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

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



30 November, 2011

Senators to Obama, DHS: Stop Ignoring Illegal Alien Sanctuaries

With a Justice Department fiercely focusing on taking legal action against state laws that help to combat illegal aliens and crimes they commit, a group of U.S. Senators is asking the Obama Administration to stop ignoring local ordinances that undermine federal laws by offering undocumented aliens sanctuary.

Two cities were recently added to the growing list of so-called sanctuary cities that protect illegal -- even criminal -- aliens from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents: Washington, D.C., and New York City.

The fact that the President of the United States lives in a location officially designated a sanctuary from the President's own administration has reached the level of absurdity, according to former police commander and homeland security specialist Sid Franes.

"Doesn't anyone in the mainstream media see the anti-American, pro-Mexican leanings of the current White House occupants? There should be moral outrage that federal agencies that deal with illegal aliens don't have authority to enforce federal immigration laws, thanks to Mayor Gray's executive order," Franes noted.

In battling local immigration control measures nationwide, the Obama Department of Justice has claimed that they conflict with federal immigration law and undermine the government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives, according to the Judicial Watch news blog.

The Obama Administration has made this argument recently in DOJ cases against Arizona and Alabama. South Carolina is already in the sights of Attorney General Eric Holder and Obama, having just passed a state law similar in scope to Arizona's and Alabama's statutes.

But what is the administration doing about local governments that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and blatantly ignore the legal status of arrested individuals? A group of Senate Judiciary Committee members posed the question to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this week.

They specifically mentioned Cook County Illinois where local authorities openly flip the finger at the feds by refusing to report illegal immigrants who come in contact with police, even dangerous criminals. In fact, in 2007 Judicial Watch took legal action against the Chicago Police Department -- which has a don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policy -- after learning of an illegal immigrant sanctuary resolution that was being considered by Cook County’s Board of Commissioners at the time.

In a letter to Napolitano this week, the Judiciary Committee members -- GOP Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa), John Cornyn (Texas), Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) and Jeff Sessions (Alabama) -- cite a recent meeting with a high-ranking Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official who confirmed that Cook County creates a major problem for enforcement efforts. In fact, the ICE associate director of removal operations said Cook County’s egregious example of sanctuary city policies presents “an accident waiting to happen.”

So the senators asked Napolitano: “We would like to know what specific steps have been and will be taken by your Department to compel Cook County to reverse its policy of ignoring immigration detainees. In addition, we would request an overview of meetings held between federal officials and Cook County, including any emails or other documentation that exist, to understand how the federal government has been or is attempting to rectify the situation.”

Napolitano is urged to take a direct role in the matter by the lawmakers who remind the Homeland Security Secretary that Cook County’s ordinance creates a “serious threat to the public’s safety” that requires Napolitano’s “immediate and personal attention.” It’s a matter of national security, the veteran senators asserted.

Americans shouldn’t hold their breath. The Obama Administration is too busy fighting local measures that are viewed as “discriminatory” and “anti-immigrant” by the open borders movement. In fact, the DOJ even created a secret group within the bloated civil rights division to monitor laws passed by states and local municipalities to control illegal immigration, according to the Judicial Watch blogger.

Judicial Watch has been a frontrunner in the nationwide battle to combat illegal immigration and earlier this year filed a motion on behalf of the Arizona State Legislature in the Obama Administration’s lawsuit challenging its tough law.

JW has also sued police departments across the country for practicing don’t-ask-don’t-tell immigration policies and has led an effort to shut down taxpayer-funded day laborer centers.

SOURCE




Perry says will deport all detained illegal immigrants

Rick Perry vowed to deport all illegal immigrants detained in the country if elected president as he sought on Tuesday to burnish his conservative credentials on immigration ahead of the 2012 Republican contest.

The Texas governor has faced criticism from Republican rivals like Mitt Romney for being "soft" on illegal immigrants, because those who live in Texas can attend state universities at the same cost as other Texas residents.

Perry, who made the remarks while campaigning in New Hampshire with a controversial Arizona sheriff, said that if elected he would immediately order the deportation of any illegal immigrant detained in the United States.

"My policy will be to detain and deport every illegal alien who is apprehended in this country," Perry said. "And we'll do it with an expedited hearing process so that millions of illegal aliens are not released into the general population with some hearing date down the road."

Non-violent illegal immigrants who are arrested are currently allowed to stay in the country while awaiting deportation hearings in immigration courts.

Perry was briefly among the front-runners for the Republican primary nomination after entering the race in August, but has been hit by attacks on his immigration views and stumbled in a series of poor debate performances.

Recent polls show Perry running in fourth or fifth place among Republicans nationally, and about sixth in the relatively moderate state of New Hampshire.

But ongoing problems with sexual misconduct accusations against rival Republican Herman Cain could arguably encourage some conservative voters to take a second look at Perry.

Perry's endorsement by Joe Arpaio, who claims to be "America's toughest sheriff," was designed to rebut criticism of his immigration policies.

Arpaio has drawn national attention for creating all-volunteer armed posses to sweep for illegal immigrants in Arizona's Maricopa County and for policies such as making prison inmates wear pink underwear.

The United States has an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, many of them originally from Mexico and Latin America, among a total population of about 308 million people.

"I have been a law and order governor and I intend to be a law and order president," Perry said. "That border with Mexico, it will be secure. It will be shut down within 12 months of me taking the oath of office."

Research by the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that the population of undocumented immigrants has fallen by about 1 million since 2007. The stalled U.S. economy led to a net outflow of undocumented Mexican immigrants last year, according to research from the group.

SOURCE



29 November, 2011

Lax Olympic border checks 'may let in illegal migrants' as well as thousands of athletes

Thousands of foreign athletes will be allowed into Britain without visas for the Olympics, a Daily Mail investigation has revealed. The decision, rubberstamped by Immigration Minister Damian Green, could open the door to illegal migrants, MPs warned.

It is expected to spark renewed controversy over lax border controls and national security.

Documents reveal that border officials plan to conduct 60-second biometric checks on competitors when they arrive at airports next summer. Those turning up at small airfields or marinas without border staff on duty will escape the checks altogether. They will be ‘on trust’ to report to a UK Border Agency (UKBA) office within 48 hours to be photographed and give their fingerprint scans.

This is despite the fact that British sporting events have been blighted in recent years by the disappearance of overseas participants. In 2002, members of the Bangladeshi relay team disappeared during the Commonwealth Games in Manchester before they had run a race, and 21 athletes from Sierra Leone went missing after the Games.

The same year, 58 golfers from Nigeria and Ghana were granted visas to compete in qualifying events at the Open, but 53 vanished as soon as they landed in the UK. Two years ago four Ethiopian athletes fled from their hotel in London.

The little-known deal struck between the Government, the International Olympic Committee and the London Olympic Games organising committee, means the normal visa rules have been abandoned for all 25,000 non-EU competitors, their coaches, and team officials.

It is thought that half the 25,000 due to arrive without visas already have their biometrics lodged with the UKBA after a previous UK visit or visa application. This means their criminal records can be checked against immigration and security databases before they travel.

However, the remaining 12,500 from more than 175 nations – including terrorist hotspots such as Pakistan, Somalia, Iran and Afghanistan – will arrive carrying only photo-identity accreditation cards issued by the Olympic authorities and their national passports.

Labour MP Mark Hendrick, a critic of Olympic security, described the decision to waive the UK visa as ‘madness’. He is expected to demand an emergency Parliamentary debate on the issue. He said: ‘At a time when heightened security regarding terrorism is needed, the Government is lowering the barriers.’

Alp Mehmet, an advisory council member of MigrationWatch UK and former immigration officer, expressed concern about the lack of checks on athletes, coaches and officials returning home after the Olympics.

He said: ‘History tells us that there will be those who abscond and never leave. But how will we know who they are, or the numbers, if the athletes are not checked out?’

A Home Office spokesman said that the visa-free rules do not allow anyone to settle in the UK and added: ‘They are specifically for the purpose of taking part in the Games.’

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Why USCIS Should Not ‘Streamline’ the Immigrant Investor Program (Testimony)

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

3. GAO Report: Illegal Aliens Start Forest Fires (Blog)

4. We Have the Facts, But They Have Both the Poetry and the Magazine Covers (Blog)

5. Newt Morphing into Bush and Teddy Kennedy on Amnesty (Blog)

6. The Gingrich Amnesty (Blog)

7. Chain Migration, the TPS Way (Blog)

8. Stapling Green Cards to Diplomas, and Other Foolish Ideas You Might Have Missed in the GOP Debate (Blog)

9. GAO Finds Illegals Are Often Fire Starters (Blog)

10. Murders Twice Linked to Immigration Marriage Fraud in D.C. Area (Blog)

11. U.S. = Stupid Cupid, U.K. = Scrooge Regarding Immigration and Marriage (Blog)



28 November, 2011

One possible End to Illegal Immigration into the USA

At the Republican presidential debate last week (you remember; the one moderated by that bearded guy named “Blitz”), Newt Gingrich stirred up some controversy in his discussion on immigration.

Speaker Gingrich’s passing comment on the Red Card program caught my attention, “I think you’ve got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with control of the border as the Governor (Rick Perry) said. I believe, ultimately, that ... once you’ve put every piece in place, which includes a guest worker program, you need something like a World War II selective service ward that frankly reviews the people who are here. If you’ve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period. If you’ve been here 25 years and you have three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out. The Krieble Foundation has a very good Red Card program that says you get to be legal, but you don’t get a pass to citizenship. And so there is a way to ultimately end up with a country where there’s no more illegality and you haven’t automatically given amnesty to anyone.”

The Krieble Foundation is named for Professor Vernon K. Krieble "to further democratic capitalism and to preserve and promote a society of free, educated, healthy and creative individuals." Professor Krieble’s daughter, Helen Krieble, is the President of the foundation. I have had the pleasure of speaking with Ms. Krieble on several occasions and know her to be a thoughtful and benevolent defender of America’s founding principles.

At a speech to the Heritage Foundation in 2005, Helen Krieble related her personal story of dealing with the onerous bureaucracy of hiring temporary immigrants, “It is so hard to come in legally, it is almost unimaginable. And certainly I have a lot of experience with it because I do use guest workers in my business. And it is a nightmare.” After standing in line at the consulate, outdoors in the sun for eight hours, Ms. Krieble was returned to the end of the line for having folded the application paperwork incorrectly.

Helen Krieble hires about ten guest workers each year to accomplish the messier tasks of her equestrian sports business. And, she does so within the rules. Of course, many American employers and millions of immigrants do not have the patience for the politically charged Ministry of Malarkey that substitutes for an immigration policy.

We all know the realities; stolen Social Security Numbers, unfair competition, cash payments that avoid taxation, abuse of social services and an imposition on our culture. So as a compliant employer and president of a conservative think tank, Ms. Krieble brings a credible perspective that has garnered the appreciation of the “smartest presidential candidate.”

The Red Card Program first considers that guest workers are wholly different from immigrants, that they would have no preference for citizenship and their children born in the United States would not be citizens. Guest workers would be required to hold a “Red Card” that specifically describe the location, employer and job for which the card is issued, along with the duration and personal information about the worker, including biometric data.

Some highlights from the Red Card Program are quoted here:

The meat of this proposal is that private employment agencies (staffing companies) would be licensed and authorized to set up “Non-Citizen Worker” offices in Mexico and other countries. They would be licensed by the federal Office of Visa Services and empowered to issue “Red Cards” to applicants in their local offices. Prior to issuing the cards, the agencies would be required to run an instant background check on the applicant. These checks, much like those used for firearms sales in the U.S., would be accomplished by contact with the U.S. government and the government of the native country. Cards should not be issued to workers from countries that cannot or will not cooperate in this important respect. The goal is to ensure the cards are not issued to applicants with criminal records or those who have violated the terms of previously issued permits or visas.

Employers would simply post jobs with the private employment agencies specifying location, duration, wages and other required information – just as they often do within the U.S. today. There are dozens of employment firms, staffing companies, human resource companies and others who specialize in this field, and make their living putting employers and employees together. This would not change the current requirement that employers demonstrate attempts to hire local citizens before seeking non-citizen workers. Since employment firms charge fees for their services, the incentives will always favor local American workers – why pay a fee if you can find the workers you need locally?

Employers would be able to check the identity and legal status of applicants with a simple swipe of the “smart card,” just as they swipe credit cards for payment. The same card could also be swiped and checked by border agents, law enforcement personnel, and others with a need to identify the holder. It would remain illegal to hire any worker not in the country legally.

Part of the goal of this proposal is to eliminate the undocumented cash system used by so many employers and workers today. That means employers will have to pay taxes, and follow all the laws that would otherwise relate to hiring local employees. That includes social security, workers compensation, minimum wage, and all other labor laws that apply to American workers. For many employers this would mean a slightly more complicated system, and perhaps slightly higher wages. But most would have a strong incentive to comply: a steady and dependable supply of needed workers, coupled with certain and severe penalties for hiring illegal workers.

Workers would be required to stay on the job for which the Red Card was issued, and employers would be required to report any worker who left.

Finally, workers already in the U.S. illegally would be required to leave the country, apply for and legally obtain the Red Card, after which they could return if they had employment. They would have a powerful incentive to do so if the other elements of this plan were implemented – because once legal, they would have the same rights as any worker: minimum wage, health insurance and other benefits, decent working conditions, and the protections of the legal system.

As soon as there is a legal system for employers and employees, the borders of the United States must be controlled.

The Krieble Foundation contends that once there is a gate, the only folks illegally jumping the fence will be drug traffickers and terrorists. Today, migrant workers, drug traffickers and terrorists all jump the fence together.

The Red Card Program is available online here

So here is how I see it: We conservatives need to engineer workable solutions to social challenges before liberals beat us to the punch with unsustainable and oppressive programs like Obamacare. This Red Card program, if instituted wholly, would be an enormous improvement over the current fiasco.

SOURCE




GOP Latinos face questions over immigrant pasts

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez is forced to research and clarify her late grandfather's immigration status. Marco Rubio, Florida's GOP Senator, is accused of embellishing his family's immigrant story. A Republican congressional candidate in California puts on his website that he is the great-grandson of an illegal immigrant.

As more Latino Republicans seek and win elected office, their families' backgrounds are becoming subject to increased scrutiny from some Latino activists, a reaction experts say is a result of Latino Republicans' conservative views on immigration. It's a new phenomenon that experts say Latino Democrats rarely faced, and could be a recurring feature in elections as the Republican Party seeks to recruit more Latino candidates.

"It's a trend and we are seeing more of it," said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles.

For years, most Latino elected officials were largely Democrats, except in Florida, where Cuban Americans tended to vote Republican. But recently, a new generation of Latino Republicans has won seats in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, California and even Idaho. Those politicians have come under fire from some Latino activists for pushing for laws targeting illegal immigrants and for opposing efforts for comprehensive immigration reform — views that are in line with most Republicans.

And the immigrant advocates are pointing to the GOP Latino elected leaders' own family histories in an effort to paint them as hypocrites. Ignacio Garcia, a history professor at Brigham Young University, said it comes from a long tradition by liberal activists of portraying Latino Republicans as "vendidos," or sellouts, since the majority of Latino voters tend to vote Democratic.

For example, Martinez tried twice in the New Mexico state legislature to overturn a state law that allows illegal immigrants to obtain state drivers' licenses. Then earlier this year, various media outlets reported that a grandfather of Martinez may have been an illegal immigrant. The reports sparked immigrant advocates to protests outside the state Capitol with poster-size photos of Martinez on drivers' licenses.

Martinez, a Republican and the nation's only Latina governor, ordered her political organization to research her family's background and found documents that suggested that her grandfather legally entered the country and had various work permits.

The episode drew criticism, even from those who opposed Martinez' efforts on state driver's licenses. "This has nothing to do with her views and how she governs," said Michael A. Olivas, an immigration law professor at the University of Houston who also is aiding in a lawsuit against a Martinez's administration probe over the license fight. "I don't think it's fair for people to dig around in her family's past."

In Florida, Rubio's official Senate website until recently described his parents as having fled Cuba following Fidel Castro's takeover. But media organizations reported last month that Rubio's parents and his maternal grandfather emigrated for economic reasons more than two years before the Cuban Revolution.

Somos Republicans, a group dedicated to increasing Latino Republican voting numbers, immediately attacked Rubio over the discrepancy and for holding harsh views on immigration. "We believe it is time to find out the complete history of his parents' immigration history," the group said in a statement. "It is also time for Rubio to be a leader and help Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) fix the broken immigration system."

Patricia Montes, executive director of Centro Presente, an immigrant advocacy group in Somerville, Mass., said voters need to know a politician's family background for clues on how they will respond to people with similar stories. "It's very important to voters," said Montes.

Montes said most Latino and immigrant voters don't simply view Latino Republicans as "vendidos" but rather as politican leaders who don't share their views. "I don't care if someone is Latina or not," said Montes. "I care if they believe in the same things I do, and if their policies will affect the immigrant community."

Garcia said the current tension also is a result of a new breed of Latino Republicans finally winning high profile seats after years of being largely ignored or dismissed. Garcia said there have always been Hispanic Republicans, through their numbers have been typically small and they have often faced heat from the largely Democratic Latino population.

In New Mexico, for example, the colorful lawman and lawyer Elfego Baca helped establish the Republican Party just after New Mexico became a state in 1912 and actively tried recruit the state's mutigenerational Latino population to join the party. Baca won a number of local offices, including district attorney, but lost bids for Congress and various statewide offices.

In Texas, civil rights activist Felix Tijerina, a Mexican-American Houston restaurateur and former national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens in the 1950s, remained committed to Republican Party despite a backlash from fellow activists who disagreed with his laissez faire, pro-business views. One Texas civil rights leader, John J. Herrera, called Tijerina "a white man's Mexican" for his support of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower for president over Democrat Adlai Stevenson.

"The difference now is that these new Latino Republicans, like Martinez and Rubio, are better prepared and are being groomed as national figures," said Garcia. "Meanwhile, the Democrats are falling behind. They have no equivalent and they aren't giving Latinos the same opportunity."

Garcia said there's also a new factor — the millions of new independent Latino evangelicals who could be potential GOP voters. This population is new and unpredictable, he said.

Still, some Latino Republicans want to use the new attention around them in the party to change what they say is damaging rhetoric around immigration. Tony Carlos, who is seeking the GOP nomination for California's 3rd Congressional District, is running on a platform to push comprehensive immigration reform and believes if other Republicans follow, more Latinos will vote with the GOP.

On his campaign website Carlos says his great-grandfather came to Arizona from Mexico "without papers." Carlos said it's all about showing that his family is part of an ongoing American story and that political leaders need to honestly attack today's problems.

"I'm putting my family history out there. And once Latino voters hear that I support immigration reform, I find that they are open to other issues that appeal to conservatives," said Carlos. "My argument is that they are just as conservative. They are just in the wrong party."

SOURCE



27 November, 2011

Gingrich attracts crowds in Florida, as rivals continue attack on immigration stance

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich attracted huge crowds in Florida this weekend, but he continued to face down accusations from his rivals that he is too soft on immigration to win the Republican presidential nomination.

Gingrich, 68, who joined former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney at the top of the field less than two weeks ago, showed no sign of slipping at two appearances along the southwest Florida coast — a conservative enclave and critical battleground in the state’s Jan. 31 primary.

On Friday night, a standing-room-only crowd of at least 800 fans crammed into a hotel ballroom to listen to Gingrich speak. Hundreds who couldn’t fit into the room watched on TV monitors out in the hall.

And on Saturday, at least 500 stood in line for more than four hours at a Books-a-Million bookstore, where Gingrich and his wife, Callista, posed for photos and signed books, t-shirts, photographs and other memorabilia.

The growing energy around Gingrich on the campaign trail may explain why some of his rivals are continuing to go after him on immigration, an issue that surfaced at the most recent televised debate last Tuesday. Gingrich called on Republicans to be “humane” and support a path to legal residency for certain long-time illegal immigrants with deep ties in this country, and since then, two rivals — Romney and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann — have attacked Gingrich for what they say is his support for amnesty.

On Saturday, Bachmann repeated her accusation on Fox News claiming that Gingrich has a long record of supporting amnesty for all illegal immigrants, not just those who have been here for decades.

“He would not limit this to people [living here] 25 years,” Bachmann said. “Anyone who is here, he would make legal, that 11 million to 12 million people, overnight.”

Gingrich pushed back forcefully against Bachmann’s comments, telling reporters during his book-signing that he does not support amnesty and did not say he supported amnesty at the debate.

His spokesman, R.C. Hammond, said Bachmann is either “confused or lying,” while Gingrich said: “I’m prepared to talk about substantive change in a number of areas, including Social Security and how we deal with immigration. The American people are prepared to listen to a campaign that deals with substantive issues. Those of my friends who refuse to tell the truth make it harder to do that.”

Nearly all of those who stood in line to hear Gingrich or have their books signed said they did so because he is the smartest candidate seeking the Republican nomination. Many have followed his career in public life for decades, have read his books or watched his documentaries or seen him years ago on C-SPAN, where, early on in his congressional career, he established renown as a conservative commentator.

“There's no hesitancy,” said Pamela Burditt, 48, a pharmacist visiting Florida from Bucyrus, Kansas. “His intelligence is so well-rounded that he doesn’t have to stop and think what his answer will be.”

Gingrich said he was gratified to continue attracting crowds in southwest Florida, a relatively conservative enclave in this enormous state and a critical battleground in Florida’s Jan. 31 primary.

“It’ll be pretty clear by Jan. 31 that I’ll be the conservative candidate in the race,” Gingrich said, adding that he expects the Republican nomination to wind up as a contest between him and Romney.

SOURCE





Republicans blast Democrats' opposition to immigration law

A group of Democratic congressmen were in Birmingham Monday to host a hearing on the law. Immigrant rights advocates and illegal immigrants were also scheduled to speak.

The GOP leaders spoke in a telephone conference call sponsored by the Alabama Republican Party. Speakers included party chairman Bill Armistead, State Rep. John Merrill, R-63 and Congressman Mo Brooks, R-5th.

Armistead chastised Democratic lawmakers from Washington who were “coming down to tell us how to do business” and “meddling” in the state’s affairs.

“We have been bold in coming forth with a comprehensive legislative reform package,” he said. “We should be instructing Washington.”

Brooks, who has praised state lawmakers for creating and passing the legislation, said the state did what it had to do because of dereliction by the federal government. He said if the county had strong federal immigration laws, Gov. Robert Bentley would not have had to sign HB 56 into law.

A bevy of state and national human rights groups and the U.S. Department of Justice have filed lawsuits to block the law. Brooks said he was disappointed that President Barack Obama hasn’t been more grateful to states with tough immigration laws.

“He should be sending ‘thank you’ notes to Alabama, Arizona and Georgia, but this president and judiciary department is sending them lawsuits,” he said. “I find it to be very disappointing and most unsatisfactory.”

Brooks said the state and nation welcome immigrants who enter legally and who are interested in obtaining permanent citizenship. He pointed out that 600,000 to 1 million immigrants achieved citizenship last year, while another 150 million immigrants have entered the country as tourists, students or through work visas.

And while he acknowledged there is a great sense of compassion for the plight of the immigrant, he urged Alabamians to consider harm being done to the state by illegal immigrants, especially in regard to jobs, health care and education costs and crime.

“Illegal aliens have committed hundreds of thousands of crimes against American citizens and tens of thousands are in jails for their crimes,” Brooks said. “In Madison County, we’ve had more citizens killed or murdered by illegal aliens than in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They would be alive today if not for the dereliction of the federal government.”

On April 17, 2009, 19-year-old Tad Mattle and his girlfriend, Grissom High School sophomore Leigh Anna Jimmerson, were killed when Felix Dominguez Ortega slammed into the back of Tad’s pickup truck while fleeing police officers. His blood-alcohol level was reportedly more than three times the legal limit.

In a case out of Limestone County, Marcello Ortiz-Velasquez was indicted on reckless murder charges stemming from a 2005 crash that killed his passengers, Martin Ramos and Marcos Lopez.

Ortiz-Velasquez was never found after his indictment, however, so the case has not come to trial.

Brooks said the state and national unemployment rate is another factor Alabamians should consider in light of the new law. He said the state’s unemployment rate dropped seven-tenths of a percent from July to October, which he considers proof that illegal immigrants are leaving the state and opening up jobs for citizens. The U.S. rate, he said, dropped just one-tenth of a percent over the same time period.

“Alabama is doing seven times better than the national number,” he said, adding that there are 7.4 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. who hold jobs. “(The plight of immigrants) is something we should have compassion for, but we have to weigh that for the compassion for American citizens; compassion for Americans who don’t have jobs.”

State Rep. John Merrell, who represents Tuscaloosa, said he and other Republican lawmakers welcome immigrants who want to enter the state “the right way.” He also said the law was not written to intimidate or mistreat immigrants.

“Anyone who comes to the state and wants to become a citizen, we want them to come,” he said. “What we want is for the law to be enforced equally for everybody.”

SOURCE



26 November, 2011

Net migration to Britain hits a record 252,000, despite PM's vow to slash numbers

David Cameron was facing a new headache yesterday after it emerged that net migration hit a record 252,000 last year.

The Prime Minister – who has promised to reduce the figure to the ‘tens of thousands’ – now faces a bigger challenge than when the Tories came to power. In 2009, Labour’s last full year in office, net migration – the difference between the number of people entering the UK and the number leaving – was just under 200,000.

Mr Cameron, who conceded that hitting his pledge may now take ‘some time’, has once again been hit by the global economic downturn.

The number arriving in the UK, which includes immigrants and Britons returning from more than a year overseas, remained broadly stable at 591,000 last year. But the number leaving – only 339,000 – was at its lowest for ten years, so net migration was 252,000.

Emigration for work fell to its lowest level since 2006, reflecting the chaos in the eurozone and other countries where people would normally seek employment.

The number of British citizens emigrating was 136,000, its lowest since 1998. Emigration by non-Britons was 203,000, a drop of 25,000 on 2009. If net migration remains at 2010 levels, the population will swell by one million every four years.

The previous high for a calendar year was 245,000 in 2004 – although mid-year data for the 12 months to June 2005 reached 260,000.

Labour said the figures showed the Government could ‘not be trusted’ to bring immigration under control.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the campaign group Migrationwatch, said: ‘Net migration in 2010 was more than five times the level of 1997 when Labour came to power. ‘It is absolutely vital to get this down to less than 40,000 if we are to keep our population below 70million.’

The data came from the Office for National Statistics, which also released provisional figures for the 12 months to both March 2011 and September 2011. These showed net migration falling slightly, giving a glimmer of hope to the Tories. Immigration Minister Damian Green said the Government remained committed to reducing net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ during this parliament.

He said that after peaking in September last year, the numbers had started to come down.

Mr Green added: ‘These figures show that the Government was right to take swift action to overhaul the immigration system. ‘Latest quarterly figures show a decrease in the number of student and work visas issued compared to a year earlier – an early sign that our policies are starting to take effect.’

Downing Street said Mr Cameron stood by his election promise on cutting migration. Asked whether he thought it could be achieved, Mr Cameron’s official spokesman said: ‘Yes, he does, but clearly that process is going to take some time.’ The Government was ‘taking action across the board’, he added.

The number of potential illegal immigrants turned away at ports and airports slumped by 12 per cent during a controversial pilot scheme to relax border checks.

Between July and September only 4,141 foreigners were denied entry, down from 4,730 during the same period a year earlier. The fall coincided with border guards being instructed not to check the biometric chips in passports belonging to EU citizens.

SOURCE




"Asylum seekers" in Australia's suburbs

THOUSANDS of asylum seekers are expected to flood the suburbs as the Federal Government rolls out bridging visas allowing boat people to live and work in the community and collect welfare.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has handed out the first bridging visas for 27 men, mostly Afghans and Sri Lankans, whose refugee claims are being assessed. Mr Bowen said the men would be released from detention centres, including Melbourne, in coming days - with 100 a month to follow.

It comes as a secret government briefing note seen by the Herald Sun suggests thousands of boat people will soon be transferred into the community.

The NSW Government note reports a warning by the Immigration Department this week that arrivals will balloon when word spreads that asylum seekers arriving by boat are no longer to be held in detention. "Once it is widely known that IMAs will live in the community while being processed, the level of entries into Australia are very likely to escalate," the note said.

The majority are expected to be housed in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.

The note followed a meeting between Department of Immigration officials and the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet.

The radical move to a softened onshore processing system comes after the collapse of PM Julia Gillard's Malaysia deal and after the arrival of more than 300 asylum seekers this week.

Mr Bowen said the first batch of asylum seekers to be given bridging visas were long-term detainees who have cleared health, security and identity checks, and will live with friends or family. From next month, at least 100 people a month will be released while their asylum claims are processed.

A person's time in detention, their behavioural record and their family's ability to support them will decide who is chosen. "People who are assessed to pose an unacceptable risk to the community will remain in an immigration detention facility," Mr Bowen said.

Those released will be able to get jobs and up to $215 a week in means-tested payments, but will not qualify for Centrelink benefits.

SOURCE



25 November, 2011

High immigration could drive Britain's population to 77million by 2035

Britain's population could rise by a quarter to more than 77million in just 25 years if high levels of migration continue, according to official estimates released yesterday.

They projected a population of 77.7million by 2035 – nearly 16million more than now – if high immigration continues alongside rapidly rising birthrates and increased life expectancy.

It means that the country would have to find room for an additional 650,000 people – the population of a city the size of Glasgow – every year between now and 2035.

The estimates were released at a time of growing concern over fast-rising population levels and their impact on overcrowded England, which is already the most densely populated country in Europe.

The figures suggest that the 70million population mark – the level at which many believe stresses on housing, transport, education, health, power and water will become too great – could be hit far sooner than the current prediction of 2027.

The new projections were published by the Office for National Statistics.

Last month, the ONS put out ‘principal projections’, which said that the population was set to grow by just under 500,000 a year for the next 25 years, reaching 73.2million from the current 62.2million in 2035.

Yesterday it published ‘variant population projections’ which ‘are intended as plausible alternatives to the principal assumptions,’ it said. Based on the highest expected immigration, fertility and life expectancy levels, these put numbers in the country at 77,746,000 in 2035, and nearly 95million by 2060.

By that stage Britain would have overtaken Germany as the most populous country in Europe. If maintained over the following decades, that rate of population increase would mean numbers reaching nearly 137million in 100 years – more than doubling over a century. Over the past 100 years, the population has grown by around 50 per cent.

The higher projected increase depends heavily on rates of immigration remaining similar to those currently being recorded. In 2010 net migration – the number of people coming into the country to live minus the number emigrating – was 239,000. New figures released today may show even higher migration rates. However, the ONS said that if migration is curbed, the population will be much lower.

Yesterday’s analysis said that if net migration is reduced to zero, the population will never reach the 70million landmark.

With zero net migration, but fertility rates and life expectancy continuing to go up according to mainstream expectations, there will be 65,740,000 people in the country in 2035, and this will gradually fall to below 58million in 2110.

The Coalition has pledged to reduce net migration to below 100,000 a year – the levels seen in the 1990s – though some analysts suggest a level of 150,000 a year is manageable.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of think-tank Migration Watch, said: ‘ONS data confirms the shocking fact that the UK population is projected to hit 80million by 2056, overtaking Germany in the process – even though we have far less space. We must get net migration down to below 40,000 to stabilise our population below 70million. Anyone who suggests that net migration of 150,000 will do has simply not looked at the facts.’

The Downing Street ‘e-petition’ demanding action to prevent the population reaching 70million has been signed by almost 125,000 people.

The campaign, organised by Migration Watch, passed the 100,000 mark in less than one week – meaning MPs can now ask for a backbench debate on what steps are needed to bring immigration under control.

SOURCE






Australia: Boat arrival tally passes department danger level

THE fourth people-smugglers' boat in three days has carried the 701st passenger for November into Australian waters - confirming the Immigration Department's warning to the opposition of the consequences of the collapse of the Malaysia plan.

Two boats, carrying 144 asylum seekers and crew, were intercepted yesterday, quickly passing the controversial "600-a-month" threshold the Immigration Department secretary, Andrew Metcalfe, warned would make immigration detention unviable and could lead to European-style social unrest.

Asylum seeker arrivals have more than doubled since last month, when the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced the effective end of offshore processing because the opposition would not pass legislation to overcome a High Court ban on the Malaysia refugee swap.

Since then, there has been one boat tragedy with eight asylum seekers drowning off Java and the death of a skipper in an incident off Christmas Island this week.

The Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, challenged the Coalition to match "hollow words" on stopping the boats with action. "If the opposition wants to see offshore processing, we want to see offshore processing; the only difference is we're prepared to vote for it," he said.

But his opposition counterpart, Scott Morrison, called for the government to instead bring an immediate vote on the opposition's amendment to the bill, to only allow offshore processing in countries that have signed the Refugee Convention. The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, told Parliament: "The boats keep coming day in, day out".

Arrival numbers have returned to the peak seen late last year - before the December boat crash claimed 50 lives and acted as a brake on dangerous voyages - a level which led to severe overcrowding on Christmas Island, and riots among detainees.

Fourteen boats carrying 955 asylum seekers and crew have arrived since October 13, when the government said it would use bridging visas to move asylum seekers into the community to avoid detention crowding.

The Immigration Department had forecast just 750 asylum seekers arriving in 2011 in the federal budget, and the Mid-Year Economic Forecast, expected to be released next week, must revise spending upwards to account for the bigger numbers.

Mr Morrison said: "People smugglers are cramming more people onto dangerous boats in the lead-up to the monsoon season and the government has no policy in place to offer even the slightest deterrence."

Mr Bowen said the Coalition had "made a political decision, a calculation, that it is not in their political interest to see boat arrivals in Australia stop".

There were 959 people in detention on Christmas Island last Friday, with 344 more arrivals this week. There are 3923 asylum seekers in mainland detention.

SOURCE



24 November, 2011

Mitt Romney's Immigration Stance Now Clear: Pressure Undocumented To Leave The Country

Mitt Romney's evolution into a full-fledged immigration hawk is complete

The Republican presidential candidate's comments this week on the issue of undocumented immigrants made clear where he stands now: The U.S. government should do nothing proactive beyond creating a hostile environment for those in the country illegally, in the hopes that they leave.

Anyone in the United States in violation of federal law should go back to his or her country of origin, Romney said Wednesday during a tele-town hall with Iowa voters.

The former Massachusetts governor noted that he favors a "path to citizenship" for undocumented immigrants, but added that "consists of going to their home country, applying for citizenship or permanent residency just like everybody else, and getting back in the line."

"They should have to get in the same line with everybody else who wants to come here legally," Romney said.

In 2007, Romney had also talked of undocumented immigrants returning to their country of origin, but back then he didn't appear to favor that approach for all. In the end, his comments in a key Dec. 16, 2007, interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" were jumbled and unclear.

"They should have a set period during which period they sign up for application for permanent residency or for citizenship. But there's a set period whereupon they should return home. And if they've been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, that would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they'll be going home," Romney told Tim Russert in that interview.

The Romney campaign did not answer questions about whether those comments constituted the view that some, but not all, undocumented immigrants should have to leave the country. The phrase "great majority" implies it is what he meant.

So in the past, Romney indicated an openness to creating a process by which undocumented immigrants might achieve permanent status in the U.S. But his position has hardened: He now believes the government should do nothing directly for those who are in the country without documentation and want to stay, regardless of whether they are productive members of society or are receiving government benefits or are involved in criminal enterprises.

He wants to direct immigrants' behavior through "incentives."

"People respond to incentives," Romney said during the Republican presidential debate Tuesday night. "And if you can become a permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, you'll do so."

An incentive approach mainly means making it so difficult for undocumented immigrants to be in the U.S. that they leave on their own, as Romney's top spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, explained to Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner after the debate Tuesday.

"No in-state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment. You put in place an employment verification system with penalties for employers that hire illegals, that will shut off access to the job market, and they will self-retreat. They will go to their countries," Fehrnstrom said.

Romney reiterated this position in the tele-town hall Wednesday: "So for me, the answer is pretty straightforward: fence, enough troops, an identification system that identifies who's here legally, and then tough sanctions for employers that hire people who are here illegally."

This answer would not actually address all undocumented immigrants. A good number would remain. But Romney has apparently decided that it is too dangerous to cross the conservative base of the Republican Party, which is vehemently against any form of normalization for undocumented immigrants.

Romney's shift on the issue first saw the light of day in the 2008 campaign, when he ran to the right of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- the party's eventual nominee -- on the immigration issue. Then, as with his attacks on Newt Gingrich now, Romney denounced McCain as favoring "amnesty."

During a Wednesday appearance in Iowa, Romney attacked Gingrich for his comments at the previous night's debate.

Gingrich's plan is to open a "path to legality" for some undocumented immigrants. "We need a path to legality, but not citizenship, for some of these individuals who have deep ties to America, including family, church and community ties," states his 10-point immigration plan.

As the former speaker of the House put it Tuesday night, "You get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship."

Gingrich added, "And so there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone."

His plan would require securing the border, establishing a guest worker program, deporting those who are in the U.S. illegally and have committed crimes, and then creating what he likened Tuesday night to a "World War II Selective Service board" to review the cases of the undocumented.

A Gingrich spokesman explained Wednesday that "local citizen review boards" would review local cases of undocumented immigrants who want to stay in the country. "They could be judged by a jury of their neighbors," R.C. Hammond told the Des Moines Register.

But in Iowa on Wednesday, Romney said Gingrich had "offered a new doorway to amnesty."

"I know there's going to be great interest in finding how far we can apply amnesty, and I just think we make a mistake as a Republican Party to try to describe which people who come here illegally should be given amnesty, to be able to jump ahead of the line of people who have been waiting in line," Romney said in Des Moines. "My view is people who have waited in line patiently to come to this country legally should be ahead in line. And those who come here illegally should not be given a special deal or a special accelerated right to become a permanent resident or citizen."

Gingrich's 10-point plan says exactly the same thing. One of his three principles for immigration reform is this: "Under no circumstance can a path to citizenship be created which would allow those who have broken the law to receive precedence over those who patiently waited to become residents and citizens via the legal process. Those who adhered to our immigration law cannot be usurped by those who violated it."

Gingrich shot back at Romney on Twitter Wednesday, linking to a snippet of the 2007 "Meet the Press" interview in which Romney said, "Those people who had come here illegally and are in this country, the 12 million or so that are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship."

"So what's your position on citizenship for illegals again? (I oppose it.)," Gingrich tweeted. He also linked to his 10-step plan. The Romney campaign has not released any immigration plan.

Even the tone of Romney's rhetoric on immigration is far different from what it was just a few years ago. In a 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, he said of undocumented immigrants, "These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society. In some cases, they do not. But that's a whole group we're going to have to determine how to deal with."

In that interview, Romney said he had not formulated a position on various immigration reform plans being debated, but proposals by then-President George W. Bush and Sen. McCain were "reasonable." Specifically, he said that McCain's plan was "quite different" from "amnesty."

"It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine," Romney noted.

In the 2007 "Meet the Press" interview, Russert read a quote from a Romney interview with the Lowell Sun. "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country," Romney had told the Sun. "With these 11 million people, let's have them registered, know who they are. Those who've been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn't be here. Those that are paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home country."

On "Meet the Press," Romney stood by that position, telling Russert that "those people who had come here illegally and are in this country -- the 12 million or so that are here illegally -- should be able to stay, sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to stay here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally."

He then added the nebulous line about having "a great majority" of undocumented immigrants leave the country.

SOURCE





We Can't Kick Off Immigration Reform With Amnesty

Tuesday night we learned about how the Republican candidates would handle a big part of the Oval Office portfolio. That's because they took a good 90 minutes talking mostly about one thing: foreign policy and national security. Along the way, they addressed on of the toughest questions facing policymakers: What to do about our deeply flawed immigration system and broken borders.

No sound-bite can cover how to battle transnational criminal cartels, how to respond to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iranian intelligence networks threading their way through Latin America, how to protect our sovereignty and the sanctity of citizenship or how to deal with illegal immigration.

Securing our southern border starts south of the border. We must partner with Mexico to help it meet its security, economic and civil society challenges. For the first time in a long time, there are leaders in Mexico who are tired of hearing the cartels’ ultimatum “plato o plomo”—silver or lead (meaning take a bribe and step aside, or we will kill you and your family). One Mexican military officer, when was asked his “vision” for Mexico, said it was to see the country be like it was 10 years ago. Back then, he explained, the cartels would flee when the army showed up. Now, they fight back. That officer and many others in Mexico want their country back.

Meanwhile, we can and must do more stateside to secure the border. But we need sensible security measures, with D.C., the states and border communities all pulling in the same direction. That’s not likely to happen if President Obama accepts across-the-board budget cuts. Slashed security budgets will translate directly to weakened border operations: fewer primary inspection lanes at border crossings; fewer dog teams on the line sniffing out smuggled drugs, cash, guns and aliens; fewer liaison teams coordinating operations, etc. No matter how the cuts come down, border security will suffer.

In addition to doing better operationally, we need to do a better job on the policy front. That includes effective, adequate temporary worker programs that get employers the employees when they need, when they need them to help grow the economy and create more jobs. It means opening the door to high-skilled immigration. It also means enforcing the immigration and workplace laws.

Finally, immigration reform cannot lead with amnesty. Americans will have to demonstrate wisdom and compassion in crafting strategies to deal with those are residing unlawfully in the United States now, but the campaign cannot start by granting a widespread amnesty. That would reward those who have broken our laws and undermine confidence in all other efforts to fix the problem. Amnesties just encourage more illegal entry and unlawful presence.

We must to have the patience to take all the other steps first—to fix the system. Then we can turn to amnesty. But starting with amnesty is a non-starter.

At last night’s extended debate, the candidates collectively articulated all the components of a sound plan. If whoever emerges as the GOP nominee can string them all together into a coherent plan, the American people will have a clear alternative to the failed policies we have tried since September 11, 2001.

SOURCE



23 November, 2011

Justice Department Challenges Utah’s Immigration Law

The Department of Justice and other agencies filed a complaint Tuesday in Salt Lake City that challenges Utah’s immigration law, saying the state violates the Constitution due to its attempt to establish a state-specific immigration policy.

The department said the law mandates enforcement measures that can disrupt immigration practices by the federal government in the area. The DOJ also expressed concern that, under the law, individuals could potentially be harassed and wrongfully detained, according to a statement.

This is the second lawsuit filed against the law. Civil rights groups filed a lawsuit earlier this year, and a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order in May against House Bill 497. That bill requires people arrested for serious crimes to prove their citizenship but gives police discretion to check citizenship for lesser crimes.

Similar lawsuits have taken aim at immigration enforcement in states like Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina.

The DOJ said it is the federal government’s role to enforce federal immigration laws, not local governments.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement that “a patchwork of immigration laws is not the answer and will only create further problems in our immigration system.”

The suit was filed on behalf of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and State Department.

"This kind of legislation diverts critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermines the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve," said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

The lawsuit comes after several months of discussions with state officials. The DOJ said it does not expect the filing to end ongoing negotiations, and since the provisions do not take effect until 2013, the DOJ is hopeful a resolution can be made before it files a lawsuit against the state.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Mark Shurtleff, the state’s attorney general, said Utah’s law was significantly different from other state laws that were challenged.

“We feel strongly that we made significant changes with our law compared to Arizona’s at the time,” Shurtleff said, the paper reported. “We think the way our law is, with our changes, we think we can defend it, that we can prevail on this and have it held constitutional.”

SOURCE




DHS "Stonewalling" Congressional Immigration enquities

Homeland Security officials said Monday they are gathering data to appease U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, after his powerful House committee threatened to hold the agency in contempt of Congress for failing to provide immigration enforcement information.

Smith, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is demanding that the agency release data he said will show that deportable criminal immigrants are being set free. Earlier this month, his committee issued a subpoena that ordered DHS to provide information about the controversial Secure Communities initiative. The program compares the fingerprints of individuals arrested and booked into local jails against a federal database to determine whether they are deportable under current immigration laws.

Smith accused DHS of “stonewalling” and warned that if the request for immigration-enforcement information was not met, he would "seek enforcement of the subpoena to the fullest extent of the law." A House Judiciary staff member who spoke on background said the committee could take action to hold DHS in contempt if the agency does not supply the requested information.

The DHS said it was in the process of gathering the data and cited statistics to debunk the committee’s claims that criminal aliens are being set loose.

“DHS has implemented immigration enforcement priorities that focus limited resources on convicted criminals, repeat immigration law violators, fugitives and recent entrants," said department spokesman Matt Chandler. "Through these priorities, ICE removed a record 216,000 criminal aliens in FY 2011, an 89 percent increase over 2008."

On Nov. 4, the committee demanded DHS turn over the “names, fingerprint identification numbers and alien registration numbers” of immigrants who were arrested between November 2008 and Oct. 21, 2011, but not detained by ICE.

As of last week, the committee said all the agency had provided was a "unique ID" for each arrested immigrant, a date and time for each "encounter" and the national origins of a few hundred detainees. The "unique ID," the committee charged, is nothing more than a number from 1 to 220,955 and doesn't allow the committee to make any determination about the immigrants' criminal histories. Smith has questioned whether President Obama is directly behind the lack of compliance.

“Either DHS officials never planned to comply with the Committee’s information request, despite its manifest reasonableness, justification under the Committee’s oversight jurisdiction and similarity to information provided to the Committee during the Clinton Administration,” Smith wrote Friday in a letter to DHS. “Or DHS’s plans to comply with the request were vetoed by the White House for political reasons – to prevent the American people from learning the damage to public safety caused by ICE’s current policy of allowing the release of criminal aliens onto our streets.”

Smith’s charges came as DHS announced it would begin reviewing some of the estimated 300,000 cases currently pending before immigration judges. The review is part of an overhaul of Secure Communities that the department announced in June aimed at focusing resources on removing serious offenders first.

The agency also announced a training program geared toward teaching law enforcement officers and prosecutors to use their discretion in turning immigrants over to ICE. The program, first reported on by The New York Times, follows a memorandum issued in June by ICE Director John Morton that instructed officials to use “prosecutorial discretion” when issuing a notice of detainer or deciding “whom to detain or release on bond, supervision, personal recognizance, or other conditions.” The criteria include how long the individuals have lived in the country, the education they’ve obtained, their criminal history and whether they have U.S.-citizen relatives.

That June directive led Smith to file legislation called the HALT Act, which would significantly restrict the administration’s immigration-enforcement abilities.

A DHS official who spoke on background said the department has so far diverted 120 hours away from its daily activities to fulfill the committee’s request. The official also said that not all of the arrested immigrants reported to ICE are eligible to be deported. Secure Communities checks fingerprints against all immigration databases, so fingerprints submitted through the system will, in some cases, match against immigrants who are not removable, either due to lawful legal presence or because they have since become naturalized citizens.

While Smith argued DHS was not doing enough to remove criminal immigrants with Secure Communities, a group of Congressional Democrats outraged over the continued use of the program called last week for its termination.

In a letter written by Democratic U.S. Rep. José E. Serrano, D-New York, and signed by 31 other House Democrats — including Reps. Lloyd Doggett of Austin and Ruben Hinojosa of Edinburg — they told Obama the program only served to erode public trust in law enforcement.

“When detained, individuals are not afforded a right to counsel and are often transferred to remote locations for detention, which severely limits their access to resources to help them fight their cases,” the legislators wrote. "This patently unfair system needs to be seriously reformed, not expanded."

SOURCE



22 November, 2011

Thousands of migrants 'disappear' in British cities under new official counting system

Hundreds of thousands of migrants have ‘disappeared’ at the stroke of a pen under a new official counting system. The method has led to apparent large falls in the numbers of migrants thought to live in London and other major cities.

The change has provoked fury among council leaders who say the immigrant populations of their districts have been grossly underestimated by government statisticians.

Westminster and Kensington in London, Manchester, Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge are among places thought to have had their estimated populations reduced by many thousands by the Office for National Statistics.

Colin Barrow, Tory leader of Westminster, said: ‘After four years of work supposedly improving migration estimates, the ONS apparently still has little idea how many migrants are in this country or where they live and work.

‘Our incoming migrant population appears to have dropped by 17 per cent over four years; you only have to go out into the bars and restaurants in the West End to see that migrants come to Westminster to live and work in much greater numbers than this.’

More than nine out of ten migrants to the UK live in England, which has become the sixth most crowded major country in the world, the MigrationWatch think-tank said last week. Last year net migration was 239,000.

The new estimates method, to be used from next year onwards, uses the same source of immigration statistics the ONS has always used. This is the International Passenger Survey, a check on intentions of arrivals at air and sea ports and on the Eurostar.

From this researchers use a complex formula, based on other official population databases, to estimate the number of yearly arrivals.

Under the new method, this formula has been tweaked, resulting in changes to the estimated numbers arriving at certain towns and cities. Some have fallen while others have risen, but the total remains unchanged.

Westminster’s migrant population has been reduced by 10,000, and Manchester’s and Bristol’s each by 30,000. According to ONS briefing papers, Kensington and Chelsea, Oxford and Cambridge have had ‘quite large downward revisions’.

Mr Barrow said: ‘We would seriously question the estimate that fewer than 4,000 migrants came to Westminster in the 2009 financial year to seek work. 'We have seen more people registering with doctors and paying council tax in Westminster, so we fail to understand how the government statisticians can be so wrong.’

Councils can lose millions in Treasury grants if Whitehall cuts their population estimates.

The ONS was scheduled to publish papers about the new migration counting system last week, but failed to do so. Some places are said to show a higher count, such as Newham, East London, with a 13 per cent increase. The ONS declined to comment yesterday.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Amnesty by Any Means Extended to DOJ Lawyers (Blog)

2. ICE Finds Another Border Tunnel, But Well After Construction Ended (Blog)

3. Man Bites Dog, or Asylum Lawyer Supports Denial of Asylum (Blog)

4. The Jewish Establishment's 'Unity Pledge'; Will Sacrificing Israel to Obama's Re-Election Cause Blowback? (Blog)

5. Migrant Wage Drain from U.S. Economy Increased a Little in 2010 (Blog)

6. More Administrative Amnesty, This Time from USCIS (Blog)

7. A New Civil Rights Movement in Alabama? (Blog)

8. DHS Pressies Have the Week That Was, and Will Be, and Was, and Will be Again (Blog)

9. U.S. Senate Takes CIS' Advice and Imposes Fees on the Visa Lottery (Blog)

10. November 1986: Comments on 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform' (Blog)



21 November, 2011

Australian taxpayers wear burden of 60,000 illegal immigrants

In a population of 22 million

AUSTRALIA has enough illegal immigrants on the loose to populate a large regional city. A Herald Sun investigation has found that nearly 60,000 people - one in every 390 - is in the country unlawfully, sparking renewed calls for a crackdown.

The 58,400 foreign citizens hiding illegally among us easily outnumber the populations of Mildura or Shepparton - Victoria's fifth and sixth biggest cities. And they dwarf the 4700 asylum seekers who arrived by boat in 2010-11.

Documents released to the Herald Sun under Freedom of Information also reveal the biggest groups of illegals are Chinese, Americans, Malaysians, Britons and South Koreans.

More than half have been here for five or more years; 20,000 for a decade or more; and two in three have evaded authorities for more than two years. (The figures do not include visitors who overstay visas by less than a fortnight.)

Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria chairman Sam Afra said illegal residents attracted little of the outrage associated with boat people, despite taking jobs and housing, using public services, and not paying tax.

He said it was far too easy to stay here if you knew how to "work the system". "It's shocking," he said. "To have one in three who have been here more than 10 years (suggests) something's wrong with the system."

"Nobody's talking about it. It is a problem, and the question is, don't you think the damage justifies putting more resources in (to find them)?"

He said the involvement of illegals in criminal and other dubious activities also sullied the reputations of legal migrants.

Jailed terrorist cell leader Abdul Benbrika lived illegally for years after arriving on a visitor's visa in 1989. Three months after marrying in 1992, while still an illegal, he successfully applied to stay, living on welfare with his wife and seven children until his arrest in 2005.

Illegal immigrants have also been involved in drug cartels, sexual slavery, and fraud. Illegals accused of guarding marijuana crops in Melbourne and regional Victoria were among 43 people arrested last year in raids focusing on a $400 million crime syndicate.

A charter flight to deport 76 illegal aliens from Malaysia and Indonesia, busted picking fruit in Mooroopna last year, cost taxpayers $100,000.

Australian Human Rights Commission president Catherine Branson, QC, said it was important to remember many more overstayed visas, or arrived by plane and sought asylum, than arrived by boat.

"Another misconception is that people who arrive by boat are illegal immigrants. Australia is obliged to assess asylum seekers' claims."

There were 10,600 more illegals at June 30 last year than in 2005.

SOURCE






Behind the "healthy immigrant" story in Canada

Newly arrived immigrants are healthier than their Canadian-born counterparts, but can then expect their health to decline the longer they stay in Canada, new research suggests.

Two studies released Wednesday by Statistics Canada add more evidence to the existence of the "healthy immigrant effect."

Statistics Canada researchers tracked some 2.7 million Canadians, a little more than 552,000 — or 20 per cent — of whom were immigrants from 1991-2001, and surveyed 350,000 people, including almost 50,000 immigrants, to determine the health of various segments of the Canadian population.

Overall, newly arrived immigrants to Canada had lower mortality rates than the Canadian-born, and also reported lower levels of fair or poor health, according to the studies.

Those mortality rates tended to rise the further removed immigrants were from their arrival in Canada, as were the reported levels of fair or poor health.

Data from surveys of immigrants showed in fact that those who had been in the country for 10 years or longer reported being less healthy than residents born in Canada.

Why that's the case isn't answered in the Statistics Canada papers, but research has pointed to a number of factors for the "healthy immigrant effect."

"The immigration policy tends to let people in who are healthier," said Edward Ng, a senior analyst in the health analysis division of Statistics Canada.

The more time they spend in Canada, the less likely they are to go through the same rigorous medical screening, raising possibilities that they can become sick, said Ng, who wrote the study on mortality rates.

Another problem for newly arrived immigrants, who don't speak either official language very well, is that they are less likely to access health-care services, or less likely to land a job, both of which can increase the likelihood that they can become sick, Ng said.

Another explanation may be that once they arrive in Canada, new immigrants learn they have conditions that previously went undiagnosed, said Michelle Rotermann, who penned the study on self-reported health and diagnosed medical conditions.

It may also be a cohort effect where long-term immigrants arrived in Canada in worse health than those who have arrived more recently, Rotermann said.

Not all newly arrived immigrants were healthier than the Canadian-born.

The studies found that American and Sub-Sahara African immigrants had mortality rates similar to the Canadian-born.

Newly arrived immigrants from North Africa, the Middle East and Asia reported higher levels of fair or poor health than the Canadian-born.

Rotermann said both studies point to a need for long-term research into the health of immigrants to answer the "why" question raised in the data as the number of immigrants to Canada rises.

Statistics Canada expects immigrants to make up one-quarter of the population by 2031 from the 20 per cent recorded in the 2006 census.

SOURCE



20 November, 2011

England 'is world's sixth most crowded country: High rate of immigration blame for population surge

High immigration has made England one of the most crowded countries in the world, a report said yesterday. It found that 6.6million foreign-born people live in England – and only 500,000 elsewhere in the UK.

As a result England has become the sixth most densely populated major nation, according to the analysis from the MigrationWatch think-tank. Only Bangladesh, Taiwan, South Korea, Lebanon and Rwanda have more people per square mile.

Sir Andrew Green, who chairs MigrationWatch which compiled the report, said: ‘The immigration lobby like to talk about the UK, obscuring the fact that England is six times as crowded as Scotland.

‘Since the vast majority of immigrants come to England, it is England’s place in the league table that counts. ‘Leaving aside city states and small islands, England lies sixth among the most crowded countries in the world.

‘As people sit in traffic jams or squeeze on to their morning trains it will be clearly ridiculous to claim that their eyes are deceiving them and there is not a problem simply because places like the Maldives or Mayotte have higher population densities than England.’

The study calculated that 93 per cent of immigrants settle in England, and that 86 per cent of projected population growth will occur there. The Office for National Statistics has projected the landmark 70million figure for the UK is likely to be reached in 16 years.

More than 120,000 people have signed a petition calling for a Commons debate on the need to curb immigration and keep numbers below 70million, a point at which many analysts believe housing, transport and public services would be overstretched.

Brussels said yesterday that it wants to make it easier for immigrants to get into Europe in order to boost economies.

Cecilia Malmstrom, EU home affairs commissioner, said new systems would help migrants get visas faster, find jobs matching their skills and make it cheaper for them to send money to family members back home.

She said the EU was establishing ‘mobility partnerships’ with Tunisia and Morocco to manage migration and hoped to establish them with Egypt and Libya.

SOURCE





Sore Losers: Administration Retaliating Against Alabama for Winning Immigration Lawsuit

The Obama administration does not want most immigration laws enforced. They’ve stated so explicitly in internal memos, letters to members of Congress, and in a public announcement of a policy shift in August. The Obama administration is not keen on anyone else enforcing immigration either. They’ve made that abundantly clear by suing three states (so far) – Arizona, Alabama and, most recently, South Carolina – for enacting laws designed to discourage illegal immigration.

Playing on the friendly turf of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the administration succeeded in blocking implementation of significant portions of Arizona’s SB 1070 law. However, last month the administration found itself in a less sympathetic arena: the 11th Circuit. That court rebuffed the administration’s effort to block implementation of Alabama’s HB 56, allowing all but two provisions to take effect immediately.

The Obama administration appears unwilling to accept the verdict of the 11th Circuit and unprepared to wait for the matter to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, the administration has opted for a policy that is equal parts retribution against Alabama, and intimidation of other states contemplating their own enforcement strategies.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sent a “request” to school superintendents across Alabama seeking voluminous amounts of data, some of which would have to be updated monthly. DOJ’s fishing expedition included detailed school enrollment data, broken down by race, ethnicity, and national origin; absentee data broken down by school, including the names of each student who has had one “unexplained absence” since implementation of HB 56; tracking information about students classified as English Learners, whether they are enrolled in remedial English classes or not, to name just a few of DOJ’s “requests.” DOJ gave Alabama schools ten days to comply.

When Alabama’s attorney general, Luther Strange, advised superintendents not comply (citing ongoing litigation over HB 56) and questioned DOJ’s legal authority to seek such detailed information, the head of DOJ’s civil rights division, Thomas Perez, shot back asserting that his department has “express authority” to investigate “potential violations of civil rights laws that protect educational opportunities for schoolchildren.” Before becoming Assistant Attorney General, Perez served as director of an outfit known as CASA de Maryland, a strident and well-financed illegal alien advocacy group that receives funding from sources as diverse as the State of Maryland and Venezuelan strongman, Hugo Chavez.

DOJ’s request does not appear to be predicated on any documented violations of anyone’s civil rights. The section of HB 56 which would have required Alabama schools to collect data about citizenship status of students who enroll was one of two provisions that the 11th Circuit blocked from taking effect. (How Alabama is supposed to provide DOJ data about national origin if they’re not allowed to ask that information is not quite clear.) Moreover, a 1982 Supreme Court decision requires that states provide free K-12 education to students irrespective of immigration status.

HB 56 has, no doubt, resulted in the withdrawal of students from Alabama schools who are either illegal aliens or the dependent children of illegal aliens. But that fact does not imply civil rights violations. Rather, it is a direct consequence of the law – ruled to be constitutional by the 11th Circuit – working as intended. Illegal aliens are getting the message and moving out of Alabama, taking their kids with them.

The fact that illegal aliens are leaving Alabama in significant numbers (much as they have done in other places where local enforcement policies have been implemented) is the biggest concern for an administration whose policy objective is amnesty, not enforcement. Every time a state government demonstrates that illegal aliens are indeed rational people, who respond rationally to signals that illegal immigration will not be countenanced, it undermines the specious argument that the only solution to the problem is mass amnesty.

As the administration wages its effort to halt most enforcement of immigration laws and to secure amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens who are here, DOJ has been turned into a political attack dog, unleashed on any state or local government that dares to get in the administration’s way. When lawsuits fail, because courts determine that states are acting legally, DOJ is sending a clear message that its civil right division will be there to drain additional state resources with retaliatory demands for data.

SOURCE



19 November, 2011

Arizonans who ousted anti-immigration lawmaker set sights on sheriff

Sheriff Joe is too popular for that to work

A group of Arizona residents who promoted the recall of Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, the chief architect of the state's harsh anti-immigration law, now aims to thwart the reelection of controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

"Just like Pearce, Sheriff Arpaio takes an extremist position against immigrants, against immigration, and we want that to end," Randy Parraz, cofounder of Citizens for a Better Arizona, told Efe.

The 79-year-old sheriff is the only law enforcement official in the state to mount workplace raids in search of the undocumented.

Arpaio, who cultivates a reputation as "the toughest sheriff in the West," is currently being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department on charges of racial profiling against Hispanics.

The sheriff will seek reelection in 2012, which is why Citizens for a Better Arizona plans to inform voters about his department's actions against the community.

"We're going to take action, we're going to set our sights on him," Parraz said, adding that a formal announcement of their campaign will be made next Monday in front of the state capitol in Phoenix.

Arpaio has been sheriff of Maricopa County - which includes Phoenix - since 1993, though his popularity among voters waned as time passed.

While in 2004 he won 56.7 percent of the vote, in 2008 he won 55.2 percent. In 2007 another civic group failed to gather 200,000 voter signatures to force a special election to recall Arpaio.

Parraz said that these new efforts to thwart Arpaio's reelection will focus on his record and, just as they did with Pearce, will not support any alternative candidate.

On Nov. 8, voters in state senate District 18 in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa made history by recalling Pearce, the main promoter of SB 1070, the first law in the country that seeks to criminalize the presence of the undocumented.

Since its enactment last year, SB 1070 has served as a model for other states to pass even tougher measures against illegal immigration.

Citizens for a Better Arizona was the group that collected the signatures needed to hold a special election to recall Pearce.

"We want the sheriff to understand that we as voters have the right to question his actions and that he must give answers," Parraz said. "Once again the Hispanic vote will be very important, especially in times like these. I believe this is a historic moment in Arizona that began with the recall of Pearce and can continue with Arpaio."

For his part, Arpaio told Efe he isn't worried about the campaign against him. "I'm going to keep on doing my job, nothing has changed with Pearce leaving office, my work is to apply the laws and that's what I'll do," he said

SOURCE






Federal government launches broad review of immigration court cases

The Department of Homeland Security announced Thursday it will begin reviewing about 300,000 deportation proceedings to implement prosecutorial discretion measures laid out in a June 2011 memo issued by John Morton, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (aka ICE).

The Office of Principal Legal Advisor at ICE in charge of the review has been directed to review “incoming cases and cases pending in immigration court.” The purpose of the review, according to guidance directives also issued Thursday, “is to identify those cases that reflect a high enforcement priority for the Department of Homeland Security.”

According to The New York Times, “the accelerated triage of the court docket — about 300,000 cases — is intended to allow severely overburdened immigration judges to focus on deporting foreigners who committed serious crimes or pose national security risks, Homeland Security officials said.”

The guidance distributed to all immigration attorneys in Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and ICE lists terrorism, felony convictions, murder, sexual abuse, drug trafficking, illegal entry, reentry and immigration fraud among the crimes that are removal priorities.

Cases not considered enforcement priorities include members of the armed forces, children who have been in the U.S. for more than five years or came to the U.S. before the age of 16, people over 65, domestic violence victims, and people seeking asylum.

The Times adds that “immigration agency lawyers will examine all new cases just arriving in immigration courts nationwide, with an eye to closing cases that are low-priority according to the Morton memorandum, before they advance into the court system,” while “immigrants identified as high priority will see their cases put onto an expedited calendar for judges to order their deportations, Homeland Security officials said.”

Immigrant advocates have had different reactions to the review of deportation proceedings.

The National Day Laborers Organizing Network argues that Thursday’s announcement: "highlights how completely out of whack the Administration’s immigration priorities are. President Obama has chosen to deport 400,000 people a year. Moreover, its decision to turn local police into “force multipliers” through [Secure Communities] has caused immeasurable suffering: families have been destroyed, community safety has been undermined, and Latinos’ civil rights have been imperiled as we witness an entire generation of Americans in Waiting criminalized by these policies.

B. Loewe of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network told the Independent in August that the case review" "may bring with it an expansion of the definition of “criminal,” because the damaging label is never actually defined. As we’ve seen in Secure Communities, those who they define as criminals are people whose only offense may be driving without a license or may actually only be immigration-related. There’s the potential for many to be condemned under the agency’s new scarlet letter, the title of “criminal.”

The National Immigration Forum, meanwhile, welcomed ”the launch of the Administration’s long-promised review designed to reduce the backlog of deportation cases and prioritize resources. In this time of great concern about our nation’s fiscal health, it makes sense to focus valuable law enforcement resources on the deportation of individuals who are genuine threats to public and national safety.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (aka FAIR) writes that the Department of Homeland Security is beginning “Amnesty Screenings” with the move. FAIR supports immigration enforcement measures like Arizona’s infamous S.B. 1070 and “lower immigration levels.” It has said the prosecutorial discretion measures issued by Morton “constitute nothing less than the granting of administrative amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.”




18 November, 2011

Number of British secondary school children from ethnic minorities soars by 57% in ten years

White British pupils have become a minority in many secondary schools in England, according to a study. The research found that the number of ethnic minority pupils has sharply risen by 57 per cent in ten years. In some areas, including inner London boroughs, up to 67 per cent – just over two thirds – are from ethnic minorities.

In some individual secondary schools, the figure rises to 98 per cent of pupils, said the survey by King’s College London. The trend is seen right across England, showing that ethnic minority families are moving out of town centres to the suburbs.

Professor Chris Hamnett, a geographer who conducted the study, said the increase is not due to children who have recently arrived but pupils who were born in England. He said patterns of birth rates indicate that the proportion of ethnic minority pupils will continue to increase in future decades. Such changes have become a lasting feature of the ethnic make-up of England’s population, added the professor. He said his data reveals a ‘very substantial’ shift in the population, representing an ‘irrevocable’ change.

The study examined the changing demographics of schools from 1999 to 2009 following decades of migration to this country. The 57 per cent increase in ethnic minority pupils came as the overall secondary school population rose 4.7 per cent. There has also been a slight decline in the number of white pupils, a figure which also includes migrants from Eastern Europe.

Across the country, the proportion of ethnic minority pupils has risen in a decade from 11.5 per cent to 17 per cent.

Professor Hamnett forecasts that it is set to continue increasing to 20 per cent. He found that London has the highest proportion of ethnic minority pupils at 67 per cent.

The capital was followed by Slough with 64 per cent, Leicester at 58 per cent, Birmingham at 52 per cent and Luton with 51 per cent. Manchester and Bradford both have 43 per cent.

There are also wide differences in the ethnic breakdowns of schools in different parts of the country. In places such as Knowsley, near Liverpool, Cumbria and Durham, fewer than two per cent of secondary pupils are from ethnic minorities. In the London boroughs of Brent, Tower Hamlets and Newham, the figure is above 80 per cent.

In primary schools, the government’s annual school census this year showed that 862,735 children, more than a quarter of pupils, are from an ethnic minority. The figure is up from 22 per cent in 2007.

When Labour took power in 1997, the total was 380,954. In Newham, only eight per cent of primary pupils are from a white British background.

SOURCE




IMAGE Undocumented Immigrants Program Pushes Business Crackdown

The article below is from HuffPo so may be a bit starry-eyed

In the past few months, the roster of companies in a revamped, voluntary immigration enforcement program has expanded by nearly one-fifth as the Obama administration steps up employer audits.

It may seem counterintuitive for a company to voluntarily open its books to the scrutiny of federal agents, but officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement say the benefits of its IMAGE program can include lower fines and can enhance a company's image.

"We need IMAGE because an enforcement-only approach isn't going to produce the best results," ICE Director John Morton said in a telephone interview.

The acronym stands for ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers. Officials say it can reduce the employment of illegal immigrants and the use of fake identification documents.

To participate, employers must meet several requirements: enroll in the federal E-Verify program; submit to an ICE audit of their I-9 forms that new employees complete and related documents; establish a written hiring and employment verification policy that includes a yearly internal audit; and sign a partnership agreement with ICE.

The agency says it will train IMAGE participants on proper hiring procedures, fraudulent document detection, use of E-Verify and anti-discrimination procedures.

Many employers already use the E-Verify federal online database to check the employment eligibility of new hires – either voluntarily or because they are required to by state or federal law. But unauthorized workers can still slip through if they use false documents with someone else's real name and matching Social Security number. IMAGE aims to give employers extra tools to ensure a legal workforce, Morton said.

The Obama administration has cracked down on employers as part of its immigration enforcement policy, but officials have emphasized employer audits more than the high-profile workplace raids done during the Bush administration. In fiscal year 2011, the agency conducted 2,496 I-9 audits, up from 2,196 the previous year and far above the 503 in the 2008 fiscal year. ICE initiated 3,291 worksite enforcement cases in fiscal year 2011, versus 1,191 in fiscal year 2008.

Even if an audit shows a company acted in good faith – for example if an employee used a convincing false document – and isn't penalized, it can still experience a disruption in production when all unlawful workers are fired.

The IMAGE program began in 2006 and continued in its original form through July 2011, when it had 117 members. The agency recently simplified the program's requirements and began an aggressive outreach, adding 22 new companies since July. Morton cited a key reason for recent interest in the program: the rise in enforcement actions.

"The agency's worksite enforcement efforts directed at employers is at an all-time high," he said. "We're serious about enforcing the law against employers who violate it."

Because program members must submit to a full I-9 audit to join – meaning they have to let ICE examine a representative sample of the employment documents – it is less likely they'll be audited in the future because the possibility of more internal compliance problems is "pretty minimal," said Memphis, Tenn.- based immigration lawyer Greg Siskind.

Companies in industries that have historically had problems with unauthorized workers, such as agriculture and hospitality, may want to join IMAGE to make sure their employees are eligible to work in the U.S., he said.

"Maybe you're trying to get out in front of that and trying to avoid problems if you actually end up getting audited," Siskind said.

Being "IMAGE certified" can also help a company promote itself to score contracts with other companies and government agencies that place high importance on immigration compliance, said Dawn Lurie, a lawyer who advises businesses on immigration issues. "I think from a branding perspective, it allows companies to say, `We are the gold standard in immigration compliance, ICE has certified us,'" she said.

Companies that aren't already using most of the best practices outlined in the IMAGE program might want to wait until they upgrade their internal compliance efforts, Lurie said.

But some companies may not be entirely comfortable entering a partnership with federal authorities. "It's a law enforcement agency, so you have to think about whether that's a disruptive thing for your business if you have a law enforcement agency basically become your partner on a day-to-day basis," Siskind said.

Morton dismissed that fear. "Are we a law enforcement agency? Do we enforce the law firmly against violators? You bet," he said. "But if you're doing the right thing, if you're willing to partner with us, if you're willing to open your books and create the kind of controls that lead to voluntary compliance, we will support you all day long."

Companies that participate in IMAGE may see fines reduced should ICE find noncompliance. There's also a better chance that if an issue with unlawful workers arises, ICE might reach out to the company to discuss the problem and allow the company to fix it before launching a formal enforcement action, Lurie said.

Kelly Services, an international staffing company, had been talking to ICE about participating in IMAGE since early this year and finalized its paperwork with the agency last week. Because Kelly is a federal contractor, it has been required to use E-Verify for several years. When company officials learned more about IMAGE, they realized they were already complying with a lot of the requirements, said company attorney Barbara Stockman.

"It made perfect sense for us to support the endeavors of the government in this regard and also to receive the recognition that we had been doing this all along," she said. "When we took a look at the requirements and realized that we were already there, it seemed to be a natural fit."

In fiscal year 2011, ICE spent $6.8 million on salaries for the IMAGE program and about $294,000 on travel, material, conferences and other expenses.

"I'm quite confident that the cost of IMAGE is far less than what it would cost to achieve the same level of compliance through investigations and audits," Morton said.

SOURCE



17 November, 2011

High rate of assimilation in Canada

Averages can hide a lot. The variances need to be considered too. These figures should be broken out into legal and illegal immigrants. Taking in a lot of skilled migrants might pull the averages up but still leave a large "indigestible" pool of low-skill illegals

Among Canadian immigration opponents, there is a popular narrative that goes like this: Newcomers to this country want our generosity, but not our values. They arrive on our shores with their hands outstretched, refuse to learn English or French, go on welfare and reject Canadian liberal values in favour of retaining their old-world backwardness and bigotry.

As it turns out, for the vast majority of immigrants to Canada, none of this is true.

Earlier this year, Jacob L. Vigdor, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative American think-tank, published a study titled Comparing Immigrant Assimilation In North America And Europe. In it, he examined the most recent data on the rates of assimilation of immigrants to Austria, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. His conclusion: "Immigrants from Canada rank first in terms of overall assimilation."

(For the purposes of measuring assimilation, Mr. Vigdor examined economic, civic and cultural indicators - including educational attainment, earnings, occupational prestige, employment status, labor-force participation, citizenship attainment, military enlistment, language skills and the decision to marry a nativeborn spouse.)

Our status as number-one assimilator manifests itself for almost every single geographical category of immigrant - including Chinese, Southeast Asian, African and Eastern European. Mr. Vigdor also found that Muslim immigrants to Canada rank first in overall assimilation as compared to Muslim immigrants to other Western nations.

"Two facets of Canadian immigration policy may help explain the rapid integration of foreigners into Canadian society," he concluded. "First, the path to citizenship in Canada is short and easily travelled.... Second, Canadian immigration policy places a distinct emphasis on attracting skilled migrants. Thirty percent of foreign-born adults in Canada have college degrees, while the rate is 23% in the United States and 10% in Spain and Italy.... The link between immigrants' level of education and their degree of assimilation is strong."

A bar chart contained in Mr. Vigdor's report is especially telling: Canada is the only nation to score higher than 80 on his assimilation index. The United States - and every studied European nation except Portugal - scores below 60. More than 80% of Canadian immigrants naturalize within 10 years of coming to Canada. In the United States, the 80% level isn't realized, on average, till immigrants are stateside for four decades.

"Multiculturalism" may exist as a popular catchphrase in academic circles and some forms of government literature, but the reality of Canadian life, especially since the Tories came to power, is that newcomers to this country are expected to adapt to our values, not the other way around.

All this helps explain why Canadians react with so much revulsion and shock when some unassimilated immigrants do violate our norms - by shrouding women in burkas, imposing female genital mutilation on infants, sending teenage girls abroad for forced marriages, or, most tragically, killing their daughters in the name of "honour." These are the vile exceptions to an otherwise benign rule.

SOURCE





Doubling amount husbands must earn to £26,000 would block two thirds of immigrant brides, says government watchdog

Two thirds of foreign wives could be banned from the UK under plans to stop immigrants becoming 'a burden on the state'. Government immigration advisers say that the minimum salary required to bring a spouse to Britain should go up significantly, and may even be doubled.

The proposals could mean more than half of the UK's population would not be able to bring in a foreign partner, as they might not earn enough to support them without relying on benefits. And the threshold may be pushed even higher for those trying to bring children to the UK.

Professor David Metcalf, chairman of the Migration Advisory Committee, said a minimum salary of between £18,600 and £25,700 should be introduced for UK residents sponsoring a partner or dependant for UK citizenship. This minimum, which applies equally to British citizens and immigrants, is currently set at around £13,700.

Some 40,000 foreign wives, husbands and partners were granted visas to join their family in the UK last year, but that number would be cut by up to 63 per cent under the proposals.

The Government asked the advisers to identify the salary a worker would need to earn to support a spouse or partner 'without them becoming a burden on the state', Professor Metcalf said.

The lowest figure in the proposed range, £18,600, is the income level at which many benefits, including housing benefit and tax credits, are withdrawn, while the highest figure, £25,700, represents the typical income of a one-adult household.

It would mean that between a quarter and a half of full-time adult workers would be unable to bring their partners to the UK - but many others, including the unemployed and pensioners, could be prevented too.

Prof Metcalf said the proposals do not take into account Britons' right to a family life. 'We have to abide by the terms of reference that we are set up for, and that's to answer the questions which the Government sets us, and not go off on a track of our own,' he said. 'It's for others to then decide whether in some senses that question is a bit wrong, [if] it's in this case too economic focused, or quite possibly we've not addressed it properly.'

He added that the current threshold was 'a bit low', and suggested there was 'justification for raising the pay threshold' to prevent a huge benefits bill for spouses from abroad.

The MAC's figures show that of the 40,000 spouses and partners brought in from outside the EU, nearly a third were from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while 6 per cent came from the U.S. and 5 per cent from Nepal. It added that while 94 per cent of those based in the UK with a spouse abroad wanted their partner to join them, half earned less than £20,100 and three quarters earned less than £30,500.

The Institute for Public Policy Research warned that if the Government accepted the proposals and went ahead with the policy, 'it is likely to be challenged in the courts'.

Matt Cavanagh, the think-tank's associate director, said: 'It isn't unreasonable - particularly in the current economic climate - to ask whether, if someone is destitute or entirely dependent on benefits, they should be allowed to bring in a spouse or partner who is likely to end up in a similar position.

'But introducing an income threshold at £25,700 - the level of the national median income - would effectively bar half the population from bringing a spouse or partner from abroad. 'We're not talking about people who are destitute or living on benefits, we are talking about people who are working and getting an average wage.'

SOURCE



16 November, 2011

British passport checks 'were relaxed 2,500 times' ...and leaks show that private aircraft were ignored

Unbelievable. Open borders Britain. It's not what the British people want

Passport checks were relaxed nearly 2,500 times at airports this summer, according to leaked UK Border Agency emails. The damning documents also reveal that thousands of passengers on private aircraft did not face passport checks at all and were not screened against the terrorist watch list.

In one email, a UKBA official at Durham Tees Valley Airport raised concerns with managers, complaining: ‘We are not allowed to physically see the passengers arriving on private charter flights. It is creating a situation where we are not able to secure the borders as robustly as we would like, for no justifiable reason.’

In a leaked reply, one manager revealed that this policy was followed at airports around the country.

The revelations will increase pressure on Home Secretary Theresa May, who faces criticism today as former Border Agency boss Brodie Clark is questioned by MPs on the Home Affairs Select Committee.

He resigned last week after Mrs May accused him of taking a pilot scheme to relax biometric passport checks on EU citizens too far by including non-EU passengers.

But Mr Clark hit back, insisting he had been given permission to extend the scheme. Last night, in written answers to the committee, Mrs May admitted the pilot scheme was trialled at 28 ports and airports.

The leaked emails obtained by the Labour Party reveal that level-two checks – the relaxed regime for EU nationals sanctioned by the Home Secretary – were used hundreds of times every week for the 14 weeks the scheme ran between July and November. They show the rules were relaxed 100 times in the first week, 260 times in the sixth week and 165 times in week nine. Averaged out over 14 weeks, that would mean border staff could have abandoned full biometric passport checks 2,450 times.

Official figures show that 2.2million British and EU nationals and more than 300,000 non-EU citizens enter the UK every week over the summer. Between 80,000 and 90,000 private flights, mostly carrying two or three passengers, arrive every year. Pilots on private flights have to file manifest information on their passengers and these details are scrutinised for security threats.

But the emails reveal UKBA staff at Durham Tees had ‘no way of checking whether the handling agent information is correct or even if the number of people arriving on [the] plane matches the number we have been advised’.

An email in June says that staff ‘feel uneasy about an instruction that is creating an unnecessary gap in security which could bring the Agency into disrepute’.

In response, UKBA chiefs said the ‘no-checks policy’ was part of a ‘new national strategy’.

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: ‘This is startling. Last week the Home Secretary told us no one had been waved through without checks this summer. But these documents show passengers on private flights weren’t even seen.

‘Last week the Home Office wouldn’t admit to having figures about how often checks were downgraded. Now we know checks were downgraded 260 times in one week.’

Mrs May last night said that despite the relaxation of checks, figures showed ‘an almost 10 per cent increase in detection of illegal immigrants and a 48 per cent increase in detection of forged documents compared to the year before’.

SOURCE





Susana Martinez, New Mexico Governor, Releases Evidence On Her Grandparents' Immigration Status

"There was no such thing as an undocumented immigrant during that time" in the American Southwest, said Olivas, a Santa Fe resident. "There was no secure Mexican border and people came and went with no problem."

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has dug into her family's ancestry and uncovered immigration documents that she says suggest her paternal grandparents followed common practices in coming to the United States from Mexico in the early 1900s, contradicting earlier indications they were undocumented immigrants.

Martinez, a Republican and the nation's only female Hispanic governor, made headlines this year by acknowledging that her grandparents came to the U.S. without immigration documents. But she said her comments were based on what she has since learned were mischaracterizations of census information by the news media.

The governor directed her political organization to undertake the genealogical research after publicity about her immigrant roots and her push to repeal a law allowing undocumented immigrants to get a driver's license.

"We don't know everything, I'm sure," the governor said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But it gave us more information than we had and it helped us understand ... the family tree and how people came back and forth from Mexico into the United States."

The governor's opponents have pointed to her immigrant grandparents as an example of why New Mexico should welcome undocumented immigrants and continue to allow them to get a driver's license. Only New Mexico, Washington and Utah grant driver's licenses or permits to immigrants living without documents in the U.S.

Martinez has unsuccessfully asked the Legislature to repeal a 2003 law allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's license.

The 1930 U.S. census has been cited in published reports as indicating the governor's grandparents were undocumented immigrants. However, the census only records they were not U.S. citizens at the time they were living in El Paso. The census used a code, "AL" to designate they were "aliens," meaning they were not citizens and had not filed papers declaring their intent to become citizens. It does not indicate their immigration status or whether they were living in the United States legally, according to historians and immigration experts.

Michael A. Olivas, an immigration law expert and director of the Institute of Higher Education Law & Governance at the University of Houston, said the documents are "not clear" in indicating that her grandfather was ever an undocumented immigrant by today's definition or maintained legal status throughout his time in the U.S.

"There was no such thing as an undocumented immigrant during that time" in the American Southwest, said Olivas, a Santa Fe resident. "There was no secure Mexican border and people came and went with no problem."

The research provided Martinez insight into a Mexican-born grandfather, whom she never knew while growing up in El Paso, Texas, along the U.S.-Mexico border. She said researchers' findings also corroborated her brother's statements during last year's campaign that she is the great-granddaughter of prominent Mexican revolutionary general Toribio Ortega.

On Monday, she visited Cuchillo Parado, Mexico, for a celebration recognizing the father of her father's mother as a revolutionary general who led a band of supporters credited as being the first to take up arms on Nov. 14, 1910 against a decades-long dictator. Martinez said her family's roots in Mexico – regardless of questions surrounding her grandparents immigration status – "really doesn't change my policy at all."

"It's not like I started talking about driver's licenses and then all of a sudden realized, `Oh my gosh I came from Mexico and that's a conflict.' I've known where my heritage is from all along," said Martinez.

The census lists 1910 as the year her grandfather, Adolfo Martinez, immigrated to the U.S. He worked as a taxi driver and spoke English. Her grandmother, Francisca Martinez, came to the U.S. in 1915, according to the same census document.

Her grandparents had U.S. government permits to cross the border on several occasions, according to documents provided to the AP by the governor's political committee. They were dated from 1908 through 1931, and several were issued by the U.S. Department of Labor's immigration service.

"So he understood the process and seemed to have followed the process," the governor said of her grandfather.

Olivas said the documents show the governor's grandfather traveled freely back and forth from Mexico and the U.S., like many Mexican citizens during the turn of the century.

Guadalupe San Miguel, Jr., a history professor at the University of Houston and a noted scholar of Mexican-American history, said it wasn't until a 1924 federal law outlined rules for immigrants with proper documents.

"But they did not apply the law to people from the Western Hemisphere," said San Miguel. "It only applied to people from Europe, Africa and Asia, for example."

San Miguel said the "concept of undocumented" first emerged in popular literature and among politicians during the Great Depression after lawmakers began complaining about the economy and blaming the growing Mexican-American and Mexican immigrant population for taking jobs.

Researchers for the governor found that Martinez's grandfather received a Social Security number in 1962 in Texas.

Until researchers assembled their information, the governor said, she had never seen the census or other immigration documents. When questions arose about her grandparent's immigration status, Martinez said, she was unable to turn to her father for answers because he suffers from Alzheimer's disease. He lives in El Paso. Her mother died in 2006.

Jay McCleskey, the governor's top political adviser, said the genealogy research included family member interviews and a review of online documents at the National Archives. The research cost several thousand dollars and will be reported on the next financial disclosure by the governor's PAC.

SOURCE



15 November, 2011

Sec. Duncan says he supports allowing kids of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition

That good ol' generous taxpayer again!

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Monday he’s encouraged that some states are allowing the children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public colleges.

As an example, Duncan pointed to Rhode Island, where this fall the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education unanimously approved in-state tuition for illegal immigrants starting in fall 2012.

Another dozen states have similar laws or policies, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In contrast, four states have laws specifically prohibiting illegal immigrant students from receiving in-state tuition, and two states bar those who are illegally in the country from attending public secondary schools altogether, the National Conference of State Legislatures said.

Duncan said some of the children of illegal immigrants came to the United States when they were infants. He said the United States is their home, where they’ve worked hard in school and taken on leadership roles. For too long, he said, the U.S. policy toward them has been backward.

“They are either going to be taxpayers and productive citizens and entrepreneurs and innovators or they are going to be on the sidelines and a drag on the economy,” Duncan said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The topic has been an issue in the GOP presidential primary race, with Texas Gov. Rick Perry taking criticism from rival contenders for supporting a law that allows illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition at Texas universities if they meet other residency requirements

Under the Rhode Island policy, in-state rates will be available only to illegal immigrants’ children who have attended a high school in the state for at least three years and graduated or received a GED. Students will lose their resident tuition unless they commit to seek legal status as soon as they are eligible.

The Pew Hispanic Center has said the number of Hispanic college students ages 18 to 24 increased by 24 percent, meaning about 35,000 additional young Hispanics were in college in 2010 compared to a year earlier. It’s the largest such increase. Duncan said he was pleased to see the increase and will be monitoring the students to see if they graduate.

Duncan supported the DREAM ACT, which Congress failed to pass last year. That legislation would have allowed young people to become legal U.S. residents after spending two years in college or the military. It applied to those who were under 16 when they arrived in the U.S., had been in the country at least five years and had a diploma from a U.S. high school or the equivalent.

Also on Monday, the Lumina Foundation, which seeks to expand educational opportunities for students beyond high school, announced it will provide $7.2 million over a four-year period to 12 partnerships in 10 states with significant and growing Latino populations. The effort seeks to leverage community leaders across the education, business and nonprofit sector.

SOURCE




Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. The Golden Years? Deficit Reduction and Immigration (Memorandum)

2. Steven Camarota Discusses AL Lawsuit on FOX (video)

3. Oops! (Blog)

4. Indian Press Reports on Infosys H1-B Misuse Case in U.S. Court (Blog)

5. A Big Win for the Open-Borders Crowd? (Blog)

6. Hispanic Fury With Obama: The Dilemma That's the Handwriting on the Wall (Blog)

7. DoJ No Longer Bothered by 'Patchwork of Laws'? (Blog)

8. Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied (Blog)

9. Open Mic Night at the G-20 (Blog)

10. Supporters of the Utah Immigration Compact Disrespect Veterans (Blog)

11. No Cartel War Spillover, Nosiree (Blog)

12. USCIS Promotes L-1 Foreign Worker Program with Bundling Techniques (Blog)

13. Too Small a Frame: Immigration in Racial Terms (Blog)

14. Making E.J Dionne Even More Culturally Sensitive (Blog)

15. State Dept. Announces Restrictions on J-1 Visas (Blog)

16. Canada Shows U.S. How Not to Deal with an Immigration Visa Backlog (Blog)





14 November, 2011

Checks on asylum seekers halted in row over stab vests

Does the saga of British incompetence and stupidity never end?

Border control chiefs ordered officers to stop carrying out crucial checks on asylum seekers because of a dispute over the wearing of stab vests. They halted the monitoring of asylum seekers for several weeks during the same period that the border force also relaxed checks on the passports of non-EU nationals entering Britain.

Officers at the UK Border Agency headquarters in West London had demanded stab vests after a colleague was threatened by a knife-wielding asylum seeker. But Rebecca Baumgartner, UKBA’s deputy director for London, ruled they could not wear them for the checks – conducted at asylum seekers’ living accommodation – while a review of the policy was under way. As a compromise, she said officers should not monitor asylum seekers in all parts of London until they made a decision.

As a result, for several weeks between June and July, UKBA officers across the capital did not carry out spot-checks on hundreds of asylum seekers whose applications were being processed by the Home Office.

Directors in London finally announced stab vests would remain banned, despite claims that officers in other parts of the country, such as Kent, are allowed to wear them. Officers were told to resume spot-checks, but if there was a chance that a search could be confrontational, they should either not to do them or else take police officers with them.

The Government is still reeling from the UKBA’s ‘reckless’ decision to relax passport checks on non-EU nationals entering the country as a way of reducing airport queues.

Last month, Home Secretary Theresa May suspended three of the force’s directors and told Parliament she only authorised a pilot scheme where checks on EU passports could be relaxed to ease the backlog.

She said UKBA directors had extended the scheme to non-EU passports without ministerial approval.

UKBA sources say the spot-checks in the community are the only way to keep track of asylum seekers while their claims are being handled. They also help ensure asylum seekers are not working illegally. One officer said: ‘Suspending checks just gave a red light to God knows how many people to abscond.’

Although they have now resumed, some officers have dismissed them as ineffective, since the more dangerous asylum seekers are no longer monitored.

It has also been revealed that despite the passports furore, UKBA chief executive Rob Whiteman has emailed staff saying that they ‘have done nothing wrong’, and that recent events ‘do not mean we should worry about sometimes making genuine mistakes; we all want to perform at the highest level.’

UKBA said: ‘The UK Border Agency has a wide range of measures to combat asylum absconders. All those in receipt of support must meet reporting conditions. ‘All immigration officers carrying out enforcement work wear stab vests. Those assessing support claims for asylum seekers in the community do not as it is not felt that this role presents any significant risk.’

SOURCE






Labour dragged into border fiasco over dropped passport checks

Millions of people are feared to have been allowed into Britain without full passport checks in a major new borders scandal.

All but the most cursory checks were abandoned on passengers on British-registered coaches as they arrived at Dover, Britain's biggest port.

Instead of passports being scanned electronically, border guards checked that the picture matched the holder. It means they were not cross-checked to a computer database to establish if the holder was a wanted terrorist, criminal or immigration offender.

The policy was in place for four years after being introduced when Labour was in power, but never disclosed to Parliament.

It was implemented because the French complained about congestion in Calais caused by backlogs at passport control.

Ministers discovered the scheme earlier this month and ended it ten days ago when the Border Agency official in charge of the southern ports was suspended, along with Brodie Clark, the director of the UK Border Force, who was accused of relaxing passport checks at airports on non-European Union citizens without ministers' permission.

The Dover scandal has the potential to be bigger than that at the airports and will add to political pressure on Theresa May, the Home Secretary.

It is estimated that up to 17 million coach passengers passed through Dover's ferry terminal in the last four years, of whom the majority would have been on British-registered coaches.

It was not known last night if the policy was implemented at other ports, and whether it was operated around the clock or at the busiest times.

Relaxing controls at Dover is particularly damaging because the port has been identified as one of the main routes for illegal entry to the country.

Camps of people trying to make their way into Britain have sprung up in the French port, with repeated attempts to close them and stop smugglers using lorries or desperate people climbing onto trains and under vans and coaches to enter the UK.

Last night there were calls for a full statement on the suspension of checks at Dover, and for the Home Office to make clear whether it affected other ports on the south coast of England.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons' Home Affairs Select Committee said he would ask for detailed information on whether ministers were aware of the changes, when Mr Clark and Rob Whiteman, the UKBA chief executive, appear before MPs this week to be questioned on the airports scandal.

"This information raises serious concerns about the history of checks undertaken by the UKBA [United Kingdom Border Agency]," he said. "We must ensure our border checks are not compromised and that the UKBA has the resources it needs to thoroughly check every individual coming into Britain. "The committee will question Rob Whiteman and Brodie Clark this Tuesday on exactly what checks have been used and when and who was notified."

The relaxed security checks were introduced during 2007. That year Jacqui Smith took over as home secretary from Dr John Reid, now Lord Reid of Cardowan, although it is unclear exactly when the changes were introduced. The key question will be whether Labour ministers were informed. Coalition ministers were unaware of the policy until this month.

The UKBA's shelving of full passport checks on coach passengers was understood to have been one of the reasons behind the decision to suspend Carole Upshall, director of the UK Border Force's south and European operations. She was sent home on the same day as Mr Clark, who resigned last week.

He has denied acting without authorisation when he allowed non-European Union citizens to be let through passport controls without full checks when queues became unwieldy at airports.

Managers at the UKBA encouraged staff not to examine the contents of passport biometric microchips, and also dropped "warnings index checks" - the database of people who should be stopped at the border because they are due to be in limited circumstances.

But the revelation that potentially millions of travellers underwent even less rigorous security will raise yet more questions about the way the Home Office has failed to safeguard Britain's borders.

An estimated 86,000 coaches pass through Dover every year. The Home Office refused to disclose if the scheme was limited to private hire coaches, which make up a significant proportion of coach traffic at the ports and would be likely to have mostly British passengers on board, or included scheduled services to Britain from destinations in Europe, which would include significant proportions of foreigners.

Mr Clark is due to give evidence on Tuesday to the Commons' Home Affairs Select Committee, and the scandal is likely to be reignited as the former civil servant gives his first detailed account of his dealings with Mrs May and other ministers.

Mrs May has consistently denied that she authorised in any fashion the relaxation of controls at airports ordered by Mr Clark. She has been backed by his superior, Mr Whiteman, who issued a statement saying that Mr Clark had "admitted to me on November 2 that on a number of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further than ministerial instruction".

However, the emergence of separate relaxations at ports for British coaches may serve to increase political pressure on Mrs May.

Labour refused to comment last night on what its ministers knew when they were in government.

Chris Bryant, shadow immigration minister, said: "Theresa May needs to urgently publish the data we know exists and come clean about the scale of the problem - so we can learn lessons and make sure we stop illegal entrants in future."

Separately, it has also emerged that security checks at Heathrow were significantly watered down on a previous occasion, leading to a dramatic fall in the number of foreign travellers who were refused permission to enter Britain.

During a two-day strike by immigration officers in October last year managers instituted what they described as "light touch" security with fewer checks.

Documents show 22 people were refused leave to enter on the day before the strike, but over the two day action nine were refused.

A Home Office spokesman said: "Nothing is more important than the integrity of our border in order to protect national security and reduce and control immigration. "There are ongoing investigations into allegations regarding the relaxation of border controls without ministerial approval.

“UKBA ensured additional trained staff authorised to carry out all necessary checks were in place at the border during the strike last year.”

SOURCE



13 November, 2011

The present British border skirmish is about far more than immigration

Theresa May’s dispute with her officials is an acid test of the Tories’ strategy – and competence.

In Ambrose Bierce’s indispensable Devil’s Dictionary, “responsibility” is defined as “a detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one’s neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star.”

The Ohio-born Bierce, one of the greatest journalists of all time, knew how politics works. In the row over border controls, Theresa May has declared unambiguously that “responsibility” for the excessive relaxation of security checks lies solely with Brodie Clark, who resigned as head of the UK Border Force on Tuesday. Under a secret pilot scheme authorised over the summer by the Home Secretary, border officials were no longer obliged to check children from the European Economic Area (EEA) travelling with their parents and in school groups against the “Warnings Index” (the Home Office list of individuals with “adverse immigration histories or who are of other interest to the Government”), or, in the case of EEA adults, to examine the second photograph coded into the “biometric” chips in their passports.

Clark, however, went much further down the route described by the UK Border Agency as “lighter-touch screening”: checks on the second photographs of non-EEA nationals were regularly skipped, for instance, as was the verification of fingerprints of non-Europeans from countries that require a visa. At Calais, adults were not checked against the Warnings Index.

So far, more or less everything has gone Mrs May’s way in the ensuing uproar. True, it is embarrassing to her that Mr Clark will almost certainly obtain a hefty pay-off for constructive dismissal. In the Commons, it was her Labour opposite number, Yvette Cooper, who shone (nobody can say “dearie me” with such menace). But at Prime Minister’s Questions, David Cameron saw off Ed Miliband’s attack with ease, scorning Labour’s attempt to force the Home Secretary’s resignation. Indeed, the PM claimed, the piloted strategy of targeted checks had been a success: “The number of people arrested was up by 10 per cent, the number of drug seizures was markedly up, and the number of firearms seizures was up by 100 per cent.” Further strengthening May’s hand, a statement issued by Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency, disclosed that “Brodie Clark admitted to me on November 2 that on a number of occasions this year he authorised his staff to go further than ministerial instruction.”

Case closed? Not by a long chalk. On Tuesday, Clark will have his say before the Home Affairs Select Committee, and rumours are swirling round Whitehall this weekend that he has some embarrassing things to reveal. There are whispers about emails from Damian Green, the Immigration Minister – although Green, an honest politician if ever there was one, emphatically denies that any such documents could exist or that he ever green-lit, even with a nod or a wink, an extension of the scheme. There are anecdotal claims that, for six days after the story broke, lorries were being waved through at Calais as border staff were pulled off other duties to strengthen passport control.

It should be emphasised that much of this is gossip. But it is tinder that keeps the flame of political trouble alight while the three separate inquiries complete their work between now and the end of January.

As things stand, there is absolutely no reason for Mrs May to go. It is one thing to insist that ministers should quit if bad things happen on their watch, even if they are not directly responsible: the so-called Crichel Down doctrine, named after a case in 1955, when Sir Thomas Dugdale, the agriculture minister, resigned because his officials had improperly sold an area of land in Dorset. But the moral context is clearly different if officials – in Clark’s case, working for an independent executive agency – straightforwardly and directly contravene a minister’s recent instructions. To argue that the occupant of one of the great offices of state must resign in such circumstances is – in effect – to give every disgruntled civil servant the power to sack ministers by a simple act of vexatious disobedience.

Why, then, are senior Government figures so edgy about this case? For the simple reason that it dramatises all too precisely the big arguments of this Parliament. The policy in question is technical, often fiendishly so, but the issue is not. Philip Gould, the great Labour strategist who died last week, grasped this with particular clarity. Public anxiety about immigration, he understood, is a proxy for a more general fear of relentless upheaval and bewildering change. People pay attention when border control is in the news. Like the management of the economy, it is a fundamental test of Government competence.

On the Conservative side, the narrative in this instance is a perfect fit with its more general political argument. First – the argument runs – May and her colleagues are only clearing up the mess left by Labour: immigration out of control, a backlog of 450,000 unresolved asylum cases, no transitional controls for new EU member states. Second, the targeting of resources leads to better results. “Intelligence-led” border checks, rather than universal, uniform methods, are more effective, as well as a better way of spending public money. Thrift and best practice march hand in hand. Fiscal conservatism forces public services to raise their game. This is the claim to competence that will nestle at the heart of the Conservative sales pitch at the next election.

The Labour counter-narrative is the mirror image. Its weakest claim, road-tested in Wednesday’s debate, is that the defects in public policy in May 2010 reflected not the failings of the last government, but the lingering inheritance of the previous Tory administration: a legacy so supposedly ghastly that Blair and Brown were unable to sort it all out in 13 years. “It really is quite breathtaking,” said Alun Michael, the former Labour Home Office minister, “to hear Conservative Members ignore the history of the shambles that was left behind by the previous Conservative Government in 1997.” And why stop there? What about Macmillan? Or Pitt the Younger?

Much more to the point – and potentially dangerous – is the Labour claim that all this Government cares about is cuts, and that it is prepared to skimp on security. This is why Yvette Cooper mentioned Sheikh Raed Salah so often last week: the fundamentalist Muslim preacher, whose entry to this country had been banned, still managed to stroll in at Heathrow in June.

The plain insinuation is, and will be, that the Tories worry more about balancing the books than your safety. It’s a deplorable thing to say about anyone. It isn’t true. But it is “adhesive”, as pollsters say: a nasty suspicion that sticks in voters’ minds.

As they watch the eurozone collapse, they are in fretful mood. The Home Office’s private polling says that the public supports the measures the Coalition is taking to control the nation’s borders – but doesn’t believe ministers can make them work. That’s a chilling insight into the facts of political life in November 2011. No wonder the Cameroons are apprehensive about this furore: so much more is at stake than one woman’s career.

SOURCE





Candidates court controversial Arizona sheriff

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio makes inmates wear pink underwear, live in tents during Arizona's sweltering summers and eat green bologna. The Justice Department is investigating him for potential civil rights violations in his sweeping immigration patrols, his office has been accused of trumping up charges against political rivals and he has tasked his cold case squad with investigating ongoing claims that President Barack Obama's birth certificate was faked.

While any sheriff with such a resume might seem like one most politicians would actively avoid, some of the top Republican presidential candidates are lining up to meet with the man described as the toughest, the craziest or most bigoted sheriff in America.

Arpaio, 79, loves the spotlight. And as the anti-immigration rhetoric in the Republican primary has heated up, he has been soaking up the glory, inviting media from around the world into his large office that is overflowing with pictures and trophies to himself and his tough policies.

"Did you see this," he asked on several occasions during a recent visit to his office, flashing a photo of himself standing with GOP hopeful Herman Cain. "He's a good guy. Kind of like me. Tells it like it is."

"When is your story going to run?" was another oft-repeated question from the man who then insisted he doesn't have an ego. "I'm a private person. .... These people ... these television stations from all over the world ... they come to me. They want to talk to me."

Besides Cain, Arpaio met last month with Republican candidate Michele Bachmann. And he says he has recently had telephone conversations with Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. In the 2008 Republican presidential primary he endorsed Romney over Phoenix's own Sen. John McCain. But that doesn't mean he will automatically back him this time around. "He forgot to invite me to his fundraiser," the sheriff noted with a twinge of resentment.

So are all four seeking his endorsement? "Well, I'm pretty sure Perry and Romney and Michele, yeah," Arpaio said. "Herman, not right out. I didn't get much time to talk to him. He was late."

Perry spokesman Mark Miner confirmed the Arpaio-Perry meeting. Perry has taken heat from his GOP rivals for what they consider his soft stance on immigration, including allowing in-state university tuition rates and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrant high school students. An Arpaio spokesman, Jeff Sprong, said the Texas governor contacted Arpaio a second time last week.

Romney and Bachmann campaign spokesman did not respond to telephone calls and emails asking for interviews on why the candidates were courting Arpaio. Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon, however, characterized the visits and phone calls as fact-finding missions.

"All the candidates are trying to get up to speed on the border," he said. "... All the campaigns are reaching out to a wide variety of experts on a number of issues. Naturally, the border issue is one that will be central to the 2012 election, and therefore the candidates in general are trying to get as many opinions as they have."

Dan Schnur, a former GOP strategist who now teaches at the University of Southern California, called Arpaio "a precise human representation of the importance of the debate over illegal immigration.

"We've already seen how volatile the issue has become in the Republican primary, so candidates who might be vulnerable in this debate would see Arpaio as protection against criticism. But that same debate plays out much different in the general election, so his support has both risks and benefits attached."

And at least one Republican Hispanic group, Somos Republicans, warns that it will also be working aggressively at the grass-roots level during the primary to promote only immigrant-friendly candidates.

"With regard to Perry consulting Arpaio, we did push back against him," said Dee Dee Blasé, former president of Somos Republicans. "We sent him a strong message that that's a no-no. So hopefully Perry will pick up on that and not do that again."

But for congressional and statehouse candidates across the country, Arpaio's endorsement has become almost a brand, a stamp of approval for strong anti-immigration policies.

"I know of nobody who has the profile that Sheriff Joe has," Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, the architect of Arizona's tough immigration enforcement law, said in an interview last year.

Indeed, Arpaio advocates — and practices — some of the toughest anti-immigration policies in the country. A retired Drug Enforcement Agent who worked in the Middle East, Mexico and Texas before retiring in Arizona, he says he would send troops into Mexico to catch the immigrants before they hit the border. And those who do make it across should be charged with felonies, like they are when caught by raids on his turf.

While Arpaio has become synonymous with radical immigration laws, he built his reputation for being tough on crime when he first took office in 1993 and erected a compound of tents to house jail inmates. It's the epitome of hard time, with temperatures sometimes hitting 145 degrees. He also resurrected old-fashioned chain gangs.

Arpaio seemingly only softens when he speaks of animals. He was recently the featured singer at a humane association fundraiser, and he brags that some of the county's old — and more comfortable jail cells — are now used by the county animal shelter.

While Arpaio has long been courted by anti-immigration politicians around the country, he says interest in him rose again after Obama announced a plan to halt the deportation of some 300,000 illegal immigrants. That put the immigration issue back at the forefront of the presidential campaigns, he said.

"Nobody is saying anything," Arpaio said. "But I'm glad it's back on the table. I'm glad they are talking about it. People will be interested in it instead of just the economy. So I'm going to keep stimulating that and they can keep coming down here and visiting me, which confuses me. Why would they want to visit me?"

SOURCE



12 November, 2011

Feds ask SCOTUS not to hear the appeal of Arizona against the blocking of its laws

The U.S. Justice Department asked the Supreme Court Thursday to leave be a lawsuit involving Arizona's controversial immigration law, claiming that lower courts have already blocked tough provisions targeting undocumented immigrants.

The state law is a challenge to federal policy and is designed to establish Arizona's own immigration policy, the department's solicitor general said in a filing with the justices. Arizona says the law is an effort to cooperate with the federal government.

One provision requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect they are in the country illegally. In April, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge's ruling halting enforcement of that and other key provisions in the Arizona law.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is seeking to overturn the judge's decision and wants Supreme Court review of the case, arguing that the issues are of compelling, nationwide importance.

SUMMARY

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer wants the Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that halted some key provisions in the immigration law.

The Justice Department disagreed.

"That several states have recently adopted new laws in this important area is not a sufficient reason for this court to grant review" of the first appeals court decision affirming a judge's preliminary ruling against part of one of those state laws, Justice told the high court.

The Arizona law has been followed by others, including Alabama, where lawmakers enacted a requirement that schools check students' immigration status. That provision has been blocked temporarily.

The Justice Department, about 30 civil rights organizations and prominent church leaders are challenging Alabama's law. Still standing there are provisions that allow police to check a person's immigration status during traffic stops and make it a felony for illegal immigrants to conduct basic state business, like getting a driver's license.

Last week, the federal government sued South Carolina in an effort to stop the state's tough new immigration law. The South Carolina law requires that officers call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally following a traffic stop for something else.

SOURCE





British border checks relaxed in second rule change

Thousands of people have entered Britain without facing routine passport checks on arrival under a second change in border rules approved by Theresa May.

Since last year, the UK Border Agency has been operating a system at four major airports that means passengers on some flights are security-screened before take-off and then face a “light touch” inspection on arrival.

The “smart zone” trial has come to light as the Home Secretary faces continued criticism over a separate, secret move to relax passport checks at all airports over the summer.

The smart zone system allows passengers on selected flights to enter the UK with reduced passport checks and pass through the airport in half the time normally taken.

The system, which has been quietly piloted at some UK airports over the past year, is part of a wider move towards “risk-based” controls that ministers believe can focus border resources on suspicious travellers.

Insiders say such schemes are effectively paving the way for a full-blown profiling system where passengers are subjected to different levels of scrutiny depending on nationality or race.

The smart zone system relies on pre-screening of passengers on “low-risk” routes into the UK and effectively does away with routine passport inspection on arrival in Britain. Smart zone trials have taken place at Luton, Gatwick, Birmingham and Leeds/Bradford airports. Further tests are planned for Bristol, Liverpool and Manchester. Some coach parties arriving by ferry at Calais have also been allowed to use the scheme.

A UK Border Agency report makes clear that the move means an end to the routine processing of passports and other travel documents for selected flights.

“Smart zone allows us to pre-check people on low-risk routes and, therefore, to provide a faster, lighter-touch, screening of passengers at the port,” the agency said. “This is better for passengers and allows us to use our staff’s expertise at spotting the unknown risk, rather than routinely processing documents.”

Damian Green, the immigration minister, confirmed the smart zone trials in a recent parliamentary answer.

UKBA is reviewing its operating processes at ports to make the best use of technology, he said. “Smart zones are one part of this and operate by using information gathered through the e-Borders system to conduct enhanced watch-list checks in advance of arrival.

“Passengers are then directed through a designated smart zone where the appropriate level of checks can be made on arrival. This has the potential to remove duplication of detailed checks at the border, thereby improving the passenger experience while simultaneously maintaining border security.”

The e-Borders system is a programme to collect electronic records of everyone who enters and leaves the country.

A Home Office evaluation of the smart zone scheme is due next month. Whitehall officials said that feedback from UKBA staff, airlines and passengers so far has been positive.

Mrs May this week faced calls for her resignation over separate relaxations in passport controls over the summer.

She has accused Brodie Clark, a former senior UKBA official, of defying her orders to relax checks on non-European passports. Mr Clark quit this week and accused Mrs May of misleading the public about his actions. He will give evidence to MPs next week which could put Mrs May under renewed pressure.

Labour MPs have accused Mrs May of treating Mr Clark unfairly. Simon Danczuk, a Labour MP, yesterday asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the head of the Civil Service, to investigate the conduct of Mrs May’s aides in relation to Mr Brodie.

SOURCE



11 November, 2011

Obama rolls back immigration enforcement, again

The White House’s immigration lawyers have issued yet another bureaucratic order that will curb the election-year deportation of illegal immigrants, and perhaps spur the supply of Hispanic voters.

The new memo will shelter many illegals who have not committed violent crimes, or who are not suspected of being a national security threat, from routine deportation efforts by professionals in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency. There are roughly 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, including roughly seven million in the workforce.

The order is a “positive step … [because] it lets officers focus solely on the job at hand, [which is] referring most enforcement actions to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency formed for that purpose,” said a Nov. 8 statement from Eleanor Pelta, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

According to Pelta, the memo “realigns the agency’s goals to better reflect its original and intended purpose… [which is] adjudicating immigration petitions and applications,” not enforcement. The AILA’s membership consists of lawyers who are hired by foreigners to avoid deportation, and to gain a share of the many valuable benefits that come with residency and citizenship.

The nine-page memo is titled “Revised Guidance for the Referral of Cases and Issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs) in Cases Involving Inadmissible and Removable Aliens.”

Hispanic ethic lobby groups have repeatedly urged the administration to scale back enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws, despite a national unemployment rate of nine percent, and a Hispanic unemployment rate of at least 11 percent.

In a series of meetings with administration officials, and in many public statements, the leaders of the ethnic lobbies have said continued enforcement of immigration laws will reduce their ability to rally Hispanic voters behind Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

White House officials, including Obama, recognize the unpopularity of additional immigration during a recession, and publicly say they are required to enforce the nation’s laws. Officials, including Obama, have repeatedly urged the ethnic lobbies to persuade Congress to pass a so-called comprehensive immigration law that would provide valuable citizenship documents to millions of unskilled immigrants and their dependents.

Republican and Democratic legislators, like White House officials, show no desire to publicly champion a controversial immigration or amnesty bill.

Yet Obama’s campaign officials say they need a wave of new Hispanic voters in 2012 to offset his losses among American voters in the mid-West, in blue collar jobs and in swing states, such as Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina. In 2008, Obama won more than 60 percent of Hispanic vote.

Because of this dilemma, administration officials have issued several bureaucratic decisions since June that exploit the laws’ complexity to exempt increasing numbers of illegal immigrants from routine deportation efforts. Justice Department officials have also sued states for passing local immigration laws.

Those measures have been applauded by the AILA and by Hispanic ethnic lobbies, such the National Council of La Raza. To some extent, the ethnic lobbies can spur turnout and enthusiasm by Hispanic voters next year.

The administration’s earlier announcements have already established a de facto amnesty for many subgroups of illegal immigrants, such as younger immigrants, despite the nation’s record unemployment rates that have left at least 14 million Americans unemployed, say critics.

The administration’s step-by-step strategy “sets a course that prevents the enforcement of immigration law, provides a de facto amnesty, and is effectively worker authorization for much of the current illegal population,” according to an October paper by Janice Kephart, the director of national security issues at the D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies.

However, the immigration boosters say the administration’s new policies haven’t gone far enough. For example, AILA officials are still “dismayed by the [new] guidance’s perpetuation of the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System… [the government] should simply cease to apply these rules,” according to Pelta’s statement.

SOURCE






Greeks escaping to Australia

The Australian economy is in infinitely better shape than Greece's

AFTER decades of low immigration, the number of Greeks interested in heading to Australia has risen sharply, according to the federal government.

As the Greek debt crisis worsens and unemployment rises, some of the most skilled professionals are seeking to join one of the biggest expatriate communities in the world, based largely in Melbourne and Sydney.

A recent "skills expo" in Athens, hosted by the Australian embassy, attracted 773 young professionals interested in moving under the skilled migration program. For country with a population of 10 million, the figure is significant.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship said the most recent statistics were not yet available. "But we are able to say that, anecdotally, there has been an increase in Greek inquiries about immigration to Australia, via our embassy in Athens and via the website," she said.

Over the past decade, immigration from Greece has been low. In 2001, there were 92 migrants; in 2006, there were 112 people; in 2009, after the global financial crisis hit, there were 132 people; and in the year ending June 2011, there were 134 migrants.

This is despite Australia being home to almost 400,000 people who claimed Greek ancestry in the 2006 census, which contains the most recent data. The biggest influx of Greeks came after World War II, when the government looked to Europe to help populate the country.

But since Greece joined the European Union in 1981, and became a signatory to the Schengen Agreement in 2000, allowing the free movement of labour across the union, many young Greeks - fluent in English and other European languages, and equipped with strong qualifications - have emigrated to France, Germany and Britain or the United States, says the Australian Hellenic Council.

The council's spokesman, Panayiotis Diamadis, told the Herald the "tyranny of distance" had limited the number of Greeks moving to Australia. "That's the biggest obstacle," he said, especially if migrants leave elderly family members behind.

Dr Diamadis said, however, that in the past year about 2500 Greeks who have dual citizenship had returned to Australia, largely because of the economic crisis.

He said that while his organisation was willing to help resettle Greeks, it was not actively encouraging the large-scale immigration of young professionals at this time. "We're very worried about the outflow from Greece of the best qualified people because they're the ones - the engineers, the accountants, the doctors - that the country will need to get themselves out of the mess," he said.

SOURCE



10 November, 2011

Why not listen to the voters on immigration?

The British electorate want the Government to show some resolve before it’s too late

Immigration has been back in the headlines this week, as the Government wrestles with the UK Border Agency. For large periods during the summer, individuals appear to have been allowed into the country with no checks whatsoever, meaning that we have no record of who has arrived. This was clearly wrong, and the Home Secretary was right to order an inquiry.

At heart, however, this fiasco is an issue of process. No matter how far-reaching Theresa May’s inquiry, it will leave untouched the bigger issue: namely, the sheer number of people arriving here.

A week ago, the campaign group Migrationwatch launched a new e-petition calling on the Government to take all necessary measures to keep the population below 70 million. Within a week, it had 100,000 signatures. This is a remarkable success. The public have at last been given an opportunity to express their opinion, and have done so in unmistakable terms.

It is now up to the political system to respond – not just as a democratic duty, but as a matter of common sense. The latest projections show that our population will reach that 70 million figure in just 16 years. Two thirds of the increase, equivalent to five million people, will come from future immigrants and their children. To put that in perspective, it’s the same as adding five cities the size of Birmingham, or 10 new Bristols or Manchesters.

Of course, population projections can be wrong. But the Office for National Statistics has done pretty well in the past: over the past half-century, its 20-year forecasts have been accurate to within 2.5 per cent. So we can be pretty certain that these are not freak figures. They point to a truth that must be faced. Either we bring the level of net immigration sharply down, or we accept that our population will continue to increase at a rapid rate, in the teeth of strong and growing public opposition, putting enormous pressure on our housing, schools and hospitals.

True, Scotland and Wales are not short of space. But few migrants want to settle there. England, however, is the most crowded country in Europe, alongside Holland. Barring a few small islands, the only places with a denser population are Bangladesh, South Korea, Taiwan and Lebanon. The public are very conscious of this. A recent YouGov poll found that 80 per cent of people in England considered the country to be crowded. A text poll on the BBC last Sunday found 94 per cent agreement with the proposition that “Britain is full”.

It was this public concern, as well as the weight of the evidence, that prompted us to establish in 2008 the Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration. In calling for a sharp reduction in immigration, we absolutely accept that no step should be taken that would put at risk the recovery, on which all else depends. The measures we support would not do that.

So what are our proposals? Above all, to break the link between migration and permanent settlement. In the past, anyone with a work permit has had an almost automatic right to remain. The Government, rightly, is consulting on this issue, so that only those of real value to the country will be allowed to stay on indefinitely. The Migration Advisory Committee has suggested that such selection should be largely based on salary. That means that business will not be much affected: under the current system, transfers of staff between international firms are entirely free of restriction above a salary of £40,000. In addition, there is an annual quota of about 20,000 work permits for skilled immigrants, of which only about half have been taken up this year.

Another major weakness requiring attention is the vast number of students admitted without proper checks. In recent years, we have admitted about half a million non-EU students and student visitors with no interview at all. The scope for abuse is enormous, and must be tackled.

The Coalition has declared its intention to get net immigration down from last year’s level of nearly 250,000 to the tens of thousands. But even that will not be good enough. In order to avoid the population reaching that 70 million, we have to get immigration down to 40,000 a year or less.

That will require real political will on behalf of the Government, which sometimes seems to be stymied by the Liberal Democrats. There is little doubt that this element is blocking some of the measures needed. This is greatly puzzling. Perhaps it is time the leadership considered the vast bulk of its supporters’ views, rather than those of its activists. Successive opinion polls have shown that three quarters of potential Lib Dem voters support the Government’s stance.

What is clear – not least from this week’s drama – is that significant measures to reduce immigration take considerable time. The process of policy formation, consultation and implementation requires around 18 months – and the courts will not allow a change in conditions for those who have already arrived.

Because of this, it is important that ministers get a whole batch of tough measures approved soon. They should then look at the legal challenges and judicial reviews that are blocking voters’ wishes, and see how these can be better balanced. This is one reason why the petition is so important. It is a wake-up call for the political class: that they need to show resolve and deliver. It will now go before Parliament, and we are confident that we will secure a debate. But the more signatures it obtains before then, the louder will be the alarm bell.

SOURCE




Author of Arizona Immigration Law is Voted Out

In an unprecedented recall election, Arizona's State Senator and Senate President Russell Pearce, conceded defeat Tuesday. The defeat was a stunning rebuke to the author of Arizona's controversial immigration law and could serve as a warning signal to politicians who have advocated hard-line policies on immigration.

The recall vote was widely perceived as a referendum on immigration policies by both sides of the political divide. Pearce himself painted the recall advocates as liberal outsiders who were targeting him because of immigration.

Although the GOP retaines control of the Legislature, Pearce's defeat is being interpreted by Republicans as message that divisive stands on immigration and other issues are not welcome by voters.

Pearce was the author of the 2010 immigration law that put Arizona in the national spotlight and was replicated by several states around the country. The recall vote was seen by some as a referendum on the Legislature's hard-line immigration laws that Pearce has championed over the years.

Political analyst Chris Herstam, a Republican lobbyist and former legislator, said Pearce was repudiated by voters who believe the economy, jobs and education should be the first priority -- not immigration.

"The Legislature remains extremely conservative but with regards to making illegal immigration their top priority, this should be a warning shot across the bow," Herstam said.

With thousands of ballots counted and results in from all 16 precincts, charter school executive Jerry Lewis led with 53 percent of the vote, compared with about 45 percent for Pearce, a margin of about 1,800 votes. An unknown number of early ballots turned in Tuesday remained to be counted, but Pearce was resigned to defeat.

"It doesn't look like the numbers are going in my direction with this, and I'm OK with this," Pearce said Tuesday night, surrounded by Republican legislative allies, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other supporters.

Pearce voiced determination, but no regrets. "I'm grateful for the battles that we've won," he said, adding later, "If being recalled is being the price for keeping these promises, then so be it."

Pearce was the author of the 2010 immigration law that put Arizona in the national spotlight and was replicated by several states around the country. The recall vote was seen by some as a referendum on the Legislature's hard-line immigration laws that Pearce has championed over the years.

A Pearce loss means that Lewis replaces him in the district's Senate seat and that majority Republicans would have to pick a new president to lead the legislative chamber.

Pearce accumulated a large amount of power as he rose through the ranks of the legislature to become leader of the Senate. Republicans hold more than a two-thirds advantage in the body, giving the party enough votes to easily advance its conservative agenda in GOP-dominated Arizona.

As a result, Pearce and his colleagues have taken a forceful role on conservative causes including business tax cuts, school private school vouchers, abortion limits, gun rights, union restrictions and immigration.

The recall election, forced by a petition drive, was the first for an Arizona legislator.

Recall supporters and Lewis' campaign did not emphasize the immigration issue, but it was one of the factors in the race.

"Certainly the immigration issue is important to many people including myself," Lewis said. "We need to bring a civil tone to that discussion, a professional approach to solving it, an approach that is reasonable and won't be ... in the courts for years to come."

Key provisions of the law were put on hold by a federal judge before they could be implemented, but Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let it take effect.

The law's enactment gave Pearce national notice as a leading proponent of Arizona's efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. He previously won enactment of a 2007 state law requiring employers to use a federal database to check new employees' work eligibility.

However, the 2010 law led to protests and boycotts of the state, and business groups urged legislators to take a timeout on the issue and to instead push for federal action.

That opposition led the Arizona Senate last spring to dramatically reject a handful of new Pearce-backed bills on the subject.

Pearce had support from Brewer and dozens of other elected Republican officeholders, but he was dogged by disclosures that he accepted numerous free trips from the Fiesta Bowl to out-of-state college football trips. He said he took the trips at the bowl's request to help support its economic role in the state.

SOURCE



9 November, 2011

Blunder allowed 'danger migrants' to vanish: Britain will never know how many terrorists or criminals got in, admits Home Secretary



We will never know how many terrorists and criminals entered Britain in the latest borders blunder. Theresa May made the admission yesterday as she explained to MPs her role in the relaxation of controls this summer.

The Home Secretary said she ordered a ‘pilot’ scheme to water down passport checks in July for Britons and other EU nationals – without telling Parliament. Up to five million foreign nationals may have entered the UK during the downgrade, which applied at every port and airport. It will never be known how many were illegals.

Senior Home Office sources conceded Mrs May agreed to extend the pilot scheme in September – even though she did not know whether it was working properly.

Last night a damaging leaked document also revealed that the rule change was brought in to cut queues at airports, not for security reasons. Home Office sources also admitted Mrs May was kept informed about the original scheme.

The scandal is hugely embarrassing for the Tories, who campaigned at the election on a platform of reducing immigration to ‘tens of thousands’ a year, after it soared to more than a quarter of a million under Labour.

UK Borders Agency boss Brodie Clark was suspended on Thursday after Mrs May was told a separate round of additional checks on foreigners from outside the EU against a ‘watch list’ had also been suspended at Calais as well as some Heathrow fingerprint checks.

But last night the Public and Commercial Services Union – which represents hundreds of Border Agency officials – claimed the fingerprint checks were actually scrapped months before the pilot scheme was introduced.

Mrs May’s critics, however, have still to produce ‘smoking gun’ evidence that she knew of Mr Clark’s decision to further water down the checks last summer.

Yesterday Labour disclosed an email – circulated on July 28 – which ordered UKBA staff to ‘cease routinely opening the chip’ in biometric passports from the EU.

Officials were also told to stop ‘routinely checking’ children from the EU ‘against the Warnings Index’, which is designed to weed out possible terrorists and criminal gangs.

And staff were told to not routinely question visa holders from outside the EU on arrival in the UK either – though Home Office officials said this was standard practice. Crucially, the document also gave the green light for the border staff to take ‘further measures’ without clearing them with ministers.

Extraordinarily, the document makes clear that the downgrade in checks was carried out to ‘ensure good order in the arrival hall, disruption to flight schedules’ and prevent ‘passengers being held on the aircraft’.

That revelation is particularly damaging for ministers as union chiefs say the changes were made because ministers are laying off 5,200 staff as part of cut-backs and there aren’t enough staff to handle the volume of passengers at peak times.

Announcing no fewer than three inquiries into the fiasco, the Home Secretary insisted the measures were authorised on the basis that they were subject to a ‘risk-based assessment’ and not used routinely. But that claim was in tatters as Borders Agency whistleblowers said passport controls were relaxed for half of working shifts at most ports of entry and ‘almost round the clock’ at some airports like Luton and Stansted.

Mrs May placed the blame squarely at the door of Brodie Clark, telling MPs he ‘authorised the wider relaxation of border controls without ministerial sanction’. ‘Indeed I told officials explicitly that the pilot was to go no further than we had agreed,’ she said.

‘As a result of these unauthorised actions, we will never know how many people entered the country who should have been prevented from doing so after being flagged by the Warnings Index.’

Around 100,000 foreign nationals enter Britain every day. If the rules were relaxed for half of all shifts, it is likely that up to five million foreign nationals entered the UK while the weaker rules were in operation.

A briefing note circulated by Tory whips yesterday urged Conservative MPs to ask the Home Secretary whether those responsible should be prosecuted – effectively agitating for Mr Clark to be charged.

UKBA sources, unions and opposition politicians said it was inconceivable that the Home Office did not know what was going on.

Home Office officials admitted Mrs May did receive an update on the operation of the scheme when she signed off a decision to extend it from mid-September to November.

Aides said she would not have seen the ‘operational instruction’ from Border Agency bosses to frontline staff at ports of entry.

Mrs May was supported by David Cameron, but Downing Street made clear he was only informed about the pilot scheme in recent days ‘when it was apparent that there was a problem’.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper accused Mrs May of ‘doing nothing, even now, to find out and assess who has entered the country and what the security risk might be’. Mrs May will be grilled again today on the fiasco when she appears in front of the influential Home Affairs Select Committee.

SOURCE





Arizona recall election: immigration reform at stake

As Arizonans head to the polls to vote in the Arizona recall election, Republican state Senator Russell Pearce slammed the negative rhetoric that has characterized the highly controversial recall election. The Arizona recall election will be closely monitored by Arizonans and political pundits, because of its implications for immigration reform.

Pearce was the chief architect of Arizona’s controversial immigration law. SB1070, Arizona’s immigration law, was enacted to “to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” Arizona’s immigration law sparked a public outcry from immigration rights activists.

“I call upon my supporters and those supporting my opponent to bring the rhetoric and personal attacks to an end,” Pearce said in a press statement several days before the Arizona recall election. Pearce said that “personal attacks against me and my opponent have reached a fevered pitch.” In an effort to keep the peace, Pearce urged that “in the closing days of this campaign that both sides focus on the issues.”

FOX News Latino reports that Pearce’s supporters tried to water down Lewis’ vote by throwing a third candidate into the recall election. Olivia Cortes will be on the ballot, despite dropping out of the race. FOX News notes that a vote for Cortes will be one less vote for Lewis.

According to an Arizona Capital Times/ABC15 News poll, the results of the Arizona recall election are likely to be very close. Pearce has 43 percent of the votes and Republican Jerry Lewis has 46 percent of the votes. The Arizona Capital Times/ABC15 News poll was conducted on November 1 with 598 likely voters in District 18.

SOURCE



8 November, 2011

The Journal's Mistaken Immigration Position

The WSJ panders to the desire for cheap labour that many business-owners have. It does not consider America's broader interests in the matter. It is true that illegal immigration effectively deregulates the bottom end of the labour market but the same could be achieved much less destructively by abolishing minimum wage laws. Sadly, that is most unlikely to happen

Every day for the past 35 years, I have religiously read the Wall Street Journal. When I’m on vacation, I have the papers saved and I read them upon my return. I’ve often told people that if they just read the WSJ’s opinion pages, they would be well informed – but not in recent memory have the editors been as wrong as they are with their current position on immigration.

The September 24th editorial entitled “The Illegal Immigration Collapse” claims that the Republican presidential debates were distorting the importance of illegal immigration on the American economy. The editors, illustrating their point with a graph, describe how border apprehensions have plummeted over the last eleven years. In fact, they state that apprehensions – of which there were 463,000 in 2010 – are at the lowest level in 40 years.

They argue that the decrease is caused more by the weak economy than by improved border security. But they then not only accuse Republicans of shouting that the border isn’t “secure,” but also that, by their definition, the border will never be secure. I have rarely seen the WSJ editors present more fatuous claims and more contradictory arguments.

The first problem with their line of reasoning is the assumption that there is a relationship between the number of apprehensions and the number of illegal entries into the country. While there may be a correlation, the editors provide no statistics to back that up.

Furthermore, they imply that these people are coming here principally to work – and if there’s less work due to our anemic economy, then there’ll be fewer illegals; therefore our concern is exaggerated. What a ridiculous position! Does that mean that we could resolve our illegal immigration problem by re-electing President Obama and driving our economy into a total ditch? Under that thesis, think of all the money we could save on border enforcement since foreigners will no longer want to live in America. By this logic, we will have a surge of illegal immigrants as soon as the economy perks up again – so let’s just wait until then to bring up the subject.

They finish the editorial by stating – and here is where the WSJ editors join hands with the left – “Immigrants bring vitality and skills to the U.S. economy.” This clearly implies what liberals have alleged for years: that Republicans are anti-immigrant. I have never once seen a statement by a Republican presidential candidate against immigrants, and the editorial did not (and could not) cite one.

The fact is that America has immigration laws that have been and are still being abused – not only by people pouring in from Mexico, but also people crossing from Canada as well as those who come here on airplanes (on vacation and student visas) and never leave. People from every country abuse the system, squeezing out millions who aspire to immigrate legally but can’t get in because our system is strained by those who don’t follow the laws.

Let’s make this clear. Anyone who argues that people who are against illegal immigration are anti-immigrant are stupid -- just plain stupid. There is virtually no correlation. In fact, a strong argument can be made that those who willing accept illegal immigration are the ones doing harm to immigrants to this country and destroying the positive image of immigration.

It‘s not as if America has a miniscule number of immigrants. Our country is now home to 40 million immigrants – the highest number in American history – and twice as many as we had in 1990. That is a substantial amount by any calculation, and so a discussion of our immigration policies would seem to be in order for anyone seeking national office. But even broaching the subject too often brings hysterical charges of racism.

In general, Republicans oppose two things: acquiescing to illegal immigration and providing benefits to those individuals. I can’t understand why Latino elected officials so adamantly defend illegal immigrants and want to provide benefits to them. And I really can’t understand how Jerry Brown – Governor of an utterly bankrupt state – can sign a law to extend benefits to illegals and their offspring, in complete denial that these benefits are a magnet for other illegals.

Isn’t it a little contradictory to tell someone that while it‘s OK to enter America illegally, we now want you to obey the rest of our laws? The basic principle of the United States is that we must follow the rule of law; while, regrettably, most of the people who migrate from countries to the south (for example: 12 million Mexicans) come from countries that don’t. How can they tell their children (who everyone says are innocents): “I came here illegally, but you should follow all of the laws of our new country”?

Finally, the cost of underwriting illegals continues to mount even as we are staggered by government debt. The County of Los Angeles paid over $625 million in welfare costs for children of illegal immigrants in 2010, an obligation that will increase to $648 million this year – and that doesn’t even include the cost of educating these children in public schools or the cost of their parents.

Los Angeles is, admittedly, a large county with a significant number of immigrants, but this gives you an indication of the expenses being borne by American taxpayers for our lax policies. In these days of budget crunches, most taxpayers wouldn’t support this indulgence if they were fully aware of the financial implications, but (of course) the left-wing press doesn’t publicize these facts. What they do instead is chastise anyone who questions the concept of providing benefits to innocent children who were brought here by no decision of their own. They just can’t see the correlation between these programs and the continued flow of people over our borders.

Securing our borders finally became a matter of reality as Iran moved its program to enlist interests in Latin America against the United States as evidenced by the plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador. President Obama can now stop his snarky comments about moats filled with alligators and focus on doing his job securing the border.

We all embrace immigrants to this country, and all of us hope that they succeed beyond their wildest dreams. But there’s a difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants, and it is right for Republican candidates to advocate policies that eliminate the incentives of illegal immigration.

The question is why the WSJ editorial board and the left do not?

SOURCE






Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. DHS Tinkers with America's Most Dreadful Guestworker Program (Blog)

2. Congresswoman: DHS Releases Dangerous Aliens, Flouts Law (Blog)

3. 'May You Live in Interesting Times...' (Blog)

4. 'Amnesty by Any Means' Extended to Border Patrol (Blog)

5. DHS, What DHS? (Blog)

6. Pandering to the Majority? Michael Gerson's View of Democracy in America (Blog)

7. Health Compact and Illegal Aliens (Blog)

8. Rick Perry Uses More Science-Based Health Standards than DHS (Blog)

9. Families Plead to Stop Parole of Criminal Illegal Alien (Blog)



7 November, 2011

Britain's Immigration farce and the enemy within

When Theresa May entered the Home Office, it appeared likely that her efforts to bring sanity to the nation’s border controls would be challenged by the staunchly pro-immigration Liberal Democrats.
Sadly, this has proved to be the case – with Nick Clegg’s party repeatedly undermining attempts to limit the number of foreign nationals entering the country over the past 18 months.

However, Mrs May now finds herself facing an even more dangerous enemy: her own civil servants at the endemically shambolic UK Border Agency. The real enemy within is the UK border agency who failures have resulted in thousands wrongly entering the country

In recent months, UKBA has allowed a banned preacher of hate to waltz into Britain, repeatedly failed to deport foreign criminals and lost track of enough asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to fill a city the size of Cambridge.

Worse, as we revealed on Saturday, the official paid £135,000-a-year (plus bonuses) to run the UK Border Force relaxed – without ministerial approval – passport and other checks designed to spot potential terrorists, apparently to prevent queues forming during the busy summer months.

Truly the incompetence of UKBA, which underwent endless and utterly ineffectual ‘reform’ under New Labour, knows no limit.
But the suspicion must be that the very ethos of the organisation is also rotten.

UKBA is stuffed to the gunwales with officials who were appointed during the years when Labour operated an entirely open-door immigration policy.

And, even though the government has changed, the bureaucrats remain wedded to the idea that they are somehow performing the country a ‘service’ by letting in all-comers, with no questions asked. Mrs May must change this culture of laxity – and fast.

Rigorous, U.S.-style border checks and queues may not be much fun for Britons returning home from holidaying abroad. But most of us accept that they are far preferable to a terrorist atrocity or murder by a foreign national who should never have set foot in the country in the first place. It’s a great pity those in charge don’t agree.

SOURCE




Immigration officials back away from deportation program

Effort quickened process but raised rights issues

Federal immigration officials have quietly backed away from a program in Arizona and other Western states aimed at quickly and efficiently deporting illegal immigrants rather than keeping them in costly detention centers.

Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, including thousands from Arizona, have been deported under the program over the past several years. Called stipulated removal, it allows the government to quickly deport illegal immigrants held in detention centers as long as they forgo a hearing before a judge to review their legal rights and to determine if they want to fight their case.

Immigration officials hailed the program as cost-effective deportations for people who wanted to go home. Critics worried that the government was strong-arming immigrants to accept deportation without regard for their due-process rights.

Immigration officials changed course in September 2010 after a federal appellate court ruled that an immigrant held in an Eloy detention center had his rights violated. After that, speedy removals were offered only to illegal immigrants with lawyers, who could help them fight their cases. Lawyers are not provided at taxpayer expense in deportation proceedings.

Since then, immigration officials have not deported a single illegal immigrant through the program in Arizona, said Vincent Picard, a spokesman for ICE in Phoenix. Picard could not provide statistics for other states.

ICE officials did not publicize the dramatic policy change. Many immigrant lawyers and critics of the program were unaware the change had been made.

In a deportation proceeding, an illegal immigrant has the right to appear in front of an immigration judge to decide whether to contest the case. The immigrant also has the right to hire a lawyer.

But under stipulated removal, an immigrant who doesn't want to fight deportation gives up the right to a hearing. The immigrant also gives up the right to an appeal. Once the immigrant agrees to those stipulations, the judge signs a deportation order, even if the immigrant is not in the courtroom.

Supporters of stipulated removal, which remains in effect in other parts of the country, say it benefits both the government and illegal immigrants. The program can save time and money.

The illegal immigrant is typically deported within a day or two. In comparison, an illegal immigrant facing deportation can spend weeks or even months in detention. In 2011, the average time was 29 days, according to ICE statistics.

The average daily cost of detention in 2011 was $112.83, said Virginia Kice, an ICE spokeswoman.

"Such agreements between ICE and the alien are advantageous to the government in that it relieves the immigration court of the need to have a hearing, saves ICE additional detention costs, and allows the alien to return to his/her country expeditiously," Picard said in an e-mail.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that favors strict immigration enforcement, said the program should be expanded, not scaled back.

Offering stipulated removal only to immigrants who hire their own lawyers bogs down the judicial process and defeats the purpose of the program: to quickly remove illegal immigrants with no legal grounds to remain in the U.S. who want to go home, Vaughan said. It also clogs up immigration courts, making less room for immigrants with strong legal cases to remain in the U.S.

"I see the greater use of stipulated removal as expediting the inevitable, with the result being swifter access to hearings for the people who are more likely to benefit from them," she said.

Phillip Crawford, a former field director for ICE's enforcement and removal operations in Arizona, said it is a shame that stipulated removals have been curtailed.

The program, he said, had several levels of "safeguards" to ensure that the rights of illegal immigrants were protected and that participants understood what they were signing. Each case was reviewed by ICE officers during processing at detention centers, by ICE prosecutors and by an immigration judge who has the power to reject the deportation if the judge believes the immigrant had legal grounds to remain.

He also said the program targeted illegal immigrants from Mexico convicted of aggravated felonies with little chance of legally remaining in the U.S. "It was an excellent program," Crawford said.

More HERE



6 November, 2011

UK border chief axed passport controls: Top civil servant faces firing over decision that left Britain open to terrorists and criminals

Vital border checks for criminals and terrorists were secretly abandoned over the summer.

In a major new immigration fiasco, three senior officials – including the £135,000-a-year head of the UK Border Force – have been suspended.

There are fears that hundreds of thousands of travellers waltzed into Britain without crucial vetting.

Unknown to ministers, guards were allegedly told not to bother checking biometric chips on passports of citizens from outside the EU to ensure they are not fraudsters.

More worryingly, staff were also instructed not to bother checking their fingerprints or other personal details against the Home Office’s so-called Warnings Index. This contains the names of terror suspects and illegal immigrants who must be refused entry to the UK to keep the public safe.

The nightmare scenario is that a banned fanatic slipped through the net while the lax regime was in place between July and the start of this month.

It is understood the decisions were taken to keep queues at busy ports and airports to a minimum and avoid complaints by holidaymakers and tourists.

The Home Secretary is said to be furious. Border Force head Brodie Clark was suspended on Thursday after allegedly confirming that he had authorised abandoning specific checks at ports including Heathrow and Calais.

Two more top officials, Graeme Kyle, the director of the UK Border Agency at Heathrow, and Carole Upshall, director of the Border Force South and European Operation, have also been suspended on the orders of Theresa May. She has ordered an investigation by David Wood, a former Met Police officer, to establish the scale of the scandal.

A second probe will take place into the role and activity of UKBA officials working for Mr Clark – who was once placed on gardening leave by a previous home secretary, John Reid, in an unrelated scandal concerning foreign criminals.

A senior source said criminal charges could be brought against anyone found to have put Britain’s borders at risk.

The revelations come after MPs revealed how the UK Border Agency – dubbed ‘not fit for purpose by Dr Reid – had ‘lost track’ of 124,000 asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

The latest row centres on the range of checks which UKBA officials are supposed to conduct against travellers as they arrive in the UK.

These checks are a mixture of regular measures applied to all passengers, plus additional ‘risk-based measures’ applied on the discretion of UKBA officers.

The regular measures include checking the passenger’s passport and biometric chip. This establishes if the picture inside the passport is the same as that electronically stored by the Home Office. It is considered vital to avoid fraud and illegal immigration, and biometric chips are now fitted as standard.

In addition, passports are also checked against the Warnings Index, which contains the names of excluded foreign nationals and individuals of concern.

For non-EU ‘visa nationals’, other measures such as the verification of fingerprints are mandatory. Further risk-based measures include secondary interviews.

In July, ministers gave approval to pilot a system that would allow officials to apply a ‘risk-based approach’ to a limited number of passenger checks.

Officials say this meant that in limited circumstances EU nationals would have their biometric chip checked upon the discretion of a UKBA official instead of automatically.

In addition, EU-national children travelling with their families or in school groups would, in limited circumstances, be run against the Warnings Index upon the discretion of a UKBA official instead of automatically.

Ministers insisted all other passengers would continue to have their passport and biometric chip checked and would be checked against the Warnings Index

But instead, Mr Clark is alleged to have authorised UKBA officials to abandon biometric checks on non-EU nationals, the verification of the fingerprints of non-EU nationals, and Warnings Index checks.

Asked about his suspension last night, Mr Clark said: ‘Who told you that?’ He declined to comment further. A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Head of UKBA Border Force Brodie Clark has been suspended.’

SOURCE





What immigration is doing to British schools

Playgrounds scrapped and children to share unisex toilets as British schools look to accommodate 350,000 extra pupils

Unisex toilets will be introduced in schools to create more classroom places. Playing fields will also no longer be an obligation – potentially killing off team sports such as football, hockey and netball.

Grounds will be filled with portable buildings and every spare space – such as store cupboards and sheds – will be used for teaching.

The ‘pack ’em in and pile ’em up’ measures, published yesterday, form part of the Government’s new rules on standards of school buildings. They paint a bleak picture of education as Britain becomes increasingly overcrowded.

The measures are a desperate bid to find space for an additional 350,000 primary pupils by 2015. The surge is the result of an immigration-fuelled baby boom.

It would cost £4.8billion to build enough primaries to accommodate the influx, according to Department for Education figures. The ministry is allocating an additional £500million for new places this year.

It is hoping schools will expand, creating the need for fewer new buildings, and yesterday’s relaxation of building regulations gives schools the means to do so.

Previously schools were – with the exception of academies and free schools – legally obliged to provide separate toilet facilities but now both primary and secondary schools will allow unisex toilets with urinals.

The DfE’s new regulations state: ‘A number of schools have provided toilets for use by both male and female pupils over the age of eight, even though this is not currently allowed by the regulation.’

A DfE spokesman confirmed urinals will be allowed under the regulations, provided cubicles, with locking doors, are also provided.

The change means female pupils as young as four will share toilet facilities with 11-year-old boys. And 11-year-old girls reaching puberty, will have to share with 18-year-old males.

Previous attempts to introduce unisex toilets have met a furious reaction from parents. Nick Seaton, of the Campaign for Real Education, a parent group, said: ‘This idea is absolutely crazy. Parents are horrified. Most do not think it should be allowed. It’s very important that young people are not allowed to be pressured by the opposite sex and can retain their modesty.

‘There needs to be a place they can go for privacy. It will be especially horrible for girls through puberty.’

On playing fields, the DfE is seeking to relax regulations so they meet the ‘requirements of the curriculum’ and ‘enable pupils to play outside safely’. At present, the regulations ‘require that team game playing fields shall be provided which satisfy specified minimum areas based on pupil numbers and ages’.

The new regulations are set to be introduced in 2012.

SOURCE



5 November, 2011

UK Border officials 'have lost track of 124,000 asylum seekers and migrants'

Border officials have lost track of a population of asylum seekers and migrants as big as that of Cambridge, it emerged last night.

MPs said the number of individuals ‘lost’ by the UK Border Agency had almost tripled in six months from 40,500 in March to 124,000 in September.

Officials say they have placed the cases in a so-called ‘controlled archive’ for applicants who cannot be contacted by officials. But the home affairs select committee said the archive had, in reality, become a ‘dumping ground for cases where the UK Border Agency has lost track of the applicant’.

The archive includes the cases of around 98,000 asylum seekers who cannot be found, in which the agency has no idea whether the applicant even remains in the UK. Following a UKBA review, it also includes around 26,000 migrant cases, most of which are more than eight years old, relating to those who have overstayed their visas or who have been refused an extension of leave, such as students.

The MPs said: ‘Whilst we appreciate the difficulties involved in tracing people with whom the agency have lost contact, usually for a period of several years, it is clear that the controlled archive has become a dumping ground for cases on which the agency has given up.

‘From 18,000 files in November 2010, the archive now contains 124,000 files, roughly equivalent to the population of Cambridge.’ Keith Vaz, the committee’s chairman, said: ‘The UK Border Agency is still not providing the efficient, effective service that Parliament expects.’

David Cameron recently called upon the public to report any suspected visa over-stayers or other illegal immigrants to the Crimestoppers hotline so UKBA could investigate.

But Mr Vaz added: ‘There is little point in encouraging people to do this if the border agency continues to fail to manage the intelligence it receives or to keep track of those who apply to stay.’

The process of going through old asylum and immigration cases began under Labour. Where officials could not find the applicant, they put their case into the controlled archive so they could effectively stop looking.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the campaign group MigrationWatch, said: ‘This is Labour’s chaotic asylum legacy.’
Border officials have lost track of a population of asylum seekers and migrants as big as that of Cambridge, it emerged last night.

Where are they? Officials say they have placed the cases in a so-called 'controlled archive' for applicants who cannot be contacted by officials

And Damian Green, Minister for Immigration, said: ‘I am determined to deal with the historic asylum cases left by the last government and we are making real progress tackling the archive to trace these individuals.’

The revelation came as the public continued to sign the MigrationWatch ‘No to 70million’, which calls on ministers to get a firm grip on immigration policy, at the rate of more than 1,000 every hour yesterday. Last night, the Downing Street e-petition had been signed by 67,000.

SOURCE




Canadian Immigration Minister hits pause on family reunification applications

Jason Kenney is walking a fine political line: seeking to slim a bloated immigration backlog without jeopardizing his Conservative government’s support among new Canadians – many of whom voted Conservative in the last election.

That careful balancing act was on display Friday when the Citizenship and Immigration Minister placed a two-year moratorium on applications from parents and grandparents seeking to reunite with family members in Canada.

The freeze is intended to thin a family-reunification backlog that could soon produce wait times of up to ten years.

But to counter concerns that Mr. Kenney is trying to curtail family reunification, the Conservative government introduced a new and generous visa for parents and grandparents who want to stay with their family in Canada.

“We understand how important it is for Canadians, including new Canadians, to live with their loved ones,” Mr. Kenney declared at a news conference Friday. But “we need to change the math.”

About 6 per cent of all immigrants to Canada are parents and grandparents of existing immigrants. But family-unification applications have far outstripped available spaces, creating a backlog of 165,000 applicants and wait times of seven years, which will lengthen to 10 years by 2018 if there are no changes.

“That is why it is absolutely essential that we bring in a temporary pause on applications,” Mr. Kenney said.

The moratorium is expected to reduce the backlog to about 50,000, while the government seeks to craft a new application process that matches the number of people who are allowed to apply to spaces available. In the meantime, the quota for parental and grandparental admissions will increase by 60 per cent, to 25,000 admissions a year, to further clear the backlog.

For those who waiting to immigrate or to get on the list, the new 10-year visa will allow parents and grandparents to stay for as long as two years at a stretch. However they must, if required, take a medical exam first; they must purchase private medical insurance while in Canada, and their children or grandchildren must be able to demonstrate that they can support the visiting relative.

Don Davies, NDP immigration critic, welcomed the new visa and the increased intake of parents and grandparents. But he added that the best way to overcome all of the backlogs in the immigration system would be to increase the intake from about 250,000 a year to about 330,000, or 1 per cent of the population.

“We’re not saying this for compassionate, fuzzy-wuzzy, lefty” reasons, Mr. Davies said. Increasing immigration levels are necessary to meet future labour shortages brought on by an aging society, he maintained.

Friday’s announcement caps a week of new initiatives by the Conservative government that focus on increasing the number of highly skilled and highly educated immigrants coming to Canada. Overall, however, family-class immigrants continue to make up about 65 per cent of all applicants.

SOURCE



4 November, 2011

Perry suggests US visa program to let illegal immigrants come and go freely -- but opposes amnesty

Sounds a good compromise

Texas Gov. Rick Perry proposed the federal government should extend work visas allowing illegal immigrants to move freely between the U.S. and their home countries — but stressed that he opposes amnesty or a path to citizenship.

Perry said in an interview with CNN’s John King on Thursday that expectations that U.S. authorities are going to arrest and deport up to 15 million illegal immigrants isn’t realistic. He added, however, that other Republicans, including fellow Texan George W. Bush, went too far when they previously proposed an immigration overhaul that included a path to citizenship.

The Texas governor also claimed his chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, had once supported amnesty. Romney has drawn criticism for hiring a lawn care company that employed illegal immigrants at his family’s property in a Boston suburb for a decade — but has also said amnesty is not appropriate for illegal immigrants.

“You can put a program into place in which these individuals can be identified, and work visas in which they can move back and forth between their countries but not to become United States citizens,” Perry said. “And I think that’s where McCain, that’s where Romney, that’s where even Bush went wrong when they talked about the issue that, ‘we’re going to give amnesty to these individuals,’ and people just said, ‘no, we’re not.’”

Perry didn’t elaborate on what such a visa plan would look like, saying only that authorities need to determine a better way to identify illegal immigrants and make them part of mainstream society. He also said the program would only work if the federal government first does a better job securing America’s borders.

“I disagree with the concept that somehow or another we’re going to pack up 10, to 12, to 15 million people and ship them back to the country of origin. That’s not going to happen,” Perry said. “So realty has to be part of our conversation. And then you need to have a strategy to deal with it. That is what I think we will have, but first you have to secure that border.”

Perry called Washington’s efforts to stop the flow of illegal immigrants “an abject failure” but said that, as president, he could accomplish the task in just a year using the existing fence, more border patrol agents and air surveillance. Perry also repeated his opposition to a fence running the length of the border, saying it would take 10 to 15 years to build.

“There’s places where a secure fence will work, and that strategic type fencing will work,” he said. “But the idea that people can easily just stand up and say ‘let’s just build a fence’ and be done with it and wipe our hands, and it’s going to secure the border, that’s not reality.”

Perry has seen his polling numbers plummet after a string of lackluster debate performances — and angered some conservatives by defending a Texas plan that extends in-state university tuition to illegal immigrants who were brought into the country as children and attend high school in Texas.

The governor again defended the initiative on Thursday, saying better education helps ensure those participating in the program contribute to society: “We want taxpayers, not tax wasters.”

SOURCE






Justice Department Sues South Carolina Over State's Strict Immigration Law

The federal government filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to stop implementation of South Carolina's tough new immigration law, arguing that the legislation that requires law officers to check suspects' immigration status is unconstitutional.

Federal officials and state officials had met to discuss the issue a week ago.

The government wants a judge to stop enforcement of the legislation, which requires that officers call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally following a stop for something else, U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles told The Associated Press.

"The Department of Justice has many important tasks," Nettles said. "Two of those important tasks are the defense of the constitution and ensuring equality is afforded to all."

The lawsuit filed in federal court names Gov. Nikki Haley as a defendant. A spokesman for the Republican, the daughter of immigrants from India, said the state was forced to pass its own law because there is no strong federal immigration law.

"If the feds were doing their job, we wouldn't have had to address illegal immigration reform at the state level," Rob Godfrey said. "But, until they do, we're going to keep fighting in South Carolina to be able to enforce our laws."

A spokesman for state Attorney General Alan Wilson, who will act as Haley's attorney, said he had not seen the complaint.

South Carolina's law, which takes effect Jan. 1, also mandates that all businesses check their new hires' legal status through a federal online system. Businesses that knowingly violate the law could have their operating licenses revoked.

The law says all law enforcement officers are required to call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The question must follow an arrest or traffic stop for something else. The measure bars officers from holding someone solely on that suspicion. Opponents railed against the measure as encouraging racial profiling.

The law also makes it a felony for someone to make fake photo IDs for illegal residents and creates a new law enforcement unit within the Department of Public Safety to enforce state immigration laws. It also makes it a felony for illegal immigrants to allow themselves to be transported.

Nettles said the law is unconstitutional and violates people's right to due process.

The U.S. Justice Department has been reviewing immigration-related laws passed by several states and is challenging similar laws in Arizona and Alabama. Last week, Nettles met with Wilson on the issue, but no details of that meeting were released.

Assistant attorney general Tony West said Monday the agency continues to review similar laws in Utah, Indiana and Georgia. He quoted Haley saying South Carolina's law would cause illegal immigrants to move elsewhere.

"Pushing undocumented individuals out of one state and into another is simply not a solution to our immigration challenges," West said. "It ultimately creates more problems than it solves."

Justice department officials said South Carolina's law, like Alabama's and Arizona's, diverts federal resources from high-priority targets, such as terrorism, drug smuggling and gang activity. They contend the laws will result in the harassment and detention of foreign visitors and legal immigrants, as well as U.S. citizens, who can't immediately prove their legal status.

A deputy assistant attorney general said the agency sent a letter to Alabama schools reminding them that children can't be denied enrollment. Unlike the laws in other states, Alabama's required schools to check students' immigration status. That provision, which has been temporarily blocked, would allow the Supreme Court to reconsider a decision that said a kindergarten to high school education must be provided to illegal immigrants.

The Justice Department has set up a hotline and email address for complaints regarding Alabama's law, and officials said they're coordinating with colleagues in other federal agencies -- including the labor, agriculture, education, and health agencies -- to ensure federal money's not being used to discriminate.

In a news release, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said South Carolina's law "diverts critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermines the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve, while failing to address the underlying problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has challenged the similar laws in other states, several weeks ago sued to block the South Carolina law from taking effect in January.

"It definitely puts a spotlight on the issue and heightens our arguments," Andre Segura, an attorney with the ACLU's immigrants' rights project, said Monday.

SOURCE



3 November, 2011

"Ping pong Poms" -- British emigration to Australia

Mentioned only obliquely below is the phenomenon of re-emigration. Many returning Poms have become so spoilt by life in Australia that they can't take England any more and emigrate once again to Australia. Some returners have been known to get no further than Heathrow before deciding to go back to Australia -- a decision assisted no doubt by obnoxious British officialdom

For decades, the promise of sunny weather, a family-friendly lifestyle and affordable property has driven hundreds of thousands of Britons to make the move to Australia.

But it seems, for many, their dream life Down Under has turned into something of a disappointment. A record number of Britons left Australia last year, many bored with their ex-pat life and keen to spend more time with family in the UK, research has revealed.

Nearly 107,000 people arrived there from the UK between 2005 and 2010. But more than 30,000 Britons left over the same period. And last year a record of more than 7,000 Britons departed Australia permanently.

Researchers Mary Holmes, a senior lecturer in sociology at Australia’s Flinders University, and Roger Burrows, of the University of York, studied why so many ‘ping-pong Poms’ are returning home.

They said: ‘A better life is not about good jobs, sunshine or bigger houses. ‘What is most important is feeling close to family and feeling “at home”.’

A number of returning Britons left because of ‘boredom’ in Australia, the pair found, complaining of stressful daily routines such as three-hour commutes on hot, crowded trains.

Dr Holmes and Professor Burrows said that while some who left could be described as ‘whingeing Poms’, complaining about the heat and insects, most had better reasons, with family being a common one. Many wanted their children born in Australia to get to know grandparents and other relatives in the UK, even if it meant sacrificing a better quality of life.

And for others, not ‘feeling at home’ in Australia was a crucial factor in their decision to leave, the research showed.

However the researchers did note that some who returned kept their options open by obtaining Australian citizenship before doing so.

One Briton told them: ‘That way, when your duty to your children and grandparents is finally done you are free to go back to make your home in Australia.’

More HERE (Including some amusing pix)




Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Steven Camarota Discusses Secure Communities on FOX News (Video)

2. Mark Krikorian Discusses D.C.'s Immigration Policy on FOX News (Video)

3. Other Nations Have 'Value-Added' Immigration Policies – the U.S. Doesn't (Blog)

4. What's New on Cape Cod? Seals from Maine, Summer Workers from Europe (Blog)

5. Just Chillin' in Alabama (Blog)

6. Two Old – and Commendable – Border Patrol Maneuvers (Blog)

7. Sorting Out Part of the Problem (Blog)

8. Why the Citizenship Clause Should Be Taken More Seriously: A Response to Margaret Stock (Blog)

9. Warning: Big Business About to Decry Shortages of H-1B Workers (Blog)

10. Proposal to Axe Green Cards for Unskilled Workers Considered (Blog)

11. Gerson Fumes and Sputters Again (Blog)

12. Who's Paid More: Head of DHS or of Immigration Lawyers Association? (Blog)

13. Message: I'm Tough (Blog)

14. USCIS Gives Some Immigrant Investors a 19-Year Grace Period (Blog)

15. Sterility of the Border Fence Debate (Blog)

16. 'The Toughest Transparency Rules in the History of Government'? Saga of a FOIA Request (Blog)

17. Fact Checking the 'Fact Checkers' (Blog)

18. No Schadenfreude for Cassandra (Blog)

19. U.S. Doing Nothing Visible about Forced Marriages Leading to Visas (Blog)



2 November, 2011

Colleges lose licences in British immigration crackdown

More than 470 UK colleges have been barred in the last six months from accepting new foreign students from outside Europe, the Home Office says.

They either had licences revoked or did not sign up to a new inspection system - part of government efforts to curb abuse of the immigration system. It estimates the colleges could have brought in 11,000 students.

Immigration Minister Damian Green said the changes to the system were "beginning to bite".

Earlier this year, tighter rules were introduced on student visas, primarily aimed at private colleges offering language or vocational courses.

The changes were designed to weed out those colleges that were in fact involved in systematic attempts to get workers into the UK by helping them pose as students.

The changes aimed to ensure that students could actually speak English, that the courses were credible and that college bosses were meeting immigration and visa obligations.

Some 302 colleges have had licences revoked. A further 172 are being allowed to continue to teach current students - but officials say they cannot sponsor any new ones from outside Europe.

Earlier this year, the UK Border Agency investigated more than 100 colleges after officials recorded a spike in applications from South Asia, shortly before language rules were tightened.

Changes 'begin to bite'
During the investigation, the UKBA found one prospective student, interviewed by phone, could only answer most questions with the word "hello".

Staff at another college tried to avoid an inspection by claiming they were refurbishing the building. Investigators learnt the management were actually hiding inside with the lights turned off. In another instance, a Norfolk college had recorded students as living in Glasgow.

The 11,000 students blocked by the colleges losing licences represent approximately 4% of all student visas granted - but Immigration Minister Damian Green said the changes to the system were "beginning to bite".

He said: "Too many institutions were offering international students an immigration service rather than an education and too many students have come to the UK with the aim of getting work and bringing over family members.

"Only first-class education providers should be given licences to sponsor international students. We have curbed the opportunities to work during study and bring in family members."

Nicola Dandridge, head of Universities UK, said: "It is essential that the government considers the way in which the rules are communicated externally.

"It's important that the UK appears 'open for business' to those individuals who are genuinely committed to coming to the UK to study at one of our highly-regarded universities.

"We must also be conscious of the impact that cutting down on pre-degree courses is having on our universities. Many universities operate pathway programmes with a range of providers."

SOURCE






Jan Brewer On Arizona Immigration Law: 'We Are Not Racist, We Are Not Bigoted'

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Tuesday and defended her state and its strict immigration law from ongoing criticism that the legislation was motivated by prejudice.

Brewer, whose memoir, Scorpions For Breakfast, was released on Tuesday, began by claiming that Arizona's law, SB 1070, had been drafted to make sure it "would not infringe upon anybody's civil rights." Brewer has asked the Supreme Court to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of the law, and she said Tuesday that she believed the justices would rule in her favor.

Brewer later continued, defending the reasons for pushing the controversial legislation:

We are not racist, we are not bigoted, but we know that "the liberal media" generally wants to shove that race card out there, they wanna throw it around very, very loosely to shut down the debate. We have a severe problem, and I believe that 70 percent of people in America, they understand that and they agree with us in Arizona. Every poll will tell you -- they agree with what we're doing.

Asked by host Joe Scarborough about which specific polls showed those results, Brewer admitted that she couldn't name anything off the top of her head. Mediaite points out that nationwide support may have been displayed in some polls conducted around the time of SB 1070's passage, but that Brewer ignores some polling that showed deep dissatisfaction among Latinos.

Brewer's rhetoric on Tuesday was similar to what readers can expect to find in her book, the Associated Press reports. In it, she defends the law as "a fair, effective and necessary response to what she said amounts to Washington turning a blind eye on border security," according to the AP.

On Fox News Monday night, Brewer said that action movie star Chuck Norris, an outspoken supporter of the Arizona governor and the immigration law, had come up with the memoir's title.

SOURCE



1 November, 2011

British government calls for a halt to power games by British judges

Theresa May has launched a fresh attack on British judges accusing them of being overzealous in their use of the Human Rights Act. The Home Secretary has claimed that the courts in this country go further than the European Court of Human Rights itself when considering immigration appeals.

Mrs May says judges are allowing too many immigrants to stay in the country on the grounds that their relatives might suffer if they were forced to leave. Thousands of illegal immigrants cite Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to respect for private and family life – to fight deportation.

The Home Secretary’s comments are set to reignite her bitter feud with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, who has dismissed her suggestion that the British courts are too lenient. Mr Clarke publicly ridiculed Mrs May after she highlighted a case in which an illegal immigrant’s pet cat was taken into account at the Conservative Party conference earlier this month.

However, defiant Mrs May has continued her onslaught against the Human Rights Act in a letter to Westminster’s joint committee on human rights which is examining judgements.

Mrs May said there was a major divergence in the approach of British judges with the stance of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Mrs May said that deportation appeals made under article 8 were only upheld by Strasbourg in the ‘most exceptional circumstances’.

In contrast, she went on to cite the case of a woman who was allowed to remain in Britain because she would be forced to live with her mother who ‘she did not feel a close bond’ in Kenya.

One of the judges in the case said that forcing her to return to Kenya was ‘unreasonable’.

The judge also considered whether the woman, who had been in Britain since 2002, would struggle to adjust to Kenyan society and would be able to continue her hobby of singing in a church choir.

She said judges are supposed to consider whether there are ‘insurmountable’ obstacles to families being sent home, the test applied in Strasbourg. But they are increasingly setting weaker tests of their own.

Mrs May wrote: ‘There is now a divergence in approach between the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg over whether the family of a person facing removal from the UK can live elsewhere, and the weight given to family relationships formed whilst migrants are knowingly breaking immigration laws.

‘We have wide-ranging concerns with the operation of article 8 in an immigration context’.

The Home Secretary cited another case of a judge found there was no ‘compelling public interest’ in deporting a woman to Jamaica although she had made a mockery of the immigration system. ‘This was his conclusion, despite the fact (she) originally entered the UK as a visitor, switched into a student category and then married as an overstayer’, Mrs May wrote.

Mrs May’s letter was sent to the committee after it asked for some examples of ‘inappropriate application’ of article 8 in immigration cases.

She added: ‘In a number of more recent cases, the UK courts have substituted for whether there are ‘insurmountable obstacles’ the alternative question of whether it is ‘reasonable to expect’ the family of an applicant facing removal to join him or her in his or her country of origin’.

A spokeswoman for Mrs May said: ‘We don’t comment on leaked documents.’

SOURCE






Border Patrol Arresting Illegal Crossers in Arizona, and Returning Them Through Texas and California

People who unlawfully cross the U.S.-Mexican border into southern Arizona are getting a bus ride – to Texas or California, and sent back to their countries.

The government has been shipping undocumented immigrants caught in Arizona, the main entry point for illegal border crossers, to other border states for several years. Last year, the number of transfers, known as lateral repatriations, skyrocketed.

From Oct. 1, 2010, through July 30, the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector transferred nearly 44,000 undocumented immigrants arrested in Arizona to Texas or California. That is 128 percent more than the number transferred during all of 2010.

"What that does is break up that smuggling cycle so that they are not going to keep coming through kind of a revolving door," said Colleen Agle, a spokeswoman for the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector, which covers most of Arizona's border with Mexico.

The Arizona Republic reports Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was in Nogales on Sunday to tour part of the border on horseback.

She praised the lateral transfers, calling them part of stepped-up efforts to deter illegal immigration by imposing consequences on illegal border crossers instead of simply returning them to Mexico.

"There are a number of things that all together are acting as deterrents to recidivist crossers in particular," Napolitano said. "All those added together make it less and less appealing to try and cross this very forbidding terrain."

Some humanitarian groups have raised concerns that the transfers separate families.

A September report by the Tucson-based humanitarian group No More Deaths found that based on interviews with more than 12,800 undocumented immigrants deported by the Border Patrol, 869 family members had been removed separately, including 17 children and 41 teens.

The separations often occurred after the Border Patrol transferred undocumented immigrants to other states so they could be deported through ports far from where they were apprehended, the report said.

Meanwhile, groups opposing Arizona's immigration enforcement law are trying to chip away at a section of the statute that bans the blocking of traffic when people seek or offer day-labor services on streets.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, and other opponents asked a federal judge on Friday to block enforcement of the provision. They argue that it unconstitutionally restricts free speech rights and they say the state can't justify a statewide ban based on scattered instances of solicitations creating traffic problems in Phoenix.

The ban was among a handful of provisions in the law that were allowed to take effect after a July 2010 decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked enforcement of the law's more controversial elements.

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.