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

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



30 September, 2010

Immigration check program goes statewide in Texas

A federal program that automatically checks the immigration status of suspects booked into local lockups officially went statewide in Texas on Wednesday, two years after the nationwide crackdown began in Houston jails.

The rapidly expanding Secure Communities program, a fingerprint-sharing system run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was expanded to all 254 counties in Texas this week. It makes Texas the largest state in the nation to fully implement the program in every county.

Nationally there have been more than 41,000 deportations of illegal immigrants under the program, and nearly 40 percent of those occurred in Texas, according to ICE. Many Texas counties have had the program in place for months.

Since debuting in Harris County in October 2008, federal authorities swiftly installed the program across Texas without, apparently, the objections met elsewhere. Just this week in California, officials in Santa Clara County voted unanimously to abandon Secure Communities, saying it creates an atmosphere of fear in the community.

San Francisco has also indicated it wants out of the program. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's office was negotiating an agreement with the federal government last month that would make Colorado the first of 29 states to modify the program.

The program has also played into the Texas gubernatorial race, and Wednesday's announcement by ICE led Democratic candidate Bill White to have to tweak a campaign pledge. White listed helping local law enforcement adopt Secure Communities as part of his six-point border security plan unveiled this month, but with the program now officially statewide, his campaign changed the message to helping "implement" the program.

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

ICE spokesman Carl Rusnok said he was not aware of any Texas counties that have asked to be removed from the program or requested modifications.

In Travis County, sheriff's department spokesman Roger Wade said the community has supported it. "I don't see how it couldn't be smooth sailing," Wade said. "All we do is open up our database to (the federal government)."

Fingerprints of people booked into jails already are sent to state criminal justice departments to be checked against federal criminal databases. Under Secure Communities, they also go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to run through Homeland Security databases.

ICE divides crimes into three categories, with Level 1 being the most serious. Level 1 crimes include actions that threaten or compromise national security, murder, rape, drug crimes punishable by more than one year, theft and even resisting arrest.

In Texas, more than 3,200 of those deported have been Level 1, according to ICE. For lower-level suspects identified in the program, Rusnok said "it's a resource issue" when it comes to deciding whether to pursue deportation. He said more than 709,000 people in Texas jails have been screened through the program since it debuted.

Texas counties are among the 659 local jurisdictions in 32 states enrolled in the program. President Barack Obama's administration wants Secure Communities operating nationwide by 2013.

SOURCE





Immigration to Australia drops somewhat but population growth still troublingly high

Australia's population growth has fallen to its slowest rate since 2007, after a sharp decline in migration levels continued into the first quarter of this year. According to the Bureau of Statistics, the nation was home to 22,272,000 people at the end of March, but the annual growth rate had slowed considerably to 1.8 per cent, from the 2.2 per cent record high of the previous year.

Although the election debate often centred on immigration, the figures, published yesterday, show that a key reason for the slowdown was a cooling in net migration, which was 37 per cent lower than a year earlier.

Some 241,400 people migrated to Australia over the year to March, but this was a far cry from the record of 320,300 in the previous year.

On the other hand, a domestic baby-boom has been gathering pace, with a record 303,500 babies born in the year to March, 3.1 per cent more than last year. With the number of deaths falling, this meant the rate of population natural increase - births minus deaths - was 7 per cent higher than a year earlier.

Overall, the annual growth in population remains well above its long-term average, prompting concerns about overstretched infrastructure.

An economist at CommSec, Savanth Sebastian, said such "phenomenal" growth was near the fastest in the developed world. "More people in Australia means greater demands for houses, roads, schools, hospitals and a raft of retail goods, and as such is providing much-needed stimulus in trying times for the global economy," he said.

SOURCE



29 September, 2010

An open door to welfare tourists

EU warns Britain it can't stop thousands more migrants claiming welfare handouts

Benefits tourists are set to get the green light to come to Britain and immediately claim handouts totalling £2.5billion a year. According to documents leaked to the Mail, ministers have been warned that restrictions on claims by immigrants are against the law and must be scrapped.

The European Commission's ruling threatens to open the door to tens of thousands who are currently deterred from coming to Britain. At the moment, a 'habitual residency test' is used to establish whether migrants from the EU are eligible for benefits.

To qualify for jobseeker's allowance, employment support allowance, pension credit and income support, they must demonstrate that they either have worked or have a good opportunity to get a job.

But after receiving a complaint that the rules infringed the human rights of EU citizens, the Commission began to examine them. In a letter seen by the Mail, it warns that the restrictions are 'not compatible' with EU law. It says: 'EU law leaves it to member states to determine the details of their social security schemes and social assistance schemes, including the conditions on awarding benefits.

‘However, when making use of this competence, member states have to comply with the fundamental principles of EU law, such as the right to equal treatment on the basis of nationality. Having examined the “right to reside” test... it is not compatible with different legal provisions of EU law.’

The letter, written to the individual who made the complaint and copied to the British government, is dated last December, but Whitehall sources claim ministers in the outgoing Labour government failed to argue against the proposals.

Britain had toughened up its rules in 2004 when the EU was expanding its borders. The restrictions assess the eligibility of those from the EU and from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

But the Commission has begun legal proceedings against Britain to get restrictions on welfare claims by incomers scrapped.

If successful, the Government would be required to remove its deterrents to benefit tourism, including the right-to-reside test and an additional qualification for those claiming jobseeker’s allowance, that they must have worked for 12 months or more. Officials warn the bill could be between £1.3billion and £2.5billion a year – hampering plans to rein in welfare spending.

However, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is understood to be determined to fight the move through the courts if necessary.

The Whitehall source warned: ‘This has the potential to open the doors of the benefits system to anyone coming here from the entire European economic area, who may have no intention of working or even looking for work but simply wants to claim benefits. 'We already have enough of a problem managing people who want to come here. But this would open up a whole new wave of benefit tourism.’

Last year, 46,957 non-UK nationals took the habitual residence test. Of those, 24,604 passed and 22,353 failed. For the test, they are interviewed and asked about why they have come to the UK, how long they intend to stay and their employment arrangements.

‘Fundamentally this is designed to ensure people aren’t coming to the UK to be benefit tourists,’ added the source.

The Department for Work and Pensions said: ‘We are in discussions with the Commission as, in our view, the current rules are within the law and are right for the UK, and changing them now would not be in our interest.

Our rules fully support the freedom of workers within the EU, whilst making sure that there are reasonable restrictions on access to social security for those who have never worked in the UK. ‘This prevents unsustainable burdens being placed on our social security system. We will argue our case and work towards a favourable outcome.’

The case is specifically between Britain and the Commission, but other countries which impose restrictions on access to welfare for migrants – Denmark, France and Ireland – are likely to be affected too.

Britain’s test was introduced in 1993, but tightened in 2004 after concerns that residents of new member would move to the previous 15 member states to benefit from their generous social welfare systems. Former Labour minister Margaret Hodge has argued restrictions should be toughened further to address voters’ concerns.

SOURCE





French MPs debate controversial immigration law

French lawmakers debated a controversial immigration bill Tuesday which would expand the state's power to strip foreign-born citizens of their nationality if they commit major crimes.

The government says the bill is aimed at bringing French law into line with European Union immigration directives, but rights groups accuse President Nicolas Sarkozy of pursuing a populist anti-immigrant agenda.

The law was put to cabinet by Immigration Minister Eric Besson in March and subsequently toughened by Sarkozy and Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux amid a security clampdown and accelerated mass expulsions of the Roma minority.

The bill extends the state's right to strip those who have immigrated within the last 10 years of their nationality if they kill or attempt to kill a person in authority, such as a police officer, a fireman or a judge.

Under current French law immigrants can be stripped of their nationality if they commit a crime against "the fundamental interests of France" or an act of terrorism. The fifth immigration law in France in seven years, the bill makes it easier to expel foreigners, including EU citizens who "threaten public order" through repeated theft, aggressive begging or "abusive occupation of land".

Rights groups say that equating begging or setting up caravans with public order issues plays on fears and prejudices -- and unfairly targets Roma.

EU laws on freedom of movement currently only allow removal of EU citizens who represent a "genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society."

Sarkozy, whose approval ratings are at an all-time low, is seeking to consolidate his conservative base ahead of presidential elections in 2012.

The bill allows for the creation of ad hoc detention zones for fast-tracking asylum claims as if the would-be immigrant were not actually in France, making it easier to expel them to a country of origin or of transit. Many of the bill's measures are seen as targeting Roma, who as EU citizens usually from Romania or Bulgaria have the right to stay anywhere in the EU for at least three months.

International bodies including the United Nations and the European Commission have criticised France's Roma expulsions, with the Commission due to rule on their legality amid uproar from rights groups.

Parliament "should reject measures in an omnibus immigration bill that appear to target Roma and weaken migrants' rights," Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

"It is shocking that the French government is pushing for measures that clearly target Roma at a time when the European Commission is threatening legal action over France's expulsion of Roma," said HRW's Judith Sunderland. "It smacks of a populist move at the expense of the most discriminated against and vulnerable people in Europe today."

The bill accelerates entry procedures for highly qualified immigrants and requires those seeking French nationality to sign a charter of citizens rights and duties. Immigration Minister Besson said that he would be "very happy" if his ministry "could be a machine for making 'good French people.'"

"Last year we gave French nationality to 108,000 foreigners," Le Parisien newspaper quoted him as saying. "Being a 'good French person' doesn't mean denying your history, your roots or your French culture," he said.

The spokesman for opposition Socialist MPs, Bruno Le Roux, said that with every new immigration law "another step is taken in the deterioration of republican principles." "The more voters flee, the more radical the laws become, the more discussions are centred on immigration and security matters," he said shortly before the start of the debate.

MP Etienne Pinte from Sarkozy's own UMP party said he would vote against the law which "seeks to pull in the National Front's electorate." He said he would seek up to 40 amendments to the bill in order to "humanise" it.

Rights groups have called for a demonstration outside the National Assembly on Tuesday evening.

SOURCE



28 September, 2010

Mini-Documentary Examines Drug Cartel Travel Methods

Today the Center for Immigration Studies is releasing the third film in a series, “Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 3: A Day in the Life of a Drug Smuggler,” at an event hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies and Women in Homeland Security. This is the Center’s National Security Director Janice Kephart’s third web-based border film, this time focusing on drug cartel travel methods through Arizona’s federally owned land. Ms. Kephart obtained much of the footage for the film by traveling with her hidden camera guide into three drug running corridors in central Arizona. She was joined on the panel by Julie Myers Wood, former Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.

Hidden Cameras 3 exposes the ways and means of the illicit drug trade by specifically honing in on how drug mules successfully move 50 pound packs of marijuana through desert heat on foot into Arizona desert and 80 miles north of the U.S.-Mexican border until they reach the east-west I-8 corridor. The film also includes hidden camera footage taken at night of drug mules moving quickly to meet a load truck on the I-8 highway.

Ms. Kephart's second film in the series released in July 2010, “Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border 2: Drugs, Guns and 850 Illegal Aliens,” with extensive hidden camera footage of drug smugglers and illegal aliens, has received extensive press coverage on FOX National News and affiliates, radio and print news, and over 540,000 YouTube views. The Center's first video on the subject, “Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border: Coyotes, Bears, and Trails,” focuses on the illegal alien traffic and immense negative environmental impact on the Coronado National Forest from illegal alien smuggling and has received over 70,000 views to date.

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




Recent entries on the CIS blog below

See here. The CIS main page is here.

Private Immigration Bills = Congressional Earmarks = Executive Pardons

Blowing Holes in Latino Vote Mythology

Comedian Colbert Tips Hearing Towards Farmworkers' Amnesty

Congressional Immigration Hearings as Comedy Central

Fraud-Ridden Refugee Program May Restart

BALCA Lets It All Hang Out, OAA Never Does

Book Tells of 'The Migrants Who Don't Matter'

USCIS Spends Inordinate Resources on Tiny Populations

The GOP's Pledge to America and Immigration: The Missing Promise

Intricacies of Immigration Enforcement and Its Lingo Exposed

Abuses of the Diversity Visa Program Hidden in ICE Press Release

Does It Pay to Enforce the Law?

Stirring Latino Anger Against 'Enemies'

Hurricane Karl and the Mexican State of Veracruz

H-1B Program Gets Two (Well-Deserved) Kicks in the Ribs





27 September, 2010

Eminent Canadian lends support to new anti-immigration group

A pillar of the Canadian establishment, brushing aside the risk he could become embroiled in one of the country’s most sensitive political issues, is endorsing a new organization challenging Canadian immigration policy.

Derek Burney is a former senior corporate chief executive, ex-U.S. ambassador, the one-time chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, and served as the head of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s transition team after the Conservatives won the 2006 election.

Canadian society, he said, needs to stop treating immigration as an untouchable “third rail” that can’t be debated without prompting allegations of bigotry.

So he’s joined the advisory board of an organization being launched Tuesday on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform will be headed up by Martin Collacott, a former ambassador who writes frequently on immigration and refugee policy at the Fraser Institute, and James Bissett, a former director general of the Canadian Immigration Service.

The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform argues that the benefits of high immigration aren’t worth costs that include considerable government expenditures and higher housing costs, pollution and crowding in big Canadian cities.

“Unfortunately immigration and refugee policy is a bit like health care in Canada,” Burney told Postmedia News. “It’s being denied rational debate at the political level, and this is despite the very clear evidence of abuse of the system, of fraud in the system and a lack of co-ordination in the country in terms of screening.”

He says his major concern is that Canada’s economy has been chronically plagued by relatively low economic productivity, yet the large number of unskilled workers and family-class immigrants weakens productivity further.

Burney said politicians of all stripes refuse to discuss such concerns because some immigrant communities that lobby for high quotas of family-class immigrants are “very active” in federal politics.

Burney, 70, acknowledged he is courting controversy that could damage his legacy as a business executive and senior public servant who played a key role in the successful negotiation of the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

He is an Order of Canada recipient, has several honourary degrees, and had a street named after him in his hometown of Thunder Bay, Ont. In 2007-08 he was one of five members of Harper’s independent panel studying Canada’s future role in Afghanistan.

But he said he felt it was time to take a stand in support of Collacott and Bissett, who have argued in relative obscurity for years that Canadian immigration policy needs reform. “It’s a third-rail kind of issue, nobody wants to talk about it, it’s not for polite company,” said Burney, now an adviser to the Ogilvy Renault law firm and formerly chief executive officer of Bell Canada International and later of the CAE Inc. aviation firm.

Yet Collacott and Bissett “have a great deal of knowledge about the subject, and they’re not irrational, they’re not emotional, they’re not racists. “They’re simply trying to acquaint Canadians with the facts.”

The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform is an organization dominated by academics and former senior bureaucrats, many with links to Canada’s conservative movement, who argue that immigration levels are far too high and that refugee screening policy too lax.

Canada has in recent years brought in roughly 250,000 immigrants and refugees annually, and since 1990 has accepted more per capita than any country in the world, according to the Fraser Institute. There are also 300,000 or so skilled and unskilled “temporary” workers currently in Canada, of which 192,500 arrived in 2009. And the government admitted 79,500 foreign students last year.

The critics say Canada’s policy is essentially hijacked by self-interested groups — employer groups seeking cheap labour even when there’s high unemployment, lawyers, advocates and consultants in what they call the “immigration industry,” and urban MPs from all parties who depend on immigrant groups for political support.

They also cite statistics and reports, including several from federal government researchers, showing that Canadian immigrants since the 1980s have struggled economically compared to the average Canadian.

Others backing the new group include Gilles Paquet, a frequent public commentator and professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa’s Centre on Governance, and Salim Mansur, a University of Western Ontario political scientist, columnist, former federal candidate for the Canadian Alliance party under Stockwell Day’s leadership, and author of Islam’s Predicament: Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim.

Collacott said his group is trying to avoid, rather than import, what he calls the “xenophobic” hostility today in Europe against immigrants and minorities. To do that, mainstream parties need to debate the issue openly, he said. “While we’ve done better than the Europeans in terms of integrating immigrants into society, there are lots of signals that we’re not doing well enough,” Collacott told Postmedia.

Canadians need to debate the questions “without being called ant-immigrant and racist.”

SOURCE







The Year 11 asylum seeker pupil who was really 23: Pair in their 20s found going to school face deportation from Britain

Claiming to be children is a common ploy among young-looking illegals

Two Guinean asylum seekers have been removed from a secon­dary school and are being inves­tigated by immigration authorities after teachers discovered they were in their 20s.

The pair had been attending classes at Acklam Grange School in Middlesbrough for a year before their real ages were dis­covered, and they now face pos­sible deport­ation.

They have been living in council accommodation in the Teesside town with two girls, who they say are their sisters, and a male guardian, who claims to be a relative.

In a further twist, one of the men, now revealed to be 23, has allegedly formed a relationship with a 14-year-old girl at the school, to the alarm of teachers.

Teaching staff became suspicious of the ages of the two men in March following conversations with them. The teachers informed headteacher John Bate, who in turn alerted Middles­brough Council, and this week the authority withdrew the male pupils from the school.

investigations into their identity, it was revealed that one of the men, Ibrahim Sory Diallo, who claimed to be 15 and was studying in Year 11, has been found to be aged 23.

The other man, who is understood to have claimed to be 14 and was study­ing in Year 9, has been ruled to be aged in his early 20s.

The men are being investigated by the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and, as adults, are not protected by laws that forbid the deportation of minors.

There are no concerns about the ages of the sisters, who are in Year 8. They have been allowed to remain in the school and are still living in local authority accommodation.

Mr Bate, 59, said: ‘This family was presented to us and welcomed by us as being aged accordingly for the school. We commonly take children from all over the world.

‘Staff alerted me after picking up an issue within the family through conversations with the pupils. They reported it to me and I acted immediately by informing the education authority and other outside agencies. ‘There was nothing about their appearance that looked out of the ­ordinary and there were no disciplinary issues with any of them. ‘They came with a guardian, not their father, but we are in touch with him through the refugee service.’

A Middlesbrough Council spokesman said: ‘Concerns were raised over the age of two students. The decision was taken to remove them from the mainstream school following advice from the UK Border Agency.’

Matthew Coats, Head of Immigration at UKBA, said: ‘Where a new investigation is brought to light we will investigate and work with the appropriate authorities to ensure our immigration laws are not evaded by those who try to cheat the system.’

Police sources have revealed that a man named Ibrahim Sory Diallo, who gave his birth date as June 1995, was arrested in May on suspicion of assault and actual bodily harm against another male – but the case was dropped four weeks later.

SOURCE



26 September, 2010

Obama's Incremental Approach to Immigration Overhaul Falls Short of Expectations

With comprehensive immigration overhaul off the table, President Obama and his Democratic allies have tried smaller proposals to provide illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship or permanent legal residency -- a strategy that is now being called into question after two efforts fell flat this week.

First, Democrats failed to muster enough votes in the Senate to pass the DREAM Act, which would allow hundreds of thousands of young people to legally remain in the U.S.

Then comedian Stephen Colbert tried to bring attention to the AGJobs bill, which would legalize about 2 million undocumented migrant laborers who have worked on farms for at least two years, by testifying in front of a House panel at the request of Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif..

But Colbert's joke-filled testimony overshadowed the bill, which has languished in Congress for years, as lawmakers argued over whether his performance was appropriate.

With midterm elections just over a month away, the chances of any kind of immigration reform passing this year grows slimmer by the day, disappointing many immigration advocates who reluctantly embraced an incremental approach to reform.

Democrats, who are bracing for disastrous electoral defeats, fear Hispanic voters will stay home in November because of the inaction.

The Hispanic community has criticized President Obama for failing to keep his promise to tackle immigration reform in the first year of his presidency. In April, Obama said Congress lacked the "appetite" to take on immigration, essentially removing it from the legislative agenda.

But some lawmakers aren't ready to throw in the towel yet on immigration. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J, vowed earlier this month to unveil a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill before the November elections.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., told the Hill newspaper that he's confident that Senate will take another shot at passing the DREAM Act, pointing to a Senate rule that allows the bill, with two days' notice, to be brought to the chamber's floor for consideration at any time.

"I'm really really hopeful," he told the newspaper. "Their clear intent is to give it another try. When? That's up to them."

Democrats attached the DREAM Act as an amendment to a defense spending bill that Republicans blocked along with two Democrats.

The DREAM Act allows young people to become legal U.S. residents after spending two years in college or the military. It applies to those who were under 16 when they arrived in the U.S., have been in the country at least five years and have a diploma from a U.S. high school or the equivalent.

The Obama administration has deferred the deportation of some of the young people while the politics of the bill played out, drawing heavy criticism from some Republicans.

The administration is also, under a new policy, halting deportation proceedings for up to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who are married or related to a U.S. citizen or a legal resident who has filed a petition on their behalf. Illegal immigrants with criminal convictions do not qualify under the plan. Critics have called the new policy a free pass for illegals.

SOURCE




GOP Taps Hispanics in Fall Test

A deep lineup of Hispanic Republicans is running for high office this year, giving the party new avenues to court the growing bloc of Latino voters who have largely deserted the GOP in recent years but will be crucial in the 2012 presidential election.

In a twist, many of these candidates are defending the strict, new Arizona law and other measures cracking down on illegal immigration—appealing to white conservatives and to the portion of Hispanic voters who share concerns about border security.

In Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and elsewhere, GOP candidates with names like Martinez, Rubio and Sandoval are staking out tough immigration views.

"There is a stereotype that Hispanics must be in favor of different policies than I am expressing, and that's not what I'm finding at all," said New Mexico GOP gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez, who would be the country's first elected female Hispanic governor.

Ms. Martinez, a prosecutor, has aired television ads in which she stands at the border and promotes her record convicting criminals who sneaked in from Mexico. She promises to end state laws that she says make it easy for illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, is stepping down due to term limits.

The three most prominent Hispanic Republicans on the ballot in November—Florida U.S. Senate hopeful Marco Rubio, Nevada gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval, and Ms. Martinez—are leading in polls and performing well among Hispanic voters. Hispanic GOP House candidates in Florida, Texas and Washington are presenting a similarly conservative agenda.

Within the Republican Party, some strategists see the unusually large number of major Hispanic GOP candidates as key to correcting a misstep in the party's outreach to the nation's fastest-growing voter bloc. Many Hispanics are attracted by the GOP's opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

When ex-President George W. Bush made an effort to win Hispanic voters, his share of that electorate rose to 40% in 2004, from the 34% he won in 2000. In 2006, conservatives rebelled against Mr. Bush's efforts to create a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Strategists say the tough tone of some in the party alienated many Hispanics who would otherwise be open to GOP policies on social issues, who took it as a cultural affront. Hispanics moved to the Democrats in the 2006 midterms, and in 2008 President Barack Obama won nearly seven in 10 Hispanic votes, while Republican nominee John McCain won just 31%.

"Hispanics around the country were completely turned off by the immigration debate in 2006," said Whit Ayers, who is Mr. Rubio's campaign pollster. "But having Hispanic candidates be successful on the Republican ticket and visible nationally will go a long way toward rectifying that damage."

Polls show more Hispanics identify with the Democratic Party than Republicans. And Mr. Obama remains popular with that group. But Republicans see an opening amid frustration expressed by some Hispanics that the Obama administration has not fulfilled its promise to overhaul the immigration system.

Polls show many Hispanics are open to conservative views. In a survey last year by the Pew Hispanic Center, a research organization, 56% of Hispanics age 16 and older opposed abortion rights and 44% opposed gay marriage, compared to 34% who supported it. Another Pew survey shows 30% of Hispanics favor the Arizona law, which allows law- enforcement officers to stop suspected illegal immigrants and ask them for proof of legal status. That same poll said that 83% favor a path to citizenship.

GOP strategists say figures such as Mr. Rubio and Ms. Martinez can help persuade more Hispanics that supporting strict immigration laws isn't an ethnic attack. Mr. Ayers, who is also teaming with former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie on a project to study ways to court Hispanic voters, said many of them are religious, family-oriented owners of small businesses who favor lower taxes, which, he said, "sounds like the definition of a Republican."

Some Hispanic leaders and immigration advocates say the more conservative tone on immigration coming from Hispanic candidates reflects a pragmatic calculation that winning as a Republican requires piecing together a more conservative coalition—particularly this year, when the election is expected to be dominated by high conservative turnout. They "cannot get elected on the Hispanic vote only," said Arturo Vargas, director of the National Association of Elected and Appointed Latino Officials. "What you have here are savvy Republican candidates trying to determine what it's going to take to win statewide in 2010."

Lionel Sosa, a longtime GOP strategist who advised Mr. Bush on his outreach strategy, said he questioned whether adopting tougher views on immigration would help, noting Mr. McCain's poor 2008 performance after reversing his support for legalizing undocumented workers. This year's Hispanic conservatives "will hear from their Latino constituency and maybe take a second look," Mr. Sosa said.

In California, another Hispanic candidate, Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, and the party's gubernatorial nominee, Meg Whitman, are both taking a softer line on immigration, vocally opposing the Arizona law. The party there is contending with the legacy of Proposition 187, a GOP-backed ballot measure in 1994 that would have denied health benefits to illegal immigrants and crippled Republicans' standing with Hispanics ever since.

Democrats, meanwhile, are seeking their own advantage. In Nevada, where Mr. Sandoval has drawn fire from local immigrant advocates for supporting the Arizona law, Democratic candidate Rory Reid said in an interview that his GOP foe has "chosen not to stand with his own community."

The Reid campaign is circulating a flier highlighting a quote in which Mr. Sandoval allegedly said he was not concerned about racial profiling against his children because they "don't look Hispanic." The flier asks: "Doesn't Brian Sandoval Care About Our Kids?"

Mr. Sandoval's alleged comment, made to an interviewer for the Spanish-language network Univision, was never aired but was disclosed by the station's news director in a local newspaper column. Mr. Sandoval later said he didn't recall making the comment but if he did, "it was wrong and I sincerely regret it. I am proud of my heritage and my family." Mr. Sandoval's campaign declined a request for an interview.

Some say the dustup won't matter, even though many Hispanics disagree with Mr. Sandoval's views on the Arizona law. "Brian will still be the first Hispanic governor in the history of the state," said Luis Valera, chairman of the Las Vegas-based Latin Chamber of Commerce. "That weighs heavily on people."

Straddling the immigration issue requires careful balance. In a debate last week on the Spanish-language network Univision, Mr. Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles, declared there was "no one running for any office in the United States that's more pro-legal immigration than I am.... I've grown up around immigration my entire life. I've seen the good parts of it, the bad and the ugly."

Then he spoke out against a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants until the Mexico border is secure. He opposed as unfair an "amnesty" provision— blocked by Republicans in the Senate this week—under which some people brought into the country illegally when they were children could eventually apply for citizenship.

In the debate, Mr. Rubio said Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law was appropriate for Arizona because the state shared a "massive open border with a country that has an all-out drug war."

He often says the GOP "should be the pro-legal immigration party, not the anti-illegal immigration party," and that he hopes to improve the party's tone. "You have to have a legal immigration system that works, and I'm not sure that's been a priority for Republicans in the past," Mr. Rubio said.

"These are reasonable immigration positions," Mr. Rubio said in an interview. "I'm not advocating harsh measures. I'm advocating that the law be followed." Once the border is shown to be secure, he said, he favored the creation of a "modernized legal immigration system" that would include a guest worker program.

SOURCE



25 September, 2010

Sweden joins Europe-wide backlash against immigration

A sanitized but still interesting background to the recent election result from The Guardian. Many of the negatives about immigrants in Sweden go unmentioned by The Guardian, of course, the frequent rapes of white Swedish women by Muslim men and the high rate of immigrant crime generally, for instance

In a country that elevated social democracy into the natural form of government for decades, Maria has been a loyal stalwart. The 66-year-old retired canteen worker has always voted for Sweden's Social Democratic party, like the vast majority in her working-class suburb of Malmo. Until last Sunday, that is. That morning Maria broke the habit of a lifetime and in doing so helped redraw the map of Swedish politics. She voted for an extreme-right movement accused of being Islamophobic that broke into parliament in Stockholm for the first time, probably condemning the country to a fragile minority government.

She was not alone. In Maria's high-rise suburb of Almgården an astonishing one in three voted for Sweden Democrats, a party dubbed "racist and neo-Nazi" and led by Jimmie Åkesson, the new young darling of the European far right.

The reason is plain. Maria pointed across the dual carriageway to the neighbouring housing scheme of Rosengård, known locally as "the ghetto". It is home to almost 20,000 immigrants, overwhelmingly Muslim, almost half of them jobless.

"It's become crazy around here. You can't go out in the evening," said Maria, who like other locals, did not want her surname revealed. "I've got nothing against foreigners. I've been married to a Bulgarian for 40 years. But these people don't share our values. If you don't like the colour of our flag, I say, I'll help you pack your bags."

Another resident, running a minicab service, remained loyal to the centre-left, but said: "Åkesson's right. Enough is enough. Even in the jungles of Africa, they don't know where Sweden is, but they know they can come here, get money and not need to work. I came so close to voting for Sweden Democrats. Maybe the next time."

Åkesson, a dapper, bespectacled 31-year-old, celebrated his party winning nearly 6% of the vote by declaring: "We're in." The Social Democrats slumped to their worst result. The same equation now applies across Europe.

Malmo, formerly an old industrial city, lays fair claim to being the cradle of Swedish social democracy. The centre-left still controls the city, but its power is eroding in what has been an exceptionally promising summer for Islam-baiting, anti-immigrant movements in Europe.

In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has been trying to recover support he forfeited in March to the National Front by expelling Romanian Gypsies. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders' Freedom party goes from strength to strength with his single issue anti-Islam campaign, paralysing Dutch governance.

In Austria, the extreme right leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, is running for mayor of Vienna next month. He will lose. But he looks likely to take more than 20% of the capital's vote. Next door in Hungary the radical rightwing Jobbik has gained a parliamentary foothold and is demanding permanent, guarded internment camps for Gypsies. In Italy the anti-immigrant Northern League of Umberto Bossi is in government and is the country's fastest-growing party.

In Germany, meanwhile, where the extreme right has failed to make inroads, the political sensation of the summer has been the taboo-busting, bestselling book by Thilo Sarazzin, a former Berlin central banker.

He claims that the country is digging its own grave by admitting waves of immigrants he characterises as spongers, welfare cheats, and sub-intelligent beings copulating their way from ethnic minority to takeover majority.

Against this troubled background, Sweden has long seemed aloof and immune, an oasis of civility and openness, with the most generous welfare, asylum, and immigration policies in Europe. But with about 100,000 immigrants entering a country of almost 9 million every year, Åkesson's breakthrough suggests there has been a shift in the public mood.

"We will not get as tough on immigration as Denmark, Norway or the Netherlands," said Prof Jan Ekberg, a national expert on the economics of migration at Linnaeus University. "But the Sweden Democrats will increase their vote if we don't succeed in our immigration policy. That's the main issue."

In Malmo, where about 80,000 of the 300,000 population are immigrants, the limits of Swedish openness are being tested. "It's a very divided city," said Daniel Sandström, editor of the main city paper, Sydsvenskan. "It's made a successful transition from being an old industrial city to a new, postmodern place of middle-class consumers. That means winners and losers. The losers are the old, the poor, and the immigrants."

Teaching 21 seven-year-olds in a primary school in the immigrant "ghetto", Cecilia Hallström is the sole native Swede in the well-equipped classroom.

"Of course, the school is open to everyone, but it is only Muslims who come here," she said. The children, taught in Swedish, are native Arabic, Pashtun, Kurdish and Bosnian speakers of a dozen nationalities. Hallström is a firm supporter of multiculturalism, but noted: "People are just getting fed up. The far right is not new here, but it is gaining ground. We've taken in so many new immigrants that people are saying we need to slow down and take proper care of the ones that are here."

Signs of friction and trouble are not hard to find beneath the veneer of Scandinavian order, decency and prosperity. Beyzat Becirov points to the window in his office at Malmo's main mosque.

A bullet perforated the reinforced glass earlier this year, shaved the neck of a colleague and lodged itself in the drawer of a desk. "We've got to defeat all fascism," said the imam and head of Malmo's 60,000-strong Islamic community. "But you get it on both sides, on our side as well." His mosque is the oldest and biggest in Sweden. It has been burned down once, and a pig was placed in the prayer hall. Becirov said there had been 300 attacks since it was built in 1983. There have been riots. There are no-go areas.

Two things were new in Malmo, said Becirov. Recent years had brought a flood of people "from Asia, Africa, and Arab countries. There's a problem with the Somalis, the Lebanese, the Palestinians. They have difficulty integrating. And there's no jobs." The other novelty was the local rise of the Sweden Democrats, who Becirov described as the "new Nazis", suggesting that the country was joining the European club. "It's a bit like a tsunami spreading across Europe. And now it's here, too."

In Denmark and Germany, France and Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland, politicians, pundits and publics are immersed in noisy argument about values and loyalties, the end of multiculturalism, the integration failures of foreigners. It's a backlash against mass immigration. Sweden has seemed oblivious to the tumult while keeping its doors open. But that seemed to shift on Sunday, not least in Malmo and its hinterland where Åkesson, announcing that Muslim immigration is the biggest threat to Sweden since Adolf Hitler, scored double-digit results across the south-west.

That Sweden is moving into the European mainstream in its attitudes to immigration is a contested and controversial point that seems to cut to the core of Swedes' ideas of themselves.

Pia Kjaersgaard, leader of the far-right Danish People's party just across the stunning Oeresund road and rail bridge linking Malmo to Copenhagen, gleefully welcomed the election result and the Åkesson breakthrough by declaring: "Sweden is becoming a normal country." That touched a nerve because Sweden and Denmark have opposing immigration policies, with the Danes practising what may be the most restrictive regime in Europe.

"Åkesson puts Sweden and intolerance together. But the true situation and tradition here is of internationalism and tolerance," said Sandström.

Jörgen Grubb, one of Akesson's seven councillors in Malmo, thinks talk of Swedish specialness is rank hypocrisy. "We've always tried to be the perfect country, telling the world we're so good and nice to everyone. But we've just been hiding and now it's changing. We've become less naïve."

Åkesson's appeal is one of nostalgia for a bygone era, the stiff conservatism and tradition of the white Sweden of the 1950s. The test of the rebellion's impact will be whether, as everywhere else in Europe, the mainstream parties try to co-opt Åkesson's voters by accommodating some of his policies.

Lena Westerlund, chief economist at the national trades union association, does not expect any major policy changes on immigration. "I'm not saying it's not problematic, but for our economy the immigration is a net benefit. We have a very bad demographic, we need a much younger population."

Prof Ekberg also does not expect any big policy change. "The problem is not immigration, it is integration, especially in the labour market. If there are no jobs, the consequences are segregation, housing problems and divided cities."

It is in the post-industrial cities of Europe, once centre-left citadels, that the far right has been making big gains – Le Pen in Marseille, Wilders in Rotterdam, Strache in "red" Vienna. Åkesson in Malmo is new, but part of a trend.

"He is a clever populist, careful not to cross the line and say anything that seems undemocratic. But his party has a tremendous acceptance of racism," said Sandström. "And Sweden is turning into a more European country, while Swedes still want to be some kind of an exception. That's the debate that will be taking place here for years now."

SOURCE





Jan Brewer turning the tables on unions

Jan Brewer’s gubernatorial campaign and the Arizona Republican party planned protests this week outside union offices to pressure them to end an economic boycott of the state. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union was boycotting Arizona in protest of its SB 1070 immigration law, but ended its boycott yesterday.

Brewer’s campaign wanted to turn the tables on unions by using their usual protest messages against them. The protests included “Shame on UFCW/SEIU” signs because unions often use “Shame on” signs to protest companies that hire non-union workers.

The UCFW decided Thursday to call off its boycott, the Phoenix Business Journal reported: “I hope Ms. Brewer joins the call to ‘tone it down’ and help create solutions for both border security and immigration reform,” said UFCW Local 99 President Jim McLaughlin. ”It is now time for calm, reasoned discussion that can move forward to first secure our borders, while designing a workable, humane plan to finally reform our nation’s immigration laws,” said McLaughlin.

The UFCW boycott was one of many economy-wounding boycotts in protest of SB 1070. The Service Employees International Union plans to continue its boycott of the state, and the Brewer campaign said it would turn its protest attentions toward them next.

SOURCE



24 September, 2010

Dream Act Dies in Senate

Note: This measure may not be as dead as it says below. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has vowed to bring up the DREAM Act as a stand alone bill next week in the Senate. Blocking it is a matter of survival for the GOP. If passed, it would add millions of Democrat voters to those eligible to vote -- which is also why the Donks will never give up trying to pass it

A measure called the Dream Act that would have given some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship died Tuesday in the U.S. Senate.

It would have given illegal immigrants who came here before they turned 16, a chance to become citizens if they meet certain conditions.

They'd have to graduate high school, either be a college student in good standing, or serve in the U.S. military. Then once that person either received the college diploma or finished their tour of duty, they would be granted permanent residency. After that, the person could become a U.S. citizen.

A Republican filibuster killed it in the senate, along with the Democrats' effort to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' for the military. The Dream Act has the support of the Defense Department, retired General Colin Powell, and politicians on both sides of the aisle. Sponsors of the immigration reform measure are expected to re-introduce it in the fall.

But, should they? Now while the measure has bipartisan support in the Senate. Some are calling this "Back Door Amnesty."

Source






British government faces high court battle over cap on immigration

A high court battle is to be launched tomorrow that threatens to deliver a fresh body-blow to the government's already troubled plans to introduce a cap on immigration.

A judicial review claim on behalf of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and a number of small businesses asks judges to declare the government's temporary cap on migrants – imposed on 28 June – unlawful because ministers sidestepped proper parliamentary approval.

The cap came in to force to prevent a "surge in applications" from skilled migrants from outside Europe. It was brought in as an interim measure while the cabinet thrashes out an agreement over how flexible the permanent cap should be when it is introduced next year.

The Liberal Democrat business secretary, Vince Cable, said this week that he was optimistic of winning the battle with his Conservative cabinet colleagues after he publicly complained that the temporary cap had done "a lot of damage to British industry". The cap is designed to scale back annual net migration to Britain from the "hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands".

This summer the court of appeal ruled that the home secretary acted unlawfully when changes were made to the points-based immigration system without proper parliamentary approval. Immigration lawyers believe this means ministers are in deep legal water over the temporary cap.

Home Office ministers announced their intention to introduce the temporary cap to parliament, but did not detail how it would operate or the level of the limit on skilled and highly skilled migrants until it came into force. Details were then posted on the Home Office website but not presented to parliament.

The Home Office is battling to keep the politically sensitive case out of the court. But the immigration lawyers involved expect it to be heard by the judges within the next few weeks.

The immigration minister, Damian Green, said: "We will rigorously defend this challenge and are confident of success. The government has been clear, we will introduce our permanent annual limit on economic migrants from outside the EU from April 2011.

"While we decide how the annual limit should operate it is imperative that we have interim measures in place to avoid a rush of applications from migrants before the new rules take effect.

"We are fully committed to reduce the level of net migration back down to the levels of the 1990s: tens of thousands each year, not hundreds of thousands. Introducing a limit on migrants from outside Europe coming here to work is just one of the ways we intend to achieve this."

Source



23 September, 2010

Chaos and confusion as Australia's Leftist government tries to find a solution to illegal immigration

They seem however to be going slowly down the path that worked well for the previous conservative goverenment

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen will head to East Timor to revive plans for an offshore immigration processing facility following talks between Julia Gillard and Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao. The Prime Minister spoke yesterday to Mr Gusmao and asked whether she could dispatch Mr Bowen to discuss the processing centre with his East Timorese counterpart.

It comes as political controversy has again erupted over boat arrivals and Australia's system of mandatory detention with a suicide and two days of protests at Sydney's Villawood facility.

Detention facilities are overcrowded. Mental health experts and refugee advocates believe this has contributed to the incidents this week, although the asylum seekers appear to have protested in an effort to have their claims reconsidered.

Plans for an offshore processing centre have faced strong resistance in East Timor since they were first mentioned by Ms Gillard earlier this year, and Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd was quick to indicate after the election that it would be Mr Bowen who would deal with the issue.

The East Timorese Government has signalled it wants the issue of a processing centre resolved through regional dialogue, not through a bilateral deal with Australia. It has however left itself open to talks with Australia.

Yesterday's discussion between the Prime Minister and Mr Gusmao comes as Mr Rudd is due to meet the East Timorese Foreign Minister Zacarias da Costa at the United Nations in New York.

The deal comes as the head of a government advisory group on asylum seekers warned incidents of self harm at Villawood were the beginnings of a detention system spiralling out of control.

Monash professor of psychiatry Louise Newman said conditions would likely deteriorate at other detention centres across Australia and chastised the government for failing to learn from the past.

Already, men have broken out of Darwin detention centre to stage roadside protests and others fought with tree branches and pool cues in a mass riot on Christmas Island.

"There is a shocking sense of de ja vu," Dr Newman said. "We're seeing the tragic repetition of the same risk factors that we know are predictive of the sorts of problems we saw in Woomera and Baxter."

Nine Chinese nationals on the roof of the stage two accommodation building had climbed up just after 8am yesterday in the same area where Fijian detainee Josefa Rauluni, 36, died in an apparent suicide on Monday.

Speaking through a translator last night, one of the detainees said one of the men had cut himself and was lying unconscious on the roof. The nine include four women, one of whom Xiao Yun, 32, says she is two and a half months pregnant. Ms Yun was detained upon arriving in Australia in early April after she was caught on a fake passport. She has been in Villawood since. Ms Yun said the group were Falun Gong or Christian and feared persecution if returned to China.

SOURCE






Legitimizing Illegal Immigrant Chameleons?

A news report appeared in the Sunday, September 19th edition of the Washington Times. It is of great importance to the citizens of our nation, just as I am certain that this story is of great concern to the citizens of Denmark.

The story deals with an individual who was arrested in Denmark after a bomb he was preparing prematurely detonated, seriously wounding him. When you read the story I want you to take particular care to note just how carefully he took a variety of measures to conceal his true identity- even down to his religion!

Why should this concern citizens of the United States? Consider that if the administration was to enact "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," unknown millions, likely tens of millions, of "undocumented" illegal aliens who haven't a shred of official documentation to attest to who they truly are.

I have often noted that the difference between a "good guy" and a "bad guy" is that when the good guy wakes up he goes through his belongings to decide on what to wear while the bad guy wakes up and goes through his "stuff" and decides who he wants to be that day!

Now imagine the following: the hapless adjudications officers at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services - the agency that would be put in charge of administering this ill-conceived program) would probably be told that they have about ten minutes to adjudicate the applications. Ten minutes to assess them for participation in Comprehensive Immigration Reform. This program would put the aliens on a "pathway to United States citizenship" as the administration and "leaders" in Congress are pushing so hard to provide.

By what process would adjudications officers decide on the name to be imprinted on the identity documents? The documents they would provide to these tens of millions of illegal aliens who cannot prove who they are?

Running the fingerprints of a terrorist or criminal who has never been fingerprinted in our country will likely yield a "clean record" and a false name provided by a terrorist or criminal would conceal the true identity of the applicant for participation in Comprehensive Immigration Reform- the "Keys to the Kingdom!"

What must be remembered is that criminals and terrorists all do everything in their power to conceal their true identities in order to hide in plain sight or, in the vernacular employed by the 9/11 Commission, to embed themselves. For a bad guy, changes in identity serve the same purpose that chameleons and other predatory creatures employ to conceal themselves among their intended victims.

Our leaders continually remind us that where the war on terror is concerned, the United States has to get it right 100% of the time to protect our nation and our citizens, while the terrorists need only get it right once in order to succeed in attacking our nation and killing our citizens! How would providing millions of illegal aliens work? Their simple presence in our country represents a violation of our laws. But providing them with lawful status and official identity documents would be happening even though there would be no realistic way that their true identities will ever be known. This means that their true names would be unknown and unknowable as well as their true nationalities, their potential criminal or terrorist backgrounds. Other such critically important information will likely never be determined.

Once again I will make the point that the leaders of our nation who are pushing for this insane program should be given the MVP (Most Valuable Player) award by al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. They should also be given the MVP award by criminals from the four corners of this planet including the Mexican drug cartels. Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of DHS, the agency I have come to refer to as the Department Homeland Surrender, has conceded that more than 230 cities in the United States from coast to coast and border to border have been infested by these pernicious and extremely violent drug trafficking organizations.

SOURCE



22 September, 2010

Along the Southern Border, the New York Times Is ‘Disconnected from Reality’

Posted by Sheriff Larry Dever

For the last 14 years as the elected Sheriff of Cochise County Arizona, which shares 83½ miles of border with Mexico, I have kept a listed phone number. For about the last 18 years or so the calls I receive at home, at night, would be infrequent and usually about a domestic squabble or some animal turned loose.

Then, in 1998 that all changed. Now I don’t sleep, as my residents call each night sometimes panicky, sometimes resigned to this as a way of life, but always with a shaky voice: “they are at my door.” This is not a weekend activity. This is every single night. Cochise County is a gateway to tens of thousands of illegal aliens entering the U.S. to provide the rest of our country with drugs. If my deputies and I are prohibited from enforcing the law to stop these border jumpers, your families in Plainsville, Ohio, or Charlotte, North Carolina, are going to continue to be in harm’s way and see the percentage of crimes by illegal aliens rise.

The New York Times September 4th editorial entitled “Border News” claims we in southern Arizona are “disconnected from reality” over the issue of border violence. As we patrol the border and watch the traffic night after night – and believe me, you cannot turn off what appears sometimes to be a bad movie with an endless reel of crossers — I would respectfully suggest the editorial writer is disconnected from reality.

And lest you think we are mainly apprehending a workforce eager to come work illegally for our residents, it’s not about people anymore, it’s about drug smugglers and other criminal aliens. My deputies and I keep watch on the border each night, doing our best to apprehend the dozens of men with 75-pound backpacks filled with marijuana who hop the fence, usually when the Federal Border Patrol Agents have their official shift changes. Sadly, Border Patrol agents working this problem are more often than not limited in their capacity to cope by inept policy making in Washington, D.C. Our government is supposed to be making tactical decisions about a situation that worsens by the day and is truly chaotic and frankly, war-like.

The editorial cites the Pew Research Center study as evidence that the illegal population has declined. Pew even admits their numbers are not precise, that their population totals “differ somewhat from the ones the government uses.” In fact, Pew admits to adjusting the unauthorized immigrant population upwards by 10-15%, saying, “Our method of analysis does not permit a precise estimation of how many in this population emigrate, achieve legal status or die.” I would challenge these wizards of statistical manipulation to conduct a study of the total number of crimes committed by illegal aliens nationwide and then justify their open borders position.

When you are thousands of miles away from the problem, it’s easy to imagine this part of the country as a land of easygoing westerners with a carefree lifestyle. That may be the ideal, but the reality is my residents sleep lightly in anticipation of the knocking they will inevitably hear on their front doors and the constant fear of what will result if they are forced to answer.

SOURCE





Australia: Protest sit-in by illegals "won't stop deportation"

This protest is excellent. It was such protests in the Howard era that did more than anything else to stop the flow of illegals. One hopes that TV coverage of it has gone worldwide.

The suicide is of course sad but the man must have been a bit of a nut. Fiji is a very safe and civil place. Even their military coups are bloodless! So there is nothing there to seek asylum from

THE protest by 11 asylum seekers at a Sydney detention centre, sparked by the suicide of a fellow detainee, will not prevent their deportation, the federal government says. Nine Tamils, one Iraqi and one Afghan began their rooftop protest at the Villawood detention centre in the city's west on Monday afternoon and were still refusing to come down this morning.

A 36-year-old Fijian man facing deportation committed suicide yesterday morning at the centre.

All the men on the rooftop have exhausted the application process for asylum status and face being returned to their homeland.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said their actions would do nothing to prevent their deportation. "I understand that people who are very keen to stay in Australia will in desperate circumstances think of other ways to make their case," Mr Bowen told Fairfax radio today. "Our immigration officials determine who gets asylum after a very rigorous process. "And it's not determined by a protest, and a protest won't change an immigration outcome."

Immigration department spokesman Sandi Logan said negotiators had been on the scene of the standoff overnight and into this morning. The negotiators included local Tamils, he said.

Mr Logan said the men were protesting against the handling of their visa applications, and their actions would neither help nor hinder them. "We continue to be hopeful that reason will prevail, that logic will prevail, and that they will understand that remaining on the roof is not going to change an outcome. It's not going to secure a different outcome to that which they currently have," Mr Logan told ABC television.

Mr Logan said he had not heard about claims the Villawood centre was understaffed, and he believed its manager, Serco, was managing well in a sometimes challenging environment.

Refugee advocate Sara Nathan has been in mobile phone contact with some of the rooftop protesters, who say the rejections of their applications contained factual errors and they were not given legal help during the process. Ms Nathan told AAP: "They're saying, 'Can we have a review of our case because you made a mistake. This is our lives. If you return us, we will be tortured and/or killed'." [Rubbish! They would be welcomed in Tamil Nadu]

Refugee Action Coalition spokesman Ian Rintoul says the men want assurance their cases will be reviewed again before they will come off the roof. "They want an independent and transparent review of their cases and they want to meet with the immigration officers," he told AAP. "They've made it clear that they can't go back to Sri Lanka." [But they can go to Tamil Nadu in India, which is in fact their "eelam"]

Mr Bowen said just under 5000 people were being held in detention centres on Christmas Island and the Australian mainland.

SOURCE



21 September, 2010

The Swedish elite is in a tizzy

Despite all their efforts to starve it of publicity, an anti-immigration party now hold the balance of power in the Swedish parliament

A far-right group’s election breakthrough has shattered Sweden’s self-image as a bastion of tolerance, somehow inoculated against the backlash on immigration seen elsewhere in Europe.

Sunday’s ballot showed the country’s welcome to refugees is not universally accepted: nearly 6 per cent of the population voted for a nationalist group that accuses immigrants — especially Muslims — of eroding Sweden’s national identity and its cherished welfare state.

It’s a bitter pill for a nation that frowned upon Denmark’s vitriol toward Muslim immigrants, Swiss attempts to ban minarets and France’s crackdown on Gypsy camps. “The banner of tolerance has been hauled down and the forces of darkness have finally taken the Swedish democracy hostage, too,” the Expressen tabloid wrote in a post-election editorial. “It’s Monday morning and time for Swedes to get a new self-image,” read a bold front-page headline in Svenska Dagbladet.

Hardening attitudes toward immigrants have helped far-right radicals gain influence in other western European countries, including Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark. The U.S. also has seen a backlash, underscored by the uproar over plans to build an Islamic centre near Ground Zero in New York and Arizona’s attempts to get tough on illegal immigration.

But Sweden became barren ground for such groups after the sudden rise and fall of a right-wing populist party in the early 1990s. Since then Swedes have dealt with immigration issues delicately, at times even apologetically.

When a mainstream political party eight years ago suggested basic Swedish skills should be mandatory for Swedish citizenship — an uncontroversial requirement in many other countries — it was accused of catering to xenophobes.

Swedish leaders lashed out at Scandinavian neighbour Denmark for sharply tightening immigration in 2002, and reacted with horror to the anti-Muslim statements by leaders of the nationalist Danish People’s Party.

That helped cement Sweden’s reputation as being a haven for immigrants, and was one the reasons the nation of 9.4 million attracted more Iraqi refugees following the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein than any other in the West. To many that era is over with the election of the Sweden Democrats to Parliament.

SOURCE






New from the CIS

1). Amnesty Inroads Among Evangelicals

Excerpt: Research demonstrates that elites and the rank-and-file in many segments of society (e.g., business, religion, organized labor) are split over immigration issues.1 Elites tend to manifest post-American, cosmopolitan ideologies, while their grassroots members preserve deep-seated patriotic beliefs and attitudes, including with regard to immigration.

2). Jon Feere discusses birthright citizenship Video

3). On the CIS blog:

(Recent entries on the CIS blog are here. The CIS main page is here.)

Menendez Wants CIR During Lame Duck Session

A National Immigration Auction, Part III: Predictably Bad Consequences

Farfetched? Does Illegal Immigration Facilitate Teenage Obesity?

A National Immigration Auction, Part II: Illegal Immigration

A National Immigration Auction, Part I: A Very Bad Idea

No Comment

Despite Media Mythmaking, the DREAM Act is for Adults

Immigration and the New Congress: Opportunity Knocks

What 'Strong Anti-immigrant Tilt'?

Immigration and Education: Only the Beginning



20 September, 2010

Immigration backlash spreads in Europe

An anti-immigrant party won seats in the Swedish parliament for the first time in an election on Sunday, in the latest sign of a backlash in Europe against immigration.

Below are some of the countries where anti-immigrant sentiment appears to be on the rise or where governments have moved to impose new restrictions on immigration or ethnic groups like the Roma.

AUSTRIA

Two years after the death of Joerg Haider, the founder of Austria's modern far-right, immigration remains a hot topic.

The anti-foreigner Freedom party, which captured 17.5 percent of the votes at national level two years ago, has called for a special vote on whether to ban minarets and Islamic face veils as part of its campaign for a regional election in Vienna next month. Its leader Heinz-Christian Stache is also angling to become the capital's mayor.

BRITAIN

The new government of Prime Minister David Cameron is moving to fulfil campaign pledges to restrict immigration in Britain, which had the second highest net inflow of immigrants in the 27-nation EU last year after Italy.

Among planned measures, a permanent cap on migrants from outside the EU will be set in April. A poll this month showed 64 percent of Britons believe the current level of immigration is making their country "a worse place to live." However, the far-right British National Party failed to make much of an impact in the recent election and is in disarray.

BULGARIA

Bulgaria's anti-Roma Attack party became the fourth largest group in parliament last year, winning 9.4 percent of the vote. The party argues for the demolition of Roma ghettos and cutting off social aid to Roma who don't send their children to school.

DENMARK

The right-wing populist Danish People's Party, which warns of a creeping Islamification of Denmark, has been the third biggest in parliament since 2001 and was boosted by a wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the Mohammad cartoon crisis in 2005.

In the last election in 2007, it won 25 seats in the 179-seat parliament with 13.8 percent of the vote. Some recent polls have put its support closer to 16 percent.

FRANCE

The far-right National Front (FN) of Jean-Marie Le Pen has been a force in French politics since the late 1980s, reaching a high-point in support during the 2002 presidential election.

The FN saw its support fall in the 2007 vote, in part because conservative Nicolas Sarkozy ran a tough-on-crime campaign that drew some of its supporters, but the party rebounded in a regional vote in March.

This summer President Sarkozy launched a drive to repatriate Roma and strip some criminals of foreign origin of their French nationality, drawing fierce criticism from the church, rights groups, opposition parties and the EU. His government is also poised to become the first in Europe to ban full Islamic face veils, known as burqas, in public.

GERMANY

Far-right parties have made gains at state level but have not come near the five percent mark needed to enter the federal parliament. Germany has had a net immigrant outflow in recent years. However, public concerns about integrating the country's large Turkish population appear to be on the rise. Polls showed a solid majority of the public supported criticisms of Muslim immigrants by Thilo Sarrazin, a member of the Bundesbank who was forced out of his job for his outspoken views on the issue. Surveys also show many Germans would consider backing a new party that was tough on immigrants.

HUNGARY

The far-right party Jobbik entered parliament for the first time in April 2010 elections, winning 47 seats in the 386 seat chamber and its support has risen ahead of municipal elections on October 3. Jobbik has capitalized on popular resentment toward Hungary's large Roma minority, and said recently that Roma considered a threat to public safety should be placed in highly-controlled "public order protection" camps.

ITALY

The anti-immigrant, pro-autonomy Northern League, which is part of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's coalition government, has made strong gains in recent elections and increased its influence over policy in Italy. Long a main entry point for Africans seeking entry into Europe, Italy had the biggest net immigrant inflow in the EU last year, but it has clamped down severely in recent years.

Berlusconi's government agreed a deal last year with Libya to send back boats caught trying to cross into its waters illegally. It has also passed tough laws allowing authorities to fine and imprison illegal immigrants. Rome has been openly supportive of France's campaign to repatriate the Roma.

NETHERLANDS

The anti-immigrant Freedom Party of populist Geert Wilders was the third strongest party in a June election and could gain ample influence over policy if center-right parties agree to form a minority government with his support. Polls show that if new elections were held, the party would emerge as the strongest in the country. Wilders, the political heir to populist Pim Fortuyn who was killed in 2002, wants to ban face veils and the Koran, as well as shut down Islamic schools in the Netherlands, whose population of 16.6 million includes 1 million Muslims.

NORWAY

Norway's anti-immigrant Progress Party had its best showing ever in last year's parliamentary election, winning 23 percent of the vote and consolidating its position as the country's main opposition party. To widen its appeal, the party has sidelined some of its hardest immigration critics whose comments were interpreted by some as racist, and has focused increasingly on criticizing Norway's cradle-to-grave welfare state.

SWEDEN

The Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigration party which criticizes Islam and Muslims as un-Swedish, won its first seats in parliament in a September 19 election. The party has profited from a backlash against Sweden's liberal asylum policies, which attracted tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

[Note: The Sweden Democrats have been demonized in Sweden and are often referred to as "far-right" but they are in fact little different from any other conservative party except that, unusually for Sweden, they are very critical of Muslim immigration, which is apparently very naughty of them.

A similar party in Denmark has succeeded in getting very tough immigration laws passed so they do seriously threaten the Swedish establishment. There is a lot of public support for a crackdown on immigration in Sweden but that does not translate to similar support for the Sweden Democrats -- as most Swedes vote as they always have done -- JR]

SWITZERLAND

The right-wing populist SVP won 27 percent of the vote, the highest of any Swiss party, in a 2007 parliamentary election. It has thrown its support behind a forthcoming referendum that would allow faster expulsion of criminals of foreign origin. The Swiss voted last year to ban the construction of new minarets.

SOURCE






Australia's Leftist government lacks the will and the realism needed to stop an invasion of boat-borne illegals

IN three swift years, the Rudd-Gillard Labor Government has destroyed Australia’s border security and reduced the asylum seeker issue to a deadly farce. Former prime minister Kevin Rudd was responsible for putting people smugglers back in business when he oversaw a comprehensive relaxation of border controls in 2008. The welcome sign for asylum seekers was well and truly written to order by current Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Now, the secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), Andrew Metcalfe, has been forced to write to his colleagues in other areas of the public service begging for assistance to help DIAC meet an “urgent and increasing demand for staff” to cope with the ever-increasing flow of new arrivals. They are, Metcalfe writes, rapidly “approaching the point where we will not be able to meet the demand”.

While Rudd - in his new incarnation as Foreign Minister - jets off to grandstand in New York with the global United Nations panjandrums whose company he prefers, negotiations with East Timor over a possible asylum processing centre have been left to the Government’s newly-minted Immigration Minister Chris Bowen. Only days into his new job, Bowen has essentially acknowledged that offshore processing is on the cards.

Though Labor would rather choke than pronounce the words “Pacific Solution”, the Papua New Guinea Government is already discussing the reopening of its Manus Island detention centre - oops, better call that an “asylum seeker processing centre” - and letters have been flying between Michael Sapan, Governor of Manus Province, and PNG Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare. Sapan has been arguing, quite reasonably, that the Lobrum asylum processing centre could be reopened and that it would be an economic boon to a severely financially stressed area of the country. He evens dares to mention the Pacific Solution.

In the area of border protection, as in so many others, Labor has proven itself to be the party of gross mismanagement. As shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison said yesterday, the level of seaborne arrivals currently in detention because of Labor’s discriminatory asylum freeze, and the extended taxpayer-funded appeals processes, have both contributed to a record detention population of more than 5000 people.

The numbers are staggering. In September, Australia’s detention population included 4527 people who had arrived illegally by boat. This compares to just four people in November, 2007. Under Labor, the number of those held in detention centres has increased by - wait for it - 113,075 per cent. So much for Rudd’s pre-election boast that he would turn them back.

My Daily Telegraph colleague Simon Benson revealed that of 6310 asylum seekers arriving in Australia in the past two years, only 75 have been rejected and returned to their country of origin.

The cost to the nation of Labor’s utterly shambolic approach to border security is now running into billions.

It’s also eating into other areas of critical importance to Australia. As Australia’s Chief of Defence Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston said earlier this week, key defence assets are so overstretched dealing with the incessant influx of boat people that day-to-day operations are being compromised. The constant demand for air surveillance aircraft and patrol boats “means you sometimes can’t do other things”, Houston has admitted.

West Australia has become a dumping ground for asylum seekers. Labor has now admitted that it is expanding facilities at the remote Curtin air base to house boat people, and other possible sites at Laverton and Northam are being explored.

Local communities, such as the one at isolated Leonora, east of Perth, are finding that the boom which was promised as an accompaniment to its detention centre, has not eventuated. Instead of local stores reaping the benefits, supplies are shipped from major operators in Perth. Resentment is growing as residents see detainees access benefits which the locals cannot afford, including fresh produce.

Liberal MP Don Randall, whose Canning electorate is home to a high percentage of immigrants, said there was a perception that the newly-arrived refugees were receiving better access to education and health facilities than long-established migrants. “What do you tell a war widow who can’t get help with housing while recent arrivals are placed at the top of the list because of some obligation to a UN treaty?” he asked.

Meanwhile, at the modern District Court in the centre of Perth, four Indonesian crewmen who brought a boatload of Afghan asylum seekers to Ashmore Reef in June, 2009, are in the middle of trial which is set to run from two to three weeks.

Lorens Lapikana, Anto, Samsul Bahar, Anwah Abdullah, each with his own taxpayer-provided barrister and each with his own taxpayer-funded translator, have been appearing daily to listen as tapes and transcripts from their recorded interviews with DIAC officials on Christmas Island last July are played to a judge and jury. Two of the men had claimed to be aged under 15 but X-rays were taken of their wrists and a radiologist has testified that their probable ages were greater than 19, enabling them to be tried as adults. Though a number of Indonesians have been sent home without charge, probably to relieve overcrowding in the already stretched West Australian prison system, the jurors may decide to add these to the 48 currently serving sentences.

The cost of keeping them in jail serving sentences or among the 74 currently on remand, runs to millions each year.

Despite the claims that more illegal arrivals come to Australia by air, these crewmen are a reminder that boats have brought more people in than all the airlines in the past 11 months. According to Morrison, between July 1, 2009, and June 11, 2010, there were 5233 asylum seekers who arrived illegally by boat and just 541 asylum seekers who arrived illegally by plane (i.e. without visa documentation).

“This means almost 10 times as many illegal arrivals came by boat than by plane under Labor’s failed border protection policies,” he said. “The vast majority of people who arrive by plane and subsequently make an asylum claim do so with a valid visa and full documentation, enabling their claims to be properly tested. The Government’s figures show that 5105 people who arrived by plane during this same period and subsequently sought asylum, arrived with valid documentation.”

Labor is in denial on its failure on border protection, despite the overwhelming evidence of policy collapse. Its strategy was farcical and has proved to be, as forecast, unworkable. This is a crisis, a crisis of Labor’s own making. And it will not be solved while the Gillard Government continues to close its eyes to this fiasco.

SOURCE



19 September, 2010

Outrageous: Big compensation payments to illegals from the Australian government

Why does Australia owe these people anything? Nobody asked them to come to Australia and they undoubtedly came at their own risk

DOZENS of asylum-seekers have been awarded $5.4 million in compensation payouts for injuries they suffered while in detention. Official figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph reveal more than 50 immigration detainees have pocketed an average of $100,000 each over the past two years.

The Sunday Telegraph can also reveal that an outbreak of the infectious diseases typhoid and tuberculosis has hit the overflowing detention centre on Christmas Island.

The Federal Government refused to detail the reasons for the multimillion-dollar payouts to detainees, saying only they were related to wrongful detention or injuries suffered in detention.

A Department of Immigration spokesman said compensation payouts and disease outbreaks were "inevitable" given the large number of asylum-seekers in detention. "This is a department that deals with 26 million interactions with human beings every year - border crossings, visas, compliance," spokesman Sandi Logan said. "It's the law of averages - some may well choose to litigate against us or, in some rare cases, we may be at fault and have to pay out under Comcare and Comcover."

But the number of compensation payouts has exploded over the past two years. According to figures supplied by the department, there were 32 cases in 2008-09, with a total payout of $3.3 million, and 22 cases between July, 2009 and May, 2010, involving a total of $2.1 million. Most cases were paid out by the Federal Government's insurer, Comcover.

The number of compensation claims involving immigration detainees has been growing from a trickle in 2000, but total payouts of $12.3 million over the past 10 years have included two huge payments to Australians wrongfully detained.

The figures show that between 2000 and 2005, there were only four cases, with a total payout of $163,225. In 2005-06, there was one payout of $200,000. In 2006-07, there were four cases, including a settlement with the wrongly deported Australian Vivian Solon, costing $2.6 million.

Ms Solon was mistakenly deported to the Philippines. Gravely ill, she was found in a hospice north of Manila by a Catholic priest in 2005.

In 2007-08, there was a record payout in dollar terms with 13 cases for a total of $4 million, including one for another wrongly detained and wrongly deported Australian, Cornelia Rau.

As officials struggle to stem the flow of boat arrivals, the Federal Government has been forced to spend another $50 million on increasing the capacity of detention facilities on the mainland to cope with the more than 5000 asylum-seekers now in detention.

The compensation bill is likely to blow out many times more, as the claims paid out in the past two years relate to asylum-seekers in detention prior to August, 2007 when there were a fraction of the numbers now.

Source





Straight talking British judge

Highlights the Gypsy immigrant problem. Most Gypsies live by begging or petty crime

A judge has launched an astonishing attack on criminal Eastern European gangs who come to Britain to target elderly and vulnerable people. District judge Bruce Morgan said he was 'deeply concerned' about the impact of criminals who arrive in the country to steal from innocent people.

His comments came as he sentenced teenager Ceca Dadic, who is believed to be a Roma gypsy from Bosnia, to six months for her 'despicable' role in trying to steal a 78-year-old woman's purse. The 19-year-old mother-of-two admitted attempted theft as she appeared at Worcester Magistrates' Court on Wednesday. She distracted her elderly victim by asking her advice on a cream cake while her underage accomplice tried to unzip the woman's purse.

Mr Morgan said Dadic was part of a criminal gang and added that he had dealt with six similar cases in the previous five days.

Dadic wept as the judge told her – through an interpreter – that he hoped her six-month sentence in youth custody would act as a deterrent to others. He added that she and an accomplice, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had acted in a 'despicable' way.

He said: 'There is no doubt in my mind that you are part of a criminal gang who come to this country from Eastern Europe for the purpose of committing crime. 'I'm deeply concerned about the number of young people like you who I deal with who come from Eastern Europe, find addresses in Birmingham and then go to the neighbouring counties to commit crime.'

The court heard that Dadic had been convicted four times in the past year of theft or attempted theft.

The court heard that Dadic, from Birmingham, was in a Somerfield supermarket in Worcester on August 12 when she asked the elderly shopper whether a particular cake contained strawberry jam. Liam Finch, prosecuting, said: 'She asked her: "would my grandmother like it?"' Security guards then saw Dadic's accomplice try to unzip the woman's purse and called police.

Mr Morgan said: 'You say you are sorry – I don't accept that at all. 'I accept you may be a small part of a large organisation but you are an essential part of it. 'To pick on and try to distract elderly ladies for the sole purpose of financial gain is quite frankly despicable'.

SOURCE



18 September, 2010

British Prime Minister backs French leader over expulsions of Gypsies

A new Entente Cordiale?

David Cameron rounded on the European Commission last night over its extraordinary criticism of France’s expulsion of thousands of Roma gypsies – as President Sarkozy said the controversial policy would continue.

The Prime Minister revealed he had tackled the Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso over the issue after the Commission likened the actions of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to those of the Nazis.

He said it was vital that commissioners ‘choose their language carefully’ when interfering in the domestic affairs of member states. But he also warned France that it must not target illegal Roma immigrants on the basis of their ethnic origin.

President Sarkozy, who was involved in an exchange with the Romanian President Traian Basescu at the Commission today, revealed he had had a blazing row with Mr Barroso during lunch at yesterday’s EU summit, which was overshadowed by the Roma issue. He described the EU’s criticism of France as ‘disgusting and shameful’ – as the unprecedented row between the Commission and the founding member state intensified.

The row erupted after EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding branded the French policy a ‘disgrace’ and called for legal action. She said she was ‘appalled’ by the expulsion of thousands of Roma, adding: ‘This is a situation I had thought Europe would not have to witness again after the Second World War.’ She later said she regretted interpretations of her statement.

President Sarkozy was unrepentant yesterday and vowed to continue dismantling illegal immigrant camps. He said 199 camps, containing 5,400 people, had been dismantled. He launched a ferocious attack on Commissioner Reding, describing her comments as ‘outrageous’ – and warning that they were ‘unacceptable’ to both himself and other EU leaders. He said: ‘The disgusting and shameful words that were used – the Second World War, the evocation of the Jews - was something that shocked us deeply. 'I am the French president and I cannot allow my country to be insulted.’

President Sarkozy says the expulsions are a matter of security and that the European Commission should come up with Europe-wide solutions rather than criticising France. He said there had been no expulsions based on ethnicity.

Downing Street sources said Mr Cameron and President Sarkozy had discussed the issue before the formal start of yesterday’s summit. He also thanked the French president for laying on a helicopter which enabled him to reach his dying father Ian in the south of France last week.

Mr Cameron told reporters he had raised the issue of the Commission’s criticism of France during yesterday’s lunch. He said: ‘Members of the Commission have to choose their language carefully. Of course the Commission has a role in enforcing and identifying community law. 'But I think it’s important that we respect people and speak in a respectful way and I note that the Commissioner in question has actually given an apology for the words that she used.’

But he also said it was important did not target the Roma unfairly, adding: ‘It’s important that countries are able to take action if there is a problem of people acting illegally or being illegally in your country and that you are able to remove them. 'But it’s important that no-one should ever do that on the basis of someone’s ethnic group.’

Sarkozy has also received backing today from the Italian president Silvio Berlusconi. Mr Berlusconi told Le Figaro newspaper that it 'would have been better if Madame Reding had dealt with the subject in private with French leaders before expressing herself publicly as she did'. He continued: 'The problem of the Roma is not specifically French. It concerns every country in Europe. 'It is therefore necessary to put this subject on the agenda at the European Council so we can all discuss it together in order to find a common position,' he said.

SOURCE





Illegal Alien Child Molester Awarded $4.5 Million in California!

California is so broke it is being compared to Greece. But the Orange County Board of Supervisors gave away 4.3 million real dollars to an illegal Mexican alien who is also a child molester. Why did the supervisors do it? Answer: “The lawyer made me do it!”

The first chapter in this distasteful story begins with Fernando Ramirez, a 24-year-old illegal alien, being caught molesting a 6-year-old girl in a park. He was duly convicted and sent to the Orange County Central Jail. The second chapter is predictable.

Inmates in prison for murder, bank robbery, mugging old ladies, and other assorted thuggery agree on at least one thing: They hate child molesters. So when Mr. Ramirez was finally incarcerated, his life insurance company should have been quick to cancel his policy. That the California court allowed Fernando to plead guilty to ‘battery against a child,’ instead of putting him on trial for child molestation, did not impress his fellow inmates. They beat him to within the proverbial inch of his life.

In the third chapter a California lawyer takes over. Attorney Mark Eisenberg is not an ambulance chaser. Let’s face it, that’s a tacky vocation that is not really cost-effective. Instead, lawyer Eisenberg seems to have discovered that being a noble defender of downtrodden child molesters is just the ticket. By some means, Mr. Eisenberg was mysteriously advised about Fernando being roughly used by the other gents in the Orange County lockup. If he did have an informant somewhere in the county system, no doubt Eisenberg would have simply thanked him, and assured him that his reward could only be in heaven. Then Eisenberg swung into righteous action.

Bringing a case before the Orange County Board of Supervisors, the kindly attorney claimed that Ramirez had suffered brain damage because of the beating, that he needs help walking, and that he now has the intellect of a four-year-old child. Luckily, that age was two years less than the six-year-old child he had molested, so the supervisors must have been very saddened by his alleged condition.

In the fourth chapter, the supervisors take stock of the dire financial straits of Orange County. They then conclude that county taxpayers can still find it in their hearts to hand the child molester and his lawyer the largest settlement ever given to anyone in county custody: $3.75 million, plus $900,000 for medical expenses. With a wave of their wands, Orange County Supervisors made Fernando one of the richest non-citizens in the country!

You might ask questions about that award, but you will get no answers. The case was heard behind closed doors, and the supervisors have absolutely and wisely refused to make any comment on the matter since Joshua Jamison broke the story in The Raw Deal blog. It was later picked up by American Thinker.com on July 11th.

We should remember that lawyers who do not chase ambulances, like Mark Eisenberg, do their work for free. Just like we see advertized on television. What we do not see on television is that lawyers like Eisenberg work on a “contingency fee” basis. That means that if they take your case (and they will not take it unless they reckon they will win) they will take a share in the winnings. Usually, that is at least 30 percent. In this case, that means lawyer Eisenberg took home over $1 million of Orange County taxpayer money. Not bad for a quick closed-door decision by the supervisors.

The final question is: Did the board of supervisors also let millionaire Fernando out of the hoosegow? They must have. It is the only way he could spend his new-found wealth and be the financial stimulus Orange County needs so badly.

SOURCE



17 September, 2010

Reid, McCain Spar Over Immigration Add-On in Defense Bill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. John McCain escalated a confrontation Thursday over the Democratic leader's move to give some illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship, with the nation's military budget hanging in the balance.

Reid announced this week that he would attach to the defense authorization bill a program to grant young people who join the military or attend college legal status. This drew outcry from Senate Republicans already miffed over an add-on that would repeal the "don't ask, don't policy" barring gays from serving openly in the military. They say the so-called DREAM Act needlessly politicizes the blueprint for military spending.

McCain, in keeping with his threats, objected Thursday when Reid tried to call up the defense bill. This prompted Reid to try forcibly advancing the bill to debate with a vote next week.

Reid then singled out McCain in a written statement, urging the former prisoner of war to listen to his patriotic side.

"Any American so courageous and patriotic that he or she wants to serve our country in the military should be able to do so. Senator McCain and anyone else who thinks the DREAM Act is not directly related to our national security should talk to the brave young men and women who want to defend our country but are turned away," Reid said. "Senator McCain should know better than anyone that patriots who step up to serve our grateful nation should be offered a path to citizenship, and that anyone who volunteers to serve should be welcomed regardless of their sexual orientation."

McCain, in an interview set to air Thursday with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, explained that his objection concerns process, not substance. "It may have merits or demerits depending on how you look at it. But to put it on a defense bill? And so it's really his effort to get re-elected," McCain said. "And he's doing that at the expense of this legislation, which is about the men and women who are serving in the military. It's really remarkable."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Foreign Policy's The Cable blog that Reid is trying to "check a box with the Hispanic voters."

Under the DREAM Act, anyone who came to the United States when they were under 16 years old and has lived in the country for five years would be eligible if they join the military or attend college for at least two years.

Those who qualify would be granted conditional residency and after nearly six years would be able to apply for permanent residency. From there, they could apply for citizenship.

President Obama voiced support for the policy in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Wednesday. "I've been a supporter since I was in the Senate, and I will do whatever it takes to support the Congressional Hispanic Caucus' efforts to pass this bill so that I can sign it into law on behalf of students seeking a college education and those who wish to serve in our country's uniform," Obama said. "It's the right thing to do. We should get it done."

McCain frequently takes heat from Democrats when it comes to immigration because he previously worked in-depth on a comprehensive immigration overhaul with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. He was accused of taking more conservative positions on immigration issues during his Republican primary campaign, from which he emerged victorious last month.

As the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, his position on the defense bill is attracting heightened attention.

A gay rights group called GetEQUAL also confronted McCain Thursday during a committee hearing over his "don't ask, don't tell" position, urging him to support repealing the policy. McCain says he wants to wait for the Pentagon to complete its study on repealing "don't ask, don't tell" before voting on any change.

SOURCE







Australia's Department of Immigration is 'at breaking point' with asylum claims

THE Department of Immigration is so stretched trying to process the 4775 asylum-seekers believed detained across Australia that 17 other government departments have been asked to lend it workers to meet an "urgent and increasing demand" for staff.

The call for immediate assistance to cope with rising numbers of asylum-seekers came as West Australian Premier Colin Barnett accused the Gillard government of using the west as a "prison" to house almost half the illegal boat arrivals detained on the mainland.

The head of the Department of Immigration, Andrew Metcalfe, wrote an urgent letter to his counterparts last month across a raft of agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Defence, Human Services and even Medicare Australia, requesting additional assistance.

"Over the last year there has been an increase in the rate of arrivals and the number of staff required to meet this demand has increased proportionately," Mr Metcalfe said in a letter to the head of the Department of Agriculture.

"The department is approaching a point where we will not be able to meet this demand from existing and internal staff."

An Immigration Department spokesman said the plea for additional workers was "normal practice and a routine business operation".

He said the department was experiencing an increase in "intense labour activity" as a result of more asylum-seekers' claims being refused.

But the leaking of the letter also followed the release yesterday of figures obtained by the opposition which showed that - of the more than 6300 illegal boat arrivals in the two years to June - only 75 had been refused entry and returned home.

By yesterday afternoon that figure had risen to 98 boatpeople, but new Immigration Minister Chris Bowen agreed those numbers could be improved.

"Certainly I want those numbers to be higher," he said on Sky News's Agenda. "When we reject a claim for asylum, I would like people to return to their home country more quickly."

SOURCE



16 September, 2010

Republicans Call Reid's Immigration Proposal a Political Ploy

Republicans dismissed as a political ploy Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's announcement Tuesday that he would attach a proposal giving young illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship on an upcoming defense bill.

With Reid facing a tough election against Sharron Angle in Hispanic-heavy Nevada, lawmakers criticized the majority leader for adding the so-called DREAM Act to the defense bill. They accused him of injecting unnecessary controversy into the routine spending bill for political gain.

"The Dream Act should be a part of comprehensive immigration reform. Adding it to the Defense Authorization, which already contains an unwarranted repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' is cynical and transparently political," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a written statement.

The Nevada Republican Party described the move as "desperate political parlor games that could only come from a 28-year establishment Democrat seeking a fifth term in the U.S. Senate."

But the DREAM Act has been floating around Capitol Hill since last year and, in the absence of a comprehensive immigration overhaul, Reid said he hoped he could marshal the votes.

Reid blamed Republicans for the inability to pass a sweeping immigration reform bill. "I've tried to. I've tried so very, very hard, but those Republicans we've had in the last Congress have left us," he said, referring to Republican senators who previously supported an immigration overhaul.

The DREAM Act would allow young people who attend college or join the military to become legal U.S. residents. The young people must have come to the country when they were under 16 years of age and have been in the country five years. Those who join the military must serve at least two years and complete two years of college.

Those who qualify would be granted conditional residency and after nearly six years would be able to apply for permanent residency. From there, they could apply for citizenship. By offering military service as a pathway to citizenship, the U.S. government also would be opening the door for the medical and education benefits military service entails, a potentially attractive deal for would-be recruits.

Asked about the proposal Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama would continue to support it. "The administration is supportive of that legislation. The previous administration was supportive of that legislation. And certainly it's our hope that, working with Congress, we can see progress on that," Gibbs said. "And none of that will ... replace what has to happen from a comprehensive level and a comprehensive perspective to deal with the issues around immigration reform."

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell described the immigration measure, as well as a proposal to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, as "extraneous." "It made it needlessly controversial," McConnell said, declining to comment on either proposal's chances for passage.

SOURCE






Australia: Only 75 asylum seekers rejected since 2008

THE Federal Government has been forced to reveal that of the 6310 asylum seekers that arrived in Australia in the past two years only 75 have been rejected and returned to their country of origin.

With mainland detention centres now reaching bursting point, the Department of Immigration has effectively admitted it is struggling to deal with what the Opposition claimed was a growing humanitarian problem on Australian soil. Yesterday, there were 4527 asylum seekers still packed into overcrowded centres across the country, 1000 beyond existing capacity.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen confirmed existing detention camps were under pressure but claimed the overcrowding was in part because of the increased number of rejections for asylum and the difficulty of repatriating people.

The Immigration Department is also failing to meet its 90-day target to process applications with numbers of asylum seekers in detention for three months or more rising from 30 per cent in April to more than 55 per cent now. Another 15 per cent had been in detention for more than six months and some detained for longer than 12 months, with a freeze on processing Afghan refugees still in place.

The new figures - released to parliament as answers to questions to a Senate hearing first raised by the Coalition in May - reveal that of the 6310 arrivals since October 2008, 2050 had been granted protection visas and only 75 had been removed from Australia.

The figures also explode the myth more people arrive illegally by air than by boat. Between 2009 and June 11 this year, according to the department 5646 onshore protection visa applications were lodged by people who came by air, with only 541 applicants regarded as illegal entries.

Opposition spokesman on immigration and population Scott Morrison said the Government was now dealing with a potential humanitarian crisis of its own making. "The Coalition never built Christmas Island to cope with Labor's policy failures," said Mr Morrison. "Under their compassionate humanitarian policy there are now 5000 people in detention . . . 2000 of them are in the desert."

It's understood the Government had planned to triple the size of Curtin detention centre in remote Western Australia as early as July, denied in the election campaign.

Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday also could not guarantee a new East Timor processing facility in three years.

Mr Bowen, who has been in the job only two days said on Tuesday: "I do acknowledge that there are real and significant pressures on our detention centres. "They arise because of not only more elevated arrivals, but also an increased rejection rate." He said it was more time consuming to repatriate rejected persons while acceptances were much quicker.

SOURCE



15 September, 2010

Sheriff Arpaio Continues to Enforce All illegal Immigration Laws

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s continued crackdown on illegal immigration resulted in the detaining of twelve illegal aliens last night by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Human Smuggling Unit. Five of the illegal aliens detained were booked on charges of Human Smuggling, and the other seven were turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for appropriate disposition.

Sheriff Arpaio began his Human Smuggling Unit over two years ago; it has booked 2,137 suspects for Human Smuggling, a Class IV Felony, and has a conviction rate of 96%. In addition to those bookings, the Sheriff’s Office has also placed Immigration Holds on over 36,000 arrestees, making them subject to deportation.

Sheriff Arpaio has vowed to continue enforcing all aspects of the state and federal immigration laws through the use of his Crime Suppression Operations, Human Smuggling Unit, and the enforcement of Employer Sanction laws. Sheriff Arpaio says “I will not be distracted nor deterred by civil rights activists, or Department of Justice Officials, demonstrators or local and national politicians from continuing to do my job as the elected Sheriff of Maricopa County”.

Sheriff Arpaio will be traveling to Nashua New Hampshire tomorrow to speak to one of the largest Republican organizations in the state regarding the continued problem of illegal immigration within the United States. Arpaio will also be meeting with Former New Hampshire Governor, and former President George Herbert Bush’s Chief of Staff, John Sununu. The Sheriff received a call from Sununu today.

Sheriff Arpaio is expecting a large number of protesters in front of the Crowne Plaza Hotel, in Nashua New Hampshire, Sunday at noon, while he is addressing the Nashua Republican City Committee. Arpaio says “wherever I travel there are demonstrators, I refuse to be deterred because of a few people protesting my policies. The audiences I speak to are always 100’s of times larger than the protestors. I’ll continue to talk to my supporters across the country”.

SOURCE



"Anchor babies" are a custom, not a right

The common argument against changing how we treat babies born here of “illegal immigrants” goes back to our Constitution. To effectively deal with matters after the American Civil War, including treatment of the newly-freed slaves, an omnibus amendment (the 14th) was adopted in 1868. Some people who argue for retaining the status quo claim that the protection of birthright is the sole matter of that amendment and to change our law would gut that amendment. Section 1 of the amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” It is a very important part of that section, but it is not all of that section and just a portion of the amendment.

I have read that clause over and over again and I don’t see where it says “even if they are here illegally.” Of course, at that time, there weren’t immigration laws like we have today. The entirely reasonable concerns that we now have about border control didn’t exist 150 years ago. Does anyone really believe that the people living in that era deliberately adopted an amendment that would allow people to come here illegally, have babies, and then make the argument that the child was an American citizen? That would be quite doubtful.

The same people who argue that the amendment awards U. S. Citizenship to the children of illegal aliens also lead you to believe that the courts have adjudicated this matter. Actually, they have not. What the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is that children of permanent resident aliens (a classification under the immigration laws comprised of people who are here legally) are deemed to be U.S. Citizens. Our Supreme Court has never stated that the child of an illegal alien is automatically a citizen.

We are not advocating that the amendment be changed. But, historically, Americans have never given benefits to people who do things illegally, and the proposal is merely to clarify the language and intent of the amendment for the benefit of the confused.

There is another reason that people have adopted the impression that the law covers the children of illegal aliens – it is because the issue was rarely asserted. If a person came here illegally a century ago and had a baby, they would give birth with a midwife and then raise the child by their own means. The world has changed. People come here and have babies in hospitals. Even a simple birth can run $10,000. If the baby is a preemie, the bill can be as high as $500,000. Once they leave the hospital, they can be supported by their parents or they can become beneficiaries of the state.

In one year alone, Los Angeles County spent over $50 million on welfare benefits for the children of illegal aliens. That does not include other governmental costs, such as expenses borne by the state and federal bureaucracies. That is just one county. We are a uniquely humane and generous country, but very few people who understand the real costs would endorse these expenditures. It has little to do with the fact that they are foreigners or the color of their skin. It has everything to do with them being here illegally, and, while we are a humane country, we are also a country of laws. Illegal aliens, by definition, are not following the process and are not abiding by our laws.

Canada and the United States are the only advanced economies that still grant citizenship to babies born of illegal immigrants. 164 countries have eliminated this benefit. That is not to say we shouldn’t declare these babies to be citizens because other countries don’t. We should eliminate anchor babies because it is the correct public policy for our citizens, and an expression of fairness to all of the people who aspire to become American citizens.

SOURCE





14 September, 2010

New from the CIS

1. The Complete Immigration Story of 9/11 Hijacker Satam al Suqami

Excerpt: The past year and a half has provided a litany of examples, some tragic, that America is not safe from terrorist conspiracies and acts. Our processing and informational analysis has improved greatly since September 11 at our air and land ports of entry, but our southwest border is suffering from a near national security crisis due to Mexican narco-insurgency. Meanwhile, aviation security remains subject to incomplete vetting procedures and issues of international cooperation. What is becoming increasingly clear is that despite some real gains in border and aviation security, we are not safe. Thus, the value of continuing to learn from the terrorist travel story of September 11 remains relevant today as we continue to rummage through panoplies of choices about immigration and border security. If any immigration issue should rise above the fray and remain a standalone, it should be border security. This Memorandum is an attempt to help inform that debate more full! y, by providing never-before seen digital images that back up previously published material in the September 11 border team's monograph, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel.

********

2. CIS Event: Can Conservatism Survive Mass Immigration?

National Press Club, September 4, 2010. Transcript: here. Video: here

********

3. Coverage of CIS Video, 'Gaming the Border'






CIS blog:

Recent entries on the CIS blog are here. The CIS main page is here.

'Going Home,' or How Restrictionists Can Win the Linguistic Battle

The Pew Study on Illegal Immigration, Part VI: Why Did the Number of Illegal Immigrants Decline?

H-1B Commentary Removed from Reality

Winning the Battle on Illegal Immigration – Implementing a New Strategy

The Pew Study on Illegal Immigration, Part V: Beyond the headlines

DHS Opening Various Migration Doors to Princes and Paupers

Behind the Pew Study on Illegal Immigration, Part IV: The Mystery of the Missing 900,000 Illegal Immigrants

Behind the Pew Study on Illegal Immigration, Part III: Estimating Illegal Immigration - The Basic Model and Its Limitations





13 September, 2010

Australia: Big fall in migrant arrivals - 32 per cent fall in the past year

This is the sort of misleading report one expects from most of the media: The fall they report is off a previous very high level. The numbers are still around twice what they were under the previous conservative government

AUSTRALIA is heading towards recording its biggest drop in immigration numbers in 90 years. Although official data will not be published until next month by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, analysis of long-term entrant figures - an advance indicator of official migration levels - show a 32 per cent fall in the past year.

Demographic experts Macroplan Australia said the number of long-term and permanent entrants - including permanent settlers, students and temporary workers - fell by 111,000 people, from 341,000 to 230,000 in the 12 months to July 31.

"The fall is the greatest since just after the First World War, when arrivals were boosted to record numbers of returning soldiers," said Robert Hall of Macroplan. "The following year, numbers obviously subsided back to normal levels." That aside, the decline in the 12 months is the largest since 1901.

"If there is only a small change in overseas arrivals then you should not take much notice, but if there is a big difference drop then you would expect that to filter through to our official migration figures," said Neil Scott, assistant director at the ABS.

Immigration was a hot issue in the federal election, with the Coalition promising to cut net migration to 170,000 each year, a figure Labor said would be achieved anyway through a natural decline from the high numbers recorded before the GFC.

The Intergenerational Report, produced by the Treasury, has assumed average annual migration of 180,000 from 2012 onwards, but Labor has been careful not to enshrine this figure as a target.

Macroplan said for net migration to fall below 200,000, the government would have to introduce a variety of new restrictions on migration quotas and visa restrictions.

It says the fall in arrivals in the past year was due to a combination of factors including the GFC, government policy reducing the number of visas available, and reports of racist violence against Indian students.

Robert Hall said a drastic cut in immigration would be disastrous. "Over the past 20 years our economic growth has been 3.4 per cent a year, but if migration falls to the Government's target of 180,000 a year, it would fall to 2.7 per cent - meaning a big drop in our standard of living," he said.

SOURCE





Visa win for HIV refugee

Why is Australia rewarding fraud and lawbreaking?

AN HIV-positive African woman who masqueraded as someone else to enter Australia on a refugee visa has been allowed to stay in the country. A Family Court judge has expressed concern that treatment for the woman, given the name of Ms Freye in court documents, would probably cost taxpayers $250,000.

Despite police being told she had falsely claimed to be the wife of a male refugee already in Australia, the department had not revoked her visa, the Family Court in Brisbane heard. Ms Freye had also won custody of the other refugee's children, while their mother remains in Africa.

Details of the woman's entry were made public by Family Court Justice Virginia Bell in a custody decision delivered in Brisbane on August 20.

The male refugee, called Mr Goombe in the court decision, came to Australia in 2005 with three of his five children, as well as Ms Freye's daughter. Mr Goombe claimed he sent money to his wife for care of his two other children in an African refugee camp and applied for humanitarian visas for them.

In 2008 Mr Goombe was told his wife and children had arrived in Australia, but said he was shocked to meet Ms Freye instead of his wife. He told police that she had fraudulently posed as his wife, but they took no action, the court heard.

Ms Freye claimed she was welcomed into Mr Goombe's home, but after he made untoward advances she left, although she returned each day while he was at work to look after the children.

In his decision over who would have custody of the children, Justice Bell expressed concern about the circumstances surrounding Ms Freye's entry. "May I say that the thing that concerns me is, notwithstanding that Ms Freye came into Australia by way of masquerade, she was HIV positive at the time of the application for a visa," Justice Bell said.

"It was indicated to the Immigration Department that in fact this woman would, in all probability, cost the taxpayers of Australia some $250,000 because of the necessity of treatments. "To me this is quite staggering . . . that the Immigration Department allowed this woman to proceed.

"I have been informed that there is little likelihood of her visa being withdrawn, notwithstanding the fact the Immigration Department is now aware that she was not the person she was purported to be and was aware that in fact she was suffering from AIDS."

An Immigration spokesman said Australian law did not prevent a visa being granted to a person with HIV. [That's not the point]

SOURCE



12 September, 2010

ICE Proposes New Policy That Would Let Illegal Immigrants Go Free

But some backpedalling already evident

Illegal immigrants who get pulled over by police for traffic-related offenses will be set free if a proposed change in Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy is approved.

The proposal has come under fire by county sheriffs near the Arizona-Mexico border — including some who spoke out against SB 1070, the controversial Arizona law that directs law enforcement officials to question people they suspect are in the country illegally. A federal judge has effectively put that law on hold, pending resolution in federal court of the Department of Justice's claim that it is unconstitutional.

The proposed changes in ICE policy state: “Immigration officers should not issue detainers against an alien charged only with a traffic-related misdemeanor unless or until the alien is convicted."

The ICE proposal would prevent law enforcement officers from reporting illegal immigrants identified during the course of a traffic-related stop or arrest to federal authorities unless:

-- they are a convicted felon;

-- they are wanted for a felony;

-- they are part of an existing investigation;

-- they were involved in an accident involving drugs or alcohol, or they fled the scene.

The draft proposal was posted on ICE's website last month with a request for public comment. They will consider comments on the proposal from anyone who submits them and agency officials will reconvene at a future time to discuss the suggestions.

Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, who opposed Arizona’s new immigration law, told KGUN9-TV, "It is surprising they would make that decision. I would suspect once an individual is identified as being here illegally, some process would kick in ... that would deport that person."

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a staunch supporter of the Arizona law, also spoke out against ICE's proposal, telling KGUN, "Now it appears what they have in some draft policies and their proposal is to water down any strength in the federal law whatsoever, and this is clearly in direct opposition of what the people really want."

Estrada told FoxNews.com in a phone interview that he didn't think much would change for his department if the proposal became law. "Now, we don't detain anyone. We call Border Patrol if we suspect someone is illegal, and we'll continue to do what we're doing," he said. "We'll continue to call Border Patrol and if we call Border Patrol and they don't respond, well...then they don't respond." "I think this could be more of an issue everywhere else in the country with all the Border Patrol agents here at the border not that much will change," he said.

Senators John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., have written to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressing concern over the proposed change. In a statement to FoxNews.com, Cornyn said:

"This situation is just another side effect of President Obama’s failure to deliver on his campaign promise to make immigration reform a priority in his first year. Until he does, state and local authorities are left with no choice but to pick up the slack for prosecuting and detaining criminal aliens."

ICE spokesman Brian Hale provided this statement: "Some recent news reporting grossly mischaracterizes ICE’s draft detainer policy for which that the agency presently seeks public comment. ICE has removed record numbers of criminal and non-criminal aliens under this administration. The draft policy is designed to solicit public input on how to best set priorities for the use of our limited detention resources to protect public safety."

SOURCE



How Britain attracts more migrants than France AND Germany put together

Britain is surging ahead of France and Germany as a magnet for immigrants, figures showed yesterday. Tough controls mean that the two countries that once drew in hundreds of thousands of migrants a year have now achieved a virtual balance between immigration and emigration.

Yet the new count shows that in 2008 Britain opened its doors to almost ten times the number accepted by France and Germany together.

The latest figures from Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical arm, drew calls from campaigners for the Government to follow the example of Berlin and Paris and bring in measures to limit the impact of immigration on Britain.

Ministers promised earlier this week to ‘bear down’ on every aspect of immigration into Britain from outside the EU after the latest British figures showed a big leap in net migration – the number of people coming to live in the country minus the number leaving to live abroad.

Eurostat figures say that in 2008 the United Kingdom grew because of net migration by 226,400.

Germany, which no longer accepts unskilled migrants and which declined to accept Eastern European workers when Poland and other countries joined the EU, had negative net migration.
That meant that 53,600 more people left the country to live abroad than arrived.
France, which experienced a brief immigration boom in 2007, cut back net immigration to 77,000.

The curbs now in place in France have led to increasing political unrest over hardline policies such as the expulsion of thousands of Roma and the removal of French citizenship from immigrants found guilty of attacking police officers.

Net migration numbers in Britain are the third highest in Europe, behind Italy and Spain, which have seen high levels of arrivals from Africa and from Latin America, and where signs of popular unrest over the impact on jobs and public services have been growing.

Critics of the Rome and Madrid governments have said they have encouraged higher immigration by offering amnesties to illegal immigrants.

How we lost control of immigration

In 2008, the EU figures say, net migration in Italy was 437,900 and in Spain 413,800.

Eurostat uses different methodology to Britain’s Office for National Statistics. The ONS has calculated net immigration at 163,000 in 2008. Last year, it rose sharply to 196,000.

The effects of immigration in Britain are becoming increasingly politically sensitive, largely because of worries that population growth will cause strain on housing, transport, water and energy resources.

One minister in the last Labour administration promised the population would never hit 70million, but Whitehall statisticians say that level will be reached in 2029.

An analysis by the House of Commons library has also shown that England has now become the most crowded country in Europe, except for tiny Malta.

Sir Andrew Green, of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said: ‘France and Germany have brought immigration down very substantially, probably helped by the recession. ‘These figures demonstrate that the Government can bring the level of net migration right down, provided ministers are determined to do it.’

According to Eurostat’s calculations, in 2007 net migration into Germany was 45,200 while France blipped suddenly upwards, from 90,100 in 2006 to 302,500. In 1998, when the immigration boom into Britain was just beginning, net migration for this country was 97,400. This is the level to which the Coalition is pledged to return.

SOURCE



11 September, 2010

French Immigration Minister Says Roma Deportations to Continue

France's Immigration Minister said Friday his country will not stop deporting Roma (Gypsy) people to Romania and Bulgaria despite pressure from the European Union. Speaking in Romania Friday, Immigration Minister Eric Besson said he wanted to state clearly that France has no intention of ending the Roma deportation.

On Thursday a majority of European parliamentarians voted on a resolution calling for France to end the expulsions. Besson described the resolution as 'political diktat' and said Paris would not comply.

Speaking on French radio Besson said France is notable in Europe for protecting those on the margins of society. He said France is helping Roma resettle in their own country with financial aid - around $400 for an adult and just over $100 for a child.

France has deported around 1,000 Roma from its borders since August. The government says the group threatens social order in France.

But over 300 European Union MPs say the French policy discriminates on the basis of race and ethnicity.

British Member of the European Parliament Jean Lambert says that the French government is sanctioning intolerance [They sure are: Intolerance of parasites]. "The way in which certain governments at the moment, when it becomes politically expedient, ramp up the language - they ramp up the publicity, they ramp up the expulsions and legitimize the discrimination against a particular group - we think is extremely dangerous," said Jean Lambert.

According to the European Commission, the Roma is the largest ethnic minority group in the EU. Around 15,000 are estimated to be in France. But it's not the only country moving to expel them. Italy has also cracked down on Roma this week, dismantling camps in Milan and Rome.

Mark Lattimer from the London-based Minority Rights Group International says Roma discrimination is rife across Europe. "It's part of a pattern that we're seeing in Western Europe now, as well as in Eastern Europe, of serious discrimination amounting in some cases to physical attacks against the Roma and that is a deeply worrying situation, particularly given Europe's long standing history of persecution against what is now Europe's most vulnerable minority," said Mark Lattimer.

French Immigration Minister Besson said Friday France would help returned Roma integrate within Romania.

SOURCE





Official's views on Muslim immigration divide Germany



IN BERLIN The most talked-about man in Germany is a 65-year-old economist whose hot new book and sudden groundswell of popular support have the media dubbing him a folk hero. But that is not the only thing they are calling Thilo Sarrazin these days.

Some are also calling him dangerous. Sarrazin, a board member of the German central bank until he resigned under pressure Thursday, has divided the nation by postulating the theory that Germany is being "dumbed down" by Muslim immigrants and their children. Wielding statistics and scientific arguments both in his book and in public comments, he delves into territory largely taboo here since the Holocaust, suggesting that "hereditary factors" are at least partly to blame. Turks and Kurdish immigrants, he asserts, are genetically predisposed to lower intelligence than Germans and other ethnic groups, including Jews.

His statements have shocked many in Germany, not only because of a national sensitivity to anything remotely smacking of genetic superiority claims in the post-World War II era. What has also shocked many is that so many Germans have rallied to his side as the central bank and his political party have sought to oust him for his pronouncements.

On Thursday, the Central Bank announced he had finally agreed to tender his resignation, a week after outraged officials called for it, thus avoiding a showdown with Germany's president who was set to decide on Sarrazin's fate.

Muslims who are among his critics are calling Sarrazin's surging popularity here part of a wave of Islamophobia in the West, citing the move to ban burqas in France and minarets in Switzerland, the opposition to the construction of an Islamic center near New York City's Ground Zero, and a Florida preacher's plans (now canceled) to stage a burning of Islamic holy books later this week. Others say his emergence in Germany, and growing popularity, is fundamentally even more disturbing.

Though most of Sarrazin's backers are publicly distancing themselves from his genetic arguments, they are lauding him as a straight-talker willing to address the problem of Muslim immigrants, who often eschew German language and culture. By throwing political correctness to the wind, they say, he has dared to speak the truth about higher immigrant unemployment, birthrates and welfare rates.

Among Germany's population of 82 million, about 5 percent are Muslims, most of Turkish descent. A poll published in the national magazine Focus this week showed 31 percent of respondents agreeing that Germany is "becoming dumber" because of immigrants, with 62 percent calling Sarrazin's comments "justified" and 52 percent saying he shouldn't be thrown out of his Social Democratic Party because of them. Since party chiefs began a process to evict him last week, their headquarters in Berlin has been inundated with thousands of e-mails supporting Sarrazin. High-profile politicians, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, have strongly condemned him. But others are praising him for bringing concerns about immigration from Muslim countries to the forefront of the national dialogue.

Sarrazin now has more than 21,000 friends on Facebook and an online fan club. Less than two weeks after its release, his book, "Germany Does Away With Itself," is in its seventh printing, topping bestseller lists with more than 300,000 copies shipped so far and many bookstores in Germany still sold out.

German Jewish groups are among Sarrazin's staunchest critics, calling him a dangerous racist. Though Sarrazin has spoken positively of Jews, saying they have "high IQs," he courted controversy after declaring in an Aug. 29 interview that "all Jews share a certain gene." In fact, observers here say that the official outcry against Sarrazin - including the move to expel him from the board of the central bank - would have been far more muted had he simply stuck to his generalizations about Muslims.

[Saying that Jews are genetically related is antisemitic?? How absurd can you get? It's a central Zionist claim that modern Jews are descended from the ancient Israelites and genetic studies confirm that there is an unusual degree of genetic relatedness among Jews -- and that the genes concerned are of middle Eastern origins! -- JR]

But by generalizing about Jewish genetics at all, Sarrazin also "crossed a red line," said Stephan Kramer, secretary general of the Central Council of Jews in Germany.

"It's absolutely unacceptable with the history here that such a large amount of people follow what he says," Kramer said. "The lesson of the Holocaust is not just about Jews, but that human dignity is indivisible. Yet now, they react if there is a genetic comment about Jews, but not if it's about the Roma or the Turks. We obviously still have some homework to do."

Sarrazin's critique of Muslim immigrants has, without question, touched a national nerve. In the bars, taxis and offices of Berlin, it is the hottest topic of conservation, with his supporters feeling liberated by Sarrazin's willingness to throw caution to the wind and speak openly about their concerns. More than anything, he has tapped into German frustrations about the tendency of Muslim Turks - who began large-scale immigration in the 1960s to work in German factories - to live clannish lives, jealously guarding their language and religious traditions.

More HERE



10 September, 2010

Pa. mayor to take immigration law to Supreme Court

This judgment is judicial rubbish: "Act usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration". How does it do that? It does not stop the Feds from doing anything. It just dictates how illegals are to be treated once they have already arrived in the locality.

Americans are very poorly served by their courts

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Hazleton, Pa., may not enforce its crackdown on illegal immigrants, dealing another blow to 4-year-old regulations that inspired similar measures around the country. The city's mayor pledged to take the case to the Supreme Court.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration. "It is ... not our job to sit in judgment of whether state and local frustration about federal immigration policy is warranted. We are, however, required to intervene when states and localities directly undermine the federal objectives embodied in statutes enacted by Congress," wrote Chief Judge Theodore McKee.

Appeals courts are split on whether states and municipalities have the right to enforce laws dealing with immigration. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over a 2007 Arizona law that prohibits employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

Hazleton, a northeastern Pennsylvania city of more than 30,000, had sought to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. A companion measure required prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.

Mayor Lou Barletta had pushed the measures in 2006 after two illegal immigrants were charged in a fatal shooting. The Republican mayor, now mounting his third try for Congress, argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000 and overwhelmed police, schools and hospitals.

"Hazleton was the first, and became the symbol of hope for many around the country," he said at a news conference after the ruling was released by the appeals court on its website.

"Since I proposed this law more than four years ago, we have seen the growing frustration all across the country," he said, a nod to similar measures in Arizona, Farmers Branch, Texas and Valley Park, Mo.

"This frustration is not going away and it will not go away until the federal government finally secures our borders and cracks down on illegal immigration," he added.

Barletta took no questions but pledged to take the case to the Supreme Court. "Today's decision by the 3rd Circuit Court is not unexpected. I'm not disillusioned by this ruling," Barletta said. "We knew this would not be the last stop on our journey."

Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007. The laws have never been enforced. "This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the rest of the country," ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat said in a statement.

Hazleton's act was copied by dozens of municipalities around the nation that believe the federal government hasn't done enough to stop illegal immigration.

The crux of the debate has now shifted to Arizona and its strict new law, passed this year, that's also being challenged in court; among other things, it requires police to question the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally.

In the Hazleton case, the appeals court said the city's ordinances conflict with federal immigration law and thus are pre-empted. The employment provision could lead to discrimination against "those perceived as foreign," the court said, while the effort to prevent illegal immigrants from living in Hazleton ignores that it is the federal governments' prerogative to decide who stays and who goes.

The city's law, for example, could force out a college student the federal government has declined to remove, or a battered spouse who could be eligible to stay in the United States under protections afforded by Congress, according to the unanimous decision.

Kris Kobach, a law professor and political candidate in Kansas who worked with Hazleton on its ordinance and represented the city at trial, said Thursday that the 3rd Circuit ignored Supreme Court precedent regarding pre-emption. "It's going to be difficult for this opinion to stand. The court really had to stretch to find a way to agree with the ACLU," said Kobach, who also helped draft Arizona's immigration law.

Hispanic immigrants began settling in large numbers in Hazleton several years ago, lured from New York, Philadelphia and other cities by cheap housing, low crime and jobs in nearby factories and farms. The city, 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, estimates its population increased by more than 10,000 between 2000 and 2006.

SOURCE





Canadian view of immigration sours in wake of Tamil ship

The Tamils are such blatant frauds. They journeyed across two oceans when all they needed to do to get "asylum" was take a one-hour trip across the Palk strait to India

Canadian attitudes toward immigration are hardening as debate over the fate of a shipload of Tamils continues to make headlines, a new survey suggests.

An Angus Reid online poll says 46 per cent of Canadians believe immigration is having a negative effect on the country, a five-point increase from August, 2009. This compares to 34 per cent of the poll respondents who believe it is having a positive effect, a decrease of three points since last August.

Not only that, almost half – or 44 per cent – of the 1,007 polled believe illegal immigrants take jobs away from Canadian workers, compared to 38 per cent who think that they are employed in jobs Canadians don’t want.

The poll was conducted Sept. 2 and 3. For the past month there has been much publicity surrounding the arrival of the MV Sun Sea from Thailand. The fate of the 492 Tamil passengers remains unclear, The Globe and Mail reported Thursday that one man has been detained because of suspected links to the Tamil Tiger terrorist organization.

The Harper government has repeatedly suggested terrorists are among the passengers on board. A week after the ship arrived, Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed to put a stop to such migrant vessels, saying he would not “hesitate to strengthen the laws if we need to.” “Canadians are pretty concerned that a whole boat of people comes – not through any normal application process, not through any normal arrival channel – and just simply lands,” he said at the time.

Fifty per cent of poll respondents want to deport the passengers and crew of the Tamil ship back to Sri Lanka, even if their refugee claims are legitimate; 32 per cent of respondents say they should be allowed to stay in Canada as refugees.

A regional breakdown shows that a majority of Albertans (52 per cent) and Ontarians (55 per cent) want the passengers and crew deported. This compares to 43 per cent of Atlantic Canadians and 39 per cent of British Columbians; 50 per cent of Quebeckers believe the Tamils should be deported.

SOURCE



9 September, 2010

Abolishing automatic citizenship for the children of illegals would increase illegal immigration?

The report below says so but is just playing with words. To put the matter more plainly: It would alter the status of some people already in the USA -- not lead to more illegal border crossings.

And the "threat" of there being a permanent illegal class in the USA as a result does not really alter much as that is already the case. Such a "threat" also assumes that immigration law enforcement will always be as lax as it is now, which is not necessarily the case.

The legal difficulties involved are also overstated. Congress has the right to specify the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. It could simply add to any new bill that SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over the 14th amendment -- and that would be the end of any legal issues. Given the political rather than the judicial nature of many past SCOTUS decisions, that might in fact cause SCOTUS to retreat from activism in other areas, which would surely be desirable

Repealing birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment would actually increase illegal immigration rather than decrease it, according to a nonpartisan report.

The Migration Policy Institute says that by denying automatic citizenship to U.S.-born babies of undocumented immigrants, the nation’s illegal immigrant population would grow to 16 million over the next 40 years, an increase of at least 5 million people.

“It would be ironic if proposals intended to reduce the undocumented population had the unintended consequences of increasing the undocumented population,” said Michael Fix, MPI’s senior vice president and director of studies, who co-authored the report.

The report, released by the Washington-based think tank on Wednesday, states that of those projected 16 million illegal immigrants, 4.7 million would be born in the United States. And 1 million of those would have two parents born in the U.S.

“Repeal would lead to the establishment of a permanent unauthorized population,” said the report’s main author, Jennifer Van Hook, a sociology and demography professor at Pennsylvania State University.

By ending birthright citizenship, Van Hook added, the share of children in the U.S. without documents would double to 4 percent of the country’s total child population.

Some Republicans have argued that birthright citizenship guaranteed under the 14th Amendment should be repealed, and several GOP leaders have called for hearings on the issue.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) sparked a national debate over the issue when he suggested this summer that some immigrants were illegally crossing the border for the express purpose of giving birth so their children could obtain citizenship.

A constitutional amendment, which Graham has explored, would be a long shot, given the high hurdles backers would need to clear for ratification. But Republicans introduced a House bill last year that they say would achieve much the same goal: deny citizenship to U.S.-born children when both parents are undocumented.

Under that scenario, the illegal immigration population would expand to about 16 million, the MPI report said.

But if changes to the law deny birthright citizenship to children with illegal immigrant mothers, then the unauthorized population would be about 19 million by 2050. And if the law is restricted to children with an undocumented mother or father, the unauthorized population would swell to 24 million during that same period.

The illegal immigration population would remain flat through 2050 if there is no change in the law, the report said.

The analysis assumes that illegal immigrants will continue to behave as they do today, i.e., have children and die at the same rates as they do now.

SOURCE





The Costs of Birthright Citizenship

Hans A. von Spakovsky

There have been numerous debates about “birthright” citizenship in recent weeks. As the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, the claim that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on the children of visitors or illegal aliens is mistaken. Neither the text nor the legislative history supports such an interpretation.

Perspective is needed. How many other countries have birthright citizenship? How many such children are there in the United States, and how much is this costing us? The Center for Immigration Studies has just released a study by Jon Feere that gives some answers. The report didn’t get the attention it should have -- perhaps because it has some very inconvenient truths.

Feere’s research found that the “overwhelmingly majority of the world’s countries do not offer automatic citizenship to everyone born within their borders.” Only 30 countries out of 194 offer automatic citizenship, CIS confirmed. Of the 31 counties listed on the International Monetary Fund’s list of advanced economies, only the United States and Canada grant automatic birthright citizenship.

No country in Europe, a continent many liberals often cite for its supposedly superior views on everything from government health care to high tax rates, grants automatic citizenship. The trend has been toward eliminating it in the few countries that grant it. Australia, Ireland, India, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have all jettisoned this policy.

CIS estimates there are 300,000 to 400,000 children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. each year. There were 2.3 million such children in 2003; there were four million in 2008 – and that number doesn’t include children who are older than 18 or who are married. Texas says that between 60,000 to 65,000 of the children born in Texas every year have parents who are not citizens or 16% of the total births in the state -- 542,152 from 2001 to 2009.

And the hundreds of thousands of such children are no accident. Many of them are the result of a deliberate effort by illegal aliens and foreign tourists to exploit our law and use these children to keep themselves in the country. Such children provide access to welfare benefits that would otherwise be off-limit to the parents and can “ultimately initiate chain migration of the child’s extended family and in-laws,” the CIS study notes.

Take federal welfare programs. Although illegal aliens normally are barred from accessing them, they can obtain benefits such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and food stamps on behalf of their U.S.-born children. Since cash welfare benefits and food stamps are fungible within a household, there is no question that welfare spending directed at the children of illegal immigrants will also benefit the parents. It is also quite likely that a substantial portion of the medical costs of births to illegal aliens are funded through the Medicaid program.

CIS estimates that 40% of illegal alien households nationwide receive some type of welfare despite federal prohibitions. That rate is even higher in states with larger numbers of illegal aliens such as New York (49%), California (48%), and Texas (44%).

Contrast that very high rate with the fact that only 19% of households headed by a native-born citizen receive welfare benefits. CIS cites data released by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services showing that the children of illegal aliens in the county received $50 million in welfare benefits just in February 2010. So much for federal efforts to bar illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded public assistance.

As for chain migration, CIS points out that when a child becomes an adult, he can “legalize his parents, and also to bring into the United States his foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. The sponsored spouse can, in turn, sponsor her own foreign-born parents and siblings, and the siblings can, in turn sponsor their own foreign–born spouses, and so on, generating a virtually never-ending and always-expanding migration chain.” This type of immigration is almost uncontrollable. It “accounts for most of the nation’s growth in immigration levels,” and it continues to grow every year “because of the ever-expanding migration chains that operate independently of any economic downturns or labor needs.”

According to CIS, America’s citizenship policy has also led to the growth of a “birth tourism” industry since the State Department is “not permitted to deny a woman a temporary visitor visa simply because she is pregnant.” This may be a relatively minor problem relative to the hundreds of thousands of children born to illegal immigrants who reside in the country. But it illustrates how some foreigners who don’t even live in the U.S. are taking advantage of this policy. The fact that it can exist at all even on a limited scale is very troubling.

The Tucson Medical Center in Arizona, for example, “actively recruits in Mexico” for expectant mothers and offers them a “birth package.” Three California Chinese-owned “baby care centers” recruit foreign mothers to give them the ability to have their babies in the United States and “take advantage” of the law according to the owners (who started the business after coming to the U.S. to have their own child). Turkish doctors and hotel owners (including the Marmara Hotel in Manhattan) have set up a birth tourism business that has “reportedly arrang[ed] the U.S. birth of 12,000 Turkish children since 2003” in order to obtain U.S. citizenship because, as one of the Turkish mothers said, “American citizenship has so many advantages.”

Birthright citizenship is not mandated by the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court has never held that children born of individuals who are in the United States illegally are citizens -- only that the children of individuals who are born to legal permanent residents are citizens. Conferring citizenship on those whose parents are here illegally is a policy that has developed almost by default by the executive branch, with no deliberation by Congress through the normal legislative process used to decide important public policy issues.

“Americans are justifiably upset with a policy that has become standard practice without their approval,” CIS notes. Small wonder, since not only are our laws being taken advantage of by those who are seeking to evade our normal immigration rules, but the economic costs to the country and the average citizen-taxpayer are enormous.

SOURCE



8 September, 2010

Recent posts at CIS

Recent entries on the CIS blog are here. The CIS main page is here.

1. Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison
By Jon Feere
CIS Backgrounder, August 2010
http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship

Excerpt: This Backgrounder briefly explains some policy concerns that result from an expansive application of the Citizenship Clause, highlights recent legislative efforts to change the policy, provides a historical overview of the development of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and includes a discussion of how other countries approach birthright citizenship. The paper concludes that Congress should clarify the scope of the Citizenship Clause and promote a serious discussion on whether the United States should automatically confer the benefits and burdens of U.S. citizenship on the children of aliens whose presence is temporary or illegal.

********

2. Mark Krikorian Discusses Declining Illegal Population
FOX News, September 3, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/user/CISORG#p/u/0/SYcGxYLz5Vk

********

3. The Uses and Abuses of the Asylum System
By David North
CIS Blog, September 6, 2010
http://www.cis.org/North/AsylumUsesandAbuses

Excerpt: The recent release of data on the immigration judges' asylum decisions by the TRAC system reminded me of the uses and abuses of the asylum process, an interesting but relatively minor part of the immigration system.

These data also cast some light on our role in Iraq, as noted below.

********

4. Behind the Pew Study on Illegal Immigration, Part II: How Many Illegals?
By Stanley Renshon
CIS Blog, September 5, 2010
http://www.cis.org/renshon/behind-pew-study-2

Excerpt: The recently released Pew report on the decline of the illegal population in the United States has garnered a lot of attention, though a great deal of it for the wrong reasons. Obama administration officials are already touting their policies to account for the decline. A DHS spokesman went even further, saying that 'the downward trend in border crossings has continued since Obama took office in January 2009, citing Homeland Security statistics that show decreases in illegal-immigrant apprehensions during the past two years' (emphasis mine).

********

5. 'Machete' Splashing Its Gore on a Movie Screen Near You
By Jerry Kammer
CIS Blog, September 3, 2010
http://www.cis.org/kammer/machete-reviews

Excerpt: The New York Times says it's 'conveniently timed to sprinkle gasoline on the fires of the immigration debate.' Get ready for some talk-show rumbling as 'Machete' splashes its gore across movie screens starting this weekend. Here are excerpts from five reviews:

********

6. A Right to Immigrate?
By Steven Camarota
CIS Blog, September 3, 2010
http://www.cis.org/Camarota/a-right-to-immigrate

Excerpt: I recently came across a paper by University of Colorado philosophy professor Michael Huemer entitled 'Is There a Right to Immigrate?' Huemer's answer is clearly 'yes,' there is such a right. By a 'right to immigrate' he means the right to enter another country of one's choosing, rather than just a right to leave one's country. While only a tiny share of the American people would agree with Mr. Huemer, such people constitute a large share of immigration thinkers on the far left and the libertarian right. Although generally not part of the public immigration debate – few if any actual elected office holders imagine a 'right' to enter our country – many advocates of high immigration seem to either privately agree with Huemer or at least strongly sympathize with his position. Thus, his perspective is important, even if it is not currently discussed openly outside of academia circles. Below I list some of my objections to his formation, in no particular ! order.

********

7. Behind the Pew Study on Illegal Immigration, Part I: First the 'Good' News
By Stanley Renshon
CIS Blog, September 3, 2010
http://www.cis.org/renshon/behind-pew-study-1

Excerpt: The new report from the Pew Hispanic Center is certain to be widely discussed and widely misunderstood. The report delivers the conclusion most likely to be quoted in its title, 'U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade.'

********

8. ICE Caving on Secure Communities
By Jessica Vaughan
CIS Blog, September 2, 2010
http://www.cis.org/vaughan/caving-on-secure-communities

Excerpt: The San Francisco Chronicle reported today that ICE is going all wobbly in defending Secure Communities, its marquee program for identifying and removing criminal aliens.

Secure Communities ought to be one of the most uncontroversial enforcement programs ever launched. It provides for the fingerprints of all those booked into county jails to be screened against immigration databases as part of the same process by which they are screened against other criminal history databases. Launched officially in 2008, so far it has found nearly 300,000 criminal aliens, including 43,000 very serious offenders. It is in more than 500 counties nationwide. Because it is based on fingerprints, criminal aliens cannot escape detection by using aliases or by claiming U.S. citizenship. It eliminates the need for local officers to make separate, manual requests to check an inmate's immigration status, and provides for automatic notification to the local ICE office, so they can take custody of the criminal aliens and remove them at the appropriate time. There is no cost and no additional work for the local agencies. Everyone is screened, so there is no possibil! ity of discrimination

********

9. TRAC Study Mirrors Pew's – Aliens Less Interested in the U.S. Than Before
By David North
CIS Blog, September 2, 2010
http://www.cis.org/north/TRAC-asylum-data

Excerpt: It was probably a coincidence, but two quite different studies of alien populations were issued within 24 hours of each other, each showing that migrants appear to be less interested in the U.S. than formerly.

The more numerically significant of the two, the report of the Pew Hispanic Center, as noted in a posting by Mark Krikorian, estimated that the number of illegal aliens in the country had dropped to 11.1 million from 12.0 million two years earlier. That's a decrease, over two years, of 7.5 percent.

********

10. Jorge Castaneda Blames U.S. for Migrant Massacre
By Jerry Kammer
CIS Blog, September 2, 2010
http://www.cis.org/kammer/castaneda-migrant-massacre

Excerpt: That's the provocative headline of today's column in the Mexican daily Reforma by Jorge Castaneda, who as Mexico's foreign secretary from 2000 to 2003 pushed the Bush administration to pass 'comprehensive immigration reform' legislation. He is now Global Distinguished Professor of Politics and Latin American and Caribbean Studies at New York University.

********

11. If Pew Says It, It Must Be True!
By Mark Krikorian
CIS Blog, September 2, 2010
http://www.cis.org/krikorian/pew-illegals-estimate

Excerpt: A slew of news stories today about a new report from the Pew Hispanic Center estimating that as of March 2009, the illegal population had dropped to 11.1 million. Pew, though institutionally inclined toward amnesty and mass immigration, does honest work, and this is no exception. But many of the press reports are treating this as momentous, previously unknown news when, in fact, it's already been reported — twice.

********

12. DHS Issues Dark, Mixed Message to Pregnant Foreign Visitors
By David North
CIS Blog, September 1, 2010
http://www.cis.org/north/pregnant-visitors

Excerpt: An arm of the Department of Homeland Security is apparently paying some subdued, indirect attention to the 14th Amendment controversy – should 'anchor babies' be allowed, as they are now, to become citizens at birth?

It has issued a somber message to pregnant alien women thinking about coming to this country. (For more on the birthright citizenship controversy see the new Backgrounder by my colleague Jon Feere.)

********

13. From Sanctuary to Safer City
By Jessica Vaughan
CIS Blog, August 31, 2010
http://www.cis.org/vaughan/from-sanctuary-to-safer-city

Excerpt: The police union in Houston, a former sanctuary city, is taking a look at the experience of Phoenix, which two years ago implemented a policy to allow its officers to call ICE to report suspected illegal aliens who were connected to other crimes. The implementation of this policy, which is similar to the one signed into law by Arizona governor Jan Brewer and later blocked by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in response to a Justice Department lawsuit, has contributed to a steady decline in violent and property crime rates in Phoenix, without generating a single complaint of civil rights violations or racial profiling, according to officer Mark Spencer. Spencer is president of the Phoenix police union and recently gave a presentation to officers in Houston.

********

14. Mexico's Elite Emigration
By Jerry Kammer
CIS Blog, August 31, 2010
http://www.cis.org/kammer/mexicos-elite-emigration

Excerpt: 'A new form of migration much more elitist and selective, but migration in the end, has been taking place for months in various zones in the north of the country, especially the border states,' writes columnist Salvador Garcia Soto in today's edition of the Mexican daily El Universal. 'The narco violence, the lack of security, and the misgovernment in these places is pushing out entire families of Mexicans who have changed their residence and their activities to various cities of the United States.'

********

15. Abuse of Migrants Gets More Attention in Mexico
By Jerry Kammer
CIS Blog, August 30, 2010
http://www.cis.org/kammer/abuse-of-migrants

Excerpt: The often brutal mistreatment suffered by Central American migrants passing through Mexico on their way to the United States is receiving increased attention in that country following the discovery last week of the bodies of 72 migrants who had been gunned down. The victims were reportedly murdered by one of the criminal gangs involved in the trafficking of both drugs and human beings.



7 September, 2010

Student visa crackdown as British immigration minister vows to cut number of arrivals by tens of thousands

A massive shake-up of the immigration system will slash tens of thousands from the number of foreign students flocking into Britain. Immigration minister Damian Green will also drastically reduce the number of work permits and marriage visas given to non-EU nationals under plans to cut net migration by at least half.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Mr Green said it had become ‘starkly clear’ he must reduce the numbers being given permission to enter and stay in every category of immigration controls.
Long-standing impact: Immigration minister Damian Green believes that only students who will have a positive impact on the country should be granted student visas

It comes after surprise figures UK showed net migration leapt by a fifth last year, to 196,000.

Mr Green revealed his main target will be student visas. He today publishes research showing that – astonishingly – fewer than half of foreign students are undertaking degree-level courses.

Mr Green said it showed the image people had of foreign students attending the UK’s most prestigious universities – paying large tuition fees which kept many institutions afloat – was wrong.

More than 90,000 of them are in fact in the private sector at smaller colleges, offering the likes of GCSEs or vocational training. These students could now face being barred from the UK, although Mr Green says he is unlikely to impose a ‘cap’ on student numbers. Instead, he will focus on making it harder to be allowed to come here.

Mr Green said the Home Office study also revealed that a fifth of those students granted visas for a temporary stay are still here five years later, meaning they have a long-standing impact on the UK’s rapidly rising population levels.

In the 12 months to June this year, 362,015 foreign students were allowed to come and study in the UK – up 35 per cent on the previous year.

There remain huge concerns that many of them are attending so-called bogus colleges which repeatedly slipped through the net under Labour.

The clampdown on foreign students will build on the cap the Government has already announced on economic migrants.

This has sparked rows within the Coalition – particularly with LibDem Business Secretary Vince Cable, and Tory universities spokesman David Willetts. They are likely to agitate against the student crackdown as well.

But Mr Green effectively sent a message when he suggested he had little choice if David Cameron’s promise to reduce net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ was to be met.

The Prime Minister has said he would like to go even further by returning the figure to that of the mid-1990s – when it was around 50,000.

Mr Green told the Mail: ‘We’ve announced a limit, that’s been controversial. What is transparently clear from this evidence is that the limit itself isn’t enough to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands.

‘We need to look at all immigration routes into the UK and set new rules that mean that the migrants that we get do represent the brightest and the best, and are the migrants we need.’ Mr Green added: ‘We think of this as a temporary route, but for many people it clearly isn’t.

‘Between 2004 and 2010, the number of students coming here has risen hugely, more than 300,000 student visas along with dependants were issued in the year to June 2010. ‘One can draw one’s own conclusions about what will happen long-term.

‘I want a student visa system which encourages the entry of good students to highly trusted institutions but which scrutinises much more closely or cuts out entirely those who are less beneficial to this country.’

More HERE

What about my human rights, asks woman beaten unconscious by asylum-seeker ex-lover freed by British immigration judge

A dangerous criminal who has no legal right to be in Britain has gone on the run after a judge ruled that to detain him would violate his human rights. Failed asylum seeker Kawa ali Azad, who carries knives and is described by his ex-partner as ‘completely unbalanced,’ was granted his freedom from an immigration centre in March.

Azad, an Iraqi Kurd, who has six convictions for violence, immediately breached the bail terms of the release by failing to appear at a police station to have an electronic tag fitted. He then breached a lifetime restraining order by making threats against his ex-partner. Police have had to move her and their son and give them a new identity because of his repeated harassment.

Azad, 34, has now been on the run for more than five months – and police admit they have no idea where he is. They are so concerned about the risk he poses to his ex-partner Tania Doherty that she has been ordered not to visit family and friends and to carry an ‘abduction pack’ with the details and DNA of her son of four, in case he is snatched.

Miss Doherty, whose new name cannot be disclosed, says she is terrified he will return to kidnap their son or hurt her family – both of which he has threatened. ‘I just cannot believe he was released,’ she says. ‘I am disgusted. ‘He has attacked me in broad daylight and threatened to kill me and members of my family. I really fear for my son.’

Azad has been convicted of a string of violent offences, as well as dangerous driving, since he arrived in Britain.

When Miss Doherty ended their relationship in 2006, he battered, harassed and assaulted her for two years. This culminated in an attack in which he beat her unconscious as she sat on a beach in Eastbourne with their son before attempting to snatch the boy.

Azad was jailed for 12 months after the attack. Following his release from prison the Border Agency tried to deport him and he was flown to Baghdad airport. But Iraqi authorities refused to accept him and he was sent back to Colnbrook immigration removal centre near Heathrow.

He was detained because he no longer had any legal right to stay in the country. When he was at first refused bail from the centre he flew into a rage, damaging a courtroom and having to be restrained by staff.

But in March this year an immigration judge decided to release him against the advice of police and the Home Office – on the grounds that detaining him was violating his human rights.

As soon as he was freed, Azad breached his bail by not turning up to be tagged and began leaving threatening messages on a phone belonging to his ex-partner, thus violating the lifetime restraining order preventing him from contacting her.

Miss Doherty says she is furious that, while Azad enjoys his freedom, she and her son are forced to live in fear. ‘Human rights are a joke as far as I’m concerned,’

Miss Doherty said. ‘Having to give my son a new name was the most upsetting part – it was like I lost a part of him. ‘I have had to move away from all my friends and family so I feel totally isolated – all because of him.’

A spokesman for the UK Border Agency said the Home Office had ‘strongly opposed’ the decision to release Azad. ‘We removed Mr Azad in October 2009, but the Iraqi authorities refused to accept him,’ the spokesman said.

‘Following his return to the UK Mr Azad was released on bail by an immigration judge. He has since absconded and we have shared his details with the police.’

Sussex Police said it had been searching for Kawa ali Azad ‘who we seek to arrest and interview on suspicion he breached a Restraining Order’.

The Immigration and Asylum Tribunal refused to discuss why one of its judges had released Azad.

SOURCE

6 September, 2010

Muslims and Hispanic illegals: Can we judge the present by the past?

It is generally true that the past is the best guide to the future that we have but that is not to say that it is always a good guide. Does anybody seriously think that (say) America of 100 years ago is the same as the America of today?

Yet by far the commonest argument coming from the Left about immigration in general and about Muslim immigrants in particular is precisely that America of today IS just like the America of 100 years ago. You can read the latest such article in the NYT (by Kristof). It is an argument so hackneyed by now that he could almost have written it in his sleep. Maybe he did.

The argument is that the Irish, Italians and others who came to America in the 19th century were viewed with grave suspicion by many and suffered from discrimination but in the end blended in seamlessly with Americans of other ancestries: The melting pot.

From that Kristoff and others conclude that Muslims will eventually “melt” into a homogeneous American population also. And perhaps many will. But there are two crucial difference that will at least greatly hinder full integration:

1). In the 19th and most of the 20th century, immigrants were EXPECTED to assimilate whereas these days multiculturalism reigns and the very word “assimilate” is almost an obscenity to the Left.

2). The Italians, Irish and Poles came from CHRISTIAN backgrounds so had a considerable degree of common culture with Americans originating from earlier waves of immigration. More to the point they did not come from a culture that DESPISES Christian and post-Christian civilization, whereas Muslims do.

It is a basic imperative of Islam to attack and if possible conquer other civilizations — and they have been doing it more or less continuously ever since the conquests led by Mohammed himself. They were even attacking Christian targets at the time of America’s War of Independence and President Jefferson sent warships to combat them.

So the wave of Muslim immigrants is a wave of people whose basic teachings are hostile to America. That has never happened before and therefore makes comparisons with previous immigrant waves invalid.

The controversy over the “Ground Zero” mosque in NYC has of course brought to the fore the question of how Americans should react to Muslims in their midst. I myself, as an Australian living in the happy obscurity of a small Australian city most people have never even heard of, have no dog in that fight. I think the response to the mosque proposal is for New Yorkers and New Yorkers alone to judge. But I don’t think it is unreasonable for New Yorkers to be hostile to anything Muslim given the hostility of Islam to the West.

But Muslims are still a very small immigrant group in America and the long-standing argument about immigration to America is about Latino illegals, not Muslims. And here we see the same argument from the Left: People who arrived legally from Europe a century or so ago eventually assimilated so people who arrive illegally from Mexico (etc.) will also eventually assimilate. And no doubt many will and in fact many have already done so.

But arriving legally and arriving illegally are two very different things and Europe is also very different from Latin America. Europe is the fountainhead of modern civilization whereas Latin America is a civilizational backwater (to put it kindly). So once again there are large differences between earlier arrivals and recent ones that create considerable potential for outcomes different from what we have seen in the past.

And the omens for Hispanic illegals assimilating are not good. The children of Irish, Polish, Italian (etc.) legal immigrants became indistinguishable from other Americans but that is not so with the Hispanics. That Hispanics have a notably higher crime-rate than non-Hispanic whites is concern enough but their children are even worse, even more prone to criminality. As well as black gang-bangers America now has a proliferation of Hispanic gang bangers. Far from assimilating into the mainstream, the children of the illegals have moved even further away from it.

So once again the complexities of reality upset the simplistic theories of the Left. Neither in the case of Muslims nor in the case of Hispanic illegals can we expect the universal assimilation of the past. Permanently hostile subgroups are instead to be expected. Americans are right to be concerned about that.

Gun dealer sells gun to illegal. Guess who gets arrested?

We read:

One of the gun dealers of Austin’s Gun Show is sentenced to 6-months at a federal work camp for selling a weapon to an undocumented immigrant. Independent firearms dealer-Paul Copeland says for years he has commonly sold handguns and antique weapons with no problems and prior to his arrest the illegal immigrant showed him what appeared to be a valid Texas driver’s license.

In January 2009, the ATF along with the Austin police department set up a sting operation targeting independent firearms dealers that were selling weapons to illegal immigrants, both inside the show and outside the Austin’s Gun Show’s parking lot.

Got that? The illegal had valid ID, yet, Copeland was the one arrested and sentenced. If Copeland had asked for more, he would have been in violation of federal “supremacy” laws, ya know. Perhaps the ATF could have arrested the illegals?

Investigators with the Austin police department believed many of the guns sold to the undocumented immigrants at the show were headed back across the Texas-Mexico border. “I guess you need ask them for their documentation too; if the police aren’t going to profile why should the common citizen have to” says Copeland. He says none of the undocumented immigrants that were asked to testify against him were arrested by federal agents.

The police are probably afraid to ask for ID and arrest the illegals, otherwise, the Obama administration will sue them.

Austin’s Federal Judge Sam Sparks sentenced Copeland to spend the next 6-months at a federal work camp followed by 2-years of probation.

And what of the illegal who purchased the gun with valid ID? No one seems to know.

SOURCE

5 September, 2010

The British government is between a rock and a hard place

The problem is low-skilled immigrants from central Europe and illegals from everywhere but the government has no control over arrivals of the former (unless it leaves the EU) and a proven inability to do much about the latter. So the only way they can effectively cut immigration is to bar skilled migrants from the rest of the world — which will at least do no good and probably will do harm

There is one very effective step they could take but they are probably too centrist to do it: Deny welfare benefits to immigrants until they have made ten years of National Insurance contributions

The Government has got its policy on immigration caps wrong and should drop it in favour of a points-based system, according to the head of the business group, London First, and leading international companies.

With just days left until submissions to the Government consultation on immigration controls are due, businesses are warning caps on skilled labour could threaten the recovery and drive business abroad.

London First claims that the coalition’s plans to cap non-EU immigration will affect only 55,000 of the 567,000 migrants who came to the UK, based on last year’s figures. Those migrants are what is known as Tier 1 and Tier 2 migrants – highly skilled and skilled workers who are in many cases key employees.

“I do not think the public had these people in mind when they voted for this Government’s plan to cap immigration,” Baroness Valentine, chief executive of London First, said.

The deadline for submissions to the Migration Advisory Committee is Tuesday. London First and its members are calling for the cap on Tier 2 migrants, skilled workers, to be lifted. The group is particularly keen on inter-company immigration – where workers move between different national offices – to be uncapped.

The temporary cap on immigration, introduced earlier this summer, is due to end in April next year when permanent limits could be put in place.

The Government says it plans to reduce net immigration from the current 500,000 per year to “tens of thousands”. But London First questions how this is possible by targeting the 50,000 Tier 1 and 2 migrants that arrive each year.

SOURCE

Decision to kick a convicted sexual predator out of Australia is overturned by a bleeding heart tribunal

Because it might cause him “hardship”! Isn’t that exactly what he has earned?

A DECISION to kick a convicted sexual predator out of Australia has been overturned because the pervert loves footy and his hero is Peter Brock.

As thousands of innocent would-be migrants are sent packing each year, the rapist and paedophile is now free to walk the streets of Melbourne despite Immigration Minister Chris Evans’ decision to deport him.

The man has just been released from prison and is on the registered sex offenders’ list for the rest of his life. He served a 7 1/2-year sentence for the rape of his partner and attempted incest on his step-daughter, then 12, which a judge described as “revolting”.

But a tribunal decided the man was “virtually an Australian person”, though he was not a citizen, and that it would be unfair to deport him to his homeland of Malta.

The decision has sparked outrage and the minister is considering his options, including an appeal to the Federal Court.

The registered sex offender, who cannot be named for legal reasons and is known as DNCW, fought the decision to deport him in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which reviews ministerial decisions.

The tribunal’s senior member, John Handley, said even though the offences committed by the man were “repulsive” it would cause him “hardship” if he was deported.

He said the man had lived in Australia since he was four, with the exception of a few years when his family returned to Malta, and he had no memory of his homeland. “(He) is virtually an Australian person. He supports an Australian Rules football team. He also enjoys tennis, volleyball, badminton and soccer. He enjoys motorbike and motor car racing and his hero was Peter Brock,” Mr Handley said.

Even though DNCW described the man’s relationship with his partner in 2003 as “pretty good”, he raped her.

He then twice tried to have incestuous sex with his 12-year-old step-daughter. Mr Handley said: “The attempted incest offences, by their description alone, are revolting. “The man described himself as a father figure (to the girl). Despite her protests, he violated her on two occasions.

“(The partner who was raped) was devastated and inconsolable whilst giving evidence. I do not know of any more disgraceful or depraved conduct by a man upon a woman.”

The man also had a string of prior convictions including theft, unlawful assault, breach of an intervention order, burglary and cultivating a narcotic plant, he said.

The man had no close relatives in Malta, barely spoke the language, was not eligible for social security in Malta and would “suffer considerable hardship”, he said.

An Australian resident of 14 years who was deported to Sri Lanka forcing his elderly mother, who is a citizen, to return with him, is outraged. Edward Joseph, who was caring for his 93-year-old mother, Irene, in Box Hill until his deportation in July, was refused a protection visa even though he claimed persecution as a Tamil.

“Australia is allowing a convicted rapist to remain in the country,” he said. “If justice is what the Australian Government has given this rapist, please give my mother and I the same justice. “We are not rapists but, rather, ordinary people who have been made to suffer as a result of poor administrative decision-making of the Department of Immigration.”

The tribunal has reviewed 270 of these cases of which it has overturned more than a third of the minister’s refusals.

Justice advocate Steve Medcraft said the tribunal should “stick to backyard disputes” because, despite its senior members earning about $200,000 a year, they had no background in criminal law.

SOURCE

4 September, 2010

U.S. sues Arizona sheriff in civil rights probe

The Justice Department says Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio failed to turn over documents in its investigation into whether his department discriminated against Latinos while pursuing illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday sued a controversial and popular Arizona sheriff, alleging that his department was refusing to cooperate with an investigation into whether it discriminated against Latinos while trying to catch illegal immigrants.

The Justice Department said that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was the first local law enforcement official in 30 years to refuse to provide documents in a federal civil rights inquiry. The federal government could withhold $113 million in funding from Maricopa County if Arpaio can’t produce records demonstrating that he avoids racial discrimination.

“The actions of the sheriff’s office are unprecedented. It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities,” said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the department’s Civil Rights Division.

Arpaio contended that the lawsuit was a political move by the Obama administration, which filed another high-profile lawsuit against Arizona this summer to stop a tough new immigration law from taking effect.

“These actions make it abundantly clear that Arizona, including this sheriff, is Washington’s new whipping boy,” Arpaio said in a statement. “Washington isn’t playing fair and it’s time Americans everywhere wake up and see this administration for what it really is — calculating, underhanded at times and certainly not looking out for the best interests of the legal citizens residing in this country.”

Arpaio, who calls himself “America’s toughest sheriff,” has drawn praise and criticism for his aggressive attempts to enforce immigration laws. Most prominent are operations in which his deputies fan out across immigrant neighborhoods, stopping people for sometimes minor violations, such as jaywalking, and asking their immigration status.

Critics contend that the operations amount to racial profiling. Arpaio says his deputies only look for people breaking the law, an assertion he reiterated at a televised news conference Thursday in Phoenix. “I’m very confident that my deputies don’t racially profile,” he said.

The Obama administration last year revoked Arpaio’s authority to enforce federal immigration laws on the streets, a move that had little practical effect because the sheriff said state law allows him to continue his operations. But his battle with the federal government predates the Obama presidency.

In the summer of 2008, under President George W. Bush, the Justice Department launched a preliminary investigation into the allegations of racial profiling. In March 2009, after President Obama had assumed office, the department expanded the inquiry into a full-fledged probe.

The investigation started with what federal officials contended was a routine document request — 51 categories of material. According to the lawsuit filed Thursday, the department received only 11 pages.

The last time the Justice Department had to sue to obtain documents in a civil rights probe was during a 1978 investigation of employment practices of a sheriff’s department in Virginia.

For the last 18 months, Arpaio has publicly said he would not give federal investigators access to his jails or other facilities and dismissed the inquiry as politically motivated. His lawyer met with Justice Department lawyers in Washington last week and contended that the material the federal government requested was outside its scope of investigation.

This is not Arpaio’s first battle over documents related to possible civil rights abuses. His department faces a lawsuit from an array of civil rights groups for allegedly racially profiling. A federal judge this year found that Arpaio’s department improperly destroyed immigration-related paperwork that was evidence in that case, and approved sanctions against the agency.

Arpaio’s stance has made him popular in Arizona, the main point of entry for migrants illegally crossing the Mexican border. He was one of the most prominent backers of SB 1070, the aggressive state law mandating that police verify the status of people they stop and suspect are illegal immigrants. The main parts of the law were placed on hold in late July by a federal judge in response to the Obama administration’s suit, and the matter is expected to end up in the Supreme Court.

Legal experts said that, despite the combustible backdrop of racial politics, a brash sheriff and local defiance of Washington, Thursday’s lawsuit will turn on narrow legal matters such as what the federal government can request under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Arpaio’s stance is “more your standard, hardball litigation than it is a challenge to the authority of the federal government,” said G. “Jack” Chin, a law professor at the University of Arizona.

Both sides in the contentious immigration debate were quick to seize on Thursday’s lawsuit.

“Unless a judge can put some serious sanctions [on him], Arpaio will continue to thumb his nose at the entire justice system,” said Lydia Guzman, president of the immigrant rights group Somos America, or We Are America, which is a plaintiff in the racial profiling case against the sheriff’s office.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, appearing next to the sheriff at his news conference, said the lawsuit shows that federal civil rights investigators have not been able to turn up any evidence of misconduct by Arpaio’s department. “It’s simply a witch hunt,” he said.

As he usually does when challenged, Arpaio promised to forge ahead with his operations. “I’m going to continue, maybe tomorrow, to enforce all the illegal immigration laws,” he said. “I’m not going to be intimidated by the Justice Department.”

SOURCE

Europe is slowly awakening

Which European politician said in July that his country was “suffering from 50 years of lax immigration rules that have led to a failure of integration”? Was it Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-Islamic populist? Was it Umberto Bossi, leader of Italy’s Northern League? Perhaps it was Thilo Sarrazin, the Social Democrat who appears likely to be dismissed from the board of Germany’s Bundesbank for making provocative remarks about immigrants?

Actually, the speaker in question was Nicolas Sarkozy. But the fact that the French president’s comments could just as easily have come from the lips of prominent public figures in Germany, Italy and the Netherlands illustrates how a culturally defensive approach to immigration is shared across a significant part of the western European political spectrum, not to mention society at large.

It is a mood that, over the past 12 months, has caused Swiss citizens to vote for a ban on the construction of minarets. It has prompted the governments of France and Belgium to take steps to prohibit the wearing of face-covering veils. It has encouraged the French state to launch a crackdown on Roma migrants, following on the heels of a similar initiative in Italy.

Largely because of fears that millions of Muslim Turks might seek homes, jobs and welfare benefits in western European cities, it has caused public support to drain away for Turkey’s efforts to join the European Union. Finally, it has driven Mr Sarrazin’s newly published book, Deutschland schafft sich ab (“Germany does away with itself”), an anti-immigrant diatribe, to the top of the bestseller list on the German-language site of Amazon, the online retailer.

After two tumultuous years in which first Europe’s banking system and then its monetary union came close to collapse, one might think that European politicians face more pressing tasks than the suppression of new minarets, the elimination of veils or the expulsion of a few thousand Roma. But it is no coincidence that, as Europe’s economic performance has gone into relative decline in the era of globalisation, so its sensitivities on questions of identity and culture have grown more acute.

Low birth rates, ageing populations and pressure on the public finances to pay for future pension and healthcare entitlements aggravate these anxieties. Slowly but surely, the perception has arisen that the “native” cultures of France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands are at risk of being swamped by tides of immigrants who breed more than the indigenous majority and who are neither willing nor able to assimilate.

This perception, visible in the UK as well, has obvious racist foundations but does not always represent racism in its purest form. Pim Fortuyn, the populist Dutch politician who was murdered in 2002, criticised his nation’s open immigration policies partly on the grounds that many Moroccan and Turkish immigrants rejected Dutch values of social tolerance and sexual liberalism. Similar concerns about the conservative attitudes of Muslim immigrants, especially in relation to women’s rights, are visible in Sweden. All this is a rather different matter from the explicitly far-right stance of parties such as France’s National Front, with its roots in the collaborationist Vichy regime of the 1940s and its support from the embittered pied-noir colonists who returned to France after the Algerian war of independence.

Even so, Europe cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, Europeans want to protect their high living standards and their social and economic model, blending free enterprise with a generous array of state-supplied public services. On the other hand, they want to ring-fence their national cultures with controls on immigration. But Europe’s feeble demographic outlook makes the first goal incompatible with the second.

No country better exemplifies this contradiction than Germany. “The Turks are taking over Germany exactly as the [ethnic Albanian] Kosovars took over Kosovo – with a higher birth rate,” says Mr Sarrazin. “I don’t want the country of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be largely Muslim, or that Turkish or Arabic will be spoken in large areas, that women will wear headscarves and the daily rhythm is set by the call of the muezzin.”

Mr Sarrazin is preoccupied by expert models that predict a fall in Germany’s population, now about 82m, to roughly 70m by 2050 and – assuming unchanged birth rates and no more immigration – a further slump to as low as 24m by 2100. Such assumptions are doubtless open to question, but it remains a fact that Germany’s average annual ratio of eight births per 1,000 women is the lowest in the world. Crucially, however, the memory of Nazi schemes to promote motherhood continues to inhibit governments in Berlin from urging women to have more children.

In spite of these trends, Mr Sarrazin is plainly exaggerating when he forecasts a Germany dominated by mullahs, headscarves and the Turkish language. Turkish emigration to Germany has declined dramatically since the start of this century. In 2008, the latest year for which figures are available, there was actually a small net movement in the other direction.

Moreover, if it is accepted that assimilation has not proved wholly successful, much of the explanation lies in the restrictive citizenship law that Germany applied until 2000. The new law, making it easier for children born in Germany to Turks and other foreigners to acquire citizenship, has proved a promising motor of social integration.

SOURCE

3 September, 2010

Governor candidates in 20 states endorse anti-immigration laws

It’s not just Arizona. In states far from the Mexico border — from liberal Massachusetts to moderate Iowa — Democrats and Republicans in gubernatorial races are running on strict anti-illegal-immigration platforms, pledging to sign an array of tough enforcement measures into law come January.

Of the 37 gubernatorial races this year, candidates in more than 20 states have endorsed adopting a strict Arizona-style immigration law or passing legislation that makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live, work and access basic public benefits in their states, according to a POLITICO analysis.

The prevalence of the issue means the Obama administration could find itself battling Arizona-style flare-ups in statehouses across the country, raising pressure on the White House and Congress to break the deadlock in Washington over comprehensive immigration reform.

The Justice Department sued Arizona in hopes of discouraging other states from following its lead and won a ruling blocking provisions of the law that immigrant advocates found most objectionable. But that hasn’t stopped some gubernatorial candidates from trying to one-up each other on the issue.

Georgia Democratic nominee Roy Barnes endorses an Arizona-style law for the state, saying he would sign similar legislation if elected. So does Georgia’s Republican nominee, former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a staunch critic of comprehensive immigration reform who used the first ad of his primary campaign to endorse the Arizona crackdown. “If President Obama sues us too, we’re going to defend ourselves,” said Brian Robinson, communications director for Deal. “We’ve got to protect Georgia taxpayers if President Obama won’t.”

Alabama Republican Robert Bentley, who holds a double-digit lead over his Democratic challenger, vows to create “an environment that is unwelcoming to illegal immigrants.” He drafted a 10-point plan for what he describes as one of the most pressing problems facing the state, where the Pew Research Center found the immigrant population has at least doubled since 2005.

And in Massachusetts, Republican Charles Baker and independent Timothy Cahill are battling for the toughest-on-immigration title, while Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick takes hits from immigrant advocates for not being “proactive” enough.

The flood of get-tough statements could be just that — campaign talk that fades against the hard realities of governing and legal threats by the Justice Department. The outcome of a U.S. appeals court hearing on the Arizona law set for early November is likely to determine whether the state-level push stalls out or gains momentum.

But polls show voters want the government to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. And with Congress unlikely to act anytime soon, gubernatorial candidates are arguing that, as chief executives, they will try to do the job that they say the federal government has neglected.

The political pull can be fierce. At least three Republicans who initially expressed concern with the Arizona law walked back their opposition after taking heat from their party.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum scrambled to match the hard line of his challenger, Rick Scott, by introducing a proposal late in the primary election campaign that he said would go further than the Arizona law, but McCollum still lost. Wisconsin Republican Scott Walker went from skeptic to supporter of Arizona’s approach, as did Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, who has said he will work with the state attorney general to craft a law similar to Arizona’s for the 2011 legislative session.

“In the absence of federal action, we will see devastating policies at the state and local level, as demagogues rush in to fill the breach,” said Deepak Bhargava, executive director of the Center for Community Change, an immigrant advocacy group. “That is why it is critical that there is a renewed effort on the federal level.”

With state budgets in crisis and the economy struggling, candidates are framing the debate in financial terms, not simply as a law-and-order issue.

Illegal immigrants are already ineligible for all major government benefits, but that hasn’t stopped gubernatorial nominees from pledging to go even further in tightening verification requirements for public aid programs to establish an applicant’s legal status. “This is purely about politics and not substance,” said Jon Blazer, a public benefits attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, adding that the law is already restrictive.

Candidates are embracing E-Verify, a federal database that allows employers to check an employee’s Social Security number against government records. Only federal contractors are required to use the system, which has been criticized as unreliable. And governors in 13 states have signed legislation or executive orders mandating some level of participation from employers.

But if anti-illegal-immigration candidates win in November, more states, including Iowa, Georgia and Alabama, appear likely to jump on board or expand the program. Colorado Republican Dan Maes would require all private employers in his state to use E-Verify — the crux of his vision for legislation that “reduces the incentives to live, work and transfer funds from Colorado.”

Other top targets include scholarships, in-state tuition and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants — flash points in states across the country.

In Massachusetts, Baker would tell state lawmakers to send him a package of hard-hitting immigration measures identical to a package that passed the Democratic-controlled state Senate this year but was eliminated from the final budget bill because of Gov. Patrick’s opposition, Baker spokesman Rick Gorka said.

It was considered an unusually tough measure for a state long represented by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the architect of the modern-day immigration system. But a confluence of factors contributed to its near passage, spurred on by Arizona, including a poll of Massachusetts voters showing strong support for the crackdown and the case of Obama’s Kenyan aunt, who was living in public housing while she fought a deportation order.

The package expanded efforts to block illegal immigrants from accessing public benefits, established a telephone line for people to anonymously report people they suspect of being illegal and required companies working with the state to confirm the legal status of their hires. “We would make sure state services are for state residents,” Gorka said. “This is a cost-saving measure; it is a responsible measure.”

Massachusetts had been known as one of the most welcoming to immigrants in the country, Eva Millona, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Coalition said. But lately, she said, “this is the most anti-immigrant climate we have witnessed.”

Even Patrick has turned cautious, doing little to act on a series of pro-immigrant recommendations from a state advisory panel. “Deval hasn’t been as proactive as we would have liked him to be,” said Millona, a co-chairwoman of the panel.

In New Mexico, a border state that has traditionally taken a more lenient approach than adjacent Arizona, Democrat Diane Denish and Republican Susana Martinez would stop issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. But Martinez would go a step further in repealing the 2003 state law and revoking thousands of licenses. Martinez, who won the Republican primary by making her opponent look weak on border security, would also eliminate taxpayer-funded lottery scholarships.

“Not only does this provide further incentive for illegal immigrants to come to New Mexico,” Martinez says on her campaign website, “it is simply wrong to provide free scholarships to illegal immigrants when members of the military stationed in New Mexico are not eligible for the same benefits.”

Taking a position that goes further than other GOP candidates, former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who is trying to unseat the Democratic governor, said a long-standing Supreme Court decision that forced states to educate the children of illegal immigrants should be overturned.

And when people are stopped for a criminal or traffic violation, they should be detained and turned over to the federal government if they can’t prove their legal status, Branstad has said. “Iowans are frustrated,” Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht said. “Either we are going to enforce the laws or we are not going to enforce the laws, and Gov. Branstad is on the side of wanting to enforce those laws.”

Millona said the November elections will be a test: A strong showing by enforcement-only proponents could make it harder for Democrats and Republicans to come together on a comprehensive overhaul next year. “If they don’t win, it will be very clear — as it is clear to most of us — that the enforcement-only measures don’t work,” Millona said.

Source

Poll: Ariz. voters favor immigration enforcement

A poll released Wednesday found that an overwhelming majority of Arizona voters support the types of provisions that are at the heart of a national debate involving the state’s immigration law.

The survey conducted on behalf of Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy found 81 percent of registered voters approved of requiring people to produce documents that show they’re in the country legally.

It found that 74 percent believe police should be allowed to detain anyone who’s unable to verify their legal immigration status, and 68 percent say police should be allowed to question anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

The survey of 614 registered voters was conducted July 16-Aug. 6 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Halfway through the poll’s duration, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put the law’s most controversial portions on hold.

Bolton blocked contentious provisions that required immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, and one that required police, while enforcing other laws, to question people’s immigration status if there is a reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.

Source

2 September, 2010

No One Has Right to Violate U.S. Immigration Law

President Obama has submitted his administration’s legal dispute with Arizona over immigration to the U.N.’s Human Rights Council. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called that move “downright offensive.” Her characterization is correct, albeit somewhat mild.

It is highly offensive that the administration would submit a constitutional argument over federalism and federal preemption to an international body for review – especially when that body includes dictatorial tyrannies such as Cuba and China that violate human rights routinely and with prejudice. It is another sign that President Obama holds our constitutional system of government in low regard and has little interest in upholding American sovereignty.

There is no universal right to violate a country’s immigration laws with impunity. It is no violation of human rights to enforce border security and basic immigration requirements. Indeed, the United States has some of the most open and permissive immigration laws in the world. Many of those criticizing Arizona, including Mexico, have much stricter and harsher immigration laws; their treatment of immigrants may justify human rights claims, but ours certainly do not.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona makes no human rights claims. It is insulting and provocative to include this dubious legal filing in the official “Report of the United States” to the United Nations. But it is certainly no surprise, given the administration’s implementation of a de facto amnesty for the vast majority of illegal aliens in our country, and its reluctance to enforce deportation orders and take other steps needed to get this situation under control.

In the Universal Periodic Review, the administration asserts that “President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system.” Yet the only “fixes” he seems committed to are not enforcing federal laws he disagrees with; preventing states from enforcing their laws if it brings attention to his administration’s failure to enforce federal law; and extending amnesty to those who have broken our laws and thereby shown utter contempt for the basic principle that guarantees all our rights and freedoms: adherence to the rule of law.

SOURCE

Mass breakout from Australian immigration detention centre

This is good news. Pictures of illegals rioting and protesting about being locked up were a major factor in stopping the flow under the Howard government. Potential illegals decided that they didn’t like the look of where they would end up so stopped coming. One hopes that TV images of the latest protest went around the world — as they did last time

More than 80 asylum-seekers broke out of an Australian immigration detention centre on Wednesday after days of riots and staged a seven-hour protest outside, police said.

The detainees escaped from the centre in the far northern city of Darwin at about 6:30 am, a spokeswoman told AFP. Media reports said the protesters were Afghans and unfurled a banner saying, “We need protection not detention”.

Police said the protest ended when 76 were taken into custody at the Darwin watchhouse and another five, including two suffering from heat exhaustion, were taken to a nearby hospital where they remained under immigration custody. “They peacefully came into our custody,” Assistant Police Commissioner Rob Kendrick told reporters.

The mass break-out comes after more than 100 alleged people-smugglers torched mattresses and staged a protest on the roof of the detention centre in two days of disturbances on Sunday and Monday.

The centre for 450 people is housing 151 Indonesians accused of people-smuggling, with the remainder asylum seekers or people who have overstayed visas.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans said all the men who escaped Wednesday were asylum seekers. “Many of them have actually had their initial claim for asylum refused, and there is a protest activity,” Senator Evans told reporters. “I stress these are asylum seekers, they are not criminals, and they are seeking support… for their claims for asylum.”

Australia has a policy of mandatory detention for asylum-seekers while their claims are processed, and generally processes the immigrants at remote Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean.

But increased numbers of poor immigrants — more than 4,000 this year, mainly poor Asians fleeing conflict and economic hardship — have forced the reopening of isolated centres on the country’s mainland.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the protest was symptomatic of the overcrowding in centres. “This is a pressure cooker situation,” he said.

SOURCE

1 September, 2010

Automatic Citizenship for Children of Illegals?

Global Trend Is Toward Tighter Policies

Every year, 300,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States, each one of them automatically a U.S. citizen despite the illegal status of their parents. This practice of automatic, or birthright, citizenship is not the result of any specific legislation, regulation, executive order, or judicial ruling, and yet has become de facto law of the land.

This has recently become an issue of political controversy, but has been debated for many years. Legislation aimed at narrowing the scope of birthright citizenship has been introduced in every Congress for many years, and the latest iteration has attracted nearly 100 sponsors in the current Congress. Likewise, some leading legal scholars and jurists have long questioned whether such a permissive citizenship policy is constitutionally mandated.

The international trend is clearly away from universal birthright citizenship. Those countries that have ended the practice in recent years include the United Kingdom (1983), Australia (1986), India (1987), Malta (1989), Ireland (2005), New Zealand (2006), and the Dominican Republic (2010). The overwhelming majority of the world’s countries do not offer automatic citizenship to everyone born within their borders.

In a new report, ‘Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison,’ the Center for Immigration Studies’ legal policy analyst Jon Feere reviews the history of the issue in American law and presents the most up-to-date research on birthright citizenship policies throughout the world. The global findings are the result of direct communication with foreign government officials and analysis of foreign law. The report concludes that Congress should promote a serious discussion about whether the United States should automatically confer the benefits and burdens of U.S. citizenship on the children of aliens whose presence is temporary or illegal.

Among the findings:

* Only 30 of the world’s 194 countries grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.

* Of advanced economies, Canada and the United States are the only countries that grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.

* No European country grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

* The global trend is moving away from automatic birthright citizenship as many countries that once had such policies have ended them in recent decades.

* 14th Amendment history seems to indicate that the Citizenship Clause was never intended to benefit illegal aliens nor legal foreign visitors temporarily present in the United States.

* The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the U.S.-born children of permanent resident aliens are covered by the Citizenship Clause, but the Court has never decided whether the same rule applies to the children of aliens whose presence in the United States is temporary or illegal.

* Eminent scholars and jurists, including Professor Peter Schuck of Yale Law School and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, have concluded that it is within the power of Congress to define the scope of the Citizenship Clause through legislation, and that birthright citizenship for the children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens could likely be abolished by statute without amending the Constitution.

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

Recent entries on the CIS blog

See here

ICE’s Melting Math

2009 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics Offers Some Insights

Seeing Is Believing

Price of Victory

Obama Administration Caves on Questionable Border-Area Passports

Jesuit Demands Mexico Stop Abuses of Migrants

Paradigm Shift: Updating Immigration Policy’s ‘Conventional Wisdom’

Breaking Immigration Policy’s Spiral of Silence

Let ‘Em Loose Bruce, or Line-Flushing in Immigration Court

Immigration Policy and the Real ‘Two Americas’

The U.S. Needs a Vibrant Low-Growth Population Advocacy Organization

A Strategy for Winning the Immigration Battle

Ross Douthat’s Two Americas

Grassroots Groups Call Obama Amnesty on Carpet

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.


The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.