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, 2011

Critics of tough Alabama immigration law appeal

A coalition of civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups filed an appeal on Thursday of a federal judge's ruling that let stand much of Alabama's tough new immigration law.

The groups, along with President Barack Obama's administration and church leaders, have sought to block what is widely seen as the toughest state crackdown on illegal immigration.

Chief U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn ruled on Wednesday that Alabama could begin requiring public schools to determine the legal residency of children.

She also gave the green light for police to detain people suspected of being in the United States illegally if they cannot produce proper documentation when stopped for any reason.

Alabama Governor Robert Bentley and fellow Republican lawmakers hailed the judge's decision as a major win in their efforts to curb illegal immigration in their state. Federal judges have previously blocked key parts of other immigration laws passed in Georgia, Arizona, Utah and Indiana.

The Obama administration argues that the U.S. Constitution bars states from adopting immigration measures that conflict with federal laws.

But conservatives complain that the federal government has failed to sufficiently stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country, forcing states to take action to protect their borders and jobs.

The plaintiffs group in the appeal, led by the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, also filed an emergency motion on Thursday seeking to keep some disputed parts of the law from taking effect pending a review by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The latest legal challenge comes as no surprise. Supporters of the law also have vowed to continue the court fight, with the aim of getting the entire law in effect.

Blackburn temporarily barred the state from making it a crime to knowingly transport or harbor an illegal immigrant or prohibiting illegal immigrants from attending its public colleges.

"The overwhelming majority of people in this state are supportive of this law," said Republican state Representative Jim McClendon, a co-sponsor of the measure. "The opponents lost hands-down in the legislative process, so now, they're turning to the court system to see if they can find somebody who sympathizes with their position."

University of Alabama constitutional law professor Bryan Fair said he thinks opponents have a shot at getting some of the more controversial provisions of the law overturned by a higher court, specifically those involving schools and police. "I think those provisions invite racial profiling, and I think racial profiling violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment," Fair told Reuters.

Educators and law enforcement officials in the state were among those waiting for guidance on how to proceed as the court battle plays out.

"At this point we do not know if that will involve a stay of the law from going into effect before the appeal is heard," said Randy Christian, chief deputy of the Jefferson County Sheriff Department. "We also have to get some answers on how we actually enforce it and how we can do so without involving racial profiling."

Alabama Agriculture Commissioner John McMillan said a statewide web seminar series would be held on October 14 to help instruct farmers on how to comply with the new law.

The measure already has had an impact on the state's agribusiness, with McMillan and others telling of crops rotting in fields as a result of day laborers leaving the state ahead of the law taking effect. "This law contains many provisions with stiff fines and penalties," McMillan said in a statement. "It is critical for farmers and agribusinesses to understand fully how this law applies to them."

SOURCE





Obama Goes from Hope to Nope on Immigration Reform

President Obama lashed out at Republicans Wednesday, telling a Hispanic audience that the GOP is the lone barrier to comprehensive immigration reform.

But for a president who campaigned on a promise to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, that message is creating widespread disillusionment within a voting bloc crucial to Obama’s re-election.

“This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true,” Obama told a questioner who claimed the president’s “message … is not a message of hope.”

Such an exchange highlights Obama’s challenge in shoring up Hispanic support amid a record number of deportations by immigration officials and as attempts to provide a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants have fallen by the wayside.

Obama met with Hispanic journalists Wednesday just as the White House seeks to stem the tide of dissatisfaction among black and Hispanic voters. Aside from recent private meetings with leaders and media figures in the black and Hispanic communities, Obama visited a heavily Hispanic high school in Denver Tuesday to push his $450 billion jobs plan.

However, some analysts say Obama’s symbolic measures and jabs at Republicans won’t be enough to sway Hispanic voters who supported the president by a two-to-one margin in 2008. “It’s not enough for him to simply blame Republicans,” said Matt Barreto, a pollster with Latino Decisions. “He needs to point to something concrete — push some bills. There hasn’t been anything since the Dream Act.” While repeatedly touting immigration reform, Obama has yet to push any reforms through Congress, even when his fellow Democrats controlled it.

In broad terms, Obama has called for an immigration policy that would secure the borders, punish businesses for employing undocumented workers and create a mechanism for those in the country illegally to gain citizenship, a proposal critics dismiss as “amnesty” for lawbreakers.

Though Obama vowed to “push hard” for immigration reform, he said it would not happen as long as Republicans continued to block efforts such as the Dream Act, which would offer citizenship to certain illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military. “We used to have Republican co-sponsors for the Dream Act,” Obama said. “Our key approach is trying to push Republicans back to where they were only a few years ago.”

A recent Gallup poll shows that Obama’s support among Hispanics over the past 18 months has plummeted from 73 percent to 48 percent. “It’s a matter of enthusiasm and energy,” Barreto said. “If that disappears, he will still get the same percentage of the Latino vote — there will just be fewer voters.”

Obama’s path to victory in swing states like Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada certainly looks hazier without the overwhelming Hispanic support he received in 2008.

Obama credited both Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush for pushing immigration reform but added, “Right now, you have not [got] that kind of leadership coming from the Republican Party.”

SOURCE



29 September, 2011

Key Win for Alabama Immigrant Law

A federal judge Wednesday greenlighted key parts of an Alabama law aimed at curbing illegal immigration, rejecting the federal government's request to block them and strengthening the likelihood that the Supreme Court ultimately will decide whether states can pass their own immigration laws.

The Alabama law, widely seen as the nation's toughest, could embolden other states weighing stiff measures to stop illegal immigration after federal courts curbed such laws in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia in recent months. The federal government argues immigration is a federal matter.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn in the Northern District of Alabama upheld a contentious provision requiring police in Alabama "to make a reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of any individual they stop if there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is in the country illegally.

Wednesday's ruling also upheld a requirement that public schools determine if students were born outside the U.S. or are children of immigrants that are in the country illegally. Judge Blackburn upheld a section of HB56, as the law is known, making it a felony for an illegal immigrant to enter into a "business transaction" with the state of Alabama, among other provisions.

But Judge Blackburn enjoined other sections of the law in a 115-page ruling issued one day before a temporary injunction was set to expire, saying "there is a substantial likelihood" that the Justice Department can prove they are pre-empted by federal law. For example, she blocked clauses that would make it a misdemeanor crime for an undocumented immigrant to apply for work and that make it unlawful for anyone to transport an illegal resident. For now, Alabama authorities also won't be able to pursue civil cases against employers that fail to hire U.S. citizens while hiring or retaining illegal immigrants, among other measures.

In a statement, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley called the ruling a victory for his state, adding that it has had to enforce immigration laws because the federal government isn't doing so. The Republican governor said the legal "fight is just beginning" and that he remained committed to seeing the law fully implemented.

The Justice Department said it was reviewing Wednesday's decision before deciding on its next steps. It added it will continue to evaluate state immigration laws and "not hesitate" to sue states for policies that interfere with federal immigration law.

Legal scholars said the judge's ruling was contradictory and pointed to the need for a uniform federal standard rather than a patchwork of state lawson immigration.

"Judge Blackburn seems to believe it's not a crime for an undocumented immigrant to solicit work but it is a crime for an undocumented person to do business with the state," said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration scholar at Cornell University Law School. "The Supreme Court needs to decide this issue once and for all."

Arizona was the first state to pass a law to rein in illegal immigration, in April 2010. The law isn't entirely in effect. Among other provisions, a federal judge blocked one that would require police to check the immigration status of those they stop if they suspect they are in the country illegally. Arizona has appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Alabama, Judge Blackburn slapped a temporary injunction on HB56 in August, after it was signed into law by Mr. Bentley in June.

The Justice Department filed suit in federal court in Birmingham last month, arguing the state law usurped federal jurisdiction over immigration. The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil-rights groups also filed suits to block the legislation, which they say promotes discrimination and harassment. Agribusiness and construction groups have warned the law would create a labor shortage and hurt the state's economy.

Supporters of the Alabama legislation said it would open more jobs to legal residents by driving illegal immigrants from the state, while cutting the state's medical and education costs. They also say the federal government hasn't done enough to stop illegal immigration.

Alabama's undocumented population, mostly from Latin America, totaled about 120,000 last year, up from 25,000 a decade earlier, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. The center also estimates illegal immigrants account for about 2.5% of the state's population, compared with 4.4% in Georgia and 6% in Arizona.

Linton Joaquin of the National Immigration Law Center said civil-rights groups would appeal the decision, saying that the Alabama law amounted to requiring "local police, and even school teachers, to become de facto immigration agents."

SOURCE





Asylum seekers from Arab spring pour into Europe

Refugees from war and revolution in the Arab world have begun to pour into Europe, according to research. A count covering the first three months of this year – the months that saw the outbreak of the Arab Spring – showed that number of Tunisian asylum seekers rose more than 20-fold after their country became the first to be engulfed in the chain of uprisings.

The influx raised fears that Britain faces a fresh asylum boom as tens of thousands of individuals and families try to flee other countries convulsed by violent upheavals.

The figures, compiled by the EU’s statistical arm, showed that last year Tunisian asylum seekers were arriving at the rate of just 50 a month.

The EU report said: ‘Tunisians are now ranked eight among the main countries of citizenship of asylum seekers. ‘Nine out of 10 of Tunisians applying for asylum in the EU lodged their application in Italy, which highlights the importance of geographical proximity as one of the potential factors influencing the choice of the destination country for asylum seekers.

‘Among other such factors are the social and economic situation, the presence of certain ethnic communities, immigration policy in the country of destination, language or historical ties, or the activities of people traffickers.’

The EU analysis points to Britain as a future destination country for Libyan asylum seekers, because of extensive Libyan economic and family contacts in Britain.

In particular Libya has close ties with Britain and many affected by its civil war may try to take refuge here. Others still may try to take advantage of the war to claim asylum in Britain when really they are economic migrants looking to live and work in this country.

However numbers shot up following the toppling of President Ben Ali, in January. In February 1,100 Tunisian asylum seekers arrived in Europe, followed by 1,200 in March.

The influx contributed to a 6.5 per cent increase in asylum seekers arriving in Europe in the first three months of the year, up by 4,000 to 66,000. The study also indicates Britain as a destination for Libyan asylum seekers because of extensive economic and family contacts.

Would-be asylum seekers from Tunisia, Egypt and Libya who entered Europe through Italy or other countries have been reported gathering in Calais to try to cross the Channel. Taxpayer-supported charities have been used to issue warnings to them against the dangers of trying to gain a passage by hiding in lorries.

Foreign Secretary William Hague warned earlier this summer: ‘It also means we need proper controls and we have to be tough about this. ‘We can’t just accept a flow of hundreds of thousands or millions of people into southern Europe and then coming beyond that.

'Clearly, European nations are not able to accommodate those numbers, and so we do have to respond imaginatively for the future, for the economic wellbeing of north Africa so that people can have livelihoods where they are.’

Sir Andrew Green of the Migrationwatch think tank said: ‘This points to the need to be alert to the possibility that there could be a significant flow of economic migrants and asylum seekers to Britain as a result of events in North Africa.’

SOURCE



28 September, 2011

Australian generosity towards those in real distress is being diminished by illegal boat arrivals

Australia takes in more asylum seekers per head than any other country. Close to 10 per cent of the refugees resettled worldwide are taken by Australia. But nothing will ever be enough for the Left. The Left WANT the divisions and tensions the boat arrivals are causing. Their "good intentions" are just a mask for the contempt in which they hold their own society

IN the debate over asylum all sides believe there is an answer: and they have it. Human rights advocates argue the only humane course of action is to welcome those who arrive by boat.

The large majority of Australians, however, do not see the asylum issue in such straight-forward human rights terms. A number of surveys during the past 18 months indicate the majority favour policy to deter boat arrivals, including mandatory detention.

An August Nielsen poll found 15 per cent of respondents considered boats should be sent back to sea and another 52 per cent that asylum-seekers should be kept in detention while their claims were assessed.

More detail is available in the Scanlon Foundation surveys, four of which have been conducted since 2007. The just released 2011 findings indicate only 22 per cent favour granting the right of permanent residence to asylum-seekers arriving by boat; 39 per cent favour asylum in Australia, but only on a temporary basis; the remaining 35 per cent want boats to be turned back or the asylum-seeker detained pending deportation.

The value of the Scanlon Foundation surveys is that a broad range of questions (81 in 2011) are asked. This enables consideration of patterns of response and the finding is that attitudes to asylum correlate with a person's values, hence attitudes are not likely to change simply as a result of new factual information.

The advocates for asylum may well respond that if that is public opinion, then it should be ignored; that what we need is leadership and political consensus to do the right thing. But what is right is not so simply determined.

For a start, majority opinion is not simply to be stereotyped as prejudiced. The surveys show that majority opinion supports the humanitarian program, which recruits asylum-seekers overseas. It is just that this support does not extend to irregular arrivals.

Second, a generous reception policy is likely to lead to an increase in boat arrivals, with consequences not simply to be ignored.

How do we know that there will be increased arrivals? We need only examine the pattern of the past decade. In 2000, 2939 asylum-seekers arrived by boat; in 2001, 5516 arrived. In the following six years, with the enactment of the Howard government's Pacific Solution, arrivals were reduced to almost zero; fewer than 100 arrived in 2005 and 2006.

Over these years the number of asylum-seekers worldwide fell, but by nowhere near the almost 100 per cent fall experienced in Australia. When the Howard government policies were changed by Labor, boat arrivals resumed: 2849 in 2009, 6879 in last year, the highest on record. This is the pattern of movement that the human rights advocates are reluctant to face.

Australia has no land borders, it is not easy to get to Australia on a small boat. As such, a negative message from Australia will deter arrivals more effectively than almost any other First World country.

Third, there are other consequences of a generous policy.

A view widely held among asylum advocates is that Australia does not shoulder its responsibilities, leaving care for asylum-seekers to impoverished countries. But Australian governments of various persuasions since the late 1970s have maintained a large humanitarian program: during the past 10 years, 130,000 have been admitted.

It seems to be a secret (for reasons difficult to fathom) that Australia resettles more refugees per capita than any other country: close to 10 per cent of the refugees resettled worldwide are taken by Australia.

In 2009, according to the UN, Australia admitted 11,080 refugees for resettlement; the US, with almost 15 times Australia's population, accepted 79,937. Canada, with a population 1 1/2 times that of Australia, resettled 12,457. No other country accepted a substantial number. For example, Britain resettled 955 refugees, Germany 2069 and The Netherlands 369.

Australia, in consultation with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, has established a process for assessing asylum-seekers. Under present arrangements, boat arrivals take places from those in the camps from which Australia draws its intake.

Advocates suggest that there is a simple solution: recruit a fixed number overseas and place boat arrivals in another category. But what is a reasonable intake for Australia?

The Greens and the Refugee Council of Australia advocate an increase from the present intake of 14,750 to an offshore intake of 20,000, to be phased in across five years. But how does the government budget for an unknown number of boat arrivals?

It may be that however we argue, there is no solution. Instead of solutions, it makes more sense to think in terms of balance, which will not satisfy all but is likelier to produce a larger measure of agreement than the one-dimensional solutions on offer.

There is an additional point to be considered. A policy that flies in the face of views held in many parts of the community will likely result in the re-emergence of movements similar to One Nation that campaign on issues of national identity and race and heighten opposition to cultural diversity.

An alarming finding of this year's Scanlon Foundation survey is that 44 per cent of respondents consider that racial prejudice in Australia has increased during the past five years.

There is heightened reporting of discrimination and decline of trust in fellow Australians. Trust in the federal government recorded a sharp fall, from a high of 48 per cent in 2009 to 31 per cent last year and to 30 per cent this year.

People - whether for or against asylum rights - are close to unanimous in the view that the government is incapable of dealing with asylum.

There has been erosion of individual connectedness and weakening of communal organisations, key indicators of threats to social cohesion. While not the only cause, the asylum debate has contributed to a heightening of division in Australian society.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Who Benefited from Job Growth In Texas? (Memorandum)

2. Perry’s Ambiguous Employment Record (Op-Ed)

3. Panel: Our Borders a Decade after 9/11 (Video and Transcript)

4. GOP Politics of In-State Tuition (Blog)

5. Obama Caves to Ghosts of DeLay, Abramoff on CNMI Migrant Rules (Blog)

6. When Texas Welcomes Illegal Aliens, It Becomes More than a 'State Issue' (Blog)

7. Job Growth in Texas – Responding to Criticism (Blog)

8. Students Weren't Innocent Victims at Raided U.S. Visa Mills (Blog)

9. Government Sometimes Does the Right Thing in Immigration Cases (Blog)

10. Hope, Dreams (of ?), and Policy 45003 (Blog)

11. Dubious Casino Investment Linked to Dubious Immigration Program (Blog)

12. Taking the Blinders off Social Security's H-1B Audit (Blog)

13. State Dept. Seeks to Roll Back Visa Security to 9/10 Standards; DHS Stays Quiet (Blog)





27 September, 2011

The terrorist Britain can't kick out: Released after half his sentence but still 'a risk to the public'... the suicide bomb fanatic who's free to stay - thanks to his "human rights"



A fanatical terrorist has escaped being thrown out of the UK because it would breach his human rights. Hate-filled Siraj Yassin Abdullah Ali, graded the highest possible risk to the public, was released after serving just half of his nine-year sentence for helping the July 21 bombers.

He now mingles freely among the Londoners his co-plotters tried to kill six years ago.

Government officials are desperate to deport the Islamic fundamentalist back to his native Eritrea but have been told they cannot because he could face ‘inhumane treatment or punishment’.

Ali was convicted of helping a gang of five Al Qaeda suicide bombers in their bid to repeat the carnage of the attacks of July 7, 2005, two weeks later.

Graham Foulkes, whose 22-year-old son David was killed on July 7, said he was ‘filled with despair’. He said: ‘These people were plotting to commit mass murder - what about the human rights of victims and families? ‘These people had no consideration for the women and children they were trying to kill. How can they claim we should look after and support them?’

The case is the latest to highlight how human rights laws have left the authorities powerless to remove some terrorists and convicted criminals.

Imposed human rights laws have left the authorities powerless to remove some terrorists and convicted criminals. Imposed by unaccountable European judges, they place the rights of the most dangerous wrongdoers above the risks faced by ordinary people.

The five would-be suicide bombers were jailed for life after trying to detonate bombs at Shepherd’s Bush, Warren Street and Oval Tube stations and on a bus in Shoreditch.

Ali, 35, knew about the potentially murderous July 21 conspiracy and helped the fanatics clear up their explosives factory.

He was jailed for 12 years in February 2008 for aiding and abetting the Al Qaeda cell. Judge Paul Worsley QC said he must have ‘harboured the hope’ the bombers would ‘destroy society as we know it’.

The sentence was reduced to nine years on appeal and after time Ali spent in jail while awaiting trial was taken into account, he was automatically released on licence several weeks ago. He is now living at a bail hostel on a leafy residential street in north-west London. He has been seen travelling on the Tube and catching buses.

With music headphones plugged into his ears and a bag slung casually across his shoulder, he appeared to be caught on camera chatting on a mobile phone.

It is understood that Ali is being monitored around the clock and must obey a curfew and other conditions, including a ban on using the internet.

He is the second high-risk terrorist linked to the July 21 attacks to win the right to remain in the UK on human rights grounds in recent weeks.

Ismail Abdurahman, 28, who hid would-be bomber Hussain Osman for three days, escaped being deported to his native Somalia after judges feared for his safety. Abdurahman is also living at a bail hostel in London despite the protests of police and Home Office officials.

The release of Ali and Abdurahman underlines the challenges faced by police, probation and MI5. There are fears that they will be stretched to the limit as they try to monitor dozens of freed fanatics in the run-up to the Olympics next year.

Research by one think-tank found that more than 230 people have been convicted of terrorist offences since 2001, but only around 100 remain in prison.

Under Article 3 of both the European Convention on Human Rights, and Labour’s Human Rights Act, individuals are protected against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The clause allows foreign terror suspects to fight deportation on the grounds that they would be tortured in their home countries if returned.

In February, Lord Carlile warned that European judges have turned Britain into a ‘safe haven’ for foreign terrorists.

Tory MP Priti Patel said: ‘This is yet another example of how we have got to abolish this appalling human rights legislation that allows terrorists and violent criminals to waltz out of prison and stay in our country. ‘They should be deported instantly back to where they came from.’

Solicitor Cliff Tibber, who represents the families of several July 7 victims, said: ‘There is no doubt it is uncomfortable for the families to see someone like this back on the streets after what feels like an extremely short period of time.’

A UK Border Agency spokesman said: ‘We will do everything we can to remove this individual from the UK and are extremely disappointed by the court’s decision to grant bail, which we vigorously opposed. ‘In the meantime, we are working closely with public protection agencies to ensure that appropriate monitoring is in place.’

A Ministry of Justice spokesman insisted that public protection remains ‘top priority’ and that serious offenders face ‘strict’ controls and conditions.

SOURCE






Migration boom DID drive down wages and living standards, admits Labour

Labour’s open-door immigration policy drove down wages and living standards in Britain, party leader Ed Miliband has admitted. He conceded that the last government ‘got it wrong’ on border controls and said that British workers had been ‘undercut’.

The bombshell confession came amid revelations that, when in power, Labour suppressed a string of damaging reports about the impact of mass immigration on the UK. At the time Labour denied claims that migration – in particular the large number of skilled Poles – was making life harder for some British workers.

Mr Miliband conceded: ‘We got it wrong in a number of respects including underestimating the level of immigration from Poland, which had a big effect on people in Britain. ‘What I think people were worried about, in relation to Polish immigration in particular, was that they were seeing their wages, their living standards driven down.

‘Part of the job of government is if you are going to have an open economy within Europe you have got to give that protection to employees so that they don’t see workers coming in and undercutting them.’

However, Labour is still refusing to match the Tory commitment to reduce net migration – the difference between the number leaving the UK and the number of arrivals – to the ‘tens of thousands’.

Mr Miliband told Sky News: ‘I’m not going to make promises that I can’t keep. We need a tough immigration policy but I think free movement of labour is right for Britain.’

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper admitted: ‘We did get things wrong on immigration. ‘We should have had transitional controls on migration from Eastern Europe.’

In a separate development, the Coalition published a string of reports, which cost £165,000 to produce, which ministers claimed had been suppressed by Labour.

The documents, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government, revealed that immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria had low education levels and were more likely to claim unemployment-related benefits than non-immigrants or other migrant groups in Britain.

Migrants from the two countries were also more likely to have four or more children than those coming to Britain from elsewhere, placing a significant strain on the education system.

Housing Minister Grant Shapps said: ‘This is another disturbing cover-up by a Labour Party that failed on immigration and then tried to bury the truth. ‘This Government is bringing immigration under control to restore public confidence in the system left broken by Labour.’

SOURCE



26 September, 2011

How to send the illegals back home

Consider the consequences of a very substantial rise in the national minimum wage, perhaps to $10 or more likely $12 per hour.

The automatic rejoinder to proposals for hiking the minimum wage is that “jobs will be lost.” But in today’s America a huge fraction of jobs at or near the minimum wage are held by immigrants, often illegal ones. Eliminating those jobs is a central goal of the plan, a feature not a bug.

Let us explore the likely implications of this simple proposal. The analysis that follows should be regarded as impressionistic and plausible rather than based on any sort of rigorous and detailed research. It is intended to raise possibilities rather than provide answers. Also, let us assume for the moment that these higher wage requirements would be very strictly enforced.

First, the vast majority of workers in America’s surviving manufacturing sector—whether in unionized Seattle or non-union South Carolina—already earn far more than the existing minimum wage, so their employers would hardly be affected, resulting in almost no impact on our international competitiveness. The same would be true for government employees, resulting in negligible cost to the taxpayer.

By contrast, the bulk of the low-wage jobs affected fall into the category of domestic non-tradeable service-sector jobs, which cannot be replaced by overseas workers. Many of these jobs would disappear, but a substantial fraction would remain viable at the higher wage level, with employers either raising prices or trimming profits or more likely a mixture of both. Perhaps consumers would pay 3 percent more for Wal-Mart goods or an extra dime for a McDonald’s hamburger, but most of these jobs would still exist and the price changes would be small compared to ongoing fluctuations due to commodity prices, international exchange rates, or Chinese production costs.

Meanwhile, many millions of low-wage workers would see an immediate 20 percent or 30 percent boost in their take-home pay, producing a large increase in general economic activity, not to mention personal well-being. We must bear in mind that an increase in the hourly minimum wage from the current federal level of $7.25 to (say) $12.00 would also have secondary, smaller ripple effects, boosting wages already above that level as well, perhaps even reaching workers earning as much as $15 per hour.

The likely impact upon immigrant workers, whether legal or illegal, would be quite varied. Those most recently arrived, especially illegal ones with weak language or job skills, would probably lose their jobs, especially since many of these individuals are already forced to work (illegally) for sub-minimum wages. However, workers who have been here for some years and acquired reasonably good language and job skills and who had demonstrated their reliability over time would probably be kept on, even if their employer needed to boost their pay by a dollar or two an hour.

Thus, the force of the policy would fall overwhelmingly on those immigrants who possessed the weakest ties to American society and still retained the strongest links to their country of origin. By contrast, those immigrants—legal or otherwise—who had lived here for some years and therefore had gradually become part of the community would mostly emerge unscathed, probably receiving a very welcome boost to their family income. Some anti-immigration activists might find this prospect extremely distasteful, but half- or two-thirds of a loaf is better than none.

Moreover, although this wage structure would tend to “grandfather” a considerable fraction of existing illegal immigrants, it would constitute a very formidable barrier to future ones. Paying $12 per hour might be reasonable for a reliable employee who had worked with you for several years, but would be much harder to justify for an impoverished new arrival speaking minimal English and with no track record. To a large extent, the undocumented job window in America would have permanently slammed shut.

In effect, a much higher minimum wage serves to remove the lowest rungs in the employment ladder, thus preventing newly arrived immigrants from gaining their initial foothold in the economy. As a natural consequence, these rungs would also disappear for the bottom-most American workers, such as youths seeking their first jobs or the least skilled in our society. But over the last few decades, these groups have already been largely displaced in the private-sector job market by immigrants, especially illegal ones. Whereas 40 years ago, teenagers and blacks tended to mow lawns and work as janitors, in most parts of the country these days, such jobs are now held by recent arrivals from south of the border. So the net loss of opportunity to Americans would not be large.

Furthermore, recently arrived illegal workers must very quickly find employment if they hope to cover their living expenses and remain here rather than being forced to return home instead. But first-time American job-seekers are already living with their families and anyway have no other home to draw them away, and consequently could spend months seeking an available job. Thus, a higher minimum wage would tend to disproportionately impact new immigrants rather than their American-born competitors.

The enforcement of these wage provisions would be quite easy compared with the complex web of current government requirements and restrictions. It is possible for business owners to claim they were “fooled” by obviously fraudulent legal documents or that they somehow neglected to run the confusing electronic background checks on their new temporary dishwasher. But it is very difficult for anyone to claim he “forgot” to pay his workers the legally mandated minimum wage. Furthermore, the former situation constitutes something of a “victimless crime” and usually arouses considerable sympathy among immigrant-rights advocates and within ethnic communities; but the latter would universally be seen as the case of a greedy boss who refused to pay his workers the money they were legally due and would attract no sympathy from the media, the police, juries, or anyone else.

Very stiff penalties, including mandatory prison terms, could assure near absolute compliance. Virtually no employer would be foolish enough to attempt to save a few hundred dollars a month in wages paid at the risk of a five-year prison sentence, especially since the workers he was cheating would immediately acquire enormous bargaining leverage over him by threatening to report his behavior to the police.

The proposed change would simply be in the rate of the minimum wage, rather than in the structure of the law, so certain relatively small modification and exceptions, such as including estimated tips for some restaurant employees, might be maintained, so long as these did not expand as a means of circumventing the statute.

Depending upon the state, the current American minimum wage ranges between $7.25 and $8.67 per hour. But is a much higher national minimum wage such as $12 per hour really unreasonable by historical or international standards? In 2011 dollars, the American hourly minimum wage was over $10 in 1968, during our peak of postwar prosperity and full employment, and perhaps that relationship was partly causal. Although exchange-rate fluctuations render exact comparisons difficult, the minimum wage in Ontario along our northern border is currently well over $10 per hour, while in France it now stands at nearly $13. Even more remarkably, Australia recently raised its minimum wage to over $16 per hour, and nonetheless has an unemployment rate of just 5 percent. With the collapse of America’s unsustainable housing-bubble economy of the 2000s, our unemployment rates seem no better and in many cases considerably worse than those of affluent Western countries that have refused to pursue our race-to-the-bottom low-wage economic strategy of recent decades.

But suppose this boost in the minimum wage succeeded at one of its primary goals and eliminated the jobs of many millions of America’s large undocumented population. Would these current workers and their families remain here anyway, perhaps turning to crime as they became financially desperate? After all, huge numbers of immigrants were employed in housing construction, and following the collapse of that industry their unemployment rates have soared, but most of them have stayed here anyway rather than going home again.

The central point to recognize is that most illegal immigrants, and a substantial fraction of legal ones, enter America with the original goal of short-term economic gain, intending to work for a few years, save as much money as possible, then go back home to their family and friends with a nice nest-egg. Frequently, these plans are unrealistic—saving money proves more difficult than expected—and local ties develop. But except for financial factors, even those individuals who have lived here a decade or longer often still dream of returning to their native countries, sometimes even after they have married, had American-born children, and put down considerable roots.

Among other factors, the cost-structure of American society is extremely high compared with that in most of the developing world, where dollars go much farther. This is the primary reason that substantial numbers of non-Hispanic American retirees have chosen to relocate to Mexico with their pensions, despite considerable barriers of language and culture.

Furthermore, as discussed earlier, the fiscal costs to the American government of low-wage immigrant families can be enormous. A couple working jobs at or near the present minimum wage pays negligible taxes, while if they have two school-age children, the grossly inflated expense structure of American public education may easily result in an annual taxpayer burden of $20,000 or more, even excluding the substantial costs associated with all other public services. And if one or both of these parents lose their jobs due to a soaring minimum wage, the fiscal burden grows still more severe.

The obvious solution, both humane and highly cost-effective, would be for the government to offer immigrants extremely generous financial relocation packages if they return home to their own countries. A tax-free cash payment perhaps as high as $5,000 or even $10,000 per adult plus a much smaller sum per minor child, together with free travel arrangements, would constitute an enormously attractive offer, probably being much more than they had managed to accumulate during many years of difficult low-wage labor. If the legal changes proposed herein had already caused their jobs to disappear, such a relocation offer would become irresistible. (Naturally, the full financial package would require hard evidence that they had already been living in America for a year or more, thereby preventing foreigners from crossing our borders simply to game the system.) Given the massive fiscal burdens inherent in the current situation, even such generous financial terms would probably pay for themselves almost immediately.

An important aspect of all these proposals is that they are largely self-enforcing. Workers would be perfectly aware of the simple minimum wage laws, and harsh penalties would deter employers from taking the risk of violating them. The disappearance of low-wage jobs would remove the primary lure for new illegal immigrants, and generous cash relocation packages would lead many existing ones to eagerly turn themselves in and seek deportation. Although the Border Patrol would continue to exist and immigration laws would remain on the books, after a short transition period these would become much less necessary, and a vast existing system of government bureaucracy, business red tape, and taxpayer expense could safely be reduced.

Even principled libertarians, fervently opposed to the very concept of a minimum wage, might find this system preferable to the status quo, which contains an enormously complex web of regulations and employment restrictions; the civil libertarian nightmares of identity cards, national databases, and workplace raids; and an existing minimum wage on top of all these other things.

More HERE





Getting it straight about Rick Perry and immigration

In this week's GOP Presidential debate, Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Rick Santorum both repeated untruths about Governor Rick Perry's immigration position. It is time to set the record straight.

In the debate, Chris Wallace asked a direct question to Mitt Romney regarding the in-state tuition rates of children who live in the state, but happen to have parents who came here illegally.

Mitt Romney replied, "I don't see how it is that a state like Texas--to go to the University of Texas--if you're an illegal alien--you get an in-state tuition discount. D'you know how much that is? It's twenty-two thousand dollars a year. Four years of college you're almost a hundred thousand dollar discount if you're an illegal alien--if you go to the University of Texas. If you're a United States citizen, from any one of the other forty-nine states, you have to pay a hundred thousand dollars more. That doesn't make sense to me. And that kind of magnet, draws people into this country, to get that education, to get that kind of hundred thousand dollar break, it makes no sense..."

I was disappointed that Chris Wallace didn't stop him and make him answer the question he had actually asked him.

Maybe Mitt Romney doesn't realize that many children of illegal aliens aren't illegals themselves. And as long as birth-right citizenship is the law, anchor babies are protected under the law with equal benefits to all other American citizens.

Maybe Mitt Romney is completely ignorant of what the reality of dealing with the border actually means--in real terms. Gov. Perry had to raise $400 million in state taxes to attempt to shore up the border and do the job that the Feds should be doing.

Or maybe Governor Romney believes he doesn't need any votes from legal Hispanics and legal immigrants who are wrestling with the real issue of being in a position where their family's future is in question.

But to set the record straight, it was the state of Texas, and most specifically its lawfully elected legislature that drafted the legislation and passed it with only 4 votes of 181 possible to vote against it. Yes, Governor Perry signed it into law, but it was a definitively bi-partisan initiative that the people of Texas clearly wanted to see become law.

Additionally, Governor Perry has actual compassion for these children who ended up in his state, outside of their own doing. Educating them gets them working and contributing to the state's treasury faster, and is more meaningful than letting them sit on the sidelines.

And despite what the unusually angry Rick Santorum offered, all the legislation did was allow those children (NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS AT LARGE) to get the same "starting point" in state institutions that all of their classmates got. The stupid argument that Romney and Santorum grew red-faced and spittle-spewing over didn't seem to hold true against Texas where non-Texan students would have to pay $88,000 more than other Texas-raised children. And states discriminate that way against other children from other regions of the country--all the time.

President Obama will need to re-energize the American Hispanic vote in order for him to win re-election. They had left him on the economy, and they were never with him on his values. But Mitt Romney--who vows allegiance to a church that had at its core a racist doctrine until only a couple of decades ago--is verging on alienating other ethnic groups, in part because he is not telling the truth about the Texas legislature's law to allow children (not illegal aliens who crossed the border--the children of) to simply pay the same amount of tuition as the kids they sit next to in class.

In short Perry knows this problem intimately. And it will be a cold day in Hades before he ever signs a federal version of the DREAM Act. He believes in fencing, technology, state's rights, and workplace incentives.

Which more or less means he believes in the same enforcement techniques as all the rest of the GOP field.

And for Santorum and Romney to pretend otherwise is sanctimonious and dishonest.

More HERE



25 September, 2011

The British Labour Party's embarrassing immigration secrets revealed

Reports kept under wraps by Labour showing that immigrants who came to Britain from Romania and Bulgaria had low education levels and were more likely to claim out-of-work benefits are to be released for the first time by ministers.

The figures are contained in five separate controversial studies commissioned by the last Labour government but never published - amid claims the party wanted to avoid a damaging row about its record before last year’s general election.

Ministers accused Labour of a “disturbing cover up” and promised to publish the reports - which cost the taxpayer a total of £165,000 and have now been seen by The Sunday Telegraph - in full within days.

The documents also contain revelations that immigrants from all countries into Britain are more likely to be out of work than the native population - and are less likely to engage in any form of “civic participation.”

More than one third of London’s population, moreover, has now been born outside the UK.

The release will turn the spotlight once again on the party’s controversial record on immigration. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, used a weekend interview to admit the party had “got things wrong” on the issue.

Up until 2008 the Labour government was criticised for effectively operating an “open door” policy which saw a massive rise in the number of visas, work permits and extended residency being granted.

Gordon Brown’s government then introduced a new “points based” system which was designed to make it harder for non-skilled people to come to Britain from outside the European Union.

However, particular controversy surrounded the rules governing immigration from countries which joined the EU during the first decade of this century - which included Bulgaria and Romania (which joined in 2007) and Poland (2004).

Labour ministers repeatedly promised that restrictions would be placed on those coming in from Eastern Europe in order to “manage” numbers and protect jobs for British workers. However, the secret reports show that 27 per cent of people coming from Bulgaria and Romania had “low education levels” while as of 2009 more than 15 per cent of them were claiming out-of-work benefits.

The documents, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) reveal that immigrants from the two countries are more likely to claim unemployment-related benefits than either non-immigrants or other migrant groups in Britain.

A report said that despite the implementation of a “cap” on numbers, the migration rate into Britain from Romania and Bulgaria increased significantly after the countries joined the EU in 2007.

Meanwhile, migrants from the two countries were shown to be more likely to have four children or more than people coming to Britain from elsewhere - placing a significant strain on the education system, particularly in London where over half the Bulgarians and Romanians who came settled. More than three in every 100 migrants from Bulgaria and Romania had five children or more.

One of the five reports, Identifying Social and Economic Push and Pull Factors for Migration to the UK by Bulgarian and Romanian Nationals, showed that while Bulgaria’s and Romania’s population declined between 2004 and 2010, Britain’s increased considerably.

During that period the two countries’ unemployment rate fell, while the UK’s rose.

Another report on overall immigration, The Socio-Economic Integration of Migrants, claimed: “Immigrants in the UK exhibit lower employment rates than natives....Immigrants are on average less likely than natives to engage in any form civic participation.”

A further document, Drivers of International Migration, stated: “The increase in immigration into the UK since the mid 1990s is entirely explained by a rise in the number of foreign-born people migrating to the UK from abroad, rather than by returning UK-born people.”

At the start of the 1980s the key annual “net immigration” figure for the UK was minus 42,000 - meaning tens of thousands more people left Britain every year than came here. By 1992-95 this figure had gone up to plus 9,200 - while by the period between 2004 and 2007 it had mushroomed to plus 178,000 a year.

Britain’s population was slated to increase by more than four million to 65.6 million between 2008 and 2018, while by 2008 over one third of London’s population (34 per cent) was born outside Britain.

Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, said: “This is another disturbing cover-up by a Labour Party that failed on immigration and then tried to bury the truth. “‘This Government is bringing immigration under control to restore public confidence in the system left broken by Labour.”

The Coalition’s policy of putting an overall cap on immigrant numbers from outside the EU is designed to reduce net migration to Britain significantly.

David Cameron said in a speech in April that it should be “in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade.”

Damian Green, the Immigration Minister, said: “We have cut down on sham marriages, we have brought in a variety of policies which curb the number of people coming into the country and then overstay.

And we will continue to look at how we can further improve the balance between the people who at value coming into the country and those who do not.”

Labour’s record on immigration sparked bitter debates before last year’s election, exemplified by unguarded “bigoted woman” comments during the campaign by Mr Brown, on an open microphone, about Gillian Duffy, a Rochdale grandmother, when she questioned the former prime minister on it.

In an interview this weekend Ms Cooper admitted: "We did get things wrong on immigration. "We should have had the transitional controls on migration from Eastern Europe. We should have introduced the points-based system much earlier.”

SOURCE




Is Hispanic immigration a threat to the GOP?

Although almost totally marginalized within Republican establishment ranks, the anti-immigrationist wing of the conservative movement has maintained a vigorous intellectual presence on the Internet. Over the years, its flagship organ, the VDare.com website run by Peter Brimelow, a former National Review senior editor, has been scathing in its attacks on the so-called Rove Strategy, instead proposing a contrasting approach christened the Sailer Strategy, after Steve Sailer, its primary architect and leading promoter (who has himself frequently written for The American Conservative). In essence, what Sailer proposes is the polar opposite of Rove’s approach, which he often ridicules as being based on a mixture of (probably dishonest) wishful thinking and sheer innumeracy.

Consider, for example, Rove’s oft-repeated mantra that a Republican presidential candidate needs to win something approaching 40 percent of the national Hispanic vote or have no chance of reaching the White House. During the last several election cycles, Hispanic voters represented between 5 and 8 percent of the national total, so the difference between a candidate winning an outstanding 50 percent of that vote and one winning a miserable 30 percent would amount to little more than just a single percentage point of the popular total, completely insignificant based on recent history.

Furthermore, presidential races are determined by the electoral college map rather than popular-vote totals, and the overwhelming majority of Hispanics are concentrated either in solidly blue states such as California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey, or solidly red ones such as Texas and Georgia, reducing their impact to almost nothing. Any Republican fearful of a loss in Texas or Democrat worried about carrying California would be facing a national defeat of epic proportions, in which Hispanic preferences would constitute a trivial component. Pursuing the Hispanic vote for its own sake seems a clear absurdity.

Even more importantly, Sailer argues that once we throw overboard the restrictive blinkers of modern “political correctness” on racial matters, certain aspects of the real world become obvious. For nearly the last half-century, the political core of the Republican Party has been the white vote, and especially the votes of whites who live in the most heavily non-white states, notably the arc of the old Confederacy. The political realignment of Southern whites foreshadowed by the support that Barry Goldwater attracted in 1964 based on his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and that constituted George Wallace’s white-backlash campaign of 1968 eventually became a central pillar of the dominant Reagan majority in the 1980s.

In many cases, this was even true outside the Deep South, as the blue-collar whites of Macomb County and other areas surrounding overwhelmingly black cities such as Detroit became the blue-collar Reagan Democrats who gave the GOP a near lock on the presidency. While the politics of racial polarization might be demonized in liberal intellectual circles, it served to elect vast numbers of Republicans to high and low office alike. George H.W. Bush’s “Willie Horton” ad and Jesse Helms’s “White Hands” ad have been endlessly vilified by the media, but they contributed to unexpected come-from-behind victories for the candidates willing to run them. And in politics, winning is the only metric of success.

Sailer suggests that a very similar approach would work equally well with regard to the hot-button issue of immigration and the rapidly growing Hispanic population, arguing that the votes of this group could be swamped by those of an angry white electorate energized along racial lines. He cites Pete Wilson’s unexpected California gubernatorial reelection victory in 1994 as a perfect example. Deeply unpopular due to a severe statewide recession and desperately behind in the polls, Wilson hitched his candidacy to a harsh media campaign vilifying illegal immigrants, and although his Hispanic support plummeted, his white support soared to an equal extent, giving him a landslide victory in a race the pundits had written off and sweeping in a full slate of victorious down-ticket Republicans.

Sailer’s simple point is that individual white votes count just as much as Hispanic ones, and since there are vastly more of the former, attracting these with racially-charged campaign themes might prove very politically productive.

An additional fact noted by Sailer is that the racial demographics of a given region can be completely misleading from a political perspective. As mentioned earlier, Hispanics and other immigrants tend to be much younger than whites and much less likely to hold citizenship. Therefore, a state or region in which whites have become a numerical minority may still possess a large white supermajority among the electorate. Once again, today’s California provides a telling example, with Hispanics and whites now being about equal in numbers according to the Census, but with whites still regularly casting three times as many votes on Election Day.

The Sailer analysis is ruthlessly logical. Whites are still the overwhelming majority of voters, and will remain so for many decades to come, so raising your share of the white vote by just a couple of points has much more political impact than huge shifts in the non-white vote. As whites become a smaller and smaller portion of the local population in more and more regions, they will naturally become ripe for political polarization based on appeals to their interests as whites. And if Republicans focus their campaigning on racially charged issues such as immigration and affirmative action, they will promote this polarization, gradually transforming the two national political parties into crude proxies for direct racial interests, effectively becoming the “white party” and the “non-white party.” Since white voters are still close to 80 percent of the national electorate, the “white party”—the Republicans—will end up controlling almost all political power and could enact whatever policies they desired, on both racial and non-racial issues.

Many might find this political scenario quite distasteful or unnerving, but that does not necessarily render it implausible. In fact, over the last couple of decades, this exact process has unfolded in many states across the Deep South, with elected white Democrats becoming an increasingly endangered species. Each election year, blacks overwhelmingly vote for the “black party,” whites overwhelmingly vote for the “white party,” and since whites are usually two-thirds or so of the electorate, they almost invariably win at the polls. Although Republican consultants and pundits make enormous efforts to camouflage or ignore this underlying racial reality, it exists nonetheless.

By contrast, appeals for white support based on racial cohesion would be almost total nonstarters in 95 percent white Vermont or New Hampshire, or in many other states of the North in which the local demographics still approximate those of the country that overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. But today’s national white percentages are much closer to those of 1960s Alabama and Mississippi, where whites fought that legislation tooth and nail on racial grounds. And as the nation’s overall demography continues its inexorable slide from that of Vermont to that of Mississippi, will white politics move in that same direction, especially if given a push?

Now I think a strong case can be made that such a process of deliberate racial polarization in American politics might have numerous adverse consequences for the future well-being of our country, sharply divided as it would become between hostile white and non-white political blocs of roughly equal size. But given the extremely utilitarian mentality of those who practice electoral politics for a living, the more important question we should explore is whether it would actually work, purely on the political level.

Much more HERE



24 September, 2011

Leftist "Media Mutters" objects to term "illegals"

See below. How about "paperless people" instead?

It is perfectly normal to abbreviate common expressions and "illegals" is an abbreviation of "illegal immigrant" -- which is exactly what the people concerned are. But in good Leftist style Media Mutters obviously believe that changing the word for something changes the reality somehow:

At the Fox News-Google GOP presidential debate, co-moderator Chris Wallace used the pejorative term "illegals" to refer to undocumented immigrants and read a question from the public that used the term, as well. Journalists have called on the media to stop using the term "illegals," but Fox's "straight news" shows use it consistently nonetheless.

Wallace Tells Romney, "You Vetoed Legislation To Provide Interstate Tuition Rates To The Children Of Illegals." From the debate:

WALLACE: Governor Romney, I want to continue a conversation that you had with Governor Perry in the last debate. In Massachusetts, you vetoed legislation to provide in-state tuition rates to the children of illegals. Governor Perry, of course, signed the Texas DREAM Act to do exactly that."

Source

Homeland's screening policy of illegal immigrants flawed, report says

The criticism below is quite dishonest. Obama has a policy of not deporting people for minor crimes anyway. They are slaying a straw man

A program that checks the immigration status of all people booked into local jails needs systemwide changes and may need to be suspended until its problems are worked out, according to a review conducted by the Department of Homeland Security's advisory council.

The program, called Secure Communities, allows Homeland Security to review the fingerprints of people arrested by state and local law enforcement agencies against federal immigration databases.

The program has been criticized because some people arrested for minor crimes, or on charges that are later dropped, are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, sometimes resulting in deportation.

That runs contrary to Homeland Security's stated goals of concentrating on illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes or pose a threat to national security.

"The apparent 'disconnect' between the Homeland Security documents describing a tight focus on dangerous criminal offenders and the actual operation of Secure Communities has led to criticism of the program and is a key reason for opposition to the program in a number of cities, counties and states," says the report, which was approved by the advisory council Thursday.

That opposition has resulted in distrust of local police, as victims and witnesses of crimes are now afraid to speak with police out of fear of being deported, the report found.

Since its inception in 2008, Secure Communities has been activated in half the nation's law enforcement jurisdictions, and it continues to grow, with the goal of nationwide activation by 2013. About half of the members of the task force that conducted the review for the advisory council suggested halting that expansion, or suspending the program entirely, until the problems are worked out.

Arturo Venegas was the first of five task force members to resign, saying the recommendations didn't go far enough and calling Homeland Security irresponsible for continuing to expand the program when so many problems are clearly apparent.

"If you have a computer with a virus, you don't connect 20 more computers to that computer," said Venegas, a former police chief in Sacramento.

The report suggested that Homeland Security better train its officials to focus on dangerous criminals, adopt more oversight to ensure those policies are being enforced and consider ignoring illegal immigrants booked into local jails for minor crimes and traffic offenses.

The report will be given to Homeland Security leadership, who then can adopt any or all of the recommendations — although it is under no obligation to do so.

SOURCE



23 September, 2011

Most Texas Job Growth Went to Immigrants

81% of Increase 2007-11 Went to New Foreign Workers

A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies examines job growth in Texas. Gov. Rick Perry has pointed to increased employment in Texas during the current economic downturn as one of his main accomplishments. Analysis of the Current Population Survey (CPS) collected by the Census Bureau shows immigrants (legal and illegal) have been the primary beneficiaries of this growth since 2007, and not native-born workers. This is true even though the native-born accounted for the vast majority of growth in the working-age population (age 16 to 65) in Texas.

The report is online here. Key findings:

* Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived foreign workers (legal and illegal).

* In terms of numbers, between the second quarter of 2007, right before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, total employment in Texas increased by 279,000. Of this, 225,000 jobs went to immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the United States in 2007 or later.

* Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, 93 percent were not U.S. citizens. Thus government data shows that more than three-fourths of job growth in Texas went to newly arrived non-citizens (legal and illegal).

* The large share of job growth that went to immigrants is surprising because the native-born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas’ working age population (16 to 65). Thus even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants.

* The share of the working-age natives holding a job in Texas declined significantly from 71 percent in 2007 to 67 percent in 2011. This decline is very similar to the decline for natives in the United States as a whole and is an indication that the situation for native-born workers in Texas is very similar to the overall situation in the country despite the state’s job growth.

* Of newly arrived immigrants who took jobs in Texas since 2007, we estimated that 50 percent (113,000) were illegal immigrants. Thus about 40 percent of all the job growth in Texas since 2007 went to newly arrived illegal immigrants and 40 percent went to newly arrived legal immigrants.

* Immigrants took jobs across the educational distribution. Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, more than one-third (97,000) had at least some college.

* These numbers raise the question of whether it makes sense to continue the current high level of legal immigration and also whether to continue to tolerate illegal immigration.

Discussion:

As Republicans go through the process of selecting their party’s nominee, job growth in Texas during the current economic downturn has been the subject of much discussion. GOP frontrunner Perry has argued that he has a proven record of job creation in his state, even during the current economic downturn. It is true that Texas is one of the only states where the number of people working has increased during the recession. What has not been acknowledged is that immigrants have been the primary beneficiaries of this job growth, not native-born Americans. About 40 percent job growth went to newly arrived illegal immigrants and another 40 percent to new legal immigrants.

Some may argue that it was the arrival of immigrants in the state that stimulated what job growth there was for natives. But, if immigration stimulates job growth for natives, the numbers in Texas would look very different. The unemployment rate and the employment rate (share holding job) of natives in Texas show a dramatic deterioration during the recession that is similar to the rest of the country. Among the native-born, Texas ranks 22nd in terms of unemployment and 29th in terms of its employment rate. Outside of Texas many of the top immigrant-receiving states have the worst economies. Unemployment in the 10-top immigrant-receiving states in 2011 averaged 8.7 percent, compared to 7.2 percent on average in the 10 states where the fewest immigrants arrived since 2007. These figures do not settle the longstanding debate over the economics of immigration. What they do show is that high immigration is not necessarily associated with positive labor market outcomes for the! native-born.

Some may still feel that less-educated immigrants who work at the bottom of the labor market do not really compete with natives. It is true that 56.8 percent of newly arrived immigrants had no more than a high school education. However, there are more than 3 million native-born workers in Texas who have no more than a high school education. Between 2007 and 2011 the number of native-born Texans with a high school degree or less not working increased by 259,000 and their unemployment rates nearly doubled. It would be very difficult to find evidence that less-educated workers were in short supply in the state.

It must also be remembered that many immigrants are more educated. In fact, 43.2 percent (97,000) of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas had at least some college. Thus it would a mistake to assume that immigrants are only competing for jobs at the bottom end of the labor market.

Data Source:

The Current Population Survey (CPS), also referred as the “household survey”, is the source of data for this analysis. The CPS asks people at their place of residence if they are working. It also asks about their socio-demographic characteristics such as race, education level, age, citizenship, and year of arrival in the United States. Immigrants ,or the foreign-born, are those individuals who were not U.S. citizens at birth and include naturalized citizens, green card holders, guest workers, foreign students, and illegal immigrants. Following the example of other researchers, we use the demographic characteristics of illegal immigrants to estimate the number of illegal immigrants in Texas. In this analysis we compared the second quarter of 2007, before the recession began to the second quarter of 2011, the year for which the most recent data was available.

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: Contact: Steven Camarota, (202) 466-8185, sac@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization




Jewish immigration to Israel increases by almost 20%

Some 21,300 people made aliya during the Jewish year of 5771, the Jewish Agency for Israel announced on Wednesday – an increase of about 19 percent over the previous year. For the third year in a row Jewish immigration from North America was up, reaching 4,070, opposed to 3,720 in 5770.

“We’re very happy with Nefesh B’Nefesh which has made aliya from North America a lot more attractive, but we haven’t seen a dramatic rise in the numbers and that’s why we believe strengthening Jewish identity will bring more people from North America to Israel,” said JAFI Chairman Natan Sharansky in response to the new numbers.

The largest single group of olim this year, like the one before, came from the former Soviet Union. Some 8,200 people made aliya over the past 12 months from Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, the Baltic states and Central Asian countries. But the JAFI chairman shrugged off suggestions this might be the start of a new exodus of Jews from the region.

“Then there were three-million Jews in the USSR,” said the former Refusnik, who was imprisoned by Soviet authorities for years because he wanted to make aliya. “A million went to Israel, a million went elsewhere and now there’s about a million left. Still, it’s one of the biggest Jewish communities that is being both assimilated and strengthening its Jewish identity through summer camps, masa programs and other programs at the same time. I don’t want to get hopes up, but we'll see immigration like this in years to come, but not like during the 90s.”

While aliya from the FSU today may indeed pale in comparison to the great wave of Jewish immigration that took place two decades ago, when hundreds of thousands of Jews left mostly for Israel, the modest resurgence in recent years is surprising considering the overall number of Jews in the region is shrinking.

Another factor setting the current immigration apart from earlier ones is the immigrants’ average age. According to JAFI, over 60% of those who moved to Israel from the FSU over the past 12 months are under the age of 34 – almost double the figures reported in 2005.

“This is a trend that has been increasing: Aliya is younger and better educated,“ Sharansky said. “That’s why JAFI’s activities in the FSU focuses on the young.”

While the largest group of olim may have been from the FSU, the largest proportionate rise in immigration came from Ethiopia. According to JAFI, 2,780 immigrants made aliya from the African country – a hike of 210% from the year before.

The vast majority of Ethiopians making aliya are members of the Falashmura, an ethnic group which claims it was forcibly converted from Judaism to Christianity generations ago. While they would not be eligible to immigrate to the Jewish state under the Law of Return, the government has set up a special track allowing them to immigrate as long as they undergo Orthodox Jewish conversions.

Some 8,000 Falashmura members are expected to make aliya under the current plan, after which the government has said immigration policy from the African country will be the same as the rest of the world. “We promised this will be the last batch and have all the groups in agreement for the first time,” Sharansky said. “After that the policy in Ethiopia will be the same as the one we have elsewhere.” So far, about 2,500 of the 8,000 quota have arrived. The rest are expected to come gradually over the next few years.

Minister of Immigrant Absorption Sofa Landver on Thursday welcomed the rise in the number of olim saying it helped strengthen the Jewish state. “This data demonstrates the continuing trend of rising aliya and the strengthening of Zionism,” said Landver.

“In recent years we have seen consistent aliya, and at this important time the State of Israel must work to maintain the trend and continue to encourage Jews in the Diaspora to immigrate to Israel.”

SOURCE



22 September, 2011

Is Rick Perry 'Soft' on Illegal Immigration?

What the summary below overlooks is that Perry's stance may help him with Hispanics. There's some dispute about it but GWB appears to have got a third of the Hispanic vote and that's not small potatoes.

And it's not going to be an easy run for ANY GOP candidate next year. Obama is down in the polls but far from down and out. The polls almost certainly overestimate support for Obama but will any GOP candidate be as good as he is at talking the talk?

Of the leading GOP presidential candidates, who would you say is the "stronger" and "tougher" conservative, Texas Gov. Rick Perry or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney? Perry, of course, hands down. But on one issue -- immigration -- the answer, surprisingly enough, is Romney. In fact, Perry's stances on immigration are even more moderate than those of many conservative Democrats. And that has some GOP hardliners deeply worried, and potentially anguished, over his candidacy. And if Perry's not careful, it could well provide a political opening for Romney as he tries to blunt Perry's steady drive toward the GOP nomination.

Make no mistake: Perry is no fan of "comprehensive immigration reform" or any other Democratic-sponsored legislation that might give illegal immigrants green cards, or legal residency. And he still talks tough about maintaining border security. But for immigration "restrictionists" who see just about any policy measure short of mass deportation as "soft," Perry's views come dangerously close to "apostasy."

First, there's his opposition to Arizona's harsh crackdown law, SB 1070, which the Obama administration also opposes, even though polls show most of the country still thinks it's good idea. Perry, in a bow to "states' rights," thinks Arizona can pass such a law, if it wants, but he doesn't think Texas needs one. He's also not a big fan of "E-Verify," the computerized screening system that conservatives want to use to weed out illegal immigrants at the workplace. Progressives have attacked E-Verify as unreliable, and potentially discriminatory, and business groups, whom Perry supports, think it could deprive them of cheap labor, threatening their operations.

Perry's also staunchly opposed to the construction of a U.S.-Mexico border fence, a strategy that moderate Republicans like John "Finish-the-Dang-Fence" McCain and even most conservative Democrats support. Like his opposition to SB 1070, that stance almost seems to place Perry in alliance with the political left, which sees the border fence as a symbol of fear and xenophobia and the moral equivalent of the Berlin Wall.

But Perry's no border "dove." He's more than willing to wage war against Mexico's drug and crime lords and to "militarize" the border, if need be. But he thinks the best way to fight illegal immigration is with advanced sensor and surveillance technology, plus more border patrol agents. Building a scalable fence, he quips, is merely a "boon to the ladder business."

More troubling for Perry, perhaps, is his defense of a Texas bill that gives illegal immigrant students the same access to in-state college tuition subsidies as their native-born counterparts. That's a big no-no with immigration opponents, who see benefit programs of this sort as a stepping-stone to "amnesty." Perry will have a much harder time explaining his position to conservatives at a time when anti-immigration groups are fighting Texas-style bills elsewhere, including, most recently, in Maryland, where they've gathered enough signatures to demand a public referendum on their state's new tuition law.

Perry's certainly not the only Republican with more nuanced views on immigration. In some respects, his views echo those of George W. Bush, his gubernatorial predecessor (though Bush did support an amnesty program as part of "comprehensive immigration reform.") And at least two other GOP candidates, Jon Huntsman and Newt Gingrich, share Perry's views, including support for a nationwide "guest worker" program that U.S. business groups support (they want guaranteed access to cheap labor, if the illegal labor pool dries up) but that leading "restricitionists" like Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), the chairman of the powerful GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee, which oversees immigration, oppose.

But, of course, neither Huntsman nor Gingrich is in serious contention for the GOP nomination, as Perry is, which is why Romney, who's flip-flopped on immigration (and just about everything else in the past) sees the issue as one he might score big points with and possibly use to drive a wedge between Perry and the far right. So far, it hasn't worked, but Romney and Perry's Tea Party rival Rep. Michele Bachmann, who's fading fast and seeking to get back into contention, are just getting warmed up. The next GOP presidential debate is tomorrow night, Sept. 22, in Orlando, Fla., with Perry, Romney, Bachmann and Gingrich all poised for their most contentious and campaign-defining encounter yet. Are most conservatives willing to look past Perry's "apostasy" on illegal immigration in the interest of beating Obama? Or could the growing dispute over this issue engulf the entire GOP campaign?

SOURCE





How To Fix Our Illegal Immigration Problem In 5 Steps

John Hawkins

Illegal immigration has become a heads-we-win / tails-you-lose proposition in this country. If the supporters of amnesty and open borders could get that codified into law, they would. Since they can't, they support comprehensive illegal immigration reform, with the idea being that the amnesty will occur, but they'll stall and slow-walk the security measures into oblivion. Since the people are onto that ploy and have demanded security first, the latest tactic is just to refuse to enforce the law. We can pass a bill that says we're putting a fence on our southern border, but we can't get the fence built. We can catch illegal aliens, but then ICE just releases them. Meanwhile, both parties talk about how important securing the border is, even as they deliberately take steps to make sure it never gets secured.

Why does this happen? Democrats believe, correctly, that illegal aliens would vote heavily Democratic if they become American citizens. So, the more illegal aliens that become American citizens, the more votes Democrats get. Many establishment Republicans foolishly believe that they need to be soft on illegal aliens to bring in more Hispanic voters. How bringing in millions of new votes for the other party -- so you can lose by a smaller margin with a block of voters who are already here -- makes sense as a winning electoral strategy is hard to figure. Additionally, both parties, but particularly the Republicans, have been influenced by sleazy businessmen who want to benefit from cheap illegal labor, while foisting all the costs on the rest of society.

This is why the problem doesn't get solved. The reality is that if the people in D.C. actually want to put an end to illegal immigration, they could do it within a year or two without resorting to the open borders and amnesty crowd's favorite imaginary bugaboo: rounding up millions of people, one by one, and deporting them.

How do we do it?

1) E-verify: This is the single most important thing we can do to combat illegal immigration because it gets to the root of why most illegals are coming here and staying here: jobs. If we mandate E-Verify -- which is really just a way to check the validity of Social Security numbers -- and the government puts the resources into the program, it will lock illegal aliens out of the overwhelming majority of jobs in America. Once we get to that point, there's no reason for most illegals to come here or for most of the illegals that are already here to stay here. So, if the flow of illegals into the country dramatically slows and the illegals that are already here begin to self-deport because they have no work, the biggest part of the problem is solved.

2) Finish the fence: The standard line from the open borders and amnesty crowd about the fence is, "If you build a thirty foot fence, somebody will just grab a forty foot ladder." However, we have built the fence out in a few places on our border and what we've found is that it actually works extremely well.

You've got to understand the purpose of the fence. It's not the end-all and be-all in border security; it's just a force multiplier. Illegals avoid areas where there's a fence and you don't need as much manpower there. That enables you to concentrate your manpower in other areas where it's impractical to build a fence (and there are some of those, such as where the border is a river and you'd be cutting off American livestock from their water supply).

We've already passed a law to build a fence on the border and it was supposed to be done in 2009. All we have to do is get the government to stop deliberately dragging its feet and finish the job.

3) More resources: The agencies that enforce our immigration laws may be the only thing in the entire federal government that's being deliberately underfunded. We don't have enough border patrol agents, we don't have enough agents enforcing the law internally, we don't have enough resources to detain the illegals we catch, we don't put the money that's needed in E-Verify, and for that matter, we don't even have enough resources to adequately handle legal immigration. Again, this is all by design. Heads, we win / Tails, you lose. You can pass any law you want, but if the government won't fund the people needed to enforce it and it won't put the resources needed to make sure that if we capture someone, we can hold onto him until he’s deported, then the law isn't going to be effective.

4) An effective visa program: One of the dirty legal secrets of illegal immigration is that as many as half of the illegals didn't sneak over the border. Instead, they came here legally with a visa and just didn't leave.

That's actually pretty easy for people to do since, believe it or not, the United States doesn't have an effective system for telling whether visa holders leave the country. If you come here on a visa and choose not to leave when it expires, chances are that the government has no idea you're still here. Technically, I-94 forms are supposed to be presented when visa holders leave the country, but there's minimal enforcement, people from 36 countries are exempt, and very little money and manpower are put into tracking down people who overstay their visas – like, for example, 4 of the 9/11 hijackers.

Unless we insist on having these forms filled out and start making a real attempt to track down more than a tiny fraction of the people who overstay their visas, we're not going to fix our illegal immigration problem.

5) Anyone caught doesn't ever come back legally: We've set up a system where there's no permanent penalty for being an illegal. If you try to cross the border and get caught, we send you back. If you do manage to make it across, you probably won't get caught. However, if you do, we may just let you go. Even if you do get deported, well, no big deal. You just try to creep back in and the cycle starts all over again. In theory, the penalties for "illegal re-entry" into the U.S. are harsh, but in practice they're often non-existent. Just ask Obama's Auntie Zeituni who was instructed to leave the country, didn't do it, got caught again and was allowed to stay here, in public housing, on the dole.

Here's an alternate idea. If you get caught in the United States illegally, we fingerprint you, take a DNA sample, and you are NEVER allowed to become a citizen or enter the United States legally again. That means if you have relatives here, you will NEVER be able to legally visit them. If we ever do create a guest worker program that you could potentially participate in, you'll be locked out. If you ever hope to be an American citizen, that will be off the table.

Some illegals won't care at all about this penalty, but for many illegals, this would be a tremendous disincentive to enter or stay in the United States illegally. You want to see illegals "self-deport?" This one change would drive millions of them out of the country.

SOURCE



21 September, 2011

Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. A Bleak Employment Picture for the Young (Memorandum)

2. Illegal Immigrants Receive Billions of Dollars More from the IRS than They Pay in (Memorandum)

3. The To-Do List (Memorandum)

4. The New Challenge of Medically Caring for the Poor (Blog)

5. Russian News, the Hershey J-1 Protest, and American Values (Blog)

6. New Audit on H-1B Visas (Blog)

7. Common Sense from Across the Northern Border? (Blog)

8. Violence spurs 'Mexodo' to the United States (Blog)

9. DHS Says 'Yes' to Thousands of Illegals Wanting to Leave the U.S. and Return (Blog)

10. Boycott? Never Mind! (Blog)

11. Will the Justice Department Sue? (Blog)

12. USCIS Decides to Burden its Own Appeals Unit with Extra Paper (Blog)

13. USCIS Devotes Much Staff Time to Abused Alien Step-Parents of Citizens (Blog)

14. Time to Sanction the Sanctuaries (Blog)

15. Disentangling Fee-Waiver Data from the USCIS Statistical Swamp (Blog)

16. Thinking of First Responders (Blog)






The Sorry State of Immigration

The conventional wisdom among conservatives is that if President Obama wins a second term, things on the immigration policy front will become worse. But it’s difficult to see how the situation could become much worse when the state of immigration in the US today is in chaos and disarray, with no foreseeable political will to fix it.

Republicans are much more divided on immigration than Democrats. Many pro-business GOPers support lax immigration enforcement and full or partial amnesty for illegal aliens already in the country. Rank-and-file Republicans and Tea Party supporters tend to take a harder line on immigration, favoring more aggressive enforcement of existing laws. They want illegals deported.

And decades of liberal immigration policies have taken their toll on border-state politicians. Even GOP governors have felt the need to run to the left on immigration issues at election time.

A case in point is the leading Republican contender for the presidency, Texas Gov. Rick Perry​, whose stance on immigration isn’t much different than Obama’s.

Some of Perry’s policy positions as a governor are almost the mirror image of Obama’s. In 2001 Perry implemented a Lone Star State version of national Democrats’ proposed DREAM Act in Texas. It gave students with three years residency in Texas in-state tuition rates.

In one important respect it is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Obama favors giving illegal aliens a so-called path to citizenship. Perry doesn’t — and couldn’t — because immigration and naturalization are federal matters.

Nonetheless Perry’s similarity to Obama on this hot-button issue is already making some segments of the Tea Party movement uncomfortable with the otherwise appealing candidate.

Perry has assured conservatives that his support for the Texas-style DREAM Act was a one-shot deal and that he won’t enact similar legislation at the federal level.

But the point is arguably moot. Obama’s recently unveiled federal DREAM Act-by-fiat provides relief from deportation using criteria that largely mirror the proposed federal DREAM Act. Like all amnesties it rewards lawbreaking and serves as a flashing green light to would-be illegal immigrants, inviting them to jump the queue. Amnesties beget amnesties. Each one increases the likelihood that another immigration amnesty will follow in the future – and so on and so on and so on.

Despite this slippery political maneuver President Obama is deporting record numbers of illegals. He’s sent close to 400,000 undocumented migrants packing in each of the last two years. The 400,000 figure is almost 10 percent more than President Bush deported in 2008 and 25 percent more than Bush sent home in 2007.

Obama’s uncharacteristic interest in enforcing the nation’s laws by booting illegals out of the country has earned him the scorn of pro-open borders left-wingers like Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). The radical congressman deliberately got himself arrested while protesting Obama’s policy on deportations outside the White House in July before the president’s targeted amnesty was announced.

But critics like Gutierrez are delighted with other aspects of Obama’s approach to immigration. Under Obama, the federal government has taken the bizarre step of joining a foreign government, Mexico, in suing Arizona to overturn that state’s immigration law.

President Obama has also issued a host of “quasi-amnesties,” according to David North of the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies. “These creeping, partial amnesties indirectly encourage additional migration, including illegal migration,” he writes. Some of these programs provide taxpayer-funded benefits even to aliens who are facing deportation, North adds.

Would Perry or any of the other Republican presidential candidates do a better job on immigration issues, or would they “grow in office” after being inaugurated? We’ll have to wait and see.

One thing’s for certain, though: America’s immigration system is an incoherent mess – just the way the Left likes it. Highly skilled, self-sufficient workers have to run a gauntlet of onerous regulations while illegal immigrants sneak into the country to gain free taxpayer-provided healthcare, tuition, and housing.

Some leftists are openly contemptuous of the rule of law. They’re not shy about admitting that the Left uses America’s confusing immigration system to promote so-called social justice.

Eliseo Medina​, secretary treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, says that boosting immigration levels will help push America further leftward. Immigration “will solidify and expand the progressive coalition for the future,” said Medina who is an honorary chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America (along with Marxists Frances Fox Piven and Cornel West​). The purpose of immigration, says Medina, is to “create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”

Long ago the Left figured out how to use taxpayer resources to promote progressive-left policies. The Democrats’ cherished National Voter Registration Act has allowed many illegals to unofficially participate in the electoral process since President Clinton​ signed it into law in 1993. The so-called Motor-Voter law was envisioned by Marxists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who lobbied for it, as a way to swamp voter rolls with ineligible voters and encourage massive voter fraud.

The federal law requires that everyone applying for certain government benefits be given an opportunity to register to vote. Government workers processing claims for public benefits are prohibited even from asking applicants if they are U.S. citizens.

As I write this article the Obama administration may be planning more made-in-America mayhem by engineering an overhaul of election laws that would make voter fraud by illegal immigrants even easier than it is now. Two weeks ago I reported the disturbing news that attorney Estelle H. Rogers, director of advocacy at ACORN-affiliated Project Vote, visited the White House earlier this year. Rogers, who maintains voter fraud is a figment of Republicans’ collective imagination, met with a senior aide to Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett and with Van Jones​’s former chief of staff.

Watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department, demanding copies of all correspondence between department officials and Rogers. Judicial Watch said it is investigating the extent to which the department and Project Vote, Obama’s former employer, “are partnering on a national campaign to use the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) to register more individuals on public assistance, widely considered a key voting demographic for the Obama 2012 campaign.”

Could illegal aliens, many of whom are dependent on welfare, provide the margin of victory for Obama next year, allowing him to further undermine America’s immigration laws?

And given the policy stances of leading Republicans on immigration matters, does it really make a difference who wins? Time will tell

SOURCE



20 September, 2011

Perry challenged to act on immigration proposal

Texas Tea Party leaders, challenging Rick Perry to dispel doubts about his stance on illegal immigration, on Monday demanded that the Texas governor call lawmakers back to work to enact a controversial "sanctuary cities" bill and other major immigration measures.

The sanctuary cities bill would freeze state funding for local governments that prohibit officers from asking detainees about their immigration status. The measure provoked one of the Legislature's most contentious debates this year and failed to survive the 140-day regular session and a subsequent special session.

Although Perry proclaimed the bill a top priority, the measure drew behind-the-scenes resistance from influential business leaders, including Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, one of the governor's biggest individual political donors. Hispanic lawmakers openly assailed the bill, saying it would lead to racial profiling.

A half-dozen Tea Party leaders urged the front-running Republican presidential candidate to either call a special session to enact the sanctuary cities bill or issue an executive order that would have the same effect. At least two of Perry's Republican presidential opponents have sought to portray Perry as being weak on immigration because of his support of a 2007 Texas law that grants in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.

"Gov. Perry needs to clarify his position on illegal immigration," said JoAnn Fleming of Tyler, chair of the Texas Tea Party Caucus Advisory Committee. "He needs to come back to Texas and finish this unfinished business."

The Tea Party representatives presented Perry's office with stacks of letters containing more than 3,000 signatures.

"Although we do not necessarily hold you completely responsible for the inexcusable actions of the House and Senate members during the regular and special sessions, the ball is now squarely in your court," said the letter. "It is solely within your power as Governor to call the legislature into session and demand they complete the important work that they promised their constituents they would do."

The letter cited a recent University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll showing that Texas voters consider illegal immigration the most important problem facing the state. Inadequate border security ranked second.

"We welcome support for efforts to outlaw sanctuary city policies and encourage those interested to communicate their concerns to members of the Texas Legislature.," said Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed. "Gov. Perry already agrees that sanctuary city policies must end.

Perry designated the sanctuary city bill as an emergency item that made it a fast-track priority. After it collapsed during the regular session, Perry included the measure among several items for consideration in the special session that he called to deal with unfinished budget business.

Perry's support of the in-state tuition measure drew national attention in a Republican debate last week when Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann charged that the Texas law gives "taxpayer subsidized benefits to people who have broken our laws."

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who vetoed legislation providing instate tuition for illegal immigration, has also seized on the issue as part of his effort to retake the lead from Perry in the Republican nomination race.

More HERE





Tough talk on immigration a boost for Australia's Leftist government

JULIA Gillard could be forced to accept onshore processing of asylum-seekers because of a political deadlock over legislation to revive Labor's Malaysia Solution.

Yesterday, Tony Abbott crushed the Prime Minister's people swap deal with Malaysia by saying he would process asylum-seekers in third countries only if they were signatories to the UN convention on the treatment of refugees.

The Opposition Leader's stance ruled out Malaysia but allowed him to cling to his alternative proposal of processing asylum-seekers on the Pacific island of Nauru using facilities built by the Howard government.

As the impasse continues, a Newspoll indicates Ms Gillard's battle for offshore processing has coincided with an increase in her personal popularity among voters.

After two weeks of daily battle over her plan to circumvent last month's High Court ruling, which scuttled her Malaysia Solution, voter satisfaction with the Prime Minister's performance lifted from her lowest level on record.

According to the latest Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, voter satisfaction with Ms Gillard jumped from 23 per cent to 27 per cent and dissatisfaction fell seven percentage points from 68 per cent to 61 per cent.

As the Coalition stridently opposed the Malaysia Solution, Mr Abbott's personal approval fell five percentage points to 34 per cent and his disapproval rating climbed from 52 per cent to 54 per cent.

The government's bid to revive offshore processing remained deadlocked last night, as neither major party has the numbers to prevail, while the Greens, who control the Senate, oppose offshore processing in any form.

Last night, as he attacked the Coalition's position, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen conceded that if Labor's amendments, to be introduced to parliament tomorrow, were not passed, offshore processing would remain unlawful - the Greens position. "Therefore the obvious result of that is onshore processing," Mr Bowen said.

Last week, Ms Gillard, determined to press ahead with the Malaysia plan to deter people-smugglers from bringing asylum-seekers to Australia by boat, proposed an amendment to the Migration Act that would allow offshore processing in a location to be determined by the government of the day.

Yesterday, responding to concerns from the opposition and Labor's Left faction about the human rights of those sent to Malaysia, Ms Gillard proposed new amendments that would clearly specify that Malaysia could not send any asylum-seekers back to their country of origin and that would guarantee asylum claims would be processed in Malaysia, which is not a signatory to UN conventions.

She later told parliament the changes delivered on the "basic tenets" of the UN convention and, when coupled with agreements between the Australian and Malaysian governments, provided ample protection for the rights of the asylum-seekers.

"The eyes of the Australian community are upon us," Ms Gillard said during question time. "At the end of the day, this is not a debate between two competing policy positions - it is about executive government having the power to put in operation arrangements it sees as appropriate.

"Australians want us to resolve this issue and put it behind us. Australians want us to find common ground on this and get this done."

Mr Abbott said he was not prepared to back the Malaysia plan because it was bad policy. He said offshore processing only in those nations that had signed the UN refugee convention would "restore offshore processing, while retaining offshore protections". "It's a much superior proposal to what the government has put forward," he said. "Our proposal is a win-win."

Mr Abbott said the Coalition's policy position had been "crystal clear" for a decade. He invoked former prime minister John Howard's declaration that "we will determine who comes to this country and the circumstances under which they come".

Last night, Mr Bowen said the opposition wanted to stop the Malaysia agreement being implemented because Mr Abbott feared it would work.

But a meeting of Coalition MPs endorsed Mr Abbott's position. "If Julia Gillard wants to stop the boats she should support the Coalition's proposed amendments," Mr Abbott said after the meeting. "The right way to stop the boats is the combination of Nauru, temporary protection visas and turning boats around where it's safe to do so.

More HERE



19 September, 2011

Overstaying visa holders targeted by feds in terror sweep

The feds revealed Tuesday they're putting new scrutiny on immigrants who overstay visas. Agents are running overstayed-visa files through multiple security, immigration and law enforcement databases, a top Homeland Security official said.

They are automatically checking for national security risks, said John Cohen, the department's principal deputy coordinator for counterterrorism. In the past, officials had to manually check each one.

Cohen said at a congressional hearing on visa security that the new system is "a pretty fully baked approach to how we're going to deal with this issue."

Homeland Security has been under pressure to update visa screening since its creation - after four of the 9/11 hijackers were in the country on out-of-date or invalid visas.

Although the Obama administration said this summer that Immigration and Customs Enforcement should prioritize deportations - and allow noncriminals and those with family ties to the U.S. to stay - all overstayed visas will be vetted for security concerns, regardless of priority, Cohen said.

Before the department began automatically screening the visas this spring, a backlog of 1.6 million unchecked overstays mounted.

After running automated checks, they found that 800,000 had either fixed their visa status or left the country, Cohen said.

They then went through the 839,000 that were left and flagged 2,000 that warranted investigation for national security or public safety reasons, Cohen said.

Many of those were either already in jail or out of the country, but Cohen said that by July, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were pursuing a dozen new leads.

In their review of the visa program, the 9/11 Commission also recommended setting up a biometric exit program that would "log out" immigrants here on visas when they leave the country.

This was never fully put in place, and Homeland Security officials have said it would be too expensive.

SOURCE





Farmers edgy over new Alabama law

Keith Smith believes Monday's meeting between farmers and lawmakers is an opportunity to solve a difficult part of the immigration debate in Alabama.

At noon Monday, Smith — a Gold Ridge farmer — will join other farmers in a meeting state legislators from Cullman County and other areas to discuss labor issues facing the agriculture community under the pending immigration law. The meeting will be at Jack's Truck Stop Restaurant in Good Hope, a popular gathering place and frequent host for political meetings.

The seriousness of the issue, which farmers contend could wreck crop production and harvests in Alabama, is also shared by state Sen. Paul Bussman, R-Cullman, who voted for the bill.

While Bussman campaigned for a tough immigration law, he noted even before its passage that challenges were likely. He also has expressed a willingness to tweak the law under certain conditions — chiefly that workers become documented.

A common ground may be emerging for Monday's discussion. Bussman and Smith have both expressed interest in exploring the potential of establishing a work permit program for farm workers from other countries. Bussman wants a system in which the workers would be documented and pay the permit cost as a means of providing the state and counties money. But the senator stresses that whatever system can be adopted should provide a means of making the workers fall within an acceptable legal status.

“What I'm going in to get is input from the agriculture community. I want firsthand information about the issues they are facing,” Bussman said. “I've been in touch with ALFA (Alabama Farmers Federation) to see if they can attend. I'm open to any suggestions, but we've got to have people who are legal. What I'm talking mainly about is a work permit. If they can't find workers we could look at this, but we want to know who they are and where they are," Bussman said.

According to the state’s deputy agriculture commissioner, Brett Hall, small Alabama farmers have not found the going easy in trying to replace the undocumented workers with the kind of home-grown labor the new law’s advocates have claimed the profusion of illegal laborers was suppressing.

“[Agriculture commissioner] John McMillan has been on the road quite a bit this year, and when he was going through North Alabama — especially in Jackson and Etowah counties — there were people in the produce business who were complaining about all the workers who were leaving,” said Hall.

“They’ve advertised for workers to come out — they need anywhere from 30 to 90 workers in the picking season, and they pay about twelve to fourteen dollars an hour for day labor to pick squash, apples, tomatoes — and they can’t get anybody. Or, people will come out and do it for a couple of hours, and then they walk away. It’s hot and it’s hard work, and people just don’t want to do it, but these people [undocumented workers] will. They’re Latino workers, and they work hard.”

Echoing local farmer Smith, Hall said the sudden labor shortage hits Cullman County farmers as hard as any others.

“Cullman is the number-one poultry producing county in the state, and they’re heavily dependent on this labor, but I’m sure you’ve heard from farmers up there already about how severely they’ve been impacted.”

Senator Bussman, like many legislators who supported the immigration bill, campaigned on a platform that included establishing a tough law because of the federal government's failure to address the issue. Many lawmakers have said that constituents overwhelmingly favored a tough state law.

Smith said he understands the sentiment that drove legislators to create the law, which is currently being held up by a federal judge who is reviewing challenges. Nevertheless, the longtime sweet potato farmer also believes that voters did not get a full view of the complications the law would cause for farming.

“I still believe it was all politics. I think there was a rush to do this without fully considering the consequences,” Smith said. “This issue involves every family that sits down at a table to eat. You have to have the labor or you can't produce. The idea that Alabamians are going to come out and do these jobs, it's not going to happen."

Smith said Alabama is still primarily a state heavily populated by family farms in the agriculture community. He said federal guidelines for hiring migrant workers are too lengthy and expensive for family farms.

“I think the federal guidelines better suit the large, corporate farms. But in states like Alabama our ability to produce would be drastically reduced. Without an available labor force, the produce is going to come from Chile and China and places that don't have regulations that safeguard your crops," Smith said. "Somebody's going to have to take a stand against this. That's what we're attempting do and I think it's going to spread.”

Nonetheless, Smith said he is going into Monday's meeting with an open mind. He wants the exchange of ideas to be sincere and absent of any political positioning from everyone involved.

“This is not about politics," Smith said. "This is about farming and all the people of Alabama. We need to exchange some ideas and see what can be worked out. This is a public issue, not politics.”

Deputy commissioner Hall said his office does not keep official statistics on the possible number of undocumented laborers working on Alabama farms.

“We have no stats on that,” said Hall. “You’re the first ones to ask me that. All we do have are the anecdotal observations of people who have noticed, over the past year and a half, that the number of people from Latin American countries — especially Mexico and Guatemala — have been leaving, as the economy of Mexico has improved over the past 12 months. And, certainly, the other industries like construction in Alabama have been on the downslide.”

Even if the flow of outbound undocumented laborers was only a trickle before Alabama’s tough immigration law was passed earlier this year, Hall said the exodus became a flood as the law’s Sept. 1 effective date neared.

“In anticipation of the law that went into effect, starting maybe around Memorial Day, all we know is that a tremendous number of people have left the state — and they’ve left Georgia as well.”

If leaving town before the start date of the new law was their goal, the flight of undocumented workers may have been premature.

Federal judge Sharon Blackburn enjoined the new law from taking effect only days before Sept. 1, and is expected to issue a final ruling in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law before the end of the month.

Federal judges in other states have already blocked similar laws, citing jurisdictional conflict that wrests the power to make and enforce immigration law from the federal government.

SOURCE



18 September, 2011

Muslim immigrants to Britain have children for the welfare benefits, says Asian peer

The UK's first female Asian peer has used a debate in the Lords to criticise Pakistani and Bangladeshi families for having too many children.

Baroness Flather suggested people in some minority communities had a large number of children in order to be able to claim more benefits. The peer, born in Lahore before the partition of India, said the issue did not apply to families of Indian origin.

The cross-bencher said benefit cuts could help to discourage extra births.

Baroness Flather, speaking during a debate on the government's welfare changes, said: "The minority communities in this country, particularly the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis have a very large number of children and the attraction is the large number of benefits that follow the child.

"Nobody likes to accept that, nobody likes to talk about it because it is supposed to be very politically incorrect."

The 67-year-old said that immigrant families must stop having lots of children "as a means of improving the amount of money they receive or getting a bigger house."

Indians 'different'

The former Tory peer also claimed Indian families had a different mentality to Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities in the UK.

"Indians have fallen into the pattern here," she told peers. "They do not have large families because they are like the Jews of old. They want their children to be educated.

"This is the other problem - there is no emphasis on education in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi families."

Baroness Flather called for a gradual reduction in benefits in order to discourage large families and suggested payments should be reduced after a couple's first two children.

She said: "I really feel that for the first two children there should be a full raft of benefits, for the third child three-quarters and for the fourth child a half."

Baroness Flather's comments were not well-received by Labour work and pensions spokesman Lord McKenzie.

Concluding the argument for the opposition, he told the Lords: "I had not expected the treatise on the family sizes of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities and hope I don't again."

Welfare reform minister Lord Freud, replying to the debate, did not refer to Lady Flather's comments.

The Welfare Reform Bill is the biggest shake-up of the benefits system for 60 years. A universal payment to replace income-related work-based benefits, such as child tax credit, is planned, as are stricter rules for people losing their benefits if they refuse a job.

SOURCE






Tough "asylum seeker" laws proposed by Australia's Leftist government

Conservatives dubious

Under the legislation the Immigration Minister could send asylum seekers to a third country of his choice.

Legal experts say they are concerned the draft legislation allowing asylum seekers to be processed offshore may be structured so it cannot be challenged in court.

The proposed changes to the Migration Act were announced on Friday night and have drawn strong criticism from the Opposition, the Greens and human rights advocates. Under the changes, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen would have broad powers to send refugees to a third country for processing if he can prove to Parliament that it is in the public interest.

The Government needs the changes to be allowed in order to resurrect the so-called Malaysian solution which was scuttled in the High Court last month.

Mr Bowen has stood by the draft legislation even after being heckled and chased by protesters at a press conference in Sydney on Saturday.

Among those against the changes are legal experts, who say the legislation would shred Australia's obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention. Australian Lawyers Alliance president Greg Barns says he is concerned Mr Bowen will include a clause in the legislation that would mean the powers cannot be challenged in court. "Which means that it will say that a decision of the Minister is not appealable in any court of law in Australia," he said. "In other words, it'll just leave it to the Minister effectively to play God, with people's lives."

But he says even if that is the case the laws may still be open to challenge as Australia has obligations under international human rights conventions. "It may be that this particular clause is so offensive through the rule of law that the courts might find creative ways of dealing with it," he said.

David Manne, the lawyer who bought the landmark case to the High Court, says the draft changes would destroy human rights safeguards for asylum seekers. "These proposals go well beyond what the Government said the problem was that it wanted to fix after the High Court decision," he said.

"It's a matter of profound concern that they're seeking to strip the Act of key protections that the Minister was required to turn his mind to in deciding whether it was safe to expel someone
to a particular place; requirements that the Parliament agreed to a decade ago."

The draft legislation says it is for the Immigration Minister to decide which countries should be designated as offshore processing countries and the rules of natural justice would no longer apply. All the Minister would have to do is tell Parliament which country he plans to send asylum seekers to and why it is in the public interest.

The Government proposes the Minister gives Parliament a copy of any written agreement between Australia and the third country, but the agreement would not have to be binding.

Despite being mobbed by about 40 protesters shouting "shame Bowen, shame", Mr Bowen has stood by the proposal. "The government of the day should have the capacity to introduce its policies, to be accountable to parliament to do so. That's what our legislation proposes," he said. "As I've said, if there are constructive suggestions as to that legislation, we'll be happy to work those through in good faith, with people proposing them in good faith."

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was briefed on the changes on Friday night and Mr Bowen has urged him to support the Government's plans. Mr Abbott so far appears unlikely to back the move, saying it would remove human rights protections, resulting in a system of "offshore dumping". "My initial response and that of my senior colleagues is that the draft legislation strips out protections that the Howard government thought was necessary," Mr Abbott said.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has invited Mr Abbott to meet her on Monday to discuss offshore processing, saying despite their policy differences it is important to work towards "bipartisan
action" to restore a government's right to determine border protection policy.

SOURCE



17 September, 2011

The Cash-for-Visas Program

Michelle Malkin

As part of his warmed-over jobs plan, President Obama is repackaging "Buy American" stimulus subsidies to help hard-hit homegrown businesses. At the same time, however, Congress is pushing to expand a fraud-riddled investor program that puts U.S. citizenship for sale to the highest foreign business bidders. Call it the Buy America Cash-for-Visas plan.

As I first reported 10 years ago, the EB-5 immigrant investor program was created under an obscure section of the 1990 Immigration Act. The law allows 10,000 wealthy foreigners a year to purchase green cards by investing between $500,000 and $1 million in new commercial enterprises or troubled businesses. After two years, foreign investors, their spouses and their children all receive permanent resident status -- which allows them to contribute to U.S. political campaigns and provides a speedy gateway to citizenship. The program is set to expire in 2012.

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee's Immigration subpanel entertained calls to save the EB-5 law. Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren is sponsoring a bill to salvage the immigrant investor visas. The legislation (sponsored by open-borders Democrat John Kerry and Republican Richard Lugar in the Senate) also creates a second program with lower barriers to entry that would provide "start-up visas" for foreign entrepreneurs. They would be granted unconditional permanent-resident status if they create a government-determined number of jobs.

And there's the rub. Obama's make-believe math on stimulus jobs saved or created -- coupled with the snowballing $535 million, stimulus-funded Solyndra solar company bankruptcy scandal -- tells you all you need to know about Washington's credibility in picking economic winners and losers.

If the feds can't be trusted to invest government subsidies wisely in American companies, how can they possibly determine which overseas investors will be successful here? And if top U.S. loan officials have demonstrated such sloppy, politically driven disregard for financial due diligence on risky half-billion-dollar enterprises, how can immigration officials be trusted to better protect the national interest?

Answer: They can't. In fact, the benefits of the EB-5 economic development plan have gone to former Immigration and Naturalization Service officials who formed lucrative limited partnerships to cash in on their access, and to shady foreign fraudsters.

Whistleblowers told me how immigrant investors paid token fees to these partnerships. The partnerships secured promissory notes for the remainder of the foreign investments, which were forgiven after investors received their permanent green cards. Former INS employees, working for these partnerships, aggressively lobbied their old colleagues to accept such bogus financial arrangements. As a result, according to an internal U.S. Justice Department investigative report, "aliens were paying $125K" instead of the required $500,000 to $1 million minimum, and "almost all of the monies went to the General Partners and the companies who set up the limited partners."

In 2007, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that the "program between 1995 and 1998 was frequently abused when would-be immigrants were allowed to pay a small amount in cash for a green card, signing a promissory note for the balance. The note didn't come due for several years -- long after the two-year conditional period built into the EB-5 visa had ended and permanent residency had been granted."

An earlier Baltimore Sun investigation found "only a tiny fraction of the money ever made it to the companies seeking assistance." Many of the distressed U.S. firms that the program intended to help have closed because they never received promised funding.

Instead of allowing the troubled program to sunset, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has "streamlined" the EB-5 immigrant investor green card process -- guaranteeing processing within 15 calendar days for foreign business "projects that are fully developed and ready to be implemented." The same expedited rush for government-directed investments gave us Solyndra. What's worse in this case is the sordid peddling of the privileges of citizenship.

Twenty years ago, when the program's failures were first exposed, Rep. John W. Bryant, a Texas Democrat, protested on the House floor: "This provision is an unbelievable departure from our tradition of cherishing our most precious birthright as Americans. Have we no self-respect as a nation? Are we so broke we have to sell our birthright?"

Apparently so.

SOURCE







Illegal immigrant lived in British hospital for more than a year despite being well because red tape prevented doctors discharging him

An illegal immigrant who had no entitlement to NHS care has spent 13 months blocking a hospital bed – at a cost to taxpayers of £100,000.

The Pakistani national should have left the country when his visa expired four years ago. He became an ‘overstayer’ and was still in Britain when he suffered a heart attack last summer.

The unidentified man received treatment and was declared fit enough to be discharged in August last year. But he has remained on a ward ever since because the UK Border Agency has been unable to fix a date with Pakistan International Airlines to fly him back to his home country. Although fit to be discharged, he does need long-term nursing care, which would ordinarily be provided in the community or by a care home.

The case came to light after it was raised in Parliament by Tory MP Margot James, who branded the delays ‘an outrageous abuse of NHS resources’ and an ‘appalling case of bureaucratic inertia’.

It is understood the delay in discharging him from Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley has in part been caused by difficulties in arranging for a medical escort to accompany him home, while his family in Pakistan have struggled to find suitable nursing care for him there.

The patient could not be transferred to an immigration removal centre pending deportation because they do not have the facilities to care for his medical needs.

Miss James, MP for Stourbridge, decided to raise the matter in Parliament after Paula Clark, chief executive of the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, contacted her saying she was still awaiting a discharge date from the UK Border Agency.

During Home Office questions on Tuesday, Miss James called on immigration minister Damian Green to ensure illegal immigrants who receive NHS treatment are repatriated as soon as that treatment is concluded.

The minister said the Government took a robust stance on abuse of NHS services and the patient would be removed in the ‘near future’. The MP said although the man was not eligible for NHS treatment, ‘we’re not the sort of country to refuse medical care and I don’t think we should be’.

She added: ‘The failure in the system was the failure to remove him when his visa ran out and the fact that the UK Border Agency and Pakistan International Airlines couldn’t get their act together.’

The patient was initially treated at the Royal London Hospital following a heart attack and subsequent hypoxic brain injury, but was transferred to Dudley in July 2010 because he had a relative there.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘NHS managers need to explain why they spent so much money on a bed blocker not entitled to free health care in the UK. They’re running a hospital not a hotel. Taxpayers can’t afford to pay for an international health service.’

Julie Bailey, of campaign group Cure the NHS, said it was ‘absurd’ that an illegal immigrant had been able to block a hospital bed for more than a year.

In theory, any foreigner who receives NHS treatment is meant to pay back all of its costs. But human rights laws state NHS staff must treat every patient who comes through their doors who has a life-threatening condition, even if they are not actually entitled to it. Many foreign patients fly home and illegal immigrants disappear without ever paying the NHS for their treatment.

The latest figures show that the NHS is owed around £7million from so-called health tourists who received some form of treatment in the last year alone.

In a statement on behalf of the hospital trust, Miss Clark said: ‘We are working with the UK Border Agency to ensure our patient is discharged safely and are awaiting a discharge date from them.

‘Our patient needed acute hospital care when admitted into hospital with complex medical conditions and was medically fit to be discharged in August 2010 but required ongoing nursing care. ‘The cost of care to the hospital has been in excess of £100,000.’

The UKBA said it first became aware of the case last December. Gail Adams, its regional director, said: ‘The NHS is a national, not an international, health service and we will not tolerate its abuse which is why arrangements for removal have been made in this complex case. We will remove those not entitled to remain in the country, even where medically difficult, and will provide medical escorts to remove those undergoing treatment if needed.’

SOURCE



16 September, 2011

Most migrants to Britain on a marriage visa have never visited the UK

Two-thirds of immigrants who come to Britain on a marriage visa have never before set foot in this country, it has emerged. Every year some 40,000 migrants enter the country either to marry or to join an existing spouse – bringing with them another 9,000 children and other dependants.

An examination of Home Office files from 2009 revealed 67 per cent were coming here for the first time.

The research will raise concerns that many of those coming here to marry or to join partners have little knowledge and understanding of British culture.

It will be published today as Immigration Minister Damian Green calls for support for Government plans to prevent family visas being used to bypass immigration laws. In a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies think tank, he will tell anyone attempting sham marriages or coming here to live off benefits that they are not welcome.

Mr Green will say: ‘These are sensitive issues which have been ignored for far too long but ones we are determined to tackle. ‘We want a system that lets everyone know where they stand and what their responsibilities are. ‘If your marriage is not genuine, if you have no interest in this country and its way of life, if you are coming here to live off benefits, don’t come in the first place.

‘That is why our focus is on delivering better family migration – better for migrants, for communities and for the UK as a whole.’

The research shows that around eight out of ten of those who arrived on family visas from Pakistani and Bangladesh in 2004 had settled here permanently within five years. That compares to just one in ten family migrants arriving from Australia.

Worryingly, one in five of those sponsoring marriage visas were either unemployed or was earning less than the minimum wage, the research found. One in three was living with family members or friends and not supporting themselves financially.

Last night Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: ‘A surprisingly high proportion of those granted marriage visas appear to be total newcomers to Britain. ‘An inflow of this kind can only add to continuing problems of integrating very large numbers of foreign migrants into our society.’

Mr Green will also condemn the abuse of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the right to a private and family life – by foreign criminals to stay in the country. A series of outrageous rulings have allowed serious offenders to remain here despite breaking the law repeatedly.

Official figures show more than half the offenders who win their appeals do so using Article 8. Of the 162 cases lost by the Home Office in the last three months of last year, 99 were based on family life rulings.

Ministers are set to radically overhaul family immigration rules in coming months, including tough income tests for sponsors who want to bring in their partner. They will have to show they have the means to support both their partner and any children or other dependent relatives.

New powers will be given to register offices to refuse to marry people or insist on a delay if it is feared the marriage is not genuine, and tough new ‘Mr and Mrs’ style tests brought in to guard against sham marriages.

Spouses and partners would have to wait five years, rather than the current two, before they could apply to settle in the UK permanently, and the same period before they can claim benefits.

Ministers also want to rein in Article 8 by making it explicit in immigration rules what weight should be given to family rights.

SOURCE







Australian conservatives offer to help Leftist government with new immigration laws as long as civility over the matter is extended

That seems a fair offer -- but is a Leftist capable of civility in politics?

TONY Abbott is demanding Prime Minister Julia Gillard personally say "please" if the Government wants Opposition support for off-shore processing of asylum seekers.

The Opposition Leader is fed up with what he sees as "bile" from Ms Gillard and a lack of information from the Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, sources told news.com.au today.

And he's furious that last week Mr Bowen's office briefed reporters on what Mr Abbott was to have been briefed on later that day.

At hand is legislation the Government will introduce next week to amend the Migration Act to get around a High Court ruling which wrecked the Malaysian deal to swap asylum seekers for refugees, and put in serious doubt all off-shore processing of boat people.

The Opposition hasn't declared where it stands on the issue, but Mr Abbott is likely to back it to ensure a future Coalition government could send asylum seekers to third countries such as Nauru.

Any agreement would come with heavy criticism of the Malaysian solution, which would be reflected in proposed Opposition amendments.

However, Mr Abbott won't reveal his plans to the Government until he gets what he considers a full briefing on the legislation, and a personal appeal for support from the PM.

He'll receive a briefing on the bills in Melbourne at 5pm tomorrow and today Opposition sources said it must include all the legal advice the Government received following the High Court ruling.

"We've asked for it and haven't even had a 'thank you for writing' letter in reply," said one Liberal source.

Earlier this week, Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott clashed over the table during Question time with the Opposition Leader complaining, "I get nothing but bile from you, Julia".

SOURCE



15 September, 2011

Mitt Romney promises to stop illegal immigration

This will up the pressure on other GOP candidates

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney addressed a standing-room only crowd Wednesday afternoon at a country club in Sun Lakes, where he vowed to build a border fence and stop illegal immigration.

He also disagreed with fellow candidate Rick Perry, saying Social Security is not a "Ponzi scheme" although he said the system needs to be improved. He said he would consider three long-term ways to save Social Security: lower, inflation-based benefits increases for higher income groups, investments with higher yields and a higher retirement age.

At least 400 people attended the town Hall meeting at the Oakwood Country Club.

Sun Lakes Republican Club chairman Mike Tennant said Romney's campaign selected the location because "We've got senior voters down here who are very intelligent, and this is an important part of Arizona."

Maricopa County voting records show that Sun Lakes' nine precincts have about twice as many registered Republicans as Democrats and voter turnout is extremely high - nearly 70 percent in the 2008 presidential election. Tennant said Sen. John McCain R-Ariz. campaigned at the same clubhouse that year.

The former Republican Massachusetts governor has talked a lot about Social Security, an issue that will resonate in a retirement area like Sun Lakes, said Chandler District 21 Republican activist and Romney supporter Scott Taylor. His appearance there so early in the campaign "shows his commitment to the state," Taylor said.

It was one of three stops in the state Wednesday for Romney, who came here from a strong performance in Monday's CNN/Tea Party Express GOP debate. He hosted a morning business roundtable in Tucson and was to head to an evening fundraiser at Tempe Center for the Arts after the Sun Lakes session.

Romney's visit officially kicks off the 2012 presidential campaign in Arizona, an important GOP battleground state that is set to have an earlier-than-most primary. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday ended speculation about the date of the state's presidential-preference election by issuing a proclamation declaring that it will be held Feb. 28, the same day as South Carolina's Republican primary and a week before Super Tuesday, March 6. The early primary and Arizona's high profile issues like immigration, border security, the mortgage meltdown and Social Security could play well in the battle for the Republican nomination.

Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said Arizona is an important state for Romney and one in which "he intends to campaign vigorously."

Until Monday, few who live outside the retirement community knew about Romney's visit, including key Republican leaders in District 21 that includes Sun Lakes. Tennant said organizers didn't want publicity about the session because they wanted a Sun Lakes audience and seating was limited to 300. Word of the town hall was disseminated through e-mail by club members and forwarded to other area Republicans.

Chandler Mayor Jay Tibshraeny and Chandler Councilman Kevin Hartke, both Dist. 21 Precinct Committeemen, and former District 21 Chairman Jerry Brooks said they received no advance notice of Romney's visit and learned about it Monday through forwarded e-mails. Tibshraeny and Brooks said they are puzzled that organizers withheld information about such an important visit from local Republican leaders.

The three said they have not yet decided who they will support in the presidential primary.

Kelly Townsend, a Gilbert resident and co-founder of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots, helped organize her group's viewing of Monday's presidential debate but said she did not know about Romney's Sun Lakesappearance.

Williams, the campaign spokesman, said the lack of advance notice was not intended to limit participation or prevent contentious debate like the kind that erupted last month when U.S. Sen. John McCain hosted a town-hall meeting in Gilbert. McCain's session broke down into a shouting match at times as "tea party" activists directed their anger and frustration toward the senator. At one point during the meeting a heated verbal exchange between two men prompted McCain to call for "a modicum of courtesy" and sent town officials scurrying for more security.

SOURCE






98,000 asylum seekers have been 'lost' by bungling British immigration workers

Nearly 100,000 asylum seekers have been ‘lost’ by bungling immigration officials, it was revealed last night. The 98,000 cases were among nearly half a million found abandoned in boxes at the Home Office in 2006 in a major immigration scandal.

Five years later, officials have finally announced that the backlog has been cleared. But Jonathan Sedgwick, the acting chief executive of the UK Border Agency, admitted yesterday that in 98,000 cases they had not been able to track down the applicant.

Those cases have now been placed in a ‘controlled archive’ – effectively put on ice indefinitely – after officials could find no trace of their existence.

When the scandal emerged, the Daily Mail predicted around 160,000 would be granted the right to stay here in what was effectively an amnesty. At the time, the prediction was dismissed as ‘scaremongering’ by the pro-immigration lobby. But yesterday’s figures revealed even that prediction was too optimistic. Of the total, 172,000 have been given the right to stay in the country, claim benefits and bring in family members, or more than one in three of the total.

Many gained the right to stay simply for being here for so long. Others had children or relationships and used Article 8 of the Human Rights Act to argue they should not be removed. Only 37,500 – or less than one in ten – have been kicked out or left voluntarily. Around 170,000 have been written off as duplicates or errors.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: ‘Now we have it. Nearly half a million case files left lying around in a warehouse for years on end. ‘This must be one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the Home Office, not to speak of the immense cost to the taxpayer.’

Appearing before the Home Affairs Committee of MPs, Mr Sedgwick said there were another 18,000 cases which had ‘barriers to conclusion’.

They have now been passed to a special group at the Border Agency called the Case Assurance and Audit Unit, Mr Sedgwick said. Many have been told they must leave but are mounting human rights or other legal challenges to escape deportation.

Committee member and Labour MP Alun Michael said: ‘We were told they were going to be cleared up by this summer. They should be cleared up by now.’

Committee chairman Keith Vaz also criticised the agency for making overpayments to both staff and asylum seekers totalling some £4million last year, and for paying out £14million in compensation claims.

A Border Agency spokesman said: ‘We are improving the asylum system across the board, clearing the backlog of claims, bringing down costs and resolving cases more quickly.’

SOURCE



14 September, 2011

Liberal claim that migrant cap would harm the British economy is rubbished

Liberal Democrat claims that the Government’s controversial cap on immigration would harm the economy were rubbished yesterday. There is ‘no evidence’ the policy is harming business, said Professor David Metcalf, the Home Office’s most senior adviser on migration.

He also revealed that just half of the work permits available under the cap – which limits the number of visas available to non-EU skilled migrants to 20,700 each year – are being taken up.

The intervention is a blow to Business Secretary Vince Cable and his Lib Dem colleagues. Along with business groups, they repeatedly argued the policy would harm Britain by leaving firms short of skilled labour. If anything, the figures suggest the cap could be made stricter. Mr Cable is now likely to face ridicule if he makes any attempt to further water down the cap.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: ‘There is growing evidence that business has been crying wolf over immigration controls.’

Professor Metcalf, who was appointed independent chairman of the Migration Advisory Committee by the last Labour government, made his remarks at the launch of the latest list of so-called ‘shortage occupations’, which means British workers do not have the skills to fill them.

Non-EU workers qualified to fill these jobs are the ones most likely to be allowed in under the cap. He said that, in the 12 months to June this year, 8,900 non-European Economic Area skilled workers came to Britain – less than half of the total number allowed. The permits are made available on a monthly basis and half are going unused.

Asked if there is any evidence of harm to the economy, Professor Metcalf replied that he had ‘not seen any’. He added: ‘Those concerns have not manifested themselves.’

He published a list of 29 job titles which he says can no longer justify recruitment from outside the EEA. It includes vets, biology teachers, consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology, and orchestral musicians.

The committee recommends that 70,000 jobs in occupations where there is a UK shortage should no longer be open for migrant workers to apply for. Instead, they could only be filled by UK citizens or workers from the EEA countries. If approved, the number of posts covered by the shortage occupation list would be reduced from 260,000 to 190,000.

As recently as 2008, one million jobs were open to migrants via the list. They are not all jobs which will be taken by a non-EU worker, but only posts for which they will be allowed to apply.
Maths teachers are being recruited from abroad because British graduates are heading to the City

One of the reasons why there is so little demand for the visas is that the economic recovery is sluggish.

During tense negotiations over the level of the cap, Mr Cable repeatedly claimed it was bad for business. His party is known for being strongly pro-immigration. At one stage, he said: ‘We have now lots of case studies of companies which are either not investing or just not able to function effectively because they cannot get key staff – management, specialist engineers and so on – from outside the EU.’

He was also said to have privately described the idea of a tight limit as ‘crazy’ when Britain is trying to boost trade.

SOURCE





Australian conservative leader stalls on bid to legalise Malaysia "refugee" deal

He is right. On Nauru, the illegals would remain under Australian control so there is no basis for a legal challenge

THE Coalition insists an Abbott government could sends asylum seekers to Nauru without amending the Migration Act in a sign it will take a hardline approach to Labor's demands for legislative change.

As Opposition Leader Tony Abbott refused to say whether the Coalition would back Labor's amendments to the Migration Act, Ms Bishop rejected Immigration Department advice given to the Coalition that Nauru could now be on shaky legal ground. "I don't believe that we need amendments to the Migration Act for us to reopen the detention centre on Nauru and for it continue to work as it has in the past," she said. "We believe that the fact that Nauru is now a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees is an important factor."

Ms Bishop said a "desperate" Ms Gillard was talking down the Nauru option for her own purposes. "It would be the final humiliating admission for her that she has been wrong on every aspect of her border protection policies," she said.

Labor has challenged the Coalition to back its changes to the Migration Act designed to place offshore processing beyond doubt following a High Court ruling declaring the Malaysia refugee swap unlawful. Labor says the changes would allow the Malaysian Solution to go ahead, while ensuring a future Coalition government could process asylum seekers on Nauru if it desired.

Mr Abbott said he wanted to see Labor's amendment's to the Migration Act before agreeing to support the government. "I'm not going to pre-empt the government and I'm not going to give them a blank cheque," the Opposition Leader said.

Mr Abbott reiterated his support for offshore processing, but maintained his political attack on the Malaysia deal. "I make the point that it's bad policy," he said.

"I mean, a five-for-one people swap is just a bad deal and sending people to a country where they're caned is hardly a fair deal."

The Greens a strongly opposed to the offshore processing of asylum-seekers, which leaves Labor needing Coalition support to ensure it can proceed with its Malaysian swap deal.

SOURCE



13 September, 2011

Ms. Napolitano, Show Us the Border

Out of sight is out of mind. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano can give the impression she’s doing her job and keeping Americans safe when Americans are unaware of the dangers lurking next door.

Napolitano can’t stop natural oppressors like tropical storms, hurricanes or earthquakes but she can impede the drug cartel violence on the U.S.-Mexico border. Nevertheless, Napolitano refuses to publicly acknowledge the extent of border violence from drug cartels. She also refrains from pressuring the media to cover the preventable destruction and bloodshed on the border as much as it covers natural disasters.

Between 35,000 and 40,000 people were killed in Mexico since President Felipe Calderón launched his war against drugs in 2006, reports the Associated Press.

I think Americans deserve to know about the drug cartel violence spilling onto our border. It should be printed on the front page of every major newspaper and discussed nightly on prime time television. We’re not talking about violence occurring across the ocean in Libya. We’re talking about brutal gangs operating out of our next-door neighbor, Mexico.

Let’s say you look outside and catch your next-door neighbor decapitating, scalping and removing the skin from the faces of a family that lives across town. Then, you watch him stuff the skin from the faces and scalps into a woman’s purse and showcase the purse as a bloody “trophy” (this happened last month outside a Sam’s Club store in Acapulco).

Assuming you can’t move, what would you do? Close your blinds, grab a beer and turn on the football game? Or, would you build a 21-foot-high wall around your house?

On March 24, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture Todd Staples wrote a letter to Napolitano asking her to “recognize the threat of Mexican drug cartels as being a clear and present danger to our citizens and to the safe production of the United States food supply.”

Staples asked Napolitano to visit the site ProtectYourTexasBorder.com where Texas farmers and ranchers explain how drug cartels drive them to “abandon their land, leaving it vulnerable to criminal occupation, while retreating from farming and ranching and jeopardizing the food supply upon which we’ve all come to rely.”

Perhaps Napolitano was too busy fine-tuning her “If You See Something, Say Something” Walmart infomercials to bother replying. She delegated the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, Betsy Markey, to respond to Staples on her behalf.

Markey wrote: “Unfortunately, there is a widespread misperception that the Southwest border is overrun by violence spilling from Mexico’s ongoing drug war. The reality is that some of America’s safest communities are in the Southwest border region…” Markey’s note reveals Napolitano’s brazen refusal to acknowledge the drug-induced violence on the border.

Napolitano’s “boss,” President Obama, seems more concerned with sweet-talking Hispanic voters than acknowledging cartel violence. He told the city of El Paso on May 10 that the 700-mile border fence was “basically complete” when it was really only five percent complete, five years after approval.

Napolitano’s “partner” in fighting the drug war, Attorney General Eric Holder, struggles to oversee the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF’s “Fast and Furious” program lost track of over 2,000 major weapons crossing the border. Drug cartels likely acquired hundreds of powerful firearms and a significant leg up thanks to Holder’s mismanagement.

This September, PBS launches a new series featuring Calderón. Time Magazine reports: "In an effort to boost Mexico's weakened tourism industry ... (Calderón) will bravely lead camera crews into caverns, up rivers and down sink-holes, often while wearing an Indiana Jones-style hat."

So Napolitano stands by as the American public subsidizes a PBS show enabling Calderón to lure wealthy American tourists into drug cartel country. Does Napolitano work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security or Mexico’s Secretaría de Turismo?

Ms. Napolitano and her partners should acknowledge the brutality on the border instead of ignoring or underestimating it. They should show Americans the border by asking their pals in the mainstream media to cover drug cartel border violence 24/7/365 (just like a hurricane) until it ceases.

If Americans fully understood the drug cartels on the border, they would be more open to decriminalizing drugs. A strategic, states’ rights approach to decriminalization is worth trying, but Americans won’t approach the war on drugs differently if Napolitano keeps telling the public: “some of America’s safest communities are in the Southwest border region.”

A November 2010 UK medical study published by The Lancet shows that alcohol is more lethal than heroin and crack cocaine and drastically more harmful than marijuana, ecstasy and LSD. Meanwhile, Forbes reports that drug abuse dropped by 50 percent in Portugal just 10 years after decriminalizing all drugs.

Show us the border, Ms. Napolitano. Acknowledge the national security threat from drug cartels. Modify your approach and protect Americans.

SOURCE




Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Obama's Immigration Fiat (Op-Ed)

2. Thinking of First Responders (Blog)

3. 9/11 + 10: Time to Keep Extremists Out (Blog)

4. A Thought About Uncle Omar (Blog)

5. WARNING: Obama's Drunk-Driving Illegal-Alien Uncle Back on the Streets (Blog)
6. Protest at Hershey Gaining Support (Blog)

7. Financial Losses Due to USCIS Fee Waivers Soar to $87 Million a Year (Blog)

8. Milford, Mass., Tells Ecuador (and ICE): Enough Already! (Blog)

9. Limbaugh Mistakenly Warns GOP: Don't Be 'Distracted' by Illegal Immigration (Blog)

10. Census Report Shows Enforcement Works (Blog)

11. Immigration: A Litmus Test for the GOP? (Blog)

12. 'Illegals Raiding the U.S. Treasury' – The Civics Lesson Therein (Blog)






12 September, 2011

A decade later, we’re still fumbling immigration issue

On the 10th anniversary of 9/11, it’s hard to believe so many people still doubt the relationship between illegal immigration and crime. It’s not that all illegals are dangerous, but porous borders always present a security risk and the 9/11 attacks are an extreme example of what “security risk” means.

In most states, this is well understood. Not so in Massachusetts, where hypocrisy doesn’t matter, either. Many of the same people who say illegals should be allowed to stay here won’t support building a housing project for illegals in their neighborhood.

Which is why there’s so much eye-rolling at the critics who say it’s unforgivably xenophobic to complain about illegal immigration. The motivation behind their criticism is not so much the humane protection of vulnerable foreigners as it is a tactic to grow the ranks of the Democratic party. Critics know calling someone a xenophobe is an effective silencing technique.

A sincere debate would focus on whether we can afford porous borders, socially and financially. Politics would have nothing to do with it. But partisan politicians don’t want a sincere debate because they know it would end quickly. It’s no mystery that we could afford to be generous about illegal immigration 100 years ago, but the economic and social costs today are untenable, especially in Massachusetts where things have gotten so crazy, we actually give more benefits to illegals than to lawful citizens.

About 70 percent of people who receive free health care in Massachusetts are illegal, which costs taxpayers $35 million a year. Yet a legal citizen who gets laid off has no automatic right to free health care. Even criminals get a better outcome if they’re here illegally. We give illegals gigantic plea-bargains to save them from deportation because the more serious the conviction, the greater the risk of being returned to their home country. This means a legal citizen is more likely to end up in jail than his illegal counterpart who commits the same offense.

Which brings us to the question: Why does Deval Patrick oppose the Secure Communities Act? SCA offers states a simple mechanism for checking fingerprints against federal databases. Rather than dealing with multiple agencies, the SCA provides a one-button option so that fingerprints can be checked simultaneously with the FBI, for criminal activity, and with ICE, for immigration status.

Patrick says only “serious” felons should have their prints checked for immigration status because only “serious” felons should be deported. This means President Obama’s illegal alien uncle, arrested recently for drunken driving, will be allowed to stay in this country, as will the illegal alien who last month was charged with killing a young man in Worcester by running over his head while driving drunk. Neither crime fits Patrick’s definition of “serious” felony.

Whatever Patrick’s views on deportation, they don’t justify his opposition to the SCA because the SCA doesn’t mandate deportation. It simply gathers information on people who violate criminal laws. We have huge files on immigrants who came here legally, and live law-abiding lives. Why on Earth wouldn’t we want files on those who came to this country illegally, then committed more crimes?

Patrick’s career as a politician in Massachusetts is over. He has his sights on the national scene and he knows that by opposing the SCA, he can curry favor with minority voting blocks and shore up guaranteed votes for Democrats nationwide. If it were only a propaganda issue, it wouldn’t matter. But Patrick is spending down the quality of life in Massachusetts by leveraging its lopsided politics. He knows he can do whatever he wants here, and get away with it, because enough people are left-wing lemmings, just like him, who don’t give a damn about public safety and a failing economy.

SOURCE






Anti-immigrant movement strong in France

France's ruling UMP party staged a high-profile rally in Nice on Sunday in a direct challenge to the far-right National Front(FN) as the Front's charismatic leader was addressing her party's annual conference in the city.

President Nicolas Sarkozy's party gathered some of its biggest guns in the Mediterranean city, including party chairman Jean-Francois Cope, presidential advisor Henri Guaino and Ecology Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, who spearheads the UMP's drive against the FN. The rally was organised by Nice's mayor Christian Estrosi, a former UMP minister.



Marine Le Pen [above], who took over from her father Jean-Marie Le Pen as FN leader in January, is a close third behind Sarkozy and the leading socialist contender in opinion polls for the 2012 presidential election. She briefly led the polls in the spring, but has now fallen back to just below 20 percent.

She has softened the FN's image, toning down her father's anti-immigration rhetoric and expelling from the party young hotheads who had been photographed making the Nazi salute.

UMP leaders said this was purely cosmetic. "About those who are trying to make people believe they have a new programme, more realistic and more tolerant, just because the first name has changed, I say do not be confused. The name is the same. The ideology is the same," Estrosi told supporters in an open-air arena near Nice's beachfront.

His speech was interrupted several times by young far-right supporters shouting slogans and waving banners reading "No mosque in Nice".

Nice is a UMP stronghold but in the second round of local elections in March, the FN won more than 40 percent of the vote on the Cote d'Azur. "Right and far-right are playing cat and mouse on their home turf," wrote local daily Nice-Matin.

Le Pen presents what she says is a radical economic alternative to the government. She wants France to exit the euro, which she says is overvalued by at least 40 percent and is making it impossible for French companies to compete internationally. She also wants to bring back import tariffs to protect French producers from cheap Chinese imports.

Her shift in emphasis is a response to growing fears in France that austerity and Europe's debt crisis could eat away at the array of social services treasured by many citizens.

But in front of a crowd of hundreds of cheering supporters Le Pen called for tighter immigration laws. "It is in the interest of France to stop all immigration and even to reverse the flow," she said. "We do not need foreign workers because there is no work and in these difficult times what little work there is must first benefit our own people," she said to rapturous applause.

Le Pen made little reference to the UMP on Sunday, but told reporters on Saturday its choice of venue for its rally showed "their fear and disarray". "They know they are losing their voters to us," she said.

French political parties traditionally hold conferences in late August and early September. Eight months ahead of the presidential election, they are gathering huge media interest.

Guaino denied the UMP had any fear of Marine Le Pen. "The only fear I have is that we may not be able to find the words and ideas to respond to the aspirations of the French people. If we do not find an answer to their despair, they will vote for extreme parties," he said. [That's a confession and a half!]

SOURCE



11 September, 2011

Racist Maori in New Zealand -- opposes white immigration

Even though NZ Maori are largely parasitical on Pakeha (white) society! It's very unfashionable to say so but the 15% of the NZ population that is Maori is a significant part of the reason why New Zealand is on average poorer than Australia. The willing workers among the Maori have mostly migrated to Australia -- where for many years they had a semi-monopoly on the garbage-collection trade

Some immigrants say they feel less and less welcome in New Zealand, as anger grows at Maori academic Margaret Mutu's controversial call to cut white immigration.

Mutu, head of Auckland University's Maori studies department, is standing by her claim in last weekend's Sunday Star-Times that immigrants from countries such as South Africa brought white supremacist attitudes with them.

The Race Relations office has received 30 complaints about Mutu's comments and there have been calls for her sacking, but the university is backing her right to free speech. Mutu sparked further outrage last week by saying her comments could not be racist as Maori are not in a position of power.

A South African immigrant, Dominique Fourie, said Mutu's "racist" and infuriating remarks added to a growing feeling that immigrants were not welcome here. "It angers me she has painted us all with the same brush," Fourie said.

Her parents came to New Zealand when she was 14. She said family members who came here more recently had felt less and less welcome. "The family that migrated two years ago had a really hard time integrating with the New Zealand community and culture, whereas we felt welcomed with open arms back in the 1990s. "With the huge numbers of people migrating now, possibly Kiwis are feeling more insecure."

Fourie urged Mutu to sit down with a South African immmigrant and speak to them about the racist attitude and stereotypes they had encountered after coming here.

Mutu said she had been inundated with emails since her comments. "Initially the email traffic was 90 per cent negative but most of them provided excellent examples of the white supremacist attitudes," she said. She had also received a number of supportive emails, particularly from Maori, but also from immigrants from South Africa, England, India and China.

"Most are professionals. The English ones are appalled at the racism against Maori they see on a daily basis – particularly in the media. The South Africans are fairly forthright about the need to ensure that the virus that blighted their country be prevented from running rampant in this country."

Those opposed to her view wanted discussion on racism shut down immediately, she said.

Another prominent Maori academic, Ranginui Walker, said New Zealanders needed to have a "rational" discussion about whether the immigration policy was fatally flawed. "The trouble with New Zealanders is they are extremely sensitive to the politics of culture and the politics of race. It is time New Zealand matured and was able to debate these matters rationally."

Walker said many Maori felt the Government allowed too many immigrants to enter the country, at the expense of the indigenous population.

"The problem of Maori under-performance in New Zealand – in terms of education and dependency on welfare – has not been resolved. If we can't solve our own internal problems, why add to those problems by bringing more people? It just doesn't make sense."

Walker said New Zealand must rethink the economic approach to immigration where people who were meant to fuel the economy by creating new jobs were given priority. "This policy has gone on for 30 years now and we are no better off economically."

The immigration debate arose after a Department of Labour report found Maori are more likely to express anti-immigration sentiment than any other ethnic group.

Mike Bell, founder of migration advice website Move2NZ, said Mutu's comments were a sideshow. "The real issue here is the Government report and the issues that have been highlighted by the report. That is quite a serious issue and needs to be looked at."

Mutu agreed with the Government report's findings. "Maori are desperate to get their own issues sorted out and feel very threatened as more groups come in and swamp them," she said.

Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman said there were no immediate plans to change the country's immigration approach. "New Zealand's immigration policy is firmly focused on attracting migrants who can contribute to New Zealand."

SOURCE





National Council of La Raza calls off boycott

They are putting the best face on this but their boycott call was only a nine-day wonder and there was a reverse boycott movement too -- where people favourable to Arizona's laws made a deliberate effort to support Arizona economically

One of the nation's most prominent Hispanic groups announced late Friday that it is calling off its boycott of Arizona imposed in May 2010 after the Legislature and governor enacted the controversial immigration law Senate Bill 1070.

The National Council of La Raza said it was canceling its boycott because it successfully discouraged other states from enacting similar laws, and the boycott imposed a hardship on the workers, businesses and organizations it aimed to help.

Five other states, Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Utah, passed similar laws and all of them face legal challenges and injunctions, according to La Raza.

The Washington-based group said that effective immediately it and two other La Raza-associated groups would ask other organizations to suspend their Arizona boycotts.

La Raza also said the boycott spurred political results in Arizona, namely an increase in Latino voters and defeat in the Legislature of more proposed immigration laws, including a measure that would have changed how U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are granted citizenship.

Both Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon's office and the Real Arizona Coalition, a broad collection of state business, faith and Latino groups, in August sent La Raza letters asking it to end the boycotts and work toward immigration reform.

The Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau on Friday issued a statement saying, "The lifting of the boycott is clearly a step in the right direction. It acknowledges that illegal immigration is not just an Arizona issue but a national one, and it makes it easier for the community to get back to the business of booking conventions."

Gonzalo de la Melena, president and CEO of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, lauded the move and said it means groups are shifting their priorities toward issues "that really matter," such as federal immigration reform.

When the national coalition announced its boycott May 6, 2010, it and other groups vowed not to hold conferences, major conventions or special events in Arizona until SB 1070 was repealed. They asked other groups to do the same. The boycotts hurt the state's economy, but it's unknown by how much.

A study by the Center for American Progress estimated that boycotts cost the state at least $140 million over a three-year period from conventions already cancelled and potentially up to $750 million in total economic losses.

SOURCE



10 September, 2011

Face-saving deal that would include Malaysia, PNG and Nauru may solve Australia's boatpeople impasse

A FACE-saving deal that includes Labor's Malaysian refugee swap and offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island has emerged as the most likely solution to the nation's border protection impasse.

The Australian Online understands Labor and the opposition are considering a compromise which would put offshore processing beyond doubt, while allowing transfer arrangements in which asylum-seekers are relocated to third countries such as Malaysia.

It's understood an Immigration Department briefing to Tony Abbott this week, which echoed similar advice to the government, made a strong case for both the Malaysian transfer and offshore processing.

Julia Gillard is convening a crisis meeting of senior ministers in Canberra today to finalise the government's strategy on border protection, as well as finding a way forward for its $11 billion mining tax, which is struggling to find support in the parliament.

Officially, both the government and the opposition are refusing to cede ground following last week's High Court ruling declaring the Malaysian Solution invalid and putting offshore processing in doubt.

But without a deal to break the stalemate, both sides are left without an effective border protection policy.

Reopening Australia's detention centre on Nauru remains the opposition's preferred solution, while the government says its Malaysian Solution is now the only effective deterrent against people-smugglers.

There is bipartisan agreement on restarting processing on Papua New Guinea's Manus Island.

Mr Abbott said he was awaiting a formal proposal from the government.

“It's up to the government to give us its new policy and at the moment the Prime Minister appears to be paralysed; paralysed on the one hand by the prospect of more boats and on the other hand by the prospect of a revolt from the Greens and the Left,” the Opposition Leader told Nine's Today Show.

Former immigration minister Amanda Vanstone said immigration department predictions of 600 asylum-seeker arrivals a month under onshore-only processing were conservative.

She warned of a “come on down approach” unless offshore processing was restored.

“Look I haven't seen this briefing (but) you are going to get thousands of people coming,” said Ms Vanstone, who served as immigration minister for three years under the Howard government.

“I thought the 600-700 a month figure was a bit conservative myself. If you had onshore processing you would absolutely have overflowing detention centres.”

Ms Vanstone said a tougher approach was needed on boatpeople and urged for Howard-era temporary protection sisas to be revived and Nauru reopened.

SOURCE





Australian immigration authorities on the lookout for illegals in major agricultural area (Bundaberg)

Farmers onside

EMPLOYERS in the region have been served a warning by immigration officers of the penalties they face by hiring illegal workers. This comes after a two-day crackdown in which seven illegal workers were detained.

Two takeaway shop workers who had breached their visa conditions were detained on Wednesday, along with four others who were believed to have been working in the horticulture industry, on Thursday.

A spokesman for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship said employers could face fines of up to $13,200 and two years imprisonment for employing an illegal worker, and the company could be fined $66,000 per worker.

"The department's compliance operations serve as a warning to the community that they can face severe consequences for remaining in Australia without a valid visa, or for employing illegal workers," he said.

The spokesman said illegal worker warning notices would be issued to employers or labour supply companies who had employed or referred illegal workers. "The notices advise employers that they have employed an illegal worker and warn of the possibility of prosecution," he said.

Bundaberg Fruit and Vegetable Growers chairman Geoff Chivers said farmers were often very strict when it came to the hiring of international workers on their farms. "It's not in farmers' interests to break the law," he said. "We do regularly update our growers as to their legal requirements when employing people."

Mr Chivers said it was an "onerous" task for employers in the horticulture industry who had to chase up employee paperwork, but farmers knew the penalties they faced. "At times, it is possible for people to give us a false tax file number," he said.

Mr Chivers stressed the industry could not support those people who worked with an inappropriate visa. "We have to make it fair on people who do have visas against those trying to work illegally," he said.

SOURCE



9 September, 2011

A Mexican death cult is fuelling America's anti-immigration backlash. This is about crime, not race

Cultural differences matter

In September 2008, 11 decapitated bodies were discovered in Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula. When police arrested the killers, they found an altar in their home dedicated to Santa Muerte – the patron saint of death for Mexican drug cartels.

One year later, an illegal immigrant called Jorge Flores Rojas was arrested in North Carolina for running a sex ring. He, too, had built a shrine in his east Charlotte apartment to Santa Muerte. Flores forced his girls to have sex with as many as 20 men a day while he knelt in his living room praying to the skeletal figure of death.

In August 2011, the Mexican army stumbled upon a tunnel that ran right under the US border for 300 metres. It was six feet high and equipped with lights and ventilation. It also housed – you guessed it – an altar to Santa Muerte.

Europeans complain mightily that Muslim immigration has introduced fundamentalism to their secular continent. Yet they tend to look upon Middle America’s fear of illegal Hispanic immigration with contempt, as if its paranoia was motivated entirely by racism. Reporting on new legislation designed to drive illegal immigrants out of the Deep South, The Guardian’s Paul Harris writes that it heralds, “The prospect of a new Jim Crow era – the time when segregation was law – across a vast swath of the old Confederacy. [The legislation] will ostracise and terrorise a vulnerable Hispanic minority with few legal rights.”

Indeed it will, and that is a tragedy. But the debate about illegal immigration isn’t just about competition over jobs or lingering white racism. Many Americans share the European fear that mass migration is subverting their democratic culture from within.

In the same way that exotic cells of Jihadists have established themselves in London and Paris, criminal gangs motivated by bloodlust and kinky spiritualism have been found living in the suburbs of Boston and Atlanta. One of its many manifestations is the cult of Santa Meurte.

Santa Muerte is part Virgin Mary, part folk demon. The image of a cloaked saint wielding a scythe is supposed to offer those who venerate it spiritual protection. Offerings come in the form of flowers, alcohol, sweets and tobacco. Contraband can be used to invoke protection from the police.

For the poor of Mexico – a nation torn between extremes of wealth and injustice – Santa Muerte is a very pragmatic saint. Like the gang leaders who offer hard cash in return for allegiance, she provides material blessings that the Catholic Church can no longer afford to bestow.

Tens of thousands of Mexicans living in America venerate Santa Muerte and have no association with crime. Nor is the cult purely ethnic: in North California, the Santisima Muerte Chapel of Perpetual Pilgrimage is tended by a woman of Dutch-American descent. But the prevalence of Santa Muerte imagery among drug traffickers injects an interesting cultural dimension to the debate over illegal immigration. It accentuates American fears that the drug war in Mexico is turning into an invasion of the USA by antidemocratic fanatics.

The Mexican conflict has claimed 35,000 lives since it began in 2006. Recently, the violence has spilled over the border and spread throughout the US along narcotics routes that stretch from Arizona to New York. The warring cartels are bound by a perverse ideology, with Santa Muerte as a unifying icon that terrifies opponents into submission. The gang known as Los Zetas marks its territory by mounting severed heads on poles or hanging dead bodies from bridges. Its members are family men who regularly go to church.

A splinter group, called La Familia, is fronted by a fellow called El Mas Loco (The Craziest One). Loco has published his own bible, a confused mix of peasant Marxism and passages culled from American self-help books. The goal of these groups is to undermine democracy and govern autonomous secret societies through family, blood and religion.

It’s a global trend. The Lord’s Resistance Army that slaughtered and raped its way across Uganda from 1987 to 2007 was led by a man who claimed to channel the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the culprit behind this apocalyptic criminality was the death of Communism, which deprived thugs and thieves of a secular ideology to justify their actions. Organisations like FARC and Real IRA converted overnight to pushing drugs. But in Mexico, family and religion filled the vacuum left by the failure of socialism.

Whatever its origins, the spread of the cult of Santa Muerde reflects the fact that the debate over immigration in the US is about more than economics. Sadly, Mexicans seeking work get caught in this existential drama and are either swallowed up into the gangs or demonised in the US for crimes they have not committed.

Nevertheless, Americans of every ethnicity are legitimately concerned about their country being poisoned by a criminal subculture that blends political corruption with ritualised murder. Europeans should not be so quick to judge their transatlantic friends. Americans face a vicious threat of their own.

SOURCE




Crime by EU migrants trebles - and we still can't throw them out

Britain is suffering an explosion in crimes by EU nationals, who are amassing more than 2,700 convictions every month. Since 2007, the number of EU citizens punished for breaking the law in the UK has more than trebled. The total is expected to hit a record 33,000 this year, placing huge pressure on the police, courts and overcrowded jails.

But because of EU diktats and Labour’s Human Rights Act, officials are finding it extremely hard to remove European lawbreakers once they have completed their sentences. According to the latest Home Office figures, 27,563 EU nationals were convicted in 2010, up from 10,736 in 2007. Yet only 1,480 EU citizens were removed from the country last year.

Top of the list of offenders were Poland, whose citizens collected 6,777 convictions, reflecting the large numbers who have headed here since the controversial expansion of the EU. Next came Romania with 4,343. Bulgarians were responsible for 296 crimes in 2010. Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, three years after Poland and other Eastern European states.

Tory MP Dominic Raab said: ‘This staggering increase in the number of crimes committed by EU nationals in Britain since Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU highlights a hidden cost of further EU enlargement that must be properly debated.

‘Far from helping us tackle crime, the current straitjacket EU arrangements for securing our borders, deportation and law enforcement are imposing a massive net burden on policing and prison cells.’

EU rules make it far harder to remove European citizens than those from the rest of the world. Normally, criminals may be considered for deportation if they have been sentenced to at least a year in jail. But for EU nationals the bar is set twice as high with a starting point of two years in jail.

The Home Office must also show the offender poses a ‘present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat’ to society.

The situation becomes even more complicated thanks to Labour’s Human Rights Act, which prevents the removal of anybody who can claim to have established a family life in the UK.

In reality, all except the most serious EU offenders, such as killers and rapists, are unlikely to face even an attempt at deportation. At the same time, the EU free movement directive prevents Britain from refusing entry to all but the worst overseas criminals.

Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch said: ‘This is another of the unspoken costs of the massive levels of immigration we face. ‘The fact that it is so difficult to remove EU nationals only rubs salt into the wound.’

Andrew Percy, Tory MP for Brigg and Goole, said: ‘These people should be treated the same as every other foreign national and kicked out. ‘It’s not acceptable at all to have EU nationals committing crimes then being able to continue living here.’

Overall, the number of EU convictions since 2007 is 109,568. This includes 19,164 in the first seven months of 2011 – a figure pointing to a record end-of-year total of almost 33,000.

SOURCE



8 September, 2011

Move towards bipartisanship on illegal immigration to Australia

JULIA Gillard has taken her first step towards enlisting the opposition to restore offshore processing of asylum-seekers, writing to Tony Abbott in defiance of pressure from the Labor Left and the Greens to switch to an onshore regime.

And the Opposition Leader has agreed to co-operate on legislation to circumvent last week's High Court ruling that struck out Labor's existing border security system, conceding that the national interest demands collaboration. The move to bipartisanship came yesterday as senior government figures admitted to a sense of urgency about the need to deliver a policy response to the High Court declaration that Labor could not proceed with its plans to send 800 boatpeople to Malaysia in exchange for 4000 proven refugees.

With the policy aimed at discouraging people-smuggling, it is understood a cabinet meeting on Monday night heard it was vital to deliver a swift legislative response to avoid a new flood of boats arriving off northern Australia.

But cabinet delayed a resolution, calling for more information amid concern any decision made in haste could expose the government to further High Court challenges.

Since last week's verdict shifted the goalposts on border security, the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader have traded blows. Mr Abbott has urged Labor to reopen a Howard-era processing centre on the Pacific island of Nauru; Ms Gillard has insisted her legal advice makes it clear that the court decision put a cloud over offshore processing in any location. As Greens, Labor and Liberal MPs and former Labor ministers yesterday continued arguing against offshore processing, the phony war ended.

The Prime Minister wrote to Mr Abbott to offer him briefings from senior bureaucrats about the implications of the High Court decision and "their analysis of the different policy approaches that are available to respond".

"I note your recent comments about your willingness to work in the national interest to restore the capacity of the executive to enact legislation which will establish appropriate processes for Australia's management and handling of asylum-seekers," Ms Gillard wrote, before leaving Australia for a meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum in New Zealand.

In a written response accepting the briefings, which are expected to be given today, Mr Abbott made it clear he agreed with Ms Gillard on the need to re-establish the legal framework to allow offshore processing.

"Since the High Court's decision last week, the government has effectively lacked a policy to deal with illegal boat arrivals and it's hardly in the national interest for this to persist," he wrote.

He told Ms Gillard he still believed the High Court ruling did not affect processing on Nauru and he supported the use of temporary protection visas and turning boats around as they approached Australia if it was safe to do so.

"Still, if the government remains committed to offshore processing, as it has been since you first announced the so-called East Timor solution, the opposition will co-operate in putting this beyond legal doubt," he wrote.

As necessity drove the political enemies together, Greens leader Bob Brown accused them of being out of step with public opinion on the matter. "When you do look at the most recent Nielsen poll, 53 per cent of Australians believe that asylum-seekers should be brought ashore and processed," Senator Brown told ABC radio.

He said offshore processing eroded the nation's belief that it observed the concept of a fair go.

Michael Lavarch, who was attorney-general in the Keating government, questioned the effectiveness of amending the Migration Act to allow offshore processing to continue.

Professor Lavarch, the executive dean of the Faculty of Law at the Queensland University of Technology, said the High Court had signalled it was uncomfortable with offshore processing and attempts to lock up people for indefinite periods.

"Maybe it's time to go back to the starting blocks and accept that Australia should be dealing with asylum-seekers in mainland Australia through onshore processing and assessment regimes," he said.

Another former Keating government minister, Carmen Lawrence, said the government should view the High Court's decision as an opportunity to move towards mainland processing of asylum-seekers, saying it was "beyond the pale" to transfer people to third countries.

"They should take the opportunity to rethink entirely the offshore processing of asylum-seekers and move to what is the only sensible option in my view, which is onshore processing with brief detention and put the money that's saved into working in the regional community and beyond into trying to reduce the pressures that are pushing people out of their homes and into boats," she said.

Dr Lawrence quit the Labor front bench in 2002 because Ms Gillard, then the party's immigration spokeswoman, developed a policy that retained the concept of mandatory detention.

Current Labor backbencher and former human rights lawyer Melissa Parke said the High Court judgment made clear that the Howard government's Pacific Solution was illegal under the Migration Act.

"The terrible irony is that while the Coalition wrongly demonised asylum-seekers as illegals, they were busy administering an illegal policy," Ms Parke said. "My view is that onshore processing is the safest, most humane and cost-effective approach to what is a difficult issue, but not a particularly big problem."

Liberal MP Judi Moylan, who during the Howard government's term strongly rejected offshore processing, said she remained opposed to processing in Nauru and believed the Malaysia Solution was "dreadful".

"I think we should be processing onshore and we should put an end to mandatory detention - just long enough to do the necessary health and security checks of people," Ms Moylan said.

SOURCE




Australian conservative leader being pigheaded

He wants the Labor Party to eat crow by going all the way back to the old conservative policy

TONY ABBOTT is refusing to help the government revive the Malaysia plan despite being told by senior Immigration Department officials that a return to the Pacific solution will not stop the boats and that a "game changer" like Malaysia was needed.

The same officials warned separately yesterday that the proposal by the Labor Left to revert to onshore processing would result in more than 600 arrivals by boat a month, swamping domestic detention facilities in a year, and resulting in the cultural problems facing European cities with a high influx of immigrants.

The Opposition Leader was unmoved last night, ensuring the policy stalemate will continue. Before the briefing he said that "as far as I am concerned, Malaysia is out" and that remained his position afterwards.

He said the briefing by officials was "helpful" but he then wrote to Julia Gillard offering only to help revive the Pacific solution locations of Nauru and Manus Island.

Last week, the High Court ruled invalid the Malaysia plan which would have seen 800 asylum seekers returned swiftly to Malaysia in return for Australia accepting 4000 extra refugees. The ruling also cast a legal cloud over the Pacific solution locations of Nauru and Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea,

The government wants Coalition support to legislate to circumvent the High Court decision to bring Malaysia and Manus Island back in play.

In yesterday's briefing, provided by the departmental secretary Andrew Metcalfe and other senior officials, Mr Abbott was told that the Pacific solution, scrapped by Labor in 2008, would not work a second time.

It was now known that the vast majority of asylum seekers who were sent to those islands ended up in Australia or New Zealand and if the Pacific centres were reopened, they would be regarded as little more than processing centres, and be no more a deterrent than Christmas Island. The most effective measure the Howard government took was to "tow back" about seven boats to the departure point of Indonesia. "It had an intensely powerful effect," and official said.

Towing back boats was dangerous, the Indonesians would no longer allow it, and anyway, people smugglers had learnt to sabotage the boats to prevent being towed back, Mr Abbott was told.

But Malaysia, which the officials called "virtual tow-back", would send the same strong message by sending people swiftly to the point of departure.

The Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, urged Mr Abbott to get behind Malaysia. "The advice to us is that the most effective deterrent is to return people to where they began the boat journey and tell them that they do not receive any preferential treatment in terms of resettlement in Australia," he said.

"As opposed to Nauru - where people do end up in Australia if they're regarded as genuine refugees; 95 per cent of people regarded as genuine refugees ended up in Australia or New Zealand under the Howard government Pacific model. That's not a disincentive."

Ms Gillard, who is in New Zealand for the Pacific Islands Forum, said she had no intention of discussing asylum-seeker policy with the President of Nauru, Marcus Stephen.

Mr Stephen said he had met Ms Gillard twice since the forum began Tuesday, but the Pacific solution had not been raised. "I believe it's an issue that Australia needs to sort itself out first, it's a domestic issue for them," Mr Stephen said. "If Australia wants to raise it, that's up to Australia."

Mr Stephen called for an end to criticisms of the Nauruan government over conditions in the privately run detention centre when it was used to process asylum seekers. "I've been saying last year that this Nauru bashing, which I didn't appreciate, the centre wasn't run by us. I hope people are clear that we don't run the centre. I would prefer that Nauru is left out of the debate," he said.

SOURCE



7 September, 2011

New York Times Distorts Facts on Alabama Immigration Law

While the New York Times masthead reads: “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” the newspaper picks and chooses facts that support its liberal stance.

On Aug. 28, 2011, for instance, an NYT editorial entitled “The Nation’s Cruelest Immigration Law” maligned immigration legislation that was signed into law on June 9, 2011, by the governor of Alabama.

The legislation (HB 56), known as the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, was scheduled to take effect on Sept. 1, 2011.

Instead, lawsuits filed by plaintiffs, including religious groups, civil rights groups, and 16 foreign countries, have resulted in a temporary hold on its enforcement.

The NYT editorial alleges that several clerics considered the Alabama law to be inhumane and thus filed suit. The editorial declares that the law is an attempt to terrorize undocumented immigrants and make criminals of those who live with them or show them any kindness.

In addition to U.S. clerics, Mexico and 15 other foreign countries have filed papers against the Alabama law. U.S. citizens might ask if these same countries would allow the United States to file legal papers to nullify a law passed by one of their states.

A U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) press release dated Aug. 1, 2011, stated that the Alabama law conflicts with federal immigration law and undermines the federal government’s “careful balance” of immigration priorities and objectives. The Obama administration again seeks nullification of a state’s effort to protect its citizens, while the federal government fails to enforce existing U.S. immigration laws.

The NYT editors allege that undocumented immigrants will be criminalized for working, renting, and failing to comply with federal registration laws that they say are “largely obsolete.”

The editors criticize the Alabama law for requiring police to check the papers of people suspected of being in the state illegally, for suspending the licenses of businesses that employ illegal immigrants, and for requiring school officials to determine the immigration status of students and report the same to the state.

Here is what the Alabama law actually does. Section 13 (a) provides that anyone knowingly concealing, harboring, or shielding an illegal alien could be charged with a crime. This wording tracks existing federal immigration law (8 USC section 1324) and is similar to state immigration laws passed by Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and Utah.

The existing federal law reads in part that violations include bringing in an alien without inspection; transporting or moving an alien; concealing, harboring, or shielding an alien or attempting to do so; or inducing an alien to enter or reside in the United States. This is the current U.S. immigration law of the land.

In April, a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia sentenced two persons to prison and fined them $2 million for harboring illegal immigrants and inducing the aliens to reside in this country. For more than two decades, similar convictions have occurred in U.S. District Courts throughout the nation.

U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, including the liberal Ninth Circuit Court, have ruled that section 1324 is Constitutional and have upheld these convictions. The United States Supreme Court also has affirmed the constitutionality of “harboring” and other portions of section 1324. Thus the U.S. law against concealing, harboring, or shielding an illegal alien is far from “obsolete”.

The Obama administration has made a point of promoting E-Verify, an immigrant identification program passed by Congress (8 USC section 1373 [c]) to assist businesses in insuring that they are hiring legal workers. The program is operated and promulgated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Section 15 of the Alabama law, in compliance with the federal law, requires use of the federal E-Verify program in determining whether a person detained by state law enforcement officials is in the country legally. By using the E-Verify program to check on new hires, employers comply with both federal and Alabama law and will not lose their business licenses.

Requiring school officials to determine the immigration status of students and report the findings to the state (Section 28 of the Alabama law) is meant to determine the actual number of legal and illegal students. Currently the federal government has no accurate count of how many illegal aliens are in the United States — only guesstimates.

The actual count of illegal alien children would help determine federal and state money allocations and determine the actual costs of illegal aliens to local and state governments. Nothing in the Alabama law prohibits the education of illegal alien children.

The Alabama law prohibits consideration by law enforcement officials of the race, color, or national origin of a detained person in determining reasonable suspicion or probable cause in questioning the person.

No Alabama official or agency may adopt a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

State immigration control and protection laws ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The NYT editorial’s rush to judgment on the Alabama law is based on the folly of ideological hubris rather than on an objective reading of the law.

Perhaps the NYT editors pulled a Pelosi and wrote the editorial without reading the law.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Jessica Vaughan Discuses Onyango Obama (TV Interview)

2. Mark Krikorian Discusses the Alabama Law and the Presidental Campaign (Radio Interview)

3. Luis Rubio on Class in Mexico and the U.S. (Blog)

4. Illegals Raiding U.S. Treasury (Blog)

5. Dissolve the McDonald's Workforce and Elect a New One (Blog)

6. Doing the Secure Communities Shuffle (Blog)

7. Whose Side Are You On? (Blog)

8. Even Armed Robbers Shouldn't Be Deported? (Blog)

9. The Social Isolation of Some Border Patrolmen (Blog)

10. 2010 DHS Draft Memo on Admin Amnesty Raises Questions (Blog)

11. 9/11 Commission Chairmen Highlight Border Recommendations in 10th Anniversary Report Card (Blog)

12. Will Romney Play the Illegal Immigration Card against Perry? (Blog)

13. How Did Obama's Uncle Omar Get a Social Security Number? (Blog)

14. Members of Congress Object to Administrative Amnesty, Call for Hearings (Blog)





6 September, 2011

Illegal Aliens Received Billions in U.S. Tax Credits Last Year

Whether the lefties want to believe it or not, illegal immigration is an economic issue. Illegal aliens take huge negative tolls on our school systems, hospitals and are bankrupting our states while the federal government sits by to watch. Now, the Washington Post has found illegal aliens received billions in IRS tax credits last year, simply because officials refuse to ask about legal status on returns.

The Internal Revenue Service allowed undocumented workers to collect $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits last year, a new audit says, almost quadruple the sum five years ago.

Although undocumented workers are not eligible for federal benefits, the report released Thursday by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration concludes that federal law is ambiguous on whether these workers qualify for a tax break based on earned income called the additional child tax credit.

Taxpayers can claim this credit to reduce what they owe in taxes, often getting refunds from the government. The vagueness of federal law may have contributed to the $4.2 billion in credits, the report said.

The IRS said it lacks the authority to disallow the claims.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, On Friday announced plans to examine the refunds.

“The disconcerting findings in this report demand immediate attention and action from Congress and the Obama Administration,” Hatch said in a statement.. “With our debt standing at over $14.5 trillion and counting, it’s outrageous that the IRS is handing out refundable tax credits...to those who aren’t even eligible to work in this country.”

Wage earners who do not have Social Security numbers and are not authorized to work in the United States can use what the IRS calls individual taxpayer identification numbers. Often these result in fraudulent claims on tax returns, auditors found.

Their data showed that 72 percent of returns filed with taxpayer identification numbers claimed the child tax credit.

The audit recommended that the IRS seek clarification on the law and check the immigration status of filers with taxpayer indentificaion numbers.

IRS officials, in response to a draft of the report, agreed to consult with the Treasury Department on the law. But they said they have no legal authority to demand that filers prove their legal status when the tax agency processes returns.

The first step in fixing any illegal immigration problem, is to inquire about legal status. If we simply can't ask whether an individual is in the United States illegally, based on fears of "offending" someone or fielding accusations of "discrimmination," this problem will never go away as illegal aliens continue to bankrupt our public services. SB 1070 and Alabama's new immigration law would prevent fraudulent claims made by illegals and paid out in the billions of dollars by taxpayers in the future because they allow police officers to inquire about legal status. This isn't rocket science.

SOURCE






LEGAL immigration can be a good thing

Oliver Marc Hartwich looks at the ingredients behind Australia's success at integrating legal immigrants

One popular concern about Australia’s growing population is to maintain social cohesion in a ‘Big Australia.’ The influx of migrants from different countries, with different religions and different cultures, understandably brings with it the fear that the newcomers may not become part of mainstream society and remain segregated.

That’s exactly what many European countries are experiencing with their migrant populations. In fact, the idea of multiculturalism had been declared failed and dead by Europe’s leading politicians.

So do we have to be worried about similar developments here?

Maybe not. Although some fears about integrating migrants may be valid, Australians should be more confident. So far, we have proven extremely good at integration, unlike Europe.

Where migrants in many European countries are, on average, more unemployed, more criminal, and less educated than mainstream society, it is the exact opposite in Australia with all these indicators. Australia’s migrant population commands higher household incomes, their children score marginally better in school tests, and they are also a little less criminal than the Australian-born part of society.

Yes, there are differences between different groups of migrants, but the overall migration and integration experience has been positive. To continue benefitting from migration, we need to understand the secret of Australia’s success – and the reason of Europe’s failure.

Australia as a traditional destination for migrants is a more open and receptive country compared to Europe. The crucial difference, however, lies in the skills-based selection process – which Europe doesn’t have. Europe’s low-skilled migrants have few job opportunities and end up relying on welfare.

Australia, on the other hand, has ensured through its points-based immigration system that migrants speak English, are educated (or skilled), and employable. Welfare-dependent migrants have little incentive to engage with society. There are no colleagues whose language they would need to understand. Labour market participation is the best guarantee of successful integration.

Instead of fearing migration, Australia should expand it with a rigorous screening and selection process through the points-based visa system. This is one Australian story worth repeating.

SOURCE



5 September, 2011

Bipartisan deal to help cope with illegal immigration to Australia?

THE Coalition has offered to work with the Gillard government to change the Migration Act to allow offshore processing of asylum-seekers, after it was thrown into doubt by the High Court.

The move came after the Solicitor-General today produced new legal advice saying it may be impossible to resurrect the Howard government's asylum-seeker detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru under current laws.

Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler has given the government written advice confirming that the High Court's decision last week to scuttle the controversial Malaysian people swap deal has far-reaching implications for all offshore processing.

Mr Gageler and two other senior counsel, Stephen Lloyd and Geoffrey Kennett, say they “do not have reasonable confidence” that the government could legally send asylum-seekers to Papua New Guinea and Nauru as a result of the judgment.

The lawyers say Nauru's decision to ratify the UN Refugee Convention this year “raises the possibility” that a government could use its power to send asylum-seekers to Nauru in the future, but only if it could satisfy a court there were appropriate protections in place.

“These are complex issues of fact and degree requiring detailed assessment and analysis,” the advice reads.

The Gillard government has been considering reopening the former Howard-era detention centre on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea, while Tony Abbott's policy is to reopen the “Pacific Solution” detention centre on Nauru.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the advice confirmed there were significant doubts about both PNG and Nauru and that the government needed to work through the options, one of which could be amending the Migration Act.

“Clearly the High Court has interpreted the Migration Act in this way and it would be open to the parliament to change the Migration Act to deal with how the High Court has interpreted it and that's one of the options that would be available.”

Mr Abbott said he did not want the government to use the High Court's decision as an excuse to drop offshore processing.

“If the government wants to put offshore processing beyond legal doubt by amending the Migration Act, the Coalition's prepared to work with the government to bring that about,” he told reporters in Sydney.

Mr Abbott maintained his position that sending asylum-seekers to Nauru is a viable option. “Nauru's legal system is essentially the same as Australia's,” he said. “So any suggestion that there is some problem with the Nauruan legal system and the way people are treated in Nauru is just utterly implausible.”

Coalition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis also said the new legal advice did not completely rule out offshore processing.

He said he had spoken with Nauruan Justice Minister Mathew Batsuia, who affirmed his government was prepared to enact domestic laws to ensure his country was compliant with the court's verdict.

“Given that the Nauruan government is prepared to take those steps, it now remains for the Australian government to demonstrate that it has the political will to make the Nauruan solution effective,” Senator Brandis said in a statement.

However Mr Bowen said the Coalition also needed to consider the legal advice and think again. “Mr Abbott needs to move beyond his Nauru dream world and simplistic solutions and admit that whichever way you cut it, offshore processing under the current law is no longer an easy option,” he said.

“Quite clearly under all the legal advice, if Mr Abbott wanted to go down the Nauru option he would need legislative change. He would need it on several bases.

“And what is very clear from the High Court judgment is you could not send unaccompanied minors in any workable way to Nauru or anywhere else. That's a significant change,” Mr Bowen said.

Under a deal first announced by Julia Gillard in May, the government had planned to send 800 asylum-seekers to Malaysia in exchange for 4000 already-processed refugees.

But the High Court's full bench ruled 6-1 that the Mr Bowen's declaration that Malaysia was an appropriate place to send asylum-seekers was invalid because the country is not legally bound to protect them. The ruling has thrown Labor's plans to try to halt the flow of asylum-seeker boats into disarray.

Mr Bowen today repeatedly refused to reveal whether he considered resigning as a result of the decision, or whether he offered his resignation to Ms Gillard. “Conversations between the Prime Minister and I are conversations between the Prime Minister and I and that's how they'll remain,” he told the ABC. “I'm not going to run away from my responsibility just because the going gets a bit tough.”

Former prime minister John Howard said Ms Gillard had succeeded in “antagonising everybody” on asylum-seekers. “The real culprit though, of course, was Kevin Rudd,” he told Network Ten. “Kevin Rudd was the prime minister who dismantled the Howard government policy which had stopped the boats coming.”

SOURCE



Adverse public opinion polls put Australia's faltering Leftist government under huge pressure over illegals

JULIA Gillard will be forced to choose between negotiating with Tony Abbott or giving ground to people-smugglers as a new survey shows a dramatic collapse in public approval of Labor's management of asylum-seekers.

A Newspoll for The Australian today found 78 per cent of respondents rated Labor's handling of the issue as "bad" - a significant increase on the 53 per cent recorded by Newspoll in November 2009.

Only 12 per cent of those surveyed believed the Government was doing a "good" job on asylum-seekers, barely half the 31 per cent in November 2009. And only 22 per cent of Labor supporters backed the Government's handling of the issue.

Government sources said the Prime Minister was unlikely to announce a new asylum seeker policy for weeks, as Labor scrambles to work out a solution and braces for more boats to arrive, the Courier-Mail reported.

The Government's shaky border protection policy was dealt another blow yesterday after legal advisers warned it may have to abandon offshore processing of asylum seekers entirely.

Solicitor-general Stephen Gageler warned the Federal Government it faces major legal difficulties in re-opening the former "Pacific Solution" immigration detention centres in Nauru and PNG's Manus Island after the High Court scuttled plans to send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia.

Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said Labor needed time to work out a new way to stop people smuggling. "I've said, if you like 'time out' for a moment," Mr Bowen said. "Let's go back, have everything on the table and consider the options."

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott offered to support the Government to get around the ruling by changing legislation as long as this re-opened the centre on Nauru, re-introduced temporary protection visas and allowed the navy to turn boats around at sea. "If the Government wants to put offshore processing beyond legal doubt by amending the Migration Act, the Coalition is prepared to work with the government to bring that about," Mr Abbott said. "We don't want the Government to use the High Court's decision as an excuse to drop offshore processing."

Mr Bowen said he would not negotiate with Mr Abbott if the Opposition insisted on the outcome and warned the High Court decision could lead to more asylum seeker boats heading to Australia.

But Ms Gillard faces growing pressure from the Left of her party and the Greens to abandon offshore processing entirely.

Labor backbenchers warned Ms Gillard not to announce another policy before discussing options with the party's caucus, which will meet again when parliament resumes next week.

"She should not underestimate the level of disquiet in the caucus," one Labor backbencher said.

SOURCE



2 September, 2011

President Obama’s illegal immigrant uncle had Social Security ID

President Obama’s accused drunken-driving uncle — who was busted after a near collision with a Framingham cop — has had a valid Social Security number for at least 19 years, despite being an illegal immigrant ordered to be deported back to Kenya, the Herald has learned.

The president’s 67-year-old uncle, Obama Onyango, has had a valid Massachusetts driver’s license and Social Security number since at least 1992, said Registry of Motor Vehicles spokesman Michael Verseckes.

Onyango, whose sister, Zeituni Onyango, made headlines when it was revealed she was an illegal immigrant living in public housing in South Boston, was wobbly legged, “slurring” and had “red and glassy eyes” when he was pulled over at 7 p.m. Wednesday on Waverly Street in Framingham.

A marked cruiser pulled him over just past the Chicken Bone saloon, about a mile from Onyango’s single-family home. Onyango, the half-brother of the president’s father identified in some press accounts as “Uncle Omar,” initially denied drinking but admitted having “two beers” after police said they smelled booze on his breath, according to a police report.

“It was clear that he was moderately unsteady on his feet,” Framingham Officer Val Krishtal wrote.

Onyango’s white Mitsubishi SUV was pulled over after the vehicle made a sudden right turn in front of a cruiser at a stop sign, causing Krishtal to slam on the brakes to avoid a collision. Onyango blew a .14 on the Breathalyzer and continually interrupted the officer, the report states.

“(Onyango) spoke English well, albeit with a moderate accent. I detected what I believed to be some slurring as he spoke,” Krishtal wrote.

Onyango was ordered held without bail on a federal immigration warrant after his arraignment Thursday in Framingham District Court. Court papers show he was the subject of a previous deportation order. He was being held in the Plymouth House of Correction last night.

Mike Rogers, a spokesman for Cleveland immigration attorney Margaret Wong, who is representing Onyango, said he “wouldn’t know how” Onyango obtained a Social Security number. Wong is the same lawyer who represented the president’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, in her fight to win asylum last year. Reached at her apartment in a South Boston public housing complex yesterday, Zeituni Onyango said of her brother’s arrest: “Why don’t you go to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in Washington, D.C., and ask your president? Not me.” She then hung up on a reporter.

The bust came just days after another illegal immigrant was charged with running down and killing a 23-year-old man in Milford.

Asked about the issue yesterday, Gov. Deval Patrick said: “You know my stance: Illegal is illegal. We need comprehensive immigration reform.”

SOURCE



Labor Dept. Signs 'Partnerships' with Foreign Gov’s to Protect Illegal Workers in U.S.

U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis today signed "partnership" agreements with ambassadors from a group of Latin American nations aiming to protect what she described as the labor rights of both legal and illegal migrants working in the United States.

During the signing ceremony hosted at Labor Department headquarters in Washington D.C., Solis said the agreements are aimed at educating migrant workers, regardless of how they got here, about their rights under U.S. law and to help prevent them from being abused in the workplace, either through wages, loss of job, or deportation.

When asked by CNSNews.com, she made clear the agreements aim at protecting both documented and undocmented workers inside the United States.

In her address at the signing ceremony, Solis asserted that all migrant workers have a “right to a legal wage”--even though the Labor Department itself states that under U.S. law, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), “employers may hire only persons who may legally work in the United States (i.e., citizens and nationals of the U.S.) and aliens authorized to work in the U.S.”

The INA “protects U.S. citizens and aliens authorized to accept employment in the U.S. from discrimination in hiring or discharge on the basis of national origin and citizenship status," states the Labor Department Web site.

Nevertheless, during the signing ceremony today, Solis said, “No matter how you got here or how long you plan to stay, you have certain rights. You have the right to be safe and in a healthy workplace and the right to a legal wage. We gather here today to strengthen our shared commitment to protect the labor rights of migrant workers in the United States. Unfortunately, due to language barriers and immigration status, migrant workers can be those that are most vulnerably abused.”

“We’re committed to ending that abuse and in a few moments we’ll sign a new partnerships between the Department of Labor and the embassies of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador,” she said. “These are pledges between our governments to work together to educate migrant workers about their labor rights and prevent abuses in the workplace.”

“During the past year, we’ve signed similar agreements with the embassies--and I’m very proud of this--the embassies of Mexico, Nicaragua, and Guatemala,” said Solis, “and going forward we’ll be pursuing accords with governments from South East Asia and others in the Caribbean wanting to educate and protect those most vulnerable workers that live and reside in this country.”

“We understand that many migrant workers in America are afraid to report mistreatment because it can lead to more abuse, the loss of job, a job, or deportation,” she said. “With these partnerships we seek to remove those fears.”

CNSNews.com spoke to Solis on video after the ceremony about U.S. labor laws, asking, “Both documented and undocumented workers will be protected under U.S. labor laws?”

“It has always been the case under previous Republican as well as Democratic administrations. All we’re doing is enforcing the law and we’re allowing for other individual groups and partnerships with other consulate offices to work with us in expanding our reach in information,” Solis said. “What we’re trying to avoid is that vulnerable communities be abused and that there be an increase in more underground activity, economic activity that goes untapped, those monies that are being paid to workers.”

“In some cases taxes aren’t being appropriately paid, those taxes should go into our [U.S.] Treasury, and if everyone is brought out of the shadow in that manner, then we’ll have more assistance to protect people, we’ll have better competitive businesses,” she said. “It’s not fair for businesses who come into this country or are working in this country now and abuse workers. So we’re trying to rectify that and with that we hope that there will be more awareness and there’ll be better, how can I say, policies and documentations that can counter all that negativity that we’re seeing occurring when we’re seeing a downturn in our economy. That’s when most vulnerable are abused when there’s a downturn in the economy.”

Altogether, the envoys to the United States that have signed the agreements include those from the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, and El Salvador. Also, envoys from Mexico, Nicaragua, and Guatemala had signed the agreement prior to today’s ceremony.

On Monday, Solis said, “Immigrant workers are an important part of our American labor force fabric,” adding that they work in jobs that are “low paying and difficult to do, but they also pay taxes, they pay rent, they buy groceries, and some even open businesses and we’re grateful for their contribution to our economy.”

According to the Labor Department, the declarations signed today state that the department’s Wage and Hour Division will “protect the rights of migrant workers in low-wage industries such as hospitality and agriculture, while OSHA [the department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration] will continue efforts to improve workplace safety and health conditions as well as provide outreach and assistance to Spanish-speaking workers and employers.”

Under the declarations, the embassies and consulates that signed the agreements will work with the regional enforcement offices of OSHA and the Wage Hour Division to disseminate information about U.S. health, safety, and wage laws.

Two labor union leaders were invited to speak at today’s ceremony, Eliseo Medina from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union’s Joseph Hansen.

Today’s ceremony marked the first day of Labor Rights Week, which was started by the Mexican consulate in 2009. During Labor Rights Week, the Labor Department works in conjunction with 50 Mexican consulates across the nation to bring U.S. labor law education to migrant workers and their employers.

This year’s Labor Rights Week is focused on migrant women in the workplace.

“On behalf of President Barrack Obama, we stand together to denounce hatred, violence, and prejudice and recommit ourselves to protecting migrant women in the American workplace,” said Solis at today’s event.

Speaking Spanish to the ambassadors who attended the event, Solis vowed to continue fighting for immigration reform in this country.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, in a June 17 memo, directed its officials to use “prosecutorial discretion” in deciding which illegal aliens to remove from this country, including those involved in union organizing or who have legitimate complaints about employment discrimination or housing conditions.

SOURCE



1 September, 2011

Obama Cheered By Illegal Alien Advocates, But They Want More

Several news reports have brought to light a case involving an illegal immigrant from Kenya by the name of Onyango Obama being arrested last week after he almost struck a police cruiser with his SUV. The incident allegedly occurred in Framingham, Massachusetts. Coincidentally, according to the Washington Times, the 67-year old Obama is being represented by the same lawyer who represented Barack Obama's illegal alien aunt Zeituni Obama who is still living in the United States.

President Barack Obama's recent executive order for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to curtail deportations for thousands of illegal aliens pleases Latino voters, but only if his minions follow through with his wishes, according to a police commander, whose mayor opposes immigration enforcement, and who requested anonymity.

Illegal alien groups and their leaders claim that for more than two years Obama disappointed them by not spending as much time on "immigration reform" as he did on bailouts and pushing through a health care bill that few Americans even wanted, the law enforcement veteran said.

"If the president had fought harder for illegal aliens, he'd have lost his battle with the Tea Party and conservatives to pass Obamacare. And Obama knew it," said political strategist Mike Baker.

"The president this week gave the illegal aliens renewed hope by announcing new rules allowing non-violent illegal immigrants to remain in the country indefinitely. Unfortunately, he never explained how the government will know if an illegal alien -- with no identity to speak of -- possesses a propensity for violence and crime," Baker added.

"There has been a lot of skepticism in the Latino community about the President's willingness to fight on the immigration issue," Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) said Friday. "So my sense is people will wait to see how the new Homeland Security procedures are implemented and how hard the President fights back against the inevitable backlash from Fox [News] and the Republicans."

Gutierrez is well-known by the law enforcement community for his characterization of immigration enforcement agents as being "the Gestapo."

One of his main cohorts in fighting for amnesty for Latinos is Clarissa Martinez of La Raza. La Raza is viewed by many as a radical group of Mexicans whose ultimate goal is the retaking of the U.S. Southwest.

"We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population," said Jose Angel Gutierrez, founder and spokesman of La Raza.

Rep. Peter King, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee accused Obama of cherry picking which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.

“This new non-enforcement policy announced by the Obama Administration Thursday is a blatant attempt to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal aliens in this country, and is totally unacceptable. In reality, this decision to vastly expand the exercise of ‘prosecutorial discretion’ in enforcing our federal immigration laws means that the Administration will now be, in a huge number of cases, simply ignoring those laws," said King.

While Obama's move caused anger among many GOP lawmakers and citizens groups, it was praise by the Democrats.

"This is the Barack Obama I have been waiting for and that Latino and immigrant voters helped put in office," Rep. Luis Gutiérrez told New York Daily News reporter Jack Straw.

Sen. Dick Durbin, a close Obama ally and one of the loudest immigration reform proponents on Capitol Hill, sounded a similar note this week. The Illinois Democrat said the new policy represents "a fair and just way to deal with an important group of immigrant students." But Durbin was quick to add that he'll "closely monitor DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] to ensure it is fully implemented."

Rep. Peter King, who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee accused Obama of cherry picking which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.

“This new non-enforcement policy announced by the Obama Administration Thursday is a blatant attempt to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal aliens in this country, and is totally unacceptable. In reality, this decision to vastly expand the exercise of ‘prosecutorial discretion’ in enforcing our federal immigration laws means that the Administration will now be, in a huge number of cases, simply ignoring those laws," said King.

While progressives in the Democrat Party have praised the change as being fair and a matter of common-sense, Republicans are describing it as an end-around Congress, which defeated a similar proposal in December 2010, before the GOP took control of the House of Representatives.

Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-NY) and Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border Security, stated that the change is "a blatant attempt to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal aliens in this country."

King cited Obama's remarks from July: “On July 25, in a speech to the National Council of La Raza, the President himself said, ‘I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own…but that’s not how our system works…That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.’ Apparently the President’s understanding of how our system of government works has changed since last month.”

“The President and members of his Administration must enforce this nation’s laws, just as they have sworn in their oaths of office to do," said the visibly angry Congressman King.

Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which supports tougher immigration enforcement, said that, from a policy standpoint, the new policy ignores existing law and "demoralizes" the enforcement officers charged with rounding up undocumented people.

SOURCE



High Court of Australia rules Malaysian swap deal unlawful

THE Federal Government's Malaysian people swap deal has been ruled unlawful by the High Court. Chief Justice Robert French said the court ordered Immigration Minister Chris Bowen and his Department be restrained from sending asylum seekers to Malaysia. "The declaration made ... was made without power and is invalid," Justice French said.

The Government had wanted to send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia in exchange for 4000 already processed refugees. The decision effectively stymies the Government's so-called Malaysia Solution.

A 5-2 majority of the Full Bench ruled Mr Bowen's declaration that Malaysia was an appropriate country to which to send asylum seekers was invalid. The court found that a country must be bound by international or domestic law to provide protection for asylum seekers to be an appropriate destination.

"The court also held that the Minister has no other power under the Migration Act to remove from Australia asylum seekers whose claims for protection have not been determined," a summary of the court's judgment read.

Australian National University international law expert Donald Rothwell said the fact that Malaysia was not a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention was likely "a key factor" in the court's decision. Professor Rothwell said the decision could not be appealed but that the Government may seek other ways to revive the policy.

Refugee lawyers also argued that sending unaccompanied minors to Malaysia would breach the minister's duty of care as their legal guardian to act in their best interests.

But Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler had argued the Government could lawfully declare Malaysia a safe third country even though it had no domestic or international legal obligations to protect asylum seekers.

SOURCE






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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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