not be differentiated from them in any way promotes the very discrimination and profiling that the Left claims to abhor. If legal immigrants lock arms with illegal ones, often singing the same tune of protest, are they not themselves promoting the notion that an immigrant, legal or not, is an immigrant? Taken as a whole, this absurd situation results in legal immigrants lumping themselves with illegal ones and then arguing that it is wrong to lump all immigrants as illegal.
To listen to Univision, the liberal mainstream media, and all liberals, there is no distinction between illegal immigrants and legal ones. This is the context and the core of all arguments against the term "illegal immigrants" and in favor of using the term "undocumented", which is like calling a burglar a temporary possessor, a forger a creative financier, or a radical terrorist murdering his fellow soldiers a case of workplace violence. This should not surprise anyone familiar with the Left's penchant by creative euphemistic spin and semantic gymnastics to perfume what is fishy in their arsenal.
Lastly, Univision and Telemundo, the other major Latino network, gleefully splash images of crying children, hysterical wives, confused grandparents, wasted laborers, and frustrated scholars all lamenting the evil forces that are preventing them from realizing their dream of a better life. For every Sebastian De La Cruz proudly singing the National Anthem, happy to combine his cultural roots with being an American, there are many other immigrants stomping and cursing on the American flag and defiantly declaring that America will soon be all theirs. Again, not surprisingly, Univision did not provide a report showing immigrants burning or spitting on the flag, which would have perhaps been a negative backdrop to their claims that all immigrants are just peachy about integrating and eternally grateful to this country for their new lease on life. Where are the reports on illegal immigrant crime rates?
Do not get me wrong; I believe that some kind of reform is needed whereby honest, hard-working, law-abiding immigrants sincerely trying to integrate and enhance our country with their virtues can be provided with a logical, fair, and clear path to citizenship. However, unlike liberal Latinos such as journalists Jorge Ramos and Maria Hinojosa, who have the dangerous combination of being Mexican mouthpieces with a powerful influence over Latino opinion in this country, I can objectively see both sides and seek a more balanced, fair, accurate, and unbiased portrayal of the immigrant issue.
The kind of blatant bias that we saw during the last major election whereby ABC let Jorge Ramos bash the Republican Party while ignoring a powerful speech by Latina Governor Susana Martinez is the sort of vile, one-sided propaganda that renders Univision and Telemundo nothing more than the Spanish versions of CNN, CNBC, ABC, and NPR.
It is ignorant to bash a talented, proud kid singing the National Anthem just because of his culture or background while folks like Roseanne Barr, Michael Bolton, Hillary Clinton, and Cristina Aguilera, among others, have butchered it. I will take Sebastian's version any day over Roseanne's infamous crotch-grabbing rendition. At the same time, it is despicable to ignore the fact that many immigrant protestors have burned and spit on the flag and illegal immigrants do, contrary to liberal fiction, actually commit crimes. Likewise, it is the height of vile absurdity to protest lumping all Latinos together while, you guessed it, lumping all Latinos together. With the increasing power and influence of the Latino vote in this country, conservatives who want to see the inside of the White House as tenants rather than tourists had better figure out a way to counteract this insidious propaganda..... pronto.
SOURCE
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Beware
Furthermore
America at the Midnight Hour on Immigration
A Mexican USA beckons
With the Supreme Court's June 17 decision prohibiting the state of Arizona from verifying the citizenship of voters, the reality behind the government charade of preserving the integrity of the nation (one of its primary constitutional mandates) is coming unraveled. On the surface, it does appear that the high court has grounds to claim that it is merely abiding by the hierarchy of governing authority as stipulated in the Constitution. However, that assertion must completely ignore the actual conduct of the federal government, which has been to abdicate such responsibilities and thereby flagrantly facilitate vote fraud by non-citizens on an unprecedented scale.
Had the federal government been duly enforcing laws which already exist, the good people of Arizona would never have instituted Proposition 200, the 2004 ballot initiative by which their state sought to confirm the identity and citizenship of those registering to vote in their elections. Sadly for Arizonans, and for all Americans who wish to keep their country, a decision was made many years ago at the highest levels of the U.S. government to turn a blind eye to illegal border crossings, the establishment of false identities by which to freely operate within the United States, and even their seditious involvement in the governing process. At every juncture, the American people have been betrayed by the political class, amid promises that the glaring problems of illegal immigration will somehow be completely remedied by the next legislative sellout.
The latest United States Senate attempt at amnesty for illegal aliens S.744, is more of the same. From start to finish, it is saturated in fraud and treachery, the only purpose of which is to convince enough Americans to accept its passage to make it the law of the land, after which complaints and concerns about its "unexpected" repercussions will be deemed inconsequential and thereafter ignored. It does not matter that the bill seems to be gaining support from "Republicans," some of whom claim to be conservatives. The glaring inconsistencies with which it is being promoted are too stark to have gone unnoticed. Rather, they reveal the consuming arrogance of the "Ruling Class," and its contempt for the American people who live and work on Main Street.
For starters, consider the number of 11 million being bandied as the total illegal immigrant population. Senators on both sides of the aisle, and particularly within the "Gang of 8" invoke that figure with absolute authority, and in truth, too much authority. It is incessantly presented to the American people as if the Census bureau diligently went to every corner of the nation and tabulated the total population of border breaching foreigners with unassailable precision. Yet every American who has ever visited a shopping center cannot doubt that many more than one in thirty of the people they encounter are hardly lifelong Yankees.
Of course the very mention of such things is deemed "politically incorrect" and "offensive," which is merely another liberal tactic to suppress the truth. Yet in the same manner that the implementation costs of Obamacare were eventually admitted by "surprised" high level government accountants to be several times the paltry trillion dollars originally promised, once amnesty happens, the bogus "11 million" will suddenly swell to several times that number.
Of course the immediate excuse will be that no one could possibly have known for sure how many illegals were living in the legendary "shadows" about which we have lately heard so much. Yet from its onset, this discussion has clearly been riddled with malicious deceit, which is standard practice for advancing the liberal statist agenda. On the one hand, Barack Obama regularly makes reference to these elusive "shadows" in a shameless ploy to invoke sympathy for those fearful huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Meanwhile, Republican amnesty poster boy Marco Rubio just as matter of factly asserts that the current situation already amounts to amnesty, and that only its legal codification can assuage the rampant lawlessness that created it in the first place. And if such "logic" sounds deliberately convoluted and evasive, it should.
No less an insult to the intelligence of the American people is the entire discussion of securing the nation's southern border. Those who seek to legitimize, and more significantly, empower, the current influx of illegals have no more intention of ever securing the border with this iteration of amnesty than they did during the disastrous and fraudulent "Simpson-Mazzoli" amnesty bill of 1986. Touted back then as the all-time fix to the problem of approximately 3 million illegals in the country, a secured border was promised as an essential component of that measure, and likewise never happened.
Amnesty advocates are already telegraphing their underhanded intentions of abandoning border security the moment S.744 becomes law. Senator Charles Schumer (D.-NY) has decried the ostensible time needed to secure the border, rendering it infeasible for inclusion in the law. But this is just a smokescreen. In May of 1961 President John F. Kennedy committed the nation to a monumental undertaking. His goal was not to build a fence or start enforcing laws that were already on the books, but to land an American on the moon. Eight years and two months later, that dream was realized. To allege that, forty four years later, the mere construction of a barrier between the United States and Mexico is too great of a logistical and technical challenge for the United States of America is another outright lie.
Contrary to the vile and coordinated attacks from the liberal political establishment and its foot soldiers on both parties against Americans who oppose amnesty, opposition to S.744 is not rooted in irrational bias against people who, according to Obama's condescending sanctimony "aren't like them." Rather, Americans properly foresee the ramifications of a fully legally empowered invasion of foreigners with no ties to their nation's past, and no interest in its future, and what such an upheaval will mean to those currently living here.
Border enforcement is not part of the plan, nor is the reestablishment of a great nation in which all of its inhabitants can flourish and fulfill their dreams. And assimilation is nothing but a pipe dream. If amnesty passes the Congress and is signed by Barack Obama, does anyone doubt whose flag those illegals will be flying the next day in celebration? A fractured and struggling nation with a permanent underclass is beneficial to a government that thrives on the perpetually troubled and "needy" condition of its subjects. From the disastrous economic downturn of the past four years (and counting) to the vast expansion of the welfare state, to the imposition of socialized medicine, every policy of the Obama White House has been directed toward this end. The results have been undeniable, and if amnesty passes, things will only get worse. It is indefensible for any cognizant politician to claim otherwise.
SOURCE
Beware
Furthermore
America at the Midnight Hour on Immigration
A Mexican USA beckons
With the Supreme Court's June 17 decision prohibiting the state of Arizona from verifying the citizenship of voters, the reality behind the government charade of preserving the integrity of the nation (one of its primary constitutional mandates) is coming unraveled. On the surface, it does appear that the high court has grounds to claim that it is merely abiding by the hierarchy of governing authority as stipulated in the Constitution. However, that assertion must completely ignore the actual conduct of the federal government, which has been to abdicate such responsibilities and thereby flagrantly facilitate vote fraud by non-citizens on an unprecedented scale.
Had the federal government been duly enforcing laws which already exist, the good people of Arizona would never have instituted Proposition 200, the 2004 ballot initiative by which their state sought to confirm the identity and citizenship of those registering to vote in their elections. Sadly for Arizonans, and for all Americans who wish to keep their country, a decision was made many years ago at the highest levels of the U.S. government to turn a blind eye to illegal border crossings, the establishment of false identities by which to freely operate within the United States, and even their seditious involvement in the governing process. At every juncture, the American people have been betrayed by the political class, amid promises that the glaring problems of illegal immigration will somehow be completely remedied by the next legislative sellout.
The latest United States Senate attempt at amnesty for illegal aliens S.744, is more of the same. From start to finish, it is saturated in fraud and treachery, the only purpose of which is to convince enough Americans to accept its passage to make it the law of the land, after which complaints and concerns about its "unexpected" repercussions will be deemed inconsequential and thereafter ignored. It does not matter that the bill seems to be gaining support from "Republicans," some of whom claim to be conservatives. The glaring inconsistencies with which it is being promoted are too stark to have gone unnoticed. Rather, they reveal the consuming arrogance of the "Ruling Class," and its contempt for the American people who live and work on Main Street.
For starters, consider the number of 11 million being bandied as the total illegal immigrant population. Senators on both sides of the aisle, and particularly within the "Gang of 8" invoke that figure with absolute authority, and in truth, too much authority. It is incessantly presented to the American people as if the Census bureau diligently went to every corner of the nation and tabulated the total population of border breaching foreigners with unassailable precision. Yet every American who has ever visited a shopping center cannot doubt that many more than one in thirty of the people they encounter are hardly lifelong Yankees.
Of course the very mention of such things is deemed "politically incorrect" and "offensive," which is merely another liberal tactic to suppress the truth. Yet in the same manner that the implementation costs of Obamacare were eventually admitted by "surprised" high level government accountants to be several times the paltry trillion dollars originally promised, once amnesty happens, the bogus "11 million" will suddenly swell to several times that number.
Of course the immediate excuse will be that no one could possibly have known for sure how many illegals were living in the legendary "shadows" about which we have lately heard so much. Yet from its onset, this discussion has clearly been riddled with malicious deceit, which is standard practice for advancing the liberal statist agenda. On the one hand, Barack Obama regularly makes reference to these elusive "shadows" in a shameless ploy to invoke sympathy for those fearful huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Meanwhile, Republican amnesty poster boy Marco Rubio just as matter of factly asserts that the current situation already amounts to amnesty, and that only its legal codification can assuage the rampant lawlessness that created it in the first place. And if such "logic" sounds deliberately convoluted and evasive, it should.
No less an insult to the intelligence of the American people is the entire discussion of securing the nation's southern border. Those who seek to legitimize, and more significantly, empower, the current influx of illegals have no more intention of ever securing the border with this iteration of amnesty than they did during the disastrous and fraudulent "Simpson-Mazzoli" amnesty bill of 1986. Touted back then as the all-time fix to the problem of approximately 3 million illegals in the country, a secured border was promised as an essential component of that measure, and likewise never happened.
Amnesty advocates are already telegraphing their underhanded intentions of abandoning border security the moment S.744 becomes law. Senator Charles Schumer (D.-NY) has decried the ostensible time needed to secure the border, rendering it infeasible for inclusion in the law. But this is just a smokescreen. In May of 1961 President John F. Kennedy committed the nation to a monumental undertaking. His goal was not to build a fence or start enforcing laws that were already on the books, but to land an American on the moon. Eight years and two months later, that dream was realized. To allege that, forty four years later, the mere construction of a barrier between the United States and Mexico is too great of a logistical and technical challenge for the United States of America is another outright lie.
Contrary to the vile and coordinated attacks from the liberal political establishment and its foot soldiers on both parties against Americans who oppose amnesty, opposition to S.744 is not rooted in irrational bias against people who, according to Obama's condescending sanctimony "aren't like them." Rather, Americans properly foresee the ramifications of a fully legally empowered invasion of foreigners with no ties to their nation's past, and no interest in its future, and what such an upheaval will mean to those currently living here.
Border enforcement is not part of the plan, nor is the reestablishment of a great nation in which all of its inhabitants can flourish and fulfill their dreams. And assimilation is nothing but a pipe dream. If amnesty passes the Congress and is signed by Barack Obama, does anyone doubt whose flag those illegals will be flying the next day in celebration? A fractured and struggling nation with a permanent underclass is beneficial to a government that thrives on the perpetually troubled and "needy" condition of its subjects. From the disastrous economic downturn of the past four years (and counting) to the vast expansion of the welfare state, to the imposition of socialized medicine, every policy of the Obama White House has been directed toward this end. The results have been undeniable, and if amnesty passes, things will only get worse. It is indefensible for any cognizant politician to claim otherwise.
SOURCE
Friday, June 21, 2013
Raw deal: Immigrants who paid a legal price say focus on illegals is ‘discouraging’
When Lucinda Sweazey’s family immigrated from Canada in 1999, it took seven years and an estimated $45,000 in legal, passport and visa fees for her parents and siblings to secure permanent resident status in the U.S.
“Our lawyer even mentioned to us when we were going through the process legally that it would have been easier if we came in illegally. We would have saved money, and there’s a good chance we would be citizens by now,” Ms. Sweazey said.
Now an undergraduate student at the King's College in New York City, the British Columbia native said the massive immigration overhaul working its way through the Senate could make a “mockery of legal immigration.”
If lawmakers offer a shortcut to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, she said, “it becomes rather discouraging to someone who came legally.”
Ms. Sweazey and other legal immigrants are voicing concerns that providing amnesty for those who arrived illegally will only encourage more of the same.
“We should not reward people for breaking the rules while we maintain burdensome rules for immigration,” said Liye Zhang, a software engineer in Castro Valley, Calif., who emigrated from China when he was 10.
Mr. Zhang, a strong opponent of amnesty, noted that one of his co-workers plans to obtain a master’s degree in order to get into “a slightly shorter line” for a green card — a process that ultimately will cost more than $300,000 in tuition and loss of salary.
“Giving green cards to illegal immigrants while not giving them to these people seems very much stupid and foolish,” Mr. Zhang said.
Mr. Zhang’s father secured a job in the U.S. in 1999 as a software engineer and obtained visas for his immediate family. Although they pursued citizenship as soon as they could, it took Mr. Zhang seven years to become a citizen.
“The process was long and exhausting,” he said, recalling his visits to immigration offices in San Francisco, many of which required early morning travel and long hours in lines. “It cost a great deal of money even though I am unsure how much precisely it was.”
In 2012, roughly 1 million people obtained legal permanent resident status and 750,000 received naturalization in the U.S., according to Department of Homeland Security numbers.
That is far fewer than the estimated 11 million people living in the country illegally.
Of those 11 million, 1.4 million qualify as “Dreamers” — illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children who have been offered a temporary reprieve from deportation by the Obama administration.
Deferral applications for the Dreamers are expected to further slow approvals for the 4.4 million people worldwide waiting for green cards, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.
The backlog for those going through the process legally is expected to grow: Over the next 10 years, the immigration bill is expected to help legalize 32.5 million to 33.5 million people, including the 11 million current illegals, according to estimates by the left-wing Center for American Progress and NumbersUSA, which opposes the bill.
Looking for a solution
Supporters say the population boost will help the economy, and the path to citizenship will help solve one of the nation’s most vexing legal problems. And don’t call it amnesty, they say.
Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, points to provisions in the bill that require illegal immigrants to undergo background checks, pay taxes and a fine, and wait for a probationary period before obtaining citizenship, which can take up to 15 years.
“Earned legalization is not amnesty,” he said during an immigration forum last week sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers. “I will debate anybody who tries to suggest that these ideas that are moving through Congress are amnesty. They’re not. Amnesty is wiping the slate clean and not paying any penalty for having done something wrong.”
But Luis Pozzollo, a naturalized citizen from Uruguay, said the immigration bill is “plain amnesty” because it provides benefits for illegals such as in-state tuition, does not help stem illegal immigration and provides no efficient border security.
“Coming illegally to a country and breaking every law you can, misusing and abusing all the benefits in America, is not the way to get citizenship or a green card,” said Mr. Pozzollo, a safety and operations supervisor at an auto plant. “Citizenship for immigrants is a privilege, not a handout.”
Mr. Pozzollo arrived in Lexington, Ky., in 2003 on a work visa and waited several years to apply for his green card and then for citizenship. He was naturalized last year.
Mr. Pozzollo is involved in several organizations that “support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration.”
By considering amnesty for illegals, Congress will be taking away chances from qualified applicants and giving them to people, he said, who “failed to comply with American laws.”
SOURCE
CBO: Gang of Eight Bill Will Fail to Stop Illegal Immigration
Nearly 5 million new illegals and their children expected by 2023
The central purpose of the Schumer-Rubio bill (S.744) is to reduce future illegal immigration. In fact, Sen. Chuck Schumer has said that its passage would mean "Illegal immigration will be a thing of the past."
But the Center for Immigration Studies finds that the new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the legislation, http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/CBO S744.pdf, confirms that the bill will almost completely fail in this regard. According to CBO, if S.744 passes, "the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by 25 percent." Because S.744 fails to stem a larger portion of illegal immigration, CBO projects that nearly 5 million new illegal immigrants and their children will be living in the United States 10 years after the bill passes.
Among CBO's findings:
· CBO projects 4.8 million new illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children will be living in the country by 2023 if the bill becomes law, compared to 6.4 million without it – a mere 25% reduction in future illegal immigration (page 23).
· CBO projections mean that in the first ten years after the passage of S.744, new illegal immigration will add nearly 500,000 illegal residents and their children to the U.S. population each year.
· CBO projects that by 2033 7.5 million new illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children will be in the country if the bill passes, compared to 10 million without the bill, so even in the very long term S.744 only reduces illegal immigration by 25% (page 23).
· To be clear, the 4.8 million new illegal immigrants and their children in the country by 2023 and the 6.4 million by 2033 are new arrivals, plus the children they will have once here.
· One of the reasons that illegal immigration will remain so high, according to CBO, is the bill itself will encourage illegal immigration. CBO states, "aspects of the bill would probably increase the number of unauthorized residents – in particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new programs for temporary workers"(page 23).
· None of the costs associated with the 4.8 million illegals and their children in 2023 or the 7.5 million in 2033 are considered by CBO because they are assumed to be part of the "baseline" costs that would exist anyway. CBO only "scores" changes from the baseline. Thus, the projected slight fall off in illegal immigration (25%) is scored as a positive by CBO, no matter how large the actual costs of new illegal immigrants and their children.
Explaining CBO projections of future illegal immigration
On page 23 of its report CBO projects future levels of illegal immigration. Like much in the CBO report, the discussion of future illegal immigration is not particularly clear. However, CBO does state, "the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur under current law, resulting in a reduction in the U.S. population (including a reduction in the number of children born in the United States) relative to that benchmark of 1.6 million in 2023 and 2.5 million in 2033." Thus, according to CBO, the total new illegal immigrant population (plus children) would have been 6.4 million by 2023, but will be 4.8 million if S.744 passes, which is 25 percent (1.6 million) smaller than it otherwise would have been. By 2033 the illegal population (plus children) will be 7.5 million which is 25% (2.5 million) smaller than the 10 million it would otherwise have been.
The costs of S.744
CBO also estimates the costs of S.744. But how those costs are calculated is not clearly explained, so they are difficult to evaluate. It is the intention of the Center for Immigration Studies to evaluate these cost estimates in future publications.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Raw deal: Immigrants who paid a legal price say focus on illegals is ‘discouraging’
When Lucinda Sweazey’s family immigrated from Canada in 1999, it took seven years and an estimated $45,000 in legal, passport and visa fees for her parents and siblings to secure permanent resident status in the U.S.
“Our lawyer even mentioned to us when we were going through the process legally that it would have been easier if we came in illegally. We would have saved money, and there’s a good chance we would be citizens by now,” Ms. Sweazey said.
Now an undergraduate student at the King's College in New York City, the British Columbia native said the massive immigration overhaul working its way through the Senate could make a “mockery of legal immigration.”
If lawmakers offer a shortcut to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, she said, “it becomes rather discouraging to someone who came legally.”
Ms. Sweazey and other legal immigrants are voicing concerns that providing amnesty for those who arrived illegally will only encourage more of the same.
“We should not reward people for breaking the rules while we maintain burdensome rules for immigration,” said Liye Zhang, a software engineer in Castro Valley, Calif., who emigrated from China when he was 10.
Mr. Zhang, a strong opponent of amnesty, noted that one of his co-workers plans to obtain a master’s degree in order to get into “a slightly shorter line” for a green card — a process that ultimately will cost more than $300,000 in tuition and loss of salary.
“Giving green cards to illegal immigrants while not giving them to these people seems very much stupid and foolish,” Mr. Zhang said.
Mr. Zhang’s father secured a job in the U.S. in 1999 as a software engineer and obtained visas for his immediate family. Although they pursued citizenship as soon as they could, it took Mr. Zhang seven years to become a citizen.
“The process was long and exhausting,” he said, recalling his visits to immigration offices in San Francisco, many of which required early morning travel and long hours in lines. “It cost a great deal of money even though I am unsure how much precisely it was.”
In 2012, roughly 1 million people obtained legal permanent resident status and 750,000 received naturalization in the U.S., according to Department of Homeland Security numbers.
That is far fewer than the estimated 11 million people living in the country illegally.
Of those 11 million, 1.4 million qualify as “Dreamers” — illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children who have been offered a temporary reprieve from deportation by the Obama administration.
Deferral applications for the Dreamers are expected to further slow approvals for the 4.4 million people worldwide waiting for green cards, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.
The backlog for those going through the process legally is expected to grow: Over the next 10 years, the immigration bill is expected to help legalize 32.5 million to 33.5 million people, including the 11 million current illegals, according to estimates by the left-wing Center for American Progress and NumbersUSA, which opposes the bill.
Looking for a solution
Supporters say the population boost will help the economy, and the path to citizenship will help solve one of the nation’s most vexing legal problems. And don’t call it amnesty, they say.
Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, points to provisions in the bill that require illegal immigrants to undergo background checks, pay taxes and a fine, and wait for a probationary period before obtaining citizenship, which can take up to 15 years.
“Earned legalization is not amnesty,” he said during an immigration forum last week sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers. “I will debate anybody who tries to suggest that these ideas that are moving through Congress are amnesty. They’re not. Amnesty is wiping the slate clean and not paying any penalty for having done something wrong.”
But Luis Pozzollo, a naturalized citizen from Uruguay, said the immigration bill is “plain amnesty” because it provides benefits for illegals such as in-state tuition, does not help stem illegal immigration and provides no efficient border security.
“Coming illegally to a country and breaking every law you can, misusing and abusing all the benefits in America, is not the way to get citizenship or a green card,” said Mr. Pozzollo, a safety and operations supervisor at an auto plant. “Citizenship for immigrants is a privilege, not a handout.”
Mr. Pozzollo arrived in Lexington, Ky., in 2003 on a work visa and waited several years to apply for his green card and then for citizenship. He was naturalized last year.
Mr. Pozzollo is involved in several organizations that “support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration.”
By considering amnesty for illegals, Congress will be taking away chances from qualified applicants and giving them to people, he said, who “failed to comply with American laws.”
SOURCE
CBO: Gang of Eight Bill Will Fail to Stop Illegal Immigration
Nearly 5 million new illegals and their children expected by 2023
The central purpose of the Schumer-Rubio bill (S.744) is to reduce future illegal immigration. In fact, Sen. Chuck Schumer has said that its passage would mean "Illegal immigration will be a thing of the past."
But the Center for Immigration Studies finds that the new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the legislation, http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/CBO S744.pdf, confirms that the bill will almost completely fail in this regard. According to CBO, if S.744 passes, "the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by 25 percent." Because S.744 fails to stem a larger portion of illegal immigration, CBO projects that nearly 5 million new illegal immigrants and their children will be living in the United States 10 years after the bill passes.
Among CBO's findings:
· CBO projects 4.8 million new illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children will be living in the country by 2023 if the bill becomes law, compared to 6.4 million without it – a mere 25% reduction in future illegal immigration (page 23).
· CBO projections mean that in the first ten years after the passage of S.744, new illegal immigration will add nearly 500,000 illegal residents and their children to the U.S. population each year.
· CBO projects that by 2033 7.5 million new illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children will be in the country if the bill passes, compared to 10 million without the bill, so even in the very long term S.744 only reduces illegal immigration by 25% (page 23).
· To be clear, the 4.8 million new illegal immigrants and their children in the country by 2023 and the 6.4 million by 2033 are new arrivals, plus the children they will have once here.
· One of the reasons that illegal immigration will remain so high, according to CBO, is the bill itself will encourage illegal immigration. CBO states, "aspects of the bill would probably increase the number of unauthorized residents – in particular, people overstaying their visas issued under the new programs for temporary workers"(page 23).
· None of the costs associated with the 4.8 million illegals and their children in 2023 or the 7.5 million in 2033 are considered by CBO because they are assumed to be part of the "baseline" costs that would exist anyway. CBO only "scores" changes from the baseline. Thus, the projected slight fall off in illegal immigration (25%) is scored as a positive by CBO, no matter how large the actual costs of new illegal immigrants and their children.
Explaining CBO projections of future illegal immigration
On page 23 of its report CBO projects future levels of illegal immigration. Like much in the CBO report, the discussion of future illegal immigration is not particularly clear. However, CBO does state, "the net annual flow of unauthorized residents would decrease by about 25 percent relative to what would occur under current law, resulting in a reduction in the U.S. population (including a reduction in the number of children born in the United States) relative to that benchmark of 1.6 million in 2023 and 2.5 million in 2033." Thus, according to CBO, the total new illegal immigrant population (plus children) would have been 6.4 million by 2023, but will be 4.8 million if S.744 passes, which is 25 percent (1.6 million) smaller than it otherwise would have been. By 2033 the illegal population (plus children) will be 7.5 million which is 25% (2.5 million) smaller than the 10 million it would otherwise have been.
The costs of S.744
CBO also estimates the costs of S.744. But how those costs are calculated is not clearly explained, so they are difficult to evaluate. It is the intention of the Center for Immigration Studies to evaluate these cost estimates in future publications.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Obamacare’s tariff on hiring American workers still plagues immigration bill
An unnamed staffer for Sen. Marco Rubio has caused the latest stir over the immigration bill by telling the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza that, “There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it…There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer.” Rubio himself was quick to explain that the quote did not represent his own views. But in reality, the immigration bill Rubio is pushing, when combined with President Obama’s health care law, would actually do something much worse than make it easier for employers to hire immigrant workers over American citizens – it would provide a massive financial incentive to do so.
As I’ve outlined previously, under Obamacare, businesses with over 50 workers that employ American citizens without offering them qualifying health insurance could be subject to fines of up to $3,000 per worker. But because newly legalized immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until after they become citizens – at least 13 years under the Senate bill – businesses could avoid such fines by hiring the new immigrants instead.
Let’s be clear about something. In a free market, if a new immigrant worker can do a job better than an American worker for a cheaper price, there shouldn’t be a problem with a business hiring the immigrant. But when the immigration bill interacts with Obamacare’s employer mandate, it functions as a reverse tariff against hiring American citizens. It would be like subjecting Americans to a $3,000 tax on purchasing American cars, while allowing them to avoid that tax by purchasing cars from Germany, Japan, or any other country other than America. That’s not free trade. That’s government rigging the game against American citizens.
Sadly, Rubio, who is losing more and more credibility by the day among conservatives, has shown absolutely no leadership on trying to resolve this problem. When I first reported on the issue in April, Rubio spokesman Alex Conant responded that this was the sort of technical problem that could be fixed through amendments as the bill moved through the legislative process. But the issue was never addressed in the more than 200 amendments offered before the Senate Judiciary committee. None of the listed amendments filed since the bill made it to the Senate floor last week tackle the problem either. Despite this, Rubio declared on Sunday, “I think 95, 96 percent of the bill is in perfect shape and ready to go.” I don’t even think Obama would make such an audacious statement about Obamacare to this day.
When I contacted Conant for an update on Monday, he said that Rubio’s position is that “the problem is Obamacare, and it’s an argument for repealing Obamacare.” But that’s just a nonsense position. However unlikely it is that Obamacare ever gets fully repealed, there’s zero chance it gets repealed while Obama is president. And if the immigration bill passes, immigrants would be granted legal status before January 20, 2017 (and that date assumes that a Republican president and Senate could magically zap out Obamacare in one day). So, immigration law has to be crafted assuming that Obamacare will remain the law of the land.
Even putting that aside, however, there’s another problem with Rubio’s position. If this is such a good argument for repealing Obamacare, then why isn’t he making it? Specifically, why isn’t he making the argument that because of Obamacare, it’s difficult to reform immigration without creating the unintended consequences of slapping a massive tariff on hiring American citizens? The reality is that Rubio has become so invested in immigration reform that he doesn’t want to seriously grapple with a complex issue like this that could blow the whole thing up.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Mark Krikorian Debates S.744 with David Bier
2. Mark Krikorian Debates S. 744 with Dianne Rehm
3. CIS Press Release: Mark Up Process Further Weakens Prospects for Improved Enforcement
Blogs
4. 2 Weeks in a Row, Rubio Produces an Awkward Sunday Disconnect
5. Reid and Goodlatte Press Opposite Agendas
6. Glowing Portraits of Illegals vs. the Categorical Imperative
7. Sanders and Sessions: Odd Couple of Immigration Debate
8. Yahoo Lobbyists Should Read Yahoo Education on Tech Skills "Shortages"
9. U.S. Judicial Conference: Immigration Bill Would Overwhelm Federal Courts
10. Portman Takes on Gang of Eight's Flawed Version of E-Verify
11. Sen. Schumer's Reach Exceeding His Grasp
12. Two More EB-5 Projects, in Vermont and Virginia, Are in Trouble
13. Obama on Immigration, Now and Then
14. Here's a Checklist of the GOP Senators Who Voted to Advance S.744
15. False Promise: Immigration Policy in the President's First Term
16. From 2002, a Cautionary Tale for the Gang of Eight
17. Amnesty, Government Surveillance, and High-Tech Companies
18. It's Quite Indirect, but Every Bit Helps
19. The President's Reelection Immigration Policy
20. Looking at the Mavericks in the House Voting on DACA
21. Soros' Prophets of Baal
Obamacare’s tariff on hiring American workers still plagues immigration bill
An unnamed staffer for Sen. Marco Rubio has caused the latest stir over the immigration bill by telling the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza that, “There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it…There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer.” Rubio himself was quick to explain that the quote did not represent his own views. But in reality, the immigration bill Rubio is pushing, when combined with President Obama’s health care law, would actually do something much worse than make it easier for employers to hire immigrant workers over American citizens – it would provide a massive financial incentive to do so.
As I’ve outlined previously, under Obamacare, businesses with over 50 workers that employ American citizens without offering them qualifying health insurance could be subject to fines of up to $3,000 per worker. But because newly legalized immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until after they become citizens – at least 13 years under the Senate bill – businesses could avoid such fines by hiring the new immigrants instead.
Let’s be clear about something. In a free market, if a new immigrant worker can do a job better than an American worker for a cheaper price, there shouldn’t be a problem with a business hiring the immigrant. But when the immigration bill interacts with Obamacare’s employer mandate, it functions as a reverse tariff against hiring American citizens. It would be like subjecting Americans to a $3,000 tax on purchasing American cars, while allowing them to avoid that tax by purchasing cars from Germany, Japan, or any other country other than America. That’s not free trade. That’s government rigging the game against American citizens.
Sadly, Rubio, who is losing more and more credibility by the day among conservatives, has shown absolutely no leadership on trying to resolve this problem. When I first reported on the issue in April, Rubio spokesman Alex Conant responded that this was the sort of technical problem that could be fixed through amendments as the bill moved through the legislative process. But the issue was never addressed in the more than 200 amendments offered before the Senate Judiciary committee. None of the listed amendments filed since the bill made it to the Senate floor last week tackle the problem either. Despite this, Rubio declared on Sunday, “I think 95, 96 percent of the bill is in perfect shape and ready to go.” I don’t even think Obama would make such an audacious statement about Obamacare to this day.
When I contacted Conant for an update on Monday, he said that Rubio’s position is that “the problem is Obamacare, and it’s an argument for repealing Obamacare.” But that’s just a nonsense position. However unlikely it is that Obamacare ever gets fully repealed, there’s zero chance it gets repealed while Obama is president. And if the immigration bill passes, immigrants would be granted legal status before January 20, 2017 (and that date assumes that a Republican president and Senate could magically zap out Obamacare in one day). So, immigration law has to be crafted assuming that Obamacare will remain the law of the land.
Even putting that aside, however, there’s another problem with Rubio’s position. If this is such a good argument for repealing Obamacare, then why isn’t he making it? Specifically, why isn’t he making the argument that because of Obamacare, it’s difficult to reform immigration without creating the unintended consequences of slapping a massive tariff on hiring American citizens? The reality is that Rubio has become so invested in immigration reform that he doesn’t want to seriously grapple with a complex issue like this that could blow the whole thing up.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Mark Krikorian Debates S.744 with David Bier
2. Mark Krikorian Debates S. 744 with Dianne Rehm
3. CIS Press Release: Mark Up Process Further Weakens Prospects for Improved Enforcement
Blogs
4. 2 Weeks in a Row, Rubio Produces an Awkward Sunday Disconnect
5. Reid and Goodlatte Press Opposite Agendas
6. Glowing Portraits of Illegals vs. the Categorical Imperative
7. Sanders and Sessions: Odd Couple of Immigration Debate
8. Yahoo Lobbyists Should Read Yahoo Education on Tech Skills "Shortages"
9. U.S. Judicial Conference: Immigration Bill Would Overwhelm Federal Courts
10. Portman Takes on Gang of Eight's Flawed Version of E-Verify
11. Sen. Schumer's Reach Exceeding His Grasp
12. Two More EB-5 Projects, in Vermont and Virginia, Are in Trouble
13. Obama on Immigration, Now and Then
14. Here's a Checklist of the GOP Senators Who Voted to Advance S.744
15. False Promise: Immigration Policy in the President's First Term
16. From 2002, a Cautionary Tale for the Gang of Eight
17. Amnesty, Government Surveillance, and High-Tech Companies
18. It's Quite Indirect, but Every Bit Helps
19. The President's Reelection Immigration Policy
20. Looking at the Mavericks in the House Voting on DACA
21. Soros' Prophets of Baal
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Amendments to Immigration Bill Weaken Enforcement and Border Security
Key flaw remains: Amnesty before improvements to border
The Schumer-Rubio bill has emerged from the committee mark up process with changes that further weaken prospects for improved immigration enforcement. The Center for Immigration Studies has outlined the most significant changes to the enforcement and security sections of the bill and concluded that while a few token amendments to improve enforcement plans were adopted, several other amendments adopted will weaken enforcement still further.
These adopted amendments threaten the effectiveness of E-Verify, increase protections for criminal aliens, complicate enforcement for the Border Patrol, and impose inappropriate oversight of enforcement.
“Instead of seeking a real compromise that would address the public safety concerns of the many federal and state law enforcement officers who have expressed opposition to this bill, the Gang of Eight and their allies on the Judiciary Committee made the bill worse by tacking on irresponsible provisions that serve only to protect lawbreakers instead of the public,” said CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan.
To view a complete list of changes to the bill, including discussion: http://cis.org/Mark-Up-Process-Further-Weakens-Prospects-for-Improved-Enforcement
The following are some of the most significant changes to the enforcement and security sections of S.744:
Undermining E-Verify
· ICE will be prevented from punishing employers for first-time hiring violations if the error rate for E-Verify queries exceeds 0.3 percent. This is an extremely high standard, which seems designed primarily to thwart enforcement against employers. (Section 3101(a)).
· The bill creates an office in USCIS to advocate for small businesses that would have the authority to block an enforcement action or reverse penalties imposed on an employer. This is an astonishing infringement on ICE’s authority to enforce laws against illegal hiring. (Section 3107).
Protecting Criminal Aliens
· The Attorney General could decide to give illegal aliens (or groups) a taxpayer-funded defense attorney to help them fight deportation in court. (Section 3502).
· Illegal aliens fighting deportation will be entitled to see all of the documents in their file, including those obtained by ICE from other law enforcement agencies, which may be law enforcement-sensitive or even classified. If ICE refuses to release any documents, if they are sensitive or classified, for example, then the alien cannot be removed. This provision is most likely to be exploited by aliens who are criminal and national security threats. (Section 3502).
· The bill reverses ICE’s timid efforts to cut back payments to sanctuary jurisdictions under the SCAAP program. (Section 1110).
Interfering with Border Enforcement
· Border Patrol and ICE agents must determine if the illegal aliens they apprehend are parents or caregivers, and then determine how that parent or caregiver’s removal would impact the child’s welfare, or the alien’s own personal safety. It implies that parents and caregivers (or those who claim to be) will have a chance to contest or delay their removal on those grounds, or on the grounds that the area they just chose to travel through in order to cross illegally is not safe enough for them to return to. (Section 1115).
· It forbids the Border Patrol from removing people to Mexico at night without the approval of the Mexican government. (Section 1121).
Inappropriate Oversight
· It expands the mandate of the newly-created DHS Ombudsman’s office, which is likely to be staffed and led by political appointees, to include inspections of detention facilities and to review policies and programs of CBP, ICE, and USCIS. These are activities more appropriate for the existing and relatively independent Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility. (Section 1114).
View the Senate bill, and CIS analysis, testimony, and commentary on the bill, at: http://www.cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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 conservatives to deport refugees convicted of crimes
Refugees could be sent back to their countries or imprisoned indefinitely for committing most crimes in Australia under a Coalition government.
This comes despite warnings by legal experts that the changes would be illegal under international law.
The federal Coalition announced on Sunday that, if it was elected, foreigners convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year in jail would have their visas cancelled automatically, even if they were sentenced to less than a year's imprisonment.
Such people - including refugees, asylum seekers and visitors - would lose their right to appeal except in "special circumstances". They would be detained until they could be deported and would not be allowed to return to Australia for 20 years, double the present period.
This follows Bureau of Statistics figures in March that showed asylum seekers living in the community on bridging visas were about 45 times less likely to be charged with a crime than members of the general public.
The proposed changes would significantly broaden the immigration minister's power to cancel the visa of people sentenced to more than one year in prison.
Shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison said the minister would consider the circumstances of each case, but confirmed that, under the changes, refugees could be sent back to the countries they came from.
The Refugee Convention allows signatory countries to deport refugees in limited circumstances, including those who present "compelling reasons of national security" and a "danger to the security of the country in which he is" or, having been convicted of "a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country".
Mr Morrison said that foreigners could also be held in detention indefinitely in cases where it was not possible to deport them, citing examples of people who had been detained indefinitely despite having committed serious crimes in Australia.
A senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, Daniel Webb, said it was unlawful to deport someone to a place where they were at risk of persecution.
Liberty Victoria president Jane Dixon, SC, said the changes would include most Australian crimes, and raised concerns that the Coalition was guided by "maximum sentences rather than the context of what led to the offending".
SOURCE
Amendments to Immigration Bill Weaken Enforcement and Border Security
Key flaw remains: Amnesty before improvements to border
The Schumer-Rubio bill has emerged from the committee mark up process with changes that further weaken prospects for improved immigration enforcement. The Center for Immigration Studies has outlined the most significant changes to the enforcement and security sections of the bill and concluded that while a few token amendments to improve enforcement plans were adopted, several other amendments adopted will weaken enforcement still further.
These adopted amendments threaten the effectiveness of E-Verify, increase protections for criminal aliens, complicate enforcement for the Border Patrol, and impose inappropriate oversight of enforcement.
“Instead of seeking a real compromise that would address the public safety concerns of the many federal and state law enforcement officers who have expressed opposition to this bill, the Gang of Eight and their allies on the Judiciary Committee made the bill worse by tacking on irresponsible provisions that serve only to protect lawbreakers instead of the public,” said CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan.
To view a complete list of changes to the bill, including discussion: http://cis.org/Mark-Up-Process-Further-Weakens-Prospects-for-Improved-Enforcement
The following are some of the most significant changes to the enforcement and security sections of S.744:
Undermining E-Verify
· ICE will be prevented from punishing employers for first-time hiring violations if the error rate for E-Verify queries exceeds 0.3 percent. This is an extremely high standard, which seems designed primarily to thwart enforcement against employers. (Section 3101(a)).
· The bill creates an office in USCIS to advocate for small businesses that would have the authority to block an enforcement action or reverse penalties imposed on an employer. This is an astonishing infringement on ICE’s authority to enforce laws against illegal hiring. (Section 3107).
Protecting Criminal Aliens
· The Attorney General could decide to give illegal aliens (or groups) a taxpayer-funded defense attorney to help them fight deportation in court. (Section 3502).
· Illegal aliens fighting deportation will be entitled to see all of the documents in their file, including those obtained by ICE from other law enforcement agencies, which may be law enforcement-sensitive or even classified. If ICE refuses to release any documents, if they are sensitive or classified, for example, then the alien cannot be removed. This provision is most likely to be exploited by aliens who are criminal and national security threats. (Section 3502).
· The bill reverses ICE’s timid efforts to cut back payments to sanctuary jurisdictions under the SCAAP program. (Section 1110).
Interfering with Border Enforcement
· Border Patrol and ICE agents must determine if the illegal aliens they apprehend are parents or caregivers, and then determine how that parent or caregiver’s removal would impact the child’s welfare, or the alien’s own personal safety. It implies that parents and caregivers (or those who claim to be) will have a chance to contest or delay their removal on those grounds, or on the grounds that the area they just chose to travel through in order to cross illegally is not safe enough for them to return to. (Section 1115).
· It forbids the Border Patrol from removing people to Mexico at night without the approval of the Mexican government. (Section 1121).
Inappropriate Oversight
· It expands the mandate of the newly-created DHS Ombudsman’s office, which is likely to be staffed and led by political appointees, to include inspections of detention facilities and to review policies and programs of CBP, ICE, and USCIS. These are activities more appropriate for the existing and relatively independent Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility. (Section 1114).
View the Senate bill, and CIS analysis, testimony, and commentary on the bill, at: http://www.cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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 conservatives to deport refugees convicted of crimes
Refugees could be sent back to their countries or imprisoned indefinitely for committing most crimes in Australia under a Coalition government.
This comes despite warnings by legal experts that the changes would be illegal under international law.
The federal Coalition announced on Sunday that, if it was elected, foreigners convicted of crimes punishable by more than one year in jail would have their visas cancelled automatically, even if they were sentenced to less than a year's imprisonment.
Such people - including refugees, asylum seekers and visitors - would lose their right to appeal except in "special circumstances". They would be detained until they could be deported and would not be allowed to return to Australia for 20 years, double the present period.
This follows Bureau of Statistics figures in March that showed asylum seekers living in the community on bridging visas were about 45 times less likely to be charged with a crime than members of the general public.
The proposed changes would significantly broaden the immigration minister's power to cancel the visa of people sentenced to more than one year in prison.
Shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison said the minister would consider the circumstances of each case, but confirmed that, under the changes, refugees could be sent back to the countries they came from.
The Refugee Convention allows signatory countries to deport refugees in limited circumstances, including those who present "compelling reasons of national security" and a "danger to the security of the country in which he is" or, having been convicted of "a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country".
Mr Morrison said that foreigners could also be held in detention indefinitely in cases where it was not possible to deport them, citing examples of people who had been detained indefinitely despite having committed serious crimes in Australia.
A senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, Daniel Webb, said it was unlawful to deport someone to a place where they were at risk of persecution.
Liberty Victoria president Jane Dixon, SC, said the changes would include most Australian crimes, and raised concerns that the Coalition was guided by "maximum sentences rather than the context of what led to the offending".
SOURCE
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Swiss vote for tougher asylum laws amid spike in refugee numbers
Swiss voters have overwhelmingly backed government moves to tighten asylum restrictions, amid a spike in the number of refugees in the country.
Switzerland's number of refugees, relative to its population, has been double the European average, and asylum applications are at their highest level in a decade.
The referendum was sparked by human rights activists who had hoped the vote would reject the laws.
Instead, almost 80 per cent of voters gave a green light to the tougher laws.
People can no longer seek asylum through Swiss embassies, and military desertion is no longer a valid reason to be granted asylum.
Opponents of the tightened laws have called the measures "inhumane".
Human rights advocates shocked by scale of defeat
"The referendum is a disaster for asylum seekers and refugees and leaves no winners," the committee that had requested the vote on the changes said in a statement, hailing the "minority of the population that still has a conscience".
Manon Schick, the head of Amnesty International's Switzerland section, also lamented the "very, very high" percentage of Swiss who had voted in favour of the revision.
"We knew in advance that we would lose," she said, pointing out that the Swiss have repeatedly voted to tighten their asylum law since it went into effect in 1981.
"But that it was this bad was very disappointing."
But Celine Amandruz of the populist Swiss People's Party welcomed the strong support for the tougher law, insisting that nine out of 10 people who seek refuge in the wealthy country did so "for economic reasons".
"There is clearly a need to change this system," she said.
Deserters no longer allowed to apply for asylum
One of the most controversial revisions was the removal of military desertion as a valid reason for asylum.
That has been the key reason cited by Eritreans, who accounted for most applications to Switzerland last year and whose country imposes unlimited and under-paid military service on all able-bodied men and women.
Swiss justice minister Simonetta Sommaruga has insisted that the changes largely benefit the asylum seekers themselves, highlighting especially the efforts to speed up the application process.
The revision also removed the possibility - which had been unique in Europe - to apply for asylum from Swiss embassies.
Opponents of the laws say it means people unable to make the often dangerous journey from their country to Switzerland would remain without help.
The rejigged asylum law also clears the way for the creation of special centres for asylum seekers considered to be trouble-makers and limits the right to family reunification to spouses and children.
Spike in asylum seeker numbers
Switzerland currently counts some 48,000 people in the process of seeking asylum, including 28,631 who arrived in 2012.
The surge, attributed in part to the Arab Spring uprisings, marks the highest number since the height of the Balkans war in 1999, when nearly 48,000 people sought refuge in the country.
Switzerland counts one asylum seeker for every 332 inhabitants, trailing only Malta, Sweden and Luxembourg, and ranking far above the European average of one asylum seeker for every 625 inhabitants.
Besides the asylum law, the Swiss also voted on a series of other national, regional and local issues on Sunday.
Among them was an initiative for the people to elect their government directly instead of it being chosen by parliament. That was rejected by an overwhelming 76.3 per cent of Swiss voters.
Other votes included one in Zurich, where voters embraced a bid to impose tougher measures against hooliganism.
Only 39 per cent of the 5.2 million people eligible to vote cast their ballot, but low turnout is not uncommon in Switzerland, which hosts numerous popular votes each year.
SOURCE
Finally, some realism in the GOP
Seventy House Republicans are planning a politically risky showdown with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to try to force additional debate on an immigration bill they say will mean amnesty for illegal immigrants and have dire consequences for the country.
The 70 members are petitioning for a special Republican conference meeting on the bill, a “highly unusual” move to go head-to-head with the speaker, according to Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa) and Louie Gohmert (Texas), who are serving as spokespersons for the group.
Bachmann, King and Gohmert told TheBlaze the group is invoking the Hastert Rule: requiring support from a majority of the majority to bring a bill forward.
The petition is expected to go to the House leadership on Friday, but it’s possible some signatories might remove their names due to political risk, or that Boehner could head off the challenge by striking a deal. Going against leadership in such a way could have harsh political consequences for the signatories, including retaliation such as permanently getting passed over for chairmanship positions.
A Boehner spokesman did not comment on the letter.
Boehner is on a tight schedule for getting immigration reform passed in the House, predicting this week that Congress could finalize a bill for President Barack Obama’s signature by the end of the year. Any major challenge could ignite pushback from the American public that could force lawmakers to scrap the bill, as happened in the 2007 immigration effort.
The three representatives told TheBlaze that more than half of the Republicans in the House were elected after 2007, and have no concept of how strongly the public opposed the bill.
In an interview with World Net Daily this week, Bachmann predicted that if the immigration bill becomes law, “the whole political system will change.”
“This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands,” Bachmann said.
She also said that if it passes, the bill will create a permanent progressive class.
“That’s what’s at risk right now. It may sound melodramatic, I don’t mean it that way, but this is that big and that important,” Bachmann said.
UPDATE: House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he doesn’t “intend” to push an immigration bill that violates Republican Party “principles.”
SOURCE
Swiss vote for tougher asylum laws amid spike in refugee numbers
Swiss voters have overwhelmingly backed government moves to tighten asylum restrictions, amid a spike in the number of refugees in the country.
Switzerland's number of refugees, relative to its population, has been double the European average, and asylum applications are at their highest level in a decade.
The referendum was sparked by human rights activists who had hoped the vote would reject the laws.
Instead, almost 80 per cent of voters gave a green light to the tougher laws.
People can no longer seek asylum through Swiss embassies, and military desertion is no longer a valid reason to be granted asylum.
Opponents of the tightened laws have called the measures "inhumane".
Human rights advocates shocked by scale of defeat
"The referendum is a disaster for asylum seekers and refugees and leaves no winners," the committee that had requested the vote on the changes said in a statement, hailing the "minority of the population that still has a conscience".
Manon Schick, the head of Amnesty International's Switzerland section, also lamented the "very, very high" percentage of Swiss who had voted in favour of the revision.
"We knew in advance that we would lose," she said, pointing out that the Swiss have repeatedly voted to tighten their asylum law since it went into effect in 1981.
"But that it was this bad was very disappointing."
But Celine Amandruz of the populist Swiss People's Party welcomed the strong support for the tougher law, insisting that nine out of 10 people who seek refuge in the wealthy country did so "for economic reasons".
"There is clearly a need to change this system," she said.
Deserters no longer allowed to apply for asylum
One of the most controversial revisions was the removal of military desertion as a valid reason for asylum.
That has been the key reason cited by Eritreans, who accounted for most applications to Switzerland last year and whose country imposes unlimited and under-paid military service on all able-bodied men and women.
Swiss justice minister Simonetta Sommaruga has insisted that the changes largely benefit the asylum seekers themselves, highlighting especially the efforts to speed up the application process.
The revision also removed the possibility - which had been unique in Europe - to apply for asylum from Swiss embassies.
Opponents of the laws say it means people unable to make the often dangerous journey from their country to Switzerland would remain without help.
The rejigged asylum law also clears the way for the creation of special centres for asylum seekers considered to be trouble-makers and limits the right to family reunification to spouses and children.
Spike in asylum seeker numbers
Switzerland currently counts some 48,000 people in the process of seeking asylum, including 28,631 who arrived in 2012.
The surge, attributed in part to the Arab Spring uprisings, marks the highest number since the height of the Balkans war in 1999, when nearly 48,000 people sought refuge in the country.
Switzerland counts one asylum seeker for every 332 inhabitants, trailing only Malta, Sweden and Luxembourg, and ranking far above the European average of one asylum seeker for every 625 inhabitants.
Besides the asylum law, the Swiss also voted on a series of other national, regional and local issues on Sunday.
Among them was an initiative for the people to elect their government directly instead of it being chosen by parliament. That was rejected by an overwhelming 76.3 per cent of Swiss voters.
Other votes included one in Zurich, where voters embraced a bid to impose tougher measures against hooliganism.
Only 39 per cent of the 5.2 million people eligible to vote cast their ballot, but low turnout is not uncommon in Switzerland, which hosts numerous popular votes each year.
SOURCE
Finally, some realism in the GOP
Seventy House Republicans are planning a politically risky showdown with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to try to force additional debate on an immigration bill they say will mean amnesty for illegal immigrants and have dire consequences for the country.
The 70 members are petitioning for a special Republican conference meeting on the bill, a “highly unusual” move to go head-to-head with the speaker, according to Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa) and Louie Gohmert (Texas), who are serving as spokespersons for the group.
Bachmann, King and Gohmert told TheBlaze the group is invoking the Hastert Rule: requiring support from a majority of the majority to bring a bill forward.
The petition is expected to go to the House leadership on Friday, but it’s possible some signatories might remove their names due to political risk, or that Boehner could head off the challenge by striking a deal. Going against leadership in such a way could have harsh political consequences for the signatories, including retaliation such as permanently getting passed over for chairmanship positions.
A Boehner spokesman did not comment on the letter.
Boehner is on a tight schedule for getting immigration reform passed in the House, predicting this week that Congress could finalize a bill for President Barack Obama’s signature by the end of the year. Any major challenge could ignite pushback from the American public that could force lawmakers to scrap the bill, as happened in the 2007 immigration effort.
The three representatives told TheBlaze that more than half of the Republicans in the House were elected after 2007, and have no concept of how strongly the public opposed the bill.
In an interview with World Net Daily this week, Bachmann predicted that if the immigration bill becomes law, “the whole political system will change.”
“This is President Obama’s number one political agenda item because he knows we will never again have a Republican president, ever, if amnesty goes into effect. We will perpetually have a progressive, liberal president, probably a Democrat, and we will probably see the House of Representatives go into Democrat hands and the Senate will stay in Democrat hands,” Bachmann said.
She also said that if it passes, the bill will create a permanent progressive class.
“That’s what’s at risk right now. It may sound melodramatic, I don’t mean it that way, but this is that big and that important,” Bachmann said.
UPDATE: House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he doesn’t “intend” to push an immigration bill that violates Republican Party “principles.”
SOURCE
Monday, June 17, 2013
Semi-Sabbath
I have undergone two medical procedures today so will not be able to update all my blogs.
Should be back to normal tomorrow
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Asylum claims that cost £538m: Britain's huge annual bill to tackle 37,000 applications
The Home Office spent £538million on 37,000 asylum claims last year - nearly £1.5million a day.
Nearly 14,000 people applying to stay in the UK had already waited three years or more for their claims to be processed, while two out of three had spent at least a year on the waiting list.
The spending - about £14,400 per case - went on paperwork, legal bills, housing and cash handouts.
It does not include individual councils' spending or legal aid bills, or the cost of handling the backlog of 300,000 other migration cases, reports the Daily Express.
On average, 37,299 'work in progress' cases were open during 2012, up from 36,838 at any point during 2011.
More than 23,000 of these cases were asylum seekers who had their applications turned down and were waiting to be removed from the UK.
About 6,200 people were waiting to hear if their applications for refugee status were successful - up from 4,851 the year before.
Applications for those asking for 'further leave to remain' in the UK increased to 2,986 from 2,761 in 2011.
In March, Home Secretary Theresa May killed off the Border Agency after five years of catastrophic failure.
The agency behind a string of immigration scandals was split in two and brought under Home Office control as Mrs May condemned the agency, set up under Labour, as suffering from a 'closed, secretive and defensive culture'.
The Home Secretary said the backlog of 320,000 cases would take 24 years to clear at the current rate of work.
The agency was split into two organisations - one to deal with visas and the other to track down illegal immigrants.
Alp Mehmet, of MigrationWatch, told the Express: 'We have no problem with the numbers granted asylum but we do have a problem when they are not dealt with quickly and those who have no right to be here are not removed in a timely way. 'The longer they are here the more the bill will mount up for the poor taxpayer. These are eye-watering amounts.
'Some say there are not enough resources put into it. These figures could back the argument for putting more resources in because in the long term it could save money.'
Last week, Home Office minister told the House of Commons that the money set aside by the Government to support asylum seekers would be frozen for the next year.
MP Mark Harper said: 'Under these arrangements we provide the claimant and any family members with free fully furnished and equipped housing with no bills to pay, as well as modest rates of financial support to meet their essential day to day living needs.'
A Home Office spokesman told MailOnline: 'This government is committed to streamlining the asylum process and last year the average cost per asylum case fell by almost £1,000.
'Our changes to the system have already seen asylum cases resolved more quickly, the number of appeals fall and the cost of asylum support reduced by £200million.'
SOURCE
Australia's Refugee system all at sea
Dishonesty in a system run by Leftists? How unsurprising!
THE refugee determination process in Australia is a sick and dysfunctional farce. This is the verdict of people at its coalface. Their collective judgment is that you could get a blind donkey refugee status in Australia.
It is not that the system is run by bad people, certainly not by corrupt people. But the system is so loosely designed, so completely open to manipulation by asylum-seekers, people-smugglers and community groups emotionally committed to asylum-seekers, and then interacts inappropriately with the Australian legal system, that it has become a multi-billion-dollar joke that is more or less completely worthless.
This week I have spoken to a number of serving and former Immigration Department officials, members of the Refugee Review Tribunal, the independent assessments review body and workers at various detention centres.
I have obtained a copy of a written account by a former senior Immigration Department official. It is very depressing. The official writes: "In the case of boatpeople, most are flying to Indonesia or Malaysia and there has been a growing trend to effectively prebook their voyage. They are less interested in seeking protection than in gaining work and residence rights in Australia. These are people who would largely be ineligible for normal migration but by claiming to be in fear of persecution they are usually allowed to stay in Australia, even though many will later visit their homeland once they have an Australian passport.
"I can confidently say that we are approving large numbers of people who are fabricating claims, and indeed the current refugee determination system works in favour of those who are most adept at spinning a yarn.
"That is not to say that myself, and others, did not deal with people who had been badly affected by generalised violence in countries like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, but this is quite different from having a credible contemporary claim of persecution. It appeared to me the majority of people I was dealing with had been fed claims which were known to be the sort of statements that were being accepted for approval.
"I remember one young applicant saying to me that it is known in the detention centre that you had to say you had been kidnapped if you wanted to be approved, and it is this sort of enhancing and inventing of claims, no doubt aided by the communications facilities we provide to the detainees, which is contributing to the deluge of boat cases we are currently experiencing.
"There was a small number of claimants who were being honest and these people often told quite sad stories of poverty, owing money lenders, being involved in family disputes (or) being threatened because of a romantic involvement. Such claims were likely to be refused for being outside the (Refugee) Convention but if a vague story was presented involving threats by groups like the Taliban or the Sri Lankan military, such applications were more likely to be approved. As the Captain Emad episode showed, it is easy to hide your identity, and even your nationality, in the refugee process, so presenting a fabricated story is not a difficult undertaking.
"Unlike other visa classes there is no objective criteria ...
"There is a benefit of the doubt test in the convention which weights the decision-making process towards the applicant and various court decisions have leant towards the view that if a claim cannot be disproved then it is difficult to refuse.
"While there is some public acknowledgment that many members of ethnic communities in Australia are paying and organising (at least in part) the travel of friends and relatives on the boats, much less attention is given to those who are monitoring the decision-making process and are identifying the type of claims that are having most success.
"From interviewing many asylum claimants the overwhelming primary objective is to obtain the right to work in Australia. This is so they can send money back to their families and repay loans which have been taken for their travel. There are other factors such as the welfare and houses we provide."
This experienced immigration officer, like numerous others, refers to the new experience of middle-class Iranian asylum-seekers dissatisfied with social conditions in Iran. A former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, who also participated in the independent review assessments of refugee claims, told me: "I was dealing with Iranians who had left Tehran a week before arriving at Christmas Island."
He, like others, spoke of an aggressive entitlement mentality among Iranians. This was backed up by a health worker at a detention centre who said he had told an Iranian there was a three-week waiting list for an appointment with an optometrist. This was no good, the Iranian said. He had money and could pay to go private.
Another worker at the camps described assaults and intimidation of staff that are never reported or acted on and for which asylum-seekers suffer no penalty.
The senior immigration officer says that if the refugee convention is interpreted the way the UN High Commissioner for Refugees wants it to be interpreted, then there is absolutely no limit to the "literally millions" of people who could claim asylum so long as they get to Australia.
The former RRT member says his work was demoralising and meaningless. He was charged with reviewing departmental decisions not to award refugee status to an individual. If he upheld the department's decision - that is, said no to an asylum claimant - he might have to write 20 to 40 pages of argument justifying his decision as it was certain to be appealed in the courts.
If he overturned the department and recommended granting refugee status, he need only write one page and no one would ever review or question the decision.
While no one told him to decide in favour of asylum claimants, there was an overwhelming pressure to clear numbers as quickly as possible.
This will get worse in the future, as processing is temporarily suspended and a huge backlog is building up.
Refugee acceptance rates after all levels of review are now 95 per cent and above. Any quasi-judicial process that achieves a result like that has to be questioned, he says.
"I would sometimes receive a completely compelling story that was impossible to refuse.
"The problem is I would receive exactly the identical story a hundred times over, with only the names changed. People on Christmas Island would tell me to my face they had copied their story from someone else."
All the cases that went to court resulted in transcripts produced by the courts. These transcripts, with key winning testimony highlighted, were widely circulated among claimants, and their advocates, at Christmas Island.
What the officials describe is a process degenerated into farce, which costs billions of dollars. Even those who are refused refugee status are not sent back. This system has nothing to do with fairly determining refugee status and nothing to do with protecting Australia's national interests. It is folly, futility and charade.
SOURCE
June 14, 2013
If the GOP Is This Stupid It Deserves to Die
Ann Coulter
Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they'll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.
This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.
It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don't Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?
As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn't that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate -- not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.
The sleeping giant of the last election wasn't Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.
Contrary to everyone's expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.
No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane. Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 -- mostly elderly black women.
In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)
So, naturally, the Republican Party's entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don't want.
As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.
In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37 percent to 30 percent -- and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5 percent of the Hispanic vote -- and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards.
John McCain, the nation's leading amnesty proponent, won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney's 27 percent.
Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.
The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don't care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration! (To put that in perspective, the next item on their list of concerns was "scratchy towels.")
Also, note that Pew asked about "immigration," not "amnesty." Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it -- by supporting a fence and E-Verify.
Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren't low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?
Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she'd like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people's houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.
A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on Mediaite.com why amnesty won't win Republicans the Hispanic vote -- even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: "Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs."
But rich businessmen don't care. Big Republican donors -- and their campaign consultants -- just want to make money. They don't care about Hispanics, and they certainly don't care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don't care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.
Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don't want amnesty, and they're hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!
It's as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.
But that still wouldn't be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4 percent of the electorate.
And it still wouldn't be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn't create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.
Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on "Fox News Sunday" about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell's reason for refusing to become a Republican: No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can't bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP.
SOURCE
Doctors, police warn Prime Minister Julia Gillard of asylum time bomb
ASYLUM seekers languishing in suburbia are a ticking time bomb, doctors and police warn in a letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
They say they can't deal with problems caused by a lack of welfare and mental health support.
The letter, sent by South Eastern Melbourne Medicare Local and seen by the Herald Sun, says gang violence, street brawls and drug and alcohol problems are taking hold in Melbourne's southeast and Ms Gillard must urgently direct health resources to the area.
One mentally troubled man even set himself on fire.
Confronted by up to 200 arrivals a month, South Eastern Melbourne Medicare Local says it can't meet the health needs of marginalised young men who, banned from working, are becoming more and more isolated.
SEMML chairman Dr Nicholas Demediuk said many had experienced trauma and had worsening health and little support.
"We request the opportunity to provide further details on this community priority area and discuss strategies that we believe will address this simmering time bomb in our community," his May 31 letter said.
"It has been widely reported to local services that people from Afghan backgrounds are experiencing racial stigma in Melbourne's southeast, and there are specific neighbourhoods where tension has escalated to violence.
"This situation can contribute to risk issues by compounding mental health issues."
"At board level a major current concern relates to increasing violence and crime in our catchment, including gang-related brawls and increasing drug and alcohol issues."
The area now houses 2496 Afghans aged 10 to 24.
The Gillard Government remains under intense pressure to solve the boats crisis, with 716 boats arriving under Labor - and 15 vessels carrying 1184 people arriving this month alone.
The City of Casey and City of Dandenong have seen the greatest influx under recent humanitarian settlements.
The medical network warns it needs greater resources to cope with the young people arriving on bridging visas.
In comments quoted in the letter, Senior Constable James Waterson of the police Southern Metropolitan Multicultural Liaison Unit said young Afghan men were turning to crime including property damage, sexual assaults, and violence.
Sen-Constable Waterson said police were being called to incidents where men awaiting residency were threatening self-harm, including a case where a man set himself alight.
"The common theme across these incidents is that the offender/person involved has recently arrived in Australia, is suffering severe depression and anxiety and has turned either a criminal offender or to self-harm," Sen-Constable Waterson wrote.
"Further discussions with these males has revealed many of the causal factors are around lack of employment options, which has an effect on their ability to repay loans and/or send money back to Afghanistan for help.
"This, coupled with the prospect of not being granted residency in Australia, is influencing these people to either commit crimes for financial gain or as an outlet."
Asylum seekers in the community are provided with six weeks' accommodation support, but are not allowed to work and must survive on 89 per cent of the Newstart allowance.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said Labor's failure to stop the boats was creating a mounting human cost, as well as a budget blowout.
"Labor's no care, no responsibility bridging visa policy is dumping the consequences of their border failure out into communities with no regard for the impacts such as on health, state budgets or the resources of charities and other non-government organisations," he said.
Paul Perry, spokesman for Health Minister Tanya Plibersek, said the Federal Government provided a range of health services to refugees.
The State Government will lobby at Friday's meeting of health ministers for Canberra to increase health funding for released asylum seekers and refugees.
SOURCE
Asylum claims that cost £538m: Britain's huge annual bill to tackle 37,000 applications
The Home Office spent £538million on 37,000 asylum claims last year - nearly £1.5million a day.
Nearly 14,000 people applying to stay in the UK had already waited three years or more for their claims to be processed, while two out of three had spent at least a year on the waiting list.
The spending - about £14,400 per case - went on paperwork, legal bills, housing and cash handouts.
It does not include individual councils' spending or legal aid bills, or the cost of handling the backlog of 300,000 other migration cases, reports the Daily Express.
On average, 37,299 'work in progress' cases were open during 2012, up from 36,838 at any point during 2011.
More than 23,000 of these cases were asylum seekers who had their applications turned down and were waiting to be removed from the UK.
About 6,200 people were waiting to hear if their applications for refugee status were successful - up from 4,851 the year before.
Applications for those asking for 'further leave to remain' in the UK increased to 2,986 from 2,761 in 2011.
In March, Home Secretary Theresa May killed off the Border Agency after five years of catastrophic failure.
The agency behind a string of immigration scandals was split in two and brought under Home Office control as Mrs May condemned the agency, set up under Labour, as suffering from a 'closed, secretive and defensive culture'.
The Home Secretary said the backlog of 320,000 cases would take 24 years to clear at the current rate of work.
The agency was split into two organisations - one to deal with visas and the other to track down illegal immigrants.
Alp Mehmet, of MigrationWatch, told the Express: 'We have no problem with the numbers granted asylum but we do have a problem when they are not dealt with quickly and those who have no right to be here are not removed in a timely way. 'The longer they are here the more the bill will mount up for the poor taxpayer. These are eye-watering amounts.
'Some say there are not enough resources put into it. These figures could back the argument for putting more resources in because in the long term it could save money.'
Last week, Home Office minister told the House of Commons that the money set aside by the Government to support asylum seekers would be frozen for the next year.
MP Mark Harper said: 'Under these arrangements we provide the claimant and any family members with free fully furnished and equipped housing with no bills to pay, as well as modest rates of financial support to meet their essential day to day living needs.'
A Home Office spokesman told MailOnline: 'This government is committed to streamlining the asylum process and last year the average cost per asylum case fell by almost £1,000.
'Our changes to the system have already seen asylum cases resolved more quickly, the number of appeals fall and the cost of asylum support reduced by £200million.'
SOURCE
Australia's Refugee system all at sea
Dishonesty in a system run by Leftists? How unsurprising!
THE refugee determination process in Australia is a sick and dysfunctional farce. This is the verdict of people at its coalface. Their collective judgment is that you could get a blind donkey refugee status in Australia.
It is not that the system is run by bad people, certainly not by corrupt people. But the system is so loosely designed, so completely open to manipulation by asylum-seekers, people-smugglers and community groups emotionally committed to asylum-seekers, and then interacts inappropriately with the Australian legal system, that it has become a multi-billion-dollar joke that is more or less completely worthless.
This week I have spoken to a number of serving and former Immigration Department officials, members of the Refugee Review Tribunal, the independent assessments review body and workers at various detention centres.
I have obtained a copy of a written account by a former senior Immigration Department official. It is very depressing. The official writes: "In the case of boatpeople, most are flying to Indonesia or Malaysia and there has been a growing trend to effectively prebook their voyage. They are less interested in seeking protection than in gaining work and residence rights in Australia. These are people who would largely be ineligible for normal migration but by claiming to be in fear of persecution they are usually allowed to stay in Australia, even though many will later visit their homeland once they have an Australian passport.
"I can confidently say that we are approving large numbers of people who are fabricating claims, and indeed the current refugee determination system works in favour of those who are most adept at spinning a yarn.
"That is not to say that myself, and others, did not deal with people who had been badly affected by generalised violence in countries like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, but this is quite different from having a credible contemporary claim of persecution. It appeared to me the majority of people I was dealing with had been fed claims which were known to be the sort of statements that were being accepted for approval.
"I remember one young applicant saying to me that it is known in the detention centre that you had to say you had been kidnapped if you wanted to be approved, and it is this sort of enhancing and inventing of claims, no doubt aided by the communications facilities we provide to the detainees, which is contributing to the deluge of boat cases we are currently experiencing.
"There was a small number of claimants who were being honest and these people often told quite sad stories of poverty, owing money lenders, being involved in family disputes (or) being threatened because of a romantic involvement. Such claims were likely to be refused for being outside the (Refugee) Convention but if a vague story was presented involving threats by groups like the Taliban or the Sri Lankan military, such applications were more likely to be approved. As the Captain Emad episode showed, it is easy to hide your identity, and even your nationality, in the refugee process, so presenting a fabricated story is not a difficult undertaking.
"Unlike other visa classes there is no objective criteria ...
"There is a benefit of the doubt test in the convention which weights the decision-making process towards the applicant and various court decisions have leant towards the view that if a claim cannot be disproved then it is difficult to refuse.
"While there is some public acknowledgment that many members of ethnic communities in Australia are paying and organising (at least in part) the travel of friends and relatives on the boats, much less attention is given to those who are monitoring the decision-making process and are identifying the type of claims that are having most success.
"From interviewing many asylum claimants the overwhelming primary objective is to obtain the right to work in Australia. This is so they can send money back to their families and repay loans which have been taken for their travel. There are other factors such as the welfare and houses we provide."
This experienced immigration officer, like numerous others, refers to the new experience of middle-class Iranian asylum-seekers dissatisfied with social conditions in Iran. A former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, who also participated in the independent review assessments of refugee claims, told me: "I was dealing with Iranians who had left Tehran a week before arriving at Christmas Island."
He, like others, spoke of an aggressive entitlement mentality among Iranians. This was backed up by a health worker at a detention centre who said he had told an Iranian there was a three-week waiting list for an appointment with an optometrist. This was no good, the Iranian said. He had money and could pay to go private.
Another worker at the camps described assaults and intimidation of staff that are never reported or acted on and for which asylum-seekers suffer no penalty.
The senior immigration officer says that if the refugee convention is interpreted the way the UN High Commissioner for Refugees wants it to be interpreted, then there is absolutely no limit to the "literally millions" of people who could claim asylum so long as they get to Australia.
The former RRT member says his work was demoralising and meaningless. He was charged with reviewing departmental decisions not to award refugee status to an individual. If he upheld the department's decision - that is, said no to an asylum claimant - he might have to write 20 to 40 pages of argument justifying his decision as it was certain to be appealed in the courts.
If he overturned the department and recommended granting refugee status, he need only write one page and no one would ever review or question the decision.
While no one told him to decide in favour of asylum claimants, there was an overwhelming pressure to clear numbers as quickly as possible.
This will get worse in the future, as processing is temporarily suspended and a huge backlog is building up.
Refugee acceptance rates after all levels of review are now 95 per cent and above. Any quasi-judicial process that achieves a result like that has to be questioned, he says.
"I would sometimes receive a completely compelling story that was impossible to refuse.
"The problem is I would receive exactly the identical story a hundred times over, with only the names changed. People on Christmas Island would tell me to my face they had copied their story from someone else."
All the cases that went to court resulted in transcripts produced by the courts. These transcripts, with key winning testimony highlighted, were widely circulated among claimants, and their advocates, at Christmas Island.
What the officials describe is a process degenerated into farce, which costs billions of dollars. Even those who are refused refugee status are not sent back. This system has nothing to do with fairly determining refugee status and nothing to do with protecting Australia's national interests. It is folly, futility and charade.
SOURCE
June 14, 2013
If the GOP Is This Stupid It Deserves to Die
Ann Coulter
Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they'll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.
This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. (Proposed Republican primary targets: Sens. Kelly Ayotte, Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.) Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.
It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don't Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?
As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn't that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and the Hispanic vote came in at only 8.4 percent of the electorate -- not the 10 percent claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.
The sleeping giant of the last election wasn't Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.
Contrary to everyone's expectations, 10 percent more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at rate of 66.2 percent, compared to 64.1 percent of eligible white voters. Only 48 percent of all eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.
No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane. Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 -- mostly elderly black women.
In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)
So, naturally, the Republican Party's entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4 percent of the electorate by giving them something they don't want.
As Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70 percent of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.
In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37 percent to 30 percent -- and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5 percent of the Hispanic vote -- and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards.
John McCain, the nation's leading amnesty proponent, won only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney's 27 percent.
Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.
The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don't care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration! (To put that in perspective, the next item on their list of concerns was "scratchy towels.")
Also, note that Pew asked about "immigration," not "amnesty." Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it -- by supporting a fence and E-Verify.
Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren't low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?
Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she'd like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people's houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.
A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on Mediaite.com why amnesty won't win Republicans the Hispanic vote -- even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: "Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs."
But rich businessmen don't care. Big Republican donors -- and their campaign consultants -- just want to make money. They don't care about Hispanics, and they certainly don't care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don't care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.
Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don't want amnesty, and they're hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!
It's as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.
But that still wouldn't be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4 percent of the electorate.
And it still wouldn't be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn't create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.
Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on "Fox News Sunday" about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell's reason for refusing to become a Republican: No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can't bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP.
SOURCE
Doctors, police warn Prime Minister Julia Gillard of asylum time bomb
ASYLUM seekers languishing in suburbia are a ticking time bomb, doctors and police warn in a letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
They say they can't deal with problems caused by a lack of welfare and mental health support.
The letter, sent by South Eastern Melbourne Medicare Local and seen by the Herald Sun, says gang violence, street brawls and drug and alcohol problems are taking hold in Melbourne's southeast and Ms Gillard must urgently direct health resources to the area.
One mentally troubled man even set himself on fire.
Confronted by up to 200 arrivals a month, South Eastern Melbourne Medicare Local says it can't meet the health needs of marginalised young men who, banned from working, are becoming more and more isolated.
SEMML chairman Dr Nicholas Demediuk said many had experienced trauma and had worsening health and little support.
"We request the opportunity to provide further details on this community priority area and discuss strategies that we believe will address this simmering time bomb in our community," his May 31 letter said.
"It has been widely reported to local services that people from Afghan backgrounds are experiencing racial stigma in Melbourne's southeast, and there are specific neighbourhoods where tension has escalated to violence.
"This situation can contribute to risk issues by compounding mental health issues."
"At board level a major current concern relates to increasing violence and crime in our catchment, including gang-related brawls and increasing drug and alcohol issues."
The area now houses 2496 Afghans aged 10 to 24.
The Gillard Government remains under intense pressure to solve the boats crisis, with 716 boats arriving under Labor - and 15 vessels carrying 1184 people arriving this month alone.
The City of Casey and City of Dandenong have seen the greatest influx under recent humanitarian settlements.
The medical network warns it needs greater resources to cope with the young people arriving on bridging visas.
In comments quoted in the letter, Senior Constable James Waterson of the police Southern Metropolitan Multicultural Liaison Unit said young Afghan men were turning to crime including property damage, sexual assaults, and violence.
Sen-Constable Waterson said police were being called to incidents where men awaiting residency were threatening self-harm, including a case where a man set himself alight.
"The common theme across these incidents is that the offender/person involved has recently arrived in Australia, is suffering severe depression and anxiety and has turned either a criminal offender or to self-harm," Sen-Constable Waterson wrote.
"Further discussions with these males has revealed many of the causal factors are around lack of employment options, which has an effect on their ability to repay loans and/or send money back to Afghanistan for help.
"This, coupled with the prospect of not being granted residency in Australia, is influencing these people to either commit crimes for financial gain or as an outlet."
Asylum seekers in the community are provided with six weeks' accommodation support, but are not allowed to work and must survive on 89 per cent of the Newstart allowance.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said Labor's failure to stop the boats was creating a mounting human cost, as well as a budget blowout.
"Labor's no care, no responsibility bridging visa policy is dumping the consequences of their border failure out into communities with no regard for the impacts such as on health, state budgets or the resources of charities and other non-government organisations," he said.
Paul Perry, spokesman for Health Minister Tanya Plibersek, said the Federal Government provided a range of health services to refugees.
The State Government will lobby at Friday's meeting of health ministers for Canberra to increase health funding for released asylum seekers and refugees.
SOURCE
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Gang of 8 Bill Will Further Erode Social Equality
S. 744 ensures less-educated Americans stay in poverty
The immigration bill, which will be debated in the U.S. Senate over the next couple of weeks, assures the continuation of poverty for the American underclass for the foreseeable future.
In his Backgrounder, “The First Quarter of 2013 Employment Picture,” Steven Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, finds that the broad unemployment rate for Americans without a high school degree has reached 30 percent and is close to 20 percent for citizens with only a high school education. There are now 55.4 million working-age Americans who are not working. The Schumer-Rubio bill, S.744, would significantly worsen the prospects of this sizable portion of the population by more than doubling legal immigration.
More details can be found at: http://cis.org/first-quarter-2013-employment
Mark Krikorian states, “Ronald Reagan seemed to understand the moral issue better than today’s Democrats when he said, ‘We’re all equal in the eyes of God, but as Americans that’s not enough. We must be equal in the eyes of each other.’ Where is the moral concern for the American worker, the people at the bottom?”
Increasing the number of workers in any sector lowers their wages. Conversely, a tighter labor market forces employers to raise wages and provide better benefits. The Economic Policy Institute has found that real hourly wages for men without a high school degree were 22 percent lower in 2007 than in 1979. The Rubio-Schumer bill would further depress these wages.
In addition to the huge increase in legal immigration, the bill weakens immigration law enforcement, creating an incentive for future would-be illegal immigrants to ignore U.S. law and enter the country. This ensures that there will be yet more amnesties in the future, keeping less-educated Americans in a never-ending cycle of poverty. They will rely on charity and government transfers, in a time of record deficits, with no hope of ever leading a life with dignity or hope.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Economics vs. 'Need'
Thomas Sowell
One of the most common arguments for allowing more immigration is that there is a "need" for foreign workers to do "jobs that Americans won't do," especially in agriculture.
One of my most vivid memories of the late Armen Alchian, an internationally renowned economist at UCLA, involved a lunch at which one of the younger members of the economics department got up to go get some more coffee. Being a considerate sort, the young man asked, "Does anyone else need more coffee?"
"Need?" Alchian said loudly, in a cutting tone that clearly conveyed his dismay and disgust at hearing an economist using such a word.
A recent editorial on immigration in the Wall Street Journal brought back the memory of Alchian's response, when I read the editorial's statement about "the needs of an industry in which labor shortages can run as high as 20 percent" -- namely agriculture.
Although "need" is a word often used in politics and in the media, from an economic standpoint there is no such thing as an objective and quantifiable "need."
You might think that we all obviously need food to live. But however urgent it may be to have some food, nevertheless beyond some point food becomes not only unnecessary but even counterproductive and dangerous. Widespread obesity among Americans shows that many have already gone too far with food.
This is not just a matter of semantics, but of economics. In the real world, employers compete for workers, just as they compete for customers for their output. And workers go where there is more demand for them, as expressed by what employers offer to pay.
Farmers may wish for more farm workers, just as any of us may wish for anything we would like to have. But that is wholly different from thinking that some third party should define what we desire as a "need," much less expect government policy to meet that "need."
In a market economy, when farmers are seeking more farm workers, the most obvious way to get them is to raise the wage rate until they attract enough people away from alternative occupations -- or from unemployment.
With the higher labor costs that this would entail, the number of workers that farmers "need" would undoubtedly be less than what it would have been if there were more workers available at lower wage rates, such as immigrants from Mexico.
It is no doubt more convenient and profitable to the farmers to import workers at lower pay than to pay American workers more. But bringing in more immigrants is not without costs to other Americans, including both financial costs in a welfare state and social costs, of which increased crime rates are just one.
Some advocates of increased immigration have raised the specter of higher food prices without foreign farm workers. But the price that farmers receive for their produce is usually a fraction of what the consumers pay at the supermarket. And what the farmers pay the farm workers is a fraction of what the farmer gets for the produce.
In other words, even if labor costs doubled, the rise in prices at the supermarket might be barely noticeable.
What are called "jobs that Americans will not do" are in fact jobs at which not enough Americans will work at the current wage rate that some employers are offering. This is not an uncommon situation. That is why labor "shortages" lead to higher wage rates. A "shortage" is no more quantifiable than a "need," when you ignore prices, which are crucial in a market economy. To discuss "need" and "shortage" while ignoring prices -- in this case, wages -- is especially remarkable in a usually market-savvy publication like the Wall Street Journal.
Often shortages have been predicted in various occupations -- and yet never materialized. Why? Because the pay in those occupations rose, causing more people to go into those occupations and causing employers to reduce how many people they "need" at the higher pay rates.
Virtually every kind of "work that Americans will not do" is in fact work that Americans have done for generations. In many cases, most of the people doing that work today are Americans. And there are certainly many unemployed Americans available today, without bringing in more foreign workers to meet farmers' "needs."
SOURCE
Gang of 8 Bill Will Further Erode Social Equality
S. 744 ensures less-educated Americans stay in poverty
The immigration bill, which will be debated in the U.S. Senate over the next couple of weeks, assures the continuation of poverty for the American underclass for the foreseeable future.
In his Backgrounder, “The First Quarter of 2013 Employment Picture,” Steven Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, finds that the broad unemployment rate for Americans without a high school degree has reached 30 percent and is close to 20 percent for citizens with only a high school education. There are now 55.4 million working-age Americans who are not working. The Schumer-Rubio bill, S.744, would significantly worsen the prospects of this sizable portion of the population by more than doubling legal immigration.
More details can be found at: http://cis.org/first-quarter-2013-employment
Mark Krikorian states, “Ronald Reagan seemed to understand the moral issue better than today’s Democrats when he said, ‘We’re all equal in the eyes of God, but as Americans that’s not enough. We must be equal in the eyes of each other.’ Where is the moral concern for the American worker, the people at the bottom?”
Increasing the number of workers in any sector lowers their wages. Conversely, a tighter labor market forces employers to raise wages and provide better benefits. The Economic Policy Institute has found that real hourly wages for men without a high school degree were 22 percent lower in 2007 than in 1979. The Rubio-Schumer bill would further depress these wages.
In addition to the huge increase in legal immigration, the bill weakens immigration law enforcement, creating an incentive for future would-be illegal immigrants to ignore U.S. law and enter the country. This ensures that there will be yet more amnesties in the future, keeping less-educated Americans in a never-ending cycle of poverty. They will rely on charity and government transfers, in a time of record deficits, with no hope of ever leading a life with dignity or hope.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Economics vs. 'Need'
Thomas Sowell
One of the most common arguments for allowing more immigration is that there is a "need" for foreign workers to do "jobs that Americans won't do," especially in agriculture.
One of my most vivid memories of the late Armen Alchian, an internationally renowned economist at UCLA, involved a lunch at which one of the younger members of the economics department got up to go get some more coffee. Being a considerate sort, the young man asked, "Does anyone else need more coffee?"
"Need?" Alchian said loudly, in a cutting tone that clearly conveyed his dismay and disgust at hearing an economist using such a word.
A recent editorial on immigration in the Wall Street Journal brought back the memory of Alchian's response, when I read the editorial's statement about "the needs of an industry in which labor shortages can run as high as 20 percent" -- namely agriculture.
Although "need" is a word often used in politics and in the media, from an economic standpoint there is no such thing as an objective and quantifiable "need."
You might think that we all obviously need food to live. But however urgent it may be to have some food, nevertheless beyond some point food becomes not only unnecessary but even counterproductive and dangerous. Widespread obesity among Americans shows that many have already gone too far with food.
This is not just a matter of semantics, but of economics. In the real world, employers compete for workers, just as they compete for customers for their output. And workers go where there is more demand for them, as expressed by what employers offer to pay.
Farmers may wish for more farm workers, just as any of us may wish for anything we would like to have. But that is wholly different from thinking that some third party should define what we desire as a "need," much less expect government policy to meet that "need."
In a market economy, when farmers are seeking more farm workers, the most obvious way to get them is to raise the wage rate until they attract enough people away from alternative occupations -- or from unemployment.
With the higher labor costs that this would entail, the number of workers that farmers "need" would undoubtedly be less than what it would have been if there were more workers available at lower wage rates, such as immigrants from Mexico.
It is no doubt more convenient and profitable to the farmers to import workers at lower pay than to pay American workers more. But bringing in more immigrants is not without costs to other Americans, including both financial costs in a welfare state and social costs, of which increased crime rates are just one.
Some advocates of increased immigration have raised the specter of higher food prices without foreign farm workers. But the price that farmers receive for their produce is usually a fraction of what the consumers pay at the supermarket. And what the farmers pay the farm workers is a fraction of what the farmer gets for the produce.
In other words, even if labor costs doubled, the rise in prices at the supermarket might be barely noticeable.
What are called "jobs that Americans will not do" are in fact jobs at which not enough Americans will work at the current wage rate that some employers are offering. This is not an uncommon situation. That is why labor "shortages" lead to higher wage rates. A "shortage" is no more quantifiable than a "need," when you ignore prices, which are crucial in a market economy. To discuss "need" and "shortage" while ignoring prices -- in this case, wages -- is especially remarkable in a usually market-savvy publication like the Wall Street Journal.
Often shortages have been predicted in various occupations -- and yet never materialized. Why? Because the pay in those occupations rose, causing more people to go into those occupations and causing employers to reduce how many people they "need" at the higher pay rates.
Virtually every kind of "work that Americans will not do" is in fact work that Americans have done for generations. In many cases, most of the people doing that work today are Americans. And there are certainly many unemployed Americans available today, without bringing in more foreign workers to meet farmers' "needs."
SOURCE
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Immigration chaos 'won't ever be fixed': UK's new immigration boss can't rule out further backlog of unprocessed cases
The boss of Britain’s new immigration body yesterday said its chaotic visa processing system will never be fixed. Sarah Rapson, who started as director general of UK Visas and Immigration 54 days ago, believes she will 'never finish the job'.
She told MPs she could not rule out finding more backlogs of unprocessed cases in the system she had inherited.
‘Are we ever going to say about this really quite difficult organisation, with a set of complex things it has to do, ‘it is perfect’? I don’t think so,’ she told the Home Affairs Select Committee. ‘My intention is to make some improvements. I would be grateful for the committee’s advice on where we should prioritise. But will we ever finish the job? No.’
She told the committee the agency was currently processing 190,000 cases.
Committee chairman Keith Vaz replied: ‘You do realise you’re giving us new figures we didn’t know about. These are astonishing figures.’
Miss Rapson said she would not have taken the job if she was not ‘slightly optimistic’ she could make a difference. But she added: ‘There are lots of people in the organisation who have got ideas about how we can make things better. Is it ever going to be fixed? I answered that question from you earlier, I don’t think so.’
The body was formed earlier this year when the UK Border Agency was split in two – with Miss Rapson’s department focusing on the visa system and another authority dealing with immigration law enforcement. Both are directly under ministers’ control.
Announcing the UKBA’s demise in March this year, Home Secretary Theresa May said she wanted to end its ‘closed, secretive and defensive culture’ after years of failure. It followed a series of damning inspections and reports exposing horrendous backlogs in asylum and immigration cases.
Earlier this year, the Home Affairs Select Committee warned it would take the UKBA 24 years to clear a backlog of asylum and immigration cases the size of the population of Iceland.
Last year the Government also hived off the UK Border Force, which is responsible for frontline controls at air, sea and rail ports, from the wider UKBA. That followed a scandal over border controls when it emerged thousands of people had been admitted to Britain without having been checked against a watch list.
Yesterday, officials downplayed the significance of the 190,000 figure given by Miss Rapson, pointing out it had been supplied to the committee before.
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We receive and process thousands of applications every day and so there will always be a large number of cases on our systems.
‘This year we have reduced outstanding applications substantially in the vast majority of routes, improved in-country processing times and maintained out of country service standards.’
Meanwhile, Labour could introduce targets to drive up the number of immigrants entering the UK, it emerged last night.
Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna suggested the party wanted to see more foreign students coming to Britain.
He told the left-leaning IPPR think-tank he was ‘certainly open’ to the idea of a ‘clear numerical target for growth’ in student visas.
The comments risk undermining Labour leader Ed Miliband, who has openly criticised the last government’s ‘open doors’ policy.
Tory MP Nick De Bois said Labour ‘still don’t get it’, while Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch said Mr Umunna had got his facts ‘completely wrong’.
SOURCE
Australia: Row over asylum health costs as Victoria leads revolt
THE Gillard government is facing a states' revolt over the soaring cost of healthcare for asylum-seekers and refugees, with the influx costing tens of millions of dollars and straining an already overloaded system.
The three most populous states want the commonwealth to be held accountable for fast-rising health costs incurred, due to the rising tide of community-based asylum-seekers and refugees since the Rudd government dumped the Pacific Solution five years ago.
The ministerial Standing Council on Health is set to demand the Gillard government share the burden of increased costs for basic services, including immunisations for asylum-seekers, mental health and dental services, interpreters and stronger support for foreigners seeking access to the primary care system.
Victoria - with the backing of NSW and Queensland - will on Friday demand a better funding deal for the states to eliminate cost-shifting and for Canberra to accept responsibility for the surge in asylum-seekers.
Victoria has conducted a detailed assessment of how the states are being forced to pick up extra health costs, when it argues that border protection is a federal issue.
Victorian Health Minister David Davis said yesterday his state was prepared to help asylum-seekers and refugees but the commonwealth needed to contribute to the cost, which was leading to further pressure on already strained budgets.
"If they are coming, you can't put your head in the sand," Mr Davis said. "You've got to get ahead of the game."
Health ministers will debate what to do to immediately help new arrivals who have been released into the community, a move aimed at easing pressures on the detention centre network, which has been unable to cope with the influx of more than 43,000 irregular marine arrivals in the past 4 1/2 years.
Paris Aristotle, a member of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, has backed the push by the three states, warning that many foreigners are being left stranded by the current system and the lack of community support.
Mr Aristotle said while Australia had a generally strong record on helping people, the large numbers had exposed many services. "Those pressures are playing out in the forms of people being destitute, people being unable to sustain themselves or their families adequately," Mr Aristotle told The Australian.
The ministers will debate whether all asylum-seekers not in detention should be eligible for Medicare.
They will also discuss forcing the commonwealth to ensure eligibility for healthcare funding regardless of their stage in the immigration queue.
"Any services, such as public hospital care, provided by state and territory health systems, which would normally be paid for through Medicare, should be reimbursed by the commonwealth on a fee-for-service basis," Victoria will argue.
It will say the commonwealth currently only funds healthcare for asylum-seekers in a form of detention and for health services under Medicare. But asylum-seekers are eligible for almost all state health and aged services, and the states are picking up the bill for hearing, dental and immunisation.
Victoria acknowledges that most asylum-seekers are eligible for Medicare.
A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor said: "Primary healthcare for refugees who are permanent visa holders and those in the community on bridging visas are covered by Medicare. Using Medicare . . . represents the most efficient method of providing these health services to asylum-seekers in the community, reducing the burden on the states and territories."
Queensland Health Minister Lawrence Springborg has backed Victoria's position, saying he raised the issue last year in the context of health services and costs affecting northern Queensland.
A spokeswoman for NSW Health Minister Jillian Skinner said she was looking forward to the discussion: "NSW will be participating in the debate at the Standing Council on Health to ensure there is sufficient funding to cover the increased cost of healthcare for refugees."
The cost to the states of dealing with the extra community-based asylum-seekers and refugees is likely to near $100 million.
Victoria, which makes up a quarter of the national economy, allocated more than $22m extra to help deal with the issue in this year's budget.
The Victorian paper estimates the number of asylum-seekers by boat and living in the community on bridging visas was 20,000 nationally in the nine months to last month and 6600 in Victoria.
SOURCE
Immigration chaos 'won't ever be fixed': UK's new immigration boss can't rule out further backlog of unprocessed cases
The boss of Britain’s new immigration body yesterday said its chaotic visa processing system will never be fixed. Sarah Rapson, who started as director general of UK Visas and Immigration 54 days ago, believes she will 'never finish the job'.
She told MPs she could not rule out finding more backlogs of unprocessed cases in the system she had inherited.
‘Are we ever going to say about this really quite difficult organisation, with a set of complex things it has to do, ‘it is perfect’? I don’t think so,’ she told the Home Affairs Select Committee. ‘My intention is to make some improvements. I would be grateful for the committee’s advice on where we should prioritise. But will we ever finish the job? No.’
She told the committee the agency was currently processing 190,000 cases.
Committee chairman Keith Vaz replied: ‘You do realise you’re giving us new figures we didn’t know about. These are astonishing figures.’
Miss Rapson said she would not have taken the job if she was not ‘slightly optimistic’ she could make a difference. But she added: ‘There are lots of people in the organisation who have got ideas about how we can make things better. Is it ever going to be fixed? I answered that question from you earlier, I don’t think so.’
The body was formed earlier this year when the UK Border Agency was split in two – with Miss Rapson’s department focusing on the visa system and another authority dealing with immigration law enforcement. Both are directly under ministers’ control.
Announcing the UKBA’s demise in March this year, Home Secretary Theresa May said she wanted to end its ‘closed, secretive and defensive culture’ after years of failure. It followed a series of damning inspections and reports exposing horrendous backlogs in asylum and immigration cases.
Earlier this year, the Home Affairs Select Committee warned it would take the UKBA 24 years to clear a backlog of asylum and immigration cases the size of the population of Iceland.
Last year the Government also hived off the UK Border Force, which is responsible for frontline controls at air, sea and rail ports, from the wider UKBA. That followed a scandal over border controls when it emerged thousands of people had been admitted to Britain without having been checked against a watch list.
Yesterday, officials downplayed the significance of the 190,000 figure given by Miss Rapson, pointing out it had been supplied to the committee before.
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We receive and process thousands of applications every day and so there will always be a large number of cases on our systems.
‘This year we have reduced outstanding applications substantially in the vast majority of routes, improved in-country processing times and maintained out of country service standards.’
Meanwhile, Labour could introduce targets to drive up the number of immigrants entering the UK, it emerged last night.
Shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna suggested the party wanted to see more foreign students coming to Britain.
He told the left-leaning IPPR think-tank he was ‘certainly open’ to the idea of a ‘clear numerical target for growth’ in student visas.
The comments risk undermining Labour leader Ed Miliband, who has openly criticised the last government’s ‘open doors’ policy.
Tory MP Nick De Bois said Labour ‘still don’t get it’, while Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch said Mr Umunna had got his facts ‘completely wrong’.
SOURCE
Australia: Row over asylum health costs as Victoria leads revolt
THE Gillard government is facing a states' revolt over the soaring cost of healthcare for asylum-seekers and refugees, with the influx costing tens of millions of dollars and straining an already overloaded system.
The three most populous states want the commonwealth to be held accountable for fast-rising health costs incurred, due to the rising tide of community-based asylum-seekers and refugees since the Rudd government dumped the Pacific Solution five years ago.
The ministerial Standing Council on Health is set to demand the Gillard government share the burden of increased costs for basic services, including immunisations for asylum-seekers, mental health and dental services, interpreters and stronger support for foreigners seeking access to the primary care system.
Victoria - with the backing of NSW and Queensland - will on Friday demand a better funding deal for the states to eliminate cost-shifting and for Canberra to accept responsibility for the surge in asylum-seekers.
Victoria has conducted a detailed assessment of how the states are being forced to pick up extra health costs, when it argues that border protection is a federal issue.
Victorian Health Minister David Davis said yesterday his state was prepared to help asylum-seekers and refugees but the commonwealth needed to contribute to the cost, which was leading to further pressure on already strained budgets.
"If they are coming, you can't put your head in the sand," Mr Davis said. "You've got to get ahead of the game."
Health ministers will debate what to do to immediately help new arrivals who have been released into the community, a move aimed at easing pressures on the detention centre network, which has been unable to cope with the influx of more than 43,000 irregular marine arrivals in the past 4 1/2 years.
Paris Aristotle, a member of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, has backed the push by the three states, warning that many foreigners are being left stranded by the current system and the lack of community support.
Mr Aristotle said while Australia had a generally strong record on helping people, the large numbers had exposed many services. "Those pressures are playing out in the forms of people being destitute, people being unable to sustain themselves or their families adequately," Mr Aristotle told The Australian.
The ministers will debate whether all asylum-seekers not in detention should be eligible for Medicare.
They will also discuss forcing the commonwealth to ensure eligibility for healthcare funding regardless of their stage in the immigration queue.
"Any services, such as public hospital care, provided by state and territory health systems, which would normally be paid for through Medicare, should be reimbursed by the commonwealth on a fee-for-service basis," Victoria will argue.
It will say the commonwealth currently only funds healthcare for asylum-seekers in a form of detention and for health services under Medicare. But asylum-seekers are eligible for almost all state health and aged services, and the states are picking up the bill for hearing, dental and immunisation.
Victoria acknowledges that most asylum-seekers are eligible for Medicare.
A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor said: "Primary healthcare for refugees who are permanent visa holders and those in the community on bridging visas are covered by Medicare. Using Medicare . . . represents the most efficient method of providing these health services to asylum-seekers in the community, reducing the burden on the states and territories."
Queensland Health Minister Lawrence Springborg has backed Victoria's position, saying he raised the issue last year in the context of health services and costs affecting northern Queensland.
A spokeswoman for NSW Health Minister Jillian Skinner said she was looking forward to the discussion: "NSW will be participating in the debate at the Standing Council on Health to ensure there is sufficient funding to cover the increased cost of healthcare for refugees."
The cost to the states of dealing with the extra community-based asylum-seekers and refugees is likely to near $100 million.
Victoria, which makes up a quarter of the national economy, allocated more than $22m extra to help deal with the issue in this year's budget.
The Victorian paper estimates the number of asylum-seekers by boat and living in the community on bridging visas was 20,000 nationally in the nine months to last month and 6600 in Victoria.
SOURCE
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
2013 Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration
Reporter exposed IRS for allowing illegal aliens to recieve billions
The Center for Immigration Studies has presented its annual Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration to Bob Segall, a senior investigative reporter at WTHR TV in Indianapolis. The award, inaugurated in 1997, is intended to promote informed and fair reporting on this contentious and complicated issue.
In 2012, Mr. Segall exposed fraud and mismanagement within the Internal Revenue Service that allowed illegal aliens to receive billions of dollars in improper tax credits and refunds. For a decade, managers within the agency encouraged tax examiners to ignore this fraud. Mr. Segall’s eleven-part series drew more than 9 million viewers and resulted in congressional action to reform the system.
The honoree’s work spans a variety of issues and is widely recognized. He has been honored with a national Emmy, more than two dozen regional Emmys, the Edward R. Murrow Award, and the DuPont-Columbia Award (considered one of the highest honors in broadcast journalism). He is also a two-time recipient of the Peabody Award and several other honors.
The keynote speaker at the luncheon was journalist Mickey Kaus, author of Kausfiles, one of the first political blogs, started in 1999. Mr. Kaus has written for Newsweek, the New Republic, and Washington Monthly, and now blogs regularly at the Daily Caller. Mr. Kaus highlighted the many flaws of mass amnesty and outlined reasons why the political left should be calling for the enforcement of immigration law, rather than supporting the Gang of Eight immigration bill.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Australia: The do-gooder Left kills some more people
Illegal immigrants in boats had stopped coming to Australia under the previous conservative government but the welcome flags waved by the Labor Party restarted the (very risky) flow
More than 40 people are missing and feared dead after an asylum seeker boat sank off Christmas Island and questions are asked about the speed of Australia's search and rescue response.
Thirteen bodies were spotted in the water on Saturday and Australian authorities, two merchant vessels and a chartered aircraft spent Sunday searching for survivors, 74 nautical miles west of the island.
A three-day search for survivors was called off late on Sunday night with not a single person recovered from the water.
Customs and Border Protection was deciding on Monday morning if an operation would be mounted to recover the bodies.
Advertisement
Questions have been raised about the time taken to mount the rescue operation, as an air force plane first identified the boat when it was only 28 nautical miles north-west of Christmas Island at about 5.45pm Sydney time on Wednesday.
The boat was carrying about 55 people on deck, mostly men but also a small number of women and children. Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare said it was "too early to tell" where the group was coming from.
When the boat was spotted, it was stationary but did not seem in distress, he said. It is understood Australian authorities did not receive a distress call from the vessel.
HMAS Warramunga arrived in the area at 1.30am on Thursday, but could not find the boat. After searches on Thursday, a plane spotted the submerged hull about 3pm on Friday. When the Warramunga arrived at the location, it could see only pieces of wood and life-jackets.
"This is another terrible tragedy, another terrible reminder of how dangerous these journeys are," Mr Clare said on Sunday.
Mr Clare said the search would be subject to a full review by Customs and Border Protection, "as is standard practice". But the Greens believe there should be a more thorough inquiry, beyond the standard internal review.
Indonesia's ambassador to Australia, Nadjib Riphat Kesoema, recently ruled out collaboration to send asylum seekers back to Indonesia. But opposition border protection spokesman Michael Keenan said Australia did not need a formal arrangement with its neighbour to turn boats back.
BPC Commander Rear Admiral David Johnston said there would be risks involved with the Coalition's tow-back plans.
HMAS Warramunga located a boat on Sunday about 110 nautical miles north of Christmas Island they believed made a distress call the day before. The boat has about 70 people on board, who are now being transferred to Christmas Island.
SOURCE
2013 Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration
Reporter exposed IRS for allowing illegal aliens to recieve billions
The Center for Immigration Studies has presented its annual Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration to Bob Segall, a senior investigative reporter at WTHR TV in Indianapolis. The award, inaugurated in 1997, is intended to promote informed and fair reporting on this contentious and complicated issue.
In 2012, Mr. Segall exposed fraud and mismanagement within the Internal Revenue Service that allowed illegal aliens to receive billions of dollars in improper tax credits and refunds. For a decade, managers within the agency encouraged tax examiners to ignore this fraud. Mr. Segall’s eleven-part series drew more than 9 million viewers and resulted in congressional action to reform the system.
The honoree’s work spans a variety of issues and is widely recognized. He has been honored with a national Emmy, more than two dozen regional Emmys, the Edward R. Murrow Award, and the DuPont-Columbia Award (considered one of the highest honors in broadcast journalism). He is also a two-time recipient of the Peabody Award and several other honors.
The keynote speaker at the luncheon was journalist Mickey Kaus, author of Kausfiles, one of the first political blogs, started in 1999. Mr. Kaus has written for Newsweek, the New Republic, and Washington Monthly, and now blogs regularly at the Daily Caller. Mr. Kaus highlighted the many flaws of mass amnesty and outlined reasons why the political left should be calling for the enforcement of immigration law, rather than supporting the Gang of Eight immigration bill.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Australia: The do-gooder Left kills some more people
Illegal immigrants in boats had stopped coming to Australia under the previous conservative government but the welcome flags waved by the Labor Party restarted the (very risky) flow
More than 40 people are missing and feared dead after an asylum seeker boat sank off Christmas Island and questions are asked about the speed of Australia's search and rescue response.
Thirteen bodies were spotted in the water on Saturday and Australian authorities, two merchant vessels and a chartered aircraft spent Sunday searching for survivors, 74 nautical miles west of the island.
A three-day search for survivors was called off late on Sunday night with not a single person recovered from the water.
Customs and Border Protection was deciding on Monday morning if an operation would be mounted to recover the bodies.
Advertisement
Questions have been raised about the time taken to mount the rescue operation, as an air force plane first identified the boat when it was only 28 nautical miles north-west of Christmas Island at about 5.45pm Sydney time on Wednesday.
The boat was carrying about 55 people on deck, mostly men but also a small number of women and children. Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare said it was "too early to tell" where the group was coming from.
When the boat was spotted, it was stationary but did not seem in distress, he said. It is understood Australian authorities did not receive a distress call from the vessel.
HMAS Warramunga arrived in the area at 1.30am on Thursday, but could not find the boat. After searches on Thursday, a plane spotted the submerged hull about 3pm on Friday. When the Warramunga arrived at the location, it could see only pieces of wood and life-jackets.
"This is another terrible tragedy, another terrible reminder of how dangerous these journeys are," Mr Clare said on Sunday.
Mr Clare said the search would be subject to a full review by Customs and Border Protection, "as is standard practice". But the Greens believe there should be a more thorough inquiry, beyond the standard internal review.
Indonesia's ambassador to Australia, Nadjib Riphat Kesoema, recently ruled out collaboration to send asylum seekers back to Indonesia. But opposition border protection spokesman Michael Keenan said Australia did not need a formal arrangement with its neighbour to turn boats back.
BPC Commander Rear Admiral David Johnston said there would be risks involved with the Coalition's tow-back plans.
HMAS Warramunga located a boat on Sunday about 110 nautical miles north of Christmas Island they believed made a distress call the day before. The boat has about 70 people on board, who are now being transferred to Christmas Island.
SOURCE
Monday, June 10, 2013
Senate Bill Doubles Annual Flow of Guest Workers
Increase even larger than one proposed and rejected in 2007
The Schumer-Rubio bill, which will be debated by the full Senate starting next week, would allow unprecedented increases in the number of temporary workers. A new Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the bill finds that, in the first year, the bill (S.744) would admit nearly 1.6 million more temporary workers than currently allowed. After that initial spike, the bill would increase annual temporary worker admissions by more than 600,000 each year over the current level – an increase four times larger than the one called for in the 2007 Bush-Kennedy proposal (about 125,000).
As a result, this bill would roughly double the number of temporary workers admitted each year (nearly 700,000 in 2012). These workers are classified as "non-immigrants" and would be in addition to S.744's large proposed increase in annual permanent legal immigrants competing for jobs (more than 30 million in the next decade).
The estimates are also available online at: http://cis.org/gang-of-eight-bill-doubles-temporary-worker-flow
The 2007 bill was defeated in part due to widespread concerns over the increase in the number of guest workers. While the sponsors of S.744 have suggested that this bill more responsibly manages the number of guest workers than the rejected 2007 proposal, it allows for dramatically more guest workers than the 2007 plan did. Such a large number by definition will displace American workers and the chronically unemployed. It will also reduce job opportunities for legal immigrants. By any measure, S.744 is worse for workers, at a worse time, than previous attempts at comprehensive reform. As Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) recently put it in an interview, "This is a massive effort to attract cheap labor, a great disservice to American workers."
In addition to expanding the controversial H-1B program, known for its association with overseas-based body shops and also a 20 percent fraud and non-compliance rate, the Schumer-Rubio bill adds several new guest worker programs. For instance, it creates a new H-1B-style visa for workers from countries that have a free trade agreement with the United States, offering 5,000 visas to each of more than 30 countries. This provision could add 155,000 new guest workers each year, which is greater than the current H-1B program. Farm worker visas would more than double under the plan, and a new visa for unskilled workers would bring in at least 20,000 per year.
Changes in two existing programs would result in a short-term surge of more than one million new workers. First, the bill would offer work permits to spouses of certain H-1B workers already in the United States, plus spouses of new entrants. Second, the new V-1 visas would allow more than 900,000 family members who are on the family visa waiting list to enter and receive work permits before their green card applications are approved.
While the bill establishes limits in most of the new categories, paradoxically it also gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to waive these limits if demand is high.
It is important to note that, contrary to what is often erroneously reported in the news media, these programs do not require employers to show that they tried and failed to find U.S. workers, or that there is a shortage of workers.
"If it passes, the Schumer-Rubio bill could wreak havoc in U.S. labor markets, and shut out even more Americans from job opportunities, especially minorities, whether in STEM fields, agriculture, construction or health care," said Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center. "Most of these temporary worker increases are just gratuitous and have no economic justification whatsoever," said Vaughan.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Immigration bill pardons deportees, wasting taxpayer billions
Members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight have assured Americans their bill will not incur any costs.
“Our watchword here is to have this bill pay for itself,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the bill’s main advocates, told colleagues during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s markup.
But what about the taxpayer money already spent on persons no longer in this country?
Immigration and Customs Enforcement reports that for each illegal immigrant arrested, detained and deported, American taxpayers sustained a $12,500 tab. In just the 2012 fiscal year, that meant 324,299 people, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Studies.
American taxpayers will have spent roughly $11.3 billion in the last five years on the deportation of illegal immigrants only to have some of them allowed to return to this country.
In the proposed legislation, previously deported persons would be eligible to apply for “registered provisional immigrant” status as long as their deportation was not the result of a crime for which they were convicted and they are the spouse, child or parent of a U.S. citizen or green card holder. An estimated 900,000 deportees would meet the above criteria, according to an analysis performed by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit activist group that opposes liberalization of immigration law.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank dedicated to studying the fiscal consequences of immigration, believes that by allowing deportees to re-enter the country, legislators are effectively apologizing for enforcing the law.
“Essentially the bank robber gets out of jail and also gets to keep whatever money he stole,” Krikorian said. “It seems to be one of the most absurd elements of this legislation.”
Randy Capps, a senior policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute, which believes the Gang of Eight bill adequately serves the national interest, sees allowing deportees to return as beneficial.
“I think that allowing deported parents to come back and work to support their families actually is going to save government money in the long run,” Capps said.
A recent report by the Heritage Foundation shows Capps might be onto something.
“During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits,” the report indicates.
However, the Heritage Foundation does not see this lasting.
“Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only marginal impact on the long-term costs,” the report says.
SOURCE
Senate Bill Doubles Annual Flow of Guest Workers
Increase even larger than one proposed and rejected in 2007
The Schumer-Rubio bill, which will be debated by the full Senate starting next week, would allow unprecedented increases in the number of temporary workers. A new Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the bill finds that, in the first year, the bill (S.744) would admit nearly 1.6 million more temporary workers than currently allowed. After that initial spike, the bill would increase annual temporary worker admissions by more than 600,000 each year over the current level – an increase four times larger than the one called for in the 2007 Bush-Kennedy proposal (about 125,000).
As a result, this bill would roughly double the number of temporary workers admitted each year (nearly 700,000 in 2012). These workers are classified as "non-immigrants" and would be in addition to S.744's large proposed increase in annual permanent legal immigrants competing for jobs (more than 30 million in the next decade).
The estimates are also available online at: http://cis.org/gang-of-eight-bill-doubles-temporary-worker-flow
The 2007 bill was defeated in part due to widespread concerns over the increase in the number of guest workers. While the sponsors of S.744 have suggested that this bill more responsibly manages the number of guest workers than the rejected 2007 proposal, it allows for dramatically more guest workers than the 2007 plan did. Such a large number by definition will displace American workers and the chronically unemployed. It will also reduce job opportunities for legal immigrants. By any measure, S.744 is worse for workers, at a worse time, than previous attempts at comprehensive reform. As Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) recently put it in an interview, "This is a massive effort to attract cheap labor, a great disservice to American workers."
In addition to expanding the controversial H-1B program, known for its association with overseas-based body shops and also a 20 percent fraud and non-compliance rate, the Schumer-Rubio bill adds several new guest worker programs. For instance, it creates a new H-1B-style visa for workers from countries that have a free trade agreement with the United States, offering 5,000 visas to each of more than 30 countries. This provision could add 155,000 new guest workers each year, which is greater than the current H-1B program. Farm worker visas would more than double under the plan, and a new visa for unskilled workers would bring in at least 20,000 per year.
Changes in two existing programs would result in a short-term surge of more than one million new workers. First, the bill would offer work permits to spouses of certain H-1B workers already in the United States, plus spouses of new entrants. Second, the new V-1 visas would allow more than 900,000 family members who are on the family visa waiting list to enter and receive work permits before their green card applications are approved.
While the bill establishes limits in most of the new categories, paradoxically it also gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to waive these limits if demand is high.
It is important to note that, contrary to what is often erroneously reported in the news media, these programs do not require employers to show that they tried and failed to find U.S. workers, or that there is a shortage of workers.
"If it passes, the Schumer-Rubio bill could wreak havoc in U.S. labor markets, and shut out even more Americans from job opportunities, especially minorities, whether in STEM fields, agriculture, construction or health care," said Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center. "Most of these temporary worker increases are just gratuitous and have no economic justification whatsoever," said Vaughan.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Immigration bill pardons deportees, wasting taxpayer billions
Members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight have assured Americans their bill will not incur any costs.
“Our watchword here is to have this bill pay for itself,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the bill’s main advocates, told colleagues during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s markup.
But what about the taxpayer money already spent on persons no longer in this country?
Immigration and Customs Enforcement reports that for each illegal immigrant arrested, detained and deported, American taxpayers sustained a $12,500 tab. In just the 2012 fiscal year, that meant 324,299 people, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Studies.
American taxpayers will have spent roughly $11.3 billion in the last five years on the deportation of illegal immigrants only to have some of them allowed to return to this country.
In the proposed legislation, previously deported persons would be eligible to apply for “registered provisional immigrant” status as long as their deportation was not the result of a crime for which they were convicted and they are the spouse, child or parent of a U.S. citizen or green card holder. An estimated 900,000 deportees would meet the above criteria, according to an analysis performed by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit activist group that opposes liberalization of immigration law.
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank dedicated to studying the fiscal consequences of immigration, believes that by allowing deportees to re-enter the country, legislators are effectively apologizing for enforcing the law.
“Essentially the bank robber gets out of jail and also gets to keep whatever money he stole,” Krikorian said. “It seems to be one of the most absurd elements of this legislation.”
Randy Capps, a senior policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute, which believes the Gang of Eight bill adequately serves the national interest, sees allowing deportees to return as beneficial.
“I think that allowing deported parents to come back and work to support their families actually is going to save government money in the long run,” Capps said.
A recent report by the Heritage Foundation shows Capps might be onto something.
“During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits,” the report indicates.
However, the Heritage Foundation does not see this lasting.
“Restricting access to benefits for the first 13 years after amnesty therefore has only marginal impact on the long-term costs,” the report says.
SOURCE
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Abstract Immigrants
Thomas Sowell
One of the many sad signs of our times is the way current immigration issues are discussed. A hundred years ago, the immigration controversies of that era were discussed in the context of innumerable facts about particular immigrant groups. Many of those facts were published in a huge, multi-volume 1911 study by a commission headed by Senator William P. Dillingham.
That and other studies of the time presented hard data on such things as which groups' children were doing well in school and which were not; which groups had high crime rates or high rates of alcoholism, and which groups were over-represented among people living on the dole.
Such data and such differences still exist today. Immigrants from some countries are seldom on welfare but immigrants from other countries often are. Immigrants from some countries are typically people with high levels of education and skills, while immigrants from other countries seldom have much schooling or skills.
Nevertheless, many of our current discussions of immigration issues talk about immigrants in general, as if they were abstract people in an abstract world. But the concrete differences between immigrants from different countries affect whether their coming here is good or bad for the American people.
The very thought of formulating immigration laws from the standpoint of what is best for the American people seems to have been forgotten by many who focus on how to solve the problems of illegal immigrants, "living in the shadows."
A recent column in the Wall Street Journal titled "What Would Milton Friedman Say?" tried to derive what the late Professor Friedman "would no doubt regard as the ideal outcome" as far as immigration laws were concerned.
Although I was once a student of Professor Friedman, I would never presume to speak for him. However, he was a man with the rare combination of genius and common sense, and he published much empirical work as well as the analytical work that won him a Nobel Prize. In short, concrete facts mattered to him.
It is hard to imagine Milton Friedman looking for "the ideal outcome" on immigration in the abstract. More than once he said, "the best is the enemy of the good," which to me meant that attempts to achieve an unattainable ideal can prevent us from reaching good outcomes that are possible in practice.
Too much of our current immigration controversy is conducted in terms of abstract ideals, such as "We are a nation of immigrants." Of course we are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of people who wear shoes. Does it follow that we should admit anybody who wears shoes?
The immigrants of today are very different in many ways from those who arrived here a hundred years ago. Moreover, the society in which they arrive is different. The Wall Street Journal column ends by quoting another economist who said, "Better to build a wall around the welfare state than the country."
But the welfare state is already here-- and, far from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions by leaps and bounds. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do as regards immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.
Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods.
Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries or any other countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country that has produced such benefits for the American people for so long.
Not only the United States, but the Western world in general, has been discovering the hard way that admitting people with incompatible cultures is an irreversible decision with incalculable consequences. If we do not see that after recent terrorist attacks on the streets of Boston and London, when will we see it?
"Comprehensive immigration reform" means doing everything all together in a rush, without time to look before we leap, and basing ourselves on abstract notions about abstract people.
SOURCE
Beggars and thieves from across Europe are flocking to the streets of Britain, Theresa May warns the EU
Migrants are travelling from across the EU to ‘beg and steal’ on the streets of Britain, Theresa May will warn Europe’s leaders.
The Home Secretary will demand action to end abuse of the EU’s free movement directive by people who have no intention of finding work.
At a meeting of European home affairs ministers in Luxembourg on Friday, she will highlight how gangs of beggars are setting up camps in London to launch raids on the unsuspecting public.
She will also outline a case in which Romanian fraudsters fleeced the British taxpayer of almost £3million.
Home Office officials say it is a huge achievement for the issue to even be discussed.
EU leaders have been reluctant to even contemplate any changes to the rules – it has taken three years for Mrs May to get it on the agenda,
According to Whitehall sources, the Home Secretary will say that abuse of free movement rights by some EU migrants is placing an ‘unacceptable burden on our schools, our hospitals, our social security systems and our local communities’.
She will stress that it is unacceptable that some EU nationals are able to come to countries such as the UK with no intention of working, but simply to access our state benefits and take advantage of our public services.
Mrs May will then tell the rest of Europe that it cannot be right that national governments are unable to act to stop this abuse.
In a significant move, she will present the council with examples of how EU nationals are fleecing the British taxpayer.
They will include the case of a Lavinia Olmazu, who helped more than 170 Romanians illegally claim £2.9m in benefits has been jailed for two years and three months. Olmazu, a leading campaigner for the rights of Roma gypsies, helped mastermind the scam involving 172 Romanians.
After gaining access to the Romanians through her outreach work with Haringey and Waltham Forest councils and the Big Issue charity, she set up companies with her boyfriend to help facilitate widescale fraudulent benefit claims.
Mrs May will also say there is a ‘recurring problem’ with groups of EU nationals who set up camps in public areas in London, and beg and steal from tourists.
She will say they arrive under the free movement rules but have no intention of working, studying or setting up a business.
In 2012, over 70 per cent of individuals arrested for begging in one London borough – Westminster – were EU citizens.
Police have warned of aggressive begging by people from some Eastern European states, including Romania.
In April Mrs May secured the backing of Germany, Holland and Austria to campaign for tighter restrictions on migrants’ access to hand-outs and other State services.
The four countries wrote to the President of the EU arguing that the free movement directive – a founding principle of the EU – must not be ‘unconditional’.
They want to make to persuade the Eurocrats to make it harder for citizens of other member states to access benefits within days or weeks of arriving in another member state.
The letter has led to the discussion at Friday’s meeting. Britain has long been seeking changes to the rules on entitlement to welfare.
However, the chances of success were limited while the UK government was a lone voice in Brussels.
The fact that Germany, in particular, has joined the campaign will place huge new pressure on the other member states to agree to tighten the rules.
Speaking last night, Mrs May said: ‘We are already taking tough action in this country to stamp out the abuse of free movement, to protect our benefits system and public services.
‘We will not allow this country to be a soft touch but this isn't just a UK problem - it will take the joint efforts of all our EU partners to tackle it.’
It comes at a time of heightened tensions between the British government and the EU.
Last week, the European Commission announced it was taking Britain to court for insisting migrants pass a ‘right to reside’ test before they can access some State handouts.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is planning to defy the EC and make existing restrictions even tougher.
SOURCE
Abstract Immigrants
Thomas Sowell
One of the many sad signs of our times is the way current immigration issues are discussed. A hundred years ago, the immigration controversies of that era were discussed in the context of innumerable facts about particular immigrant groups. Many of those facts were published in a huge, multi-volume 1911 study by a commission headed by Senator William P. Dillingham.
That and other studies of the time presented hard data on such things as which groups' children were doing well in school and which were not; which groups had high crime rates or high rates of alcoholism, and which groups were over-represented among people living on the dole.
Such data and such differences still exist today. Immigrants from some countries are seldom on welfare but immigrants from other countries often are. Immigrants from some countries are typically people with high levels of education and skills, while immigrants from other countries seldom have much schooling or skills.
Nevertheless, many of our current discussions of immigration issues talk about immigrants in general, as if they were abstract people in an abstract world. But the concrete differences between immigrants from different countries affect whether their coming here is good or bad for the American people.
The very thought of formulating immigration laws from the standpoint of what is best for the American people seems to have been forgotten by many who focus on how to solve the problems of illegal immigrants, "living in the shadows."
A recent column in the Wall Street Journal titled "What Would Milton Friedman Say?" tried to derive what the late Professor Friedman "would no doubt regard as the ideal outcome" as far as immigration laws were concerned.
Although I was once a student of Professor Friedman, I would never presume to speak for him. However, he was a man with the rare combination of genius and common sense, and he published much empirical work as well as the analytical work that won him a Nobel Prize. In short, concrete facts mattered to him.
It is hard to imagine Milton Friedman looking for "the ideal outcome" on immigration in the abstract. More than once he said, "the best is the enemy of the good," which to me meant that attempts to achieve an unattainable ideal can prevent us from reaching good outcomes that are possible in practice.
Too much of our current immigration controversy is conducted in terms of abstract ideals, such as "We are a nation of immigrants." Of course we are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of people who wear shoes. Does it follow that we should admit anybody who wears shoes?
The immigrants of today are very different in many ways from those who arrived here a hundred years ago. Moreover, the society in which they arrive is different. The Wall Street Journal column ends by quoting another economist who said, "Better to build a wall around the welfare state than the country."
But the welfare state is already here-- and, far from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions by leaps and bounds. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do as regards immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.
Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods.
Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries or any other countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country that has produced such benefits for the American people for so long.
Not only the United States, but the Western world in general, has been discovering the hard way that admitting people with incompatible cultures is an irreversible decision with incalculable consequences. If we do not see that after recent terrorist attacks on the streets of Boston and London, when will we see it?
"Comprehensive immigration reform" means doing everything all together in a rush, without time to look before we leap, and basing ourselves on abstract notions about abstract people.
SOURCE
Beggars and thieves from across Europe are flocking to the streets of Britain, Theresa May warns the EU
Migrants are travelling from across the EU to ‘beg and steal’ on the streets of Britain, Theresa May will warn Europe’s leaders.
The Home Secretary will demand action to end abuse of the EU’s free movement directive by people who have no intention of finding work.
At a meeting of European home affairs ministers in Luxembourg on Friday, she will highlight how gangs of beggars are setting up camps in London to launch raids on the unsuspecting public.
She will also outline a case in which Romanian fraudsters fleeced the British taxpayer of almost £3million.
Home Office officials say it is a huge achievement for the issue to even be discussed.
EU leaders have been reluctant to even contemplate any changes to the rules – it has taken three years for Mrs May to get it on the agenda,
According to Whitehall sources, the Home Secretary will say that abuse of free movement rights by some EU migrants is placing an ‘unacceptable burden on our schools, our hospitals, our social security systems and our local communities’.
She will stress that it is unacceptable that some EU nationals are able to come to countries such as the UK with no intention of working, but simply to access our state benefits and take advantage of our public services.
Mrs May will then tell the rest of Europe that it cannot be right that national governments are unable to act to stop this abuse.
In a significant move, she will present the council with examples of how EU nationals are fleecing the British taxpayer.
They will include the case of a Lavinia Olmazu, who helped more than 170 Romanians illegally claim £2.9m in benefits has been jailed for two years and three months. Olmazu, a leading campaigner for the rights of Roma gypsies, helped mastermind the scam involving 172 Romanians.
After gaining access to the Romanians through her outreach work with Haringey and Waltham Forest councils and the Big Issue charity, she set up companies with her boyfriend to help facilitate widescale fraudulent benefit claims.
Mrs May will also say there is a ‘recurring problem’ with groups of EU nationals who set up camps in public areas in London, and beg and steal from tourists.
She will say they arrive under the free movement rules but have no intention of working, studying or setting up a business.
In 2012, over 70 per cent of individuals arrested for begging in one London borough – Westminster – were EU citizens.
Police have warned of aggressive begging by people from some Eastern European states, including Romania.
In April Mrs May secured the backing of Germany, Holland and Austria to campaign for tighter restrictions on migrants’ access to hand-outs and other State services.
The four countries wrote to the President of the EU arguing that the free movement directive – a founding principle of the EU – must not be ‘unconditional’.
They want to make to persuade the Eurocrats to make it harder for citizens of other member states to access benefits within days or weeks of arriving in another member state.
The letter has led to the discussion at Friday’s meeting. Britain has long been seeking changes to the rules on entitlement to welfare.
However, the chances of success were limited while the UK government was a lone voice in Brussels.
The fact that Germany, in particular, has joined the campaign will place huge new pressure on the other member states to agree to tighten the rules.
Speaking last night, Mrs May said: ‘We are already taking tough action in this country to stamp out the abuse of free movement, to protect our benefits system and public services.
‘We will not allow this country to be a soft touch but this isn't just a UK problem - it will take the joint efforts of all our EU partners to tackle it.’
It comes at a time of heightened tensions between the British government and the EU.
Last week, the European Commission announced it was taking Britain to court for insisting migrants pass a ‘right to reside’ test before they can access some State handouts.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is planning to defy the EC and make existing restrictions even tougher.
SOURCE
Friday, June 7, 2013
How soaring immigration has piled on the pressure for British public services
Look closely at the numbers of people using hospital Accident and Emergency wards and you will see a worrying trend.
Between 1987 and 2003, attendances at A&E remained steady, with around 14 million people each year. Then, in 2004, the numbers jumped by 18 per cent to 16.5 million.
By last year, the figure was 21.7 million — a 50 per cent increase in ten years.
By contrast, European countries such as Sweden have registered a barely negligible rise in attendances over the same period.
Quite rightly, critics point to how changes to GP working hours have piled strain on A&E departments, deluged by patients who can’t see their family doctor at night or at weekends.
But there are other reasons that may explain the rise in demand. Crucially, there are concerns that the extra demands placed upon A&E also stem from a rise in immigration.
From 2001 to 2011, our population rose from 52.4 million to 56.1 million — an increase of 7 per cent and the largest rise in the population since the census began in 1801.
It cannot be a coincidence that 2004 — the year in which A&E attendance jumped so noticeably — was the year that Labour changed GPs’ contracts to let them opt out of out-of-hours care, and also the year that East European countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic acceded to the EU, allowing their people free migration to the UK.
We simply cannot go on discounting the effect that such immigration has had upon our healthcare services.
In 2011, the NHS spent £23 million on translators and interpreters — a rise of 17 per cent since 2007.
The Nuffield Trust, a healthcare research body, has also identified that the number of migrants registering with GPs rose from 550,000 a year in 2003/4 to 625,000 a year by 2005/6.
But a bigger problem is almost certainly with migrants who do not register with a GP. Arriving in this country with no clear understanding of how the NHS works, and not knowing which part of the health service to turn to when they are ill, they may go straight to A&E rather than to a GP.
Dr John Heyworth, president of the College of Emergency Medicine, has spoken of ‘increases in the number of immigrants who tend to visit A&E routinely and not register with family doctors’.
Other organisations report the same trend. A UK Border Agency study into the impact of migration quoted one survey of 700 migrants which found only half had registered with a GP.
As one document prepared by the Sandwell Health Alliance (a consortium of GPs in the West Midlands) in August 2011 admitted, the ‘immigrant population have a lack of understanding of how the health service works, and so use A&E as the norm’.
A further contributing factor may be that since migrants tend to settle in more deprived areas, they may not have rapid access to general practitioners.
The Health Services Journal found in 2011 that in the poorer areas of the country, 31 per cent of patients could not access a GP within two days, compared to 19 per cent in the wealthiest areas.
Unable to seek the advice of a local family doctor, patients in the poorest 10 per cent of areas were 53 per cent more likely to attend A&E in a given year than the wealthiest 10 per cent.
The NHS now receives more funding than ever before: £104 billion, rising to £112 billion by 2015. Yet the system, as A&E admissions prove, is under ever greater strain.
The demand for NHS services continues to rise, our population is rapidly ageing and obesity and other chronic conditions put ever greater strain on the Health Service. It has been estimated that by 2050 the costs of the NHS could reach £250 billion.
Unless we take action about how we want to ensure that healthcare is provided free, regardless of the ability to pay, then in future decades the very future of the NHS could be under threat.
Of course, the NHS has never been ‘free’: it is paid for by taxpayers. And it is the contributory system that we need to restore if people are going to have trust in their public services.
The fact is we cannot sustain a health service that will treat anyone who arrives in the country without a record of contributing or paying into the service.
For too long, so-called ‘health tourists’ who are not eligible for free NHS care have managed to get treatment but then don’t pay the cost. Over the past five years, health tourists are estimated to have cost the country more than £40 million.
And this is likely to have been only the tip of the iceberg, given that several health trusts did not collect data or records of foreign nationals who should have been charged.
Medical professionals who have witnessed this scandalous abuse of the NHS are finally speaking out.
The distinguished Professor J Meirion Thomas, of the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, said the founder of the NHS, Aneurin Bevan, ‘would be outraged by the abuse of his flagship social reform on such a scale’.
He added: ‘The time has come to protect the NHS. British taxpayers should not be funding an International Health Service.’
He estimated that the costs to the NHS from ‘health tourism’ could in fact run to billions of pounds a year.
Of course, no one would deny the benefits to this country of migrants who work tirelessly to make a better life for themselves, including those workers who devote themselves to the NHS itself as doctors, nurses, porters and orderlies.
But we should look at introducing a ‘Green Card’ system similar to the United States, which would allow migrants permission to work but not grant them access to public services until they had paid a minimum of, say, five or ten years in tax contributions.
Until that time, migrants entering the country should be required to take out medical insurance before they are granted a visa.
I realise this will require a substantial renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with the EU over how benefits and welfare are paid. But if we are to save the NHS, then we must act to ensure that everyone who is treated by its doctors and nurses puts into the system before they take something out.
SOURCE
More immigration blunders by the Australian government
Leftist governments everywhere seem to be soft on illegal immigration -- with many unfortunate results
JULIA Gillard has ordered an investigation into how an al-Qa'ida terrorist was housed for months in low-security immigration detention, as Labor seeks to fend off opposition attacks suggesting the flood of boat arrivals is jeopardising national security.
The Prime Minister caved in yesterday after days of having resisted opposition demands for an inquiry into the case of convicted Egyptian jihadist Maksoud Abdel Latif, who Tony Abbott said was housed behind a "pool fence" in the Adelaide Hills.
Ms Gillard said the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security would examine the management by government agencies "of persons seeking asylum who present complex security issues" - particularly the case of Latif.
In question time, the Opposition Leader moved to link illegal boat arrivals to security concerns, declaring that 42,000 people had arrived on 700 illegal boats since Labor took power and more than 10,000 had been released into the community without comprehensive ASIO checks.
Senate estimates hearings have been told that last month security agencies faced a backlog of more than 19,000 asylum-seekers yet to be processed.
Australian authorities confirmed yesterday the arrival on Tuesday of two more asylum-seeker boats.
One was intercepted north of Christmas Island, carrying 54 passengers and three crew. A second vessel was detected northwest of Darwin, with 79 people on board and two crew.
Mr Abbott asked Ms Gillard in parliament: "Given that a convicted jihadist terrorist was held at a family facility in the Adelaide Hills for almost a year, through what officials called a clerical error, will the Prime Minister now concede that Labor's policies have made Australia less safe than it was under the former government?"
Ms Gillard said Mr Abbott's question showed the divide between a government that was building and investing for the future and an opposition that was "trading in fear".
The investigation by the nation's top-ranking security watchdog will probe how key agencies such as the Immigration Department and ASIO are conducting security assessments of asylum-seekers.
The government faced immediate demands for a wider investigation.
It was forced to vote against a motion by independent Andrew Wilkie for a parliamentary committee inquiry into the case.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the inquiry announced by the Prime Minister was not broad enough because it did not address how the Immigration Department allowed the convicted terrorist to "stay behind a pool fence" under the watch of two ministers.
The row was sparked by revelations that Latif, who is accused of being a member of terror group Egyptian Islamic Jihad, had been housed in the low-security Inverbrackie detention facility in the Adelaide Hills for almost a year before being transferred to the Villawood detention centre.
Neil Fergus, chief executive of security company Intelligent Risk and a key adviser to the federal government on security at the Sydney Olympics, said the episode reflected the great difficulty for security agencies of prioritising a mass of cases.
Mr Fergus said one of Osama bin Laden's greatest coups was Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which for decades had been one of the most ruthless and bloodthirsty terrorist groups around. It produced al-Qa'ida current leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
He said al-Qa'ida had suffered severe operational reversals but there should be no presumption that the risk had gone away. "When a beast is cornered, it can often be more dangerous," Mr Fergus said. "They are dispersing resources. They are, as you can see from the London attack, telling people over the internet to self-initiate attacks."
He said that did not necessarily relate directly to the Egyptian man now in detention custody.
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor revealed before question time yesterday that the Immigration Department sent a submission to his predecessor, Chris Bowen, on September 28 last year on the Latif matter.
The submission was not signed, indicating Mr Bowen did not see the document. The Australian understands it dealt in general terms with how the visa application should be handed in relation to emerging security concerns.
Mr O'Connor said the submission was not provided to him when he was appointed Immigration Minister. No matters were raised with him or his office until April 17. This is when it briefed him on the asylum-seeker's movement from the low-security Inverbrackie to Villawood detention facility. The man had remained in detention since arriving in Australia.
Mr Morrison said the inquiry announced was not broad enough because it did not address how the Immigration Department allowed a convicted terrorist to remain in low-security detention under the watch of two ministers.
He called for a full independent inquiry or for the joint standing committee on intelligence and security to investigate, as pushed for by Mr Wilkie in the parliament.
He said Australia did not owe protection to the asylum-seeker under the refugee convention because he almost certainly posed a threat to national security.
Opposition home affairs spokesman Michael Keenan said the inquiry announced by the Prime Minister also did not look at the role of the Australian Federal Police. The apparent lack of co-operation between Australia's key security agencies was a key opposition concern.
It is understood the Coalition is also considering reviewing the interoperability of national security agencies should it win the September election.
Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis suggested Australia would be unable to return Latif to Egypt because it was a country with the death penalty.
SOURCE
June 6, 2013
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Publication
1. Who Voted in 2012? Results from the Census Bureau’s November Voting and Registration Supplement
Blogs
2. William Finnegan of the New Yorker Defends the Facts on Immigration and Wages – His Version, Anyway
3. Whistling Past the Fiscal Graveyard
4. MSNBC'S Alex Wagner Visits the Border, Delivers Nothing
5. NY Times Prints Apples vs. Oranges Study on Medicare Costs and Income
6. "Dog Logic" and the Senate's Immigration Bill
7. Proof that Senate Bill Is Comprehensive: Visa Pork!
8. Trust the Obama Administration on Immigration? Caveat Emptor
Cutting illegal immigration essential if the present Australian government is to have a hope of survival
JULIA Gillard has been warned that the government's strategy to win votes through its big-picture education and disability policies is being swamped by community anger over asylum-seekers, as senior Labor figures all but write off enough seats in three states to guarantee Tony Abbott a comfortable victory.
In a meeting of Labor MPs described by some as "surreal, with a feeling of resignation", the Prime Minister was given an ultimatum by a key supporter, western Sydney MP Laurie Ferguson, to turn the public debate on asylum-seekers in Labor's favour or the government would be "dead" in the party's heartland.
As Newspoll showed that Labor continues to trail the Coalition by 16 points on a two-party-preferred basis, and a separate poll showed Labor facing a swing of more than 15 per cent that put it on track to lose the safe Victorian seat of Isaacs, held by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, a senior source said the party had told MPs in the marginal Victorian seats of Corangamite, Deakin and La Trobe they were "on their own".
The Opposition Leader moved to play down expectations of a Coalition landslide.
"I've always likened winning an election from opposition to climbing Mount Everest, and we are 102 paces from the summit but those 102 paces are the hardest paces of all and one slip, even at that late stage, can be very, very dangerous, even fatal," he said. "So I take nothing for granted."
Mr Ferguson, whose seat of Werriwa is considered in danger, yesterday demanded the Prime Minister get personally involved in the refugee debate and confront Mr Abbott on the issue, warning "unless you take this head on, we are dead in western Sydney".
Later, after a meeting of the Labor caucus, Mr Ferguson said the refugee issue was undermining Labor's key policies such as school improvement and DisabilityCare.
"It is so central it is blocking out everything else," Mr Ferguson said. He said he was concerned there was a feeling in the Labor caucus that the issue would go away but this was not the case.
Last night, Mr Ferguson said Labor had abandoned the field and the Prime Minister needed to explain that there were no easy options on the issue for either side of politics.
Ms Gillard needed to speak in "common language" and explain what the regional solution meant.
Aside from asylum-seekers, the caucus meeting also heard concerns from Mr Rudd and former resources minister Martin Ferguson, a Rudd supporter, about the government's attacks on 457 visa rorts.
Mr Rudd asked Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor about the number of breaches, while Mr Ferguson asked for regional and state breakdowns. However, other caucus sources said other MPs urged Mr O'Connor to take a tougher line on foreign workers.
Some Labor sources say the government's vote is holding up reasonably well in the inner city but is being punished in the suburbs. If this is repeated at the election, it will spark a debate about how to reconcile progressive inner-city issues with more conservative suburban issues.
SOURCE
How soaring immigration has piled on the pressure for British public services
Look closely at the numbers of people using hospital Accident and Emergency wards and you will see a worrying trend.
Between 1987 and 2003, attendances at A&E remained steady, with around 14 million people each year. Then, in 2004, the numbers jumped by 18 per cent to 16.5 million.
By last year, the figure was 21.7 million — a 50 per cent increase in ten years.
By contrast, European countries such as Sweden have registered a barely negligible rise in attendances over the same period.
Quite rightly, critics point to how changes to GP working hours have piled strain on A&E departments, deluged by patients who can’t see their family doctor at night or at weekends.
But there are other reasons that may explain the rise in demand. Crucially, there are concerns that the extra demands placed upon A&E also stem from a rise in immigration.
From 2001 to 2011, our population rose from 52.4 million to 56.1 million — an increase of 7 per cent and the largest rise in the population since the census began in 1801.
It cannot be a coincidence that 2004 — the year in which A&E attendance jumped so noticeably — was the year that Labour changed GPs’ contracts to let them opt out of out-of-hours care, and also the year that East European countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic acceded to the EU, allowing their people free migration to the UK.
We simply cannot go on discounting the effect that such immigration has had upon our healthcare services.
In 2011, the NHS spent £23 million on translators and interpreters — a rise of 17 per cent since 2007.
The Nuffield Trust, a healthcare research body, has also identified that the number of migrants registering with GPs rose from 550,000 a year in 2003/4 to 625,000 a year by 2005/6.
But a bigger problem is almost certainly with migrants who do not register with a GP. Arriving in this country with no clear understanding of how the NHS works, and not knowing which part of the health service to turn to when they are ill, they may go straight to A&E rather than to a GP.
Dr John Heyworth, president of the College of Emergency Medicine, has spoken of ‘increases in the number of immigrants who tend to visit A&E routinely and not register with family doctors’.
Other organisations report the same trend. A UK Border Agency study into the impact of migration quoted one survey of 700 migrants which found only half had registered with a GP.
As one document prepared by the Sandwell Health Alliance (a consortium of GPs in the West Midlands) in August 2011 admitted, the ‘immigrant population have a lack of understanding of how the health service works, and so use A&E as the norm’.
A further contributing factor may be that since migrants tend to settle in more deprived areas, they may not have rapid access to general practitioners.
The Health Services Journal found in 2011 that in the poorer areas of the country, 31 per cent of patients could not access a GP within two days, compared to 19 per cent in the wealthiest areas.
Unable to seek the advice of a local family doctor, patients in the poorest 10 per cent of areas were 53 per cent more likely to attend A&E in a given year than the wealthiest 10 per cent.
The NHS now receives more funding than ever before: £104 billion, rising to £112 billion by 2015. Yet the system, as A&E admissions prove, is under ever greater strain.
The demand for NHS services continues to rise, our population is rapidly ageing and obesity and other chronic conditions put ever greater strain on the Health Service. It has been estimated that by 2050 the costs of the NHS could reach £250 billion.
Unless we take action about how we want to ensure that healthcare is provided free, regardless of the ability to pay, then in future decades the very future of the NHS could be under threat.
Of course, the NHS has never been ‘free’: it is paid for by taxpayers. And it is the contributory system that we need to restore if people are going to have trust in their public services.
The fact is we cannot sustain a health service that will treat anyone who arrives in the country without a record of contributing or paying into the service.
For too long, so-called ‘health tourists’ who are not eligible for free NHS care have managed to get treatment but then don’t pay the cost. Over the past five years, health tourists are estimated to have cost the country more than £40 million.
And this is likely to have been only the tip of the iceberg, given that several health trusts did not collect data or records of foreign nationals who should have been charged.
Medical professionals who have witnessed this scandalous abuse of the NHS are finally speaking out.
The distinguished Professor J Meirion Thomas, of the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, said the founder of the NHS, Aneurin Bevan, ‘would be outraged by the abuse of his flagship social reform on such a scale’.
He added: ‘The time has come to protect the NHS. British taxpayers should not be funding an International Health Service.’
He estimated that the costs to the NHS from ‘health tourism’ could in fact run to billions of pounds a year.
Of course, no one would deny the benefits to this country of migrants who work tirelessly to make a better life for themselves, including those workers who devote themselves to the NHS itself as doctors, nurses, porters and orderlies.
But we should look at introducing a ‘Green Card’ system similar to the United States, which would allow migrants permission to work but not grant them access to public services until they had paid a minimum of, say, five or ten years in tax contributions.
Until that time, migrants entering the country should be required to take out medical insurance before they are granted a visa.
I realise this will require a substantial renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with the EU over how benefits and welfare are paid. But if we are to save the NHS, then we must act to ensure that everyone who is treated by its doctors and nurses puts into the system before they take something out.
SOURCE
More immigration blunders by the Australian government
Leftist governments everywhere seem to be soft on illegal immigration -- with many unfortunate results
JULIA Gillard has ordered an investigation into how an al-Qa'ida terrorist was housed for months in low-security immigration detention, as Labor seeks to fend off opposition attacks suggesting the flood of boat arrivals is jeopardising national security.
The Prime Minister caved in yesterday after days of having resisted opposition demands for an inquiry into the case of convicted Egyptian jihadist Maksoud Abdel Latif, who Tony Abbott said was housed behind a "pool fence" in the Adelaide Hills.
Ms Gillard said the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security would examine the management by government agencies "of persons seeking asylum who present complex security issues" - particularly the case of Latif.
In question time, the Opposition Leader moved to link illegal boat arrivals to security concerns, declaring that 42,000 people had arrived on 700 illegal boats since Labor took power and more than 10,000 had been released into the community without comprehensive ASIO checks.
Senate estimates hearings have been told that last month security agencies faced a backlog of more than 19,000 asylum-seekers yet to be processed.
Australian authorities confirmed yesterday the arrival on Tuesday of two more asylum-seeker boats.
One was intercepted north of Christmas Island, carrying 54 passengers and three crew. A second vessel was detected northwest of Darwin, with 79 people on board and two crew.
Mr Abbott asked Ms Gillard in parliament: "Given that a convicted jihadist terrorist was held at a family facility in the Adelaide Hills for almost a year, through what officials called a clerical error, will the Prime Minister now concede that Labor's policies have made Australia less safe than it was under the former government?"
Ms Gillard said Mr Abbott's question showed the divide between a government that was building and investing for the future and an opposition that was "trading in fear".
The investigation by the nation's top-ranking security watchdog will probe how key agencies such as the Immigration Department and ASIO are conducting security assessments of asylum-seekers.
The government faced immediate demands for a wider investigation.
It was forced to vote against a motion by independent Andrew Wilkie for a parliamentary committee inquiry into the case.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the inquiry announced by the Prime Minister was not broad enough because it did not address how the Immigration Department allowed the convicted terrorist to "stay behind a pool fence" under the watch of two ministers.
The row was sparked by revelations that Latif, who is accused of being a member of terror group Egyptian Islamic Jihad, had been housed in the low-security Inverbrackie detention facility in the Adelaide Hills for almost a year before being transferred to the Villawood detention centre.
Neil Fergus, chief executive of security company Intelligent Risk and a key adviser to the federal government on security at the Sydney Olympics, said the episode reflected the great difficulty for security agencies of prioritising a mass of cases.
Mr Fergus said one of Osama bin Laden's greatest coups was Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which for decades had been one of the most ruthless and bloodthirsty terrorist groups around. It produced al-Qa'ida current leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
He said al-Qa'ida had suffered severe operational reversals but there should be no presumption that the risk had gone away. "When a beast is cornered, it can often be more dangerous," Mr Fergus said. "They are dispersing resources. They are, as you can see from the London attack, telling people over the internet to self-initiate attacks."
He said that did not necessarily relate directly to the Egyptian man now in detention custody.
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor revealed before question time yesterday that the Immigration Department sent a submission to his predecessor, Chris Bowen, on September 28 last year on the Latif matter.
The submission was not signed, indicating Mr Bowen did not see the document. The Australian understands it dealt in general terms with how the visa application should be handed in relation to emerging security concerns.
Mr O'Connor said the submission was not provided to him when he was appointed Immigration Minister. No matters were raised with him or his office until April 17. This is when it briefed him on the asylum-seeker's movement from the low-security Inverbrackie to Villawood detention facility. The man had remained in detention since arriving in Australia.
Mr Morrison said the inquiry announced was not broad enough because it did not address how the Immigration Department allowed a convicted terrorist to remain in low-security detention under the watch of two ministers.
He called for a full independent inquiry or for the joint standing committee on intelligence and security to investigate, as pushed for by Mr Wilkie in the parliament.
He said Australia did not owe protection to the asylum-seeker under the refugee convention because he almost certainly posed a threat to national security.
Opposition home affairs spokesman Michael Keenan said the inquiry announced by the Prime Minister also did not look at the role of the Australian Federal Police. The apparent lack of co-operation between Australia's key security agencies was a key opposition concern.
It is understood the Coalition is also considering reviewing the interoperability of national security agencies should it win the September election.
Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis suggested Australia would be unable to return Latif to Egypt because it was a country with the death penalty.
SOURCE
June 6, 2013
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Publication
1. Who Voted in 2012? Results from the Census Bureau’s November Voting and Registration Supplement
Blogs
2. William Finnegan of the New Yorker Defends the Facts on Immigration and Wages – His Version, Anyway
3. Whistling Past the Fiscal Graveyard
4. MSNBC'S Alex Wagner Visits the Border, Delivers Nothing
5. NY Times Prints Apples vs. Oranges Study on Medicare Costs and Income
6. "Dog Logic" and the Senate's Immigration Bill
7. Proof that Senate Bill Is Comprehensive: Visa Pork!
8. Trust the Obama Administration on Immigration? Caveat Emptor
Cutting illegal immigration essential if the present Australian government is to have a hope of survival
JULIA Gillard has been warned that the government's strategy to win votes through its big-picture education and disability policies is being swamped by community anger over asylum-seekers, as senior Labor figures all but write off enough seats in three states to guarantee Tony Abbott a comfortable victory.
In a meeting of Labor MPs described by some as "surreal, with a feeling of resignation", the Prime Minister was given an ultimatum by a key supporter, western Sydney MP Laurie Ferguson, to turn the public debate on asylum-seekers in Labor's favour or the government would be "dead" in the party's heartland.
As Newspoll showed that Labor continues to trail the Coalition by 16 points on a two-party-preferred basis, and a separate poll showed Labor facing a swing of more than 15 per cent that put it on track to lose the safe Victorian seat of Isaacs, held by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, a senior source said the party had told MPs in the marginal Victorian seats of Corangamite, Deakin and La Trobe they were "on their own".
The Opposition Leader moved to play down expectations of a Coalition landslide.
"I've always likened winning an election from opposition to climbing Mount Everest, and we are 102 paces from the summit but those 102 paces are the hardest paces of all and one slip, even at that late stage, can be very, very dangerous, even fatal," he said. "So I take nothing for granted."
Mr Ferguson, whose seat of Werriwa is considered in danger, yesterday demanded the Prime Minister get personally involved in the refugee debate and confront Mr Abbott on the issue, warning "unless you take this head on, we are dead in western Sydney".
Later, after a meeting of the Labor caucus, Mr Ferguson said the refugee issue was undermining Labor's key policies such as school improvement and DisabilityCare.
"It is so central it is blocking out everything else," Mr Ferguson said. He said he was concerned there was a feeling in the Labor caucus that the issue would go away but this was not the case.
Last night, Mr Ferguson said Labor had abandoned the field and the Prime Minister needed to explain that there were no easy options on the issue for either side of politics.
Ms Gillard needed to speak in "common language" and explain what the regional solution meant.
Aside from asylum-seekers, the caucus meeting also heard concerns from Mr Rudd and former resources minister Martin Ferguson, a Rudd supporter, about the government's attacks on 457 visa rorts.
Mr Rudd asked Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor about the number of breaches, while Mr Ferguson asked for regional and state breakdowns. However, other caucus sources said other MPs urged Mr O'Connor to take a tougher line on foreign workers.
Some Labor sources say the government's vote is holding up reasonably well in the inner city but is being punished in the suburbs. If this is repeated at the election, it will spark a debate about how to reconcile progressive inner-city issues with more conservative suburban issues.
SOURCE
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Israel claims unnamed African country will take in illegal Eritreans
Israel and an unspecified African country reportedly reached an agreement to deport illegal Eritrean migrants to its territory, and Israel is also ironing out a deal with two other countries to act as a way station for deported north Sudanese migrants, a state lawyer told the High Court on Sunday.
Speaking during proceedings in an appeals case against the incarceration of illegal immigrants, state attorney Yochi Gensin said that Jerusalem struck a deal with an unnamed state that would take in Eritrean asylum seekers who entered Israel illegally. Another deal with two other countries, also unnamed, would ensure the deportation of illegal Sudanese immigrants from Israel, she claimed.
Eritrean and Sudanese nationals make up roughly 90 percent of the 60,000 African migrants currently in Israel. Over the past few years tens of thousands of migrants fleeing forced conscription and slave labor in Eritrea and civil war in Sudan have made the trek of hundreds of kilometers to Israel on foot, crossing the Egyptian border.
Upon their arrival in Israel, many have been detained and placed in prison for infiltrating the border, before being released to fend for themselves.
Israel does not automatically recognize the asylum claims of African migrants and does not generally grant them refugee status. Instead, it grants them a temporary release permit from prison, which allows them to remain in the country.
The international Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to which Israel is signatory stipulates that asylum seekers cannot be sent to countries where they risk persecution.
Human rights organizations appealed the legality of a new law that would allow the state to incarcerate migrants for up to three years.
The Foreign Ministry declined official comment on the matter Sunday, and Gensin’s claims have been met with a good deal of skepticism. Ministry sources told Israel Radio that they were unaware which country the deal had been struck with.
Hotline for Migrant Workers head Reut Michaeli reacted to the statement by saying the government was “telling the court fables,” according to Israel Radio.
Emmanuel Yamani, an Eritrean migrant who’s lived in Israel for five years, told Channel 2 that the migrant community is fearful of the prospect of deportation to Africa.
“As I see it, there’s no difference between shipping me off to my country or to any other African country. Some African countries have dictatorships and there too my life would be in danger,” Yamani said in response to the state attorney’s statement.
Last year Israel oversaw the transfer of several hundred asylum seekers from South Sudan back to their home county after it declared independence in July 2011.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday praised his government’s efforts to curb illegal immigration to Israel following the publication of statistics indicating that the number of migrants was dropping.
“The fence we built in the south achieves the result for which it was erected,” he said in a statement. “As opposed to more than 2,000 illegal migrants that entered Israel [per month] a year ago today… [in May] only two crossed the border, and they were arrested.
“Now we need to focus on repatriating illegal migrants found here, and this task we will also accomplish,” Netanyahu said.
Construction of the formidable 230-kilometer-long (140 miles) fence along the Egyptian border was completed in January.
SOURCE
Giving Illegals Access to Welfare ‘An Assault on the U.S. Taxpayer’
The Senate immigration legislation that includes access to federal entitlement programs for illegal aliens after a waiting period is a "travesty" and "an assault on the U.S. taxpayer," Robert Rector, senior research fellow on domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, said an event on Wednesday at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
CNSNews.com asked Rector and other panelists at the discussion about past U.S. immigration policy when immigrants coming into the country were required to show that they could earn a livelihood and would not become a ward of the state.
Rector said in the current welfare state, no one is considered a "public charge" but rather a person in need of government assistance.
"The difference is at the time of Ellis Island we didn't have a $2 trillion redistributive state," Rector said, adding that the government spends almost a trillion dollars a year helping poor people with 80 different federal assistance programs.
Giving 11 million illegal aliens access to government entitlements is wrong, Rector said.
"We can barely afford to do that for U.S.-born citizens and for legal immigrants," he said. "But to try to apply this massive system of redistribution to people whose only claim to U.S. taxpayer resources is that they came here and broke the law, I think that's a travesty, and I think it's an assault on the U.S. taxpayer that's unmerited."
SOURCE
Israel claims unnamed African country will take in illegal Eritreans
Israel and an unspecified African country reportedly reached an agreement to deport illegal Eritrean migrants to its territory, and Israel is also ironing out a deal with two other countries to act as a way station for deported north Sudanese migrants, a state lawyer told the High Court on Sunday.
Speaking during proceedings in an appeals case against the incarceration of illegal immigrants, state attorney Yochi Gensin said that Jerusalem struck a deal with an unnamed state that would take in Eritrean asylum seekers who entered Israel illegally. Another deal with two other countries, also unnamed, would ensure the deportation of illegal Sudanese immigrants from Israel, she claimed.
Eritrean and Sudanese nationals make up roughly 90 percent of the 60,000 African migrants currently in Israel. Over the past few years tens of thousands of migrants fleeing forced conscription and slave labor in Eritrea and civil war in Sudan have made the trek of hundreds of kilometers to Israel on foot, crossing the Egyptian border.
Upon their arrival in Israel, many have been detained and placed in prison for infiltrating the border, before being released to fend for themselves.
Israel does not automatically recognize the asylum claims of African migrants and does not generally grant them refugee status. Instead, it grants them a temporary release permit from prison, which allows them to remain in the country.
The international Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to which Israel is signatory stipulates that asylum seekers cannot be sent to countries where they risk persecution.
Human rights organizations appealed the legality of a new law that would allow the state to incarcerate migrants for up to three years.
The Foreign Ministry declined official comment on the matter Sunday, and Gensin’s claims have been met with a good deal of skepticism. Ministry sources told Israel Radio that they were unaware which country the deal had been struck with.
Hotline for Migrant Workers head Reut Michaeli reacted to the statement by saying the government was “telling the court fables,” according to Israel Radio.
Emmanuel Yamani, an Eritrean migrant who’s lived in Israel for five years, told Channel 2 that the migrant community is fearful of the prospect of deportation to Africa.
“As I see it, there’s no difference between shipping me off to my country or to any other African country. Some African countries have dictatorships and there too my life would be in danger,” Yamani said in response to the state attorney’s statement.
Last year Israel oversaw the transfer of several hundred asylum seekers from South Sudan back to their home county after it declared independence in July 2011.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday praised his government’s efforts to curb illegal immigration to Israel following the publication of statistics indicating that the number of migrants was dropping.
“The fence we built in the south achieves the result for which it was erected,” he said in a statement. “As opposed to more than 2,000 illegal migrants that entered Israel [per month] a year ago today… [in May] only two crossed the border, and they were arrested.
“Now we need to focus on repatriating illegal migrants found here, and this task we will also accomplish,” Netanyahu said.
Construction of the formidable 230-kilometer-long (140 miles) fence along the Egyptian border was completed in January.
SOURCE
Giving Illegals Access to Welfare ‘An Assault on the U.S. Taxpayer’
The Senate immigration legislation that includes access to federal entitlement programs for illegal aliens after a waiting period is a "travesty" and "an assault on the U.S. taxpayer," Robert Rector, senior research fellow on domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, said an event on Wednesday at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
CNSNews.com asked Rector and other panelists at the discussion about past U.S. immigration policy when immigrants coming into the country were required to show that they could earn a livelihood and would not become a ward of the state.
Rector said in the current welfare state, no one is considered a "public charge" but rather a person in need of government assistance.
"The difference is at the time of Ellis Island we didn't have a $2 trillion redistributive state," Rector said, adding that the government spends almost a trillion dollars a year helping poor people with 80 different federal assistance programs.
Giving 11 million illegal aliens access to government entitlements is wrong, Rector said.
"We can barely afford to do that for U.S.-born citizens and for legal immigrants," he said. "But to try to apply this massive system of redistribution to people whose only claim to U.S. taxpayer resources is that they came here and broke the law, I think that's a travesty, and I think it's an assault on the U.S. taxpayer that's unmerited."
SOURCE
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
AZ: Effort to recall Arpaio fails
Despite a recent court ruling that the department run by Maricopa County’s top cop used racial profiling in his quest to crack down on illegal immigration, a recall effort against Sheriff Joe Arpaio has failed.
On Thursday, members of Respect Arizona and Citizens for a Better Arizona -- who launched the recall effort against Arpaio -- failed to gather the necessary 335,000 valid voter signatures by the 5 p.m. deadline. The aim was to force a recall election.
Activists behind the recall effort would not say how many signatures they were short. Randy Parraz, president of Citizens for Better Arizona, only said the two groups had collected close to 300,000 signatures.
Arpaio, reelected in November, blasted the group in a prepared statement.
“After months of name calling, after the disparaging effigies and theatrics … this latest recall effort has failed,” Arpaio said. "This effort failed because the good people of Maricopa County, whom I'm honored to serve, rejected the wrongheaded idea of overturning an election."
The groups had struggled to raise funds necessary to hire paid signature gatherers — key to these sort of efforts. Instead, the groups relied heavily on volunteers to gather signatures against the six-term sheriff who is something of an institution in Arizona’s largest county.
Parraz, who led a successful recall against state Senate President Russell Pearce two years ago, said Thursday’s setback wouldn’t stop Arpaio's critics. “This fight is not over,” Parraz said.
The groups gained momentum after a federal judge ruled Friday that the immigration enforcement policies employed by Arpaio violated the Constitution.
Judge Judge G. Murray Snow found that Arpaio's deputies used racial profiling when they detained people they suspected of residing in the country illegally.
The 142-page ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought on behalf of Latino plaintiffs who accused the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office of using race as a major factor in initiating immigration enforcement stops.
Arpaio has promised to appeal the ruling.
SOURCE
Migrants to Britain will have to wait six months before they can claim benefits: IDS plan puts him on collision course with Brussels
Immigrants will be banned from claiming benefits in Britain until they have been here for six months, under plans being developed by Iain Duncan Smith.
The Work and Pensions Secretary wants to make the current welfare rules even tougher – even though the Government is being taken to court by the European Commission over its existing restrictions.
Brussels claims that the ‘right to residency’ test on new arrivals from the EU, designed to prevent welfare tourists claiming benefits on arrival, are discriminatory. However, officials from the Department for Work and Pensions have told the Daily Mail that Mr Duncan Smith will defy the EC and make the system even stricter.
Mr Duncan Smith said he wants to ensure that no one who spends less than six months in Britain can access welfare, in a bid to prevent taxpayers’ money being ‘squandered’.
Immigrants will be grilled about how long they have been in Britain – and asked to explain how they have spent their time – if they want hand-outs.
The ‘six-month’ system will be drawn up after the DWP implements current plans to demand more evidence of residency rights from EU migrants before they can claim benefits.
The changes, which will be interpreted as a declaration of war against the European Commission, will mean new migrants will be asked to go even further to prove that they have a permanent address.
Would-be claimants will have to provide details of their mortgage or the length of their rental lease in order to secure eligibility.
Mr Duncan Smith ordered for these plans to be fast-tracked after the EC launched its legal fight at the European Court of Justice.
A friend of Mr Duncan Smith said: ‘Of all the people in the Cabinet, they’ve picked a fight with the wrong person.’
Mr Duncan Smith told the Mail: ‘I won’t be deterred. I will continue to press on with reforms of the measures we currently have in place, not only to enforce the “right to residency” test we have now but also to strengthen the test. I’m determined to ensure that taxpayers’ money in this country is not squandered on benefits tourism.’
A senior DWP source added: ‘After that, Iain wants to look at ways of making sure that people have been in the country for at least six months before they can claim benefits.
‘We’ll want to know what people have been doing for that six months. That’s the next step.’
A similar crackdown was floated by the Prime Minister in March.
In a speech, David Cameron said Europeans would have to be ‘genuinely seeking employment’ in order to claim jobless benefits for more than six months. Mr Cameron said this would be one of several measures to ensure people came to Britain ‘for the right reasons’ after it became a ‘soft touch’ under Labour.
Mr Duncan Smith’s decision to pursue more benefits restrictions will further strain tensions between the UK and the European Union.
The Government expects its current legal battle to reach its conclusion in March 2015 – two months before the next general election.
The minister’s proposals have emerged as Ed Miliband prepares to unveil new Labour policies on benefits on Thursday.
how would the system change
The first clues about the Opposition’s moves will come today, when the left-of-centre Demos think-tank unveils its blueprint for a two-tier welfare system.
Under its proposals, those who have worked and paid sufficient National Insurance contributions would receive £95 a week as a jobseeker’s allowance – a higher rate than the standard £71.70, which would be given to those who have not paid in.
The think-tank’s motive is to stress the importance of contributing to the welfare system, and dilute public anger at the something-for-nothing culture.
Demos says the plan could be paid for by reducing the amount spent on the Support for Mortgage Interest scheme, which currently covers the interest on up to £200,000 of loans or mortgages for homeowners who are out of work.
Senior sources say the Opposition’s frontbenchers have encouraged Demos to draw up the plans, with a view to including them in Labour’s next manifesto.
Labour peer and policy guru Maurice Glasman said: ‘I welcome this work from Demos and hope the Labour party looks closely at the idea.
‘There needs to be a much stronger relationship between what people put in and take out of the welfare system.
‘A two-tier system, with higher entitlements for contributors, is definitely the way to go.’
SOURCE
AZ: Effort to recall Arpaio fails
Despite a recent court ruling that the department run by Maricopa County’s top cop used racial profiling in his quest to crack down on illegal immigration, a recall effort against Sheriff Joe Arpaio has failed.
On Thursday, members of Respect Arizona and Citizens for a Better Arizona -- who launched the recall effort against Arpaio -- failed to gather the necessary 335,000 valid voter signatures by the 5 p.m. deadline. The aim was to force a recall election.
Activists behind the recall effort would not say how many signatures they were short. Randy Parraz, president of Citizens for Better Arizona, only said the two groups had collected close to 300,000 signatures.
Arpaio, reelected in November, blasted the group in a prepared statement.
“After months of name calling, after the disparaging effigies and theatrics … this latest recall effort has failed,” Arpaio said. "This effort failed because the good people of Maricopa County, whom I'm honored to serve, rejected the wrongheaded idea of overturning an election."
The groups had struggled to raise funds necessary to hire paid signature gatherers — key to these sort of efforts. Instead, the groups relied heavily on volunteers to gather signatures against the six-term sheriff who is something of an institution in Arizona’s largest county.
Parraz, who led a successful recall against state Senate President Russell Pearce two years ago, said Thursday’s setback wouldn’t stop Arpaio's critics. “This fight is not over,” Parraz said.
The groups gained momentum after a federal judge ruled Friday that the immigration enforcement policies employed by Arpaio violated the Constitution.
Judge Judge G. Murray Snow found that Arpaio's deputies used racial profiling when they detained people they suspected of residing in the country illegally.
The 142-page ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought on behalf of Latino plaintiffs who accused the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office of using race as a major factor in initiating immigration enforcement stops.
Arpaio has promised to appeal the ruling.
SOURCE
Migrants to Britain will have to wait six months before they can claim benefits: IDS plan puts him on collision course with Brussels
Immigrants will be banned from claiming benefits in Britain until they have been here for six months, under plans being developed by Iain Duncan Smith.
The Work and Pensions Secretary wants to make the current welfare rules even tougher – even though the Government is being taken to court by the European Commission over its existing restrictions.
Brussels claims that the ‘right to residency’ test on new arrivals from the EU, designed to prevent welfare tourists claiming benefits on arrival, are discriminatory. However, officials from the Department for Work and Pensions have told the Daily Mail that Mr Duncan Smith will defy the EC and make the system even stricter.
Mr Duncan Smith said he wants to ensure that no one who spends less than six months in Britain can access welfare, in a bid to prevent taxpayers’ money being ‘squandered’.
Immigrants will be grilled about how long they have been in Britain – and asked to explain how they have spent their time – if they want hand-outs.
The ‘six-month’ system will be drawn up after the DWP implements current plans to demand more evidence of residency rights from EU migrants before they can claim benefits.
The changes, which will be interpreted as a declaration of war against the European Commission, will mean new migrants will be asked to go even further to prove that they have a permanent address.
Would-be claimants will have to provide details of their mortgage or the length of their rental lease in order to secure eligibility.
Mr Duncan Smith ordered for these plans to be fast-tracked after the EC launched its legal fight at the European Court of Justice.
A friend of Mr Duncan Smith said: ‘Of all the people in the Cabinet, they’ve picked a fight with the wrong person.’
Mr Duncan Smith told the Mail: ‘I won’t be deterred. I will continue to press on with reforms of the measures we currently have in place, not only to enforce the “right to residency” test we have now but also to strengthen the test. I’m determined to ensure that taxpayers’ money in this country is not squandered on benefits tourism.’
A senior DWP source added: ‘After that, Iain wants to look at ways of making sure that people have been in the country for at least six months before they can claim benefits.
‘We’ll want to know what people have been doing for that six months. That’s the next step.’
A similar crackdown was floated by the Prime Minister in March.
In a speech, David Cameron said Europeans would have to be ‘genuinely seeking employment’ in order to claim jobless benefits for more than six months. Mr Cameron said this would be one of several measures to ensure people came to Britain ‘for the right reasons’ after it became a ‘soft touch’ under Labour.
Mr Duncan Smith’s decision to pursue more benefits restrictions will further strain tensions between the UK and the European Union.
The Government expects its current legal battle to reach its conclusion in March 2015 – two months before the next general election.
The minister’s proposals have emerged as Ed Miliband prepares to unveil new Labour policies on benefits on Thursday.
how would the system change
The first clues about the Opposition’s moves will come today, when the left-of-centre Demos think-tank unveils its blueprint for a two-tier welfare system.
Under its proposals, those who have worked and paid sufficient National Insurance contributions would receive £95 a week as a jobseeker’s allowance – a higher rate than the standard £71.70, which would be given to those who have not paid in.
The think-tank’s motive is to stress the importance of contributing to the welfare system, and dilute public anger at the something-for-nothing culture.
Demos says the plan could be paid for by reducing the amount spent on the Support for Mortgage Interest scheme, which currently covers the interest on up to £200,000 of loans or mortgages for homeowners who are out of work.
Senior sources say the Opposition’s frontbenchers have encouraged Demos to draw up the plans, with a view to including them in Labour’s next manifesto.
Labour peer and policy guru Maurice Glasman said: ‘I welcome this work from Demos and hope the Labour party looks closely at the idea.
‘There needs to be a much stronger relationship between what people put in and take out of the welfare system.
‘A two-tier system, with higher entitlements for contributors, is definitely the way to go.’
SOURCE
Monday, June 3, 2013
Lower Turnout for Hispanics, Whites in 2012 Election
Report finds 4.2 million less-educated whites stayed home in 2012
The Center for Immigration Studies has used newly-released Census data to examine the 2012 presidential election. The new data show that both white and Hispanic turnout was down. Numerically, the big decline was among whites, with 4.7 million staying home on Election Day compared to 2004 – 4.2 million of whom lacked a college education.
“As Republicans think about how they can expand their voter base, the new data suggest that one of their biggest problems in the last presidential election was that so many less-educated whites sat home," said Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research and author of the report. "These voters, who have been hard hit by the recession, have traditionally supported Republicans. It seems likely that by supporting the Schumer-Rubio amnesty, GOP legislators would further alienate these voters.”
More details can be found at: http://cis.org/Census-Bureau-November-2012-Supplement
Among the findings:
Overall, 61.8 percent of eligible voters turned out in 2012, down from 63.6 percent in 2008 and 63.8 percent in 2004.
Prior to the election there was speculation that Hispanics would be particularly motivated to turn out to vote in 2012. However, this proved not to be the case. Only 48.0 percent of eligible Hispanics voted, down from 49.9 percent in 2008. The 2012 turnout was similar to 2004, when 47.2 percent voted.
Hispanics were 8.4 percent of voters (11.2 million), close to the 8.9 percent the Center for Immigration Studies projected prior to the November election. If Hispanic turnout had been what it was in 2008, 450,000 more Hispanics would have voted.
Whites were also less engaged in the election, with a 64.1 percent turnout among eligible voters, down from 66.1 percent in 2008 and 67.2 percent in 2004. (There is a break in the continuity of data by race, so elections prior to 2004 are not directly comparable to more recent presidential elections.)
If white turnout had been what it was in 2004, 4.7 million more of them would have voted. Of the 4.7 million whites who sat home on Election Day relative to 2004, 4.2 million did not have a bachelor's degree.
The president received five million more votes than Governor Romney. What would have it taken for Romney to have won at least a plurality of the popular vote?
If Romney had increased his share of the women's vote by four percentage points, from the 44 percent he actually received to 48 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the female vote equaled 714,000 votes.
If Romney had increased his share of the black vote by 15 percentage points, from the 6 percent he actually received to 21 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the black vote equaled 172,000 votes.
If Romney had increased his share of the Hispanic vote by 23 percentage points, from the 27 percent he actually received to 50 percent, then he have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the Hispanic vote equaled 112,000 votes.
If Romney had increased his share of the white vote by three percentage points, from the 59 percent he actually received to 62 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the white vote equaled 980,000 votes.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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 Govt to crack down on LEGAL immigrants
But for illegals it's "come one, come all"
JULIA Gillard will reignite the foreign workers controversy with plans to introduce cash fines for bosses who fail to offer jobs to Australian workers first.
Warning that a "tick-a-box" approach currently applies to companies claiming they face local labour shortages without even advertising jobs, unions are pushing the Prime Minister to act before the September election.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal cabinet will tomorrow night debate the measures, which include financial penalties for employers who lie or mislead authorities about labour shortages to import workers on 457 visas.
The 457 visa is the most commonly used program for employers to sponsor skilled overseas workers to work in Australia temporarily with a little more than 100,000 workers currently in Australia under the visa class.
The number of 457 visa classes has jumped 20 per cent in the last year.
Currently, bosses must claim there is a labour shortage to secure a foreign worker but do not have to prove it.
"Why do they like 457 visas if they have local labour available? Because they can deport these workers in a month," a senior government source claimed.
"It makes WorkChoices look like a picnic."
Senior government sources also said the Department of Immigration was reviewing "serious" allegations over exploitation of some low-skilled workers, suggesting there was a "fine line" between the abuse of 457s and labour trafficking.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the Coalition was open to "common sense" reforms to the scheme but accused Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor of grossly exaggerating the numbers of workers being exploited.
"Our real fear is they are using this as a Trojan horse to introduce industrial inspectors," Mr Morrison said.
"There's no doubt that immigration policy is being driven by the union movement and union donors to the Labor Party."
The crackdown follows a push by big union donors to the Labor Party to lock in the changes before the September 14 election.
But the 457 debate has sparked bitter divisions within the Gillard government ranks, with accusations the Prime Minister was "dog-whistling" to racists.
Last month, former Labor leader Simon Crean said the debate over 457 visas was a good policy with bad rhetoric. "She's gone the class warfare," Mr Crean said.
"The 457 visa debate was a good example of the message being taken out of context - because it looked like 'we'll put Australians before foreigners'. Unequivocally, immigration has been good for this country."
Mr O'Connor sparked controversy earlier this year when he suggested the number of 457 visa rorts to be in excess of 10,000.
"I can assure you we will be looking to legislate," he said at the time. "There will be some parts that might be reformed through regulation."
Mr O'Connor has previously pledged to allow the Fair Work Ombudsman's inspectors to check businesses were complying with the scheme's guidelines.
SOURCE
Lower Turnout for Hispanics, Whites in 2012 Election
Report finds 4.2 million less-educated whites stayed home in 2012
The Center for Immigration Studies has used newly-released Census data to examine the 2012 presidential election. The new data show that both white and Hispanic turnout was down. Numerically, the big decline was among whites, with 4.7 million staying home on Election Day compared to 2004 – 4.2 million of whom lacked a college education.
“As Republicans think about how they can expand their voter base, the new data suggest that one of their biggest problems in the last presidential election was that so many less-educated whites sat home," said Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research and author of the report. "These voters, who have been hard hit by the recession, have traditionally supported Republicans. It seems likely that by supporting the Schumer-Rubio amnesty, GOP legislators would further alienate these voters.”
More details can be found at: http://cis.org/Census-Bureau-November-2012-Supplement
Among the findings:
Overall, 61.8 percent of eligible voters turned out in 2012, down from 63.6 percent in 2008 and 63.8 percent in 2004.
Prior to the election there was speculation that Hispanics would be particularly motivated to turn out to vote in 2012. However, this proved not to be the case. Only 48.0 percent of eligible Hispanics voted, down from 49.9 percent in 2008. The 2012 turnout was similar to 2004, when 47.2 percent voted.
Hispanics were 8.4 percent of voters (11.2 million), close to the 8.9 percent the Center for Immigration Studies projected prior to the November election. If Hispanic turnout had been what it was in 2008, 450,000 more Hispanics would have voted.
Whites were also less engaged in the election, with a 64.1 percent turnout among eligible voters, down from 66.1 percent in 2008 and 67.2 percent in 2004. (There is a break in the continuity of data by race, so elections prior to 2004 are not directly comparable to more recent presidential elections.)
If white turnout had been what it was in 2004, 4.7 million more of them would have voted. Of the 4.7 million whites who sat home on Election Day relative to 2004, 4.2 million did not have a bachelor's degree.
The president received five million more votes than Governor Romney. What would have it taken for Romney to have won at least a plurality of the popular vote?
If Romney had increased his share of the women's vote by four percentage points, from the 44 percent he actually received to 48 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the female vote equaled 714,000 votes.
If Romney had increased his share of the black vote by 15 percentage points, from the 6 percent he actually received to 21 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the black vote equaled 172,000 votes.
If Romney had increased his share of the Hispanic vote by 23 percentage points, from the 27 percent he actually received to 50 percent, then he have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the Hispanic vote equaled 112,000 votes.
If Romney had increased his share of the white vote by three percentage points, from the 59 percent he actually received to 62 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the white vote equaled 980,000 votes.
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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 Govt to crack down on LEGAL immigrants
But for illegals it's "come one, come all"
JULIA Gillard will reignite the foreign workers controversy with plans to introduce cash fines for bosses who fail to offer jobs to Australian workers first.
Warning that a "tick-a-box" approach currently applies to companies claiming they face local labour shortages without even advertising jobs, unions are pushing the Prime Minister to act before the September election.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal cabinet will tomorrow night debate the measures, which include financial penalties for employers who lie or mislead authorities about labour shortages to import workers on 457 visas.
The 457 visa is the most commonly used program for employers to sponsor skilled overseas workers to work in Australia temporarily with a little more than 100,000 workers currently in Australia under the visa class.
The number of 457 visa classes has jumped 20 per cent in the last year.
Currently, bosses must claim there is a labour shortage to secure a foreign worker but do not have to prove it.
"Why do they like 457 visas if they have local labour available? Because they can deport these workers in a month," a senior government source claimed.
"It makes WorkChoices look like a picnic."
Senior government sources also said the Department of Immigration was reviewing "serious" allegations over exploitation of some low-skilled workers, suggesting there was a "fine line" between the abuse of 457s and labour trafficking.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the Coalition was open to "common sense" reforms to the scheme but accused Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor of grossly exaggerating the numbers of workers being exploited.
"Our real fear is they are using this as a Trojan horse to introduce industrial inspectors," Mr Morrison said.
"There's no doubt that immigration policy is being driven by the union movement and union donors to the Labor Party."
The crackdown follows a push by big union donors to the Labor Party to lock in the changes before the September 14 election.
But the 457 debate has sparked bitter divisions within the Gillard government ranks, with accusations the Prime Minister was "dog-whistling" to racists.
Last month, former Labor leader Simon Crean said the debate over 457 visas was a good policy with bad rhetoric. "She's gone the class warfare," Mr Crean said.
"The 457 visa debate was a good example of the message being taken out of context - because it looked like 'we'll put Australians before foreigners'. Unequivocally, immigration has been good for this country."
Mr O'Connor sparked controversy earlier this year when he suggested the number of 457 visa rorts to be in excess of 10,000.
"I can assure you we will be looking to legislate," he said at the time. "There will be some parts that might be reformed through regulation."
Mr O'Connor has previously pledged to allow the Fair Work Ombudsman's inspectors to check businesses were complying with the scheme's guidelines.
SOURCE
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Send us your violent bigots ... yearning to butcher our citizens
by Ann Coulter
It’s been a bad few weeks for cultural assimilation. Last month, two welfare-receiving immigrants in the United States, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring hundreds. By the end of the week, they had murdered a cop and engaged in a wild shoot-out and bomb-throwing melee with the police.
Last week, a couple of ethnic Nigerians butchered a British soldier with meat cleavers in broad daylight on a bustling street in a London suburb, then boasted about the murder in video interviews with bystanders. (On the bright side, they did not claim to be princes and ask for your life savings.)
Also last week, immigrants, mostly Muslims, began rioting in peaceful Sweden — burning schools to the ground, torching cars and throwing rocks at the police. (Who among us hasn’t lost his temper trying to assemble an Ikea china cabinet?)
Supporters of the West’s current immigration policies can’t keep ducking reality. So they try to shut down debate by calling their opponents racists, xenophobes, know-nothings and fascists.
The English Defense League (EDL), for example, is portrayed in the media as a bunch of racist football hooligans. So I was surprised to learn that the EDL has not only a Jewish division, but a gay division. (Harvey Fierstein could be their president!) They expressly support Israel against Muslim terror and burn Nazi flags at their rallies.
Apparently it is considered “fascist” to oppose actual fascists immigrating to your country.
A few years ago, an opinion piece in The New York Times denounced the pro-gay positions of anti-immigration groups such as the EDL for “co-opting” gays. The co-opting is so thoroughgoing that the anti-immigration Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was himself gay. He was assassinated by a vegan animal rights activist upset at criticism of Muslims.
But surely members of the EDL oppose Britain’s immigration policies out of ignorance?
It briefly seemed so. A month ago, the head of the EDL, Tommy Robinson, provoked a round of liberal sneering when he tweeted: “welcome to twitter homepage has a picture of a mosque. what a joke.” Various media outlets leapt to point out that the photo was, actually, the Taj Mahal.
The liberal Guardian mocked: “It’s worth pointing out that the ‘mosque’ that started this ... was in fact the Taj Mahal, the marble mausoleum in India. It’s almost as if the very existence of the EDL is based on false information, suspicion and idiocy.”
Except — oops — it wasn’t the Taj Mahal. It was a mosque — the Grand Mosque in Muscat, Oman, to be precise — as The Guardian quietly admitted in an altered photo caption after stealthily removing the comment about the EDL’s “idiocy” for imagining it was a mosque. It’s almost as if the very existence of The Guardian is based on false information, suspicion and idiocy.
Britain, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain have recently enacted, or are considering enacting, further restrictions on immigration, alarming immigration enthusiasts. The New York Times reported this week that the “right-wing Swiss People’s Party” is requesting a referendum on immigration.
Wait a second! A referendum doesn’t sound fascist at all. In fact and to the contrary, it’s always the advocates of unrestricted immigration who try to avoid letting the people vote. Marco Rubio and the rest of the pro-amnesty “Gang of Eight” don’t even want the country to know they’re about to vote on a mass immigration scheme.
Liberals say, “Basic human rights are not subject to a vote!” — and then define “basic human rights” as “the right of people who don’t live in your country to move there.”
Manifestly, opponents of open immigration are not fascists, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, intolerant or idiots. But as long as we’re on the subject, may we inquire into the tolerance and other Western values of the potential immigrants themselves?
Last week, U.S. law enforcement officials reported that Muslim immigrant Ibragim Todashev admitted that he and Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev had murdered three Jewish men in a Boston suburb on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack. (Which also, I believe, was the work of immigrants.) The victims’ throats were cut from ear to ear, nearly decapitating them. One was Tamerlan’s best friend.
Searching The New York Times’ webpage for “English Defense League,” turns up this multicultural story out of Saudi Arabia: “Online Campaign Draws Attention to Case of Saudi Father Accused of Rape and Torture.” The father, Fayhan al-Ghamdi, a prominent Islamic cleric, served only a few months in a Saudi Arabian prison for allegedly raping, burning and fatally beating his own 5-year-old daughter.
It’s not just Muslims who aren’t warming to Western values. Polls by the Anti-Defamation League going back decades have shown a steady decline of anti-Semitism in the U.S. But a 2002 poll showed a surprising upsurge.
While 17 percent of all Americans were said to hold “strongly anti-Semitic” views, 35 percent of Hispanics did — as did 44 percent of foreign-born Hispanics.
(Note to Sheldon Adelson: It may be time to give your Hispanic employees a raise.)
Liberals get a kick out of accusing their opponents of what they themselves are guilty of. But this may be the most audacious reverse-guilt play yet. For objecting to the importation of primitive, violent, child-rape-forgiving bigots, the opponents of mass immigration are accused of bigotry.
SOURCE
Revealed: The British charity that uses taxpayer cash to campaign for migrant benefits and protect a foreign rapist
Tacpayer’ money funded a team of lawyers fighting European Court of Human Rights cases on behalf of foreign criminals and illegal immigrants.
The human rights quango the Equality and Human Rights Commission quietly gave nearly £200,000 to a pressure group so it could take controversial human rights cases to the court in Strasbourg.
The group, the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), used the money to fight and win a series of cases and represented among others a Nigerian rapist and two Somali criminals who won the right to stay in Britain.
The cases were picked as part of a policy of ‘strategic litigation’ designed to overturn ministerial decisions and rulings made in British courts, and to extend equality and human rights laws in favour of immigrants and criminals.
The centre – a registered charity – was in the news yesterday as the source of the legal complaint against Britain for restricting access to our benefits system.
It brought test cases arguing for the right of EU immigrants not to have to undergo a residency test before they can claim a host of benefits.
The European Commission has now referred Britain to the EU’s European Court of Justice in Luxembourg over the right to reside test.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith accused the European Commission of a power grab and has vowed to ‘fight every step of the way’ to retain the residency test. But yesterday the Mail revealed that the group was handed around half a million pounds over five years by the Foreign Office.
Now an investigation has revealed further funding, by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Over three years, from April 2009 to April 2012, the AIRE Centre received £185,906.
The money was for a project designed to get around a ban on Government legal aid funding for cases at the European Court of Human Rights. The centre used the money to hire staff and recruit lawyers to bring cases before the court.
One major case it won involved two Somali criminals who won the right to stay in Britain and, crucially, led to a ruling which shackled ministers in their efforts to send home dozens of other Somali criminals living here.
Another involved a Nigerian rapist whose deportation was blocked by Strasbourg because of his right to a ‘private and family life’ under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The centre also lobbied Parliament for prisoners to be given the vote and supported cases involving prisoner voting rights before the Strasbourg court.
In its project application documents to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the AIRE Centre said the project would ‘improve the response to systemic human rights and equality failures that exist in Great Britain by offering a strategic response’. It said: ‘The AIRE Centre targeted litigation... will maximise the impact of the European Court’s jurisprudence in specific areas.’
The money was spent on a team of human rights lawyers together with staff, administrative, training, building, and travel costs, legal and professional fees and a hotline for applicants to register their cases.
The centre’s funding application, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, said it was unable to take on cases even if it considered them ‘viable’. It said: ‘We have only been able to adopt an ad hoc rather than strategic approach to our ECtHR litigation due to our limited resources.’
The charity – set up in 1993 by human rights lawyer Nuala Mole – has also received funding from the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund and Comic Relief.
Tory MP Priti Patel said: ‘It is outrageous that taxpayers’ money is being used and abused in this way. It is particularly outrageous that money is being used to undermine benefit rules when the British public are crying out for benefit reform.’
A spokesman for the equalities commission said: ‘The commission provided funding to support the centre’s work on issues including human trafficking, domestic violence and protecting the human rights of those at risk of torture.’
SOURCE
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
Send us your violent bigots ... yearning to butcher our citizens
by Ann Coulter
It’s been a bad few weeks for cultural assimilation. Last month, two welfare-receiving immigrants in the United States, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring hundreds. By the end of the week, they had murdered a cop and engaged in a wild shoot-out and bomb-throwing melee with the police.
Last week, a couple of ethnic Nigerians butchered a British soldier with meat cleavers in broad daylight on a bustling street in a London suburb, then boasted about the murder in video interviews with bystanders. (On the bright side, they did not claim to be princes and ask for your life savings.)
Also last week, immigrants, mostly Muslims, began rioting in peaceful Sweden — burning schools to the ground, torching cars and throwing rocks at the police. (Who among us hasn’t lost his temper trying to assemble an Ikea china cabinet?)
Supporters of the West’s current immigration policies can’t keep ducking reality. So they try to shut down debate by calling their opponents racists, xenophobes, know-nothings and fascists.
The English Defense League (EDL), for example, is portrayed in the media as a bunch of racist football hooligans. So I was surprised to learn that the EDL has not only a Jewish division, but a gay division. (Harvey Fierstein could be their president!) They expressly support Israel against Muslim terror and burn Nazi flags at their rallies.
Apparently it is considered “fascist” to oppose actual fascists immigrating to your country.
A few years ago, an opinion piece in The New York Times denounced the pro-gay positions of anti-immigration groups such as the EDL for “co-opting” gays. The co-opting is so thoroughgoing that the anti-immigration Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was himself gay. He was assassinated by a vegan animal rights activist upset at criticism of Muslims.
But surely members of the EDL oppose Britain’s immigration policies out of ignorance?
It briefly seemed so. A month ago, the head of the EDL, Tommy Robinson, provoked a round of liberal sneering when he tweeted: “welcome to twitter homepage has a picture of a mosque. what a joke.” Various media outlets leapt to point out that the photo was, actually, the Taj Mahal.
The liberal Guardian mocked: “It’s worth pointing out that the ‘mosque’ that started this ... was in fact the Taj Mahal, the marble mausoleum in India. It’s almost as if the very existence of the EDL is based on false information, suspicion and idiocy.”
Except — oops — it wasn’t the Taj Mahal. It was a mosque — the Grand Mosque in Muscat, Oman, to be precise — as The Guardian quietly admitted in an altered photo caption after stealthily removing the comment about the EDL’s “idiocy” for imagining it was a mosque. It’s almost as if the very existence of The Guardian is based on false information, suspicion and idiocy.
Britain, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain have recently enacted, or are considering enacting, further restrictions on immigration, alarming immigration enthusiasts. The New York Times reported this week that the “right-wing Swiss People’s Party” is requesting a referendum on immigration.
Wait a second! A referendum doesn’t sound fascist at all. In fact and to the contrary, it’s always the advocates of unrestricted immigration who try to avoid letting the people vote. Marco Rubio and the rest of the pro-amnesty “Gang of Eight” don’t even want the country to know they’re about to vote on a mass immigration scheme.
Liberals say, “Basic human rights are not subject to a vote!” — and then define “basic human rights” as “the right of people who don’t live in your country to move there.”
Manifestly, opponents of open immigration are not fascists, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, intolerant or idiots. But as long as we’re on the subject, may we inquire into the tolerance and other Western values of the potential immigrants themselves?
Last week, U.S. law enforcement officials reported that Muslim immigrant Ibragim Todashev admitted that he and Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev had murdered three Jewish men in a Boston suburb on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attack. (Which also, I believe, was the work of immigrants.) The victims’ throats were cut from ear to ear, nearly decapitating them. One was Tamerlan’s best friend.
Searching The New York Times’ webpage for “English Defense League,” turns up this multicultural story out of Saudi Arabia: “Online Campaign Draws Attention to Case of Saudi Father Accused of Rape and Torture.” The father, Fayhan al-Ghamdi, a prominent Islamic cleric, served only a few months in a Saudi Arabian prison for allegedly raping, burning and fatally beating his own 5-year-old daughter.
It’s not just Muslims who aren’t warming to Western values. Polls by the Anti-Defamation League going back decades have shown a steady decline of anti-Semitism in the U.S. But a 2002 poll showed a surprising upsurge.
While 17 percent of all Americans were said to hold “strongly anti-Semitic” views, 35 percent of Hispanics did — as did 44 percent of foreign-born Hispanics.
(Note to Sheldon Adelson: It may be time to give your Hispanic employees a raise.)
Liberals get a kick out of accusing their opponents of what they themselves are guilty of. But this may be the most audacious reverse-guilt play yet. For objecting to the importation of primitive, violent, child-rape-forgiving bigots, the opponents of mass immigration are accused of bigotry.
SOURCE
Revealed: The British charity that uses taxpayer cash to campaign for migrant benefits and protect a foreign rapist
Tacpayer’ money funded a team of lawyers fighting European Court of Human Rights cases on behalf of foreign criminals and illegal immigrants.
The human rights quango the Equality and Human Rights Commission quietly gave nearly £200,000 to a pressure group so it could take controversial human rights cases to the court in Strasbourg.
The group, the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), used the money to fight and win a series of cases and represented among others a Nigerian rapist and two Somali criminals who won the right to stay in Britain.
The cases were picked as part of a policy of ‘strategic litigation’ designed to overturn ministerial decisions and rulings made in British courts, and to extend equality and human rights laws in favour of immigrants and criminals.
The centre – a registered charity – was in the news yesterday as the source of the legal complaint against Britain for restricting access to our benefits system.
It brought test cases arguing for the right of EU immigrants not to have to undergo a residency test before they can claim a host of benefits.
The European Commission has now referred Britain to the EU’s European Court of Justice in Luxembourg over the right to reside test.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith accused the European Commission of a power grab and has vowed to ‘fight every step of the way’ to retain the residency test. But yesterday the Mail revealed that the group was handed around half a million pounds over five years by the Foreign Office.
Now an investigation has revealed further funding, by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Over three years, from April 2009 to April 2012, the AIRE Centre received £185,906.
The money was for a project designed to get around a ban on Government legal aid funding for cases at the European Court of Human Rights. The centre used the money to hire staff and recruit lawyers to bring cases before the court.
One major case it won involved two Somali criminals who won the right to stay in Britain and, crucially, led to a ruling which shackled ministers in their efforts to send home dozens of other Somali criminals living here.
Another involved a Nigerian rapist whose deportation was blocked by Strasbourg because of his right to a ‘private and family life’ under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The centre also lobbied Parliament for prisoners to be given the vote and supported cases involving prisoner voting rights before the Strasbourg court.
In its project application documents to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the AIRE Centre said the project would ‘improve the response to systemic human rights and equality failures that exist in Great Britain by offering a strategic response’. It said: ‘The AIRE Centre targeted litigation... will maximise the impact of the European Court’s jurisprudence in specific areas.’
The money was spent on a team of human rights lawyers together with staff, administrative, training, building, and travel costs, legal and professional fees and a hotline for applicants to register their cases.
The centre’s funding application, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, said it was unable to take on cases even if it considered them ‘viable’. It said: ‘We have only been able to adopt an ad hoc rather than strategic approach to our ECtHR litigation due to our limited resources.’
The charity – set up in 1993 by human rights lawyer Nuala Mole – has also received funding from the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund and Comic Relief.
Tory MP Priti Patel said: ‘It is outrageous that taxpayers’ money is being used and abused in this way. It is particularly outrageous that money is being used to undermine benefit rules when the British public are crying out for benefit reform.’
A spokesman for the equalities commission said: ‘The commission provided funding to support the centre’s work on issues including human trafficking, domestic violence and protecting the human rights of those at risk of torture.’
SOURCE
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.