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

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



31 October, 2011

Britain to speed up deportation of foreigners involved in gang crime

Theresa May will seek to reinforce her hardline views on law and order this week by unveiling new anti-terror-style plans to speed up the deportation of foreign thugs involved in gangland crime.

The Home Secretary will announce proposals for immigration services and police to work together to remove those operating in British gangs as quickly as possible. She will say that a pioneering scheme in London, which boasts a ‘100 per cent’ success rate in deporting ‘highest-harm’ foreign offenders, will be rolled out across England and Wales.

The scheme is being billed as the first operation of its type in the UK outside of anti-terror operations. Under the plans, police will combine with UK Border Agency (UKBA) staff to make sure foreign gang members convicted of serious crimes in Britain – including murder and rape – are deported.

Home Office sources said: ‘We need to ensure the two forces work more closely so that when someone is caught and convicted they are removed from the country.’

The initiative is based on Operation Bite, a trial project in London between the UKBA and the Metropolitan Police. Under the operation, the most dangerous individuals involved in crimes such as murder, kidnap, shootings, stabbings, and drugs supply were ‘fast-tracked’ to the UKBA by the police.

Cases included an 18-year-old convicted of intent to supply crack cocaine, and later arrested for serious offences including attempted murder. He was detained for 14 months under immigration powers and later deported for a minimum of ten years.

Home Office sources claimed that as well as speeding up deportation of gang members, it also helped identify some who had no right to be in the UK in the first place. Operation Bite has removed nine ‘highest-harm’ offenders, officials said.

The news comes after it was disclosed more than 150 people arrested for their role in the summer’s riots were foreigners, and that 13 per cent of all those detained were gang members.

SOURCE





Other immigrant groups generally less concerned than Latinos about Alabama immigration law

Alabama's tough new law targeting illegal immigrants has provoked concern among Hispanics — even causing some to leave the state — but members of other immigrant groups appear to be less worried.

Mai Nguyen, a Vietnamese refugee who arrived more than 20 years ago in Bayou La Batre, the heart of Alabama's Gulf Coast seafood industry, said there was some initial fear, especially among those who speak limited English.

"I was a little worried when I first heard about it because I was afraid I wouldn't be able to explain to a police officer that I'm here legally," Nguyen said through a translator. But now she says she's more concerned about the shrimp harvest.

Nguyen is part of the robust community of Southeast Asians who settled here after the Vietnam War. Since they are naturalized American citizens or legal permanent residents, Alabama's new law targeting illegal immigration shouldn't affect them.

Some parts of the law have been blocked by courts, but a section that allows police to check a person's immigration status during traffic stops still stands. Some immigrants, even those in the country legally, worry that this could lead to improper detentions or racial profiling — concerns that police and supporters of the law dismiss.

People in Bayou La Batre's Southeast Asian community, especially the older generations, have been encouraged to apply for wallet-size passport cards that they can easily keep with them. That helped alleviate fears about the law, said Grace Scire, regional director for the Vietnamese-American advocacy group Boat People SOS.

Since Alabama's law was enacted, many Hispanics — the state's fastest growing immigrant group over the last decade — have reportedly left the state. Even among legal residents, many said they were leaving either because they feared the law would lead to racial profiling or because they have family members who are here illegally.

"Hispanic immigrants definitely feel like this is a law targeting Hispanics," said Elizabeth Brezovich with the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice. But she added that some other immigrant groups are worried.

"It's making a lot of people start to think — even if they're here legally — about what they need to do to get their papers in order, to make sure they're OK if they get stopped by police," she said.

"The legislative hearings and record bear out that the people who introduced and passed the law were motivated to get Hispanics to self deport," said Olivia Turner with the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama. "But I think its effects may be broader."

Turner said she's heard from members of the south Asian community, many of whom are Muslim, that this law is yet another tool that will be used to harass them in the aftermath of 9/11. Some Haitian immigrants fear it will lead to racial profiling, she said.

Nguyen arrived in Bayou La Batre in 1990 after spending a year in nearby Mobile. She can see some parallels between her own experience and that of the Hispanics.

When she first arrived with her family, seeking a better life, some American workers resented the foreigners filling jobs — even humble jobs like shucking oysters. One of the main stated purposes for Alabama's new law is to make sure illegal immigrants don't take jobs from Americans.

As refugees, including many who fled persecution after Communist regimes seized power, the Southeast Asians have legal residency status and many are naturalized American citizens. They've lived in Bayou La Batre for more than three decades and are entrenched in the local economy.

Nguyen sympathizes with the Hispanic immigrants somewhat, but she said the law might have a good effect if illegal immigrants leave the state. They are often willing to work for lower wages and in worse conditions, meaning employers tend to prefer them over those who are here legally, she said. And with boats staying docked amid a slow economy, lots of people need jobs.

Food market owner Tom Khanthavongsa and his wife, Duang, immigrated to the U.S. from Laos in 1980. Khanthavongsa, 55, said he hasn't given much thought to the new law.

"We're not worried, we have all our papers and everything," he said, adding that a bigger concern is the struggles of the local Southeast Asian community who are his primary clients.

Across Mobile Bay, along the Gulf Coast, which attracts hordes of tourists to its white sand beaches in the summer, many low-skilled jobs are filled by workers from other countries.

Employers in Gulf Shores and Orange Beach, where beachfront hotels, souvenir shops and waterfront restaurants cater to tourists, said they lost some Hispanic workers — who they say were here legally — when the law took effect.

But many jobs are filled by young people from Eastern Europe or Jamaica who come on temporary work visas to wait tables or clean hotel rooms during the summer high season. The law took effect as the season was ending, so it's too early to tell whether it will dampen their willingness to come to Alabama.

Eugeniu Gorbatia works as a bartender in a harbor-side restaurant. The 28-year-old from Moldova, who was granted political asylum, has lived in the U.S. for five years and speaks with a thick accent. He said he's not worried about the new law.

"I was pulled over during the summer, but the police didn't ask me about my immigrant status," he said. "But if they did I wouldn't worry. I have my papers."

His employer, Matt Shipp, said his workers on temporary seasonal visas weren't concerned about the new law, but he lost a handful of Hispanic workers, all of whom he believes are in the country legally. Some moved to Florida where the laws are less strict.

In the Montgomery area, the small Korean population is only concerned that the broad discretion granted to police officers may be misused, said Alabama State University professor Sun Gi Chun.

"Most people (in the community) are working here legally, so we don't have any fear about the law," he said. "We are a little concerned about people who might abuse their authority, but we haven't felt any abuse so far."

Mohamed Elhady, president of the Huntsville Islamic Center, which has members from many places, including India, Pakistan, Turkey and the Middle East, said he hasn't heard much concern about the new law.

"Our community is different," he said. "It is made up professionals — doctors, teachers, engineers — who are all here legally, so the law doesn't affect us. We are not concerned."

SOURCE



30 October, 2011

Arizona Employer Pleads Guilty to Hiring Illegal Immigrants

A contractor in southern Arizona pleaded guilty to knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, the first case in that state in which federal authorities filed criminal charges instead of imposing a fine.

Ivan Hardt, president of Sun Dry Wall & Stucco Inc., based in the city of Sierra Vista, pleaded guilty Friday to the misdemeanor charge and could face up to six months in prison when he is sentenced on Jan. 26.

Local media said Hardt also pleaded guilty to a felony charge of conspiring to harbor illegal immigrants, although his attorney said that charge will be dropped if he agrees to pay a $450,000 fine.

The lawyer said his client plans to pay the full amount, according to the reports.

In March 2007, immigration agents raided the company’s facilities and discovered that some of the employees were using forged immigration documents.

The federal government said the case was the fruit of a new federal policy toward violators of immigration laws. Whereas companies used to face only fines for hiring illegal immigrants, they now run the risk of criminal charges.

Jose A. Gutierrez Tapia, the foreman in charge of stucco crews for the company, pleaded guilty to knowingly hiring at least 10 undocumented immigrants and was sentenced to two months in prison and three years of supervised release.

SOURCE




How Germany became a country of immigrants

Turkish labor helped drive West Germany's post-war boom
Turks first came to West Germany in large numbers after a worker recruitment agreement was signed on October 30, 1961. At the time, neither the 'guest workers' nor the German authorities expected them to stay long term.

After a recruitment agreement between West Germany and Turkey was signed on October 30, 1961, Turks began coming to Germany in large numbers as guest workers.

They did not come with the intention of settling in Germany, and at the time, the West German government did not see any need for a specific policy for these temporary "guests." Although information centers were set up for them and there were Turkish-language broadcasts on German television, there was no actual policy directed specifically towards guest workers.

Recruitment halted

The decisions that had the biggest impact on the development of Germany's Turkish population came in the 1970s, as Chancellor Willy Brandt became concerned about the societal challenges facing the country. "We need to consider very carefully at what point our society's absorptive capacity has been reached," Brandt said in a government policy statement in 1972.

This statement was seen as a sign of a major change in government policy, which in turn led to a turning point for the guest workers living in West Germany. About 10 months later, in 1973, the government decided to put an end to the recruitment of Turkish guest workers.

Brandt worried about West Germany's capacity to absorb immigrants
According to Rita Süssmuth, the former president of the German parliament, the Bundestag, this decision had serious consequences for the country. Süssmuth remembers how almost half of the guest workers quickly returned home, while the ones that stayed started bringing their families to West Germany.

At the start of the 1970s, the government made it easier for Turkish guest workers to obtain residence permits and bring their families to join them. That's when Turks began to settle in West Germany.

Safter Cinar, the representative responsible for migration and integration issues at the German Federation of Trade Unions, believes the West German government at the time was not prepared for this wave of immigration. He criticizes West Germany for failing to do the long-term planning necessary before allowing entire families to move to the country.

"It meant that a lot of children turned up in kindergartens or schools speaking another language, practicing a different religion and coming from a different culture," he said.

A commissioner for foreigners

The first proposals for integrating guest workers and their families came from Heinz Kühn, the West German government's first commissioner for foreigners, who presented a report on the issue in 1979.

Cinar believes many of the recommendations contained in that report remain just as relevant today.

"For example, issues like reforming the education system, hiring appropriate personnel, and education in the native language were up for discussion," he said.

Kühn also recommended that the naturalization process be sped up and simplified, and suggested that dual citizenship should be allowed.

The government of the day, though, ignored the report. Instead, Cinar points out, it introduced measures that did just the opposite, like putting restrictions on moving families to West Germany, which came into force in 1981.

Paying foreigners to return home

In his first policy statement after becoming West German chancellor in 1982, Helmut Kohl indicated that his government would implement a more strict policy on foreigners.

"It must be made easier for the foreigners who wish to return home to do so," said Kohl. "But they also have to decide whether they want to return home or if they want to stay here and integrate."

One year later, his government passed a law that would provide financial assistance to Turkish residents of West Germany who wished to return home. However, many immigrants didn't take the government up on the offer.

Although by the mid-1990s 2 million people of Turkish origin lived in Germany, the question of whether this was a country of immigration was still a hot topic of discussion.

Klaus Bade, chairman of the Advisory Council of the Foundations for Integration and Migration, believes it took until the end of 1990s for the issue of integration to make it onto the political agenda.

Bade argues that the center-left coalition of Social Democrats and Greens was the first government to make a serious effort at shaping integration policy in the country. The current government, under Chancellor Angela Merkel, continued down this path, according to Bade.

But at the same time, more restrictions were placed on foreigners. Dual citizenship was no longer tolerated and those wanting to move to Germany were expected to learn the language. Bringing family members to the country and gaining German citizenship through naturalization was made more difficult.

Since then, though, dialogue with immigrants has taken on a more prominent role. Integration summits under Merkel are an example of such efforts. Migration and integration have become topics of sometimes heated debate.

SOURCE



29 October, 2011

Border Patrol quietly halts routine bus and train checks on US northern border

The U.S. Border Patrol has quietly stopped its controversial practice of routinely searching buses, trains and airports for illegal immigrants at transportation hubs along the northern border and in the nation’s interior, preventing agents from using what had long been an effective tool for tracking down people here illegally, The Associated Press has learned.

Current and former Border Patrol agents said field offices around the country began receiving the order last month — soon after the Obama administration announced that to ease an overburdened immigration system, it would allow many illegal immigrants to remain in the country while it focuses on deporting those who have committed crimes.

The routine bus, train and airport checks typically involved agents milling about and questioning people who appeared suspicious, and had long been criticized by immigrant rights groups. Critics said the tactic amounted to racial profiling and violated travelers’ civil liberties.

But agents said it was an effective way to catch unlawful immigrants, including smugglers and possible terrorists, who had evaded detection at the border, as well as people who had overstayed their visas. Often, those who evade initial detection head quickly for the nearest public transportation in hopes of reaching other parts of the country.

Halting the practice has baffled the agents, especially in some stations along the northern border — from Bellingham, Wash., to Houlton, Maine — where the so-called “transportation checks” have been the bulk of their everyday duties. The Border Patrol is authorized to check vehicles within 100 miles of the border.

The order has not been made public, but two agents described it to the AP on condition of anonymity because the government does not authorize them to speak to the media. The union that represents Border Patrol agents planned to issue a news release about the change Monday.

“Orders have been sent out from Border Patrol headquarters in Washington, D.C., to Border Patrol sectors nationwide that checks of transportation hubs and systems located away from the southwest border of the United States will only be conducted if there is intelligence indicating a threat,” the release says.

Those who have received the orders said agents may still go to train and bus stations and airports if they have specific “actionable intelligence” that there is an illegal immigrant there who recently entered the country. An agent in Washington state said it’s not clear how agents are supposed to glean such intelligence, and even if they did, under the new directive they still require clearance from Washington, D.C., headquarters before they can respond.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman, Bill Brooks, repeatedly insisted that any shift in enforcement tactics does not amount to a change in policy as local commanders still have authority to aggressively pursue illegal immigrants near the border and at transportation hubs.

“It’s up to the local commander to position his agents the way he wants to position them. What we’ve done is gone to a risk-based posture,” he said.

SOURCE





Sweden’s Immigration Debate

Ilmar Reepalu is the Mayor of Malmo, Sweden’s third largest city. He is a man on the move, trying to promote and develop Malmo’s position as a leader in green technology around the world. He can squeeze us in for an interview at 8:30 on a Sunday evening. Uncomplaining, he rides up to Malmo’s City Hall on his bicycle in the dark and rain to talk to us.

We are in Malmo, not to discuss sustainability and fair trade in the city, but rather its massive immigration, which some call a problem, others consider a gift.

One-third of Malmo’s population is foreign-born. Another 10 percent are of a different nationality. The biggest influx these days is from the Muslim world. Many of them are very traditional-- a small group is quite extreme.

Sweden has a population of 9 million — of those, 1.4 million are immigrants. Approximately 100,000 pour in each year. Ilmar Reepalu thinks that’s a good thing.

“Sweden needs lots of immigrants,” he says, “because otherwise we can’t keep up our welfare system. We, as most parts of Europe, have too few people. Within the coming 20 years, we will have a lack of labor force, so we need more people coming to Sweden. We don’t have enough kids from ourselves.”

Sweden has probably the most generous immigration, asylum and welfare policies in the world. Some natives have had it with this bottomless funding pit. For the first time last year, voters elected the far right anti-immigration Sweden Democrats—giving them a handful of seats in Parliament.

MP Kent Ekeroth disputes the argument that immigration keeps Sweden’s welfare system afloat. “What kind of immigrants do we take in? It’s people from Somalia who have done nothing but herd sheep their whole life and we expect them to benefit our society? It’s ridiculous.”

The Sweden Democrats advocate cutting back 90 percent on immigration, redirecting the money currently spent on housing and caring for refugees to programs to improve life in their home countries.

“If you bring one immigrant to Sweden, it’s expensive. It costs a lot of money. If you put that money to use in Africa or the Middle East or wherever, you can help hundreds more.” Ekeroth goes even further, “If you put this money over there to help them with food, with medicine, with education or whatever, you can help hundreds, maybe thousands, more. So what’s more humane? To help one person lead a life of luxury here in Sweden or to help 1000 to avoid starvation in Africa?”

The Sweden Democrats’ views have made them targets both of Sweden’s left, and of immigrants. Ekeroth travels with security.

The tensions that have come as a result of the swelling immigration have affected all sides. Riots have periodically broken out in a largely Muslim neighborhood of Malmo, called Rosengard, sparked by the perception of mistreatment of residents by the police or other authorities. Firefighters at the scenes of some of these riots have been attacked. As a result, they will often refuse to answer calls to put out fires there without police escort.

There has been an Islamophobic backlash. Scandinavia’s largest mosque happens to be in Malmo. It was set on fire in 2004. The culprit was never found. An imam was shot on the premises. The head of the Islamic Center at Malmo’s main mosque, a man named Bejzat Becirov, regularly receives hate mail, adorned with pigs and pictures of Usama Bin Laden.

Becirov, a moderate Muslim from the former Yugoslavia, and hence, a European, from a community where women did not typically wear the veil, thinks the culprits behind these attacks on his mosque may be neo-Nazis, but may also be extremist Muslims who don’t like Becirov’s message of integration.

He thinks immigrants to Sweden should try harder to blend in. “Since religion doesn’t say anything about how you should dress, maybe it’s a good idea to try to take a look at how everybody else is behaving, and try to present themselves and adapt to that,” he says. “And that would make it easier for them. Perhaps things start there."

Becirov acknowledges that it’s harder for non-Europeans to adapt to a liberal place like Sweden. “If you look at Muslims coming from the Middle East, I think it takes 15 to 20 years before they are integrated—a generation.”

Becirov believes the number of Malmo Muslims who subscribe to extremist ideology is small, but that their recruiting methods are aggressive. In his words, python-like.

Ekeroth worries about how those extreme elements exercise their authority. “There’s unofficial Shariah police going around Rosengard, checking how women dress, and there are unofficial Shariah courts in Malmo, being used,” he says.

Despite the controversy, Swedes we interviewed outside Malmo’s main station were supportive of their country’s immigration policies.

One young woman told Fox News, “I think we should take more. I know that not many people would agree with me.” A young man adds, “I think it’s good. It creates great diversity.” Another young woman, when asked about the face of Sweden changing dramatically due to massive immigration, said, “I think everything we call culture right now, it’s been so fluid throughout history. I don’t think it can be overruled like that. Everything that comes in, it just adds to the culture, it doesn’t take away.”

Sweden has taken in more Iraqi refugees than the United States has, the mayor of Malmo points out. That is something many Swedes are proud of. Mayor Reepalu believes that rather than cut back on immigration, Sweden should do more to help those coming to Sweden adapt to their new lives, especially the children.

“The challenge,” he says, “is to have teachers good enough to take this quite tough situation, where you have lots of children coming into the schools, coming directly from conflict zones in different parts of the world, carrying with them lots of trauma of course. “To take care of that—to help those people get a good start in their lives.”

SOURCE



28 October, 2011

UK grows by 500,000 every year: Annual population increase, fuelled by immigration, equals city the size of Leeds

Unending traffic jams and sardine trains? Brits ain't seen nothing yet!

Britain's population will soar by the equivalent of a city the size of Leeds every year for the next decade, according to official figures.

Revised statistics show numbers rising at a sustained pace not matched for 100 years. And the main factor behind the increase is immigration. The projections suggest that, in just over 30 years, Britain will overtake Germany as the most populous country in Europe.

All estimates produced two years ago have been revised heavily upwards in a report published yesterday by the Office for National Statistics. Over the next ten years, the population is expected to rise annually by 491,000. Leeds’s current total is 486,000.

Most will live in the already-crowded South of England.

It is predicted that the landmark total of 70million – a figure the immigration minister in the last Labour government said would never be allowed – will be reached in the middle of 2027. This is two years earlier than previous reckoning. Two thirds of the overall growth in numbers, says the ONS, will be brought about either directly or indirectly by migration.

In the long term, net migration – the number added to the population every year through arrivals from abroad – will continue to run at 200,000 a year, the ONS said. This level, some 20,000 a year more than was predicted two years ago, is more than double the net migration that David Cameron has promised will be achieved by Coalition curbs.

The revised estimates come at a time of deepening concern over the effects of fast- rising population on housing, transport, water, power and state services such as education, health and welfare benefits.

The past month has seen a row over planning rules sparked by Whitehall attempts to make room for the new homes needed to accommodate the expanding numbers, with conservation groups warning about the unrestrained construction of housing on green fields in the South of England.

Tory ministers also face pressure over plans to improve transport links through high-speed railways.

A Labour-backed think-tank has called for older people and empty nesters to be taxed out of family homes, making room for poor families living in overcrowded conditions.

And yesterday the Daily Mail revealed that British primary schools have the highest pupil-teacher ratio of any country in Europe.
Girls born in 2060 will have a life expectancy of 100 years, with boys at 98.6 years

Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch, said: ‘These figures confirm that the UK’s dramatic rise in population will continue unabated. The population is now set to hit 70million in 16 years, over two thirds of which is due to immigration. ‘As people return home this evening crammed into public transport and on congested roads, they could well ask where all of these people are going to fit.’

Experts also warned of the impact on pensions. By 2035, the figures showed, there will be 2.9 people of working age to support each pensioner, compared with 3.2 now.

The estimates, based on figures for 2010, say that the current United Kingdom population of 62.3million will rise to 67.2million by 2020 – 700,000 more than envisaged in projections based on 2008 figures.

Numbers will reach 70million in 2027 and 73.2million in 2035. In the same year, Britain will overtake France for numbers, and Germany, where low birthrates have resulted in a falling population, will be matched by 2043. The land area of Germany is 137,000 square miles – almost 50 per cent larger than the United Kingdom at 94,000 square miles.

Over the next 25 years, the ONS said, the population will rise at the rate of 438,000 a year – the equivalent of a city the size of Bristol every 12 months.

If the population continues to grow at the present rate, it will be almost 100 million a century from now. In Europe, only Luxembourg, Cyprus and Ireland are likely to see faster population growth.

Net migration is directly responsible for 47 per cent of the projected population growth, and natural increase – the greater numbers of births than deaths – accounts for the rest.

But the ONS said immigration had the effect of pushing up birthrates, so that net migration was responsible overall for two thirds of population growth.

The annual rate of increase for the next decade is expected to be 0.8 per cent a year – a speed of growth surpassed only in one year of the baby-boom era of the 1950s and 60s and not matched for a sustained period since the Edwardian years before the First World War.

Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘Immigration to the UK has been too high. That is why we have made sweeping changes to get a grip on immigration in this country, closing down routes subject to abuse and taking action against those with no right to be here.

‘Much has been done, but there is more to do to bring down net migration to the order of tens of thousands a year and ensure migration which benefits the UK.’

SOURCE





Criminals released, children incarcerated. Britain's immigrant removal system is Broken

What is wrong with this picture? Four thousand foreign criminals who should have been deported are at large on the streets of Britain, released from detention centres because there is apparently no prospect of them being deported within a reasonable time.

Meanwhile, up to three thousand asylum seekers and economic migrants, a shocking percentage of them children, remain locked up in limbo within the UK Border Agency’s thirteen Immigration Removal Centres.

It seems that nothing whatsoever has changed in Britain’s Kafkaesque system of detention since 2006 when the news that more than 1,000 foreign criminals, including three murderers and nine rapists, had been freed instead of deported, almost cost Charles Clarke his job.

The then Home Secretary called the matter regrettable; yet he did not seem regard it seriously enough to be a resigning matter. In the intervening years, that number has somehow quadrupled.

Thank goodness then, that Theresa May has taken a stand. She used her speech at the party conference to announce new moves to amend immigration rules to stop foreign criminals resisting deportation, notably by invoking the Human Rights Act, in particular, Article 8, on the right to a private and family life.

Frustratingly, Ms May’s commendable if over-due plans were overshadowed by the ensuing 'cat-gate' row with Ken Clarke over the Bolivian immigrant whose argument for leniency included his joint ownership of a pet feline.

It is to be hoped that Ms May will be successful in pushing through the secondary legislation needed to modify UK rules so that more offenders can be legitimately removed. The figure of 3,775 criminals released rather than deported, revealed in a new report by UKBA chief inspector John Vine is certainly shocking. Sadly, it is a statistic which highlights the fundamental and persistent failures which are now endemic in Britain’s broken immigration detention system.

The United Kingdom has the largest network of immigration removal centres in Europe, with more than 3,000 places in 13 official centres, the majority of which – nine – are run, on behalf of the UKBA, by private contractors, including Serco, G4S, Reliance Secure Task Management and Global Solutions Ltd.

Around 30,000 individuals, the majority of them, asylum seekers, pass through the system annually. Of these, around half will be processed within an eight week period. The other 50 per cent are often stuck in the limbo of a complex and labyrinthine system of asylum hearings, appeals and case resolution procedures which can go on for months and years, at significant cost to the tax payer.

The conditions in which inmates are kept at these centres varies significantly, with the centre at Dover described last year by inspector Dame Anne Owers, as 'more like a prison'. Frustrated inmates regularly stage protests against inhumane treatment including - they claim - torture and physical abuse, prolonged detention and appalling conditions.

Campsfield House, near Oxford, has been the scene of regular riots; Yarl’s Wood in Bedfordshire was burnt to the ground following a violent protest after an inmate was physically restrained by G4S staff. Detainees at both centres staged protracted hunger strikes only last year, declaring they were refusing food in a bid for their voices to be heard. Suicides are far from uncommon. A Moldovan man aged 35 killed himself at Campsfield House in August while two detainees were found dead at Colnbrook detention centre near Heathrow in July.

Unsurprisingly, it is difficult to obtain much information about Immigration Removal Centres or, indeed, about the workings of the system itself from the Home Office, which generally does not publish these facts and figures, most notably on the financial costs of immigration detention.

Latest numbers, reported to Parliament last year, indicated that the average overall cost per bed per day is £120, apparently taking into consideration exceptional costs, such as damage caused by fire and also by individuals suing for unlawful detention. Thus, if a centre such as Campsfield operates at 90 per cent capacity, it would cost an estimated £9 million per year to run. Given that there is a constant barrage of litigation from detainees seeking redress for illegal detention, or separation from their children, it would seem likely that the true costs of the system are much, much higher.

The issue of children in immigration removal centres remains a thorny one, particularly for the Liberal Democrat coalition partners who made the ending of child detention a key element of their family values policies. In December 2010, Nick Clegg confidently announced that the detention of children would end in May 2012. Yet between May and August 2011, 697 children, a third of whom were unaccompanied, were held at the UK’s south-east ports. What exactly Mr Clegg intends to do with the ones who arrive inconveniently after next May’s deadline is not yet clear.

That 4,000 miscreants, among them murderers, rapists and paedophiles, have been released from an immigration detention system too hide-bound by red tape and European legislation to hold them is shocking.

Theresa May needs to move swiftly, to ensure that Article 8 is no longer used to place the family rights of foreign criminals above the rights of the British public.

However, the Home Office also needs to take immediate steps to tackle the deep-seated problems of an unstable and increasingly dangerous detention system where lone children are incarcerated, detainees are reduced to rioting in protest at inhumane treatment and suicide can sometimes seem like an acceptable alternative or a welcome release.

SOURCE



27 October, 2011

GOP Lawmakers Rip Obama’s Immigration Policies

Another day, another grilling for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, with House Republicans targeting the administration’s efforts to tackle illegal immigration.

In a rambunctious and wide-ranging oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Ms. Napolitano was raked over the coals by Republicans for the Obama administration’s decision to prioritize the deportation of criminal aliens; the security of the southwestern border; Homeland Security’s role in the “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation; and, just for a change of pace, the background of counter-extremism advisers to the department.

Ms. Napolitano echoed recent remarks, saying the administration’s stance on illegal immigration is pilloried by the left as too harsh and by the right as too lenient. “Both these views are incorrect,” she said, asking for a “facts-based” dialogue on immigration, which is quickly becoming a hot-button issue in the GOP presidential primary fight and, most likely, for next year’s general election.

Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and chairman of the committee, fired a shot across her bow even before the hearing began, with an op-ed in Politico calling the administration’s deportation numbers a “trick,” thanks to doctored statistics.

“Fourteen million Americans are now looking for work. Meanwhile, 7 million illegal immigrants have jobs in the U.S. We could free up millions of those jobs for citizens and legal immigrants if we simply enforced our immigration laws,” he wrote.

What kind of jobs would those be? According to federal labor statistics, carpet mills, garment cutting and sewing, landcaping, car washes, and laundries are among the sectors most dominated by Hispanic workers (the numbers don’t break out documented versus undocumented workers). What kind of jobs wouldn’t they be? Professional careers such as management, law, architecture and the like: Among foreign-born workers, Hispanics have the lowest participation rates in professional sectors.

Ms. Napolitano reiterated the administration’s record-setting level of deportations, with a nearly two-fold increase in deportations of criminal aliens since 2008, and the need for the Department of Homeland Security to focus its limited deportation budget on the worst offenders.

Republicans including Reps. Louie Gohmert and Ted Poe of Texas, and Jason Chaffetz of Utah didn’t want to waste much of their alloted time allowing Ms. Napolitano to answer questions; Mr. Gohmert in particular said he wasn’t going to be “filibustered” by letting a cabinet secretary answer questions in an oversight hearing.

In the end, Republicans seem to have found a way to link public concern over illegal immigration and over jobs—two crucial issues that will likely play a key role in the 2012 elections.

Despite the onslaught, Ms. Napolitano appeared more exasperated than beleaguered. “Much of the ‘information’ about the border isn’t quite accurate,” she said, complete with air quotes.

SOURCE





Thousands of students failed the Australian visa test

FOREIGN students caught skipping class or flunking courses are being deported in record numbers, courtesy of a federal government crackdown on student visas.

The Immigration Department has already cancelled 15,066 foreign student visas in the past year, a 37 per cent spike from the previous year, The Daily Telegraph reported.

About 3624 students are facing deportation for flunking subjects or missing classes.

A further 2235 visas were cancelled on students who quit their original courses and were either working illegally - in some cases in brothels.

The crackdown, coming after the number of cancellations was steady for four years, has targeted lax students who had won visas to study at a vocational training level, such as cooking or hairdressing.

Indian students have been hit the hardest, while the biggest foreign contingent - Chinese - fare much better because they are less likely to be studying for a trade. Trade students are not only under the spotlight but a change in policy preferencing university students has now made entry to Australian courses harder.

University graduates will have the right to work here for two years after they graduate, leaving vocational training students to wait on a second tranche of changes, due next year, to find out where they stand.

Of the 332,709 international students in Australia in June, more than half were studying at university, while a third were on vocational training visas studying diploma courses.

One in every five international students is Chinese, while one in every six is Indian. Courses are also popular with South Korean, Brazilian and Malaysian students. The majority of international students study in NSW and Victoria.

To receive a visa they must be enrolled in a course and show they can pay tuition and living costs and meet health and English language tests.

Of the 15,066 cancellations by DIMIA in the past year, 3624 students lost their visas because they flunked some or all subjects or were no-shows to class. A further 2235 visas were cancelled for students who quit their courses and 212 were from students who finished their courses early.

The Immigration Department offers eight kinds of student visas - including vocational training, university, English language courses or school education visas.

Despite oversight by the department, some students end up as illegal immigrants after failing to return home.

The department's annual report said that 8309 student visa holders became "unlawful" in the past year because their student visa expired and they did not apply for a new one, such as a bridging visa.

In some cases, foreigners were not genuine students and use the work rights of a student visa as a back door to higher wages and working conditions in Australia.

Some women have come to Australia on student visas to work in illegal brothels.

SOURCE



26 October, 2011

Bleak socialist Britain driving its own people away

If homesickness is the curse of life as an expat, then millions of Britons abroad are bearing up manfully. As Britain’s economy continues to stall and the country recovers from the summer riots, hundreds of thousands have decided to scrap plans to come home.

Of the 5.5million Brits living abroad, 69 per cent say they will stay away from Britain permanently – an increase of 13 per cent in the past year – as the UK is now ‘more expensive, less safe and offers a lower quality of life’.

More than two thirds of expats, 3.74million, say they are happier living abroad, with 825,000 having cancelled their plans to come back during the last 12 months, according to research.

Seventy four per cent of expats say their quality of life is better abroad, 64 per cent say they are wealthier and 52 per cent say their cost of living is lower, a study for Lloyds TSB International found.

And 51 per cent think their country of residence is a better place to raise children.

Furthermore, many believe that living abroad is beneficial for their children as it offers the experience of another culture while learning a language.

Tony Wilcox of Lloyds TSB said: ‘Expats have an enlightening view of the UK, having experienced life both home and away. ‘So it is worrying that life in Britain appears so bleak when viewed through their eyes.

I think their happiness with life overseas also reflects that large groups of people in the UK are gradually becoming more outward-looking with increased global travel, more international business and generally coming into contact with other cultures.

‘It has become easier and a more natural transition than it would have been 20, even ten, years ago.’

The top ten expat destinations are Australia, Spain, U.S., Canada, France, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany, the United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong.

SOURCE






Failed asylum seeker dodges deportation for a decade... because he goes to the GYM

A failed asylum seeker who has dodged deportation from Britain for nearly a decade has been told he can stay – because he goes to the gym.

Amir Beheshti has been trying to get refugee status for seven years, but was repeatedly turned down by the courts, who ruled he would not suffer if he returned to his home country Iran.

But the 40-year-old has now told judges he has a private life that involves going for work-outs with his friends – which means his human rights would be violated if he was deported.

The controversial legal ruling by Scotland’s Court of Session means he will be allowed to continue living rent-free in his publicly funded flat and claiming a weekly allowance.

Earlier this month, a top Scottish judge issued a written decision in which he agreed the case should be referred back to Home Secretary Theresa May for fresh consideration.

This effectively means the threat of deportation has been removed and Beheshti is free to remain in Scotland indefinitely.

Lord Glennie’s judgment read: ‘He had integrated well within the Glasgow community, had a large network of friends, most of whom were Scottish, and socialised with those friends at the gymnasium, at five-a-side football, in coffee shops, at college, in the library and at their homes. ‘He went on to say that he made use of local facilities, such as the library and Glasgow leisure centres'.

Beheshti’s claim, it said, was ‘based on Article 8 ECHR and, in particular, on the fact that he had, so he claimed, established a private life in the UK.

Beheshti was smuggled into Dover on a lorry in 2005. In his asylum application he claimed his father’s pro-Jewish sympathies put him in danger in Iran – but it was rejected, as were two appeals.

Having travelled to Glasgow, where he lived with his sister for two years, he appealed to the Court of Session. But in June 2009, Lord Osborne ruled he had consistently failed to provide any ‘credible’ evidence that he would personally face any persecution or disadvantage in Iran.

The decision marked the end of Beheshti’s rights of appeal. Technically, he should then have been removed as an illegal immigrant, but no action to deport him was taken.
Beheshti who was smuggled into Dover (pictured) on a lorry can continue to live rent-free in his publicly funded flat and claim a weekly allowance

Beheshti who was smuggled into Dover (pictured) on a lorry can continue to live rent-free in his publicly funded flat and claim a weekly allowance

In February 2010, Beheshti wrote to UKBA, asking for ‘leave to remain’ based on Article 8 ECHR. When that was rejected, he launched another appeal to the Court of Session. This appeal was the one that led to him being allowed to stay.

Beheshti said recently that he ‘feels comfortable’ in Glasgow and does not have anybody left back in Iran.

Last night, his case - which has already cost the public purse tens of thousands of pounds - sparked outrage.

Emma Boon of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘If the occasional trip to the gym is enough to allow a failed asylum seeker to appeal his deportation, then taxpayers will wonder who can’t claim a right to stay. ‘He should have been deported when his case was initially rejected. It’s appalling that we are left picking up all of his bills when he should have been sent home years ago'.

A UK Border Agency (UKBA) spokesman said: ‘Too often, Article 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the right to a private and family life] has been used to place the family rights of illegal migrants above the rights of the British public in seeing our immigration laws properly enforced, and that balance needs to be redressed.

‘The Government will change the immigration rules to reinforce the public interest in seeing those who have breached our immigration laws removed from this country.

‘We have been seeking to remove this individual, but we have been asked by the courts to look again at this case. ‘Where we do not believe someone has the right to stay in this country, we expect them to return home'.

SOURCE



25 October, 2011

Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Amnesty by Any Means (Memorandum)

2. Educating an Underclass (Memorandum)

3. Mark Krikorian Discusses Visas for Real Estate Investment on CNBC (Video)

4. Panel: Crime Challenges from Illegal Immigration (Video)

5. Another Local E-Verify Ordinance (Blog)

6. Sin of Omission (Blog)

7. What Cole Porter Didn't Know about International Marriages (Blog)

8. Three Latinos on the American Dream: a Brain Surgeon, a Migrant atop a Train, and a College President (Blog)

9. Good News: 15 B-1 Russian Engineers Aiming for Boeing, Stopped by CBP (Blog)

10. Obama: Deportation Numbers 'Actually a Little Deceptive'(Blog)

11. ICE Press Release: Portrait of a Triumph or a Confession? (Blog)

12. Little Pieces of Paper (Blog)

13. CIS Study in the GOP Debate (Blog)

14. Hollow Deportation Boast (Blog)

15. But How Much Legal Immigration? (Blog)

16. The Alternative to Immigration Detention: Fugitives (Blog)

17. Electrocute Illegal Border Crossers? Just Joking! (Blog)

18. There's an Odd Balance-of-Payments Situation that Benefits U.S. Citizens (Blog)

19. Utah Amnesty Law Provides Cover for DHS Amnesty Initiatives (Blog)

20. Department of Very Bad Immigration Ideas: Electrocute Illegal Border Crossers (Blog)

21. Washington Post Cites Population Growth, Then Takes a Pass (Blog)








Many UK rioters were immigrants: 1 in 7 jailed after summer of violence was a foreign national

Foreign looters from 44 countries have been locked up over the riots which scarred the country in August. Robbers, vandals and thugs from as far afield as Afghanistan, Cuba, Ethiopia and Samoa joined in as shops were plundered and businesses set ablaze, causing millions of pounds worth of damage.

The sheer number from different corners of the globe who took part in the mayhem is one of the strongest indicators yet that the riots had nothing to do with political protest or civil unrest, but was born of greed and opportunist criminality.

Last night campaigners said anyone convicted of a riot-related offence should be thrown out of the country at the earliest opportunity.

Prison statistics revealed that 14 per cent – about one in seven – of those jailed for burglary, robbery, theft, criminal damage and disorder during the riots were born abroad. But the true number could be even higher as at least four per cent of those remanded in custody refused to tell police their nationality.

Jamaicans represented the largest group of foreign inmates, followed by Somali and Polish offenders. The list also included those from Colombia, Iraq, Congo, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.

Hundreds of other foreign suspects are facing deportation as separate figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that police have referred 367 ‘suspected foreign nationals’ to the UK Border Agency.

That number is expected to grow as police are still hunting thousands of suspects, with experts predicting it could take up to two years to sift through all the CCTV evidence.

The Ministry of Justice has released a breakdown of the nationalities of those jailed for riot-related offences committed between August 6, when the trouble exploded in Tottenham, and August 9, when disorder had spread outside London to Manchester, Wolverhampton and Birmingham.

A snapshot of the prison population on September 9 reveals that there were 153 foreign nationals and prisoners of ‘unrecorded nationality’ – which in most cases refers to those from the European Union – representing 18 per cent of the 865 criminals imprisoned over the riots. That compares with 712 offenders from the United Kingdom.

One in four of those jailed for robbery were born abroad, as were one in ten convicted for violent disorder or other disorder offences such as possession of a knife or drugs.

Yesterday Sir Andrew Green of the MigrationWatch pressure group called on the Government to kick out foreign rioters and looters. He said: ‘It’s absolutely unacceptable that any foreign citizen should take part in a riot in Britain. ‘It’s important that the courts should recommend deportation in every case which would qualify.’

Immigration Minister Damian Green has said criminals born abroad should be thrown out of Britain. In the immediate aftermath of the riots, he said: ‘We strongly believe that foreign national lawbreakers should be removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity.’

Yesterday Mr Green repeated his commitment to deport offenders from overseas, saying: ‘Foreign nationals who were convicted of offences during the riots will be returned home wherever possible.’

But Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Tom Brake has said the Government would ‘need to exercise caution’, particularly in cases where foreigners have families established in the UK.

Criminals from outside Europe are automatically put forward for deportation if they are sentenced to 12 months in prison. The same applies to Europeans given a 12-month sentence for drugs, violent or sexual crimes, or 24 months for other crimes, and courts can recommend deportation in other instances.

However offenders can use the Human Rights Act to appeal against deportation on the grounds that they are entitled to a family life or to avoid the risk of torture.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘It is important to bear in mind that this is only a snapshot of the prison population on September 9. ‘It would be misleading to suggest that it provides a complete picture of those involved in the riots

SOURCE



24 October, 2011

Swiss Anti-Immigration Party (SVP) still the largest in the country

But loses some seats to two breakaway groups. Greens lose seats too

The Swiss People’s Party lost ground in parliamentary elections as voters boosted the share for smaller parties that campaigned for renewable energy and measures to support an economy hurt by a strong currency.

The People’s Party, or SVP in German, won 25.9 percent of the vote yesterday, down from 28.9 percent in 2007, according to Swiss television. The Green Liberal Party and the BDP, which split from the People’s Party three years ago, added votes.

Preliminary results show the Social Democrats are poised to get 18.1 percent of the vote, down from 19.5 percent in 2007, while the Liberal Party and the Christian Democrats fell to 15.3 percent and 13.1 percent, respectively.

“This shows that not everything is possible for the Swiss People’s Party,” Andreas Ladner, a professor at the University of Lausanne’s Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration, IDHEAP, said by telephone from Zurich. “It’s not a complete defeat, but the expectations were very high and this could signal the end of the increasing popularity of the party.”

It’s the first time in two decades that the SVP, led by Toni Brunner, hasn’t boosted its popularity in federal elections. The party gained votes in recent years at the expense of the Liberals and the Christian Democrats by feeding concerns that the proportion of foreigners in Switzerland -- now at 22 percent -- is too high. The party also opposes European Union membership, military involvement abroad and higher government spending on social welfare.

‘Mass Immigration’

The Green Liberal Party was founded in 2004 and campaigned for renewable energy while also promoting entrepreneurship. The BDP campaigned mainly with Widmer-Schlumpf, who has been leading the country’s efforts to support companies that are hurt by a surging franc.

The SVP’s campaign of “Stop Mass Immigration” helped the party while the Social Democrats campaigned for a more equal distribution of wealth. The Christian Democrats support family- friendly plans while the Liberal Party aims to boost employment and improve trade.

While Switzerland’s adjusted jobless rate held at a 2 1/2- year low of 3 percent in September, Brunner’s strategy of blaming immigrants for domestic problems such as higher rents or rising crime has still resonated with voters.

SVP Vice President Christoph Blocher, a 71-year-old billionaire who is the party’s best-known politician, appeared set to return to the lower house of parliament.

All 246 seats were up for grabs in the Bern, Switzerland- based parliament, which is similar to the U.S. Congress, with one house representing the population and the other the 26 regions, or cantons.

New Minister

With 28 parties and one of the world’s most complicated election systems, the outcome is never clear-cut. The new parliament’s makeup helps determine who gets into the government, while there won’t be any coalitions formed between the different parties.

The Federal Council, the seven-member government, is elected by the parliament. With the resignation of Social Democrat Micheline Calmy-Rey, the foreign minister and current head of government, there will be at least one new minister named in December when the body is elected.

The Green Liberal Party grabbed 5.5 percent of the vote while the BDP got 5.4 percent, according to projections. Each party added nine seats in parliament and the SVP and the Greens each lost seven, Television Suisse Romande said on its website.

The growing popularity of the Green Liberals and the BDP “shows that the traditional parties have problems,” Ladner said. “The Liberals and the Christian Democrats are no longer attractive to the voters, and they’re voting for less extreme parties, those that haven’t been involved in everyday politics.”

SOURCE





Canada putting the brakes on to some degree

Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is trying to do two things to rationalize Canada's immigration system: Reduce the number of elderly relatives of immigrants admitted every year and give more points to immigrants who are able to speak either English or French.

Both moves hit at the biggest problem with our immigration policy: Over the past three decades, economic considerations have given way to touchy-feely ones.

At a House of Commons committee on Thursday, Kenney said familyclass immigration had to be scaled back. He did not mean the spouses or children of newcomers. Rather, he explained that the government's concern is with the parents and grandparents of immigrants.

Of about 254,000 immigrants admitted most years, roughly 38,000 are older parents or grandparents. Most of these older immigrants will never work or will work very little between the time they are admitted and the time of their death. That also means they will pay very few taxes to contribute toward the social services they will consume.

How is that fair to taxpayers who have lived and worked here all their lives, or who moved here decades ago and have contributed tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of tax dollars since?

As baby boomers retire, our pension and health-care systems are going to become over-burdened. Aging Canadians could face the kind of fiscal collapse hitting Greece. There, social benefits and civil-servant compensation have become so generous that the central government must borrow money to pay for them; its tax revenues have been insufficient. Yet it has lost the ability to borrow enough, in part because the cost of underwriting benefits is so high.

"Canada is the most generous country in the world with respect to immigration," Kenney told an often-heated Commons hearing. "But there have to be practical limits to our generosity. We have to calibrate those limits based on our country's economic needs, our fiscal capacity. There is no doubt that the people who are coming who are senior citizens, they have much, much lower labour-market participation and much higher levels of utilization of the public health system."

As Kenney pointed out, just under 20 per cent of newcomers to Canada are what he called "primary economic immigrants." Immigration Canada claims 55 per cent of immigrants to this country are economic-class immigrants, but in truth just 18 to 20 per cent are skilled workers. The other 37 per cent are the spouses and children of someone with a marketable skill.

Canadians should not begrudge newcomers bringing their husbands or wives and children with them. Trying to adjust to life in a new country and culture is hard enough without also having to cope with being without one's husband, wife and children. Besides, most skilled workers are able to fully support their nuclear families, both directly through their wages and indirectly through taxes.

However, most immigrants do not also earn enough to cover the social costs of admitting their parents, and older family-class immigrants themselves are unlikely to work enough after coming to Canada to cover their own social benefits. Admitting tens of thousands of older parents and grandparents amounts to a giant subsidy to new Canadians.

That is the "practical limit" of Canadian generosity Kenney is referring to - the delicate balance between "economic needs" and "fiscal capacity." By some estimates, it costs federal and provincial taxpayers up to $2 billion annually to fund the social services consumed by parents and grandparents of immigrants. For instance, nearly half of all health costs for most people are incurred in the final five years of their lives. Thus, if we admit a lot of older immigrants who work very little before reaching their most expensive years, this amounts to an enormous gift to people who made most of their economic and tax contributions elsewhere.

I'm in favour of plenty of immigration - even open immigration. I am not as concerned by the cultural arguments against immigration as I am by the economic ones. Yet high-volume immigration into a welfare state can easily become a fiscal suicide pact. So for as long as we insist on offering universal state health care, pensions and other social benefits, we have a right (even an obligation) to make economic considerations a part of our immigration calculations.

Earlier this month, Kenney also advocated tightening our immigration rules so that more immigrants were admitted faster if they have proficiency in either of our official languages. The immigration industry likes to portray such reforms as bigoted, but in fact they are economic, too - immigrants who speak either English or French integrate faster and better than those who speak neither. Typically, their incomes are up to Canadian averages within about a decade and (not surprisingly) they have less trouble feeling at home here sooner.

The Liberals attempted such a change in the late 1990s, but it was quickly shot down by immigration lawyers, immigration consultants, ethnic-group leaders and specialinterest advocates.

Thankfully, the Tories are not as beholden to such groups as the Liberals were, so perhaps these sensible reforms have a better chance of becoming federal policy now.

SOURCE



23 October, 2011

Which Way, New York?

Will Feds Tolerate Local Obstruction of Immigration Enforcement?

The New York City Council is poised to adopt an ordinance that is designed to severely limit the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the federal immigration enforcement agency, to identify and remove illegal aliens from the city correctional system. If adopted, the city will join a small list of large cities, including San Francisco, Washington, Chicago, and San Jose, that deliberately obstruct ICE’s operations.

A new Center report, “Which Way, New York? Will Feds Tolerate Local Interference or Assert Their Authority?” examines New York City’s policies and practices and the effect they have on public safety and federal enforcement efforts. It questions the federal government’s passive acceptance of these sanctuary policies and recommends actions that can be taken to discourage such developments.

Key findings:

Three-quarters of all foreign-born arrests in the entire state of New York occur in New York City (NYC). In 2008, the latest year for which data are available, local officers arrested 52,827 immigrants in NYC.

For at least 20 years, NYC has had official policies impeding the enforcement of federal immigration laws. City policies prevent ICE agents from receiving notification of arrested aliens before their release from police custody.

In September 2009, NYC’s Department of Correction adopted, and has since maintained, particularly obstructive policies and procedures for immigration officers and agents attempting to access criminal alien inmates housed in its detention facilities. Jail staff are required to follow procedures that actively encourage aliens to refuse to speak with ICE agents.

Since the implementation of these procedures, the number of aliens charged with immigration violations at the city’s main detention facility has been cut nearly in half.

Not withstanding its lack of cooperation, NYC has garnered millions of dollars each year in federal SCAAP (State Criminal Alien Assistance Program) funds since the inception of this program to reimburse jurisdictions for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.

Despite all of the above facts, the federal government has never taken action to overcome the obstacles placed in its way by NYC – either through lawsuits, withholding of funding, or executive action – so that it can perform its job of immigration law enforcement in the most effective and efficient way possible.

The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Jessica Vaughan, (508)346-3380, jmv@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization




Judge dismisses Arizona immigration suit

A federal judge dismissed Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's lawsuit in which she said the Obama administration failed to enforce immigration laws or secure the border.

The suit from Brewer, who argued the federal government failed to protect Arizona from an "invasion" of illegal immigrants, was a counter-suit to a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's strict immigration law.

The Arizona Republic reported U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton said higher appeals courts had determined states cannot sue the federal government for failing to prevent illegal immigration.

Bolton said Brewer's contention that the federal government failed to protect Arizona from "invasion" by illegal immigrants is a political issue to be decided by lawmakers, not the courts.

Brewer released a statement calling Bolton's decision "frustrating but not entirely surprising." "It is but the latest chapter in a story that Arizonans know all too well," she said. "The federal government ignores its constitutional and statutory duty to secure the border. Federal courts avert their eyes. American citizens pay the price."

The counter-suit argued the U.S. government has failed to gain "operational control" of the border, isn't enforcing federal immigration law and has not adequately reimbursed the state for spending more than $760 million to incarcerate illegal immigrants.

The counter-suit also contended the federal government tried to prevent the state from protecting its citizens by filing a suit to challenge the state immigration law. In the counter-suit, Arizona requested the court require the federal government to complete construction of 700 miles of fence on the Mexican border, provide enough immigration officers in Arizona to respond to local law enforcement requirements and let the state enforce federal immigration laws.

The Arizona immigration law requires law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status during routine law enforcement operations if officers have reason to suspect people are in the United States illegally.

The Republic said the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide in the next few months whether it will hear the Justice Department case on the Arizona law.

SOURCE



22 October, 2011

Immigrant child beggars as young as FOUR making £100,000 a year each for gypsy gangs in Britain

Child beggars as young as four earn up to £100,000 each for gypsy gangs, a shocking investigation has revealed. The children work in teams on London's streets, wheedling money out of tourists in snow and rain.

Some of the children make £500 a day - and hand it all over to their Romany 'minders', the BBC's Panorama programme found.

Reporter John Sweeney called it 'a 21st-century version of Oliver Twist' - the Charles Dickens novel in which villain Fagin forces a group of young children to extract cash from rich Londoners for him.

The documentary, screened last night on BBC1, followed the children - all of them gypsies from Romania - over the course of a year. A girl of about four, who the programme-makers called 'Alice', used a phone box as a toilet and scavenged for food at McDonald's as she begged on the streets.

They found the child 'experienced in begging', as she tried to coax and wheedle money from them while dressed in a white headscarf.

The children all dressed in modest clothes and wore headscarves, despite not being Muslim - targeting mosques and areas popular with rich tourists from the Gulf States.

The BBC filmed a group of young Roma women controlling several children outside Regent's Park mosque, including a four-year-old boy.

They followed the group to a house in Ilford, Essex, where a BMW X5 four-wheel drive car sat on the drive.

The programme found that police generally just take the beggars' details and let them go. They fear the people on the streets are being exploited by other members of their community.

Last year, police launched Operation Golf in an effort to crack down on the con artists running the scam. Many of the criminals were traced back to Romania, where they own numerous luxury properties and cars.

Bernie Gravett, the former Metropolitan Police Supt who led the operation, said: 'This is modern-day slavery. How does a four-year-old child consent to be exploited? 'They won't know that it's criminal to beg on the streets of the UK. They are kids.'

The joint British-Romanian police operation arrested 26 alleged child traffickers from Tandarei in the south of Romania. The accused were imprisoned for months but denied any wrongdoing and have since been released.

The case continues as two judges in Romania have sent the case back to the prosecution and in the meantime, the accused cannot leave the country.

Mr Sweeney followed 'Alice' and her minder - her mother, Denisa Mazarache - to Fetesti in southern Romania. She admitted to having begged in London, but said she had been desperate and had stopped a year ago. However, the BBC said they had filmed her begging in London just two months earlier.

Police have disrupted the gangs in Britain by targeting them for benefit fraud. Nine people, eight of them Romanian Gypsies, went to prison earlier this year for a total of 10 years for not paying £800,000 worth of benefits. Romanians are not ordinarily entitled to UK state benefits, but police told Panorama that gangs produced forged documents.

Chief Inspector Colin Carswell, who was also part of Operation Golf, said one gang put the earning potential of a single child in London at close to £100,000 a year - from begging, stealing and being used for benefit fraud.

Mr Sweeney met one of the men arrested during Operation Golf in Tandarei, a town dotted with luxury villas. The man blamed Britain for the tricksters' actions. 'The blame is with the British state, which gives them a lot of money,' he said. 'They have lots of children, seven, eight or ten children, and if they have many children they build a villa.' 'Some collect £10,000, £12,000, £13,000 a month - they have three or four or five sets of benefits.'

SOURCE





Bogus Deportation Statistics Released by Obama, Say Lawmakers

President Barack Obama's Homeland Security Department officials released a report that claims Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported a record number of illegal immigrants in the last fiscal year, including an "unprecedented number of convicted illegals with criminal records."

However, a closer look at the figures reveals the report is bogus, according to the lawmaker in-charge of immigration oversight.

In the 2011 fiscal year which ended last month, ICE officials claim they deported more than 396,000 illegal immigrants nationwide -- the largest number in the agency's history, ICE officials said in a statement released yesterday. Of these, nearly 55 percent or more than 216,000 of the people deported were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors -- an 89 percent increase since FY 2008 when George W. Bush was president.

"Smart and effective immigration enforcement relies on setting priorities for removal and executing on those priorities," said ICE Director John Morton in a press statement.

However, there are some who claim the figures released by Morton -- who was the recipient of a unanimous "vote of no confidence" by his own staff, the men and women who serve as ICE agents -- are purposely misleading or out-and-out bogus.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) issued a biting statement upon reading the ICE statistics.

“The Obama administration continues to inflate its deportation numbers. The administration includes voluntary removals in its deportation statistics even though they impose no penalties on the offenders and make it easier for illegal immigrants to return to the U.S.," said Rep. Smith.

"In other words, the Obama administration is cooking the books to make it look like they are enforcing immigration laws, when in reality they are enacting amnesty through inaction," he stated.

Under the Obama administration, worksite enforcement has dropped 70%, making it easier for illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S. And DHS recently established a working group with the specific purpose of overruling or preventing orders of removal for illegal immigrants.

Even President Obama admitted to Hispanic voters recently that his administration’s deportation numbers are ‘deceptive.’

“It’s disappointing that the Obama administration continues to put illegal immigrants before the American people. Fourteen million Americans are currently looking for work," Smith pointed out.

"Meanwhile, seven million illegal immigrants have jobs in the U.S. We could free up millions of jobs for citizens and legal immigrants if we simply enforced our immigration laws. The President’s policies just don’t add up. It’s time to elect a President that puts the American people first by enforcing our immigration laws,” Smith urged.

"All one needs to do is compare the press releases issued by ICE during the Obama years and the Bush years to see they are not focusing on enforcing the nation's immigration laws these days," a Border Patrol agent told this writer.

"During the Bush administration, the majority of press releases highlighted the capture of illegal aliens working at companies across the nation. They even nabbed illegal aliens working at high-security facilities run by the U.S. government. Today, the majority of the press releases are issued with regard to child pornography, counterfeit designer clothing and accessories, and even drug arrests," said the source, who demanded anonymity.

SOURCE



21 October, 2011

Brilliant new Leftist policy in Britain: Throw the elderly out of their homes to make room for migrants!

When I was there a third of a century ago, Brits seemed to love their OAPs (elderly) but with chronic neglect by the NHS -- and now this -- the change seems drastic. Britain seems to become a less civil society with every week that goes by -- JR

How sickening that politicians who allowed mass immigration and failed to build enough houses are bullying the British elderly into giving up their homes

Have you ever heard of the Intergenerational Foundation? I hadn’t until yesterday. And yet this obscure organisation was wheeled out on the Today programme on Radio 4 and given the prime slot reserved for the most important issue of the day.

The Intergenerational Foundation, which is described as a charity, believes older people should be encouraged to move into smaller homes as part of the solution to the ‘housing crisis’. It says that more than half of over-65s are in homes with two or more spare bedrooms, which could be pressed into greater use. In fact, it claims there are 25 million unused bedrooms in England.

How gloriously simple! Why has no one thought of it before? Don’t panic, though, if you are an elderly homeowner — at least, not yet. At any rate for the time being, the suggestion, given such sympathetic and extensive treatment by the BBC, is that the aged should be coaxed, not forced, into giving up their supposedly large houses.

Everyone knows that, very regrettably, young people are finding it difficult to enter the housing market. This is partly because first-time mortgages are difficult to obtain as a consequence of the credit crunch.

A more fundamental explanation is that fewer homes are being built than at any time since the Twenties. Only 105,000 were put up last year. Ordinary houses in London, the South-East and some other parts of the country are among the most expensive in the world.

There are simply not enough new homes. Meanwhile, there are more than 700,000 unoccupied houses in Britain that no one seems to be willing or able to do anything about.

One aggravating factor, which is scarcely ever mentioned in polite circles, is the high level of net immigration into this country. Last year, it amounted to 239,000. The population of the UK is expected to increase by nine million to 70 million by 2025, largely because of immigration.

These people will have to live somewhere. Think of it. In little more than a decade, our population will grow by the equivalent of 20 cities the size of Sheffield or Leeds, in large measure because the last government did not control the influx of immigrants.

Enter the Left-leaning Intergenerational Foundation with its sinister new proposals.

Instead of urging the Government to increase the supply of new homes or to do something about reducing the demand, it fixes on elderly homeowners and tries to make them feel guilty about occupying so much space. A nasty new concept is entering the lexicon: ‘bedroom blocking’.

Isn’t this outrageous? If you own your own home and are in your 60s, the chances are that you have not long ago paid off your mortgage — or perhaps you haven’t yet managed to do so. You have saved, and probably sometimes gone without, in order to buy your own house, which, now that it is finally yours, interfering busybodies urge you to leave. It’s hardly your fault if it has risen sharply in value.

The suggestion that you should up sticks is not merely terribly unfair. It is also a form of ageism. The Intergenerational Foundation appears to think the elderly can and should be pushed aside in favour of rising generations. They are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of a lifetime’s labour.

Of course, some people in their 50s and 60s choose to down size. Maybe they want to liberate some capital. Or perhaps, living on a smaller income, they want to reduce the outgoings of having a larger house.

But many others do not want to move out. They have grown attached to the place where they live. They may associate it with bringing up their children. The house has become for them so much more than four walls. It is a continuing celebration of a shared family life.

Here we come to the absolutely crucial point which the Intergenerational Foundation, in its bleak and utilitarian way, ignores, or simply does not understand. We live in an age of atomised families, where grown-up children increasingly work far from where their parents live.

And so the enduring family home remains the thread that can still bind together disparate parts of a family. The second or third bedroom may sometimes, or even often, be unoccupied, but their existence allows children and grandchildren to come and stay, and the family to retain its sense of identity and unity in an otherwise splintered world.

In other words, the family home with its one or two spare bedrooms — we are not usually talking about mansions here — is the bedrock of family life. Take it away, and the family, already under threat on so many other fronts, will struggle even harder to survive.

To which the Intergenerational Foundation might reply: what about young people who are not in a position to start a family because they are unable to buy a home of their own? Surely, the answer to that question should not involve undermining existing, hard-pressed families.

Successive governments have failed to meet demand for the reasons I have mentioned. There are too many people chasing too few affordable houses. Until or unless the Government brings demand and supply into some sort of equilibrium, young people will continue to find it hard to get on the housing ladder, the more so as long as the economy remains in the doldrums.

What alarms me is that the Intergenerational Foundation’s ideas should have been treated so respectfully by the BBC, as though they had been brought down wholesale from Mount Sinai, and no one was given the opportunity to say they are discriminatory and coercive. Nor was it mentioned that some of the ‘brains’ behind the Foundation are those of the Labour shadow minister Tessa Jowell. She, of course, was a leading light of the last Labour administration, which was mostly responsible for the pressure on housing.

I’m afraid that the response of Grant Shapps, the housing minister, was somewhat less robust than one might have hoped. He said: ‘We do not agree that people should be taxed or bullied out of their homes.’

He could have added that people who have worked a lifetime have a right to stay in their homes without being made to feel guilty. He should have said that in maintaining family homes the elderly are often upholding family life.

In fairness to Mr Shapps, he wants to double the number of homes being built in this country, though he has been criticised for wanting to relax planning laws. The truth is that we are going to need much more than the 200,000 new houses a year envisaged by Mr Shapps if the crisis is ever going to be solved.

Governments, not home-owners, are to blame — for permitting the population to balloon and for not encouraging, or allowing, enough houses to be built. How sickening that Ms Jowell and her Foundation should be trying to bully the elderly into giving up their homes.

SOURCE






Canadians have been brainwashed into thinking that immigration helps their country

Most independent (non-government) studies of the economic effects of immigration show little or no benefit to the existing population. And as Putnam has shown, ethnic diversity leads to a loss of civil engagement

Support for immigration in Canada is at an all-time high, suggests a new study that tracked attitudes about newcomers to the country over the last 40 years.

The study by the Institute for Research on Public Policy found that Canadians think favourably of immigration despite recessions, terrorism and a changing political landscape over the years.

The attitude is unique in western countries and stems from two strong Canadian beliefs.

"One is that people believe that immigration is a boon to the economy, partly because we select immigrants on the basis of skills and we don't have a border with Mexico so we don't have unskilled immigrants coming in without authorization. On the cultural side, we have this policy called multiculturalism that sort of became part of the Canadian identity and one of the points of pride distinguishing Canada from the U.S.," study author Jeffrey Reitz told the CBC's Louise Elliott.

The study looked at a cross-section of polls done by companies like Gallup, Environics and EKOS since the mid-1970s. Not only has support for immigration stayed high, but it's surged in the past six years, at a time when such support has dropped in the U.S.and Europe.

In 2004, EKOS found 63 per cent of Canadians supported current or higher levels of immigration and by 2010, after a sharp recession, that number jumped to 67 per cent.

The report also noted that Canadians in poorer parts of the country are the most likely to support immigration.

"We have the anomaly that the areas of Canada that have the most challenging economic circumstances, especially Atlantic Canada but also in the Prairies, they're the most positive places on immigration because of this belief that immigration helps the economy," said Reitz.

Other immigration experts agree and say Canadians support the federal government's policies that are bringing in skilled workers.

"The rules have been changed to bring in economically sufficient immigrants, people who create jobs and wealth for this country while maintaining our humanitarian balance," said Richard Kurland, an immigration lawyer in Vancouver.

Some of Canada's immigration-related policies have been controversial but Reitz said they've helped the Conservatives build a reputation as being pro-immigrant, while at the same time appeasing their political base – Conservative voters are the least likely to support high immigration levels.

Reitz said they do, however, support Ottawa's attempts to integrate new Canadians into mainstream society.

"The message …from the Conservatives that multiculturalism is fine but we're going to emphasize integration of people into the mainstream. In a way that's clever because Canadians do want immigrants to integrate into the mainstream. I think it's one reason why Canadian multiculturalism seems to be popular here whereas it's been rejected in Europe because the government has always made it clear the goal of multiculturalism is to integrate people into the mainstream," he said.

Reitz said the government's social conservative values are endorsed by immigrants and that Conservatives have been able to win their support and that's contributed to Canadians' attitudes about immigration.

"The fact that the Conservatives have been successful in getting immigrant support is one of the features of our political landscape that helps us maintain this pro-immigration mindset," he said.

SOURCE



20 October, 2011

Amnesty by Any Means

Report Traces Evolution of Obama Administration Policy

Even as it boasts of 'record levels' of deportations, the Obama administration continues to seek de facto amnesty for illegal immigrants through executive action, thus ignoring congressional opposition. Parts of this strategy of administrative amnesty have been explored before, including in recent hearings before the House and Senate, but it has not been analyzed as a whole.

To that end, the Center for Immigration Studies has published an analysis of the four leaked Department of Homeland Security memos that shed light on the evolution of this strategy. In 'Amnesty by Any Means: Memos Trace Evolution of Obama Administration Policy,' the Center’s National Security Policy Director, Janice Kephart, closely analyzes the four memos and shows the following:
The objective of the administration is to “reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” a policy laid out in June 2010 by Department of Homeland Security headquarters staff.

Nearly a year later, the means to achieve this goal evolved into the June 2011 “prosecutorial discretion” memo, in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton effectively told field agents to not enforce the law.

The White House embraced this memo and made it presidential policy in August 2011, making President Obama clearly responsible for the policy of minimizing immigration law enforcement to achieve amnesty without congressional support or approval.

The promotion of E-Verify, the successful worker authorization program, by the White House and Department of Homeland Security is set out in these memos as a ploy to distract voters from a series of administrative measures aimed at achieving amnesty, while ensuring a perception that the administration favors immigration law enforcement.

The report is online hereFor more information, contact Janice Kephart at (202) 466-8185 or jlk@cis.org.

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





Australia must toughen the deterrent for illegal boat arrivals

THE architect of the Pacific Solution, Philip Ruddock, said the steps taken by the Howard government after the Tampa crisis would not by themselves work a second time round, and additional deterrents would be required to stop the boats.

As figures from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees confirmed a 19 per cent drop in asylum seeker arrivals in the first six months of this year, the long-serving Liberal MP indicated that boatpeople arriving under a future Coalition government could expect much tougher treatment.

The former immigration minister endorsed the existing Coalition policy proposals, such as a return to temporary protection visas and the reopening of the Nauru processing centre, saying they were effective.

But, he said, more forceful measures, particularly in returning failed asylum-seekers to their home countries, may be required.

"It's going to require a lot more effort than any of the measures that are being spoken of at the moment," Mr Ruddock said. "You're going to have to use all of the measures that we used, then you'd be looking around to see what more you could do."

Mr Ruddock's comments align with views expressed by immigration officials that too much information was now public about how the Pacific Solution worked -- including that most refugees on Nauru ended up in Australia and that all bearers of TPVs ultimately ended up with permanent visas -- for the same measures to be as effective a second time round.

They also reflect a view in the opposition that any future Coalition government would probably face a hostile parliament opposed to new laws, requiring it to carry out its promise to stop the boats in a much narrower legal framework.

Mr Ruddock accused Labor of "trashing" co-operative relationships with key countries, such as Indonesia, which had been bruised by the Rudd government's handling of the 2009 Oceanic Viking stand-off.

"A number of measures necessary would be much easier for a Coalition government to pursue than this government," he said. "In my view, the big difference that is going to have to be pursued vigorously is the return of rejected asylum-seekers."

Since 2008 just 252 people -- or 2.1 per cent -- of the 11,994 asylum-seekers who have arrived have been returned to their home country.

The UNCHR said yesterday asylum arrivals in Australia for the first six months of this year were down 19 per cent, compared with last year, bucking an international average 17 per cent rise across industrialised countries. Despite the drop, both sides of politics expect boat arrivals will rise following the demise of offshore processing.

In August the High Court ruled the government's plan to deport 800 asylum-seekers to Malaysia in return for 4000 proven refugees did not comply with the Migration Act.

There is a general view that Nauru is more likely to meet the court's test, but that is arguable.

The court's ruling has been widely discussed in Coalition ranks, with most talk centring on whether reopening Nauru would pass the court's new test. Asking Nauru to change its laws and staffing the centre with Australian officers to ensure the court's stipulations are adhered to are among the options.

Yesterday, opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said a much tougher TPV regime was also essential, with the visas issued for between six months and three years.

SOURCE



19 October, 2011

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deports record number of immigrants

216,698 had been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors. That's a huge amount of crime due to illegals. Think of the police time and manpower that used up

Nearly 400,000 people were deported by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement last year — the largest number in the agency’s history.

Deportations have been on the rise for the past decade, and the 396,906 illegal immigrants deported in fiscal year 2011 is the highest number yet, according to the annual numbers released today.

Under the Obama administration, Homeland Security has focused on removing criminals, those who have crossed the border or repeatedly violated immigration law.

In the most recent fiscal year, nearly 55 percent of those removed from the country — or 216,698 people — had been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors.

That is the highest percentage in nearly a decade and nearly double the number of criminals removed two years prior.

The crimes committed ranged from 1,119 people convicted of homicide to 35,927 people convicted of driving under the influence.

"These year-end totals indicate that we are making progress, with more convicted criminals, recent border crossers, egregious immigration law violators and immigration fugitives being removed from the country than ever before,” ICE Director John Morton wrote in a news release.

“Though we still have work to do, this progress is a testament to the hard work and dedication of thousands of ICE agents, officers and attorneys around the country.”

Critics say the numbers illustrate that the administration is intent on finding ways for illegal immigrants to stay in the country.

Others look at the numbers and wonder how they could be interpreted as leniency.

“For billions of dollars to be spent so that 45% of the people we're deporting are not convicted criminals is not a good use of our enforcement dollars,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which supports a path for some of the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants to become citizens.

SOURCE





A crazy quilt of State immigration law spawned by the Federal refusal to act

In the past five years, there has been a virtual revolution in immigration lawmaking. And the result is not just chaos -- it's a lot of bad policy.

States from Arizona to Virginia have enacted laws cracking down on illegal immigration. Some go after the immigrants; some target the businesses that hire them. Some rely on local police to do the job; others require that employers use the federal E-Verify system to check the immigration status of employees. Many of these statutes have been challenged in court, and the decisions that have been handed down are all over the map.

The most controversial provisions of Arizona's 2010 immigration law, Senate Bill 1070, were put on hold by a federal judge before they could go into effect, and in April the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

But when Alabama's similar law, passed in June, came before a federal judge, she came to exactly the opposite conclusion, upholding sections almost identical to those blocked by the 9th Circuit. And on Friday, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took yet a third view, blocking some provisions of the Alabama law but upholding others -- including the section that permits local police to ask about the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons.

An immigration reform advocate who went to sleep five years ago when Congress last tried and failed to pass immigration reform wouldn't recognize the landscape today. The notion that immigration policy is a federal responsibility -- once widely accepted by both parties -- has been shattered, probably forever.

Far from finding state immigration laws unconstitutional -- as many legal experts once insisted -- the Supreme Court's May ruling in the Whiting v. U.S. Chamber of Commerce case endorsed the principle that states can and should play a significant role in controlling illegal immigration. And policies once unthinkable to many are now commonplace. A full one-third of the states now require some or all employers to use the federal E-Verify system to check the immigration status of new hires. Four states have enacted measures modeled on Arizona's controversial policing law.

Of course, it's understandable that states are stepping in to grapple with immigration: The system is dysfunctional, and voters want something done. The problem is that most state lawmakers respond to this clamor by intensifying state enforcement.
But critical as enforcement is, enforcement alone won't solve the problem.

To do that, lawmakers need to combine enforcement with fixes to the legal immigration system -- providing enough visas for immigrants who contribute to the economy, create jobs and keep our cities vital while also protecting U.S. workers. And these kinds of fixes are much harder for states to make. So instead, most simply crack down harder on the broken system.

Consider what happened this year in Alabama, the state with the nation's toughest immigration law. The new measure touches nearly every aspect of life in Alabama: hiring, firing, policing, the criminal justice system, state contracts, schools and religion -- the aim being to make every aspect of life harsher and less hospitable for illegal immigrants.The two recent court decisions on the law are not the last word -- there will be many appeals. And in the meantime, chaos reigns across Alabama.

Local law enforcement officials are at a loss, unsure who they should asking for immigration papers or where to house those they arrest -- most jails in Alabama are already full. Immigrants are fleeing the state in droves -- illegal immigrants but also legal residents who have unauthorized relatives and are afraid to lead police to their doors. Five percent of Hispanic children have stopped attending school. Employers -- particularly farmers -- are complaining desperately about labor shortages. And fruit and vegetables are rotting in fields across the state.

Is there a silver lining? At first blush, it's hard to see one. But sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.
Voters aren't blind. Most support tough immigration enforcement, but they can also see the crops rotting not just in Alabama but also in Georgia, Arizona and other states.

Employers and business groups once hesitant to get involved in the debate are coming out of the woodwork to complain about worker shortages. And in a few states, this has led to productive dialogue, even, occasionally, a breakthrough. In a handful of states, the two parties have put their heads together and considered options for solving the problem. In other places, lawmakers have listened to employers when they explained the damage harsh enforcement would do to the economy.

This ferment bore fruit in several states this year. In Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee and Texas, legislators stopped short of passing the most draconian measures on the table. And in Utah, politicians, business leaders, law enforcement and faith groups came together to enact legislation that went beyond enforcement only -- trying to create a system that works, at least in Utah.

The most important part of the Utah solution is a state guest-worker program. Exactly how it will function is controversial -- Utah's answer involves unauthorized workers already in the state and others waiting in Mexico for legal visas. But the underlying principle is only common sense: replacing illegal immigrants with a legal foreign work force that employers can turn to when they can't find enough willing and able American workers.

Justice Louis Brandeis called the states the "laboratories" of democracy. A lot of what's going on in those laboratories today is disastrous. Certainly, in Alabama, the results look more like a train wreck than science. But maybe even that offers some reason for hope. After all, even Congress can stand by only so long. At some point, surely, Washington will have to impose order on the chaos spreading in the states.

SOURCE



18 October, 2011

New Australian immigration policy means Australia gets Iranians and Burmese instead of Africans

Not such a bad deal after all. Iranians and Burmese will be a lot less trouble than Africans, given the African crime-rate. And both the Iranians and the Burmese are genuine refugees from totalitarian governments

As refugee advocates and others applauded the demise of offshore processing last week, they may have missed what was a big backhander delivered in the process.

As a result of last week's events, 4000 poor wretches languishing in refugee camps in Africa and elsewhere will continue to do so, rather than be afforded a new life in Australia.

Under the Malaysian plan, Australia was to send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia. In return, Australia would take 4000 people, already classified as refugees, from Malaysia - at a rate of 1000 a year.

The annual humanitarian intake would rise by 1000 - from 13,750 to 14,750 - to accommodate this.

Australia will still take those 4000 refugees from Malaysia but the humanitarian intake will not be increased, meaning Australia will take 4000 fewer refugees from elsewhere.

The Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, gave notice of this on August 31, straight after the High Court ruled the Malaysia plan unlawful. "Malaysia has had no impact on today's decision, therefore I would be inclined to continue to take the 4000.

"We wanted to increase the intake. We wanted to take more refugees, but we wanted to do so as we broke the people smugglers' business model through this arrangement," he said. "The government is entitled now to consider its position."

On Thursday night, after a tumultuous day of two cabinet meetings and a caucus, Bowen and the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, confirmed it.

Clearly, the victims in all of this are not just political. Putting aside the politics of the Malaysia plan, those who devised it felt it would work and be of net humanitarian benefit.

The opposition and other detractors made much of the fact that several hundred asylum seekers arrived in the months after the plan was announced, meaning it would not work.

But in the now much-publicised briefings to the Coalition and journalists, senior Immigration officials, including the departmental secretary, Andrew Metcalfe, argued that once a planeload of people was returned to Malaysia the influx would quickly change. They envisaged that only about 200 people would need to be returned before the message was clear.

Metcalfe called it "virtual tow-back", likening it to the dramatic effect on reducing people smuggling when the Howard government had about seven boats towed back to Indonesia.

It is a dangerous practice. Asylum seekers are loaded onto a navy or customs ship and their boat towed back to just outside Indonesian waters. They are then put back on their boat, with just enough fuel to make it to Indonesia.

Tony Abbott still reckons this will be a key element of Coalition policy, even though Indonesia is not a signatory to the United Nations' refugee convention that he claims is so important when ruling out Malaysia.

Metcalfe says the Indonesians will no longer accept tow-backs and, anyway, people smugglers learnt long ago to circumvent the prospect by sabotaging their boats.

He also said Nauru, in isolation, will not work because the uncertainty that once accompanied going there no longer exists. Asylum seekers know that once they are processed they will end up in Australia or New Zealand in any case. Nauru is no more a deterrent than Christmas Island.

When the cabinet canvassed Nauru last week, it was not proposed to be used in isolation but along with Malaysia and Manus Island - and in an effort to have Abbott change his mind and pass the legislation allowing Malaysia.

Gillard, understandably, was reluctant, given how strongly she and others had argued against Nauru.

The upshot of last week will be, as the department and the government acknowledges, a rise in boat numbers. Some people on these vessels will be genuine refugees, others will not.

The department talks about the Iranians who are arriving in increasing numbers as part of a racket that can enable someone to be transported from Tehran to Christmas Island in five days.

Iran does not take back anyone who leaves and the Iranians know it. They are "incredibly determined", one Australian official said.

"They tell us: 'We are Persian; we are strong. You are Australian; you are weak. We don't care. We are staying in your country.' That's the mindset we are trying to manage."

Inevitably, with a surge in the number of boats attempting to reach Australian shores people will die, and both sides of politics will blame the other. "Mr Abbott values his own political career more than human life," a Labor MP, Craig Emerson, warned on Friday.

There is a thin silver lining for Labor. One senior member said that as messy as last week was, the government resolved two vexed policy issues: a carbon price and asylum seekers.

A carbon policy is settled, and there will be no more damaging caucus debates on asylum. Should Abbott win the next election and meet legal resistance to sending asylum seekers to Nauru, he will get no help from Labor.

SOURCE






Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Which Way, New York? Will Feds Tolerate Local Interference or Assert Their Authority? (Memorandum)

2. Circuit Court Further Enjoins Alabama Law (Blog)

3. California Limits E-Verify, Supports Illegal Hiring Practices (Blog)

4. At Least One TPS Population Shrinks – That of Sudan (Blog)

5. The Media Narrative on Alabama (Blog)

6. Restrictionists 3, Open-Borders Crowd 0 (Blog)

7. In Alabama, Univision Prefers to Inflame Rather than Inform (Blog)

8. N.C. Sheriff Is Target of DOJ's Harassment Tactics (Blog)

9. Mechanization Increasing in California Vineyards (Blog)

10. The Best Way to Reduce ICE's Detention Costs? Speed Deportations (Blog)

11. Who Benefited from Job Growth In Texas, Redux (Blog)





17 October, 2011

Lost in administration: Scandal over criminal immigrants hidden among 37,000 files of foreigners appealing to stay in Britain

Last year, 37,300 cases were launched by immigrants appealing to stay in Britain after the Home Office ruled they were not entitled to remain here.

Of course, this figure accounts only for those tracked down by officials — leaving tens of thousands who have avoided detection free to stay.

A significant number of those foreigners fighting to remain in Britain are small-time criminals, terrorists or fraudsters, although the vast majority originally simply slipped into Britain illegally or deliberately overstayed their visas.

Now, for the first time, the sheer scale of this scandal can be revealed because documents have been released on the Ministry of Justice website, giving details of scores of appeal cases.

A typical example is Rhomaine Miyando Mohan, who has appealed five times in 11 years against attempts to kick him out in what Senior Immigration Judge Waumsley described as a ‘contemptuous disregard for British immigration law’.

The Jamaican has fathered three daughters by two British women despite being deported in 2006 for overstaying his one-month visitor’s visa by six years. After slipping back into the UK on a bogus passport, he was jailed twice for a series of crimes, including driving offences and cocaine possession.

This summer saw the latest attempt by the Home Office to boot him out. His appeal against removal from the UK was turned down.
Last year alone, almost 600 Somalis applied for asylum in the UK.

Sue Reid said many foreigners are exploiting our grotesque human rights laws

So where is Mohan now? He remains in Britain as officials struggle with the chaotic immigration system to deport him.

Then there is the case of a woman from Nigeria who came to Britain and overstayed her visa. She took her case to appeal, claiming she would not be safe in her home country.

She explained that when still in Nigeria she had killed a snake ‘by accident’. As a result, she was a hated figure, because her fellow villagers worship snakes as sacred creatures. If she returned home, her safety could not be guaranteed. The files show her appeal failed — but, on previous form, she is likely still to be here.

A similar case also exposes the preposterous nature of many of the appeals. It involved a 28-year-old Albanian woman, now living in Brighton, who fought against being deported by arguing that, as a lesbian, she would be killed if she returned to Albania (despite there being no law there that discriminates against homosexuality).

Another file details how American Jonathan Bartley Stables, 46, originally won leave to stay in Britain on the grounds of having a five-year relationship with his 27-year-old gay partner. However, two years ago he was jailed for five years after admitting five charges of fraud. Described by the trial judge as ‘a persistent, accomplished and practised fraudster’, he was listed for deportation.

But, on appeal, another judge ruled that Stables — under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (which demands a respect for family life and privacy) — had a right to stay with his partner. According to the judge, the right outweighed the public interest in stopping crime by foreigners in Britain.

Another Ministry of Justice file recounts the story of 50-year-old Pakistani Raja Mohammed Khan, of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, who also used Article 8 to overturn the Home Office’s attempt to deport him after he killed a man in a car crash while high on drugs.

The files show that Khan crashed into the father-of-two while driving an overloaded milk delivery van after smoking heroin. He was jailed for five years for causing death by careless driving.

Yet, because his second child, a son, has a British passport through his mother, Khan won his appeal not to be deported on the grounds of his human rights to a family life.

Then there’s the case of an Afghan man with the mental age of an infant. He complained through his lawyers that during an appeal hearing into his claim to remain in Britain, the judge fell asleep and therefore missed details of his case.

In the Ministry of Justice files, there is another case involving an Afghan who came to Britain several years ago as a youngster to escape war in his homeland and claiming asylum. Asif Abrahimi, now 18, was told by the Home Office in March that he must leave Britain because it was safe to return to Kabul. Predictably, he appealed — but his claim was rejected.

However, within weeks he was back in the appeal court, saying that his new English girlfriend was pregnant with his baby and that he had rights to a ‘family life’ under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. As a result, he has been allowed to stay in the UK.

A huge number of cases fit a similar pattern. Take 34-year-old Zimbabwean Rudo Ndemera, who arrived at Gatwick airport in 2002 on a six-month visitors’ visa. She overstayed by several years and was eventually found by officials in 2007. She told them that she had a long-term boyfriend who was a British citizen — thus giving her a right to a ‘family life’ in Britain.

However, she failed to produce proof of her relationship with 35-year-old personal trainer Adeniyi Aderinola, despite her lawyer claiming in court that their love could be compared with Romeo and Juliet. In a rare moment of sanity, the court dismissed Ms Ndemera’s fourth request to stay here. Perhaps it is no surprise to discover, though, that today — months after that hearing — she remains in Britain.

But few cases are more shocking than that involving Rohan Cecil William Winfield, 38, a chef from Barbados, who came to Britain 13 years ago as a visitor. He overstayed his visa and went on to marry a British woman with whom he had three children. He then had an affair with a Spanish girl in London who bore him a baby daughter. However, he then raped the Spaniard and was jailed for three years for the attack and ordered to be deported after his release from prison.

But, in July, a judge ruled that Winfield should be allowed to remain in Britain because his removal would ‘violate his human rights and those of his family’ — under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

It is just another example of a foreigner who, like so many others, is exploiting our grotesque human rights laws and has turned our immigration system into a shambles.

SOURCE





Ignored for ten years...abandoned wife's pleas to deport immigrant husband who flouted law

A British woman whose immigrant husband abandoned her weeks after getting into the UK via an arranged marriage revealed yesterday how the authorities spent ten years ignoring her pleas to deport him for flouting the law.

The 32-year-old, who has asked to remain anonymous after threats from her husband’s family, spoke out after learning to her horror that he has been told by the Home Office that he can stay in the UK.

She has spent a decade enduring his taunts about how he has taken the immigration system for a ride. She even took police to the house where the man was hiding – only for him to escape via the back door when bungling officers left it uncovered.

Worse, she says her life is ‘ruined’ because she can never recover from the shame of Sharia law divorce – even though they are still married under British law.

Her protest has been taken up by Deputy Commons Speaker Nigel Evans, who is collecting a dossier of similar cases for Home Secretary Theresa May. He said: ‘It is scandalous that this lady spent ten years telling the police and the Home Office of her husband’s illegal behaviour – yet they did nothing. ‘It makes our immigration system look like a joke.’

The incident came to light after Ministers said two thirds of people who come to the UK on marriage visas have never set foot in the country before. The Government is proposing several new curbs, including encouraging people to report suspected illegal immigrants, outlawing forced marriages and making families of would-be immigrants pay a cash bond.

The woman, who contacted The Mail on Sunday, is a respected member of her community in Blackburn, Lancashire. The daughter of Pakistani immigrants, she was born in the UK, is ‘proud to consider myself English’ and has a full-time professional career.

She said she had been happy to enter an arranged marriage because she considered it ‘part of her culture’. Aged 21, she went to Pakistan to meet her husband, who was her cousin, and they got married. She returned to Britain, where she bought and renovated a house while she waited for her husband to join her.

She said: ‘It wasn’t a love marriage, though I believed love would come after we married. ‘But eight weeks after he arrived, he moved out and moved in with an uncle who lived round the corner. 'I was very shocked. We phoned his mother back in Pakistan and she said “just give him a visa and throw him out”.

We couldn’t believe it. They had been planning it all along. I had kept his passport, and he sent people round to get it. I refused.

I knew he would destroy it to remove any evidence of when he had entered the country. ‘Then he started harassing me. He even sent his grandmother to berate me. He pushed his way into my mum and dad’s house and abused them.

I had to call the police to stop him. The Home Office and the UK Borders Agency said they couldn’t do anything until his one-year marriage visa expired. ‘All the time he taunted me over the way he had got into the country.

On one occasion I tracked him down myself. I called the police and they knocked on the front door of the house where he was staying. He got out via the back and has never been seen again. ‘Recently I was informed he has been given leave to remain here for three years. He qualifies for benefits even though he has never paid a penny in tax because he works for cash illegally.

Incredibly, he is now using legal aid to divorce me. He wants to marry someone else to increase his chances of staying here for good.

‘I have been humiliated. I obtained a Sharia divorce on the grounds of desertion, but we are still man and wife under English law. My life is ruined. As a Muslim once you are divorced, no one will marry you. ‘I have been telling the authorities for years that he should be sent back, but they have done nothing.

The people who suffer most are genuine immigrants who come here legally because it makes people hostile to them.’

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Damian Green said: ‘For too long the immigration system was allowed to get out of control, decisions were not taken quickly enough and that meant those who should not have been allowed to stay were able to do so. ‘The Government is toughening the system to prevent abuse.’

SOURCE



16 October, 2011

Greeks rush at chance to migrate to Australia

HE helped to build the Australian embassy in Athens but now George Triantafillou is joining the queue outside the building to try to emigrate.

"There are no jobs," Mr Triantafillou, an electrician and father of two, said. "After the Olympic Games, jobs in construction collapsed. I closed my company in 2009. "Now I'm working as a removals man. I make 30 per cent of what I used to earn."

Thousands of Greeks have decided that the best way out of the country's profound economic crisis is to leave their homeland. When the Australian embassy announced recently that it was seeking skilled immigrants, there was a rush to fill out application forms.

A total of 773 people, with experience in healthcare, engineering, construction and automotive and mechanical trades, were eventually accepted.

"Because of the situation in Greece, people have seen this as an opportunity," said Lancia Jordana, of the Immigration Department. "But we need to have Australian employers who are interested in sponsoring people. The demand has outstripped supply."

A constant stream of would-be emigrants continues to turn up at the embassy seeking work. "I heard on TV that Australia is open for immigration and I am looking for a job," said George Kouduris, married with one child. "I have been working as a crane driver but there are no jobs in the crane business. Even if there are jobs, the crane owners want to do it themselves. "I want to be a truck driver or electrician in Australia."

Alexandros Patsis, a carpenter, had a furniture-making business with his two brothers and 15 workers. The economic crisis forced them to lay off all their workers. "Now it is only me and my brothers," said the father of two. "Nobody asks us to do any jobs. I made houses, furniture, doors, but now nobody wants to make anything, so we do not have any work."

Anna Triandafyllidou, a researcher at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy in Athens, said Greece experienced mass emigration after the World War II to North America, Australia and European countries such as Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and France. The trend reversed after the oil crisis in 1973, when the emigrants started to return from Germany and the United States.

With the fall of the Iron Curtain, Greece experienced an influx of immigrants in the late 1980s and early 90s, first with ethnic Greeks from the USSR and then from countries such as Albania. Now the trend is reversing again.

The lack of jobs is so severe that many recent immigrants are thinking of going elsewhere. Every day Pakistanis line up outside their embassy in Athens trying to get papers to go home.

SOURCE





Send us your delinquents and we will give them a green card

USCIS Makes It Easier for Aging Juvenile Delinquents to Get Amnesty

Not everyone benefiting from a currently proposed USCIS rule-change is an aging juvenile delinquent, but I suspect most of the people in the Special Immigrant Juvenile category fit that description. Most of the beneficiaries, if not all, are probably illegal aliens, as well.

The proposed USCIS regulation makes it easier for the applicants to get green cards, as explained subsequently.

The main eligibility requirement for this particular mini-amnesty is that you have to be “dependent on” or “under the custody” of a juvenile court. You also must have a court determination that your parents neglected, abandoned, or abused you, and that is usually the case for delinquents of all backgrounds.

The other main requirement is that some “administrative or judicial proceedings” – not necessarily an immigration court – must have ruled, to quote the USCIS instructions to the applicants, “that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interest to be returned to the juvenile’s or his or her parent’s country of nationality . . ."

Not the nation’s best interests, mind you, but the juvenile’s. Incidentally, that should be parents’ (plural possessive) but let’s not split hairs.

And what does the young person in the custody of the court get when he or she successfully files an I-360 form? This is the list of goodies, according to a cheerful “how-to” document issued about this immigration status by the Minnesota Department of Human Services:

Lawful permanent residency (LPR) or “green card”

Work permission upon receipt of LPR status

Minnesota identification card or driver’s license

Ability to travel or visit relatives outside the United States

Eventual path to citizenship (after five years)

Access to federal financial aid for college

Access to Chafee independent living funds,

Support for Emancipation and Living Functionally (SELF) program in Minnesota

Other federal and state benefits and services

In other words, this is a specialized form of amnesty, written into the basic Immigration and Nationality Act. As for the Chafee funds, named for the late Republican Senator from Rhode Island, and Minnesota’s SELF program, each provides services and sometimes room and board funding for older adolescents (18-21) including those living alone. In short, it is a nice package.

Returning to the strictly immigration aspects of the program, it has been steadily expanding in recent years. These were the admissions reported in Table Seven of the Yearbooks of Immigration Statistics for the fiscal years noted:

2004 634
2005 679
2006 912
2007 796
2008 1,009
2009 1,157
2010 1,492

This, as suggested in previous blogs, is often the pattern for what appears to be a highly specialized new segment of the immigration law; after a while immigration lawyers, social workers, and the aliens themselves find out about it and use it more widely with every passing year.

Why this little amnesty program came to my attention is a story in itself. As noted in some previous blogs, such as one on the USCIS’s efforts to promote the tiny program for abused step-parents of U.S. citizens (making them potential immigrants), USCIS is gung-ho about making sure that every potential visa, is, in fact used to bring in more people, no matter how narrow the category.

Presumably with that motivation, USCIS recently announced in the Federal Register an effort to expand, mildly, the eligibility for these young people to secure amnesty. The new rule, which occupies nine full pages of the FR, twenty-seven columns of small type, makes the point that while one must be under 21 when one files for this kind of amnesty, one need not be under 21 at the time of the agency decision on the matter; there are other similar easements in the proposed rule making.

So one could be rather older than 21 when one gets a green card in this specialized way.

The FR notice, true to DHS form, does not mention any numbers, or that the beneficiaries may be delinquents, or that both the juveniles and their parents are probably illegal aliens. (The full text of the FR notice can also be seen starting at p. 2189 in the September 12 issue of Interpreter Releases, the immigration bar’s trade paper.)

On looking into the subject a little further I examined the I-360, the form that one must file to secure a green card in this way. The instructions for that form show, in precise detail, how the agency has stacked the deck in favor of the applicant.

In addition to a sensible demand for a birth certificate (to show age), the instructions also require the filing of: “Copies of the court or administrative document(s) upon which the claim to eligibility is based.”

Not all court documents, a set which would give DHS a sense of the total picture of the applicant, who, by definition has a court record, but only those that are needed to secure the green card.

Clearly some of those applying are not necessarily delinquents; one can be a victim of parental abuse, for instance, and be in the custody of a juvenile court. But if you attend a hearing in a juvenile court, as I have (as a spectator) from time to time, you will usually find that the great bulk of the young people present are there because of trouble of their own making.

This is, admittedly, a pretty specialized little amnesty program, one that is best navigated not by the juvenile alone but by a knowledgeable social worker or immigration attorney; further it evaporates if the juvenile does not apply before his or her 21st birthday. It is unlikely to make much of a dent on the size of the illegal-alien population, generally.

Its presence in the law, and the latest USCIS effort to expand its utilization, however, are instructive windows into the thought processes of both the Congress and the agency.

If a reader wishes to comment to the authorities on this proposed rule – suggesting, for instance, that we need not expand any of these small-scale, under-the-radar amnesties – the reader may do so by e-mailing USCISFRComments@dhs.gov, including “DHS Docket No. USCIS-2009-0004" in the subject line. This also can be done by postal mail. The deadline is November 7.

SOURCE



15 October, 2011

Australia's doors are now wide open to illegal immigration

JULIA Gillard has predicted an increase in boat arrivals after yesterday being forced to abandon offshore processing and softening the treatment of asylum-seekers who arrive by sea.

Under Labor's new asylum-seeker regime, increasing numbers of arrivals will be allowed to live in the community and work while on bridging visas as their claims are processed.

After failing to garner the support of enough crossbenchers for legislation that would revive her proposed Malaysia Solution, the Prime Minister last night warned "we are at a real risk of seeing more boats" but urged Australians to blame Tony Abbott.

"There is only one reason that we are not in the circumstances to have offshore processing and that's because of Mr Abbott and his determination to trash the national interest," Ms Gillard said in Canberra yesterday. "Mr Abbott's conduct leads us to circumstances where we are at real risk of seeing more boats."

As the drama unfolded last night, refugee sources told The Australian in Jakarta that four boats were within several days of sailing, carrying about 300 asylum-seekers in total.

However, the Indonesian national police's anti-people-smuggling taskforce is at a high state of readiness, working closely with Jakarta-based Australian Federal Police agents,

Since the August 31 High Court decision knocked down Canberra's Malaysia Solution, four vessels carrying 392 asylum-seekers have made it to Australian waters. In that time, however, the Indonesian police have prevented at least three other departures by intercepting up to 200 passengers travelling on land.

Another boatload of 44 people was intercepted at sea last month off Sulawesi after mechanical trouble.

The Prime Minister's comments drew contempt from the opposition, with immigration spokesman Scott Morrison saying Labor had capitulated to the Greens and calling for Ms Gillard and Immigration Minister Chris Bowen to resign. The Opposition Leader urged Labor to admit it could not deal with border security and call an election.

The Greens, most refugee advocates and Labor MPs from the Left faction welcomed the move, saying onshore processing was the most humane way of dealing with asylum-seekers. Under the government's plan, most eligible boatpeople will be issued with sub-class 050 bridging visas, the same visa issued to asylum-seekers who arrive by plane.

It is understood the government will begin issuing bridging visas to boatpeople sooner rather than later. Although the government retains spare capacity for about 2400 asylum-seekers in the overstretched detention network, officials are keen to ensure pressure in the system is relieved before it is allowed to build.

The bridging visas allow asylum-seekers to be paid 89 per cent of a Special Benefit allowance (roughly the same as the Newstart allowance). This means singles get $443 a fortnight, and families $570.

After two hurried cabinet meetings and a caucus meeting, Ms Gillard last night revealed the new arrangements, under which all asylum-seekers will be processed onshore. All would face mandatory detention on arrival, but after existing detention facility space was exhausted, the government would allow detainees to move into the community on bridging visas.

The changes come only weeks after bureaucrats and experts warned Ms Gillard that a failure to reinstate offshore processing, which was declared illegal by the High Court in August, would trigger an increase in people-smuggling. The experts predicted about 600 irregular arrivals a month, and warned of resulting social unrest.

Announcing the move last night, Ms Gillard said offshore processing in Malaysia would have been the most effective method to deter the people-smugglers. She warned that onshore processing would spark "the real risk" of more boats.

"I understand that will cause community anxiety," the Prime Minister said. "I believe it is very important that if we do see more boats, to separate in the community's mind, in all of our minds, the problem of seeing more boats from the people who are on those boats. We are a generous country, we are a compassionate country. It is not a matter of blaming the people who are on the boats for these circumstances."

More HERE






Canada: Conservative government proposes tougher language rules for immigrants

The Harper government is proposing changes to the Canadian citizenship process that would force immigrants to prove their proficiency in English or French before being able to write an exam and be considered for acceptance into Canada.
Photograph by: Aaron Lynett, National Post
OTTAWA — The Harper government is proposing changes to the Canadian citizenship process that would force immigrants to prove their proficiency in English or French before being able to write an exam and be considered for acceptance into Canada.

Currently, immigrants between the ages of 18 and 54 must prove their language proficiency through a multiple-choice written test, which federal officials believe "does not adequately assess listening and speaking skills" that are needed for effective integration into Canadian society.

The proposed changes, which would affect about 134,000 applicants a year, would require immigrants to prove they can speak English or French when they submit their first application for citizenship, which immigration officials believe will streamline processing of the applications.

"The ability to communicate effectively in either French or English is key to the success of new citizens in Canada," said Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in a statement on Friday. "This change will encourage applicants to ensure that they can speak English or French when they apply for citizenship, thereby improving the integrity and effectiveness of the citizenship program for Canada and for new Canadians alike."

Proof would require immigrants to submit results of the English or French language proficiency test approved for immigration purposes by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, proof of secondary or post-secondary education in French or English, or proof of completion of a language-training course such as the federally funded Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada.

Other language proficiency tests used previously for immigration to Canada could also be considered proof, immigration officials said.

"It is expected that the majority of citizenship applicants would already have evidence that they could submit with their application," a government notice of the proposal stated. "Therefore, the requirement is not anticipated to pose a burden on the majority of applicants."

Max Berger, a Toronto immigration lawyer, said the changes would pose "an unnecessary burden" on economic immigrants who have already demonstrated their English or French proficiency in order to receive permanent residency. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," he said. "There's no burning need for these changes."

Those who would be affected by the new rules are refugees, citizens who sponsor a husband or wife and the spouses of economic immigrants, he said.

In the past, the citizenship test has "always been considered good enough to assess one's ability in one of the two official languages," he said.

"If you've ever looked at the citizenship guide, you have to have a pretty good knowledge of English or French to get through and understand it," said Berger. "The citizenship test has proven the test of time."

Berger said immigration officials' claim that the current test is not adequate for assessing listening and speaking skills is irrelevant, as applicants have the option to listen to the citizenship guide on the ministry's website. "That would be a measure of your listening abilities," he said.

David Matas, a Winnipeg-based immigration lawyer, said the new rules make application processing easier for the federal government, while making the application more cumbersome for immigrants.

"I think government should be user-friendly," he said. "Putting people through hoops for bureaucratic efficiency, I don't think that's user-friendly."

Studies provided by Kenney's office show the reasoning behind the proposed changes and suggest that Canadian citizens who speak English or French earn higher incomes than those who do not speak either of the national languages.

Donald Galloway, a law professor at the University of Victoria, said the proposal shows the Harper government puts the economy above the humanitarian needs of its residents.

"The government is saying the economic benefits are much more valuable than family unification benefits," said Galloway. "I think that's a very limited vision of what immigration success is about."

If the proposed changes are made into regulations, Galloway said the extra cost and hassle of taking a language proficiency test could deter qualified applicants from coming to Canada.

"People will make that cost-benefit analysis," he said. "If we really are interested in getting the brightest and the best to come here rather than to another country, our immigration process is going to deter people who speak perfect English or French from applying."

This isn't the first time the immigration minister has moved to toughen the rules on granting non-English or non-French speaking immigrants Canadian citizenship.

In June 2010, controversy arose when Kenney gave immigration officials instructions to only process applications filed with a completed standardized language proficiency test — much to the annoyance of the Canadian Bar Association, which said the move was an "underhanded and abusive" tactic to circumvent the law.

SOURCE



14 October, 2011

Immigrants will be made to learn British history rather than how to claim benefits

Labour were masters of producing a half-sensible policy on immigration then swiftly wrecking it. They introduced a ‘points-based system’ which had the potential to – finally – bring economic migration under some kind of control.

Then, instead of being genuinely selective, ministers set the bar far too low – meaning virtually any migrant who wanted to come here got the points they needed to pass the test.

Next came the idea of earned citizenship. Ministers said it was only fair that foreign nationals wanting to settle in Britain should first contribute to society through voluntary work.

They suggested this would involve activities such as running a Scout group – then promptly said standing on a picket line would do just as well.

But perhaps the most egregious example of how a sensible policy was ruined by pig-headed stupidity was the Life in the UK test. Migrants wanting to settle in the UK permanently have been required to sit the multiple-choice quiz for the past six years.

It’s based on a handbook which contains a long and impressive section on British history. But the last government ruled the test itself should not include a history section because there was ‘too much and it would not be fair’.

Let’s consider that again: there’s ‘too much’ British history so no need to bother learning any of it. How idiotic is it possible to be?

Instead, applicants were grilled on the structure of the European Union, how to claim State benefits, equal rights and discrimination – and the Life in the UK test was reduced to being a laughing stock.

So it can only be good news that, in only his second major immigration speech since entering Number Ten, David Cameron yesterday announced the test was to be re-written.

Out will go questions on the operation of the single market and on the differences between the Council of Europe, EU, European Commission and European Parliament.

In will come Roman Britain, Boudica, the Norman Conquest, Magna Carta, the Wars of the Roses, Elizabeth I, the Civil War, the Battle of Britain and Winston Churchill.

Junking questions on the EU sends out an important message on Mr Cameron’s part that the EU – for all its meddling – should not be the centre of British life. It’s also a long overdue recognition that unless a person understands a nation’s history and culture, they cannot truly become a part of its society.

The Prime Minister has not given a public anxious to see immigration brought under control much to applaud over the past 17 months. But swapping lessons in claiming benefits for lessons in history is one such moment.

SOURCE





Top British judge's furious attack on courts for using human rights laws to defy Parliament over immigration

British courts are using Human Rights legislation to knock down laws rightly made by Parliament, a Supreme Court judge said yesterday.

Lord Brown launched a furious attack on other judges for making ‘highly contentious’ rulings and ‘frustrating’ Government policy decisions.

His comments came as his court, against his wishes, overturned a ban on marriage visas for foreign nationals wanting to marry a Briton when either is under 21.

The rule was designed to protect against forced marriages involving vulnerable young women.

But by a four to one majority, the Supreme Court judges said it was a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to a ‘private and family life’.

This has been used by terrorists and hardened criminals to escape deportation simply because they have family or social ties in Britain.

Lord Brown, the only judge to dissent, said in his judgment that the decision should be ‘one for elected politicians, not for judges’. He wrote: ‘Article 8 is a difficult provision which has already led to some highly contentious, not to say debatable, decisions. Upon that I am sure we would all agree.

‘In a sensitive context such as that of forced marriages, it would seem to me not merely impermissible but positively unwise for the courts yet again to frustrate Government policy except in the clearest of cases. To my mind this cannot possibly be regarded as such a case. ‘Unless demonstrably wrong, this judgment should be rather for Government than for the courts.’

The court heard forced marriages were most commonly found in Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities and were used as a way of getting around immigration rules.

The rule, introduced in 2008, was challenged by two genuine couples who were barred from marrying in Britain. Diego Aguilar, a Chilean student, married Briton Amber Jeffrey before the rule came into force in November 2008, when she was 17 and he was 18. But ministers refused him the right to stay in the country because of their ages.

Briton Suhyal Mohammed was prevented from bringing his young Pakistani wife, Shakira Bibi, into the country because both were under 21.

The High Court ruled in favour of the Government, but its ruling was overturned in the Court of Appeal. And yesterday the Supreme Court upheld the Appeal Court’s ruling.

One of the judges, Lord Wilson, said it was a ‘colossal interference’ with Article 8 rights to force couples to live separately, or force a British citizen to leave the country. Lady Hale, Lord Phillips and Lord Clarke also upheld the judgment.

Lord Wilson said the Home Office had failed to prove the restriction was justified, despite accepting it had ‘a legitimate aim in deterring the practice of forced marriages and is rationally connected to that aim’.

But Lord Brown said the other judges had taken Article 8 even further than the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Similar age restrictions exist in Germany, Austria, Belgium and other European countries, he said. In Denmark both bride and groom must be 24 before they can wed if one is from overseas.

Dominic Raab, a Tory MP and human rights expert, said: ‘This is a patent example of the courts legislating to expand the right to family life. It goes beyond the European Convention, it goes beyond precedent in the UK or the Strasbourg Court and it is stricter than several other European democracies.

‘Yet again, unaccountable judges are substituting their view on what amounts to an effective immigration policy for that of elected law-makers, and on a wafer-thin basis.’

Immigration minister Damian Green warned that today’s ruling threatened to ‘put vulnerable people at risk’. He said: ‘This is another very disappointing judgment, which overturns a policy that exists and is judged to be consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights in other European countries.

‘The judges themselves agreed increasing the marriage visa age had a legitimate aim.’

SOURCE



13 October, 2011

Groups sue to halt South Carolina's immigration law

A coalition of civil rights groups filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday to block South Carolina's new immigration law, the latest court challenge against a state crackdown on illegal immigrants.

The suit contends the law is unconstitutional, invites racial profiling and interferes with federal law, according to a statement by the coalition, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center.

South Carolina's law, set to take effect on January 1, requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest for another reason and suspect may be in the country illegally.

Under the new law, employers in South Carolina will be required to use the federal E-Verify system to check the citizenship status of employees and job applicants. Penalties for knowingly employing illegal immigrants will include suspension and revocation of a business license by the state.

"By requiring local law enforcement officials to act as immigration agents, this law invites discrimination against anyone who looks or sounds 'foreign,' including American citizens and legal residents," said Victoria Middleton, executive director of the ACLU of South Carolina.

A federal judge in Alabama last month upheld key provisions of that state's immigration law. Judges in Georgia, Arizona, Utah and Indiana have blocked parts of similar state laws aimed at trying to stem illegal immigration.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. A Record-Setting Decade of Immigration: 2000-2010 (Memorandum)

2. The Road to IRCA: October 10, 1986 (Blog)

3. Conflicting Claims about the 'Best and Brightest' and '70-Year-Waits' (Blog)

4. Obama vs. States and Federalism (Blog)

5. Green Cards for Al Qaeda features CIS Staffer (Blog)

6. Feds to Make It Easier to Smuggle in Arizona’s Pinal and Maricopa Counties (Blog)

7. USCIS Makes It Easier for Aging Juvenile Delinquents to Get Amnesty (Blog)

8. More Green Cards for Alien STEM Grads with Advanced Degrees, Advances (Blog)





12 October, 2011

UK: Cameron does a U-turn but a welcome one

IT WAS Winston Churchill who observed that history tends to be written by the victors so it is probably just as well that David Cameron made it to Downing Street after the last election.
Because the Prime Minister is therefore in charge of explaining how his own past views and priorities fit in with the world as it exists today.

Yet sometimes he makes a claim that raises eyebrows even among his most ardent supporters and on Monday there was a notable example.

At the start of a long and closely argued speech on the subject David Cameron told his audience: “I’ve never shied away from talking about immigration.”

That’s not how most of us remember it.

Following Michael Howard’s defeat in the 2005 general election, downgrading immigration was in fact a key part of Mr Cameron’s pitch for the Conservative leadership.

Along with Europe, crime and tax it was one of the issues he told his party to stop “banging on about”.... Between 2005 and about 2009, the Tories joined a consensus with Labour and the Lib Dems that marginalised debate about immigration even as its scale and consequences became ever less easy to ignore.

Given this and given the rise in net migration in the early months of the coalition you might be tempted to pour a bucket of cold water on the Prime Minister’s latest utterances on the subject.

BUT that would be wholly unfair because Mr Cameron actually demonstrated on Monday that he now has the kind of grip on the issue neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown got near to.

Apart from in the admittedly important area of migration from the Eu, the Prime Minister set out sensible policies on every significant migrant stream into Britain.

He also explicitly acknowledged the downsides of uncontrolled immigration and showed he understands that it impacts upon different communities and classes in different ways.

“When large numbers of people arrive in new neighbourhoods, perhaps not all able to speak the same language as those who live there, perhaps not always wanting to integrate, perhaps seeking to take advantage of our NHS, paid for by our taxpayers, there is a discomfort and tension,” he said.

“There is no doubt that badly controlled immigration has compounded the failure of our welfare system and effectively allowed governments and employers to carry on with the waste of people stuck on welfare when they should be working,” he added.

Branding the numbers coming into Britain as “really quite huge”, he also took apart the phoney nature of Labour’s “points-based system”.

“There were a range of low minimum thresholds where anyone who met them was automatically entitled to come... to work, study and in many cases to bring their dependants too,” he pointed out.

For those coming from outside the EU on work visas, Mr Cameron promised to examine “further tightening” beyond a new annual limit of 20,700.

On student visas Mr Cameron highlighted the revoking of licences for colleges that turned out to be bogus: “Not only have there been bogus and low-quality students coming to bogus and low-quality colleges, there have been a huge number of people bringing dependants under the pretext of studying.”

On the thorny issue of family migration – an area Labour went soft on because of the power of ethnic minority vested interests within its ranks – Cameron could hardly have been more trenchant.

“Time and again visa officers receive applications from spouses or partners sponsoring another spouse or partner soon after being granted settlement in the UK, suggesting the original marriage was simply a sham,” he complained.

“There was a Pakistani national who applied for a spouse visa on the basis of his marriage to someone settled in the UK. He got indefinite leave to remain then immediately divorced his UK- based spouse, returned to Pakistan, remarried and then applied for entry clearance for his new spouse. We cannot sit back and allow the system to be abused in this way.”

A crackdown on abuse of the family route will have the happy side-effect of cutting migration from the very countries that send us people most prone to welfare dependency.

THE passage of Mr Cameron’s speech that dealt with deporting illegal immigrants was perhaps the weakest, given the spectre of the Human Rights Act that hovers over that issue.

But even here he had worthwhile points to make and breaking the link between arriving in Britain to work for a while and permanent settlement – as Mr Cameron also pledged to do – will be a major reform too.

“If we take the steps set out today and deal with all the different avenues of migration, then levels of immigration can return to where they were in the Eighties and Nineties,” he said.

That, of course, is going to be the acid test: will Cameron’s new approach bring net migration down from 239,000 to the “tens of thousands” by the next election?

Previously I would have dismissed the very idea of the coalition achieving such a feat.

But it is clear that he has performed a major u-turn on the issue and is now a dogged opponent of mass immigration.

If he wishes to pretend to himself that he always was then that is a price well worth paying.

SOURCE





Another perverse British legal judgment

A bogus student who lied that he could speak English and admitted buying a fake language proficiency certificate can stay in Britain, immigration judges have ruled.

Even though Abbas Khaliq was ‘untruthful’ and ‘not a credible witness’, and had failed to mention that his brother was an illegal immigrant here, the reluctant judges said he had broken no rules.

So despite being caught red-handed on arrival from Pakistan at Gatwick airport, he is welcome to stay here.

It emerged during the case that since a British college had given Khaliq the go-ahead to study here, and there was no physical evidence he had lied while obtaining his student visa in Pakistan, the immigration officer who caught him out at Gatwick had no powers to ban him from entry.

Embarrassingly, while the immigration judges said they had ‘no enthusiasm’ for allowing the bogus student to stay, they claimed they had no choice – because of the rules set by the very body established to keep illegal immigrants out, the UK Border agency.

The judges said in their ruling: ‘The UK Border Agency’s decision to allow colleges to assess whether students should be admitted, and to remove from immigration Officers the power to reach any view independent of the colleges - most of which have a clear financial motive to admit as many students as possible - forces us to the conclusion we have reached.’

Khaliq had flown into Britain last year to start a Higher National Diploma course in Business Management at the Leeds Professional College – the organisation which had who had sponsored his successful visa application.

But immigration officials at Gatwick soon discovered he spoke no English, despite finding a forged certificate in his bag from the Anglophile English Learning Centre in Karachi giving him an A grade.

Brazen Khaliq admitted buying the certificate - and that he knew nothing about the course he was due to take in England, and had paid someone else to choose it for him.

Further enquiries swiftly revealed that his brother was an overstayer in the UK, a clearly relevant fact which he had failed to mention.

The Leeds Professional College said they provided intensive English language training - but they would have a problem educating someone such as Khaliq who had virtually no English.

Despite being caught red-handed, Khaliq appealed against the immigration officer’s ban, and had the right to stay in the country whilst his appeal was being heard.

An immigration tribunal agreed with the alert immigration officer, and upheld the ban in January 2010.

But Khaliq was entitled to another appeal, to the upper immigration tribunal – and in July and finally finished the appeal process 18 months on, by winning the right to stay in spite of his lies.

Astonishingly, at his first appeal Khaliq attempted to maintain the fiction that he was proficient in English, telling the tribunal he would need an interpreter provided a public expense purely ‘for technical reasons’.

But Immigration Judge Agnew soon discovered he could not understand her at all. She dismissed the appeal, noting: ‘I find that the appellant is not a credible witness and that nothing that he says can be relied upon.’

Judge Agnew said it was demonstrated that ‘Leeds Professional College had not made any adequate investigation’ before offering Khaliq a place.

And Judge Agnew ruled that although the visa was obtained outside the UK, in his native Pakistan, the application for leave to enter was also a decision for Immigration to make at the airport - and because he had lied in interviews there his visa became invalid.

But Khaliq appealed to the upper tribunal on the grounds that his visa obtained before he arrived in the UK was valid, and the Immigration Officer had no evidence that he lied to get it, so had to honour it despite what was said at the airport.

The judges at the upper tribunal reluctantly agreed and gave him the right to stay in Britain. But they added: ‘We reach that conclusion with no enthusiasm. ‘The appellant has been judicially assessed as untruthful. He has been prepared to deceive others as to the level of his competence in English. ‘He has arrived to undertake a course that his ‘Highly Trusted Sponsor’ college admitted him for, but says that it would have difficulty in delivering to him.’

The UK Border Agency’s own rules meant Khaliq had to be admitted the judges went on, adding that this ‘demonstrates that the Immigration Rules, as in force at the relevant time, provide little security against the admission of what may be described as bogus students. ‘Changes have since been made, but they do not affect this appeal.’

SOURCE



11 October, 2011

British PM launches immigration crackdown

David Cameron’s election pledge to reduce net immigration from the 150,000 it averaged under Labour to “tens of thousands” a year is proving a tough nut to crack. In his second big speech on immigration this year, the Prime Minister yesterday focused on two areas. He proposed new minimum income requirements for immigrants who “sponsor” wives and dependants to follow them to this country. A system of bonds is also being considered, requiring a surety to be paid by immigrants that will be forfeited if they choose not to return home.

The last government actually introduced such a scheme four years ago but quietly shelved it under pressure from immigrant communities. The Coalition needs to show greater resolve. It is not unreasonable to expect people who come here to lodge such a payment that can offset any demands they may make on the public purse. The Prime Minister also took the first steps towards making forced marriage – which he described as “little more than slavery” – a criminal offence. It is extraordinary that this is not the case already.

Mr Cameron is in the right territory. Among non-EU nationals, it is students, family members and dependants who now comprise two thirds of all immigrants. This is one aspect of immigration that needs to be discussed but rarely is. When it comes to immigration from the Indian subcontinent, and particularly Pakistan, politicians constantly give the impression that they are walking on eggshells. Their unwillingness to engage in debate allows the far Right to fill the vacuum.

The issue that specifically needs to be addressed is the last government’s reckless decision – motivated by cynical political considerations – to allow marriage to be used as a means of settling in this country. Before 1997, the Primary Purpose Rule required an applicant to show “that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom”. Now, it is possible to marry someone settled in Britain purely for the purpose of immigration, provided certain legal requirements are met. As a consequence of the rule change, immigration by spouses has doubled and problems of illiteracy and cultural isolation have grown. Restoring the Primary Purpose Rule would go a long way towards reducing forced marriages.

As for the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the public should report suspected illegal immigrants, that sounds like a dangerous piece of populism that could have unfortunate consequences. Mr Cameron would do better to focus the Government’s energies on stopping those who have no right to settle in this country from coming here in the first place.

SOURCE





Australian PM jawbones employers about hiring Australians first

Just political grandstanding. Only legislation would have any appreciable effect

The Prime Minister of Australia has urged employers to prioritise local workers over skilled migrants in filling jobs.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has told the media that vacant employment positions - particualrly in the lucrative mining and resources sector - should be filled by Australian workers rather than imported skilled labour, ahead of the national jobs forum in Canberra commencing Friday 7 October.

Ms Gillard said that unemployed Australians could be trained to fill demand in the mines. She specifically raised the possibility of re-training retrenched steelworks workers in Western Australia, and providing new opportunities to regional and rural communities through skills training.

"We don't want to leave a kid in Kwinana in Western Australia on the unemployment queue without skills while the people who operate big mines in the north-west of the state say can you import a plumber or a cook or an electrician for me," Gillard told Radio National. "I want that kid to get that opportunity."

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has supported the Prime Minister's comments, claiming that the use of skilled migrants indicates a lack of local skills training on the part of industry.

"The reason we are in this mess at the moment is that the mining industry has not invested in skills," said ACTU President Ged Kearney.

"They are not training apprentices, they are not training their workers. For years they have neglected this important part of their responsibility as an employer."

The Government amended the Australian immigration intake in 2009, reducing the number of skilled migrants to 115,000.

However, despite the imposed limit and recent comments, the Government also indicated in the Federal Budget handed down in May that the skilled migrant intake would be increased in 2012. 16,000 additional Australia visa grants will be allocated to skilled foreigners next year.

SOURCE



10 October, 2011

U.K. to Restrict Family Immigration

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron will announce steps on Monday to make it harder for immigrants to bring their families into Britain, in a further sign of how the U.K. is tightening rules to decrease immigration after more than a decade of increasing numbers.

Measures the government is looking at include increasing the amount of income immigrants must have before family members are allowed to join the immigrants, and looking at ways to make sure that family immigrants are in a genuine relationship with their partners.

The government also will look at ways to criminalize forced marriages.

"People do want to move to different countries to be with loved ones, we all understand this human instinct," Mr. Cameron will say in a speech, according to extracts.

"But we need to make sure—for their sake as well as ours—that those who come through this route are genuinely coming for family reasons."

Mr. Cameron's government has set a targeted cap on the number of immigrants from outside the European Union who are allowed into the country. It has proved hard, however, to get the numbers below that level, meaning that the government has been forced to look for ways to bring immigration down.

In 2010, family migration accounted for almost one-fifth of total non-EU immigration to the U.K., with nearly 50,000 visas granted to family members of British citizens and those with permanent residence in the country.

Mr. Cameron will say that around 70% of those looking to move family into Britain from abroad had post-tax earnings of less than £20,000 ($31,000) a year, which creates the "risk that the migrants and their family will become a significant burden on the welfare system and the taxpayer."

The government will look at ways to make it harder for the family of poorer migrants to enter the U.K., including whether posting a financial bond would be appropriate before allowing family to enter Britain.

The government will also make migrants wait longer when they want to bring over a partner, to show "they really are in a genuine relationship before they can get settlement," and toughen the tests used by officials to see whether a relationship is genuine, Mr. Cameron will say.

Mr. Cameron will also announce the government is looking at ways to criminalize forced marriages, a practice sometimes used in some Asian cultures that the British leader compares to slavery. The move to make illegal such cultural practices is a sign that Mr. Cameron is acting on his promise early this year to reject multiculturalism.

Countries across Europe are increasingly erecting barriers to immigrants, amid rising unemployment and increased intolerance of mass immigration.

For Mr. Cameron, however, the policies are not without risk. Businesses often complain tough immigration rules are stopping talent coming into Britain, while the announcements will likely anger his coalition Liberal Democrat Party, whose lawmakers have often complained about such policies.

SOURCE






Perry talks up immigration credentials

Rick Perry used his two-day Iowa swing that ended Saturday to address head-on his perceived weakness on immigration, a tactic that GOP operatives said is a smart campaign strategy and one that is even necessary to save his campaign.

“Nobody’s got a stronger record on immigration than myself,” Perry told a crowd in Spencer, Iowa.

And, in an exclusive interview with The Des Moines Register, Perry said the issue has peaked because of the legitimate concern of the American people.

“Americans are more and more concerned about their safety and they’re more and more concerned about these drugs that are coming into their communities and one of the reasons is because of the federal government’s complete and absolute lack of support to states and to this country to secure the border,” Perry said.

Perry, the governor of Texas and a 2012 GOP presidential candidate, has taken several hard political knocks in the past few weeks, partly stemming from his support behind the 2001 “Texas Dream Act.”

The act allows illegal immigrants in Texas who have graduated from high school and lived in the state for three years to go to college paying in-state tuition. Four of 183 legislators voted against the measure.

The issue has become a point made by critics to question Perry’s commitment to immigration reform.

Perry brought up his stand on immigration at each of the four events he held over his two-day swing, making it a central point of his talks.

He outlined how he signed into law an act requiring voter IDs, which advocates say helps retain the integrity of voting systems. And he reiterated his advocacy for more security on the border, including building fences in strategic areas.

Perry did not, however, bring up the Texas Dream Act on his own. An audience member in Sioux City asked him whether he intended to institute the in-state tuition policy on a nationwide basis should he become president.

He answered a definitive no, telling the crowd that it is a decision each state must make on its own. But Perry also took the opportunity to publicly defend the 10-year-old act.

“We decided as state in 2001 that to deal with this population we had one of two choices,” Perry said.

“We could either kick them to the side of the road and say, ‘We’ll deal with you as a tax waster,’ or we’re going to give them the opportunity to pursue citizenship, to pay in-state tuition — full-fare, not subsidized in any form or fashion — and be part of an educated workforce.”

The issue of immigration for Perry is even more critical to the conservative base of the GOP than other issues he faces such as the overall perception that he performed poorly in recent presidential debates, said Kedron Bardwell, assistant professor of political science at Simpson College in Indianola.

“I think it’s strategically smart for him to address this upfront and right away to get it off the table so he can move on to defining other parts of his record,” Bardwell said.

Bardwell continued: “The lesson learned is you don’t want something to bleed out over a period of weeks and then kind of just consistently keep coming up.”

Sioux County resident Kevin DeWeerd said Perry’s overall stand on immigration is not overly dissimilar from that of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa Republican caucuses in 2008.

“Right now the conservative base is really demanding,” DeWeerd said of the party’s intense focus on border security.

Perry says Mormonism isn’t cult

Asked if rival candidate Mitt Romney is a Christian, presidential candidate Rick Perry told the Register on Saturday that others’ comments on Mormonism and Christianity are their own opinions.

“I don’t think the Mormon Church is a cult,” Perry said. “People who endorse me or people who work for me, I respect their endorsement and their work, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I endorse all of their statements.”

Robert Jeffress, a senior pastor at First Baptist Church in Dallas, sparked a controversy Friday by disparaging Romney and his religion.

Jeffress introduced Perry to a group of religious conservatives in Washington, D.C., on Friday, telling audience members that they have a choice between a conservative out of convenience or a candidate of true conviction.

Jeffress later spoke with reporters and said Romney is not a Christian and that Mormonism is a “cult.”

The incident highlights an ongoing question surrounding Romney’s second presidential bid: whether his religion is a negative with his party’s base.

SOURCE



9 October, 2011

British government targets employers in new migrant crackdown

Companies could be forced to say how many foreign workers they employ as part of a Government clampdown on immigration.

The move comes as ministers seek to tighten the rules in an attempt to meet a Tory pre-election pledge to cut immigration significantly. Proposals will be set out within weeks, while David Cameron may outline some of the details in a speech this week.

Other elements of the package are likely to include:

* A drive against sham marriages, with the “probationary period” before which spouses can settle in Britain increased from two years to five.

* A review of the work visa system, used by up to 21,700 skilled employees a year to come to Britain.

* A move to raise the minimum salary — currently £20,000 a year — that some non-EU migrants must earn if they are to be permitted to work in Britain.

A fresh set of proposals is likely to be unveiled within weeks as the Coalition sets out in detail how it aims to bring down net immigration from outside the European Union to below 100,000 a year by 2015.

The Conservatives hope to seize back the political initiative after their party conference was overshadowed by a row over how an immigrant was able to use his ownership of a pet cat as part of a Human Rights Act ruling to secure residency in Britain.

The most radical of the proposals could see companies for the first time having to publish the nationality of their employees.

David Cameron and Theresa May, the Home Secretary, are to ask the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to review the level of the minimum income many immigrants from outside the European Union must earn before they are allowed to come to Britain – currently £20,000 a year.

The aim is to have a higher minimum level so that only wealthier people are permitted to come to the UK.

The MAC is also set to be asked to undertake a wholesale review of the system of work visas – which are "capped" so that a maximum of 21,700 skilled and highly skilled foreign employees can use them to come to Britain from outside the EU annually.

There will also be a new drive against sham marriages, which typically involve someone from outside the EU marrying an EU resident in a bid to be allowed to stay in Britain.

The so-called "probationary period" before which spouses and partners cannot settle in Britain will be increased from two years to five years.

The idea of making companies disclose how many of their workers are British, and how many are foreign, is likely to meet with resistance from employers who say it could increase bureaucracy and lead to a backlash.

Ministers believe, however, that such a move would be a useful tool in aiding public transparency on the issue. Damian Green, the Immigration Minister, said in a speech last week to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester that the government's "first responsibility" was to help unemployed British workers.

The proposals come at the end of two separate Home Office immigration consultations – one on employment-related routes to settlement in Britain and one on family migration

Both are aimed at breaking the link between temporary migration, often related to employment, and permanent settlement – with ministers keen to encourage what they term the" best and brightest global" talent to the UK while doing more to deter other groups.

The family migration review also looked at the contentious "Article 8" of the European Convention on Human Rights which has allowed foreign criminals to avoid being deported on the grounds that they have a right to a "family life".

At last week's Tory conference Mrs May vowed to close the loophole opened by Article 8 in the wake of campaigns, including one launched by The Sunday Telegraph. In doing so she sparked the "catgate" row with her cabinet colleague Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, when she claimed that a Bolivian illegal immigrant could not be deported because he and his partner had a pet cat.

Some of the details of the government's proposals may be outlined by Mr Cameron in a speech on immigration he is preparing to give on Monday.

Earlier this year he pledged to reduce net migration – the difference between those coming to Britain and those leaving it – to the "tens of thousands" a year.

However, the most recent figures issued by the Office for National Statistics showed how far the coalition still has to go, with net migration rising by 21 per last year to 239,000.

The renewed focus on measures to clamp down on immigration reflects fears at senior Government levels that current measures are unlikely to have the necessary effect on bringing numbers down – as well as a recognition that the issue is still close to the top of list of concerns cited by voters in opinion polls.

Ministers have tried to pin the blame on Labour's record, with Mr Green accusing the party, during its 13 years in power, of "talking tough and acting weak" and allowing the problem to "spiral out of control."

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has admitted Labour made mistakes – particularly by not bringing in the current "points-based" regime for migrants earlier than 2008. However she has branded the coalition's targets "unworkable" and accused ministers of "making promises they can't keep."

A decision to axe 5,000 jobs at the UK Border Agency will also greatly hamper the fight against illegal immigration, Ms Cooper argues.

The 21,700-a-year limit on work visas, set in February this year, was one of the first steps towards achieving the Coalition's promised reduction in net migration.

By setting a minimum required income for skilled workers coming in through this route, the Government intended to protect lower-paid jobs so they could be filled by British workers rather than by imported labour.

Migrants must also work in particular trades where the MAC has identified skills shortages in the domestic labour market, based on feedback from industry and other bodies.

However, when drawing up the new rules, ministers controversially decided not to count in the total migrants who arrive in Britain through the "intra company transfers" system. This decision potentially allows companies to bring tens of thousands more non-EU staff into the country without derailing the Government's attempts to hit its target – and trade unions have said the decision means that British workers are still being undercut by lower-wage foreign rivals, particularly in the computer industry.

Reducing the number of people coming to Britain under the "family route" is politically difficult for ministers because of the wide Commonwealth links and pressure from immigrant communities already settled in the UK.

But on sham marriages, a recent Home Office consultation proposed a number of additional measures, including combining some of role of local registrars with UK Border Agency functions, and tougher requirements for foreign nationals seeking to marry in the UK.

Last year 40,500 foreign nationals were allowed to come to Britain because of their romantic links here. A further 11,600 foreigners who were already living here under other types of visa switched to the romantic option, claiming they wanted to remain in Britain "for love".

This second category is the main source of "sham marriages" where vows are taken with a phoney partner – who is often paid to take part – so a foreigner can stay in Britain much longer than they are entitled to.

SOURCE






Discontent with immigration on the British Left too

It’s not only Conservatives who rail against the Human Rights Act - as these extracts from the private diary of former Immigration Minister Phil Woolas amply demonstrate...

A Labour former Immigration Minister last night said Theresa May was right to say human rights laws make a mockery of the way Britain deals with asylum seekers.

Phil Woolas also released extracts from an explosive diary revealing the ‘absurd’ degree to which the immigration service was hampered by court rulings on human rights.

Mr Woolas, who was in charge of immigration policy at the time of a court ruling to let a Bolivian escape deportation partly because he had a cat, said he ‘strongly agreed’ with Home Secretary Mrs May.

At the Tory conference last week, she used the case of Camilo Soria Avila and his cat Maya to justify her plans to rein in abuse of Labour’s Human Rights Act, sparking a row with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke who disputed her account.

But Mr Woolas said: ‘Some people, Ken Clarke included, assumed Theresa had made it up. But she didn’t need to. I should know.’
Maya the cat, who is at the centre of the immigration row between Ken Clarke and Theresa May

Mr Woolas, Immigration Minister from October 2008 until the 2010 election, was unaware of the cat ruling until he saw it in newspapers. But to back his case that the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were crippling the immigration system, he released extracts from his private diary as a minister.

Published below, they reveal his anger at learning:

* Osama Bin Laden’s son could use British Freedom of Information rules to see Government files rejecting his visa application, even though he lived in the Middle East.

* A suspected drug lord was freed because the French navy vessel which caught him took too long to bring him to port and charge him.

* A convicted rapist due to be deported could still get British legal aid in India to fight for custody of his estranged son.

* There was a challenge to the Lords against deporting someone to Greece because the Greek asylum system might breach the person’s human rights.

He added last night: ‘The root of the problem is that the original human rights rules gave protection against persecution to citizens of Europe.

‘Yet over the years, judges’ decisions have extended these rights to people who are simply in Europe. We cannot put right the wrongs of dysfunctional countries from the courtrooms of Britain. That’s why the Home Secretary is right to seek to amend the law to give power back to Parliament.’

He said that ultimately, the only solution was to negotiate changes to the ECHR.

More HERE



8 October, 2011

Alabama law has a big bite

It may be a big enough bite to send many illegals straight back to Mexico -- and thus do the job that the Feds shy away from

The poster is mildly worded, but carries a very big punch. "Attention to all water customers," it begins. "To be compliant with new laws concerning immigration you must have an Alabama driver's licence …"

And then comes the hit: "… or you may lose water service."

The warning, posted in the offices of a public water company in the small town of Allgood in Alabama, is the most graphic illustration yet of the draconian new immigration law coming into effect in the state. Under section 30 of the new law, HB56, anyone who lacks proper immigration papers is deemed to be committing a crime if they try to enter into a "business transaction" with the "state or a political subdivision of the state".

The law does not spell out what constitutes a "business transaction" or what particular state bodies are implicated, but judging from the poster put up by the Allgood Alabama Water Works company it is being interpreted widely enough to include the basic essentials of life.

"This demonstrates the cruelty of the new law by denying the most basic facilities to people. It's designed to make life so miserable that people self-deport, and this poster is a vivid example of what that looks like," said Jessica Karp of the National Day Laborers union.

Allison Neal, legal director of the Alabama branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said: "If you want to see the harm that the law will cause, then you can't get much clearer than cutting off water services."

The mayor of Allgood, who is responsible for the town's water supply, was unavailable for comment. It is believed that the poster is still prominently displayed within the town hall.

It is thought to have been put up several weeks ago while HB56 was still being debated in the Alabama assembly. The Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board is also understood to have made moves to oblige water customers to prove their legal immigration status.

More HERE




Tough immigration law leads to Ala. exodus

Alabama's strict new immigration law may be backfiring. Intended to force illegal workers out of jobs, it is also driving away many legal immigrant workers who work in construction and on farms doing backbreaking jobs that Americans generally won't.

The vacancies have created a void that will surely deal a blow to the state's economy and could slow the rebuilding of Tuscaloosa and other tornado-damaged cities.

Employers believe they can carry on because of the dismal economy, but when things do turn around, they worry there won't be anyone around to hire. Many legal Hispanic workers are fleeing the state because their family and friends don't have the proper papers and they fear they will be jailed.

Rick Pate, the owner of a commercial landscaping company in Montgomery, lost two of his most experienced workers, who were in the country legally. He spent thousands of dollars training them to install irrigation systems at places like the Hyundai plant. "They just feel like there is a negative atmosphere for them here. They don't feel welcome. I don't begrudge them. I'd feel nervous, too," Pate said.

While it's not clear how many of an estimated 185,000 Hispanic people in the state have fled, one estimate figured as much one-fourth of the commercial building work force had left since the law was upheld last week, said Bill Caton, president of Associated General Contractors of Alabama. Commercial construction is a more than $7 billion-a-year industry in Alabama.

The law allows police to detain people indefinitely if they are suspected of being in the country illegally and requires schools to check the status of new students when they enroll. Those elements make it perhaps the toughest law in America.

The law targets employers by forbidding drivers from stopping along a road to hire temporary workers. It also bars businesses from taking tax deductions for wages paid to illegal workers and makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to solicit work. A federal judge has temporarily blocked those sections of the law so she can study them more.

Legislators said the law would help legal residents suffering from nearly 10 percent unemployment.

One of the bill's authors, Republican Sen. Scott Beason, said he expected short-term problems, but he has received "thank you" calls from two people who replaced illegal immigrants who fled their jobs. Beason predicts that trickle will become a rush. "We have the best law in the country and I stand by what we've done," Beason said.

Some farmers disagreed.

On Chandler Mountain in north Alabama, tomato farmer Lana Boatwright said only eight of the 48 Hispanic workers she needed for harvest showed up after the law took effect. Those who did were frightened. "My husband and I take them to the grocery store at night and shop for them because they are afraid they will be arrested," she said.

Farmer Chad Smith said his family farm stands to lose up to $150,000 because there are not enough workers to pick tomatoes spoiling in the fields. "We will be lucky to be in business next year," he said.

The financial toll will vary by area, and experts said it's too early to make predictions.

Cristian Gonzalez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, is a stay-at-home mother of four who lives in a mobile home in suburban Birmingham with her husband. They sneaked across the border in 2009 and planned to save money and eventually return to their home country. "We're afraid to go to Walmart. I'm afraid to walk the kids up there to get the bus. I am afraid to drive," Gonzalez said.

Her husband worked as a brick mason and cook, but was recently unemployed. Now they have decided they probably will return to Mexico. "We're just trying to be here one more year, but with this law ..." she said, her voice trailing off as she shook her head.

In Tuscaloosa, there is still a lot of rebuilding to be done after Alabama's killer tornadoes in April. Without the Hispanic workers to help out, it will take even longer for neighborhoods to be fixed up. Blake Corder, the president of the Home Builders Association of Tuscaloosa, noted that the workers had left the area and he even lost a few renters in the past week.

Likewise, schools are worried about their students who have suddenly stopped showing up for class. Out of 34,000 Hispanic students, 2,285 were absent Monday. That number increased from Friday by a few hundred.

The figures show seven out of every 100 Hispanic children were out of school, even though state school officials have tried to assure parents that they won't release their names to police and that no child will be denied an education due to legal status.

Builders have complained they can't find replacement workers and delays in projects are expected. Once the economy picks up and construction returns to normal, the impact will increase, said Russell Davis, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Alabama. "There is going to be a void. No question," Davis said.

SOURCE



7 October, 2011

Idiot British Judge DID rule migrant's pet was a reason he shouldn't be deported

A judge allowed an illegal immigrant to dodge deportation because he feared separating him from his cat risked ‘serious emotional consequences’, it emerged yesterday.

The human rights ruling, obtained by the Daily Mail, vindicates Home Secretary Theresa May over the ‘cat-gate’ row with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke at the Tory Conference.

She claimed that the cat, Maya, was a key reason behind the decision to let the man, a Bolivian national, stay in Britain, citing it as an example of how the Human Rights Act has been badly applied by judges. But Mr Clarke accused her of ‘misrepresenting’ the judgment.

Yesterday it was revealed that the Bolivian not only argued that he would suffer from being separated from his cat, but also that his pet’s quality of life would be affected.

It emerged that officials discovered he had arrived in Britain as a student in 2002 and overstayed his two-year visa only when he was arrested for shoplifting in 2007. He was never charged over the shoplifting allegations.

The fallout from the row continued yesterday as David Cameron, in his own Conference speech, publicly sided with Mrs May. He also slapped down Mr Clarke and appeared to mock the Justice Secretary for being on the side of criminals.

Immigration Judge James Devitte allowed the Bolivian to stay in this country under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to a private and family life. The case had been thought to have involved a man and his girlfriend, but in fact the judgment reveals that the couple are two gay men.

The judge heard evidence from the man’s boyfriend’s siblings, who confirmed the pair had lived together for three years and said the Bolivian was regarded as their ‘brother’s partner’.

In his six-page ruling, the judge said: ‘In 2005 the appellant and his partner acquired a cat, whom they called Maya and who has lived with them since that date.’

He revealed that the Home Office had rejected arguments from the man that removing him would have ‘consequences’ for Maya. The Home Office’s initial ruling stated: ‘Although you have a cat called Maya she is considered to be able to adapt to life abroad with her owners. ‘While your cat’s material quality of life in Bolivia may not be at the same standard as in the United Kingdom, this does not give rise to a right to remain in the United Kingdom.’

But Judge Devitte stated unequivocally: ‘The evidence concerning the joint acquisition of Maya by the appellant and his partner reinforces my conclusion on the strength and quality of the family life that [the] appellant and his partner enjoy.’

Bizarrely, he added: ‘In Canada and to a much lesser extent in the United States there is an increasing recognition of the significance that pets occupy in family life and of the potentially serious emotional consequences pet owners may suffer when some unhappy event terminates the bond they have with a pet.

In her speech, Mrs May listed the case along with a string of other examples of how Article 8 was being misapplied by judges. She said he ‘cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had a pet cat’.

At a fringe event later the same day Mr Clarke said: ‘They are British cases and British judges she is complaining about. I cannot believe anybody had ever had deportation refused on the basis of owning a cat.’

SOURCE






Immigrant Population at Record 40 Million in 2010

2000 to 2010 was Highest Decade of Immigration Ever, Despite Job Loss

New Center for Immigration Studies' analysis of Census Bureau data shows the nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal), also referred to as the foreign born, reached 40 million in 2010, the highest number in American history. Nearly 14 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country from 2000 to 2010, making it the highest decade of immigration in American history. This is the case even though there was a net decline of jobs during the decade. In contrast, from 1990 to 2000, job growth exceeded 20 million and slightly fewer immigrants arrived (13.2 million).

Steven A. Camarota's Memorandum, 'A Record-Setting Decade of Immigration: 2000-2010,' is available on the Center for Immigration Studies' website here. The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached 40 million in 2010, the highest number in the nation’s history.

The nation’s immigrant population has doubled since 1990, nearly tripled since 1980, and quadrupled since 1970 when it stood at 9.7 million.

Of the 40 million immigrants in the country in 2010, 13.9 million arrived in 2000 or later making it the highest decade of immigration in American history, even though there was a net loss of jobs during the decade.

New arrivals are offset by out-migration and deaths. As a result, the net increase in the immigrant population was more than 8.8 million over the last decade, from 31.1 million in 2000.

While the number of immigrants in the country is higher than at any time in American history, the immigrant share of the population (12.9 percent) was higher 90 years ago.

Growth in the immigrant population has primarily been driven by high levels of legal immigration. Roughly three-fourths of immigrants in the country are here legally.

Immigrants continue to head to non-traditional states of settlement. The six states with the largest immigrant populations accounted for 65 percent of the total in 2010, 68 percent in 2000, and 73 percent in 1990.

Overall the immigrant population grew 28 percent between 2000 and 2010. But it grew at more than twice the national rate in: Alabama (92%), South Carolina (88%), Tennessee (82%), Arkansas (79%), Kentucky (75%), North Carolina (67%), South Dakota (65%), Georgia (63%), Indiana (61%), Nevada (61%), Delaware (60%), Virginia (60%), and Oklahoma (57%).

Since 1990 the immigrant population has doubled. It grew at more than twice the national rate in: North Carolina (525%), Georgia (445%), Arkansas (430%), Tennessee (389%), Nevada (385%), South Carolina (337%), Kentucky (312%), Nebraska (298%), Alabama (287%), Utah (280%), Colorado (249%), Minnesota (235%), Delaware (223%), Iowa (222%), Indiana (219%), Oklahoma (215%) and Arizona (208%).

States with the largest numerical increase over the last decade were: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.

Latin America continued to dominate immigration. Countries from this region accounted for 58 percent of the growth in the immigrant population from 2000 to 2010.

With nearly 12 million immigrants, Mexico was by far the top immigrant-sending country, accounting for 29 percent of all immigrants.

Countries in addition to Mexico have also seen significant growth in their populations. In 1990 there was only one sending-country with more than 1 million immigrants in the United States, by 2000 there were four such countries and in 2010 there were eight.

Discussion:

The finding that immigration was so high in the first decade of the 21st century is important because it is a reminder that immigration is a complex process; and it is impacted by many factors in addition to labor market conditions in this country. The desire to access public services, enjoy greater political freedom, or join relatives in the United States all affect the decision to migrate. These things do not change even if there is little or no job growth. Moreover, the opportunities available in the United States may still be much better than in many sending countries even if the US economy is experiencing a prolonged period of weak job growth.

It is also important to understand that immigration is driven in part by social networks of friends and family who provide information about conditions in the United States and often help new immigrants after they arrive. As the immigrant population grows, it creates momentum for more immigration. None of this means that the level of immigration is unaffected by the economy. There is evidence that immigration levels were affected to some extent by the economy during the last decade. However, the evidence is clear that the level of new immigration remained high, even in the face of a prolonged period of weak job growth.

Data Source:

The data for this Center for Immigration Studies analysis comes primarily from the American Community Survey (ACS) collected by the Census Bureau. The ACS has become one of the primary sources of data on the size and growth of the nation’s immigrant (or foreign-born) population. Immigrants are persons living in the United States who were not American citizens at birth. This includes naturalized American citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), illegal aliens, and people on long-term temporary visas such as foreign students or guest workers, who respond to the ACS. It does not include those born abroad of American parents or those born in outlying territories of the United States.

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



6 October, 2011

Homeland Security Released Terror Operative Who Illegally Crossed Border

And they don't have a clue where he is.

Two Bangladeshis who were caught by Customs and Border Protection illegally crossing the border in June 2010 admitted under questioning that they were members of a designated terrorist organization that signed on to a fatwa by Osama bin Laden pledging to wage war against Americans.

But amazingly, after one of the men requested asylum, he was released on bond. And now one Homeland Security official tells me, concerning the released terror operative, “We don’t have the slightest idea where he is now.”

The two men, Muhammad Nazmul Hasan and Mirza Muhammad Saifuddin, were intercepted near Naco, Arizona, not long after they had crossed the border on June 25, 2010. During their interrogation, one of the men admitted that they were members of Harakat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B), which was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in February 2008. Earlier this month the group claimed responsibility for a bombing a courthouse in New Delhi. That attack killed 11 and wounded at least 45 others.

A 2006 State Department report described HuJI-B’s goals and connections to other terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda:

The goal of HUJI-B is to establish Islamic rule in Bangladesh. The group’s core membership consists primarily of Bangladeshi veterans of fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Bangladeshi Government arrested a senior HUJI-B leader, Mufti Abdul Hannan, in October. HUJI-B has connections to the Pakistani militant groups Harakat ul-Jihad-I-Islami (HUJI) and Harakat ul-Mujahedin (HUM), which advocate similar objectives in Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir. The leaders of HUJI-B and HUM both signed the February 1998 fatwa sponsored by Usama bin Ladin that declared American civilians to be legitimate targets for attack.

Capturing two terrorist operatives illegally crossing the border would appear to be a big win for the Border Patrol. But in a stunning move, one of the men was released on bond after claiming asylum.

A Homeland Security official I met with last week in Washington, D.C., who was familiar with the case says that no government agency is tasked with monitoring those that are released pending asylum hearings, and that the terror operative’s whereabouts now are unknown.

That this guy was allowed out on bond is criminal. We don’t have the slightest idea where he is now. If he sets off a car bomb in Tucson or Phoenix, or shoots up a shopping mall or elementary school somewhere, there will be a lot of finger-pointing. But nobody seems that concerned about it now. And this is not the first time something like this has happened.

Back in March I reported here exclusively at PJMedia on a Department of Justice memo submitted in a court case of Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane, who ran a human smuggling ring out of Brazil on behalf of the Somali Al-Shabaab terrorist organization. Dhakane was nearly granted asylum, but was eventually charged with lying about his terrorist associations based on his conversations with a jailhouse informant. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Dhakane’s case was representative of the surging wave of Somalis who have been intercepted crossing the border over the past two years. And now some officials are worried that the case of Hasan and Saifuddin might be the tip of the iceberg of extremist Bangladeshis who are leaving their country under pressure from authorities there cracking down on HuJI-B and setting up terror-support operations in the United States. And the preferred transit route into the U.S. appears to be illegally entering over the southern border — the route taken by the two Bangladeshi terror operatives.

SOURCE




Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. The Grim World of Some J-1 Teachers (Memorandum)

2. Opposing view: Amnesties reward lawbreaking (Op-Ed)

3. Mark Krikorian Discusses 2012 Republican Primary on MSNBC (Video)

4. “Dis is too mush”: Linguistically Poor Teachers of English (Blog)

5. Five Questions for Rick Perry on In-State Tuition (Blog)

6. From 'Wet Bottoms' to 'Children of Illegal Immigrants' (Blog)

7. Importing the Uninsured (Blog)

8. J.A.W.D.? (Blog)

9. Alabama Law Largely Upheld (Blog)

10. 287(g): The Wages of Secure Communities Opposition (Blog)

11. Little Fat Cats Get Access to USCIS Adjudicators – Other Citizens Do Not (Blog)

12. Countdown to Deportation (Blog)

13. How About a Solo Immigration Visa for Refugees? (Blog)



5 October, 2011

Foreign thugs to lose human right to a 'family life' in Britain

The do-gooders are already howling about this, of course. One wonders whose side they are on: certainly not on the side of the British people

Illegal immigrants, foreign criminals and welfare tourists are to be stripped of their 'human right' to a family life in Britain. Home Secretary Theresa May will today promise to change immigration rules to end much of the rampant abuse of Labour's Human Rights Act.

It comes amid demands from senior Tories and the public for the hugely unpopular legislation to be ditched altogether.

Currently, foreign nationals who have a child or marry in the UK can be spared deportation under the controversial Article 8 – the right to a 'family life'. Little or no thought is given to the misery they inflicted on their victims. But in future, judges will normally be expected to boot out any foreign national who flouts the law – regardless of family circumstances.

The new rules will explicitly say that, if children were fathered while the immigrant was in Britain illegally, the right to 'family life' should be discounted. It will also apply where they have committed a crime or cannot support themselves without milking public funds.

Officials expect this to lead to the deportation of hundreds more offenders. Currently more than 200 criminals escape removal every year using Article 8.

There have been a string of shocking cases of criminals – including killers – using the Act to make a mockery of British justice. Most notoriously, Iraqi illegal immigrant Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who left Amy Houston, 12, to die under the wheels of his Rover car, was allowed to stay because he had fathered two children in Britain.

Mrs May – who heaped pressure on David Cameron to scrap the Act at the weekend – said the case had been one of the reasons why she decided to take action.

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail ahead of her speech today, she said it was time to 'rebalance' human rights law in favour of the law-abiding majority. 'Article 8 is one of the things that really annoys people about the whole environment of human rights. It is not an absolute right. My personal view of the Human Rights Act is that I would like to see it go. Meanwhile, this is something practical that I can do to help deport people who should not be here.'

The announcement came as Lord Carlile, the senior Lib Dem peer, warned that 'the promiscuous use of Article 8 risks placing the contemporary concept of human rights into disrepute'.

It marks a victory for the Mail, which has led the way in highlighting the way the Act has driven a coach and horses through our border controls.

The changes will be introduced using secondary legislation, which allows the Government to make changes to the law without a full vote of MPs and peers. The Lib Dems have agreed the policy, Mrs May said.

It will force judges not to view immigrants' right to a family life in isolation. Instead, the existence of children or a partner must be balanced against the havoc the offender has wreaked. Where there has been a crime or breach of the rules, this should outweigh family concerns.

Tory MP Dominic Raab, who has led calls for reform of Article 8, said: 'This is a welcome step. But, under the terms of the Human Rights Act, the only way to guarantee we can deport criminals claiming spurious family ties is through an Act of Parliament which can't then be overruled by judges.'

The changes will have no impact on the separate Article 3 of the Human Rights Act – which bans the deportation of people to countries where they could face ill-treatment or torture. Last week, it emerged that a string of convicted terrorists, including two fanatics who helped the July 21 bombers, were using Article 3 to fight deportation.

Lord Carlile, formerly the independent reviewer of terror laws, said that where somebody tries to harm Britain there should be a 'higher bar' for saving them from removal. In a blistering article for the Policy Exchange think-tank, he warned: 'We should remember that there are over 100 extremist offenders in custody, of whom some are shortly to be released, and probably over 60 already released since 2007.

'Most are in the community: the deportation of several of foreign nationality has been frustrated by a narrow interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.'

SOURCE





Alabama Immigration Law Causes Hispanics to Leave Schools

Alabama schools are seeing abnormally high rates of absences for Hispanic students after what is widely considered the toughest anti-immigration law in America went into effect.

The law, which was approved by the state legislature and widely backed by voters, allows police to check for papers and detain undocumented residents without bail. It also mandates that public schools share with authorities the citizenship status of all newly enrolled students.

Keith Ward, spokesperson for Huntsville City Schools, one of the largest school districts in the state with 23,000 students, told ABC News that of the 1,435 Hispanic students enrolled in Huntsville schools, 207 were absent last Thursday, the day the law took effect.

As of Monday, that number had decreased to 111, according to Ward. It is still substantially above the average of 20 to 40 absences for Hispanic students for a given week prior to the law. Ward expects the number of Hispanic absences to continue to decrease as the week continues and then plateau.

He credits the decline to the rapid outreach of Huntsville City Schools Superintendent Casey Wardynski. "The superintendent tried to reach out and explain the law ... in terms of what the law means for schools," said Ward. "We have no control over the other aspects of the law."

Wardynski took to YouTube and the district's cable access channel in both English and Spanish on Sept. 30. "This bill that was passed by our state is really about gathering statistics it's not about coming to anybody's house, taking anybody away," he said. "The schools are not enforcing extradition."

Under the law, schools are required to ask new students for either a birth certificate or proof they are in the country legally. However, if they are unable to provide proper documentation they are still able to attend school and neither the students nor the parents will be arrested. "This is just one additional check mark on a registration form," Ward said.

The school then provides statistical information to the state about the number of students who were unable to provide documentation.

The state made available form letters that schools can send to parents of new students that clarify the requirements of the law and informs parents that they should not be concerned if they are unable to provide citizenship documents or sworn statements.

"Rest assured," reads the letter, "that it will not be a problem if you are unable or unwilling to provide either of the documents."

SOURCE



4 October, 2011

Deception and Disorder in Immigration Court

Following up on an earlier summary report, the Center for Immigration Studies has released a 100-page monograph of “Built to Fail: Deception and Disorder in America's Immigration Courts,” authored by Mark H. Metcalf.

A former immigration judge, Metcalf reports that there are inherent flaws in the immigration courts that lead to widespread disregard of its rulings by the aliens who appear before them. The monograph discusses in detail the shortcomings of Justice Department statistical reporting on the courts' work and the flaws in their funding arrangements. The report is online here

Among the findings:

Very few aliens who file lawsuits to remain in the United States are deported, even though immigration courts – after years of litigation – order them removed.

Deportation orders are rarely enforced, even against aliens who skip court or ignore orders to leave the United States.

Aliens evade immigration courts more often than accused felons evade state courts. Unlike accused felons, aliens who skip court are rarely caught.

From 1996 through 2009, the United States allowed 1.9 million aliens to remain free before trial and 770,000 of them – 40 percent of the total – vanished. Nearly one million deportation orders were issued to this group – 78 percent of these orders were handed down for court evasion.

From 2002 through 2006 – in the shadow of 9/11 – 50 percent of all aliens free pending trial disappeared. Court numbers show 360,199 aliens out of 713,974 dodged court.

For years, the Department of Justice (DoJ) has grossly understated the number of aliens who evade court. In 2005 and 2006, DoJ said 39 percent of aliens missed court. Actually, 59 percent of aliens – aliens remaining free before trial – never showed.

Since 1996, failures of aliens to appear in court have never dipped below 30 percent.

Enforcement of deportation orders is now nearly non-existent. Removal orders are not enforced unless aliens have committed serious crimes.

Unexecuted removal orders are growing. As of 2002, 602,000 deportation orders had not been enforced. Since then, another 507,551 have been added to the rolls. Today, unexecuted removal orders number approximately 1,109,551 – an 84 percent increase since 2002.

U.S. immigration courts rule in favor of aliens 60 percent of the time. DoJ statistics suggest aliens win only 20 percent of the time.

The Department of Justice tells Congress that aliens appeal deportation orders only 8 percent of the time. In fact, over the last 10 years aliens appealed deportation orders 98 percent of the time.

Since 1990, immigration court budgets have increased 823 percent with taxpayers footing the entire bill. Aliens pay no more to file their cases today than they did in 1990.

From 2000 through 2007, tax dollars paid aliens’ court costs. Taxpayers underwrote the appeals of aliens ordered removed for criminal convictions and fraudulent marriages.

U.S. immigration judges carry huge caseloads. In 2006 – the courts’ busiest year ever – 233 judges completed 407,487 matters. All work of DoJ’s trial and appellate lawyers combined equaled only 289,316. By comparison, federal district and circuit courts, with 1,271 judges, completed 414,375 matters.

The only possible way the Justice Department’s misrepresentations will be corrected is for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit America’s immigration courts.

An Article I court – a court created through Congress’s constitutional authority over immigration – is the surest solution for those fleeing persecution, while balancing America’s fundamental interest in secure borders and an effective immigration system.

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




Curb on immigrants' rights to settle in Britain as rule that allows them to stay after working for five years set for axe

Tens of thousands of immigrants will be stripped of the right to settle in the UK permanently under Home Office proposals. Ministers are to crack down on a regime which allowed a record 241,000 foreigners to settle here last year – up from 51,000 when Labour came to power.

They plan to abolish a rule that gives those from abroad the right to live in Britain permanently if they work here for five years. The Government will also look at restricting the right of immigrants’ spouses to a British passport if they stay here long enough.

Ministers say it is vital if they are to hit David Cameron’s target of reducing net migration – the number of people entering the country, versus those leaving – to the ‘tens of thousands’.

Breaking the link between permanent settlement and the right to work in the UK temporarily has long been demanded by groups campaigning for a policy of ‘balanced migration’.

Under the plans, to be published before the end of this year, foreigners will still be able to gain a visa to work in Britain, but they will no longer be able to remain here permanently simply by virtue of staying in the country legally for five years.

A Whitehall source said: ‘We want to break the link between working and settling in Britain. It has become almost automatic for people who keep their noses clean and don’t get a criminal record.

‘The Government is not against people coming here to work, but that shouldn’t automatically mean they get to stay in Britain forever.’

Under the policy, a new ‘hurdle’ will be introduced for immigrants who wish to remain here permanently, based on their ability to support themselves and their families, their qualifications and whether they are working in professions where there are shortages of trained Britons.

Those on high incomes, businessmen and millionaire investors would be exempt because the Government believes they create jobs. EU nationals who have a right to live in the UK would not be affected.

The Home Office knows it needs to do more to cut immigration levels if the Prime Minister is to have any hope of meeting his election promises.

Crackdowns have already been announced on student visas and on the number of work permits given to non-EU nationals. But without reducing the number of people who can remain here permanently, the ‘tens of thousands’ target is highly unlikely to be hit. Last year net migration rose by 21 per cent – with 239,000 more people arriving in the UK than leaving.

SOURCE



3 October, 2011

Surge in numbers of Iranian boat arrivals in Australia

Sending ANYBODY back to the Iranian madhouse really would be cruel

IRANIANS have overtaken Afghans to become the largest group of asylum seekers arriving by boat to Australia, and have been labelled "troublemakers" by immigration officials who are unhappy that they are unable to send home those who fail refugee status.

Iranian boat arrivals leapt eightfold, from 197 in 2009-10, to 1549 last year. At the same time, visa success rates have plummeted, from 100 per cent in 2008, to 27 per cent last year.

Unlike Afghans fleeing villages, the Iranian asylum seekers are middle-class, well-educated, secular or Christian, with good English. It is exactly these vocal, motivated, urban Iranians who have been forced to flee an Islamic regime that views even teachers as "political" if they raise human rights objections, community leaders say.

But immigration officials take a different view, accusing recently arrived Iranians who had received initial rejections for refugee status of being agitators in the Christmas Island and Villawood riots. "Contumacious behaviour, wilful disobedience," Immigration Department secretary Andrew Metcalfe told a parliamentary inquiry.

The federal government says there is a large number of Iranians now on "negative pathways" but who cannot be sent back to Iran, and it is considering its options.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has said Iran will not accept the return of failed asylum seekers "despite many attempts by Australia" to strike an agreement. No country in the world is returning Iranians involuntarily.

Siamak Ghahreman, chairman of the Iranian Community Association, says any Iranian sent back to Tehran after applying for refugee status in a foreign country would "simply be killed".

Iranian refugee and women's rights activist Nicky Danesh says more than 12 members of her family have been shot, executed or are missing. She would prefer not to live in exile, and says many tertiary-educated Iranian refugees in Australia have to drive taxis or clean, so they don't come here for economic benefit.

"We are victims of Islamic fundamentalism. Even middle-class women have absolutely no rights and girls can be married at the age of nine, which is sexual abuse," she says.

Mr Ghahreman says: "It is especially the more educated people - that don't practise religion the way the government wants them to - that are persecuted."

Of the 384 Iranians who came to Australia by plane and sought asylum last year, 96 per cent were successful, far higher than the boat success rate.

Mr Ghahreman said people are risking drowning - and hundreds go missing before they get to Australia - because "by boat it is easier and a bit cheaper than getting a false passport to come to Australia by plane". Many more have fled to Canada, the United States and Turkey.

He spoke to Villawood detainees during the riots and encouraged them to stop protesting. "What they did was not right - but I understand why they did it. They were under so much pressure before they got to Australia, and then to be detained, they couldn't take it any more," he said.

Nima Neyshaboury, a minister at St Paul's Church in Carlingford, New South Wales, visits Villawood to hold weekly bible studies classes for Iranian detainees. He sees a "sad situation" where Iranian Christians who left behind family have fallen into depression after being detained for 15, 20 months, and in one case two years.

SOURCE





Life After College for Undocumented Immigrants Paved with Obstacles

Why not take their "skills" back to their country of origin. There would be no "obstacles" there

Even with a college degree - the road for educated undocumented immigrants is paved with no.

No immediate pathway to legal status under current federal immigration law.

No jobs because employers cannot legally hire them.

No guarantee of a better future.

When Rhode Island became the thirteenth state to allow in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants at public colleges, supporters heralded the move as one that would give students the kind of advanced education they need to succeed in the work force. But students who are not here legally may still face a major obstacle even with the benefit of a college degree.

"I know of students who have graduated magna cum laude and top honors in their colleges, but right now they're working minimum wage in restaurants," said Antonio Albizures-López, 20, who came to the U.S. from Guatemala when he was 1.

Albizures-López, who is pursuing legal residency, says the best solution is passage of federal legislation, known as the DREAM Act, which provides a pathway to legal residency for college students.

The Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education, which oversees the state's three public higher education institutions, unanimously approved in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants last week, effective in the fall of 2012. The General Assembly had failed repeatedly to take action on legislation that's been introduced year after year.

Twelve states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin — have laws allowing the children of undocumented immigrants to receive in-state rates if they meet certain requirements, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee, in urging the Board of Governors to adopt the change, said it would allow more Rhode Islanders to attend college, help build a stronger work force and boost an economy that is among the nation's most troubled.

Research varies on how much resident tuition rates for undocumented immigrants increase enrollment. A 2010 paper co-authored by Aimee Chinn, an economist at the University of Houston, did not find a sizeable increase overall for 18- to -24-year-olds in the 10 states studied, although it did find that Mexican men in their 20s attended at modestly higher rates. It also found that even in-state tuition may still be too expensive, especially since undocumented immigrant students do not qualify for federal education aid.

By contrast, a study this year by the Latino Policy Institute at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island, which looked at an array of research on the issue, said that in-state tuition has led to an enrollment increase among undocumented immigrants, on average, of 31 percent in the places it has been implemented.

The Urban Institute has estimated that 65,000 undocumented immigrants graduate from high school in the U.S. every year.

But even if more students go on to attend public colleges and universities with the benefit of in-state rates, a big question remains: how will they fare in the work force after they graduate, even with a degree that traditionally makes it easier to get the kind of high-skill, high-paying job not available to those who finish only high school.

"Even with a college degree, there hasn't been a more general immigration reform that would enable these kids to get a job once they have their degree," said Chinn.

URI's in-state tuition is $9,824, compared to $25,912 for out-of-state.

Terry Gorman, executive director of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement, opposes in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. He cites a 1996 federal law that laid out certain restrictions on undocumented immigrant benefits, and says it's a violation of that statute to provide in-state tuition to students who came here illegally, on the basis of residence, if the same break is not available to all students — including those from out of state.

Students paying out-of-state rates at California institutions mounted a legal challenge on those grounds, but the state Supreme Court upheld the in-state tuition policy, saying it did not conflict with federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court in June declined to hear the case.

But Gorman also maintains that the policy change offers students in the U.S. illegally a "false hope" about their post-graduation prospects. "This is going to be an educated population that can't do anything with their education because they're illegal aliens," he said. "What do they do? They can't work."

Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, who conducted the Latino Policy Institute study at Roger Williams, points out that, while that's the law, it isn't necessarily the reality. She said that under current enforcement practices, many who are here illegally are in fact being hired. That being the case, she said, they may as well be college-educated.

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

Supporters of the policy change say it would affect approximately 140 students in Rhode Island.

SOURCE



2 October, 2011

Perry Reformulates Answer on Immigration Question

Gov. Rick Perry generally has great political radar, but in the first few weeks of his presidential campaign he walked straight into enemy fire on the issue of illegal immigration.

He’s trying to walk out of it now. Perry, in media interviews and at town hall events this weekend in New Hampshire, is giving a far more nuanced and detailed answer on why he has taken the now-controversial view that some young immigrants in the country illegally should get the benefit of in-state tuition rates.

Under the 2001 bill Perry signed into law, to qualify, a student must have lived in the state for at least three years, graduated from a Texas high school and promised to apply for permanent residency.

A chief surrogate here, former New Hampshire Republican gubernatorial candidate John Stephen, is also going to bat for Perry, unprompted, and is stressing the governor’s border security, anti-immigration bonafides.

Perry's new approach, with its carefully rehearsed answers, underscore the potency of the immigration issue, which acts as a proxy for the deep economic anxiety across the country. Voters here and elsewhere routinely ask Perry about immigration and border security during question-and-answer periods, and his rivals are running ads against him on the topic. Perry also took pointed questions on Social Security and global warming, but the immigration issue has resonated in a way the other topics have not.

The new formulation unveiled this weekend in New Hampshire underscores the deep hole Perry dug for himself during his uneven debate performance on Sept. 22, when he suggested that opponents of the tuition break don’t “have a heart.” It took an already bad situation and made it worse. The gaffe contributed to a big drop in Perry’s poll numbers, and Republicans seem generally surprised that the longtime Texas governor is out of step with the Tea Party-infused grassroots on this one.

Perry has since apologized for his provocative answer about heartless opponents, and his campaign is trying to reframe the issue on more favorable terrain. When Perry showed up in New Hampshire for a series of town halls that began Friday in Derry, Stephen introduced him and quickly noted that he was the only candidate in the race who had actively fought illegal immigration along the porous U.S.-Mexico border. He also said the Texas governor opposes the federal Dream Act and any type of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

Perry addressed the issue himself the next day, in Hampton on Saturday morning, when local voter Dave Connors of Hampton directly confronted him: “I’m going to kick you in the heart,” he said. “You know where I’m going.” It was another way of saying that illegal immigration is an elephant-in-the-room kind of issue for the governor now.

Connors asked why Perry favors giving “preferential treatment” to illegal immigrants. Perry answered by ticking off a list of initiatives that he said are designed to curb illegal immigration, including hundreds of millions of dollars for border security, a veto of legislation that would have allowed illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses and the recently passed Voter ID bill.

He also blamed Uncle Sam.

“The federal government forces us to school young men and women regardless of their immigration status,” Perry said. “Are we going to kick these young people over to the curb and say you cannot have access to college? Because the fact of the matter is there is no way that they could pay the out-of-state tuition.’’

Connors said he seemed impressed with Perry after the exhange.

More HERE




Obama to Appeal Ruling Upholding Alabama Immigration Law

The U.S. Justice Department said it will appeal the decision by a judge in Birmingham, Alabama, that allowed the state to enforce parts of an immigration law opposed by the federal government.

“Under the Constitution, immigration, no less than other aspects of the nation’s foreign relations and foreign commerce, requires uniform regulation, and cannot be subject to a patchwork of state measures,” Justice Department lawyers said today in a request to put U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn’s ruling on hold while it’s under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

Blackburn said in her Sept. 28 decision that under the law, state police can make “a reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of a person otherwise detained or arrested, when there’s reasonable suspicion to inquire about that status.

Nothing in the federal Immigration and Nationality Act “expressly preempts states from legislating on the issue of verification of an individual’s citizenship and immigration status,” Blackburn said in her 115-page ruling.

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, a first-term Republican, signed the immigration measure into law on June 9. After the U.S. government, church leaders and civil rights groups sued to block it, Blackburn issued a provisional order barring its enforcement on Aug. 29. Bentley called the ruling upholding parts of the law “a victory for Alabama.”

The law, the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, includes provisions requiring public schools to collect data on the enrollment of children of unlawful residents and criminalizing the failure of illegal immigrants to complete or carry alien registration documents.

Blackburn’s ruling allowed Alabama to enforce the part of the law that makes failure to carry documentation a misdemeanor, as well as the school data portion of the law and a provision enabling police to take drivers arrested without a valid license before a magistrate for determination of their citizenship.

Unlicensed drivers found to be in the U.S. illegally can then be detained for prosecution or turned over to federal immigration agents.

SOURCE



1 October, 2011

Brits migrating to Poland

Not mentioned below is a major reason to leave for Poland: Poland is still overwhelmingly the white Christian society that Britain used to be before multiculturalism hit it -- which bypasses all the difficulties of living with Africans -- such as their high rate of violent crime. And the fact that Poland is very Christian also helps with civility

A young Polish woman points at the screen in her office and smiles at me. ‘Look,’ she says warmly. ‘Here’s another one — they are coming in all the time.’

On the screen is a message from a man asking for advice on finding work. ‘A few years ago, I’d have received one or two a month. Now I get scores of messages like this. It is very good news — and they’re all welcome.’

More Poles coming to Britain in search of work and a new life thanks to the opening of European borders? Well, not exactly. In fact, the messages are from British men seeking work in Poland — reversing the trend of recent years.

As Agnieszka Libura has discovered in her office next to the Honorary British Consulate in Krakow, many middle-class Britons, fed up with the recession, austerity cuts and seemingly unbridled immigration at home are, paradoxically, becoming migrants themselves and heading to Poland for a better life.

Once there, they find the only economy in Europe not to have fallen into recession during the credit crunch, a business culture open to fresh ideas and inward investment, a society that places a premium on family values, a lower cost of living — and, in the case of thousands of British males, a female population they seem to find irresistible.

As the Mail reported yesterday, a new study suggests Poland’s quality of life is significantly better than Britain’s, primarily because of lower crime, violence and living costs. Not to mention that Poles have on average ten more days’ holiday a year — and nearly 200 more hours of sunshine.

‘British people come over here and they are amazed to see a largely untapped business market and a growing middle class,’ says Agnieszka, director of the British Polish Chamber of Commerce. ‘If you can find a niche here, you can get rich very quickly.’

Unskilled wages are too low to entice the labourers, supermarket shelf-stackers or coffee-shop baristas from Britain.

The growing British diaspora instead comprises middle-class professionals working for large multi-national companies, business people with an eye for a chance, men who come after falling in love with Polish women in Britain, and those who have simply fallen in love with Poland.

‘It’s about the quality of life for me,’ says Mark Burton, a 32-year-old IT worker from Nottingham who moved to Krakow last year. ‘I visited Poland several times on holiday, and each time I came I liked it more and more.

‘I could earn a lot more in England, but I’d never enjoy the lifestyle so much. Every day I walk to work through Krakow old town, past the Wawel Royal Castle, which is one of the most beautiful buildings in Europe, and have to pinch myself.

‘People are friendly and the pace of life is slower. The architecture is stunning, basics are cheaper and the markets are full of food that is locally grown.

‘You can probably earn one-third of what you do in Britain and still be comfortably off.’

No one knows for sure how many Brits are living in Poland because they don’t have to register, just as with any other EU country. However, everyone agrees the number is growing. ‘We’re definitely seeing more Brits,’ says Mark’s boss, John Naughton, 40, who has built up several businesses in Poland.

‘Let’s face it, our own economy is in trouble, while this one is pretty vibrant. The opportunities here are fantastic. The big cities in Poland are modern, but you can still come up with ideas for things that aren’t available here yet that most Poles don’t even know they’re missing. It’s a great place to do business.’

Walk through Krakow, Poland’s picturesque second city, and you begin to understand the attractions — clean streets, polite and friendly people, great food and low crime.

According to the latest figures from the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, there are 1,365 assaults a year per 100,000 people in England and Wales; the figure for Poland is just 76. Murder rates in each country are very low, with Poland’s slightly above that of England and Wales. But in every other category, Poland puts us to shame. Per 100,000 of the population, Poland has 5.2 rapes compared with 25.6 in England and Wales; robberies are 92 compared with 189; burglary 455 compared with 1,158; 184 drug-related crimes compared with 362.

‘Crime isn’t something we ever had to worry about,’ said Jonathan Merrett, former head of the British International School of Cracow. ‘I had no problem with allowing older children out of school at lunchtime, something I’d probably never have allowed in Britain. And if the sun was shining and one of my teachers asked if they could take a class in the park, I could say yes without having to write a health & safety risk assessment. ‘In Poland, common sense prevails. Also, teachers are allowed to teach, and it shows in the results.’

Following the English curriculum, with tweaks to account for local culture and history, the school’s pupils have a 100 per cent record in achieving at least five A to C grade GCSEs compared with an average of 15 per cent in Britain. Fees are £8,400 a year, which compare favourably with British private schools.

However, it isn’t only professional fulfilment that attracted Jonathan and his teacher wife, Jill, to Poland. ‘Family relationships are still very important,’ said Jill.

‘I had younger colleagues who lived with their parents out of choice, and you wouldn’t get that so much in Britain. The Church is important, too, and that’s reflected in the low crime and general pleasantness of the place.

‘It’s clean, too. Whenever I went home to England, I was struck by the litter and chewing gum on the floor. In Poland, every building, residential or commercial, has to hire someone to clear the snow, leaves or litter outside every day. ‘It’s a hangover from Communism, when they used to find jobs for people to do, but it’s carried on and makes for very clean communities.’

Tom Buck, 29, a computer programmer, is one of many Englishmen who fell in love with a Polish woman before falling for Poland itself. ‘I was sharing a flat in London with a Polish girl, and in 2008 one of her friends, Ania, came to visit and we got on well,’ he says. ‘A month later, she returned to visit me, then I went to see her and within months we were flying back and forth so often that we decided to choose whether we lived in Warsaw or London. I liked Warsaw, so I moved there in October 2009.

‘I thought it would be terrifying to meet her family, but they were wonderfully welcoming to me, and once I got the seal of approval they became my family, too. I was bowled over by them.’

So what is it, I dare to ask, that attracts so many British men to Polish women? ‘Well, Ania is intelligent and beautiful, but I think what is so endearing about Polish women is they don’t play games,’ says Tom. ‘It is a cultural thing to speak your mind and be honest. That is the way British men communicate with each other, so finding such directness in a woman, and not having to constantly guess what you have done wrong, is an attractive trait.’

Of course, not everything about Poland is perfect. Expats cite the weather, which oscillates from unbearably cold to seriously hot, the low wages in some sectors and the cost of electrical items as the main bugbears.

Londoner Michael McSperrin, 26, moved to Krakow in January 2009 after quitting a management post with Carphone Warehouse. ‘I’d spent some time taking stock and decided I wasn’t entirely happy and wanted to try something new,’ he says. ‘I’d been to Poland several times, and out of curiosity began looking on the internet for jobs.’ He took a post with a company that provides administration services for recruitment agencies all over the world.

‘I grew up in Ealing and I’d been very happy there for years,’ says Michael. ‘But increasingly I was bored. In London, you think you have a great social life, but it’s so difficult meeting up with friends because they’re all over the place. ‘Here, it’s smaller and there’s so much to do that you meet new people all the time.

‘Add to that museums, architecture, festivals and concerts within walking distance or on the great tram system, and you’ve got more than enough to keep you happy.’

So would Michael go back to Britain? ‘Well, I’d never say never,’ he says. ‘But from what I hear about what’s going on at home, you couldn’t pay me to go back. With your inflation I doubt you could afford to.....’

SOURCE






Now the EU orders Britain: Let migrants claim benefits as soon as they arrive in UK

Europe has given Britain two months to scrap policies preventing benefit tourists claiming billions of pounds in handouts. Last night the European Commission said it would take the Government to court unless it draws up plans to axe restrictions on claims by immigrants, saying they are against the law and must be scrapped.

Brussels bureaucrats acted after receiving a complaint that the rules infringed the human rights of EU citizens.

It is feared the change could open the door to tens of thousands of Eastern Europeans who are currently deterred from coming to Britain – costing taxpayers up to £2.5billion a year in extra welfare payments.

At present a ‘habitual residency’ test is used to establish whether EU migrants are eligible for benefits. To qualify for jobseekers’ allowance, employment support allowance, pension credit and income support, they must demonstrate they have either worked here previously or have a good opportunity to get a job.

But the European Commission said this ‘right to reside’ test indirectly discriminates against nationals from other EU states by enforcing a set of conditions that effectively tests their right to state handouts.

Yesterday members announced they were considering taking the UK to the EU’s Court of Justice if it does not scrap the test. And they gave the Government two months to inform them of the measures it takes to enforce the rules.

Officials in the Department for Work and Pensions warn it would cost anything from £620million a year to £2.46billion if they have to scrap the test – seriously hampering plans to rein in public spending.

Employment minister Chris Grayling said: ‘This is a very unwelcome development. ‘It’s obviously right that we support those who work and pay their taxes here, but it’s clearly completely unacceptable that we should open our doors to benefit tourism.

‘I’m really surprised the European Commission has chosen to go into battle on this very sensitive issue, when there are clearly far more pressing problems to solve in Europe.’

A source at the DWP added: ‘This could open the doors of the benefits system to anyone from the EU, even if they have no intention of working. ‘That would be bad enough if we were in good economic times, but we are not in good economic times.’ ‘We will fight this tooth and nail. This is a battle we will win.’

Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party, said: ‘Once again we see the EC telling us how to run our country and people are becoming sick and tired of it. ‘The UK is perfectly within its rights to require EU nationals to fulfil certain conditions before taking advantage of our generous benefits system. ‘If the EC gets its way then there will be a far greater burden on the British taxpayer as more money will need to be found for the social security system.

‘The “right to reside” test should stay. It is not discrimination, but simply a system to ensure that benefits are paid only to those who are entitled to them.’

Stephen Booth, research director of think-tank Open Europe, said: ‘Freedom of movement within the EU has largely been positive for the UK but issues surrounding benefits and social security are understandably very sensitive.

‘For the freedom of movement within the EU to work, governments have to be able to assure their citizens that welfare systems won’t be abused. ‘At a time when people are concerned about the pressures of immigration, the Commission is playing a dangerous game by trying to overrule the UK on its “right to reside” test.’

The European Commission first set out its stall last year when it wrote: ‘EU law leaves it to member states to determine the details of their social security schemes and social assistance schemes, including the conditions on awarding benefits. ‘Having examined the “right to reside” test, it is not compatible with different legal provisions of EU law.’

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.