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



30 September, 2008

Statewide immigration raids result in 1,157 arrests in CA

Federal agents target those who ignored deportation orders or returned to the U.S. illegally. More than 400 are arrested in the Los Angeles area. This would normally stir up the Democrats but they might be more wary just before a Federal election

Federal immigration agents arrested more than 1,150 people in the largest collective sweep by specialized enforcement teams in California, authorities said today. The sweep targeted those who ignored deportation orders or returned to the United States illegally after being deported, said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice.

The raids, which ended Saturday, produced 436 arrests in the San Francisco area, 420 in the Los Angeles area and 301 in the San Diego area. Of the 1,157 illegal immigrants arrested statewide, 595 had outstanding deportation orders and 346 had prior criminal convictions, Kice said. Those arrested come from 34 countries.

The squads responsible for the arrests, known as fugitive operations teams, were developed in 2003 to focus on apprehending foreign nationals who have ignored final orders of deportation or have returned to the U.S. illegally after being deported, Kice said. The cases at the top of their list involve those wanted or convicted in violent or drug-related crimes, agency officials said. "Individuals who defy immigration court orders to leave the country need to understand there are consequences for willfully disregarding the law," said Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers, who oversees the federal immigration agency.

Kice released details of two arrests in the L.A. area. Jose Avila, a Mexican national whose criminal history includes prior convictions for lewd acts involving a child and battery, was arrested Sept. 15 in Santa Fe Springs. The 41-year-old was turned over to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department on an outstanding warrant for making a terrorist threat, Kice said. After he is released by local authorities, Avila will be returned to federal custody for prosecution on felony charges of reentering the country after his deportation last year.

In North Hollywood, Ramon Cedano, 47, a previously deported Mexican national with a prior conviction for selling heroin, was arrested Sept. 11 at his home. Cedano was turned over to the Los Angeles Police Department on an outstanding drug warrant. Once he's turned back over to the immigration department, he will be prosecuted for reentering the country after deportation, a felony charge that carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

In recent years, the immigration agency has heightened enforcement at factories, offices and homes. In the Los Angeles region and surrounding areas, there are seven active fugitive operations teams that have conducted raids: four based in Los Angeles County, two in the Inland Empire and one in Orange County. Immigration officials have said they are going to add a eighth team, which would be based in Ventura County.

Source



Canada: The truth about immigration is that costs exceed benefits

By James Bissett, a former executive director of the Canadian Immigration Service

We sometimes complain about politicians who don't do what they promise to do after they get elected. Ironically, it is sometimes much better for the country when some of these promises are broken. Let's hope, for example, that the promises made by our political leaders to raise immigration levels and provide more money for immigrant organizations are not kept. Either our political leaders do not know that Canada is facing an immigration crisis or they care more about gaining a few more so-called "ethnic voters" than they do about telling the truth about immigration.

Canada is taking far too many immigrants and the leaders of all the parties are promising to take even more. There are already close to a million immigrants waiting in the backlog to come here. They have all met the requirements and by law must be admitted. There is also a backlog of 62,000 asylum seekers before the refugee board and even if these are not found to be genuine refugees most will be allowed to stay. In addition, there are between 150,000 and 200,000 temporary workers now in the country and here again it is unlikely many of them will ever go home.

Despite these extraordinary numbers, the Harper government wants to raise the immigration intake next year to 265,000. The Liberals and the New Democrats have said they want even more, as much as one per cent of our population, or 333,000 each year.

These are enormous numbers and even in the best of times would place a serious burden on the economy and on the already strained infrastructure of the three major urban centres where most of them would end up. Let's face the facts -- when there is a downturn in the world economy and dire predictions of serious recession or worse this is not the time to be bringing thousands of newcomers to Canada. In July of this year, Ontario alone lost 55,000 jobs. So what is the rationale for more immigration? The fact is there is no valid rationale. There is only one reason why our political parties push for high immigration intake and that is they see every new immigrant as a potential vote for their party. This is not only irresponsible it borders on culpable negligence.

There are few economists today who argue that immigration helps the economy in any significant way. Studies in Canada since the mid-1980s have pointed out that immigration has little impact on the economic welfare of the receiving country and similar studies in the United States and Britain have reached the same conclusion. Comprehensive studies by George Borjas, the world's most renowned immigration economist at Harvard University have shown that immigration's only significant impact is to reduce the wages of native workers.

Our politicians justify their desire for more immigrants by raising the spectre of an aging population and telling us immigration is the only answer to this dilemma, and yet there is not a shred of truth to this argument. Immigration does not provide the answer to population aging and there is a multiplicity of studies done in Canada and elsewhere that proves this. Moreover, there is no evidence that a larger labour force necessarily leads to economic progress. Many countries whose labour force is shrinking are still enjoying economic buoyancy. Finland, Switzerland and Japan are only a few examples of countries that do not rely on massive immigration to succeed. Productivity is the answer to economic success not a larger population.

Most Canadians assume that our immigrants are selected because they have skills, training and education that will enable them to enhance our labour force but only about 18 to 20 per cent of our immigrants are selected for economic factors. By far the bulk of the immigrants we receive come here because they are sponsored by relatives or because of so-called humanitarian reasons and none of these have to meet the "points system" of selection. This is why over 50 per cent of recent immigrants are living below the poverty line and why they are not earning nearly the wages paid to equivalent Canadian workers.

It also explains why a study published this year by professor Herbert Grubel of Simon Fraser University revealed that the 2.5 million immigrants who came to Canada between 1990 and 2002 received $18.3 billion more in government services and benefits in 2002 than they paid in taxes. As Prof. Grubel points out, this amount is more than the federal government spent on health care and twice what was spent on defence in the fiscal year 2000/2001. Isn't it time our party leaders were made aware of this study?

In the discussions about immigration we never hear from our political leaders about the serious environmental problems caused by the addition of over a quarter of a million immigrants each year. Most of our immigrants are coming from developing countries of Asia where their "ecological footprint" is tiny compared to the average Canadian but within months of arrival here, the immigrant's footprint has increased to our giant size. We have already experienced the impact mass migration has had on the health, education, traffic, social services and crime rates of our three major urban centres. It may be that cutting the immigration flow in half would do more than any gas tax to help reduce our environmental pollution.

If immigration is to be an issue in the election campaign, then let us insist that the real issues be discussed and that our politicians contribute more to the debate than promising higher levels and more money to immigrant groups. Canadians and immigrants deserve better.

Source





29 September, 2008

New U.S. citizenship test premieres

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on Wednesday will begin using the new version of its citizenship exam, which officials say assures immigrants learn about civic values rather than just memorizing answers.

The new test, which has been in the making since 2001, will be phased in over the next six months or so. Anyone who filed for citizenship before Oct. 1 can choose the old or new test, while those applying after that date must take the new exam.

Alfonso Aguilar, chief of citizenship at Citizenship and Immigration Services, has been traveling the country, talking with immigrant communities and ethnic and mainstream media about the new exam. He said ESL teachers and community organizations have been working with future test-takers to train them on the new exam and calm their fears. "People get anxious when there is change, and initially many were skeptical," Aguilar said during an interview at the immigration office on Sansome Street. "The new test is not harder or easier, it's better. If you study, you will pass."

There has long been a call for a better naturalization test, and in 2000, the immigration service began an outreach effort to learn what changes should be made. The conclusion was that the civics test needed to be improved to include concepts rather than just trivia. "The old test has seven questions about the American flag," Aguilar said. "We want people to know the meaning of the flag, not just its colors and how many stripes it has."

In 2005, federal immigration officials started working with scholars and academics to develop the new test. After it was complete, a pilot program was run in 10 cities, and since then teachers have been preparing their students to take the new test, said Sharon Rummery, spokeswoman for the San Francisco immigration office.

Of the 100 questions on the new civics test, applicants will be asked 10 and must correctly answer six. The exam is oral and given during the naturalization interview. It is accompanied by reading and writing exams that test English skills.

Aguilar said that 92 percent of about 2,000 people tested in the pilot program passed on the first try, a higher rate than the 84 percent who passed the old test in 2003-04. "Our goal is to have people pass," Aguilar said. "We want citizens, not permanent residents."

President Bush has repeatedly called on immigrants to better assimilate American values and learn better English, and federal officials say the new test does that. "We tried in 100 questions and answers to get the minimum a person needs to know to be an American citizen and understand democracy," Aguilar said.

Applicants are allowed to take the test twice. If they don't pass, they must reapply.

Source



Tiny Malta has had enough



Malta's opposition Labour Party on Sunday urged Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi not to sign an immigration pact backed by EU interior ministers last week, saying it was not in the interests of the island. Under the pact, due to be signed at an EU summit in October, the bloc pledged to boost the fight against illegal migration while promoting legal migration and a common asylum policy.

EU states agreed to cooperate more, as well as with the migrants' countries of origin, and to expel more illegal migrants. The Mediterranean island has reported a 35 percent surge in migrant landings this year and wants its EU partners to shoulder some of the burden. Some 129 migrants -- a group of 101 from Africa and another of 28 -- landed in Malta on Sunday. The larger group was rescued from a drifting boat by an Italian naval vessel, Malta's armed forces said.

Calling on the government to veto the EU pact, Labour leader Joseph Muscat said a burden-sharing mechanism under which EU states had bound themselves take in migrants who landed in Malta was not good enough because it was voluntary. He also said the mechanism would apply only to recognised refugees, which constitute a small proportion of migrants.

However, the government rejected the call, saying the pact was beneficial because it included the burden-sharing mechanism. Malta's prime minister told the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Friday that it had become extremely difficult for Malta to continue to carry such a migrant burden since it was disproportionate to the size of the country and its population.

The European Commission estimates there are up to 8 million illegal migrants in the bloc.

Source





28 September, 2008

From the grassroots: A disgruntled Californian speaks much truth

I am so upset with Barack Obama and John McCain that, at this time, I will not vote for either one. They are saying one thing and doing another.

We have very high unemployment and our state is going broke. Yet neither of them is talking about stopping the criminals crossing our borders. Drug dealers and terrorists have a free pass. If a border patrol officer shoots a drug dealer, the drug dealers get to go home and the officer goes to jail.

Obama says he want to give citizenship to illegal aliens. Is that the kind of citizen we want? McCain says he will give anyone a green card who wants one. We have federal laws that say they cannot do that. But neither Obama nor McCain say they will enforce the federal laws on immigration

Each candidate says he is for the working men and, if elected, will see that they get jobs. But both are in the pocket of big business, which wants cheap labor that they can control

The state of California is going broke by $15 billion - more than $5 billion of which is the direct cost of people who crossed our borders illegally. We must put a stop to it.

If the state of California and the Congress in Washington were private industries being this dishonest, they would go to jail or be fired. I say let's fire them and elect some people to run our governments who will follow and enforce the laws

Source



Alabama bars illegal immigrants from 2-year schools

The state board of education passed a new policy Thursday denying illegal immigrants admission to Alabama's two-year colleges despite one board member's calls to delay it for more discussion and four of the nine members being absent. The policy, which takes effect next spring, was passed on a 4-0 vote, with Ethel Hall of Fairfield abstaining. Four board members -- David Byers of Birmingham, Ella Bell of Montgomery, Sandra Ray of Tuscaloosa and Gov. Bob Riley -- were not at the meeting, which was held in Pell City. Hall said she was hesitant to vote because there was only a brief discussion when the policy was first presented to the board at a work session two weeks ago.

"I don't think we've done the kind of research we need to do in order to approve the policy," she said before describing how her brushes with racial discrimination -- such as being denied admission to the University of Alabama despite extensive qualifications -- added to her reluctance. "It's very, very, dear to me because I have been one of those who have been excluded and I was certainly capable and an American-born citizen," Hall said. "So I cannot support this policy until I am given additional information."

Starting next spring, applicants to the community college system will be required to show an Alabama driver's license, state ID card, an unexpired U.S. passport, or an unexpired U.S. permanent resident card. Two secondary forms of documentation, including a photo ID card and a Certificate of Naturalization, also will be accepted. All international applicants must provide a visa and an official translated copy of their high school/college transcript along with information such as exam scores and proof of adequate financial support.

Shay Farley, attorney and spokeswoman for the Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, addressed the board during a public comment period, questioning the policy's necessity and cautioning that there could be unintended consequences. "We are bound by federal law to provide education to any student, K-12, regardless of legal status," she said. "A lot of children are brought by their parents -- they did not choose to come here. If we deny them a two-year college education, where will they go for their education?"

Two-year Chancellor Bradley Byrne said he was willing to work with opponents as the system develops guidelines for implementing the policy. "I don't think we can address all of their concerns, but I think we can address some of them," he said. Byrne said there was no way to know for sure how many students would be affected or how much money the policy would save, but he did not think there were a lot of illegal immigrants enrolling at two-year colleges based on student population.Admissions personnel at each college will check the documents, he said. "For 90 percent or more of our students, all that's going to mean is they give them their driver's license," he said.

Schools in a few other states have passed a similar policy but it's not a big movement, said Raul Gonzalez, director of legislative affairs for the National Council of La Raza advocacy group. Still, Alabama's actions are troubling, he said. "They need to make sure in their zeal to deny public higher education to undocumented immigrants that they may deny those services to U.S. citizens who don't have documentation," he said.

Gonzalez acknowledged that the documents the system would soon require are the same needed in order to obtain legal employment, but said officials should also be realistic. "That's a good point, but that's another reason why we need to look at immigration reform," he said. "The bottom line is people will find jobs. How many people do you know who are working under the table? It's not about immigration, it's about poor people who need jobs."

Source





27 September, 2008

Opposition to immigration growing in Austria (Republik Oesterreich)

If mainstream politicians ignore people's dislike of immigration, they just give votes to those who will express it

He has been denounced as a xenophobe and an extreme nationalist. He has been pictured wearing a military uniform at an alleged far-Right gathering. But when Heinz-Christian Strache appears at an election rally in Austria, thousands of enthusiastic supporters, from teenagers to pensioners, give him a roaring welcome. "We are the owners of Austria and we will determine who gets in," Mr Strache, head of the far-right Freedom Party, told a cheering crowd that was chanting his name.

The police film his public appearances because supporters of Mr Strache have, in the past, made the Hitler salute or displayed Nazi insignia, which is illegal in Austria - under a law that Mr Strache is seeking to ban.

The reputation of Austria, which has been tarnished by child abuse scandals, is on the brink of another setback as a new breed of politicians, led by Mr Strache, gain momentum and are expected to capture almost a third of the vote on an anti-foreigner ticket at elections on Sunday.

The growth of extremist tendencies in Austria have caused concern. In 1999 the country incurred sanctions from other members of the EU after a far-right party led by Joerg Haider formed a government coalition. Eight years on, and two years after the controversial coalition was ousted at the last elections, extremist sentiment is still prominent among a large proportion of the population. This time Mr Haider's former protege, Mr Strache, is expected to capture about 20 per cent of the vote, and his new party, Alliance for the Future of Austria, could win more than 8 per cent.

Mr Strache, 39, who overthrew Mr Haider as a leader of the Freedom Party with even more hardline policies against foreigners and the EU, is likely to establish himself as the third-largest political force in the country. The former dental technician has campaigned successfully with slogans such as "Homeland instead of Islam" and "Vienna must not become Istanbul". He once wrote: "We must not allow our own sons to be insulted as `pigeaters' in our schools and our daughters to be exposed to the greedy stares and gropings of whole hordes of immigrants."

The controversial campaign has reshaped the agendas of the mainstream parties, the Social Democrats and the conservative People's Party, which have refocused their campaigns on immigration issues and criticism of the EU. The move was an attempt to prevent haemorrhaging votes to Mr Strache after pollsters predicted that their share of the vote could drop to a record low of below 30 per cent each.

The popularity of Mr Strache was not damaged despite photographs being published of him in his youth wearing military uniform at an alleged far-right gathering and also showing Mr Strache raising his hand and stretching three fingers in an apparent covert version of the Hitler salute, used widely in the neo-Nazi scene. Mr Strache said that he was merely signalling for three beers in a pub.

The Jewish and Islamic community have protested against the extreme agendas of the far-right politicians. Behind the swing towards the far-right is growing dissatisfaction with EU policies and the perceived rise in immigration after the EU expanded eastwards. The country has, however, low unemployment and crime rates and the economy is booming as Austrian companies establish market domination in Eastern European countries.

Source



EU agrees new wishy-washy guidelines on Immigration

The European Union's interior ministers agreed Thursday on common principles guiding the way member states manage the influx of non-EU nationals. But a Blue Card scheme for skilled migrants is still on hold. The immigration and asylum pact, which is due to be formally adopted by EU leaders at their October 15-16 summit, seeks to improve the management of legal immigration, tighten controls on illegal immigrants and construct a common asylum policy. "The aim of the pact is to avoid the two obvious potential pitfalls: the creation of a European fortress, and the total opening up to illegal immigration," said French Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux, who was chairing the interior ministers' meeting.

But critics argue that the final, watered-down version agreed by ministers in Brussels on Thursday is ineffective and gives too great a voice to national governments. For instance, the pact calls on EU countries to attract more highly skilled workers from outside the bloc. But it leaves governments with the power to decide who and how many of them should be admitted in their own countries.

The Czech Republic is also currently holding up a deal on a new European "Blue Card" workers visa program. EU officials say a single and simplified EU-wide working visa is needed to attract doctors, nurses, engineers and scientsists.

But Interior Minister Ivan Langer said the Czechs would not agree to the plan until internal EU restrictions are lifted on the movement of workers from new member states. Germany, Belgium, Austria and Denmark have not fully opened up their labor markets to workers from those Eastern European countries who joined the bloc over the last few years.

Hortefeux said he was nonetheless confident that the EU could overcome this obstacle by the end of the year. The scheme will not, however, allow recipients to move around as freely as first envisaged.

The pact also calls on member states to tighten controls on illegal immigrants and improve the effectiveness of controls on the bloc's external borders, for instance by sharing the fingerprints of incoming foreigners in a common database.

Another proposal involves national authorities enacting expulsion orders made by another member state. However, the EU's border control agency, Frontex, remains grossly underfunded, while there is little evidence that the mutual recognition of expulsion decisions is being implemented, according to a recent study by the Centre for European Policy Studies, a Brussels-based think tank.

Meanwhile, plans for a common asylum policy are progressing slowly and are now not expected to come into force before 2012. Highlighting the difficulties existing in this area, some member states have resisted calls by Germany and Sweden to share out some 10,000 highly vulnerable Iraqi refugees among member states.

On Thursday, ministers limited themselves to giving the green-light to a fact-finding mission to Syria and Jordan, where many displaced Iraqis have fled after the toppling of former dictator Saddam Hussein. The mission, which is to take place at the beginning of November, aims to identify those most in need of being granted asylum in Europe.

Source





26 September, 2008

Deceptive claims from Canadian immigration advocates

In taking issue with James Bissett's concerns about current immigration policy, many of the assertions made by Anne Golden in an op-ed this week ("We do need many more immigrants," Sept. 22) are problematic to say the least. She claims there is no evidence immigration pushes down wages for Canadian workers. But this is hardly consistent with last year's Statistics Canada study which concluded that immigration played a role in the seven-per-cent drop in real weekly wages experienced by workers with more than a university undergraduate degree in Canada between 1980 and 2000.

That study was carried out by Statistics Canada researcher, Abdurrahman Aydemir and Harvard professor of economics, George Borjas, widely regarded as the pre-eminent American expert on immigration and labour markets. It noted that if the labour supply increases by 10 per cent because of immigration, weekly wages will fall by between three per cent and four per cent.

Some of Ms. Golden's statistics are also open to question. Her assertion that, "in 2006, 55 per cent of the principal applicant immigrants to Canada (138,257 persons in all) were admitted under the economic class of immigration" is not, in fact, correct. The figure of 138,257 is the total number admitted in the economic class and, of these, only 57,275 were principal applicants. Immigrants who were fully selected on the basis of their qualifications under the points system (skilled immigrants -- principal applicants), moreover, comprised only 17.5 per cent of the 251,643 immigrants admitted in 2006.

Similarly, Ms. Golden's efforts to play down the poverty levels and low earnings of recent immigrants are less than convincing. According to Statistics Canada, the percentage of those who have low incomes after being here for almost two decades is still twice as high as it is among Canadian-born. As for earnings, while immigrants who arrived in the 1970s took 10 years to reach or exceed income levels of people born here, by the end of the 1990s those who had been here for 10 years were still earning less than 80 per cent as much as native born Canadians. The gap, moreover, has continued to widen according to 2006 census data.

Don Drummond, chief economist of the Toronto Dominion Bank, notes that when business leaders tout immigration as the key to Canada's economic success they are doing so on the basis of information at least 25 years out of date. According to Mr. Drummond, because of their weak economic performance, recent immigrants are "pulling the economy down." Such a conclusion is entirely consistent with Mr. Bissett's contention that current immigration programs are extremely costly for Canadians rather than beneficial.

Perhaps most dubious of all Ms. Golden's assertions is that immigrants will be even more important to Canada in the coming years. In support of this claim she argues that the Baby Boom generation is now beginning to retire and there will not be enough post-secondary and high-school graduates available to replace them. She goes on to note that by 2011 all of our net labour force growth will be from immigration.

The fact is, however, that our prosperity does not depend on labour force growth or population increases but on sound economic policies that promote continued increases in productivity and effective use of our existing labour force. On the latter point, renowned economist and labour market specialist Prof. Alan G. Green of Queen's University has concluded that Canada now has the educational facilities to meet our domestic needs for skilled workers in all but extreme circumstances and that large inflows of skilled workers from abroad will have the effect of discouraging Canadians from acquiring the skills needed in the labour market.

In the circumstances, we should be concentrating on making the best use of existing manpower resources in the country by upgrading the skills of Canadians, retraining the many thousands who have recently lost their jobs and encouraging new entrants to join the workforce -- not on continued mass immigration as proposed by Anne Golden.

Source



Immigration leading to housing shortages in Australia

Immigration levels are high these days but State governments and cities are still slow to release land for house building. "Developers" who subdivide and service the land are evil, you see, and must be stopped. But new housing land would not become available without them. So government intertia means that housing supply is inadequate for the new arrivals. And reversing govenment inertia is like asking the leopard to change his spots

AUSTRALIA'S biggest migration boom is exacerbating the rental crisis, while house prices are overvalued by between 5 per cent and 15 per cent, the International Monetary Fund has said. Immigration added a record 199,064 people to Australia over the year to March - the biggest annual rise in history, figures released yesterday by the Bureau of Statistics show. This surpasses the boom after World War II, which peaked at about 149,000 people in 1950. "The inflow of migration is putting pressure on the housing rental market," the IMF said in its latest report card on the Australian economy.

The proposition is supported by new evidence showing rental vacancy rates are lowest in suburban areas where most new migrants tend to settle, such as the western suburbs of Sydney.

The IMF said twin booms in migration and mining added to the risk that the economy might grow faster than desired, sparking inflationary pressures. On the downside, higher interest rates and tighter credit conditions flowing from the global finance crisis were likely to restrain consumer spending. The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said that since the report was completed, these risks had shifted even further to the "downside". He said the report had given the Government a "very big tick" for its first budget, which the IMF described as "prudent" and "contractionary".

The IMF also concluded that while Australian banks were profitable and well capitalised, the global financial crisis had exposed some "vulnerabilities", including the high indebtedness of Australian households, and banks' reliance on offshore funding, which had become more expensive since the credit crunch. These higher costs have had a direct impact on mortgage holders as lenders were forced to lift interest rates outside the Reserve Bank and restrict lending to less attractive borrowers.

Banks could suffer a "significant fall in profits" if they lost access to funding from offshore markets, which accounted for a quarter of their total funding, the IMF said. But banks' exposure to highly indebted households was less of a concern. While house prices were moderately overvalued, it would take a huge increase in loan defaults to cause problems for the banks.

The Reserve Bank will today release its report on the health of Australia's financial system. In its report, the IMF revealed a doubling in the migration-to-population ratio over the past three years had coincided with a trebling in the pace of growth in rents More immigrants settle in NSW than in any other state or territory, the ABS figures show.

But the federal Housing Minister, Tanya Plibersek, said it was wrong to blame higher rental prices entirely on higher immigration. She said increased housing demand came from many sources, including higher divorce rates and older people staying longer in their own homes. Immigration was also important to fill skills shortages, particularly for tradespeople. "The immigration story is very important for economic development . it's not sensible to suggest then that immigration is the problem."

The Government introduced legislation for its National Rental Affordability Scheme in Parliament yesterday. [Increase the supply and affordability will take care of itself]

Source





25 September, 2008

Anti-Irish racism from Obama?

Barack Obama's campaign has rejected claims by a leading campaigner for undocumented Irish immigrants that the Democratic presidential candidate is giving a cold shoulder to Irish-American activists and has shown little interest in issues of concern to the community.

Ciaran Staunton, deputy chairman of the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, told RTE Radio yesterday that Mr Obama's attitude was in marked contrast to that of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who addressed an Irish American Forum in Scranton, Pennsylvania, this week. "We've had great access to Senator McCain. Every event we've invited him to over the past two years, both in Washington and in the Bronx, he has shown up to," he said. "I spent half an hour talking with him about the issue and other Irish-American issues and he didn't need notes or staff. He gets the issue. This is in contrast to his opponent. We have as yet been unable to get a hold of Barack Obama to turn up to any campaigns," Mr Staunton said.

Denis McDonough, senior foreign policy adviser to Mr Obama, told The Irish Times yesterday that the campaign has been in touch with the Irish American Forum and he hopes to find a suitable date for Mr Obama to address it. "Senator Obama has long made clear the importance he attaches to peace in Northern Ireland, affirming his support for a special envoy and appointing and consulting with an Irish-American 'dream team' whose members have a far more credible record on Irish issues than John McCain, who opposed President Clinton's efforts to launch the peace process and has sadly backed away from his earlier immigration proposals," Mr McDonough said.

Mr Staunton said that, during a meeting with the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform before this week's forum, Mr McCain had reiterated his interest in resolving the issue of the undocumented and said the number one priority during his first year would be to get immigration reform. Mr Staunton complained that the Obama campaign had originally cast doubt on the future of the role of US special envoy for Northern Ireland, and noted that in Pennsylvania, where the race is tied, 20 per cent of the population claims Irish heritage.

"The Obama campaign originally said they wouldn't reappoint an envoy on the North and we've had great difficulty in reaching out and getting a response out of them and I think the McCain campaign has seen this," Mr Staunton said. "We don't endorse candidates but we certainly thank them and as of now there's certainly only one who's shown an interest." Mr McDonough said that Irish-Americans had a high-profile representative at the heart of the Obama team in the person of vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden. "It should be noted that John McCain paid a visit to Scranton, while Senator Obama chose as his running mate an Irish-American from Scranton."

Source



Court backs U.S. immigration screening of Arab, Muslim men

It was constitutional for the United States to require visitors from two dozen Arab and Muslim countries and North Korea to register with immigration authorities, a federal appeals court ruled today. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that U.S. authorities could deport three of four men who claimed their rights were violated. The case of the fourth was returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals for review.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, males from 24 Arab and predominantly Muslim countries and North Korea had to register with immigration officials. That requirement has since been discontinued, although a database remains. The four men - Mohamed Rajah, Said Najih, Saade Benjelloun, Samer Emile El Zahr - were ordered deported for not having the proper immigration status.

Source





24 September, 2008

ACLU Sues RI Governor Over Executive Order on Immigration

The Rhode Island ACLU recently filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the controversial immigration executive order˙ that Governor Donald Carcieri issued in March. Specifically, the lawsuit, filed in R.I. Superior Court by RI ACLU volunteer attorney Randy Olen, challenges the order's requirement that all vendors and contractors with the state participate in the federal employment authorization system known as E-Verify.

The E-Verify program is an internet database run by the Department of Homeland Security that allows employers to verify the employment eligibility of new hires. However, since its launch, the E-Verify program has been riddled with significant flaws, and returns inaccurate information [Other sources say that E-Verify is 99% accurate. It is notable that the contrary view here is not supported by any figures] regarding the immigration and employment status of new hires -- and particularly lawful foreign-born workers at more than a minimal rate. Studies have also shown that the program has a substantial rate of employer abuse, leading to discrimination against potential employees perceived as foreign.˙

In response to the Governor's order, the Department of Administration sent a notice to all persons and businesses on the states vendor registration list at the end of July, requiring them to certify within 45 days that they and their subcontractors are registered with, and use, the E-Verify program. The notice states that failure to comply will prohibit the recipient from obtaining business from the State in the future and may adversely affect their current contracts.

The ACLU lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence (RICADV) and two Rhode Island College professors Ann Marie Mumm and Daniel Weisman who have contracts with the state and object to participation in the program. The suit argues that the Governor exceeded his executive authority in having the order apply to private businesses, and that the order also violates detailed statutes in place governing the state purchasing process. Noting that the program is being implemented without the adoption of any formal regulations, the suit further argues that implementation of the order, to the extent it is valid, violates the Administrative Procedures Act. That Act requires state agencies to provide advance public notice and an opportunity for public comment before adopting any rules

More here



McCain Will Win If He Takes on Illegal Immigration

Let's not kid ourselves: John McCain's campaign is behind, and he is running out of time. But there is still hope, if McCain will embrace an issue that's been neglected: Illegal immigration...

The presidential candidates are looking forward to Friday's debate in Oxford, Miss., which is supposed to be about foreign policy and national security. But you can bet that Obama will do his best to pivot the discussion away from national security, back toward the economy. Obama is likely to say, for example, "Senator McCain, thanks to the Bush-McCain war policy, we are deficit-spending $12 billion a month on roads, bridges, and schools for Iraq, while Iraq piles up a huge oil-price-spike surplus. We need that money right here at home, not over there." And that sort of American-nationalistic talk will play well, especially as Americans absorb the news that foreign banks will be beneficiaries of the big Wall Street bailout.

So what to do? One Republican has a good suggestion: At Friday's debate, McCain should make a pivot of his own, connecting foreign policy, national security, and domestic policy-and thus get back to illegal immigration. Marc Rotterman, a Republican media strategist who has worked in local, state, and national races for the past 30 years, is direct: "Insert the issue of border security, and American Sovereignty, into the debate. In a time of war, border security is national security. Not only will McCain energize his Republican base," Rotterman predicts, "he will also be more likely to capture Reagan Democrats, and Hillary Clinton Democrats, in key swing states." But what about the Hispanic vote? "Plenty of Hispanics support tougher border security," the North Carolinian responds, "and the issue of crime, drugs, and gangs impacts all voters."

But of course, McCain has supported "comprehensive immigration reform" in the past, working with the likes of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) to give amnesty to tens of millions. How then could McCain swing around on immigration, from a dovish stance on borders to a hawkish stance? Rotterman answers by recalling the revised opinion of the Republican presidential nominee: "Senator McCain has already stated, `First, we must secure the border.'"

By making border security a national security issue, "McCain would be highlighting Obama's extreme left wing view-that illegal aliens are entitled to driver's licenses." And that's unacceptable to most Americans, who recall that 16 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were in possession of fraudulent driver's licenses, allowed them to get on passenger aircraft to kill 3,000 Americans. "This is an underlying issue that has not been highlighted by either candidate," Rotterman continues. "What the average American family wants is border security by a date certain."

Indeed, there's already legislation, the "Fence By Date Certain Act," spearheaded by Rep. Peter King (R-NY), ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee; it calls for a fence to be built by June 30, 2009. This Fence by Date Certain Act has gained 56 sponsors, even with zero help from the Bush Administration, the Democratic Congressional leadership, or the Republican Congressional leadership.

"The American people, by a wide majority, inherently trust Senator McCain with the security of this nation," Rotterman concludes. "By combining border security and national security, he plays to his strength as the next Commander in Chief of the United States."

Source





23 September, 2008

Illegal Immigration Issue Explodes

By Bill O'Reilly

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have put out Spanish-speaking political ads. Both ads are untrue. Both ads are ridiculous. We begin with Barack Obama.

Now, Obama's ad accuses John McCain of being allied with Rush Limbaugh, of all people, in disliking illegal immigrants. That, of course, is absurd. Limbaugh has hammered McCain for years over the issue. The ad uses some comments Limbaugh made. He says they were totally out of context. He wrote an article Friday in The Wall Street Journal if you care to read it.

The bottom line here is that John McCain has been very accommodating to immigrants, both legal and illegal. And many conservatives had a huge problem with the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which is why it died. Senator Obama did not tell the truth in his Spanish ad.

Now, for McCain in Espanol. McCain says that Obama is one of the reasons the McCain-Kennedy bill failed. That's not true. Obama voted for the bill, had little to do with shaping it. So again, both of these ads are dishonest, no matter what language they're in.

My question is why are these guys doing this? Do they not know there are some honest journalists in the country? Do they not know this stuff is going to being flagged by me and others? The only thing I can think of is that Obama and McCain are going for Spanish-speaking Americans, people who don't watch "The Factor" or any other English-speaking news program.

Now, these guys don't need to do this. Both Obama and McCain are very tolerant of immigration. So why even bother with the exercise? Trying to fake out uninformed voters is not presidential. "Talking Points" believes Americans want a president who's a stand-up guy, who will try not to put out misleading political ads, who will face tough problems like illegal immigration and try to solve them. Instead of attacking each other in Spanish, both senators should tell the folks what they're going to do about illegal immigration. Tell them in English, Italian, Russian and Chinese, but tell them straight.

Source



Farmers Branch tussle ongoing

A federal judge Monday agreed to fast-track a lawsuit challenging a Dallas suburb's ordinance that would essentially bar illegal immigrants from renting homes there.

U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle, who earlier this month issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the Farmers Branch ordinance, agreed to an Oct. 29 deadline for motions to be filed in the case. She didn't set a trial date, but attorneys for both sides agreed to Dec. 8 or sooner.

The ordinance would require prospective renters to obtain a license from the city. Information from the license application would be forwarded to the federal government for verification of a tenant's legal immigration status. The city would revoke licenses of those who can't prove the live legally in the U.S. and penalize landlords who rent to tenants lacking current licenses.

The plaintiffs, who include property managers, a former city council member and two civil rights groups [the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project and the ACLU of Texas], say the ordinance is unconstitutional and infringes upon the federal government's responsibility for enforcing immigration law.

Source

Comment from an attorney:

In a conversation with the Dallas Business Journal on Monday, Jung said no matter what side benefits from a summary judgment or an actual trial, it's very likely the losing party will appeal.

Jung said Monday, "We are confident that ultimately we will prevail, and the constitutionality of the new ordinance will be upheld." He added, "The Supreme Court held 30 years ago that states (which includes cities) may legally act in the immigration area in the support of enforcement of federal law as long as they don't deviate from federal law."

Source





22 September, 2008

Many illegal 'drophouses' - no arrests

Knowingly renting to human smugglers is a federal crime, and guilty landlords can have their houses seized. But in Arizona, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not seized a single property or referred any landlord for prosecution. Agents say the main reason is that proving an owner's motives is tricky, and finding the phony renters to testify is nearly impossible.

Even in the handful of cases where agents suspected that the owners knew, the government chose not to seize property because, in the current downturn, the value of the house was less than the loan.

Still, investigators are sifting data for signs of guilty collaborators. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has logged almost 600 raided drophouses statewide since 2005 and is just starting to analyze ownership records, looking for similarities in who rents properties to immigrant smugglers.

Detectives on a state task force that responds to reports of violence at drophouses say they are so busy keeping up with the caseload that they haven't had the time or personnel to analyze trends. The Arizona Department of Real Estate began keeping records on some drophouses early this year.

Since the beginning of 2007, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has sent 136 warning letters to Phoenix-area property owners. The letter advises owners that their properties were used to harbor illegal immigrants and that if it happened again, they could lose their properties or be prosecuted.

Source



States may assist in enforcement, but not impede it

Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) applauded two recent appellate court decisions that said states may help, but not hinder enforcement of laws against illegal immigration. Both rulings were unanimous. "The message from these court decisions is quite clear," said Diana Hull, the organization's President. "Immigration is primarily a federal responsibility, but states may assist in the enforcement of immigration law unless the federal government has expressly preempted that authority. On the other hand, states may not pass laws that impede or undermine federal enforcement."

On Wednesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court upheld an Arizona law that targets employers who hire illegal immigrants by revoking their licenses to do business in the state. The law also requires businesses to use an electronic verification system to check the work-authorization status of employees through federal records.

A California state appellate court ruled on Monday that the state is violating federal law by giving in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrant students at state colleges and universities. The three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal wrote that California's AB 540, passed in 2001, "manifestly thwarts the will of Congress."

"Until the federal government fulfills its responsibility to secure our borders and prevent illegal aliens from displacing American workers, states have a role to play in helping thwart illegal immigration," continued Hull. "It is quite appalling that the California legislature passed a law to require economically-struggling, legal residents in California to subsidize the education costs of those whose presence here is illegal. It is equally appalling that some cities have declared themselves 'sanctuaries' from enforcement of laws against illegal immigration."

The Arizona case decided by the 9th Circuit is Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano. [While several business and other groups sought to overturn the law, the American Unity Legal Defense Fund filed the only amicus brief siding with Arizona.]

The California case is Martinez v. Regents of the University of California. CAPS is a nonprofit organization that promotes policies designed to stabilize the population of California and the United States at a level that will protect resources and promote a good quality of life for all.

Source





21 September, 2008

Violent crimes surge after illegals invade Texas

Aliens flee strict immigration policies for friendlier Lone Star State

While illegal aliens flee strict immigration enforcement policies in several states and settle in Texas, the state's budget is suffering and violent crime, soaring. News reports indicate a flood of illegal aliens is coming from states such as Arizona and Oklahoma - where immigration crackdowns have made life more difficult for them. In the meantime, Texas' violent crime rates have taken a turn for the worse.

WND researched FBI crime statistics from years 2006 to 2007 for 29 of Texas' largest cities with populations of more than 100,000. The Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report reveals two of the state's well-known sanctuary cities with "don't-ask-don't-tell" policies, Houston and Austin, have surging violent crime rates. Houston experienced an additional 314 violent crimes in 2007 compared with 2006 figures. Austin had 213 more violent crimes reported to law enforcement than the previous year.

According to the stats, overall, the 29 most populous Texas cities had 1,083 more violent crimes committed in 2007 than in 2006. While arrest records usually do not indicate suspect citizenship status, the crime trend matches a migration wave of illegal aliens coming from locations such as Arizona and Oklahoma - states with strict immigration enforcement policies and declining violent crime rates.

Since 2006, Oklahoma has passed laws cutting off benefits such as welfare and college financial aid to illegal aliens. Thousands of Hispanics fled the Tulsa, Okla., area in the shadow of a 2007 state law that limits benefits and mandates deportation for illegal aliens, according to a report from KTUL television in Tulsa. The news report said in East Tulsa, where a community of Hispanics had grown over recent years, there was a sudden drop in population.

Deputies from the Tulsa County sheriff's office went through training to handle apprehension and deportation procedures, and prepare them to perform multiple duties of both deputy sheriffs and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz told KTUL in 2007 that the impact of the illegal alien population was evident everywhere in the state, especially in jails. "We see the effects of gangs, we see the effects of illegal immigrants, we see the effects of drugs, we see the effects of methamphetamines," he said. According to the FBI preliminary crime report, Tulsa experienced 264 fewer violent crimes in 2007 than in 2006.

Oklahoma law eliminates most taxpayer subsidies for illegal immigrants, allows state and local law enforcement officers to verify the residency status of those arrested and makes it a felony to shelter or transport illegal aliens.

Likewise, Arizona passed strict laws in 2007 requiring employers to verify the immigration status of employees - including one that suspends business licenses of people who hire illegal aliens. The crackdown prompted an exodus from that state. "I would say we are losing at least 100 people a day," Elias Bermudez, founder of Immigrants Without Borders and host of a daily talk-radio program aimed at undocumented immigrants, told Arizona Republic.

The news report said it's impossible to count exactly how many illegal aliens have fled because of the law, but interviews with immigrant advocates, community workers and real-estate agents confirm the number is significant. "Some are moving to other states, where they think they will have an easier time getting jobs," the report said. "Others are returning to Mexico, selling their effects and putting their houses on the market."

According to FBI figures, overall, Arizona's largest cities with populations of more than 100,000 experienced 765 fewer incidents of violent crime in 2007 than in the previous year.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates more than 1.7 million illegal aliens live in Texas. The state has a reputation for welcoming illegals, and it has not passed a law targeting employers who hire them. Ortiz, a Mexican illegal alien, told the Associated Press he recently left Phoenix to find employment in Houston. "Here, they let you work," he said. "Over there, they won't. There is a lot of racism, but here there isn't - it's better." Between 8 percent and 9 percent of the Texas workforce is composed of illegal aliens - many who perform agriculture, restaurant and construction jobs. Critics say cracking down on employers who hire illegals could seriously hurt the state economy.

However, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, 44 percent of Texas' illegals use welfare programs including food stamps and Medicaid, while 70 percent are uninsured. It estimates the combined costs of education ($4 billion), medical care ($520 million) and incarceration ($150 million) of illegal aliens in Texas to be $4.7 billion each year. While the uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Texas' state and county prisons amounts to about $150 million a year, it does not include local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of crimes that led to their incarceration.

The Texas migration is not likely to subside soon, experts say. FAIR estimates, "Without any change in immigration policy or enforcement, i.e., with the current trend in large-scale legal and illegal immigration, the state's population is likely to increase from today's about 23 million residents to around 41 to 43 million persons in 2050."

Source



The admirable Philip Ruddock

He was for many years Australia's minister for immigration

By Janet Albrechtsen

There are 97,573 voters in the electorate, and on November 24, faced with a contest between John Howard and Maxine McKew, they made the right choice. Living through this has given me a new respect for democracy, although I still don't know how we ended up with Philip Ruddock. No system is perfect. - Margot Saville, in The Battle for Bennelong

The clueless author won't be there on Friday evening when Philip Ruddock celebrates 35 years in federal parliament. That's a shame. She, and the now notorious band of frenzied Ruddock critics, could do with at least some passing acquaintance with the whole Ruddock story. Facts, of course, will never suffice for some. But for those not hard-wired to hysteria, the facts tell a story about an honourable politician whose 35th anniversary is an opportune time to review his role in some of the most contentious areas during the past decade in Australia.

Few politicians in living memory, apart from John Howard, have been criticised, hounded and lampooned more than Ruddock. He's been accused of being a war criminal, of committing crimes against humanity, of being the minister for racism. Crowds have shouted at him. Audiences have walked out on him. Security details have followed him. Never fazed or flummoxed, Ruddock always responded with indisputable facts, not uncontrolled feelings. Even his demeanor infuriated the critics. Grey and cadaver-like, they said, befitting a man who killed compassion in the country. None of it mattered. Or if it did, Ruddock never let on publicly. He knew his contribution would outlive the criticism of a loud, emotive few.

And so it has. Much more than longevity defines time in parliament though more than three decades is an innings no other politician has matched, rightly earning him the status of father of the house. In that time, Ruddock has had a clear narrative, long before that word became fashionable. He steered Australia towards greater appreciation for, rather than suspicion of, immigration. Even for a country steeped in a migrant history, there is a need for Australians to feel comfortable about immigration.

Rigid leftist orthodoxy once mandated vicious condemnation of anyone who questioned immigration. Progressive minds treated such questioning as a sure sign of racism, ignoring the natural discomfort with strangers that is part of the human condition. As minister for immigration from 1996 until 2003, Ruddock recognised the need to take people with him, not scare them off, when advocating increased immigration. His policies dealt with the progressive dilemma well before British writer David Goodhart made the phrase famous back in 2004. That dilemma-a clash between values of diversity and solidarity-recognises that extracting tax from people to fund welfare works best when people think the recipients are like themselves, behaving the way they would.

Ruddock helped to allay the discomfort with strangers factor. He encouraged community acceptance of immigration where new arrivals would be seen as contributors, not freeloaders. By cracking down on family reunion fraud, cutting immediate welfare for new arrivals and putting a greater focus on the skills stream to address the needs of the country, Ruddock's carefully planned migration policy altered the image of the migrant sponging off Australia society. Rather than seen as stealing jobs from Australians, migrants came to be seen as the saviours for small towns looking to employ people in their abattoirs, on their farms and in their small businesses.

And when, in November 1999, boats of illegal immigrants started arriving on Australian shores just about every second day, border protection became integral to building long term confidence in an organised immigration program. Vocal critics cried cruelty and lack of compassion in response to the Howard government's immigration detention policies for illegal arrivals.

Ruddock knew better than to be swayed by hysterical emoting. His ministerial eye remained fixed on the long-term objective of securing mainstream community acceptance for increased immigration. Ruddock's place in Australian political history will record that immigration grew every year after 1996, rising from 67,100 in 1997 to more than 142,000 in 2006. The fair-minded will call that a genuinely compassionate outcome.

Ruddock was the perfect choice to manoeuvre the Howard government through the complex politics of immigration after Howard attracted criticism in 1988 for suggesting that Asian immigration needed to be slowed down. The appointment of Ruddock-one of four Liberal MPs to cross the floor of parliament to vote in favour of prime minister Bob Hawke's motion against discriminatory immigration policies-signalled a commitment to non-discriminatory immigration policies. Under Ruddock, more than 80 per cent of Afghans and Iraqis were granted protection visas at the primary decision-making stage and the local Islamic community is more than 40 per cent higher than it was in 1996. Under Ruddock, Australia had one of the largest per capita refugee and humanitarian resettlement programs in the world. More compassionate outcomes accepted and supported by the community because they knew that Australia, not people smugglers, determined them.

As attorney-general from 2003 until 2007, Ruddock was again thrown into the thick of the most contentious issues that emerged during the Howard years over national security and anti-terrorism laws. Despite the foaming wrath of vocal elites, Ruddock once again steered a course to ensure community acceptance of laws needed to protect Australia. By securing bipartisan support for security laws, Ruddock neutralised the issue. The significance of those laws unfolded on Monday when a Melbourne jury found six men guilty of terrorism charges, concluding what Attorney-General Robert McClelland described as the most successful terrorist prosecution this country has seen. Ruddock is that rarest of political beasts. In a profession famous for its factions, he was neither a Howard man nor a Costello man. He was a party man, who rigorously debated issues behind closed doors and then, once Liberal Party policy was settled, he would guard and sell the team's message without fail.

When the Howard government lost office last year, he did the honourable team thing. Insisting on the need for party renewal, the father of the house went to the back bench. It was a shame the party allowed him to do that. Ruddock's careful carriage of his portfolios should have seen him back on the front bench replacing some of the deadwood that remains. No matter. Ruddock's place in the history books as a politician with a clear moral compass is secure. The hysteria of his opponents confirms it.

Source





20 September, 2008

England most crowded country in Europe

ENGLAND is the most densely populated major country in the European Union, overtaking the Netherlands, data from the United Kingdom's Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows. In a written answer to parliament, the ONS said today the projected population density of England in 2008 was 395 persons per square kilometre. The most recent United Nations figures available for the Netherlands are from 2005, when it had 393 people per square kilometre. Since then its population is believed to have remained steady or fallen slightly.

Tiny island nation Malta is the most densely populated of the 27 EU member states, with 1274 people per square kilometre.

The United Kingdom - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - has undergone a recent surge in immigration, which remains a hot topic in the country, with critics saying the system is in chaos. The latest figures could fuel the debate. The ONS said the projected population density of the whole of the UK in 2008 was 253 persons per square kilometre - which would place it fourth in the EU behind Malta, the Netherlands and Belgium - with Scotland at 66 per square kilometre, Wales at 144 and Northern Ireland at 131.

The UK has seen a surge in immigration over the last 10 years, with the resident population swelling to 60,975,000 in mid-2007. Many immigrants have settled in London and the wider south-east England region. The ONS estimates that England's population density will rise to 464 people per square kilometre by 2031. The UK population in 2031, if recently observed trends in fertility, mortality and migration were to continue, is likely to reach 71 million, a rise "attributable to a net inward flow of migrants'', according to National Statistician Karen Dunnell.

Last week an all-party group of MPs, led by Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, called for a "balanced'' approach to immigration, where the numbers allowed to settle in the country equalled those leaving. "This is a milestone in the immigration debate as immigration accounts for 70 per cent of our population growth,'' the pair said in response to the fresh figures. "The government's points-based system places no limit on the number of people allowed to settle in the UK. If ever there was a case for balanced migration, it is now,'' they said

Source



Moving Forward with E-Verify

Program to Check Legal Status Already 99.5% Accurate

The E-Verify program, which allows employers to check the immigration status of new employees, has been steadily improving and is now 99.5 percent accurate, according to a new paper by the Center for Immigration Studies. This voluntary program is already screening more than one in ten new hires nationwide, and as of September 13, 2008, has processed 6.21 million queries.

E-Verify is set to expire on November 30, 2008, unless it is re-authorized by Congress. The House of Representatives has already passed a reauthorization bill by a vote of 407-2, while the Senate has not yet taken action.

To help inform debate over E-Verify, the Center for Immigration Studies has produced a thorough evaluation. The Backgrounder, entitled "If It's Fixed, Don't Break It: Moving Forward with E-Verify," is authored by Janice Kephart, Director of National Security Studies at the Center and a former counsel to the 9/11 Commission. The report covers the many facets of the E-Verify debate: statistics regarding usage, cost, and effectiveness; legislative history; executive orders affecting the program; the relationship of E-Verify to worksite enforcement; and past improvements to the program as well as future goals.

The report is available online at www.cis.org. Among the findings:

# As of the first half of FY 2007, only one-half of one percent of eligible employees screened had to take additional steps to obtain work authorization; overall, the system is 99.5% accurate.

# More than 93 percent of employees are verified within five seconds; another 1.2 percent are verified within 24 hours. A new Photo Screening Tool and a streamlined procedure for naturalized citizens to receive authorization are increasing accuracy and efficiency for employers and employees; naturalized citizens no longer need to take remedial action at Social Security.

# About 5 percent of new employees are not confirmed as work authorized, mirroring the same percentage of illegal aliens estimated to be in the labor force.

# When E-Verify became web-based later in 2004, 1,533 employers had signed up. As of September 13, 2008, there are 85,816 employers representing over 446,000 sites and over 6.21 million queries processed. Currently, about 1,000 new employers join per week.

# Eleven states require use of E-Verify in certain circumstances (AZ, CO, GA, ID, MN, MO, MS, NC, OK, RI, and UT).

Above is a press release from CIS





19 September, 2008

Another comment on the Obama ad.

Race-Baiting -- by the Obama camp. Shocking, I know. Spanish campaign ads twist Rush Limbaugh's words to P.O. Hispanics:

The commercial, to air in Limbaugh's home state of Florida as well as Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, features a picture of the conservative talk show host and shows his words on the screen: "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out." It was first reported by the Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe. "Obama is now stoking racism in the country," Limbaugh wrote in an email. "Obama is a disgrace - he wants the public to think he is Mr. Nice Guy while his thugs are in Alaska looking for dirt on Palin and he runs race-baiting ads and lies about what he has done and what McCain has done." As for the quotes, Limbaugh said they were taken out of context.

Stock response, right? They always say its out of context.

The first, "stupid and unqualified," was from the NAFTA debate of the mid-90s, he recalled. Limbaugh, a NAFTA proponent, said in the fall of 1993 he got a call from a listener who was upset at the potential loss of American jobs. In response he said, "If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people-I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do-let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

Hey, that doesn't say "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified." It just says the ones that are should be entitled to jobs, too.

On "shut your mouth," Limbaugh produced an April 2006 transcript from what he described as a parody of Mexican immigration laws. The talk show host read a list of stringent rules, adding "shut your mouth and get out," before revealing to listeners that the guidelines were those set by the Mexican government for immigrants.

So it turns out the ad is a big fat sleazy lie. Vile and stupid, too, says Surber, noting the absurdity of trying to paint amnesty-backer McCain as anti-immigrant. Awaiting widespread outrage and condemnation? Don't worry, I won't be staying up too late. But is this what Obamists mean when they say they want their guy to get tougher? Now, when he says he's "a leap for the American people" .

"We always knew this was going to be hard, and this is a leap for the American people," Obama said. "And we're running against somebody who has a formidable biography, a compelling biography. He's a genuine American hero, somebody who served in uniform and suffered through some things that very few of us can imagine."

. Does he mean because he's a black guy and the American people are bigots, or does he mean the experience thing, the long history of hanging out with weird radicals, and all the dangerously bad ideas?

Source



Controversial Obama ad revives immigration issue

I have reproduced a Reuters article below as written. Reuters are the people who think that terrorists are just misunderstood patriots. It's not a bad article as far as it goes. Good for Reuters anyway. But note their quite false assertion that Republicans killed the amnesty bill. Since Republicans don't have a majority in either house, how could they? Both Republicans AND Democrats voted against the bill. And a Republican President supported it! And Limbaugh is apparently a suspect character for "cigar chomping"! No doubt Democrat cigar-smokers are OK, however. Or is this just bigotry against cigar-smokers?

Immigration has been absent from the presidential campaign for months, but it came to the front again this week in a controversial television spot for Barack Obama. The Democratic presidential candidate sought to cast Republican rival John McCain as an anti-Hispanic hard-liner and link him to talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.

The Spanish language TV ad - dubbed "Dos Caras," or "Two Faces" - aired on Wednesday. It courted Hispanic voters who make up 9 percent of the electorate and who could help swing the outcome in battleground states in the U.S. southwest as well as in Florida on Nov. 4.

The 30-second spot begins with a voice-over attacking the Republicans: "They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance . they made us feel marginalized in the country that we love so much." The screen then shows two quotes from widely syndicated radio host Limbaugh, one reads "stupid and unskilled Mexicans," the other, "You shut your mouth or you get out!"

The paid spot then says: "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote . and another, even worse, that continues the policies of George Bush, which puts special interests ahead of working families." It closes with the line "more of the same Republican lies."

The advertisement is a stretch. McCain was the co-author of a bi-partisan bill that sought a path to citizenship for millions of mostly Hispanic illegal immigrants living in the United States. It was backed by President George W. Bush, but was ultimately killed by Senate Republicans last year.

His support for the measure brought McCain the ire of many immigration hard-liners in his own party, and met with scorn from cigar-chomping Limbaugh, who was outspoken in his opposition to the veteran Arizona senator during the primary election process.The McCain campaign shot back on Thursday with a rebuttal of the television spot. Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican, calling the immigration ad "offensive and dishonest." "Instead of making false ads with baseless attacks, Barack Obama should be apologizing to the Latino community," he said.

Source





18 September, 2008

Appeals court (The 9th circus, no less!) upholds tough Arizona immigration law

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday upheld an Arizona law that targets employers who hire illegal immigrants by revoking their licenses to do business in the state. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the 2007 law, which has not been enforced, arose from "rising frustration with the United States Congress's failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform."

Some 12 million illegal immigrants are believed to live in the United States; many work with false papers and the issue of what to do with them has become a political hot potato. It was not immediately clear whether Arizona would now begin enforcing the law or if its opponents would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the suit, said the court expressly left open the possibility of further challenges if and when it was enforced.

Arizona attorney general Terry Goddard welcomed the ruling, and said his office would "continue to defend the statute should there be an appeal to the highest court."

Arizona passed the employer sanctions law after a federal immigration overhaul died in the U.S. Congress in June 2007. Immigration, business and civil rights groups challenged the law, saying it was preempted by federal rules governing immigration. The groups also contended the law, called the Legal Arizona Workers Act, violates employers' due process rights by denying them the chance to challenge allegations that their workers are illegal before their licenses are revoked

More here



Dems play footloose with immigration facts

By Ruben Navarrette Jr. Ruben is no conservative but is not shy of criticizing Leftist hysteria. The vast misrepresentation of the pro-immigration McCain as another anti-immigration Tancredo is just too much for him in the excellent article below.

As they recall the failure of immigration reform in Congress, Democrats want to come off as the good guys. This means burying the fact that their patrons in organized labor instructed them to kill any compromise that included guest workers -- a concept AFL-CIO President John Sweeney termed "a bad idea (that) harms all workers." And it means trying to refute a new Spanish-language television ad from the McCain-Palin campaign that blames Barack Obama and other Senate Democrats for undermining immigration reform in 2007 with procedural delays and "poison pill" amendments intended to make the legislation unpalatable to Republicans.

Translated, the ad says: "Obama and his congressional allies say they are on the side of immigrants. But are they? The press reports that their efforts were 'poison pills' that made immigration reform fail. The result: No guest worker program. No path to citizenship. No secure borders. No reform. Is that being on our side? Obama and his congressional allies: Ready to block immigration reform, but not ready to lead."

That is exactly what happened. It was smart but cynical politics. Led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats were able to please the unions and deny a Republican president a huge legislative victory, all the while making it look as if the opposing party was to blame for the debacle.

Luckily, some members of the media kept their eye on the ball and put the blame where it belonged: on Reid and the Democrats. The Washington Post's David Broder, in a column published in June 2007, blasted Reid for going "out of his way to rewrite (the immigration bill) to meet the demands of organized labor."

Now, in response to the McCain-Palin ad, Democrats are practicing revisionist history. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey said in a statement released by the Obama campaign: "To say that Barack Obama and Senate Democrats blocked the bill that Republicans filibustered is hypocritical and not true. John McCain has lost his credibility when it comes to the immigration issue ... (He) cannot attack Democrats on immigration in Spanish while pandering to the extreme right Tancredo wing of the Republican Party in English."

I understand that Menendez is trying to earn Obama's good graces after being a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton in the primaries. But did he really compare McCain to Tom Tancredo, the nativist congressman who also sought the GOP nomination in this year's primaries? Senator, I know Tom Tancredo. I've written about Tom Tancredo. And John McCain is no Tom Tancredo. One of the few things that these men share is a strong dislike for one another. In one debate, McCain described Tancredo's explanation of what makes someone an American as "beyond my realm of thinking."

Others on the left are also lending a hand to Democratic efforts at damage control. They include groups dedicated to the admirable goal of achieving comprehensive immigration reform. What is not so admirable is the way that these groups have turned on McCain, whom not long ago they praised for fighting the good fight on the immigration issue. Now they claim that McCain has flip-flopped. Baloney. They're the ones who flip-flopped, and for no grander reason than because we're in an election year.

"We are stunned," declared Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a Washington-based liberal-leaning organization in a statement. "A Spanish-language ad approved by Sen. John McCain accuses Sen. Obama and the Democrats of derailing immigration reform? He knows better. The whole political world knows better. Comprehensive immigration reform was blocked not by Democrats but by Republicans. ... Immigrants and Latinos are intelligent. They know the difference between fact and fiction."

I always appreciate it when non-Latinos are patronizing and tell me what I should or shouldn't know. I know this much: Some folks inside the Beltway are so eager to put a Democrat in the White House that they're putting party before truth. They include Latino groups such as the National Council of La Raza and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund who, as Sharry said, should know better.

During a conference call this week with reporters, NCLR Vice President Cecilia Munoz also criticized the ad and called immigration an issue that "tends to determine who the good guys are and the bad guys are for Latinos." That implies that these advocacy groups can tell the difference. That's the point. Blinded by partisanship, they haven't a clue.

Source





17 September, 2008

Some more charming Hispanics



A four-month-old baby girl is recovering after being tossed from a stolen car in the US city of Phoenix, Foxnews reports. The baby was in a car with her mother when two armed men allegedly fired a gun at one of the windows, spraying glass all over the infant, police said. After forcing the mother out of the car, one of the men allegedly jumped in and fled with the baby girl still strapped in her car seat, said Sergeant Andy Hill, a Phoenix police spokesman. The other man escaped in another car.

As the man drove off, witnesses allegedly yelled that a child was in the back seat. Witnesses said the man stopped and flung the baby girl onto the pavement, Foxnews reports. The child, who was still in the car seat, received only minor injuries, Sgt Hill said.

The two men were arrested a short time later after a police chase through the city. The suspects were identified as Arthur Galindo, 29, and Romulo Cardona, 23. The two men were charged with numerous crimes, including armed robbery, prohibited possession of weapons and felony flight, according to Foxnews. Police believe the pair were recently released from a corrections centre for prior armed robbery convictions, Sgt Hills said."

Source



Ex-immigration official in the pocket of Muslims

A former federal official accused of accepting bribes to release illegal immigrants pleaded guilty Tuesday to corruption charges. Roy M. Bailey pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery, conspiracy to defraud the United States and failing to report a felony. Under the plea agreement, Bailey faces up to 37 months in prison and a $75,000 fine when he is sentenced Nov. 21. Bailey, who was placed on leave in 2004 and later retired, oversaw the custody of illegal immigrants as acting director for detention and removal operations in the Detroit office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Bailey was indicted last year. Prosecutors accused him of accepting money and gifts in exchange for releasing immigrants awaiting deportation. Prosecutors said one person Bailey illegally released, Bashar J. Faraj, was later convicted of murder.

"It is unacceptable for any public official to use his authority to enrich himself," Terrence Berg, acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said in a statement. Defense attorney Michael Starr did not respond to a message seeking comment.

In making his pleas Tuesday, Bailey acknowledged accepting gifts from Namir Daman, an attorney who pleaded guilty to marriage fraud last month, and failing to report embezzlement by another immigration official. In addition, Bailey pleaded guilty to conspiring with Talal Khalil Chahine, a local restaurateur who is now a fugitive, to help Chahine's employees gain immigration benefits through false marriages to U.S. citizens.

Also pleading guilty Tuesday was Antonio Ivezaj, owner of a construction company who allegedly provided at least $3,000 in free services and materials at Bailey's Romulus home. In return, prosecutors said, Bailey released one of Ivezaj's relatives from custody. Ivezaj pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe a public official. He faces up to 33 months and prison and a $50,000 fine at sentencing Nov. 21.

Source





16 September, 2008

Seven Years After 9/11, New Report on Immigration and National Security

Long before the 9/11 attacks, the Federation for American Immigration Reform warned that our unsecured borders and lax enforcement of our immigration laws posed a threat to our national security. We have advocated for specific reforms to minimize the risks to our nation and our citizens. On the seventh anniversary of those attacks we review those proposed remedies and how they would address three aspects of immigration-related threats to national security. These three areas of vulnerability are:

* The ability of terrorists to legally enter the country in order to carry out future attacks.

* The continuing political unwillingness to control our borders against illegal entry, thereby undermining security advances gained by greater control over legal entry.

* The ability of terrorists who have gained entry into the country to escape detection as they prepare to carry out future attacks on the American public.

Seven years after the attacks of 9/11, America still faces the prospect of renewed attacks against our homeland by those who struck against us in 2001.

According to the report of the 9/11 Commission, gaping loopholes in US immigration policies and failure to adequately enforce immigration laws were exploited by the people who attacked us seven years ago.

A new report from FAIR, Immigration and National Security: A Checklist of Unfinished Reforms, follows up on in-depth analyses by FAIR that have been released each year since the attacks. The latest report finds that while some progress has been achieved in closing the vulnerabilities exploited by the 9/11 attackers, many threats still remain. The FAIR report details many of the important tasks that have been neglected, or because of pressure from special interest groups, have been brushed aside.

According to Immigration and National Security, the screening of people seeking nonimmigrant visas remains superficial, while vital data necessary to keep track of legal visitors to the United States is not being collected. In addition, America's borders remain insecure, presenting an inviting target for terrorists and others who wish to do us harm.

"As the shock of 9/11 fades from people's memories, the danger of complacency builds," commented Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "While there is a temptation to return to business as usual, or to respond to pressure from interest groups with economic incentives for wanting to keep loopholes in place, the anniversary of 9/11 should stand as a reminder that we cannot afford such luxuries. The guidelines laid out in National Security and Immigration provide reasonable and achievable steps for protecting the nation against attack, while maintaining America as a free and open society for our citizens and for those who are legitimate guests in our country," he said.

Source



Border fence likely to miss 2008 deadline

A pair of congressional audits released Wednesday raise serious doubts about whether the federal government will finish a promised border fence this year and confirmed that a system of high-tech sensors won't be working soon. The plan to build 670 miles of border fence by Dec. 31 has been thrown into doubt by slow property acquisitions, higher costs and the prospect of a federal budget stalemate. The Department of Homeland Security also has indefinitely halted work on the "virtual fence" of sensors. Instead, it is redirecting virtual-fence money to build the higher-priority physical fence and vehicle barriers.

Auditors at the Government Accountability Office concluded that further delays in getting the technology right "may hinder the Border Patrol's efforts to secure the border." The problems suggest that the fate and pace of building the fence and a network of sensors and cameras will be in the hands of the next president and Congress.

The surveillance network has been plagued by technical glitches and delays. Homeland Security officials asked Congress to steer $400 million away from the virtual fence to the physical one. There are plans to triple the area covered by a virtual fence in Arizona, but the government has halted that project to conduct more thorough tests. The initial project cost $20 million. Final cost to wire the entire border is unknown, but contractor Boeing Corp. has been awarded $253 million more to develop and oversee related border-technology projects.

With new revelations suggesting the physical and virtual border fences will slip past deadlines, the only part of the government's three-legged border-security strategy not in jeopardy is the hiring of Border Patrol agents.

After two years and $2.7 billion spent, the Homeland Security has finished half the fence and has only a partially successful prototype virtual fence on 28 miles of the border. Two years ago, when Congress approved the plan, Homeland Security officials said a working virtual fence would be in place along the entire Mexican and Canadian borders by late 2009.

In the past six months, the government has built 38 miles of fence and vehicle barriers along the border. It needs to build 329 more miles with less than four months to go to meet its goal. But, by late August, the government still needed to acquire more than 300 properties before construction could start. Most of the holdouts are in Texas, where a fence along the Rio Grande has become unpopular, and property owners have gone to court to keep the government off their land. In Arizona, the government has gone to court to seize seven border properties in Santa Cruz County.

Project officials told congressional auditors that all construction must start by the end of this month to meet the congressional mandate to build all 670 miles by year's end. But on Wednesday, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner W. Ralph Basham backtracked when he told the House Homeland Security Committee, "We will have completed or have under contract or in construction 670 miles by the end of December." That's only if the legal, real-estate and budget issues are resolved, he said.

The cost of the fence is also hindering progress. When new construction began in early 2007, the fence cost an average of $1 million a mile. It has now climbed to an average of $7.5 million a mile.

The government eventually could face bigger problems with the fence. Congressional auditors found that the government made no estimates for the cost to maintain it. In July, for example, a monsoon storm dumped 2 inches of rain in 90 minutes around Lukeville. So much vegetation was caught in the border fence that it pushed floodwaters 7 feet high and outward far enough to flood the Lukeville border crossing. A subsequent National Park Service study found that such storms occur every three to five years and will, over time, undermine the foundations of the fence and vehicle barriers. Similar storms are normal along the entire Arizona-Mexico border. Pilots for the pro-fence American Border Patrol have taken pictures of vehicle barriers washed out by other flash floods on the border. The Park Service found that the fence near Lukeville did not meet water-flow standards. Parks officials recommended Homeland Security officials reconsider the design of border fences, but no action has been taken....

Added patrols, the third leg of the government border-security plan, appears to be in better shape than the technology and barrier portions. By mid-August, the Border Patrol had slightly more than 17,000 agents, up nearly 2,500 from Oct. 1. Congress has ordered the agency to have 18,000 agents by the end of the year.

The new agents, plus a combination of fencing, stricter prosecution and a sluggish economy, have contributed to fewer illegal immigrants entering the United States. Last year, arrests on the border fell 20 percent and are on track to fall at the same rate when the fiscal year ends at the end of this month.

There are signs that the agency will have trouble retaining new agents. Last month, the Associated Press reported that the turnover rate is rising as the Border Patrol brings in younger recruits. Agents in Arizona say many of the new hires are starting their first jobs, whereas in years past, the Border Patrol turned to retired police and military people, who tended to stay longer

More here





15 September, 2008

What the movies say

IN COURTNEY HUNT'S absorbing new feature film "Frozen River," an Upstate New York blue-collar mom decides to take a job in one of America's hottest growth industries: people smuggling.

Not that Ray (Melissa Leo) is very clued in about why so many illegal immigrants are risking their lives trying to slip into the United States or has much sympathy for their plight. Juggling a harried life that includes two kids, two jobs and an absentee gambler husband, Ray has enough problems of her own without worrying about the Chinese and Pakistani refugees she's shuttling in the trunk of her car across the Canadian border.

"If they want to come here so bad they should take the time to learn English," Ray blurts out at one point to her partner in malfeasance, Lila (Misty Upham), a wry Mohawk Indian laboring mightily herself to make ends meet.

What remains unsaid in this subtle, perceptive movie, is that Ray actually has more in common than she realizes with her desperate human cargo. Like them, she occupies one of American society's lower socio-economic rungs. But history and cultural conditioning have taught her to think of immigrants as aliens, sub-humans, the Other. The movie's power derives in large measure from Ray's belated recognition of a deeper, common humanity she shares with these exiles.

The representation in American movies of immigrants (and of two close relations, ethnicity and "race") is practically as old as the movies themselves, from "Birth of a Nation" and Charlie Chaplin's "The Immigrant" to "Crash" and "Under the Same Moon." Today, as mass immigration has evolved into a global phenomenon, a growing number of filmmakers in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as the United States are probing immigration's causes as well as its consequences for the lives of ordinary people.

Macro yet micro

SEVERAL more Hollywood movies slated to open this fall and winter will explore immigration themes, whether explicitly or covertly. They include "Towelhead," a drama directed by Alan Ball (an Oscar winner for the "American Beauty" screenplay), set during the Gulf War, about a 13-year-old Arab American girl sent to Houston to live with her authoritarian Lebanese father; and Wayne Kramer's "Crossing Over," a multi-story ensemble drama about immigrants of several nationalities trying to gain legal status in Los Angeles. The marquee cast includes Harrison Ford, Sean Penn, Ray Liotta and Ashley Judd.

In a way that's characteristic of many of these new films, "Frozen River" has a global perspective but an intimate focus. Its view of immigration is less anchored in large-scale political abstractions than in the nuanced emotional relations between its very specific characters and situations. It has nothing to say directly about, say, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Instead, it looks at immigration as a dual exchange in which the American characters are as impacted as the foreigners by their brushes with each other.

That reflects Hunt's belief that, in the post-Sept. 11 era, Americans gradually are awakening to the complex, challenging world around them. "We live in a very narrow-minded place," she said by phone, referring to the United States. "The world is getting smaller, and even in the interior of America we're going to learn a lot about the other people coming in."

"Frozen River" isn't the only recent movie to suggest that global immigration and cross-cultural encounters are shaping American attitudes, both at home and abroad. In films such as Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation" (2003), the middle-class Americans played by Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray, thrown together by fate in Tokyo, are shown to be relatively as disoriented and challenged by a "foreign" culture as any Saharan emigre braving his first Midwestern winter.

In Tom McCarthy's indie hit "The Visitor," Richard Jenkins plays Walter Vale, a stoic college professor whose passion for life after his wife's death is rekindled through his unexpected encounter with a Syrian-Senegalese couple in New York. His dormant emotions are further aroused when the male half of the couple is taken into custody at an immigration center and his attractive mother arrives from Detroit to try to help her son.

'A very tricky issue'

McCARTHY'S research for the movie, which included hanging out in immigrant communities, attending academic conferences and visiting immigrants being held in U.S. detention centers -- mostly innocent young men with no criminal records, he said -- convinced him that "we can do better" as Americans in managing border control. The screenplay provides Walter with a brief, rousing speech about treating people humanely, which he shouts, in frustration, at some detention officials.

But while the movie's sympathies clearly lie with Tarek (Haaz Sleiman), the young Syrian drummer who winds up in custody, "The Visitor" avoids preaching about the politics of immigration, which McCarthy describes as "a very tricky issue." "We need laws, people have to abide by laws, we need to enforce those laws," the director said. "It's a huge, huge, complex question."

Instead of polemics, "The Visitor" offers a gentle plea for opening ourselves up to the unfamiliar, the alien, in life. Rather than being a source of anxiety and confusion, in movies like "Lost in Translation" and "The Visitor" the experience of being an "outsider," whether abroad or in one's native land, is presented as an opportunity for reshaping one's identity while discovering what makes other people tick.

"First and foremost," McCarthy says of his movie, "it isn't just about immigration, it's really about people from different backgrounds, different cultures, different places, connecting . . . whether that's in New York or Beirut or Damascus or Mexico."

Another recent immigration-themed movie that favors the personal over the political is Patricia Riggen's "Under the Same Moon" (La Misma Luna). A more conventional film than either "The Visitor" or "Frozen River," it relates the saga of a Mexican boy's attempt to reunite with his migrant mother working in Los Angeles. Riggen, who is Mexican, said she already had begun filming "Under the Same Moon" in her native country when massive pro-immigration demonstrations took place across the U.S. in May 2006.

"Suddenly it became very timely and very trendy, and Hollywood wanted a movie about immigration," she said. "But you know, we weren't doing it for that reason. I think the movie will allow a healthy debate" about immigration, "very different from what we usually read."

A generation ago, immigration-themed movies such as "El Norte" tended to focus heavily on the often grueling physical journey from an old world to a new one. By contrast, the tendency with more recent films is to move beyond the actual journey and examine what the well-traveled writer V.S. Naipaul has termed "the enigma of arrival" and the thorny process of assimilating -- or not -- to a new culture.

Contemporary immigration-themed movies tend to treat mass immigration as a given, irreversible fact in major Western metropolises such as London, New York and Los Angeles. That doesn't mean the social tensions have vanished, but they may be sublimated and at least partly resolved through the relations between individuals -- especially if those people happen to be in love.

British director Stephen Frears helped introduce this cinematic point of view with two 1980s comedy-dramas about immigrant-stoked upheaval in London, "My Beautiful Launderette" and "Sammy and Rosie . . .," and more recently with "Dirty Pretty Things" (2002), a drama about an African doctor-turned-taxi driver and a Turkish woman trying to survive and steer clear of deportation officials in the drizzly British capital.

Like Mira Nair's "Mississippi Masala" (1991), a romantic comedy-drama that was slightly ahead of its time, the British film "Brick Lane" (2007) depicts immigrants in a limbo of incomplete assimilation. Adapted from Monica Ali's novel, it centers on a young Bangladeshi woman, Nazneen (Tannishtha Chatterjee), struggling to weather a chilly marriage while living in a dreary council flat in East London. As her own marriage deteriorates, the heroine finds herself drawn to a young immigrant man who becomes radicalized by the anti-Muslim sentiment sweeping Western Europe in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Increasingly, movie makers (especially European ones) are depicting immigration not as a one-way journey but rather as a more or less permanent state of flux between worlds that may seem very different but are, in fact, steadily becoming more inter-connected. In "The Edge of Heaven" (2007) by the Turkish-German writer-director Fatih Akin, the action continually switches back and forth from Bremen to Istanbul and elsewhere as various borders -- physical, political, sexual -- are repeatedly crossed and re-crossed.

From its inception, Hollywood tended to treat immigration themes with caution. The studios were invented mainly by Eastern European Jewish immigrants who created, in author Neal Gabler's phrase, "an empire of their own" that manufactured an idealized version of the United States, largely sanitized of the anti-Semitism and xenophobia that they themselves had experienced.

Americans' attitudes toward expressing their ethnic and national identities -- and accepting those of others -- have changed a lot since the Russian-born vaudevillian Al Jolson (nee Asa Yoelson) donned blackface to play a Jewish cantor's son turned entertainer in "The Jazz Singer" (1927).

Movies, like politics, often lag several steps behind social reality. But at present, they're reflecting a fast-changing planetary order in which both privileged First World frequent fliers and struggling Third World refugees at times may feel like existential nomads, strangers in strange lands.

Source



British TV host says "bus is full" on immigration

TV game show host Noel Edmonds has made controversial comments about immigration, saying there are too many migrants to Britain and they are draining national resources. "We can all go down the pub and go, 'Oh it's terrible, all these immigrants.' But what are we going to do in Britain to change this toxic culture if we don't say, 'Enough is enough,'" the popular presenter told the News of the World on Sunday. "I'm very straightforward on immigration. The bus is full," he said. "We haven't got enough energy, we haven't got enough electricity, we haven't got enough of a health service."

The comments by one of the country's most widely watched entertainers are likely to spark debate. Britain has welcomed millions of new migrants to its shores in recent years, especially those from east European countries that are now members of the European Union. The influx has given a substantial boost to the economy as new arrivals have taken on many of the undesirable jobs, often for low wages, that Britons generally no longer want to do.

But as the economy has slowed in the last year and the credit crisis has taken a toll, polls show most Britons think there are too many immigrants in the country and want to see new restrictions imposed on the influx. A YouGov poll last week showed 57 percent of adults thought there should be less immigration.

Edmonds, 59, the host of popular game show Deal or No Deal, said he not only wanted to crack down on immigration, but on crime and youth violence, saying he would like to build more prisons and overhaul the police force.

More here





14 September, 2008

Easy ways to cut immigration and still get the work done

A great comment from Minette Marrin in Britain

It is a great relief to know that though the British Establishment may be unforgivably slow in recognising the obvious, it isn’t absolutely incapable of it. Last week the powers that be – the forces of conventional wisdom and political correctness – finally saw the light on immigration. They didn’t exactly admit it, of course. They merely stood by quietly and allowed others to tell the truth about immigration, without trying to shame them into silence. In its quiet way it was a remarkable cultural moment – a national tipping point.

On Monday a cross-parliamentary group led by Frank Field, the former Labour minister, called for a limit to immigration. There were no howls of outrage, merely a few squeaks. In a report called Balanced Migration, accompanied by a poll by YouGov, the parliamentary campaigners made the obvious point, accompanied by painstakingly gathered facts, that immigration cannot continue at its present uncontrolled rate. The country cannot stand it. At current levels, (mostly immigration from outside the European Union) 7m people will come to live here by 2031; that is the equivalent of seven cities the size of Birmingham. By now only bigots against the truth deny the pressure that recent immigration imposes on schools, hospitals, prisons, housing and infrastructure.

All this ought to have been obvious long ago. It’s what the vast majority here think. What’s new is that it’s possible to say so without being accused of playing the race card or the numbers game; I’m not sure why, but it must have something to do with the fact that many ethnic minority people now think so too. The YouGov poll showed that 85% of all people think immigration is putting too much pressure on public services, 76% that Britain is overcrowded and 81% that the government should greatly reduce immigration to Britain. Sixty per cent of Asians and 45% of blacks think the same, so such thoughts are not necessarily racist; ironically, it is their agreement that has made discussion possible.

The Balanced Migration group is calling for a stop to net immigration: it proposes that the number of immigrants (from outside the EU) who are given permission to settle here should be kept to roughly the same as the number of British citizens who are emigrating. This wouldn’t affect temporary work permits or family reunion, but it would significantly cut the population explosion here.

Part of the point of this launch is the usual invitation to a national debate. I have a couple of suggestions to offer. One of the many standard arguments in favour of immigration is that we need the workers. Even if immigrants make a net contribution of only a few pounds a year (62p a week, according to the exhaustive House of Lords economics committee investigation this year into the economic impact of immigration) or even if they are a large net cost, we’d be lost without them because they do essential work. They do all the care work, the unskilled work and the seasonal work. Who else would do it?

The answer is simple. There are already plenty of British citizens here to do it. I don’t mean the unemployed Britons here, though some of them might be suitable as well. I mean two other groups. One consists of state sector workers. The Labour government, while in office, has created well over 800,000 public sector jobs, most of them unnecessary. Not only is this make-work, it is make-waste. All those functionaries do not merely sit at desks, consuming heat and light and waiting for their pension. They create other costs and other work. Such is the mindless power of bureaucracy that one outreach worker with an absurd brief such as advising Irish people in Birmingham about sex (I didn’t make that one up) can call upon new initiatives, new meetings, new groups, new funding, new employees and more expense. Meanwhile the old and the lonely are neglected, unless a Filipino or a Somali immigrant can be found for them.

This vast army of state sector workers should be redeployed. They should be allowed to keep their job security, salaries and pensions, but they should become social care workers. They should, in person, look after the old, the sick, the mentally ill and the displaced; we are all capable of social care – looking after a bedridden pensioner, or feeding a sick child in hospital, giving a worn-out carer a respite break, working in a women’s shelter, or advising a desperate family about debt. We don’t have enough citizens doing this. It is supremely valuable work, far more so than checking the ethnicity of people parking cars.

This important work is not exactly skilled, but it is responsible and demanding. It is not right to give this work to low-paid, poorly educated immigrants who speak little English, when we have plenty of people here already who could do it.

Similarly with work that is more obviously unskilled, or low-skilled, like looking after parks and streets and countless other essential jobs, we need not depend so heavily on immigrants when we have huge numbers of citizens who could do it, yet they are often denied the opportunity. I mean people with learning disabilities.

Learning disability is an awkward term. It has nothing to do with mental illness. It means a significant intellectual impairment, or – crudely – a low IQ. Clearly a person with a mild or moderate learning disability couldn’t usually expect to do a skilled job. But for many doing an unskilled job can be a great joy, a source of pride and independence, as well as useful to all concerned, whether it’s stacking shelves in a friendly supermarket, assisting a park keeper, working on a building site, in a hotel laundry or picking strawberries. And according to government estimates, between 580,000 and 1.75m people here have mild to moderate learning disabilities; that is a huge source of willing workers. Yet despite the known wishes of people with such disabilities, despite the pressure of various lobby groups on their behalf, they find it difficult to get jobs.

Immigrants have brought great things to this country. One of them, rather oddly and recently, is the opportunity at last to talk more openly as a society about the costs and benefits of immigration, without being denounced as a heartless xenophobe or closet racist. Enoch Powell is at last being proved wrong.

Source



Australia: Melbourne's charming African "refugees"

MELBOURNE'S Indian and Pakistani taxi drivers are being bashed and robbed by African youth gangs. And there are fears the number of attacks reported to Victoria Police is only the tip of the iceberg. The hot spot for inter-racial violence is Melbourne's inner north. This year between May 8 and August 2 there were 12 reported robberies on taxi drivers in Flemington, Moonee Ponds and Ascot Vale.

Police will not officially acknowledge any particular ethnic group is a target, or that any other group is carrying out the crimes. But in every case the victims told police their attackers were African and there was always more than one. Knives are the weapon in most taxi robberies reported to police, but meat cleavers and screw drivers have also been used. Ten of the 12 victims are from the Indian sub-continent, but police are not prepared to say Melbourne's foreign student taxi drivers have become targets.

Det Sgt Paul Lunt from the armed robbery taskforce said taxi drivers were being chosen because they were seen by some as soft targets. "I can't think of a time in the last five years when we've had a series of attacks like this on cab drivers," Det Sgt Lunt said. "If they commit one robbery it becomes easier to carry out the next one and the one after, and they do escalate in violence as they become a series. "What starts as a threat demanding money progresses into actual violence."

Liberal MP Bernie Finn, whose electorate covers the danger zone, said police had to start acknowledging they had a gang problem. "What we need to do is round up the ringleaders of these gangs and send them home," Mr Finn said. "We are more than capable of producing our own thugs and thieves without importing them. "The biggest hurdle we face is that we have a chief commissioner of police who refuses to accept that gangs exist. She won't even say the word gang."

Source





13 September, 2008

Colo. orders immigration review after 2 crashes

Gov. Bill Ritter ordered an immediate review of gaps in immigration enforcement on Friday after suspected illegal immigrants were involved in two crashes, one that killed three people. Ritter told the state Department of Public Safety to look for solutions that state and local agencies can enforce, saying the federal government has failed to do its job. "Immigration enforcement is ultimately the responsibility of the federal government, and clearly, Washington has failed to fix a broken system," he said. He said state and local agencies are "on the front lines" and have a responsibility to identify and help solve the problems.

In an e-mail to The Associated Press, Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Carl Rusnok did not respond directly to Ritter's accusations but said the federal agency would cooperate in the state review.

A 3-year-old boy and two women were killed in a horrific crash at an ice cream shop in the Denver suburb of Aurora last week. Francis Hernandez, a Guatemala native suspected of being in the country illegally, was arrested on charges of vehicular homicide and other counts. Police say Hernandez, 23, has used 12 aliases and two dates of birth and has been arrested more than a dozen times since 2003.

This week, Aurora police arrested Hipolito Vasquez Rojas, 19, on charges of crashing a stolen car into a police cruiser and a tree. The Rocky Mountain News reported Rojas was deported in April after serving time for auto theft, but his home country was not immediately known.

Ritter said local law-enforcement officials are frustrated because they notify federal authorities about suspected illegal immigrants but no action is taken. Ritter told public safety director Peter Weir to report on his findings by the end of the year. Weir's department includes the State Patrol, which has its own immigration unit, and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Ritter said the state held a summit on illegal immigration in April but ICE did not participate. "We need to re-engage the federal authorities in this process," Ritter said.

Source



Federal judge halts rental ban in Farmers Branch

Farmers Branch suffered another setback Friday when a federal judge ordered a temporary halt to the city's latest ordinance banning illegal immigrants from renting apartments in the city. The new ordinance, set to go into effect Saturday, comes on the heels of a similar ordinance that was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge this summer.

U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled Friday that those who sued the city are likely to prevail at trial with their argument that the city is overstepping its bounds by enforcing areas of immigration law that are reserved only for the federal government. Boyle said this can create a "slippery slope," with cities and states deporting illegal immigrants from their borders. "The federal government's authority over immigration would effectively be eviscerated," Boyle said from the bench.

Farmers Branch Mayor Tim O'Hare listened to more than two hours of oral arguments and said he was not surprised by the ruling. "I think the judge is wrong," he said. "I think the will of the people of Farmers Branch is not being carried out, and I think ultimately this matter will be resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court."

Opponents of Farmers Branch's latest effort had asked the judge for a temporary restraining order to keep the city from requiring prospective apartment and house renters to obtain a city license. Under the ordinance, the city would forward information from the license application to the federal government so it can verify immigration status.

The request to stop the ordinance continues a nearly two-year battle in Farmers Branch, where officials have created a handful of measures attempting to keep illegal immigrants from living there. The proposed laws have been met by lawsuits and protests. Under the latest ordinance, those who can't prove they live legally in the U.S. could not qualify for tenants' licenses, and the city would penalize landlords who rent to people without a valid license.

A group of landlords and a former City Council member sued over the ordinance this month, contending that the city is trying to regulate immigration even though it's the domain of the federal government. They also say the ordinance doesn't include clear procedures and safeguards while placing liability on landlords. The plaintiffs say that the city is violating federal housing laws and that the ordinance is part of an attempt to push out Hispanics. "In addition to the fact that it attempts to impose a 'license' requirement on the exercise of the fundamental human right to live in a dwelling place, Ordinance 2952 is unconstitutional and violative of federal and state law in numerous other critical respects," the petition for the restraining stated.

City officials planned to seek an agreement with the federal government for access to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements database and were working on an online method to apply for a license, the city's attorney has said.

Officials with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have said the city must apply for an agreement to access the database. Federal officials would then consider whether it's lawful and appropriate for the city to access the database, which is used to determine whether immigration status entitles a person to a state or federal benefit. Some 100 U.S. cities or counties have considered, passed or rejected similar laws, according to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Source





12 September, 2008

Obama Pitches Immigration Policy

Barack Obama spoke on Wednesday night about a subject that often gets short shrift on the 2008 campaign trail: immigration. The Democratic candidate made the speech to a crowd of Hispanic leaders at black-tie dinner capping the end of a Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute gathering in Washington. After spending a few minutes talking about his opponent and his other policy proposals, Obama got his loudest cheers with these lines: “This election is about the 12 million people living in the shadows, the communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hand. They are counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves, and rise above the fear, and rise above the demagoguery, and finally enact comprehensive immigration reform.”

Obama complimented John McCain for championing the comprehensive immigration package that died in the Senate last year — and that helped (temporarily) sink his primary campaign. The bill, which would have created a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, inflamed widespread anti-immigration sentiment. Congress was deluged with calls, emails and faxes expressing opposition.

Since then, most politicians have kept the issue out of the spotlight. McCain has even made a pledge to tackle border security before any other changes — a reversal Obama made sure to point out Wednesday. “Well, I don’t know about you, but I think it’s time for a president who won’t walk away from comprehensive immigration reform when it becomes politically unpopular,” he said.

Obama makes frequent mention of his healthcare and energy proposals on the stump, and his aides have said those will be the top priorities in the first year of his administration. A deal on immigration could still be elusive even with bigger Democratic majorities in Congress, given the success of Republican opponents who stopped two previous attempts to get the bill past the Senate in the summer of 2007. Those proposals had the support of President George W. Bush.

Obama pointed out that the Republican Party platform didn’t include language on a comprehensive immigration deal, saying McCain didn’t “stand up to opponents of reform at his own convention.”

The McCain campaign took the unorthodox approach of not forcing his positions into the party’s platform this year, but his campaign did make an effort to block one new proposal regarding immigration: a plan to deny U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

Obama ended his speech with the words “si se puede,” the Spanish version of his campaign chant “yes we can.” His words were not so much a translation as much as a return to a native tongue — the phrase was used widely in Spanish before Obama adopted it, most often for protest marches and demonstrations.

Source



Majority of Irish want immigration curbed: poll

A majority of Irish people want tougher controls on immigration at a time of increasing economic hardship, a poll showed on Wednesday. Ireland faces its first recession in 25 years as the end of a decade-long property driven boom and a slowing global economy maul the former "Celtic Tiger". Years of rapid economic growth have helped to fuel record levels of immigration to Ireland, reversing the long-established pattern of people leaving Ireland to find work overseas. An increase in unemployment has raised fears of tensions towards immigrants, many of whom have come from central and eastern Europe.

Of 1,000 people polled by independent consultancy Amarach Research, 66 percent said they wanted more restrictive immigration, while 27 percent said the current policy should remain as it is. Only 7 percent sought fewer restrictions. "Current economic uncertainty means most people expect greater controls on immigration in the future," Amarach said.

The poll also found that 54 percent believed immigration had on balance been good for Ireland, while 33 percent said it was bad, citing factors which included increased competition for jobs and demands on state benefits, Amarach said. "As unemployment levels rise there is a potential for tension," the Irish Examiner wrote in an editorial on Wednesday. "Our attitude towards immigrants may be about to face a sterner test than before. Let us hope we pass it."

Recent official data showed there were an estimated 484,000 non-nationals in the Republic of Ireland in the second quarter of 2008, out of a total population of around 4.4 million.

Many of the recent wave of immigrants have come from central and eastern European countries such as Poland and the Baltic states. Ireland was one of a handful of European Union states which gave unlimited access to its job market in 2004 when countries such as Lithuania and Poland joined the EU. Ireland imposed labor and welfare restrictions on entrants from Romania and Bulgaria, which both joined the bloc in 2007, arguing it had done its share with the previous accession countries. Rights groups say Ireland's immigration policy is already restrictive for workers from outside the EU who have to fulfill stringent criteria to qualify for a work permit.

Source





11 September, 2008

Foreign doctors, midwives and teachers are facing tougher immigration tests to come to Britain

Thousands of foreign GPs, midwives, teachers and social workers will find it harder to come to work in Britain under a new Government immigration clampdown. The Home Office's Migration Advisory Committee published a new list of nearly 200 skilled occupations - rated as the equivalent of two A-levels or above - which can be filled by migrant workers under new immigration rules. However they exclude a number of occupations which previously have been filled by migrants from outside the European Economic Area (the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) under the old work permit scheme. They include salaried GPs - such as those traditionally from the Indian sub-Continent - who will now find it harder to come to work in the UK.

Social workers, midwives and foreign teachers, apart from those teaching maths and science, skilled construction workers, IT specialists and architects from outside the EEA will also find it tougher to get into Britain. The new list details 700,000 jobs which are potentially open to migrants, 15 per cent of which - around 105,000 - are currently vacant and could be filled by foreigners after the new "points based" immigration system comes into force in November.

This is despite a member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee recently warning that unemployment could hit two million by Christmas. There were particular shortages among civil and chemical engineers, quantity ship and hovercraft officers, skilled chefs earning more than 8.10 pounds an hour, skilled sheep shearers and vets.

Professor David Metcalf, the committee's chairman, said: "Don't think we are a soft touch. There are rather more jobs which we have excluded from the list than we have included." Additional job shortages in Scotland mean that migrants offering to fill a number of additional occupations will be allowed to enter the UK, including frozen fish filleters, nurses in elderly units and speech and language therapists.

The committee rated 353 occupations and 26,000 different job titles by five key indicators including pay, qualifications and training and experience to determine which and jobs were skilled. They then used 12 different indicators to decide which sectors of the economy are suffering from a skills shortage.

Skilled immigrants coming to the UK have to pass a number of points based hurdles before coming to the UK including speaking English, a job offer paying more than 24,000 pounds a year and a sponsoring employer. Under the points based system, foreigners need 70 points to enter the UK. Speaking English is worth 10 points while other points come from skill and salary levels. If the job is on the shortage list, it is worth an extra 50 points.

Prof Metcalf admitted that the focus on salary would mean that pressures to keep wage inflation down in the UK could result in more migrants coming to the UK. He said: "If you keep wages down you probably will need more immigrants."

Ministers will study the list before publishing the final version next month. Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said the list "seems broadly right" and he expected the Government to issue a "remarkably similar" list in five or six weeks. Plans for which unskilled workers under the tier three scheme are currently suspended because the Government said there are enough unskilled workers already in the EEA, the Home Office said.

The Tories criticised the plans. Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: "This announcement shows yet again that when it comes to managing immigration the government still don't get it. "A points-based system without an annual limit is pointless. The government need to understand that sound immigration policy is not just about admitting the right type of people to Britain but the right amount."

The Recruitment and Employment Confederation warned that excluding social and hospitality workers could create labour shortages. Tom Hadley, a spokesman, said: "The effect of the compromise position on social care and hospitality workers will need to be watched. It is vital that positions in these areas can continue to be resourced."

The report comes after a coalition of MPs and peers from all parties called for significant cuts in immigration and a new "one in, one out" policy. The Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration called for a policy of balanced migration, under which immigration levels are capped in line with the number of emigrants to maintain a stable UK population over time.

Source



Lord Carey joins cross-party call for overhaul of British immigration policy

The former Archbishop of Canterbury has called for an overhaul of Britain's immigration policies. Lord Carey has joined a cross-party group of peers and MPs led by Labour's Frank Field and the Conservatives' Nicholas Soames demanding "balanced migration". They want a limit on the number of people permitted to live permanently in Britain, so the population of the UK will stabilise at 65 million. Lord Carey, who has a home on Gower, insisted immigration had been a "blessing" to the country, saying: "We are simply saying we have got to have a policy that works."

The group wants the number of people permanently entering Britain roughly to equal the number leaving. Its launch yesterday coincided with the publication of a YouGov poll commissioned by think-tank Migrationwatch UK which found that among ethnic minority voters, 75% thought immigration should be cut, with 36% backing balanced migration and 39% wanting even tougher limits.

Lord Carey told the Western Mail that if Britain lacked an effective migration policy right-wing parties would exploit public resentment. He is also concerned that "ghettos" are forming in cities.

But Saleem Kidwai, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Wales, rejected the group's call that those permitted to work in Britain should be able to stay for four years only. He said: "The vast majority, we feel, make a great contribution. If they are working here, that means they are needed here. "If they are working here, why restrict their contribution? If they have a job after four years, why shouldn't they continue it?" Only 2% of migrants to the UK between 1993 and 2006 have settled in Wales. A sharp cut in immigration is backed by 81% of Labour voters, 83% of Liberal Democrats and 89% of Conservatives.

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said: "Our tough new points system plus our plans for newcomers to earn their citizenship will reduce overall numbers of economic migrants coming to Britain, and the numbers awarded permanent settlement. "Crucially the points system means only the migrants with the skills Britain needs can come - and no more. Unlike made-up quotas, this stops government cutting business off from the skills it needs when they need them. "We've asked the new, independent Migration Advisory Committee to make sure we hear common sense on the new rules. "We're looking forward to their report on where we need migrants and where we don't before the points system goes live in under three months' time."

Source





10 September, 2008

Who's Inciting Hate?

FAIR Responds to Pro-Illegal Alien Amnesty Coalition's Inflammatory Ads Defaming Millions of Americans who Support Immigration Reform

Having been unable to convince the American public that a mass illegal alien amnesty was justified or served any public interest, advocates for amnesty have launched an orchestrated and well-financed campaign to smear the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and others involved in defeating last year's immigration bill. Using full-page ads in today's editions of The Politico and Roll Call, this coalition of special interest groups uses inflammatory language and stock photos of individuals who have no association with FAIR to incite hatred against anyone who has the audacity to oppose their views on immigration policy. The tone and content of these ads demonstrates that their strategy to silence proponents of immigration reform has resulted in the ugliest and most negative public relations campaign in the history of American politics.

Instead of seeking to promote rational, intelligent, meaningful dialogue on immigration reform, one of the most important issues facing our nation today the ad utterly distorts FAIR's 30-year record of advocacy on immigration reform and merely parrots previous distortions. La Raza and other members of the coalition claim that one in seven Americans (which equals 45 million people) are members of hate or extremist groups. In fact, considering how many Americans oppose amnesty and support the enforcement of our immigration laws, this coalition might want to consider whether they wouldn't simply save themselves time and money and simply call the American public in whole a hate group.

The ad's sponsors have also forgotten to disclose their own political and economic interests in the immigration debate. Each of the organizations responsible for placing the ads invested heavily in failed lobbying efforts to pass the 2007 Senate amnesty bill. In the first half of 2007, America's Voice alone spent $420,000; the National Council of La Raza spent $340,000. During the whole of 2007, SEIU spent over half a million dollars lobbying Congress on immigration and other issues.

In contrast to today's ads that employ vitriolic language and images, any earnest attempt to investigate FAIR will reveal 30 years of consistent advocacy for changes to our legal and illegal immigration policies that make the interests of the American people paramount, not an afterthought. FAIR supports overall reductions in immigration levels in order to avert massive U.S. population growth. We seek to protect American workers against the erosion of the jobs and wages due to policies that flood our labor markets. We oppose immigration policies that strain vital public services, such as education and health care. FAIR favors securing unguarded borders that are an open invitation not only to illegal workers, but to criminals and terrorists. FAIR has testified before Congress on these issues about 100 times over the years and has been a source of information, analysis and commentary to every major newspaper and media outlet in the United States.

FAIR's record is equally consistent with regard to how this nation should treat immigrants. Unlike our critics who seek to blur important distinctions, FAIR distinguishes clearly between immigration policy - which can and should be debated like any other public policy - and immigrants who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. We believe that immigrants to our country should be admitted based on their individual merits, without regard to race, religion, ethnicity, or country of origin, and should be welcomed and integrated into the mainstream of American society. Finally, FAIR is one of only 155 charities nationwide - and the only immigration-related nonprofit- to be accredited by the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance.

Does this ugly ad campaign reflect the tone of change we are to expect from the new wave of political operatives we can expect to descend on Washington at the end of this year? After all, isn't a change from the nasty, divisive rhetoric of Washington what the American public is demanding? If it is, the state of public discourse in the U.S. truly is at a new low. FAIR stands by its record and we call upon all Americans to reject the blatant attempt on the part of a small coalition of radical organizations to halt meaningful debate about one of the most important public policy issues of our time.

Source



ICE: "Intelligent, Competent, Enforcement?" Not Quite

Bungle, bungle, bungle -- and not just dealing with some Miguel Lopez. It was a TERRORISM prosecution. Why are immigration control agencies so regularly brain-dead? Probably because a bureaucracy does not know how to handle opposition. They are so used to being treated like gods

In yet another example of why, as the presidential candidates have so accurately and understatedly described, the workings of the federal bureaucracy need to change, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to demonstrate that despite being part of the Department of Homeland Security, it simply is nowhere near on top of the national security game.

In a nutshell, an influential New Jersey Muslim leader whom U.S. authorities had sought to deport by proving his link to terrorist activity has won his fight to gain permanent U.S. residency. A federal immigration judge in Newark ruled last Thursday that Mohammad Qatanani, the spiritual leader of the Islamic Center of Passaic County, can remain in the U.S.

Through the obvious mishandling of a case which, based on its subject matter, had to be considered high profile and very sensitive, the leadership of ICE has once again proven that it cannot be trusted to competently meet its statutory obligation in the counterterrorism arena. As reported, significant reasons for this outcome were public statements of support and the testimony of certain law enforcement officials on behalf of the suspected terrorist. These were no ordinary officials. They included United States Attorney Christopher Christie, the Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI's Newark Office, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, and at least two local sheriffs.

Additionally, the immigration judge tossed the case because ICE did not get the FBI and other involved agencies, foreign and domestic, to produce specific and credible evidence regarding Mr. Qatanani's supposed terrorist activities in the Middle East.

As a former federal litigator who has tried similar cases, I might just write this off as a "bad day in court" or "a case gone awry." However, because I am a former immigration prosecutor, I suspect that neither is anywhere close to the truth.

In a quick overview of how these types of cases work, the operative factor is that at ICE every national security case must be vetted and approved at headquarters before it can proceed. The command group of the ICE Office of Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) insists on controlling every facet of the litigation-from strategy, to evidence, to pleadings, to arguments, and to even the actual examination of witnesses. They insist on this procedure for every case, no matter how experienced, knowledgeable, or accomplished the assigned field national security litigator is.

The OPLA command group consists of highly paid attorneys who, if they were once trial lawyers, typically have not tried a case in over a decade. Moreover, unless things have drastically changed in the year since I left the agency, none of them has ever tried a national security case. So, what could have gone wrong?

Cases like Qatanani's are almost never generated by ICE itself. Instead, they come to ICE from one of the federal agencies whose mission includes collecting intelligence on terrorists or spies. Because of the nature of intelligence sources, the information is almost always classified.

Thus, and as I taught national security litigators and agents at the old Immigration and Naturalization Service and at ICE, whenever you seek to proceed in a national security case, one of the first things you must do is to ensure "buy in" by ALL of the involved agencies. That is done by meeting face-to-face with all your involved agency principals and getting them to at least nod their heads in agreement in a room full of witnesses if they will not commit in writing.

Beyond that, and since ICE is not yet an independent intelligence collection agency, you have to get the documentary intelligence and usually classified evidence from the pertinent agencies. If those agencies really want you to take the case, they will always give up the information. Remember, in all but the rarest of cases, they ask ICE to take the case to do what the United States Attorney's offices can't or won't do because of the classified nature of the evidence. After locking up a copy in an appropriate safe, the next move is to have as much of the evidence declassified as possible so it can be introduced as evidence in the immigration removal proceeding. Then, and only then, do you accept the case. And that is only if and when the appropriate agency commits to assign its agents to you for supplemental investigative purposes.

So what happened with Qatanani? A good guess is that the OPLA command folks forgot a couple of steps. The judge's ruling indicates they did not get the evidence up front and did not secure the commitment and assurances of everyone they needed before they ordered the case to proceed. So, the unfortunate litigators on the hook went in without any insurance, without their evidence, and without the required witnesses. Instead, they were apparently authorized to present only one ICE agent and one FBI agent, neither of whom had real knowledge of Qatanani's background, as the witnesses who could serve to prove up their case.

But as the OPLA "commanders" controlling this litigation should know, federal law enforcement agents can testify only to what they have been allowed to see by the actual intelligence agencies, and to what they have been authorized to say about that evidence in open court. In Qatanani's case, that wasn't very much. And thus the ICE effort in this case was on a nosedive to defeat before it even began.

But when an Assistant United States Attorney - with the permission of the U.S. Attorney himself - and two top members of local law enforcement were allowed to testify on behalf of the alien, the case went past defeat, and on to oblivion.

Beyond the fact that the testimony of these officials would adversely impact the ICE case, the testimony of the AUSA, in particular wreaked havoc on ICE's assertion of terrorism based on the perceived superior position of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the world of federal counterterrorism. The mere fact that the AUSA was allowed to testify unchallenged proves at the very least that the ICE effort was, at best, misplaced.

Moreover, any experienced federal attorney, litigator, jurist or senior official would know that federal officials of the Department of Justice cannot testify about matters pertaining to their official duties unless they have been cleared to do so under such regulations as 28 CFR Part 16. Absent other information, the judge would have had to presume that the AUSA had permission to testify on behalf of the alleged terrorist from the U.S. Attorney himself and even from the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.

Additionally, experienced litigators know that such permission involves a request and approval process that, as bureaucracy would have it, results in the issuance of a piece of paper that serves as the authorization IF the official is allowed to testify. In this case, maybe the AUSA had such consent. But if he did, why did the prosecution continue at great cost, monetarily and otherwise, to Mr. Qatanani, the U.S. taxpayer, and future efforts to deport foreign nationals involved in terrorism?

I'll go out on a limb and say that it is a pretty good guess that the AUSA didn't have written authorization. Otherwise, the matter would have quietly disappeared off the radar screen long before the judge threw it out of court. What I don't have to guess about is that:

1) The US government was charging Mr. Qatanani with involvement in acts of terrorism abroad.

2) The US government should have had a good faith basis for doing so.

3) To have a good faith basis, ICE would have had to rely on one of the intelligence collection agencies for its evidence.

4) In the United States, the FBI has primary jurisdiction over counterterrorism matters and intelligence.

5) The U.S. Attorney should have been clued into Mr. Qatanani's activities, if he was in fact a suspected terrorist residing in his jurisdiction.

6) The U.S. Attorney should not have been allowed by the Justice Department to have one of his prosecutors testify in this effort to deport Qatanani as a terrorist.

And that leads to one last thing. An experienced and motivated litigator would have taken advantage of voir dire (the procedure allowing a lawyer to question a witness before they are allowed to testify fully to determine if they should be disqualified as a witness in the particular proceeding) to stop this car crash from happening. Such a knowledgeable immigration prosecutor would then have made a motion to disqualify the Department of Justice witness from testifying for the other side.

So, why wasn't the AUSA disqualified from testifying? He should not have had permission to do so from DOJ. He could not testify about everything that the U.S. Attorney's office may know about Qatanani. And as a federal prosecutor, his testimony was in conflict with the U.S. government's effort to deport an alleged terrorist.

Either the AUSA had permission to testify - pitting two arms of government against each other - or, as is more likely, the assigned ICE attorneys were not given permission by OPLA command to oppose his testimony. Again, if the AUSA had permission to testify, OPLA never should have approved the case for prosecution. And if he did not have such permission, ICE OPLA should have done its job and allowed the involved field prosecutors to use everything in their arsenal to prevent another representative of the federal government from literally destroying their case.

Whatever else really happened, two things are clear:

This case never should have gone forward - either because Qatanani is not a terrorist, or because ICE OPLA simply and obviously did not know what it was doing and how to do it. And, if he has been involved in terrorism, Qatanani, courtesy of ICE, may have just managed to cripple the credibility, if not the careers, of the field litigators and agents, as well as ICE's future efforts in such cases as the terrorist removal action against one of the "Liberty City Seven" currently underway in Miami.

As the presidential candidates have said, major change is required in the federal bureaucracy. Let me suggest that, whoever wins, they may have a really easy place to start.

Source





9 September, 2008

More Than 900 Criminal Aliens and Immigration Fugitives Removed from California

More than 900 criminal aliens, immigration fugitives, and immigration violators have been removed from the United States or are facing deportation today following a three-week enforcement surge by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Fugitive Operations Teams in California.

During the special operation, which concluded late yesterday, ICE officers located and arrested a total of 905 immigration violators throughout the state, including 137 here in the San Diego area. Of those arrested locally, 73 were immigration fugitives, aliens who have ignored final orders of deportation or who returned to the United States illegally after being removed. More than 40 percent of the aliens taken into custody in this area had criminal histories in addition to being in the country illegally.

Among those arrested by the Fugitive Operations Teams locally was a 30-year-old Mexican national who was convicted in 1997 for robbery and sentenced to four years in state prison. Last year, Cesar Hernandez-Gallardo lost his appeal to remain in the United States and failed to depart after being ordered deported by an immigration judge. ICE officers also arrested a 37-year-old Mexican national at his residence in Escondido, whose criminal record includes a prior conviction for burglary. He was ordered deported last June and lost his appeal to remain in the United States last month. The other criminal arrests included violent crimes for assault with a deadly weapon, carjacking, domestic violence and sexual assault.

In addition to the local Fugitive Operations Teams, ICE officers from the agency's teams in Los Angeles and San Francisco were temporarily deployed to the area to assist with this enforcement action.

ICE's Fugitive Operations Teams are tasked with identifying and arresting foreign nationals who have ignored final orders of deportation or have returned to the United States illegally after being removed. The teams prioritize cases involving immigration violators who pose a threat to national security and community safety. These include child sexual exploiters, suspected gang members, and those who have convictions for violent crimes.

"ICE is committed to restoring integrity to this country's immigration system and that means ensuring that the removal orders handed down by the nation's immigration courts are carried out," said Robin Baker, field officer director for ICE detention and removal operations in San Diego. "As a country, we welcome law-abiding immigrants, but foreign nationals who violate our laws and commit crimes in our communities should be on notice that ICE is going to use all of the tools at its disposal to find you and send you home."

Since many of these individuals have already been ordered deported, they are subject to immediate removal from the United States. More than half of those arrested during the statewide operation have already been removed to their home countries. The remaining aliens are in ICE custody and are awaiting a hearing before an immigration judge, or pending travel arrangements for removal in the near future.

The Fugitive Operations Program was established in 2003 to eliminate the nation's backlog of immigration fugitives. Today, ICE has 75 teams deployed across the country, including 13 in California.

Last year, the nation's fugitive alien population declined for the first time in history and continues to do so - in large part due to the work of the Fugitive Operations Teams. Estimates now place the number of immigration fugitives in the United States at slightly under 573,000, a decrease of more than 59,000 since October 2006. Given the success of the fugitive operations effort, Congress has authorized ICE to add 29 more Fugitive Operations Teams in fiscal year 2008.

ICE's Fugitive Operations Program is an integral part of the comprehensive multi-year plan launched by the Department of Homeland Security to secure America's borders and reduce illegal migration. That strategy seeks to gain operational control of both the northern and southern borders, while re-engineering the detention and removal system to ensure that illegal aliens are removed from the country quickly and efficiently.

Source



Majority in Britain want tougher immigration policy

The majority of people living in Britain, from all political and ethnic backgrounds, think too many people are settling in the country and favour tougher immigration policies, a poll showed on Monday. According to the YouGov poll, 57 percent of adults think there should be less immigration than emigration and 28 percent favour keeping the number of people moving to Britain the same as the number leaving, so-called balanced migration.

With immigration high on the political agenda following an influx of workers from eastern Europe, a parliamentary cross-party committee asked pressure group Migrationwatch to commission the survey on balanced migration.

According to the Office of National Statistics, more people have moved to Britain than left every year since 1993, when there was a net outflow of 1,000. The net inflow was 223,000 in 2004, 185,000 in 2005 and 191,000 in 2006.

The YouGov survey showed there was overwhelming support for lower immigration from backers of the three main political parties, as well as among black and minority ethnic respondents. Among supporters of Labour, 36 percent said balanced migration was about right and 45 percent said that would still mean immigration was too high. For Conservative voters, 23 percent supported a balanced approach while 66 percent wanted tougher limits.

Among black and minority ethnic respondents to the YouGov survey, 36 percent favoured balanced migration and 39 percent wanted tighter immigration policies

More here



8 September, 2008

Tide of immigrants could one day overwhelm us

When the Census Bureau released its new population projections last month, most of the media focused on the country's changing racial composition. But this was almost certainly not the most important finding. The projections show that the U.S. population will grow by 135 million in just 42 years - a 44 percent increase. Such growth would have profound implications for our environment and quality of life. Most of the increase would be a direct result of one federal policy - immigration. If we reduced the level of immigration, the projections would be much lower. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Do we want to be a much more densely settled country?

Native-born Americans have only about two children on average, which makes for a roughly stable population over time. But with an estimated 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the country each year, and about 900,000 births to these immigrants each year, immigration directly and indirectly accounts for at least three-fourths of U.S. population growth.

An increase of 135 million people by 2050 is equivalent to the entire populations of Mexico and Canada moving here. Assuming the same ratio of population to infrastructure that exists today, the United States would need to build and pay for 36,000 schools. We would need to develop enough land to accommodate 52 million new housing units, along with places for the people who lived in them to shop and work. We would also have to construct enough roads to handle 106 million more vehicles.

Of course, our country can "fit" more people. But such a dramatic increase would affect many issues about which Americans are concerned, including the environment, traffic, congestion, sprawl and the loss of open spaces. Technology and planning could help manage this situation, but there is no way they could offset all of the impact of 135 million more people. This massive increase also would have implications for the size and scope of government; more densely settled societies almost always are more heavily regulated societies.

Another important finding in the census projections is that, even with record levels of immigration for the next four decades, the U.S. population will still grow significantly older. Immigration makes our society only slightly younger than it would otherwise be. (Consider that, on average, the overall fertility rate in the United States is about 2.1 children per woman. If immigrants are excluded from the data, it's still about 2.0 children per woman. This compares with 1.4 children in Western Europe. Immigration makes for a much more densely settled country; it does not make for a much younger country.)

As the Census Bureau stated in its 2000 projections, immigration is a "highly inefficient" means for addressing the problem of an aging society in the long run. The new projections show the same thing.

Some people think that immigration creates large economic benefits. But the economic research is pretty clear: While immigration does significantly increase economic activity in the receiving society, almost all of that increased activity goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits. The gain to natives is tiny. When the National Research Council, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, examined this question, it concluded that the benefits for native-born Americans were equal to only about one- or two-tenths of 1 percent of their income. The two economists who did the work for the council described the effect as "minuscule."

Moreover, this tiny economic benefit was entirely erased by the fiscal drain immigrant households imposed on taxpayers. Perhaps worst of all, the researchers found that to generate this small gain, immigration reduced the wages of the least educated and poorest American workers.

There is no question that immigrants benefit by coming here. But it is difficult to argue that immigration is a well-targeted way to lift up the world's poor. Many immigrants to the United States were not poor in their home countries. More important, although immigration causes an enormous increase in the overall U.S. population, it still represents an infinitesimal fraction of the world's low-income population. We can do more to help poor people in developing countries through trade policies and development assistance.

The United States may well decide to continue to allow the settlement of 1.5 million immigrants (legal and illegal) each year. But legal immigration is a federal program like any other and could be reduced below the 1 million currently allowed to enter annually. Greater resources could also be devoted to reducing illegal immigration. It's important to understand that the new projections show us one possible future. We must decide as a country if this is the future we want.

Source



British Labour Party parliamentarian calls for curbs on migrants

The leading Labour rebel, Frank Field, has teamed up with senior Tories to demand a cap on the number of immigrants settling in Britain. In a move that will alarm Downing Street, Field will tomorrow become the first prominent Labour figure to tackle Gordon Brown openly over the explosive issue of immigration. A former welfare minister under Tony Blair, Field will join Nicholas Soames, the Tory MP, to call for a huge reduction in the numbers of non-European Union workers who settle permanently in Britain. Soames, a former minister under John Major, is a hate figure among many Labour MPs. Together with the pressure group Migrationwatch, Field and his allies will launch the first cross-party parliamentary immigration group. The move has tacit support from at least one government minister.

Field aims to push Brown to end Britain's open door immigration policy, which he says is costing British jobs and is deeply unpopular with voters. The Labour maverick led the backbench rebellion over Brown's controversial abolition of the 10p tax rate. His latest intervention will be seen by Downing Street as likely to cause division within Labour ranks by challenging Brown on a key area of Labour policy. Until now the idea of imposing any kind of immigration quota has been taboo in Labour circles. Field believes that unchecked immigration is placing an intolerable burden on schools, transport, the health service and the environment. He will cite figures showing that the rise in immigration means that Britain will need to build seven new cities the size of Birmingham by 2031.

A forecast by the European commission predicts that Britain's population will rise from 60.9m today to 77m within 50 years, making it Europe's most populous country. In 2006, the latest year for which figures are available, an estimated 591,000 people arrived in the UK. About 400,000 left the country, leaving net immigration at 191,000.

Field will call on Brown to balance the number of those coming to settle in Britain with those emigrating. He will propose that all but a tiny minority of the skilled foreigners from outside the EU coming to work here on new four-year work permits should leave as soon as their permits expire. Under the present system, most stay on and are allowed to settle permanently. "The group believe that this should be the central aim of immigration policy. Only a small number would be allowed to settle and that number would be capped," said a source close to Field.

Yesterday one government minister said he privately supported the move. "We absolutely have to have a cap, otherwise how can you control it? Any sensible person will say that predictions that the population will grow to nearly 80m is unsustainable," he said. "If you don't have a cap on those who stay after their work permits expire, you can't control the long-term trend."

Field has spoken about the need to control immigration from eastern Europe. But this is the first time that any Labour figure has called for a quota on migrants coming to settle. Ministers have consistently dismissed Tory calls for a quota, saying it would make little difference as most migrants come from the EU and have a legal right to stay. But that view is challenged by Migrationwatch, which has found that immigration from the EU will soon balance out. The pressure of immigration in future will come from non-EU countries, including those in Africa and Asia. Unofficial estimates suggest that as many as 100,000 foreigners a year who come to Britain under work permit schemes decide to flout immigration rules and stay on when their permits expire.

The Home Office has recently introduced an Australian points-based system designed to restrict the number of non-EU migrants entering under the work permit scheme to those who have proper qualifications and experience. But the Tories - and Field - believe that the scheme is still an open door because it does not set an annual limit on numbers. David Cameron, the Conservative party leader, said last year that he wanted to reduce "substantially" the number of non-EU immigrants. He has promised to announce a specific limit in the party's next election manifesto.

Field will emphasise that he does not want a limit on the numbers of new migrants per se. Instead he plans to target the more important issue of placing a cap on those who settle here permanently. Field's friends say his move is designed to reflect genuine concern among working-class people in his Birkenhead constituency. Last December the MP revealed new figures which showed that most new jobs were going to migrants. The figures made a mockery of Brown's declaration that he wanted "British jobs for British workers". The Statistics Commission said that 1.4m workers born abroad had taken jobs in Britain since 1997 - up to 81% of the 1.7m new jobs.

The new group believes it has backing from business leaders such as the Institute of Directors and the CBI. Field expects to receive substantial public support. Previous opinion polls show about half of existing migrants felt there should be curbs on future immigrants coming to Britain.

A Home Office spokesperson last night said: "Migration is good for employment and good for the economy - new migrants contributed ś6 billion to the UK economy in 2006 alone. "The tough Australian-style points system means only those Britain needs and no more can come here and it's flexible - allowing us to raise or lower the bar according to the needs of business and the country as a whole. When setting the pass mark, we will listen to the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, an independent panel of economists. "All migrants must speak English and obey the law if they want to gain citizenship."

Source





7 September, 2008

In Israel, era of mass immigration ends



Melissa Schwab is no Zionist zealot. She's not an Orthodox Jew seeking to be nearer to God. She didn't flee anti-Semitism. So why move nearly 9,000 miles from her home in Hawaii and settle in life-on-the-edge Israel? Because, she says, she likes a lifestyle that is "secular and normal" while offering something "a bit more meaningful."

The 26-year-old American student's decision to make "aliyah" - the Hebrew term for "going up" - makes her part of the Jewish state's vast immigration enterprise, the bedrock of its very existence. But the influx that brought together more than 3 million Jews from more than 100 countries following Israel's creation in 1948 has dwindled to a trickle. The last great immigration wave - Ethiopian Christians of Jewish ancestry who convert back to Judaism for resettlement in Israel - has just ended, and with it an iconic chapter in Israeli history. The persecuted and the poor of world Jewry are for the most part already here. So most future immigrants will be people like Schwab, making a private, individual choice.

Israel's appeal to the Jewish Diaspora used to be as a small feisty nation fighting for its survival, or as a socialist alternative to the capitalist rat race. There were kibbutzim to farm and deserts to make bloom. But today the Jewish state is in many ways a normal industrialized democracy. Its immigrants today are as likely to be job-hunting non-Jews from Africa and Asia, many of them here illegally, as Zionists in search of spiritual fulfillment.

Diaspora Jews are also less likely to leave everything behind for Israel. It's much easier today to be a dual national, living part-time in both worlds. Meanwhile, Israelis have also become frequent fliers. The tech-savvy nouveaux-riches of Tel Aviv joke that a visit to New York is more common than a 40-mile pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

Schwab arrived a year ago from Maui, where she practiced Judaism in an informal "Aloha-style kind of way." She is fluent in Hebrew and studies at an Israeli university. Her boyfriend is a "Sabra" - a native-born Israeli. She lives in Tel Aviv, which next year celebrates its centennial as the world's first purpose-built Jewish city. She's part of an old ideal, "the ingathering of the exiles" - the raison d'etre of the Zionist movement from its beginnings more than a century ago.

Even before Israel became a state, the Jewish population grew to 600,000 in five great waves of immigration as European Jews beset by pogroms and then the Holocaust realized an age-old Jewish dream of returning to Zion after 2,000 years in exile. More than 3 million more have followed, and Israel's Jewish population now stands at 5.5 million, plus 1.4 million Arab citizens. Of the world's population of just over 13 million Jews, Israel's is the biggest portion, having surpassed America's in 2006.

"There is no place in the world where the number of immigrants is five times the number of the people who were there. It is unprecedented," said Sergio DellaPergola, a prominent demographer at the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a Jerusalem think tank.

Source



Radio Hosts Converging On DC To Fight Illegal Immigration

On September 10 and 11, 42 talk radio hosts from all across the country will be broadcasting live from Washington, D.C., as part of the annual "Hold Their Feet to the Fire event."

The message they will drive home is that in 2009, the Americans want the new Congress and the new administration to enact real immigration reform that does not offer amnesty for illegal aliens. The talk radio hosts will be joined by CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, whose September 10th television broadcast will originate in its entirety from the site of Hold Their Feet to the Fire.

In 2007, Hold Their Feet to the Fire was held just prior to the introduction of Senate legislation that would have granted amnesty to millions of immigration lawbreakers. The nationwide radio event helped galvanize unprecedented public opposition to the bill and led to its defeat. Hold Their Feet to the Fire 2008 is being organized by the FAIR Congressional Task Force and Roger Hedgecock of KOGO Radio in San Diego.

In addition to the two-day radio row broadcast, Hold Their Feet to the Fire organizers will join with leading members of Congress for a Capitol Hill news conference to explain why they have gathered in Washington and discuss the urgent need for real immigration reform in 2009. Also included at the news conference will be Jamiel Shaw Sr. and Sgt. Anita Shaw, whose 17-year-old son was murdered by an illegal alien gang member while Sgt. Shaw was serving Iraq.

Source





6 September, 2008

Democrats to Immigrants: "Get Right with the Law"

Why the change? They are poll-driven, as they usually are

The Democrats are uniting behind new messaging on immigration reform. Having acknowledged that the immigration restrictionists are dominating the immigration debate, the Democratic Party and its allies are desperately seeking to reframe the immigration crisis. Their new language about immigration policy -"nation of laws," "rule of law," and "required legal status"- is popping up everywhere, from the pronouncements of immigrant-rights groups to the Democratic Party platform.

With new language, they hope to win popular, bipartisan support for immigration reform in their own terms. It's a message that is shaped by in-house polls and political calculation. The party doesn't back away from comprehensive immigration reform that includes legalization for illegal immigrants. As if by rote, it includes the standard language about America being "a nation of immigrants." But the party also strikes a harsher stance than in the past. Trying to please all tendencies, the Democrats say that immigration reform should be "tough, practical, and humane."

Instead of offering an "earned path to citizenship," as it has in the past, the party is now proclaiming that illegal immigrants will be required to obey the law-with the emphasis on the verb "require."

"For the millions living here illegally but otherwise playing by the rules, we must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law," states the party's platform. "We support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens."

The "get right with the law" framing is also evident in the recent shift of Democratic Party leaders and pro-immigration toward a dual vision of immigration reform. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other leading Democrats now echo the party line that America can be "both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws."

Several of the planks will surely please the pro-immigration forces, including: "We must work together to pass immigration reform in a way that unites this country, not in a way that divides us by playing on our worst instincts and fears." "We need to crack down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants, especially those who pay their workers less than the minimum wage." "We also need to do more to promote economic development in migrant-sending nations, to reduce incentives to come to the United States illegally."

But there is also new enforcement language not seen in previous platforms. The platform states, "We need to secure our borders, and support additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry." Similarly, "We need additional Customs and Border Protection agents equipped with better technology and real-time intelligence."

And in a sign that universal employee verification is only a matter of time, the platform committee acknowledges that if employers are to be sanctioned for their hiring practices, then "employers need a method to verify whether their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States, and will ensure that our system is accurate, fair to legal workers, safeguards people's privacy, and cannot be used to discriminate against workers."

The Democratic Party is determined to gain the full support of the Latino community. It is sponsoring or supporting massive voter registration and voter education campaigns among Latinos and especially the immigrant community. It is, therefore, unwilling to touch the politically sensitive issue of further limiting family reunification visas.

As the platform committee states: "We should fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy that hampers family reunification, the cornerstone of our immigration policy for years. Given the importance of both keeping families together and supporting American businesses, we will increase the number of immigration visas for family members of people living here ..."

It's a platform that is strikingly different than the 2000 and 2004 immigration platforms in its new "rule of law" posture, although it retains some of the immigrant-centered positions. In 2004, in a nod to the then-reigning security framework of the war on terrorism, the party promised as it worked to ensure that undocumented immigrants "have a path to earn full participation in America ... we will work with our neighbors to strengthen our security so we are safer from those who would come here to harm us."

In 2000, the party said, "Family reunification should continue to be the cornerstone of our legal immigration system." And "we support restoration of basic due process protections, so that immigrants are no longer subject to deportation for minor offenses and are eligible to receive safety net services supported by their tax dollars."

Central to the new Democratic framing is the concept of requiring immigrants to "get right with the law" rather than offering them a "pathway to citizenship." Where did this new language come from? Apparently from two progressive Beltway institutes close to the Democratic Party: Center for American Progress and America's Voice. These two organizations floated the "required" language in a few polls to determine how the party and immigration advocates should parse the immigration issue.

What's the number one goal of Americans with respect to the issue of illegal immigration? In their report "Winning the Immigration Issue: Requiring Legal Status for Illegal Immigrants," the pollsters state: "Hispanic and non-Hispanic voters agree that the most important goal in dealing with illegal immigration is to require illegal immigrants to become legal."

In addition to the "required" wording, the two other key elements of the Democratic Party messaging, according to the polling results, are:

"The 'required legal status' proposal finds strong support provided there are conditions: paying taxes, learning English, passing a criminal background check, and going to the back of the citizenship line."

"Focus on the role of employers. Democrats should favor strong enforcement not only at the border, but also in the workplace. The public believes the main cause of illegal immigration is that employers hire undocumented workers."

The focus on requiring immigrants to become legal or face deportation if they fail to register gives Democrats a tough, seamless message about getting the immigration system under control and having respect for the rule of law," said the pollsters.

Headed by Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, the pollsters observed: "Historically, the Democratic immigration message focused on providing an 'earned path to citizenship,' but this approach has no more appeal than a deportation agenda. However, the idea of requiring illegal immigrants to become legal generates a sharply different response. Nearly nine in ten voters favor a proposal to 'require illegal immigrants to become legal, obey U.S. laws, pay taxes, or face deportation ...'"

The polling report recommends the following as a concise summary of the party's position-a position largely reflected in the party's platform:

"We must be tough and smart to get our immigration system under control. It is unacceptable to have 12 million people in our country living outside the legal system. We must secure the border but we must also require illegal immigrants to register and become legal, pay their taxes, learn English, and pass criminal background checks. Those who have a criminal record or refuse to register should be sent home."

More here



Population Growth Key Immigration Issue

When the Census Bureau released its new population projections last month, most of the media focused on the country's changing racial composition. But this was almost certainly not the most important finding. The projections show that the U.S. population will grow by 135 million in just 42 years - a 44 percent increase. Such growth would have profound implications for our environment and quality of life. Most of the increase would be a direct result of one federal policy - immigration. If we reduced the level of immigration, the projections would be much lower. The question we have to ask ourselves is: Do we want to be a much more densely settled country?

Native-born Americans have only about two children on average, which makes for a roughly stable population over time. But with an estimated 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the country each year, and about 900,000 births to these immigrants each year, immigration directly and indirectly accounts for at least three-fourths of U.S. population growth.

An increase of 135 million people by 2050 is equivalent to the entire populations of Mexico and Canada moving here. Assuming the same ratio of population to infrastructure that exists today, the United States would need to build and pay for 36,000 schools. We would need to develop enough land to accommodate 52 million new housing units, along with places for the people who lived in them to shop and work. We would also have to construct enough roads to handle 106 million more vehicles.

Of course, our country can "fit" more people. But such a dramatic increase would affect many issues about which Americans are concerned, including the environment, traffic, congestion, sprawl and the loss of open spaces. Technology and planning could help manage this situation, but there is no way they could offset all of the impact of 135 million more people. This massive increase also would have implications for the size and scope of government; more densely settled societies almost always are more heavily regulated societies.

Another important finding in the census projections is that, even with record levels of immigration for the next four decades, the U.S. population will still grow significantly older. Immigration makes our society only slightly younger than it would otherwise be. Some people think that immigration creates large economic benefits. But the economic research is pretty clear: While immigration does significantly increase economic activity in the receiving society, almost all of that increased activity go to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits. The gain to natives is tiny. When the National Research Council, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, examined this question, it concluded that the benefits for native-born Americans were equal to only about one- or two-tenths of 1 percent of their income. The two economists who did the work for the council described the effect as "minuscule."

Moreover, this tiny economic benefit was entirely erased by the fiscal drain immigrant households imposed on taxpayers. Perhaps worst of all, the researchers found that to generate this small gain, immigration reduced the wages of the least educated and poorest American workers.

There is no question that immigrants benefit by coming here. But it is difficult to argue that immigration is a well-targeted way to lift up the world's poor. We can do more to help poor people in developing countries through trade policies and development assistance.

The United States may well decide to continue to allow the settlement of 1.5 million immigrants (legal and illegal) each year. But legal immigration is a federal program like any other and could be reduced below the 1 million currently allowed to enter annually. Greater resources could also be devoted to reducing illegal immigration. It's important to understand that the new projections show us one possible future. We must decide as a country if this is the future we want.

Source





5 September, 2008

"Hate" claims about anti-illegal-immigration groups are losing clout

McCarthy-like tactics and techniques are being used to discredit and silence average citizens and public officials who lobby on behalf of tighter borders and vigorous law enforcement, Dan Stein, president for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has charged in response to a report targeting his organization. Although press coverage is still weighted against the proponents of immigration reform fewer reporters are willing to help peddle incendiary and inaccurate allegations leveled individuals and groups who have expressed concern over America's porous borders, Stein said in an interview.

Under the guise of "tolerance" The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) saw fit to label FAIR as a "hate group" in one of its most recent "Intelligence Reports." This quarterly magazine provides law enforcement officials and the public at large with updated information on "extremist activity," according to the organization's web site. A "furious nativist tide" fueled in large part by white supremacists and racists linked in with FAIR were largely responsible for the defeat of bipartisan immigration legislation last year, the SPLC contends. FAIR is accused of promoting "racist conspiracy theories" pertaining to America's Southwest and of accepting financial contributions from sources with racist overtones in the report.

The objective here is to control and re-frame the debate over immigration policy by way of a compliant media Stein said in an interview. The "hate group" designation does not have any factual standing and was created "out of thin air" in an effort to derail reform efforts that enjoy widespread public support, he argued.

The SPLC, based in Montgomery, Ala., is a non-profit legal organization founded in 1971 for the stated purpose of turning the nation's constitutional ideals into reality. To this end the SPLC pursues legal action against "hate groups" with a particularly strong emphasis on white supremacists. It also provides K-12 teachers with "anti-bias resources."

But the organization has lost clout and credibility in recent years as a result of questionable fundraising practices and dubious tactics, Stein claims. The SPLC has helped foster a new "hate group industry" that stirs fear and anxiety among donors based on largely fictional accounts, Stein observed in a recent editorial. "The "Intelligence Report" is now seen as nothing more than a cultivation mailing used to inflame fear among its gullible donors that intolerance and hatred is breaking out all over the country," he wrote. "Despite the media's willingness to dutifully report periodic reports claiming a "skyrocketing increase in hate crimes," few reporters look to the Intelligence Report as a real source of "intelligence," Stein continued.

But with the cause of immigration now gaining momentum there is now attempt underway to obscure legitimate policy differences with incendiary labels unattached to reality, Stein suggested. "The SPLC is an extremely dangerous organization because it hides behind the mask of promoting tolerance when in fact it represents nothing but intolerance for political points of view it disagrees with," he said. "What started out as organization that many felt had a worthy goal has metastasized into this demon to justify the accumulation of vast resources. This means it has to create enemies."

FAIR has responded to the SPLC report on its web site here. With so many American citizens volunteering their time to help make a difference on behalf of an important issue with national ramifications FAIR felt it necessary to offer up a rejoinder, Stein explained. "Remaining silent in the face of such bald-faced intimidation tactics is what permitted Senator Joseph McCarthy to obtain such unchecked power in the 1950s and it must be checked now," he wrote in his editorial.

The debate over immigration policy is "complex, controversial and deeply emotional, Stein acknowledged in his recent commentary. Meaningful reform will not be advanced in the absence of a constructive dialogue that proceeds from mutual respect for competing views, he suggested. "Organizations that resort to inflammatory rhetoric and name-calling an effort to stifle debate do not advance the public's need for a robust, free and healthy exchange," Stein wrote. These tactics are contrary to the best American traditions of public service and inconsistent with our needs as a nation today."

"In the end, Senator McCarthy was shamed into silence. Someday soon, I hope to see the same thing happen to those responsible for turning what should be a constructive voice in this society - the SPLC - into a slander machine cynically using fabrications and false hysteria to make a handful of people rich," he concluded.

Source



Tunnelers lose one



Police investigating suspicious activity at a home just south of the U.S.-Mexican border found a group of men digging a secret tunnel to the United States - complete with lights, an elevator and air-conditioning.

Acting on a reports of armed men outside, cops raided the house in the border city of Mexicali and found eight workers 20 feet underground digging a tunnel with picks and shovels, according to Baja California state police spokesman Agustin Perez. The narrow passage - only about 3 feet wide and 3 feet high - stretched some 100 yards toward Calexico, Calif. But the tunnel still had another 100 yards or so to go until it reached the U.S, Perez said. The sophisticated tunnel is one of 70 discovered since 2000.

Another police official, Juan Manuel Guillen, told KSWT.com that police searching the home found a .38 special revolver, digging tools and a Ford F-350 truck that was used to remove the dirt. The eight suspects, ranging in age from 27 to 52, were taken into custody. It is not known whom they were working for.

Source





4 September, 2008

ACLU sues to halt Rhode Island governor's immigration order

A right to break the law?

A civil rights group filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block Gov. Don Carcieri from enforcing an executive order requiring private employers to electronically check the immigration status of new hires. The lawsuit, filed by the state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, challenges an executive order that Carcieri signed in March to clamp down on illegal immigration.

Carcieri's order requires state police and prison officials to identify illegal immigrants for possible deportation. It also forces state agencies and companies doing business with the state to use a federal database to check the immigration status of new employees. Companies that refuse to comply could lose their state contracts.

The ACLU argues that the database, E-Verify, disproportionately identifies foreign-born employees as ineligible to work and that the database could encourage employers to discriminate against workers who appear foreign.

A 2007 report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security showed 96 percent of people claiming to be U.S. citizens were cleared by the database on the first try. But the report said 3 percent of foreign-born workers with the right to work in the U.S. were erroneously rejected by the E-Verify system, compared with .1 percent of U.S. citizens born here. The report cautioned that the error rates cannot be fixed quickly.

The lawsuit accuses Carcieri of violating the state constitution by interfering with existing contracts and by enforcing an executive order that conflicts with purchasing laws adopted by the General Assembly. It also accuses Carcieri of failing to hold a public hearing about the new rules as required by law.

Carcieri spokeswoman Amy Kempe said the governor was within his legal authority to require state contractors to use the database. She said the ACLU's lawsuit lacked merit and called it an attempt to meddle with Carcieri's ability to enforce federal law. The governor has said the estimated 20,000 to 40,000 illegal immigrants in Rhode Island are a financial drain on schools, hospitals and state government. His order sparked a raucous debate over illegal immigration in Rhode Island.

Clergy, civil rights advocates and Hispanic leaders have urged Carcieri to rescind the order, saying it could lead to racial profiling and discourage illegal immigrants from contacting police if they are victimized or witness a crime.

Source



Ariz. immigration crusader wins Senate primary

Rep. Russell Pearce won the Republican nomination for an open Senate seat in a race that saw foes pour money and mud into their efforts to oust the Arizona Legislature's most ardent foe of illegal immigration. But several other prominent lawmakers were losers in other primary races Tuesday. They included the third-ranking House Republican, a GOP senator who regularly bucked his party on fiscal and other issues and a representative with a recent drunken-driving conviction.

Pearce defeated immigration attorney Kevin Gibbons, 5,717 votes, or 69 percent, to 2,587 votes, or 31 percent, with all 51 precincts reporting in results from the Republican primary for the Senate seat from Legislative District 18 in Mesa, a Phoenix suburb.

Pearce drew opposition from business interests for his stance on the immigration issue as farmers and others poured money into the race. In turn, Republican Party activists rallied behind him. Democrat Judah Nativio ran unopposed for his party's nomination, but the winner of the GOP primary enjoys a big edge in the heavily Republican district.

More here



2 September, 2008

Illegals can do no wrong?

Hospital chided for reporting illegal applicant

Maria Martinez' attempt to land a cafeteria job at a suburban Dallas hospital got her arrested, jailed and deported. She did use a counterfeit social security on her application to Trinity Medical Center, but her relatives and supporters wonder whether the hospital overreacted by calling the police.

During yet another year marked by several high profile immigration raids targeting both undocumented workers and the companies who hire them, the Martinez case raises questions [Does it? Who says?]about what employers can or should do if they discover an applicant is not authorized to work legally in the U.S.

A spokeswoman for the medical center here contends the hospital was simply following policy and has a responsibility to report criminal activity, including possible identity theft.

It may be hospital policy, but employers aren't required to report a worker or applicant suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, say immigration attorneys and enforcement officials. "For an employer to go ahead and take it upon themselves ... to report that is unusual," [Unusual! How awful! Virtue is often unusual] said immigration attorney Kathleen Walker. "There's no obligation on my part to go call law enforcement." U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Carl Rusnok agreed, saying employers and local police typically don't have the training needed to determine whether someone is in the country illegally.

Carrollton's mayor has emphasized that one of his priorities is to rid the city of illegal immigrants. The neighboring suburb of Farmers Branch has unsuccessfully tried to prohibit landlords from renting houses and apartments to tenants who cannot prove they are in the U.S. legally.

But hospital spokeswoman Susan Watson said the decision to report Martinez had nothing to do with the immigration debate in suburban Dallas. The hospital reported what it considered a crime, she said. "Regardless of whether they were an illegal alien, legal immigrant or an American citizen, it still wouldn't have mattered. They still would have been reported," she said.

Watson said it was the first time in at least two years that the hospital reported a possible crime involving a worker or applicant to police. But officials are always on alert because many employees have access to patients' medical records and other private information, she said.

Immigration attorneys and advocates are concerned that many employers have become overly cautious, to the point that they might be bending or breaking the law. "When people are being prescreened before a decision to hire is being made, then you could have exposure to discrimination charges," said Walker, an El Paso lawyer and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Recent workplace raids around the country have increasingly led to prosecuting unauthorized workers for identity theft and use of someone else's social security number. But those prosecutions have stemmed from federal investigations into workers at specific companies, not calls from an employer to local police.

Still, such raids have left employers edgy, said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute at New York University School of Law. "I think employers are beginning to feel the pinch and in many cases I think they are trying not only to be sort of extra cautious but ... to be pre-emptive," said Chishti. "What's troubling is that employers have taken it upon themselves the job of ascertaining whether a crime has been committed."

Martinez, a single mother of a 3-year-old son and a teenage daughter, acknowledged buying the social security card for $110 at a Wal-Mart., according to police records. She also had a second social security card and two counterfeit cards stating she was a legal permanent resident. She had planned to fight the state charge, but after being held in jail for nearly three weeks, she agreed to be deported to Mexico. Her son joined her there.

"She told me to please forgive her," said Martinez' 19-year-old daughter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she also is in the U.S. illegally. "She told me she wasn't strong enough to fight."

Source



Pope acknowledges the illegal immigration problem

Benedict XVI warned yesterday that the emergence of immigration is becoming increasingly serious and "urgently calls into question our solidarity and at the same time our effective policy responses."

The pontiff, from his summer residence of Castelgandolfo, urged a political solution to the issue of illegal immigration that is comes from Africa to Europe. “Migration is something that has taken place since the dawn of humanity’s history, and has always been a feature of the relations between peoples and nations. The emergency which it has now become calls for our attention, and whilst it spurs our solidarity, it also requires a proper political response”.

Pope Benedict XVI expressed the pain caused by illegal immigration and urged governments and international organizations to work tirelessly to "remove the causes of irregular migration as well as to suppress at the roots of all connected forms of criminal activity. For their part European countries, or at least countries [who are the targets of] immigration, must develop joint initiatives and build joint structures that are more appropriate to the needs of irregular migrants”.

After the Angelus, the Pope spoke of increased illegal immigration from Africa across the Mediterranean, seen as a hope to escape situations that are "often unsustainable," which are then often "turned into tragedy."

“I know that many at the regional, national and international levels are involved in finding a solution to the issue of irregular migration. I applaud and encourage them so that they might continue in their worthy action responsibly and in a humanitarian spirit,” he added.

The Pope also stressed that countries of origin must show “ a sense of responsibility, not only because their citizens are involved, but also to remove the causes of irregular migration, as well as to eradicate, at the roots, all forms of criminality linked to it."

Finally, the Pope stressed: “As everyone’s Father I feel the profound duty to call upon everyone to become aware of the problem and ask for the generous co-operation of individuals and institutions in facing it and in finding solutions. May the Lord accompany us and make our efforts fruitful!”

Source





1 September, 2008

Death by Illegal Alien - Americans face shattered lives

American's should be outraged by the disingenuous tear-jerker article, Deported Mexicans face shattered lives, by AP writer Julie Watson (8/24/08) which contrived to paint the sad picture of Mexican Illegal Aliens forced to return to their own homeland. The author neglected to cite the devastation to American victims left behind in their wake. The picture that would have been less prejudiced and more appropriately and accurately reported is the following:

Any Town, USA - The tiny white coffin is lowered silently into it's final resting place surrounded by walls of dark, cold earth. The words on the paper held in a devastated mother's trembling hand can never be erased: 'DEATH CERTIFICATE.'

For American families traumatized by rape, robbery and murder at the hands of Illegal Aliens, the words are an unnecessary reminder. Every day throughout the USA, coffin lids are gently closed and locked, carefully placed into black hearses and driven through cemetery gates, into the final darkness. Each time a coffin lid is closed, it wipes out an American's future, ends an American dream and destroys another American family. This devastation is being perpetrated upon U.S. citizens by Illegal Alien law breakers who live with absolutely no fear of the Rule of Law and law enforcement, while our callous elected leaders look the other way.

The carefully hidden secret is that Americans are victims of violent crime at the hands of Illegal Aliens on a daily basis. They include mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, grandchildren, grandparents in every walk of life, at every age.

Not far from the cemetery gate, Illegal Aliens congregate with impunity, exhibiting a complete lack of respect for the people whose country they have invaded. They are urinating on sidewalks, defecating in allies, grabbing their crotches, flipping the bird, leering and making uncomfortable hand gestures and sexual remarks in Spanish at frightened, young girls. At least 2 percent of this unlawful congregation could be sexual predators! [2] Not long ago the neighborhood was a safe, clean haven, but the quality of life has quickly eroded with parents increasingly worried each time their children leave their homes. Who will be next? Who will be mowed down by a drunk Illegal Alien who has been arrested and released multiple times? Raped by the illegal invader who has previously been arrested without ever once having to prove his legality? Shot by Latino gang members setting up shop in every U.S. State?

In 2006, 630,000 convicted illegal alien felons or a full 29 percent of our prisons are loaded with criminal illegals. They cost us $1.6 billion annually.[3] What are they costing us in 2008?

All along the 2,000 mile border, on U.S. Soil, there are thousands of 'shanty towns' called COLONIAS, inhabited by Illegal Aliens and their anchor babies. [4] Unsuspecting American taxpayers are footing the bill, via both state and federal legislation {hidden in hundreds of pages of legal speak,} for the building of infrastructure, medical and prenatal care, education, water, sewage....and yes...housing! {2 words = Freddie Mac} We are paying dearly for every rape, vehicular homicide and murder with our hard earned money and, most importantly, the precious lives of our beloved family members.

Why has Congress, with their faux compassion - for - Illegal - Aliens rhetoric, not shown any compassion for innocent Americans whose welfare they have been entrusted to protect? Where is the comprehensive immigration law enforcement mandated by our Rule of Law? It is certainly not 'broken' and does not need to be 'fixed' --- what is needs is to be 'enforced!' Local, state and federal elected officials have turned a blind eye, hanging American citizens {their legal constituents} out to dry while making a concerted effort to ignore existing immigration laws. They blame one another in a deceitful game, hoping to run out the clock. It's absolutely shameful to witness our Congress and presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle pander to Illegal Aliens and their supporters at the expense of American lives.

Congress, the administration, many state and local officials cherry pick the laws they wish to either ignore or uphold, as one would observe in any corrupt, 3rd world banana republic such as Mexico. We hear them on the House and Senate floors, hypocritically extolling 'the Rule of Law' when it suits their agenda. They bellow into the microphone, 'we are a nations of laws.' Yet the same legislators blatantly ignore the law when it suits their agendas. Do they truly believe Americans are idiots? Talk is cheap and their talk has been at bargain basement prices for quite a while. The truth is evident in their actions. They can no longer be trusted with America's future. Perhaps they think they've neutralized this most urgent issue, however, that is not the case. They cannot 'ignore' this invasion away. They certainly cannot wave a magic COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION = AMNESTY wand expecting Americans to shut up, stay still and sign over their rights, futures and Rule of Law upon which this great nation was founded. This irrefutable injustice goes against the American spirit.

According to the article, 'Special Report: Prisons Crowded with Illegal Inmates,' by KTLA Los Angeles, July 18, 2008, more than 3,000 illegal aliens are serving time for murder in California prisons. As shocking facts continue to be uncovered, we realize that our families are increasingly at risk by the growing Illegal Alien population. There is no question the Tijuana gate should swing in one direction....southward. The time is now for Comprehensive Immigration Law Enforcement.

The grief stricken faces of the American families who are burying their loved ones reflect the shock and horror they are forced to shoulder for the duration of their own lives. Never again will the mom tenderly kiss her child goodnight. Never again will the wife hold her husband's hand. Never again will the parents hear their son or daughter's excited voice. Never a graduation, a walk down the aisle, a new grandchild to hold....the future is lost for these Americans. It is lost because Illegal Aliens have almost complete impunity from the law in the United States of America.

The U.S. Government does not want the figures of our slain and brutalized family members at the hands of Illegal Aliens to become public. They are afraid we will learn the truth. They prefer us to fight among ourselves over our warrior casualties in the Iraq war while ignoring the 'war' we have unknowingly been plunged into on our own soil. They are afraid that we will become aware this 'war' we are fighting at home is spilling American blood, taking thousands of civilian casualties each year. They know we will become angry at such blatant injustices, rising up in one voice to put a halt to the flagrant breaking of laws which are leaving our families torn apart and broken forever.

And there are women and little girls being raped and molested in alarming numbers. According to the 2006 in depth study by Deborah Schuman-Kauflin, Ph.D. Violent Crimes Institute, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, the conservative number of Illegal Alien sex offenders residing in the USA was approximately 240,000. [5] The women and children being raped are American citizens who are no longer safe in their homes, schools, streets and neighborhoods. However, Illegal Alien children are also being raped by their coyote &/or drug smugglers. It is unconscionable for any parent to take a chance with their child's welfare by allowing them to make the 'journey,' let alone with violent criminals. These parents are not only devoid of compassion for their own children, this is clearly child abuse. Questions that demand be asked are: 1. Why are the parents not being brought up on abuse charges? 2. Why is their crime of abuse being hidden?

Most striking is the profound example of the absolute lack of family values boldly quoted in the following excerpt from the above stated article: 'After calling her aunt in Tijuana, Riveras wipes her nose and dries her tears with a tissue. She says she can't go back to Chimalhuacan. She keeps thinking about the explosive fight when her dad's family told her that her mom doesn't want her, that she has formed another family in Los Angeles.' It seems that 'splitting up old families and making new families' comes on the cheap, considering the American taxpayer is doling out the cash for their survival----including the bad home mortgage bailout.

It is an undeniable fact that millions of Illegal Aliens have made the personal choice to split up their families, although their supporters are making a concerted effort to throw up a smoke screen by attempting to blame the American citizenry. The responsibility for choosing to break the law and tear apart families lays squarely on the shoulders of the Illegal Aliens as well as the Mexican government for assisting the law breakers, regardless of the dire social consequences to their people.

The USA must now deal with untold thousands of crimes by Illegal Aliens that she has long ignored. Elected officials at every level cannot expect that AMNESTY {by whatever name they choose to call it} will solve the problem. Their very actions are proof their allegiance is not with 'We the American People,' and know quite well that legalizing law breakers will put America and her citizens at an even greater risk. They are buffoons if they believe we will turn a blind eye to their efforts at destroying the Rule of Law while quietly succumbing to their insanity.

As they lower the tiny coffin into the cold, dark earth, an American mom and dad begin to understand the horror washing over them...their lives are forever changed in grief. They are quickly learning that which every parent fears - the gaping wounds in their hearts will cause them daily, excruciating pain, the depth cannot be articulated.......until they, too, are laid to rest.

We expect Compassion for American citizens, which means nothing less than Comprehensive Immigration Law Enforcement through existing law.

Source



More than a third of babies born in England and Wales are non-white

Fewer than two-thirds of babies born in England and Wales are now registered as 'White British'. Newly-released figures give the first official breakdown of births by ethnic identity, and offer a striking insight into the changing face of Britain's population. Of 649,371 babies born in 2005, 64.4 per cent were recorded as 'White British'. The next largest group were the 8.7 per cent who were recorded as Asian - of whom Pakistanis formed the biggest section with 3.7 per cent. Five per cent of babies were recorded as black - 3 per cent African, 1.2 per cent 'black or black British Caribbean' and 0.8 per cent 'other black' identities. Mixed race babies accounted for 3.5 per cent of births, while 5.1 per cent were Irish or 'other white identities' and 2.4 per cent were Chinese or 'other groups'. Just under 11 per cent had no ethnic identity recorded.

Yesterday's statistical bulletin from the Office for National Statistics follows a separate publication last week showing that a quarter of all babies are now born to immigrant mothers. In London the figure is 54 per cent, rising to 75 per cent in some boroughs. The fast-moving trend means that babies born to immigrant mothers are set to become the main driver of Britain's population growth within the next few years, taking over from immigration itself.

The data on ethnic identity of births reveal stark differences in the lifestyles and social norms of the UK's various communities. Virtually all Asian babies - more than 95 per cent - were registered by married parents compared to only around half of 'White British' babies and just a third of the Black Caribbean group. The proportion of births registered by single mothers - those where no father's details are given - was highest in the Caribbean group at 20.5 per cent followed by African (13 per cent) and 'White British' (7 per cent). By contrast in each of the three main Asian groups - Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi - fewer than 1.5 per cent of births were registered by a single mother.

The findings will reinforce concerns over the effects of broken homes and the lack of effective male role-models among black youths. The remaining births were registered to unmarried couples or by parents living separately. Half of all White British and African babies were born to mothers over 30, compared with 32 per cent of Pakistani babies and 29 per cent of Bangladeshi babies.

Commentators were divided over the implications of the figures. Monmouth Tory MP David Davies voiced concern not over the numbers of births to ethnic minorities but over the potential problems of social integration. He said: 'It is now more important than ever that those large number of people with different coloured skin join in with British society. 'Many of the people included in the figures will be black British or British Asian through and through, from the third and fourth generations, who are setting an example of integration to other ethnicities. 'The problem comes when large numbers of people of all ethnicities are not willing to use the language, are abusing our system and demanding that laws are changed to accommodate them.'

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch think tank, said: 'This is a measure of the extent to which uncontrolled immigration is changing the nature of our society, against the wishes of a very large majority. 'Immigration is now expected to account for 70 per cent of our population increase in the next 25 years. This means we will have to build a city the size of Birmingham every three or four years to sustain the newcomers. 'The Government has allowed immigration to get out of control, but they still show no sign of a serious effort to reduce it.'

Source