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



30 April, 2007

Immigration system broken, Bush tells grads

It's broken all right but who broke it? Successive administrations that failed to enforce the laws they are entrusted to enforce. Recent enforcement efforts show what could have been done all along

President Bush came to a city of immigrants Saturday to press his case for an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws. In a 20-minute commencement address at Miami Dade College, Bush urged graduates to press Congress to bridge its divide over immigration proposals. He made the address at a college where more than half of the students were raised speaking a language other than English. "Our current immigration system is in need of reform. It is not working," said Bush, as the crowd cheered. "We need a system where our laws are respected. We need a system that meets the legitimate needs of our economy." Outside, several hundred people gathered to protest the war in Iraq.

Bush has called for a bill with tighter border controls, a temporary-worker program and legal status for many of the men and women living in the U.S. without documents. Congress failed to pass legislation last year as members of the then-GOP-controlled House passed a measure focusing on enforcement. But the Democratically controlled House in March passed a bill that offers 12 million immigrants living in the country without authorization a path to citizenship. If the Senate passes a similar measure, the president could get his wish.

Bush told the graduates he supports immigration that "will allow us to secure our borders and enforce our laws once and for all, that will keep us competitive in a global economy, and that will resolve the status of those who are already here, without amnesty, and without animosity." Bush applauded the college's diversity, which in Saturday's ceremony represented 64 countries. As the graduates received their diplomas, protesters and musicians gathered near the four entrances of the campus holding signs that read "Fire the Liar" and "Out of Iraq."

Source



Official British immigration figures 'are false'

Councils say the government's statistics are seriously underestimating the total influx and they need more money to cope

Councils are so concerned that official figures are failing to record the true number of migrants entering their area that they are to start their own polling to gauge the scale of the influx. This is a serious embarrassment to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) which has tried to play down concerns that its estimates for the number of people entering the UK are badly flawed.

Although the office plans to improve its methods for tracking immigration, critics say the new way of counting migrants was equally problematic. The critics point out that, under the new calculations, the number entering London supposedly decreased by 60,000 between 2002 and 2005 - the most up-to-date records available - though most experts say they actually increased. Councils in and around the capital claim the rise in immigrants is placing greater pressure on services and is starting to have an impact on their finances.

'We are so concerned that these official statistics still do not properly count those coming in to the UK that we will be commissioning our own independent polls,' said Colin Barrow, deputy leader at Westminster council. 'This will give a more accurate picture of the situation on the streets in central London.' Other councils echoed Westminster's concerns, saying they had experienced significant increases in immigration which appeared to be at odds with official estimates. 'Our electoral register has gone up by 23,000 over the past few years yet they're saying it's gone down,' said Sir Robin Wales, mayor of Newham, east London. 'It's ludicrous. We've nothing against migration - it is great for the economy and great for Newham. However, it needs to be properly funded. We would be willing to pay for a census just to rectify these figures. It would cost us a lot of money, but these inaccurate figures are costing us even more.'

The office estimates that Slough has received 1,100 extra migrants since 2002. But the local council estimates that at least 10,000 Polish people alone have arrived to work in the town since 2004. 'The migrants that come to Slough are hard working and bring great benefit to the local economy but the council remains severely underfunded because of these poor statistics,' said Andrew Blake-Herbert, strategic director of finance and property at Slough Council.

The ONS has previously acknowledged problems in the way it counts migrants. In May 2006, Karen Dunnell, National Statistician there, wrote to four government departments stating: 'There is now broad agreement that available estimates of migrant numbers are inadequate for managing the economy, policies and services.' And earlier this month the Immigration Minister, Liam Byrne, said the ONS needed to improve its figures on which key local financing decisions are based.

Critics say the office's figures are also at odds with those collated by the government. Migration figures released by the ONS earlier this month suggested that approximately 56,000 Poles entered the UK in 2005, although the Department for Work and Pensions has issued figures suggesting that over 170,000 Polish citizens applied for National Insurance numbers in the same year. Stung by criticism, the ONS will use details from the quarterly Labour Force Survey, which selects households at random to provide a population snapshot, rather than relying on interviewing people entering ports and airports.

But councils are not convinced. 'The government's new figures suggest we have fewer migrants than three years ago,' said Councillor Mark Loveday, cabinet member for strategy at Hammersmith and Fulham council. National Insurance registrations by people from countries which recently joined the European Union 'are up by more than 550 per cent and that's before other migrants are counted'. An ONS spokesman said its method for counting people at ports of entry ensured a reflective snapshot of population flows in and out of the UK. [I guess the illegals who enter in the backs of trucks don't exist]

Source



29 April, 2007

Brits getting tired of immigration problems

Having immigrants and the children of immigrants blowing up your buses and trains (among other things) is beginning to get to even the tolerant British -- and since the mainstream parties are trying to ignore the disquiet, a new party that does not ignore that is getting more and more votes

It is, at first sight, a vision of rural bliss - a cream-coloured cottage high in the hills of Mid Wales and two miles from the nearest road. The daffodils are out. Lambs gambol in the fields. Chickens peck around the yard. In the side garden, beyond the rabbit hutch and fishpond, two blonde girls are playing in the sun. Look closer, however, and you spot the incongruities: the two rottweilers in their caged kennel, security cameras, the burglar alarm. You begin to suspect that the owner has chosen this house precisely for its inaccessibility. He has reason to. Nick Griffin is leader of the whites-only British National Party and one of the most hated - and, to his many detractors, hateful - men in the country....

Griffin kisses Jackie goodbye, reminds her to water his newly planted aubretia, and we head off in his Ford Mondeo estate for the fertile BNP territory of West Yorkshire, with its immigrant populations of 10, 20 or even 30 per cent. In the back is a book recording the Scottish National Party's transformation from an extreme to a mainstream party. Griffin's inspiration, however, is Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of France's far-right National Front, who turned "a bunch of crazies into a serious political force"....

He tells me about a life spent mostly on the extreme right of British politics. His parents met while heckling a Communist Party meeting in North London in 1948. During the 1964 general election campaign, Griffin pedalled up and down the street outside his home in Barnet with Conservative posters on his tricycle. By 1974 his father, a Tory councillor and member of the right-wing Monday Club, was so dismayed by Britain's leftward drift that he took his family to a National Front meeting. Griffin, then 15, joined immediately.....

Griffin has earned his 1,800 pounds-a-month BNP salary. The party won three council seats in Burnley in 2002. It now has 49 nationwide, and on May 3 Griffin expects to win many more in what he sarcastically calls "enriched" areas such as inner Essex, the Black Country, West Yorkshire and Lancashire. The party will also be contesting seats in blue-rinse towns such as Harrogate, Bath, Windsor and Torbay. One recent poll suggested that 7 per cent of the electorate would consider voting for it.

Griffin says that membership has risen from 1,300 in 1999 to 10,500, boosted by home-grown Islamic terrorist plots, globalisation and his dramatic acquittal in last year's race-hate trials. Critics insist that the BNP's move towards respectability is purely cosmetic. Griffin retorts, as we join the motorway, that it is "deep and sincere". He admits "past stupidities", and says that he regrets the way that the BNP used to provoke confrontations or to discuss race in a way that was "frankly crude, or cruelly and inaccurately supremacist". He is not racist, he argues. He does not believe that whites are superior. He believes that races are different and that multiculturalism is a recipe for disaster. He opposes miscegenation "because most people want their grandchildren to look basically like them". If the liberal elite had its way, the world would become "a giant melting pot turning out coffee-coloured citizens by the million".

The BNP no longer demands the recriminalisation of homosexuality, but Griffin still expresses disgust at the idea of two men "snogging in public". His revised views on the Holocaust are striking, too. He says that he derided the Holocaust only because the Left used it as "a huge moral club" with which to beat opponents of multiculturalism. He now accepts that millions of Jews were killed, but claims that some historians (he cites David Irving) still question whether it was deliberate genocide.....

In pockets of Britain the BNP is almost a mainstream party now, with ever more people daring to run for office or to put posters in windows. But it still prints its newspaper in Eastern Europe because British plants refuse to, has trouble renting halls and cannot advertise its meetings because they would be picketed. Potential supporters are instead instructed to gather at "redirection points" and told where to go.

In Ripon the meeting point is the town square, where the local BBC radio station interviews Griffin. Ripon and Harrogate are "lovely English towns and we believe they should stay that way. They can't if there are high levels of immigration," he says. On our way to the meeting we pass a painting of a black inmate outside the Workhouse Museum. Griffin splutters. It was poor whites who suffered in workhouses, he says.

About 70 people are packed into a back room of the Golden Lion pub, with not a skinhead or pair of Doc Martens in sight and more tweeds than T-shirts. They are male and female, young and old, working class and middle class, ex-Labour and ex-Tory, several of them Daily Telegraph readers. They are mostly solid Yorkshire folk who have watched immigrants transform areas in which they grew up and believe - rightly or wrongly - that their way of life is under threat. They are bewildered more than hate-filled. They are fearful more than fear-inspiring, and feel gagged by political correctness. They do not come from sink estates. They are stakeholders, people with something to lose. "We're being overwhelmed," laments a retired Latin teacher. "I've nothing against other races. It's just that they keep flooding into the country to breaking point," says a lorry driver. "We can't invite the whole world to live in England," says a former merchant marine officer. Few will give their names.

Griffin and his fellow speakers do nothing to calm their fears. Quite the opposite. In a promotional video he decries the alleged banning of the cross of St George, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and even Piglet because the character offends Muslims. Against a background of soft music and beautiful scenery, a woman's voice decries the millions of foreigners of all races settling in Britain: "The one thing they have in common is there are too many of them."

Michelle Shrubb, a candidate who lived in South Africa, says that a black crimewave is coming to Britain. Nick Cass, the BNP's Yorkshire organiser, declares that "decent British people are fed up to the back teeth with seeing the country fall apart and being called racist when they want to do something about it". The merchandise table offers "It's Cool to be White" T-shirts and "I vote BNP because they look after me" bumper stickers. BNP candidates are presented with rosettes for daring to stand up and be counted. Griffin humorously coaxes about 500 pounds in donations from the audience, then answers questions for an hour. He puts on no airs and graces. He has a pint on the table beside him. He presents himself as an ordinary bloke, like his audience, who is fighting a corrupt elite that bleeds taxpayers for its disastrous social engineering projects and treats them with contempt. He is a shameless populist. He calls the rise of the BNP "a peasants' revolt". He talks of "our people", meaning whites. He mocks those who regard criminals as victims, advocates "damn good thrashings" for wayward teenagers, and says of drug-dealers: "Hang the bastards."

The audience loves it, but this is more than knockabout political rhetoric. Griffin firmly believes all this. Party policy - which he sets - is draconian and xenophobic. The BNP would deport all illegal immigrants, asylum-seekers and subversive foreigners, and offer existing immigrants money to return home. "It's clearly worth talking in terms of six-figure sums to persuade families to go," Griffin says. He would create civilian anti-crime patrols. Anyone who has done National Service would be allowed to keep guns to shoot burglars, and as "a last resort against a tyrannical government". He would restore hanging for the worst murderers, paedophiles, rapists and drug-dealers, and bring back the birch.

He would abolish affirmative action programmes and hate-crime legislation, ban the promotion of homosexuality, prevent the NHS from recruiting foreign workers and stop women soldiers serving on the front line. State schools would restore mandatory (nonhalal) lunches and morning assemblies with Christian worship (minorities should "either accept our ways or go somewhere else"). A BNP government would take Britain out of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights. Remove the BNP label, Griffin claims, and most Brits would support these policies....

Between umpteen calls on his mobile phone - one is about ways to use Simone Clarke, the ballet dancer identified as a BNP member - I ask if Griffin sees any advantages to multiculturalism. Chicken tikka masala, he replies. And some good sportsmen, though he thinks that England's all-white 1966 World Cup footballers outperformed today's team because they had "common values and identity". Then he lists the downsides - a catastrophic loss of social cohesion, racial harassment and violence, spreading knife and gun cultures and old folk dying in nursing homes surrounded by staff who do not speak their language and feeling "totally alone, alienated and in a foreign place".

He warms to the theme, claiming that some Muslims deliberately use heroin - "Paki poison" - to undermine non-Muslim communities around them. "It's narco-terrorism." Even worse, he says, is the way that hardline Muslim males deliberately seduce and corrupt "thousands" of young white girls in a practice called "grooming" that the authorities downplay for fear of being labelled racist....

The 60 people at that night's BNP meeting in a Batley pub are not thinking in such apocalyptic terms. They have more immediate and prosaic fears about the consequences of immigration - their children being squeezed out of jobs and council housing, the emergence of no-go areas, the undermining of their rights and culture.

"We're frightened to be British," says Ann Nailor, who runs five Age Concern shops. "I feel alienated in my own community," says Neil Feeney, a water company employee. "People who read your paper have no idea about places like this," said Marjorie Shaw, a former policewoman now in a wheelchair. "The BNP are the only ones standing up for this country," adds Lynn Winfield, a pub dishwasher. Griffin fans the flames. He calls the English "one of the most oppressed peoples on earth". He says that when people like him try to speak out about real problems "they try to throw them in jail". He says that bad laws should be broken. He calls global warming "an excuse to say that we, the international elite, have to interfere with every sovereign state in the world, and if we don't you will sink by Thursday".

Source



British courts over-rule deportation of Jihadists

Two of Britain’s most dangerous terror suspects will be on our streets within days, after a hugely damaging defeat for the Government. A map marking routes under Birmingham airport’s flight path was found at the home of one of the men – described as a “global jihadist” – who has family links to two notorious terrorists. The second man is accused of being a former leader of a terror cell in Italy, that authorities feared was on the verge of an attack, probably in Europe.

But the pair, both Libyans, are expected to be bailed next week, after winning their appeals against deportation. The ruling leaves the Government’s anti-terror policy in chaos, after judges threw out much-heralded agreements between Britain and Libya that the men would not be tortured if they returned.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission chairman Mr Justice Ouseley said there remained a real risk that the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached if the two men were returned.

The so-called memoranda of understanding are a key part of the promise by Tony Blair and John Reid to return terror suspects to countries known for human rights abuses.

Yesterday’s decision leaves the planned deportation of at least eight Libyan suspects, including the two who are to be bailed, in disarray, and casts grave doubts over similar agreements with other nations.

The Tories’ terrorism expert, MP Patrick Mercer said: “I find it extraordinary that we have imposed these people on our society. “It will be extremely difficult to keep these men to their bail conditions, particularly with this level of oversight. “They will not be on bail forever and I am very interested to know what the Government will do.”

The two Libyans, granted bail in principle, have been held in the maximum-security prison at Long Lartin, Worcs, under immigration detention. But Mr Justice Mitting said keeping them in after they had won their appeal would be on the “cusp of legality”. Instead they were bailed with strict conditions, including a 12-hour curfew and no access to mobile phones or the internet. They will still be allowed out for 12 hours a day. The two Libyans are accused of travelling on false passports. Both claimed asylum after they got into Britain. One, who can be identified only as DD, had an AtoZ street map in a car parked near his house, marking footpaths under the flight path to Birmingham International Airport. The appeals commission ruled that DD is a “real and direct threat to the national security of the UK” and a “global jihadist with links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda”. The second terror suspect, AS, was also ruled a “clear danger to national security”.

The Government wants to deport eight suspects to Libya. Moves against another four have been put off while they face terror prosecutions here. A Home Office spokesman said: “We are very disappointed with the decision that it is not safe to deport these individuals. “We believe that the assurances given to us by the Libyans do provide effective safeguards for the proper treatment of individuals being returned and do ensure that their rights will be respected. We intend, therefore, to appeal.”

Source



28 April, 2007

Immigration-Related Cases Clog Courts

Immigration-related felony cases are swamping federal courts along the Southwest border, forcing judges to handle hundreds more cases than their peers elsewhere. Judges in the five, mostly rural judicial districts on the border carry the heaviest felony caseloads in the nation. Each judge in New Mexico, which ranked first, handled an average of 397 felony cases last year, compared with the national average of 84. Federal judges in those five districts _ Southern and Western Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California _ handled one-third of all the felonies prosecuted in the nation's 94 federal judicial districts in 2005, according to federal court statistics.

While Congress has increased the number of border patrol officers, the pace of the law enforcement has eclipsed the resources for the court system. Judges say they are stretched to the limit with cases involving drug trafficking or illegal immigrants who have also committed serious crimes. Judges say they need help. "The need is really dire. You cannot keep increasing the number of Border Patrol agents but not increasing the number of judges," said Chief Judge John M. Roll of the District of Arizona.

A bill by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and co-sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Texas Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, would add 10 permanent and temporary judges in Arizona, New Mexico, and Southern and Western Texas. This proposal, and others like it, have gone nowhere in the past two years. "I can't even tell you how much we need that," Roll said. The entire federal court system is affected, from U.S. marshals to magistrate judges. The bottleneck has even derailed enforcement efforts.

During a push to crack down on illegal immigration last fall, Customs and Border Protection floated a plan for New Mexico that would have suspended the practice of sending home hundreds of illegal immigrants caught near the border with Mexico. Instead, these people would be sent to court. The idea, called "Operation Streamline," was to make it clear that people caught illegally in the U.S. would be prosecuted. Then New Mexico's federal judges reminded the Border Patrol that they lacked the resources to handle the hundreds of new defendants who would stream into the court system every day. "We said, 'Do you realize that the second week into this we're going to run out of (jail) space?'" Martha Vazquez, chief judge for the District of New Mexico, recalled telling Border Patrol chief David Aguilar. "We were obviously alarmed because where would we put our bank robbers? Our rapists? Those who violate probation?" she said.

Border Patrol eventually dropped the idea. Officials said they could not get all the necessary agencies to agree to it. It is estimated more than 1 million people sneak across the southwestern U.S. border and illegally enter the country every year. In Arizona, the busiest entry point for illegal immigration, state officials believe almost 4,000 people attempted to enter every day in 2006.

Many lawmakers, advocates and President Bush favor overhauling guest worker programs and rules for businesses that hire illegal immigrants. The intent is to eliminate the incentive for workers to sneak into the country. Bush promoted his latest proposal for new worker visas this month in the border community of Yuma, Ariz. In recent years, however, Congress has focused on increased enforcement.

The Border Patrol has almost 2,800 more agents than the 9,821 it had in September of 2001. An additional 6,000 National Guard troops have provided logistical support to the Border Patrol since last May. Congress has made available more than $1.2 billion for reinforcements, including fences, vehicle barriers, cameras and other security equipment. Homeland Security officials say the increased security is working. In Yuma, Bush said that the number of people apprehended for illegally crossing the southern border into the U.S. has declined by nearly 30 percent this year.

Court officials, however, say they are in crisis mode trying to deal with all the defendants. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, has urged U.S. attorneys and courts to prosecute more illegal immigrants and pushed for more resources for both. But he has discovered that while his colleagues who do not represent a border district are eager to add Border Patrol officers, many do not realize the effect that will have on the court system, his spokesman said.

Even lawmakers from border states say they cannot justify adding judgeships in one district when other districts also need them. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, says her state needs 12 judges, not just help on the border. "I'd be happy to support any bill that gives California its fair share," Feinstein said in a statement. "And I will seek to amend any bill that does not."

Court officials say they have had to be creative just to try the cases they have. Visiting judges help out in some districts. In Arizona, magistrates hold sessions on the weekends and have seen as many as 150 defendants in a day. In New Mexico, Vazquez, the chief judge, and former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias went on a Spanish-language radio station broadcast in Mexico this winter to warn people about the penalties for illegally entering the country.

Court administrators have trouble keeping employees, such as interpreters, because of the grind. Judges' staffs struggle with burnout. Everyone fights to keep up morale as they hear countless sad stories from migrants who broke the law searching for a better life in the United States. "It'd be swell to have another judge or two," said Judge George Kazen, who is based on the border in Laredo, in the Southern District of Texas. "It would mean a little more time to spend on civil stuff, and a little more time to reflect. We have to make quick calls and move on."

Source



Immigration scrutiny in Australia

Australia has very little illegal immigration so the Feds are cracking down on abuses of legal immigration

Employers will be subject to unannounced spot checks by immigration officials and could face fines for exploiting or underpaying migrant workers in a shake-up of visa arrangements. Under reforms announced yesterday by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, employers will also be required to ensure that overseas workers have a functional level of English. Applicants will be required to detail their English language skills and, on a targeted basis, may be required to complete an International English Language Testing System test.

The Howard Government has faced criticism for its handling of the scheme, which has grown so rapidly recently because of labour shortages that the bureaucracy could not keep up with monitoring and compliance of employers. Over the past 12 months, the union movement and the Labor Party have highlighted extreme cases of exploitation where workers have been charged exorbitant amounts for rent and other fees, paid in foreign currencies and forced to work in unskilled roles despite being highly qualified.

Mr Andrews said the changes, to take effect later this year, would reward employers who had a "strong and demonstrated record" of complying with the 457 visa program by having their applications to sponsor workers fast-tracked. Employers who underpaid workers or made them perform in unskilled jobs would face civil penalties similar to those in the Workplace Relations Act, he said. Mr Andrews said existing penalties, where employers faced being excluded from access to further foreign workers, were insufficient. The government's workplace watchdog, the Office of Workplace Services, would also be given greater powers to investigate breaches of the minimum salary level under the changes. The immigration department granted 368,333 business visitor visas in 2005-06.

Labor's immigration spokesman Tony Burke said the announcement simply put "a band-aid over a gaping wound". "The real problem remains: that the Government doesn't understand that most of the abuses have in fact been legal and continue to be legal," he said. "We saw the example not long ago of the 40 Filipino welders I visited in Brisbane last year who were being paid the minimum salary level under the visa, but this was 20 per cent below the going rate in the area. Mr Burke urged the Government to do more to stop foreign workers being exploited and said unscrupulous employers would be able to undercut local Australian wages by tens of thousands of dollars despite the changes. "You will still be able to undermine a salary through exorbitant compulsory deductions and kickbacks to rogue employers," he said. "With the new announcement, the system is better than it was but decent businesses can still face unfair competition from shonky operators who exploit foreign workers."

Source



27 April, 2007

Net influx of 185,000 per annum into the UK

In 2005, an estimated 565,000 migrants arrived to live in the UK for at least a year. This was lower than the 2004 estimate, but higher than all other years since the method to estimate Total International Migration began in 1991. In the same period, 380,000 people emigrated from the UK for a year or more; over half of these were British citizens. Australia was the most popular destination for British emigrants followed by Spain and France. Net migration, the difference between immigration and emigration, was 185,000. This was equivalent to adding just over 500 people a day to the UK population.

In 2005, 80,000 citizens from the group of eight central and eastern European countries that acceded to the EU on 1 May 2004 (known as the A8) immigrated to the UK for a year or more. This was 54 per cent higher than the 52,000 estimate for 2004. This can be explained by 2005 being the first calendar year following EU accession, and A8 citizens having increased freedom to live and work in the UK. Over 70 per cent of A8 migrants arriving in 2005 were Polish citizens.

Almost 85 per cent of those A8 citizens migrating to the UK came for work reasons, that is, they were 'looking for work' or had a 'definite job' to go to. Overall, nearly half of all citizens migrating to the UK gave work-related reasons.

'Formal study' is another important reason for people migrating to the UK accounting for almost a quarter of all immigration in 2005.

There are notable differences in the routes that migrants of different citizenships use to enter the UK. In 2004 and 2005, nearly 90 per cent of A8 migrants entered via routes other than the main UK airports (such as via sea ports, the Channel Tunnel, or Stansted and Luton and other local airports).

In contrast, nearly 75 per cent of citizens from Commonwealth and Other foreign countries entered the UK via Heathrow airport. Over 60 per cent of British migrants entered the UK via Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester airports.

Source



America can ill-afford immigrant labor

Advocates of unrestricted immigration often argue that the American economy depends on laborers who stream across our largely unguarded borders. But a new study by the conservative Heritage Foundation soundly refutes that claim. It turns out that low-skill immigrants here legally or otherwise depend on American taxpayers, not the other way around.

In the first major study to quantify the hidden costs of immigration, Heritage analysts Robert Rector, Christine Kim and Shanea Watkins crunched the numbers and found that a typical household headed by an unskilled worker lacking the equivalent of a high school diploma earns $20,564 and pays $9,689 in taxes per year on average. But the same household collects $32,138 in direct and means-tested government benefits. Over 50 years, that adds up to $1.3 million per household - a largely hidden, but dramatic transfer of wealth from U.S. taxpayers.

"Immigrants do make the pie larger," Rector told The Examiner, "but they eat the additional slice they create." And then some. If, as appears likely, Congress allows the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, the present annual tax burden of $32,706 per household will climb substantially. Allowing more low-skill immigrants to enter the country will simply drive that burden even higher. Note that a bill currently in the House would allow 4 million additional unskilled workers into the country over the next decade.

This "cheap" labor also depresses wages and benefits for low-income Americans, particularly native-born minorities. Instead of lifting our own citizens out of poverty, we're importing millions more poor people.

The Heritage team concluded that government transfers to low-skilled workers already in the United States represent a net economic loss of $100 billion a year. That figure will be much higher if immigration reform allows millions more to enter the United States. In order to make immigration "fiscally neutral," the study found, it would be necessary to "eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public education in half." Barring such draconian measures, immigration - both legal and illegal - will continue to "generate deep fiscal deficits for the foreseeable future."

Even if the borders were sealed tomorrow, the long-term outlook for entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicaid is already grim. Rector warns of an even larger welfare state comparable to those in Europe as our nation's incoherent immigration policy "selectively draws the least competent workers into the U.S." - and sends taxpayers the bill.

Slowly, but inexorably, we are allowing agenda-driven activists, clueless corporate suits and dissembling government officials to dismantle the world-class standard of living it took generations of hard-working Americans to build.

Source



26 April, 2007

'Family values' won't be boosted by immigration

The high rate of illegitimate births to immigrants is a warning to American leaders not to expect help building family values from such newcomers, according to a new study released today by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C.

Hispanic immigrants have seen the largest increase in out-of-wedlock births, from 19 percent in 1980 to 42 percent in 2003, according to the study entitled "Illegitimate Nation," authored by Dr. Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at CIS. Camarota notes that illegitimate births in the native population have increased as well, from 19 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2003. For immigrants overall, both legal and illegal, out-of-wedlock birth rates have been comparable to illegitimate birth rates among the native population, increasing from 13 percent in 1980 for immigrants (both legal and illegal) to 32 percent in 2003.

The higher rate of illegitimate births among Hispanic immigrants is important, Camarota notes, because births to Hispanic mothers now account for 59 percent of all births to foreign-born mothers. "How the children of Hispanic immigrants fare is one of the most critically important questions we face as a nation with regard to the integration of children from immigrant families," Camarota wrote. "The birth rate data indicate that a very large share of these children are starting life at a significant social disadvantage."

Camarota found that illegitimate births tend to associate with the low education levels of the mothers. In 2003, 65 percent of illegitimate births to Hispanic immigrants were to mothers who lacked a high school diploma. In 2003, for the first time, the absolute number of illegitimate births among Hispanic immigrants exceeded the absolute number of illegitimate births among African-Americans.

Camarota cited the extensive social science research that shows illegitimacy and family breakdown have concerned policy makers, researchers, and the public for more than half a century, at least since Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 publication of what became known as "The Moynihan Report." "Research shows that children of unmarried parents are much more likely to live in poverty, have low academic achievement, and have higher high school dropout rates than those born to married persons," Camarota commented. "Run-ins with the law, drug use, and incarceration are all more common among children born to unmarried parents," he continued. "Welfare use is also significantly higher for married families with illegitimate children. Infants born out of wedlock suffer higher mortality rates. Illegitimate children have been found to suffer from more-difficult-to-solve problems such as low levels of self esteem and self worth." Moreover, Camarota noted that children of unmarried parents are themselves at a higher risk of becoming out-of-wedlock parents themselves, setting up a generational perpetuation of the problem.

Camarota cited President Bush's frequent statement that "family values do not stop at the Rio Grande." Keying from this claim, a major goal of Camarota's study was to answer the following question: "Is one of the benefits of immigration that it will infuse the country with traditional family values?" After reviewing the high rate of illegitimate births, especially among Hispanic immigrants, his answer was a resounding, "No."

His conclusion was that illegitimate births to immigrants will add to a growing societal problem. He wrote, "Children of immigrants born to immigrant parents will be at a higher risk for low academic achievement, criminality, weak attachment to the labor force, use of welfare, and all the other social problems the illegitimate children are at a higher risk to experience."

Camarota concluded, "Immigrants are subject to the same social forces as everybody else, and illegitimacy is as big a problem among immigrants as it is for the rest of society. Thus, the idea that immigration will reinvigorate traditional family values is unrealistic."

Source



Big media hide truth about immigration

Comment by Lou Dobbs

The Bush administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party are preparing to take another legislative leap at imposing a massive illegal alien amnesty on American citizens. And the mainstream media are complicit in advancing this thinly veiled blanket amnesty. Instead of asking and answering important questions about why our immigration laws aren't being enforced and why we're permitting pervasive document fraud, the national media seem hell-bent on trying to obfuscate the issue, shamelessly playing with language, equating legal immigration with illegal immigration while obviously trying to preserve the illusion of objectivity.

Too often, the language of the national media describes illegal immigration as "migration" and illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants," even though many of them have lots of documents, most of which are fraudulent or stolen. Some media outlets have taken to calling illegal aliens "entrants." Whether such language is meant to engender sympathy or to intentionally blur the distinction between legal and illegal, the mainstream media are taking sides in this debate.

The Arizona Republic, for example, used "undocumented immigrant" more than 80 times in 36 separate stories in the past month alone; the term appeared as many as 12 times in one article on "migration," according to our Lexis-Nexis search. At the same time, "illegal alien" appeared a total of only nine times during that span, with seven of the references coming from readers' opinions, one from a quotation and one from an editorial.

The mainstream media report as if America would no longer be a welcoming nation if we stopped illegal immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why do the national media conveniently and routinely neglect to report that the United States brings in more lawful immigrants than the countries of the rest of the world combined? Each year, we accept 2 million immigrants legally. We give a million legal immigrants permanent residency every year. We bestow citizenship on 700,000 people a year and provide almost half a million work-related visas a year.

Illegal immigration, in fact, has the potential to change the course of American history: Demographers at the Brookings Institution and the Population Reference Bureau paint a troubling picture of the future of our democracy. As more illegal aliens cross our borders and settle in large states like California, Texas and Florida, congressional seats will be redistributed to these bigger states following each decennial Census. States with low levels of immigration will ultimately lose seats as a result. Unfortunately for American citizens, this seismic shift in political representation will be decided by noncitizens that cannot vote.

Congress will soon take up so-called comprehensive immigration reform, and a bipartisan House bill would probably admit 400,000 guest workers a year. And since any plan calling for eventual legalization would include family members who live outside the United States, the legislation would open our borders to tens of millions of people. The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector estimated that the 2006 version of the McCain-Kennedy bill would have added an additional 66 million immigrants over the next 20 years. The bill may change, but that estimate has yet to be refuted.

There's no question this type of mass immigration would have a calamitous effect on working citizens and their families. Professor Carol Swain, professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University and author of "Debating Immigration," would like to see more people speak up for the sectors of society most affected by illegal immigration. "How many African-American leaders have you seen come out and address the impact that high levels of illegal immigration [are] having in the communities when it comes to jobs, when it comes to education, when it comes to health care?" she asked. "And often, these low-skilled, low-wage workers compete in the same sectors for jobs."

Let's have a vigorous open debate on illegal immigration in this country, and let's begin with the facts. Estimates of illegal aliens in this country range from 12 million to 20 million people. Why doesn't our government know how many there are? Shouldn't this Congress and this president at least recognize that the industries in which illegal aliens are employed in the greatest percentages also are suffering the largest wage declines? And shouldn't there be an economic impact statement researched and delivered to this Congress, this president and the rest of us before any legislation granting amnesty is even considered? Shouldn't we first bring the facts of illegal immigration out of the shadows?

Source



25 April, 2007

"Impromptu" protest

What a crock! Read the last paragraph below and decide how impromptu it sounds to you

CHICAGO -- An immigration raid in the Little Village neighborhood sparked an impromptu protest Tuesday afternoon.

The raid, which took place near 26th Street and Albany Avenue, was aimed at busting an alleged fake ID document organization at a local discount mall. U.S. attorney's office spokesman Randall Samborn said agents made arrests and conducted searches in the neighborhood. Witnesses said dozens of undocumented immigrants were apprehended.

"This is affecting all our people, everybody -- not just Latinos, but all immigrants throughout the country," one man said at the scene. Another witness was incensed by the raid. "This is discrimination. This is unfair because the United States is made out of immigrants," she said.

The neighborhood responded with a march through the streets. Dozens of residents linked arm-in-arm and marched through the neighborhood. Police cars at the front and rear of the gathering drove slowly along with the marchers. The protesters began at 26th and Albany and marched through the neighborhood to a church, Our Lady Of Tepeyac, at 22nd and Whipple streets.

Source



Arpaio locks up illegals

Arpaio shows that law enforcement IS possible. Arpaio is himself the son of (legal) Italian immigrants

"America's Toughest Sheriff," Joe Arpaio, is locking up criminals - including immigrant smugglers and those being smuggled - despite his jails being overcapacity. Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., is using his authority under state and federal laws to send a message, not only to those who smuggle immigrants into America but to anyone who participates.

In San Bernardino County, illegal immigrants who are arrested are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, the largest investigative branch of the Department of Homeland Security. They identify criminal activities and work to eliminate vulnerabilities that pose a threat to our nation's borders, according to the ICE Web site. When an illegal alien is arrested in San Bernardino County, ICE officers working in the jails take them into custody and try to get them deported.

But in Maricopa County, Ariz., Arpaio welcomes all human smugglers and those being smuggled with open jail cells and tents. Since a state law was passed in spring 2006 making human smuggling a felony, Maricopa County law enforcement agents have arrested 526, including two arrested Monday. In the past 10 days, 94 have been arrested under the state and federal immigration laws. "The Terminator should call me and thank me," Arpaio said, referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "Seventy percent of the 500 arrested were headed for California."

Arpaio is also training 160 officers to enforce the Arizona state law and federal immigration statutes. They make up the Triple I Strike Force, which stands for illegal immigration interdiction, officials said. Thirty-seven have already been trained, and 35 more started training last week. No other county is dealing with immigration on the level that Maricopa County is. "The sheriff has a philosophy and a vision, and we are acting accordingly," said Lt. Paul Chagolla of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department.

Arpaio's interpretation of the law has drawn criticism from many different quarters, including from the congressman who sponsored the law and normally supports Arpaio. Rep. Jonathon Patton, R-Ariz., said that throwing the people who are being smuggled in jail was never the intent of the law. Arpaio has been sued over his interpretation of the law and how he enforces it but said that he will take it to the Supreme Court if need be.

He takes pride in the fact that he is in uncharted waters and said he believes firmly that his view is right. Arpaio said he locks them up to teach them a lesson, instead of turning them over to ICE agents to get a free ride back to Mexico.

Source



24 April, 2007

Senator Kyl (R-AZ) sums up what is happening in Congress

“A group of senators who voted against last year’s bill, and a group of some of the senators who voted for the bill, along with the White House and in particular, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez – have been meeting to try to see if we can achieve a consensus around a bill that will provide us with meaningful immigration reform that can get passed and sent to the President for his signature before the end of this year. We’re spending scores of hours a week on this endeavor. I am cautiously optimistic that, even though we come to the table with very different views about what ought to be done, with a constructive attitude, we will be able to get a bill that could pass and be signed by the President.

“Immigration arrests are down this year, not because the Border Patrol isn’t doing its job, but because there are fewer attempts to cross the border illegally. It’s because of the fencing, the vehicle barriers, the additional border patrol agents, the surveillance equipment, and the other activities that have helped control the border – but that process needs to move forward.”

“We’re going to need some additional labor in this country as time goes on in certain areas, in certain occupations, and at certain times. The best way to achieve that is through a temporary worker system that allows people to come to the United States when work is available that they want to do and is not being done by Americans – but on a temporary basis.”

“Securing the border, enforcing the law, a simple employee verification system, a temporary worker program, and resolving the status of illegal immigrants – those are the key elements of immigration reform. I’m hopeful we can reach a consensus on all of these views.”

Source



Immigration and the Va. massacre

We now have treason on display in the Virginia Tech massacre as a peace process parading itself as an immigration policy. This immigration policy is based upon equality or Openness as in the Open Society or what we refer to here at SANE following Professor Robert J. Loewenberg's term, Indiscriminacy. It is a Peace Process that always ends up sacrificing "victims" to prove that men, peoples, and the societies they form, are essentially no different one from the other. It is a Peace Process that, in the name of peace, seeks the World State.

So what do we know of this 23-year old South Korean apparently mesmerized by the Arabic-sounding reference to "Ismail Ax"? What we know is that he was a resident alien, meaning he was NOT an American citizen. He came here as an eight-year old boy with his parents. And, the family remained resident aliens, never actually becoming citizens, choosing for whatever reason to simply renew their "green card" on the first 10-year anniversary of their resident status.

But beyond that we know quite a bit in a relatively short three days since the shooting. We know he was "troubled" to the point of frightening and threatening his fellow students. So much so that some of them refused to attend the same class with him and so much so that one of his professors threatened to quit teaching the class if he was not removed.

He was removed but only then to be tutored by the Chairwoman of the department. He was also troubled enough that at least two female students called the police on separate occasions because he was harassing them. He was also troubled enough that yet another student called police to say that he thought the murderer-to-be was suicidal. The troubled young man was then hospitalized as a danger to himself and possibly to others but released fairly quickly and referred to outpatient care and provided anti-depressant medication.

All of this and he was not even a citizen! He was here as a resident ALIEN! But withal, this troubled young man was able to walk into a gun shop and purchase a nine millimeter semi-automatic revolver and a 22-calibre pistol.

At SANE, we believe the Second Amendment and the responsibility granted to Americans to bear arms is almost sacred. It is who we are as self-reliant people. It begins with our citizen militias at the time of the Revolution and continues through our history of self-defense and citizen-motivated programs to guard the borders, to form citizen posses, and to serve in the Reserves and in the National Guard even as we become citizens in every other way. Americans have always had just the right amount of suspicion that their government could very well fail them when national defense was needed most. We've certainly lived through enough examples of the grossest forms of government incompetence which have cost thousands of American lives to know what Ronald Reagan said to be true: too often government is not the solution; it is the problem.

But what does the Second Amendment have to do with an immigrant who is NOT a citizen and certainly is not part of the American people? The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." How can it be that "resident ALIENS" become part of the American PEOPLE and are granted the right to walk around armed?

The answer of course is that in America, as well as in Virginia and most states, resident aliens are treated just like citizens. We have taken the position in this country that the American People and the Society we have formed is no longer about a People. It is now about legal categories. White Christians were at the founding of this nation a distinct people and privileged as such. Men of means among this people were given the opportunity for representative government. This is, for those of you flinching, not a thesis or "viewpoint"; this is historical fact.

After the Civil War, this changed; with the move into the 20th century this change became a wholesale reformation. Today, you cannot speak of Christianity in the public sphere and if you mention "white" and "Christians" in the same sentence you will be set upon as a despicable racist by every "fair-minded" public person. And, this phenomenon extends far beyond race. It is now the case that you cannot speak of the evil of Islam and remain a serious participant in public discourse. In order to speak of the unfathomable murder and mayhem brought to the Western world by Mohammed and his god Allah and the threat it poses to our very existence, we must label it in such ways as to disfigure our very meaning. Thus, Islamists are the bad guys not Muslims; Islamo-fascism is their political ideology not Islam simply and not even Islamic law; and we must, almost per force of law, begin by noting that our critique is not of the noble religion of peace but of radical Islam hijacked by the few extremists among the faithful.

Talk of "illegal" immigrants as opposed to "undocumented" immigrants is likened to the lexicon of Nazis. Even our Republican president informs us that we have an obligation as Americans to care for and accept as one of us those men and women who have broken our laws and intruded into our homes. The argument is that because some bad or weak American actors have given these illegal intruders jobs once they are here, we have somehow relinquished forever our authority and responsibility to protect our nation, its Peoplehood, and its security.

So it is that President Bush and enough of the Republicans can join with the Open Society crowd to defeat sane immigration proposals because they sincerely believe in the "openness" of a liberal democracy and because they see this belief reflected in poll after poll. In other words, most Americans believe in it too!?! While the word "amnesty" doesn't hold much public enthusiasm, words and phrases such as "path to legal citizenship", "mainstreaming", "coming out of the shadows", "family reunification", "comprehensive immigration reform", "guest worker program", and other such disguised amnesty jargon are ways to package the idea that the plight of the illegal intruder non-citizen is somehow our fault for insisting on borders and peoplehood.

It was of course the beloved Ronald Reagan, the David of conservatism against the Goliath of Liberalism, who was the first president in the history of the US to actually grant amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants with his support of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. And before that, it was the Great Society's Lyndon B. Johnson who passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which eliminated nation-specific quotas, replacing them with just one overall quota. This meant of course that we had as a country effectively determined that we were not a white Christian nation, but would become a brownish-black nation of third world types who could barely speak our language, knew nothing of our culture and civilization, and indeed desired to be one of "us" predominantly for economic reasons.

But this new view fits our Redirection perfectly; indeed the two are intimately intertwined. As a People we once understood that if we moved away from being a distinct people, meaning overwhelmingly white and Christian with ancestors from the European continent, the America nation would cease to exist because the people would no longer be. Today, with the Redirection in the ascendancy, we are now a country of "citizens" who no longer lay claim to being a distinct nation and people. The question that is surely worth asking is if it is even possible today to expect otherwise?

Indeed, once the 14th Amendment was ratified to "fix" the problem of the "unequal" treatment of the emancipated African slaves in lieu of a plan of mass repatriation, the Supreme Court went to work "incorporating" almost all of the Bill of Rights into the amendment's expansive language thereby bringing state governments, their autonomy and sovereignty, into the jurisdiction of the federal courts and Congress. That of course was not enough for those who wished to destroy the notion of local government and peoplehood at the level of the states. To finish the job the Supreme Court eventually took the Commerce Clause, which was meant to protect the individual states from abuse by other states and to facilitate commerce between the states, and turned it into a club to beat our federalist system to an unrecognizable pulp.

What this came to mean in the late 20th century is that the courts were now free to determine that the American people, including the individual peoples and societies of the formerly sovereign 50 states, were now "legal citizens", "residents", "aliens" and the like all within the purview of its long-arm of egalitarian, nationalized, and indiscriminate legal rules.

(Peoplehood, once experienced as real and certain, was so well understood at the founding that it was enshrined for example in the Second Amendment where you wouldn't imagine granting someone who was not "of the people" the privilege to bear arms. This was given to the people as such precisely because the government should neither be blindly trusted to do what it should do to defend the people against intruder-enemies nor be given license to define and to limit its own reach lest it become the intruder-enemy itself ["A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."].)

And so it was that we come to the Supreme Court's now famous footnote dicta in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Plyler was really about whether a state like Texas which was inundated with illegal immigrants from Mexico could withhold certain public benefits to the children of these illegal immigrants, such as a free public education. The case did not specifically address whether the affected children were also illegal immigrants born in Mexico or possibly "anchor babies" born in the US to illegal immigrants.

On the main point, the Court decided that there was indeed a constitutional interest to make certain that the states did not "discriminate" against these poor helpess children just because they were "undocumented" by applying the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (". . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") which applied to "persons".

But the Court would have to explain how the Equal Protection Clause could possible be read to mean that the state of Texas could not preserve its public school system financed by mostly state tax dollars by reserving its privileged use to legal residents. To answer this in a way to destroy the state's sovereignty and the peoplehood of that state, the Court then reached into another of its bags of tricks and pulled out of the Constitution something no one has ever found there: the "Intermediate Scrutiny Test", which is just another of those fictions and constitutional amendments the Court has appended to the written word by fiat without so much as a peep out of the American People now defined out of existence and converted into "legal constructs".

But Pyler's damage to the sovereignty of the states and the residual notion of Peoplehood was not greatest at the point of impact. The real damage was what was implicit in the Court's attitude about "citizenship" and how it read the 14th Amendment. The result was that the destruction it wrought was from the collateral damage contained in footnote 10 of the Court's 5-4 opinion wherein it wrote:

". . . no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

In other words, it was not enough to destroy the very notion of a People existing as a distinct Society and political order and to replace that with a legal construct consisting of words as symbols and definitions, now the Court wanted to make clear that even the legalistic distinctions between citizens and legal immigrant-residents and illegal immigrant-residents was to be blurred merely by hopping the fence.

And, indeed, as a practical matter, this is how immigration law now works. If a pregnant Mexican woman can cross the border long enough to plop out another of her offspring, take pictures and document it, that baby can then immediately claim to be part of the American People because there is no people anymore but rather legalistic notions of Indiscriminacy. Does one wonder what might happen if our Latino mother has one foot in Mexico and one in the US? Would it depend where exactly the baby plops out? What if little Enrique lands on the line?

And as we all know, when the misfit "racists" and "Resurgent Atavists" raise their "ugly" voices and talk about Peoplehood and immigration controls, the PC machine is ready to shut them down by marginalizing them to the far corners of the blogosphere, typically right next to David Duke but now joined by the Hollywood and Radio City loudmouths like Don Imus. Immediately the PC chorus chimes in about how wonderful the Latino friend is who immigrated here twenty years ago or the Muslim cardiologist who has been here 35 years. But if this is their logic, then why not actively pursue open border immigration as a policy? Join the George Soros "Open World Society". Why not embrace a North American Union like the European Union and tear down our borders? Is there a justification to create a "legal" distinction, nothing more than an artificial "social construct" between Americans and Canadians? And, if we could learn Spanish or teach the Mexicans English or embrace a bi-lingual multi-cultural society, we could destroy our southern border as well. Imagine what all that cheap labor could do for our manufacturing industry. We, the people of the world, all cherish freedom and democracy, do we not? Why should a child born through no fault of his own on one side of the border or the other (which again is not a physical or actual boundary between Peoples and nations but a legal construct to "discriminate" between two equal human beings) be denied "Equal Protection of the Laws"?

So now we have a better understanding of the Virginia Tech massacre. We don't care how many immigrants and resident aliens - legal or illegal - will be inconvenienced by our concerns. Every single life of an American as a member of a distinct and unique People is worth more than all of the "aliens" put together. The Redirection, of course, informs us otherwise by pointing out that per science and democracy there can be no real distinctions between people or peoples. In science as in democracy, we are all radically equal and indistinguishable.

The Virginia Tech murderer, although not an American in any sense of the word was here "legally". Per the Elites, who don't simply suffer from the Redirection but relish and embrace it, there could have been no grounds to discriminate against him. The idea that this "troubled" young man should have been cared for and pampered is second nature and indeed a "human right" embodied in the Constitution even if not in its written word.

The response we know to expect now would be, "What could you possibly be suggesting would have been the proper response of the authorities?" And to that question the answer should be, but is not, obvious. That he and his parents should not have been here in the first instance is clear. That this "troubled" young man was not deported, but should have been, at the first sign of "trouble" is also clear. And, we did not because it would not have been "fair" because he is, after all, as President Bush reminds us about the illegal immigrants in America, a "person" just like "us" except what that means of course is that there is not US only ALL or the World. And therein lies the treason.

Source



23 April, 2007

DUI illegal arrested, convicted 9 times since 2003

Authorities can't explain why alien who killed father of 5 still in U.S.

When Isidro Pena Soto's SUV slammed into an oncoming pickup truck, after passing another car at 90 miles-per-hour, the illegal alien who had been arrested or convicted at least nine times since 2003 made Kent Boone the fifth fatality in two weeks along a dangerous stretch of Northern California highway. The notorious two-lane roadway, known as "blood alley," runs through Napa, Solano, Sacramento and San Joaquin counties. It averaged more than 10 deaths a year during the five-year period ending in 2005.

Pena, 26, was driving without a license while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. California Highway Patrol officers found two pounds of methamphetamine in his vehicle and more at his home. It was not his first brush with U.S. law, and that's what Boone's survivors find so hard to understand. "He needs to be in prison, there's no way they're going to be able to deport him and keep him out of our country," Boone's widow, Regina Sorisio, told the Oroville Mercury Register.

Boone, a 33-year-old pipe fitter and father of five, was killed on March 31 as he drove to work. Pena was hospitalized following the accident but arrested when he was released from doctors' care. This week he pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder. "It's been quite challenging getting any information on anything," April Godin, Boone's former wife and mother of two of his children, told the Contra Costa Times. "It's just all of the loopholes and lack of information." The information that is coming out now makes Boone's family and law enforcement officials wonder why Pena had not been deported before.

Pena has been convicted six times of driving without a license. In 2003 and 2005, he was convicted for DUI in Contra Costa County - and for a felony narcotics charge in the same county in 2005. That same year, he was convicted of a DUI in neighboring Solano County - the county where he killed Boone last month. According to the Contra Costa Times, court records do not show the circumstances of his release from custody on those charges. A spokeswoman with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency said no one from any of the law enforcement agencies or courts that had handled Pena's offenses in the past had ever contacted her agency. "Cases like this certainly underscore why we want to encourage local law enforcement agencies to tell us when they encounter foreign nationals with multiple prior convictions for crimes that certainly present a potential threat to public safety," said ICE's Virginia Kice.

"The only time [immigration status] is a relevant issue is if someone is charged with a crime and we incarcerate them," said Concord police Lt. David Chilimidos. "We actually treat everybody like they were here legally," said Richmond police Capt. Alec Griffin. "We don't make contacts with ICE just in the course of normal business."

In Richmond, with its large immigrant population, local police do not participate with ICE in roundups of suspected illegals. The city terminated daylight traffic checkpoints aimed at stopping street crimes, Griffin said, because immigrants feared they were being targeted.

For whatever reason, Pena's multiple trips through the justice system never resulted in him being identified as an illegal alien who might "present a potential threat to public safety." "It doesn't seem like it would be hard to put a red flag on there," Godin said. "There's so many questions I have. ... Why isn't anyone giving us information?" There is now an immigration hold on Pena, who is being held without bail and will be turned over to immigration authorities for deportation if and when he is released from custody.

Source



An interesting analogy

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house.Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave.But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters:

You are Required to let me stay in your house. You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan.You are Required to Educate my kids.You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family.(my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house And what a deal it is for me!!!I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America."

Source



22 April, 2007

San Francisco Police Won't Assist In ICE Raids

San Francisco police chief Heather Fong re-asserted San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city. That means local police will not assist federal agents in arresting illegal immigrants. The chief's comments come just as the Feds are fully engaged in a crackdown on immigration fugitives. San Francisco community activists say more and more immigrants won't call police when they are victims of a crime. They're afraid they, or someone they know, will end up being deported for being undocumented. They are well aware of a national crackdown by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. Lenora Melgarejo, community activist: "What I hear from testimonies from people every day when I talk to them is that constant fear of actually making that phone call to the police because it's not clear in the minds of people yet that the police isn't collaborating with ICE."

Heather Fong, S.F. police chief: "We are here to protect all people who live or work or visit San Francisco." Police Chief Heather Fong says her officers do not assist federal agents in immigration sweeps. That's because the city has what's known as a sanctuary ordinance. The city has a law which put limits on police cooperation with immigration agents.

The chief hopes crime victims will not be afraid to call, even if they are undocumented immigrants. Heather Fong, S.F. police chief: "Often times we have seen that individuals who do not speak the English language or individuals who do not feel that they can report, they are being preyed upon by members of their own community and that's not acceptable."

Rick Oltman, Californians for Population Control: "There is no provision of the U.S. constitution or in federal law for any type of sanctuary from immigration law enforcement." Rick Oltman says San Francisco is an example of government anarchy, and his group plans to ask the state and U.S. Attorneys General to see if the city is breaking federal immigration law. Rick Oltman, Californians for Population Control: "So long as the law is on the books we should insist that citizens obey the law, immigrants obey the law, and certainly elected officials and governments obey the law."

President Bush has called for an overhaul of the immigration system. He's proposing a plan that would expand the temporary worker program but force illegal immigrants to return to their home country, re-apply to enter legally and pay a $10,000 dollar fine. The Senate is slated to take up the issue next month.

Source



`Marrying' Rajneeshis breaching Australian immigration laws

The Immigration Department of Australia is investigating a number of Aussie followers of the Indian guru Bhagwan Rajneesh for alleged sham marriages. A commune of the disciples of the controversial Indian guru, also known as Osho, at the scenic beach town of Byron Bay has attracted Australian authorities' gaze for breaching immigration laws.

A New South Wales resident had claimed in a recent newspaper article that several members of the Rajneeshite sect, known as `Sanyassins', have been intermarrying just to get Australian permanent residence. David Honeycombe of Bangalow had made the claim in his article in The Australian spurring the department of immigration and citizenship into investigating the small community.

According to the news article, most of the 2000-strong Sanyassin community members living in Byron Bay town region were born overseas. The list includes all the five directors of the Mullumbimby-based Sanyassin-owned company Melaleuca Properties. Three of the eight directors of another Rajneeshite commune Osho Mevlana Foundation, according to the newspaper article are also foreigners. Now all the Sanyassins are under the immigration investigation thanks to the media attention drawn by Honeycombe's startling claim.

He is reported to have contacted a Byron Bay police officer after hearing guests at a Sanyassin marriage joke about flouting Australian immigration laws by marrying fellow Rajneesh disciples. "The attitude of the police was that they weren't the slightest bit interested," David Honeycombe was quoted as saying by The Australian.

"They seemed to be more interested in not upsetting the locals," he added. Federal immigration Minister Kevin Andrews had reportedly said that allegations of sham marriages were viewed "very seriously" by the government.

"The department will undertake an immediate investigation to determine if there are any irregularities in the Byron Bay area," the Minister's spokeswoman said in a statement. "Anyone with information should contact the department of immigration and citizenship."

Source



21 April, 2007

They're flooding into Britain

Record numbers of people are flowing into the UK after net immigration rocketed by 42 per cent in just a year. The gap between those arriving and staying for at least a year and those leaving is now at its highest because of Labour's open door on immigration. And the influx of Eastern Europeans since Tony Blair threw open our labour market has helped fuel the massive rise.

The revelation came after official figures revealed immigrants are flocking to Britain at a rate of 1,500 every day. With only 1,000 leaving per day, it means our population is soaring by 500 daily and almost half are coming to find work or have already landed jobs here. Immigration minister Liam Byrne confirmed a new points-based system for immigrants will start next year but there are no guarantees it will reduce the inflow.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "This number of people migrating into this country shows why a points-based immigration system without a limit is pointless. "Liam Byrne this week acknowledged that there are limited amounts of schools, hospitals and houses in the country, therefore he must accept that there should be a limit to the amount of people who can come here."

Between June 2004 and June 2005, 246,200 more people came to the UK than left. That was up 42 per cent on the 173,600 during the previous 12 months, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Source



Illegals bad for blacks

For many African-Americans, today's debate over immigration evokes a bitter sense of deja vu. In 1965, a new immigration law restarted mass immigration just as African-Americans, emerging from long years of segregation, were poised to enter the economic mainstream. In the decades since, millions of immigrants - legal and illegal - have settled here, causing the immigrant population to balloon from fewer than 10 million in 1970 to about 36 million today.

Black Americans have suffered economically in periods of high immigration. On the other hand, when immigration ebbed and labor supply was tight - during World War I, for example - African-American prosperity soared.

The current wave of immigration has been especially destructive, coming at a time of severe economic restructuring caused by globalization and outsourcing. Unlike previous immigration cycles, this massive influx continues with no natural end in site. What's more, since immigrants are likely to have little education, immigration is significantly adding to the economic challenges of the underclass by importing competitors for jobs. The effects are predictable: Wages drop, working conditions deteriorate, and the native-born are crowded out of the job market. Education, medical care and other services are diverted to address new, unplanned-for needs. Whole industries have organized themselves in expectation of an unending supply of foreign labor.

The effects have been devastating to many African-Americans. A study from Northeastern University reports, "The existence of slack labor market conditions in recent years has created more direct competition for available jobs between immigrants and many subgroups of native workers." Of those "subgroups," African-Americans, especially less educated black men, find themselves squeezed out of entry-level positions that previously served as the first rung into stable work. Now those rungs are increasingly occupied by immigrants, both legal and illegal. Even higher-skilled African-Americans are experiencing artificial competition from such programs as the H-1B visa, a cheap-labor program that computer companies are ferociously lobbying to expand.

Now President Bush and many in Congress are calling for "comprehensive immigration reform." All of the various plans would reward more than 12 million illegal aliens with legal status - i.e., amnesty - and further increase today's record-high levels of legal immigration. Experience has proven that we should view such "fixes" with skepticism. In 1965, Americans were assured that the new immigration law would neither change the demographic makeup of the country nor increase the population. Likewise, the 1986 amnesty was touted as a one-time-only event; we now know that amnesty actually increases illegal immigration.

If the first responsibility of our lawmakers is to ensure that their actions do not harm their fellow Americans, then all of the "comprehensive" reforms fall short, because none provide genuine protection, relief or equity for our country's own disadvantaged citizens.

Source



20 April, 2007

Crooked churches!

Fraud in the name of the Lord??

The federal government is inspecting churches and religious groups to clamp down on fraud in a visa program for religious workers, government officials said Thursday. The visits are part of an effort by Citizenship and Immigration Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, to tighten rules for the religious worker visas after finding fraud in about 33 percent of applications. The agency said that because of the level of fraud it did not want to wait until proposed rule changes became final to start checking on the religious organizations.

Every religious organization that files visa applications for its workers will be visited before the application is approved. They may not get a second visit if they seek a visa for a second worker, but could be contacted by phone, said Janis Sposato, an associate director of CIS who led the fraud review.

The review uncovered churches that did not exist and applications filed falsely under the name of a legitimate church that did not petition for the worker, Sposato said. "This is an ongoing program. There is no start date. We are doing the site visits," Sposato said.

Costs for the federal inspection would be absorbed in fee increases proposed by Citizenship and Immigration Services. Eventually, federal contractors would do the inspections, she said. The proposed rule changes come 20 months after the agency reviewed the religious worker visa program and found the 33 percent fraud rate, officials said Thursday. Sposato refused to say whether the review uncovered any terrorism suspects or someone who might cause harm in the country.

The Government Accountability Office reported fraud in the religious visa program in March 1999, finding churches applying for hundreds of visas for people who planned to stay in the country illegally. The visas, which are temporary, are for foreigners who will work in the country as religious ministers, in a professional religious vocation or job or someone working for a nonprofit religious organization.

Immigration officials want to limit the visas to one year, renewable twice for two years each time. Workers would be required to prove they worked for the religious organization with a W-2 wage statement before a visa can be renewed. Filing of visa applications by individuals at embassies or consulates would end. The public will have 60 days to comment on the proposed rules. The agency would not say when it hopes to implement the rules.

Kevin Appleby, a spokesman for the National Catholic Conference of Bishops, said Catholic dioceses use the visas frequently. The bishops support tightening rules to eliminate fraud, but want to ensure legitimate religious workers are not prevented from entering the country, he said. "It's an important program. We hope the restrictions aren't such that makes it an ineffective one," Appleby said.

Source



Weird U.S./Australia arrangement

A new way to get to America -- via Australia! A bad deal for both countries

The US denies it has a legally binding agreement with Australia to swap up to 200 refugees a year between the two countries. [Australian] Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews announced this week that an agreement had been signed with the US to "provide mutual assistance for the resettlement of people in need of international protection". Under the scheme, Australia would send asylum-seekers held in its offshore processing facilities to the US; in return it would take Cuban refugees held by the US at Guantanamo Bay.

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormick yesterday described the scheme struck between Washington and Canberra as a non-binding "informal arrangement for mutual assistance". "There is an informal arrangement for mutual assistance that provides that each will consider resettlement of people interdicted at sea and found to be in need of international protection," he said. "The arrangement does not create legal obligations."

The scheme was negotiated by Immigration Department secretary Andrew Metcalfe in Washington last week but the Government has refused to confirm which country initiated the deal. The Australian Government announced that 83 Sri Lankans and eight Burmese asylum-seekers detained on the Pacific island of Nauru were likely to be the first refugees to be resettled in the US under the scheme. In return, Australia is likely to resettle Cuban refugees picked up by the US Navy on their way to the US mainland.

A spokeswoman for Mr Andrews said the comments by the US State Department did not diminish the deal. "The comments by the US reflect the agreement as it stands," she said.

But Labor immigration spokesman Tony Burke said Mr McCormick's attempt to play down the deal was embarrassing for the Government. "Every way you look at it, this policy is in a shambles," Mr Burke told The Australian last night. "Logic tells us this could provide an incentive to people-smugglers and America seems to be telling us that the agreement is less iron-clad than John Howard had led us to believe."

But writing in The Australian today, Mr Andrews says potential resettlement in the US "will be a disincentive to those who seek to come to Australia illegally because they have friends here": "This is simply an additional option for the Australian Government to consider when resettling refugees and there is no guarantee that any person with a claim for asylum will be resettled in the US." Mr Andrews writes that it is important the Government does all in its power to prevent and deter the perpetrators of smuggling.

Mr McCormack, in his daily press briefing, said the scheme did not require the direct exchange of a refugee processed in Australia for one processed in the US, and that no referrals had yet been made. No one referred for resettlement in Australia would be forced to accept resettlement, he said. "In the spirit of our mutual humanitarian traditions and commitment to assist individuals in need of international protection, the US and Australia are willing to consider resettling up to 200 individuals in a calendar year referred by the other country under this arrangement," he said. "The US and Australia will each consider individuals for resettlement in accordance with our own regulations and procedures respectively."

A spokeswoman for the US embassy in Canberra said the US had agreements with several countries for the resettlement of refugees. "We want to deter dangerous and illegal migration and alien-smuggling that puts lives at risk, which is why when the US interdicts migrants at sea we don't bring them to the US," she said. Refugees accepted for resettlement from the US would be placed in the mainland Australian community.

Source



19 April, 2007

The British Left gets nervous about immigration

Large-scale immigration has damaged the poorest communities and deeply unsettled the country, Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, says today. Mr Byrne says that inequality and child poverty are two of the main side-effects of migration, which has been running at record levels since Labour came to power. He also highlights the pressures caused by migration on schools and housing, and how they are affecting attempts to improve educational standards.

Mr Byrne makes his remarks before publication tomorrow of official figures showing net migration of 185,000 in 2005, four times the figure when Labour came to power in 1997. He tells his party that if Labour fails to address public concern about the level of immigration, and its effects on the country and public services, it could lose the next general election.

The scale of net migration has caused a marked change in public concern about immigration, Mr Byrne says. Globalisation and immigration have made Britain richer but have also "deeply unsettled the country", he writes in a pamphlet titled Rethinking Immigration and Integration, published by Policy Network, a centre-left think-tank. He says: "We also have to accept that laissez-faire migration runs the risk of damaging communities where parts of our antipoverty strategy come under pressure."

Mr Byrne says sudden increases in immigration into poor parts of Britain hit government attempts to improve life for the indigenous population. "When a junior school such as the school in Hodge Hill, my own constituency in Birmingham, sees its population of children with English as a second language rise from 5 per cent to 20 per cent in a year, then boosting standards in our poorest communities gets harder," he says.

Mr Byrne says existing communities were not sure that change arising from immigration had been fair. He says the speed of migration meant that public services in some communities had found it difficult to change as quickly as the communities around them are changing. "It is true that a small number of schools have struggled to cope, that some local authorities have reported problems of overcrowding in private housing and that there have been cost pressures on English language training, but the answer is in action that is simultaneously firm and fair."

Last month research published by the Home Office said that thousands of impoverished asylum-seekers had been dumped in socially deprived areas of the country under the Government's dispersal policy. The study found they were met with resistance from local people, racial harassment and racist attacks. Their arrival also had a significant impact on local health and education services. It said placing asylum-seekers in poorer areas of the country, such as Everton, Glasgow, Tyneside and parts of Manchester, had accentuated existing deprivation among the indigenous population.

The report, which was produced in 2002 but only released under freedom of information laws last month, highlighted some of the difficulties caused by the arrival of new migrants in poor areas. Fifty different languages had been introduced into Newcastle upon Tyne, and in other areas doctors dealing with new migrants experienced difficulties treating unfamiliar diseases such as malaria and TB. A health centre in Liverpool found that there were 24 different languages spoken by asylum-seeking patients.

In a separate article in today's pamphlet, Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP for Dagenham and a deputy leadership candidate, says that the communities undergoing the most rapid demographic change because of migration are the most poorly equipped to deal with it as they suffer high levels of poverty, social immobility and poor public services. John Reid, the Home Secretary, met the French Interior Minister yesterday and raised the issue of a centre being built offering showers, information and food to migrants gathering in Sangatte, northern France. The Conservatives fear that the building will act as a magnet for those seeking to enter Britain illegally.

Source



Britain to follow Australia's immigration example

Britain will next year adopt an Australian-style model for restricting immigration to those with skills in need. British Immigration Minister Liam Byrne unveiled the timetable for introducing the points-based system during a fact-finding visit to Australia, which uses a similar model to attract migrants with in-demand skills and reject those who would compete with local workers for unskilled jobs. "With the exception of an elite group of highly-skilled migrants, all other foreign workers or students will need a UK sponsor to vouch for them and help us make sure they are playing by the rules," Mr Byrne was quoted as saying in The Guardian newspaper. Under the system, would-be migrants would need to amass a certain number of points according to their skills and sector gaps in the UK.

It was first announced by Home Secretary John Reid last year and will replace more than 80 routes of entry to the UK with five tiers for workers with different skill levels. The first tier, for highly-skilled migrants such as scientists and entrepreneurs, will be launched at the beginning of next year. It will be followed later in 2008 by new tiers for skilled workers such as nurses, teachers and engineers with job offers, temporary workers and young people on working holidays. A further tier for students will begin at the start of 2009.

The announcement comes ahead of Thursday's publication of official statistics which The Times newspaper predicted would show net migration into Britain of 185,000 in 2005. The figure is down from the previous year's 222,600, but four times the level in 1997.

Writing in a pamphlet due out later this month and widely reported in British media on Wednesday, Mr Byrne warned uncontrolled migration could damage the poorest communities. He said while migration had made the UK richer, it had also "unsettled the country". Mr Byrne is attending an international conference on immigration issues in Sydney.

Source



18 April, 2007

Immigration deceptions

Senator Kennedy led the push for amnesty in 1986, and is doing so again. That amnesty was to be the very last one and to involve only about 300,000 illegals. The number turned out to be three million. Estimates of how many are here now vary from twelve million to thirty million. Nobody really knows for sure, since agencies that should be asking are not allowed to do so. It is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It forbids welfare agencies to ask the legal status of recipients. The two federal agencies, (the IRS and Census Bureau), that might have somewhat accurate figures will not give them out, citing "privacy" issues. We are left to speculate that we might have twice the cited illegal population here, which would be about twenty-four million, or even three times the estimate, which would be thirty-six million. Talk about buying a pig in a poke.

The promise that the borders would be controlled was just that..a promise. It was never done. And now, we continue to hear the mantra that more cheap labor is needed by industry. The logical question is: how many more millions do we need? Building industries statistics show that foreign workers are getting the new jobs being created. This is probably due to employers taking advantage of being able to pay them lower wages, off the books, with no taxes being paid and no health insurance provided. It means that low-wage earners who are citizens are being made to compete for jobs against many who are here illegally. The black population in particular is losing jobs this way.

There are many studies to contradict the claim for needing millions more low wage laborers. In its January 2005 report "The Underground and Labor Force is Rising to the Surface", Bear Stearns estimated that we have 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S., more than double the nine million that the Census Bureau estimated at that time. Bear Stearns also stated that one of the reasons for the undercount is that at least five million illegal aliens are paid under the table and do not show up in the normal demographic data the bureau uses to calculate population.

Bear Stearns reported that those 5+ millions cheat the government out of over $35 Billion a year in income taxes. At the same time, they receive $30 Billion a year in government largess. Taxpayers make up the difference in taxes not paid by these tax cheaters. Taxpayers also provide the generous welfare dollars for them.

California has probably more illegal aliens than any other state. A study released in late 2004 by Milken Institute entitled "The Los Angeles Economy Project" was done in partnership with the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles.. What this study found was that 15 percent of the workforce (680,000 workers), were paid under the table That is just in L.A. County. They estimated that 61 percent are illegal aliens.

Those 680,00 workers cheat the government out of $2 Billion a year in taxes. L.A. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich estimated that illegal aliens cost L.A. County about $1 Billion a year just in health care, criminal incarceration and public education. The authors of the report conclude that there is a real risk that a steadily increasing number of employers will adopt this illicit practice in order to remain competitive. After all, if a roofing company is paying somebody under the table and not taking any taxes out of the wages, it can undercut bids every time of someone who is abiding by the law. This is how a law abiding company can be put out of business.

The region's underground economy, estimated in 2006 at a $8.1 Biillion payroll annually, siphons off vast sums of money as workers and employers fail to make payments to Social Security, workers compensation, health insurance and other social safety net programs. Even if an illegal alien is carried on the payroll, most are poorly educated and unskilled, resulting in them not earning enough money to pay taxes. Poorly paid or not, they have saved money to send back to their families in Mexico, an estimated $28 Billion since January of last year, competing with Mexico's revenues from oil and the tourist industries for number one source of income.

It is easy to see why Mexico is lobbying our Congress to keep its workers here and give amnesty to them. Those Billions are going to enrich its economy by taking it out of ours. The real question is: why are we letting them do it, and why are our representatives in Washington working to legalize those who prop up Mexico?

Using Census Bureau data, it is estimated that 96 percent of the increase in enrollment in public schools is due to immigration. This being so, and parents of those students contribute little or nothing in taxes to support their education, something has to give, usually the taxpaying citizens. We hear constantly that if we don't raise taxes for schools, programs and teachers must be cut. We rarely hear that to avoid the cuts we must get rid of those in this country illegally.

Current immigration policies that allow two to three million legal and illegal immigrants per year into the country are overwhelming our public schools, our public health systems, and the criminal justice system, (about 30 percent of the inmates in federal prison are not citizens), sending the livability of our communities in a downward spiral. If this population is made legal by amnesty, it will mean they will no longer have any fear of deportation. And because our border is still almost wide open, it will only encourage more waves of people to cross it.

While all this is happening, our senators right now are considering whether we should just forget about our laws and make all the ones who have sneaked in legal. No matter that they have broken one law by coming in, another by taking up residence, and another law by working here, some of the senators are willing to overlook the lawbreaking for the sake of their own agendas. Republicans are pandering to the businesses that hire illegals. Democrats are eyeing the voters they think will come their way. As usual, the average taxpaying American is not represented in any meaningful way. The only thing these senators fear is loss of power. If enough of their constituents tell them "no amnesty, no way, no matter what you call it", the powerful interests that are pulling them to amnesty might be overcome. After all, they need votes to be re-elected.

Otherwise, be ready to welcome all who are here illegally now, plus their families who will be allowed to come legally. There will also be millions more who will be pulled by the magnet of becoming citizens if they can just get over the border.

It is now fooling time again in the Senate. Unless enough constituents tell their senators to close the borders, punish the employers of illegals, and forget about any amnesty, those senators will surely succeed in fooling us all the second time.

Source



Even immigrants in France want a stop to further immigration

Fadela, Afef, Naima and Yasmine all grew up in North African families in the Mediterranean city of Marseille, and all want a policy of firmness on immigration and welfare reform from France's next president. For centuries Marseille has acted as a melting pot, absorbing waves of immigration from Italy, Armenia, eastern Europe and France's former African colonies that made it the country's most ethnically-mixed city. "Marseille is a land of welcome. People here say they are `Marseillais' first, and French second," said Myriam Salah-Eddine, the 35-year-old daughter of Moroccan immigrants and a deputy to the city's centre-right mayor. "There is a real sense of belonging," forged in loyalty to the local football team and star player Zinedine Zidane and helped by a sunny climate and urban planning that managed to avoid immigrant ghettoes, she said.

But among established North Africans, estimated at around 150,000 people out of a population of 800,000, there are signs that attitudes towards immigration are toughening. Fatima Arazi, a 51-year-old photographer who moved to France from Morocco 30 years ago, runs a tea room and women's association in an immigrant district of central Marseille. Though she belongs to a network campaigning for an amnesty for illegal immigrants already settled in France, Fatima has come to back a radical line on immigration. "North Africans are sick of seeing their countrymen living in misery. There just isn't enough work here," said Fatima, who runs co-development schemes in African villages "to persuade people not to come here in the first place."

"The going rate for illegal immigrant workers in the neighbourhood is 15 euros a day for a woman, 20 for a man - how can you live on that?" She says she cannot bear to see Muslim women in their 50s forced to work as prostitutes in the neighbourhood and advocates "one big amnesty and then we stop everything".

For Yasmine Mendy, 21, a catering student who arrived in France from Morocco as a baby, "We need to stop immigration and sort out our own problems first." Algerian-born Fadela Garbi, also 21 and training to become a laboratory technician, agrees there should be "no more immigration at all", admitting that she doesn't "want immigrants pinching my job". Only Samia - a 21-year-old biotechnology student whose parents arrived illegally from Tunisia - said she supported further immigration "if it can give people a chance, like I had".

The others deny any affinity with the far-right National Front (FN) leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, who calls for zero immigration, the deportation of all illegal immigrants and the scrapping of welfare protection for foreigners. "If Le Pen wins, my suitcases are ready - I'll get straight out of here!" said Fatima with a rueful laugh. But an ethnic minority vote for the FN exists in the Bouches-du-Rhone region around Marseille, where Le Pen clocked up one of his highest scores in the run-off against Jacques Chirac in 2002. "Many people from minorities do vote for the FN, though it's hard to put a figure on it," said Salah-Eddine, who belongs to the UMP party of Nicolas Sarkozy, the right-wing presidential frontrunner. "Many black and Arab people have real trouble accepting a small fraction of their community that soils their image - like Islamic extremists - and they imagine that Le Pen targets only those people."

Asked who they would back in Sunday's vote, the women in Fatima's tea room gave short shrift to the Socialist candidate Segolene Royal. "Segolene's just trying to pull the wool over our eyes," said Yasmine, while Fatima worried "no one knows how she plans to pay for all these promises". "People think `I'm North African so I have to vote for the left'," said Naima Yahia-Berrouiguet, a 30-year-old secretary of Algerian parents. "But Segolene just wants to raise taxes - with the left we're going to sacrifice people on middle-incomes."

All approved of Sarkozy's campaign pledge to make work pay more than welfare - and were unfazed by his description of young troublemakers in immigrant suburbs as "racaille" (rabble). "Guys here boast about being `racailles'. It's not even an insult," Fadela said.

Fatima said she "agrees with seven out of 10 things Sarkozy says", complaining that "France's welfare system has created a culture of layabouts - once you add up all the different benefits, it's not even worth getting a job". But she and the others were also uncomfortable with his blunt style - Fadela reproaching him for always "taking the side of the police" and Naima warning "for young people, it would be like a Big Brother society if he's elected".

Afef, 43, a soft-spoken mother of five who arrived in France from Tunisia as a toddler and works as a school caretaker, said: "I agree with Sarkozy's ideas, on tax and jobs for young people - but he scares me." So four of the six women said they were preparing, without much conviction, to vote for the centrist Francois Bayrou because, in Samia's words: "There's no other choice. Sarkozy has lots of good ideas - but his methods just aren't right."

Source



17 April, 2007

Some illegals pay tax to gain legal status

With the tax deadline approaching, illegal immigrants are sending in federal returns in what appear to be record numbers despite fears heightened by recent immigration raids around the country. The increase in filings comes amid talk of an immigration overhaul, with some proposals introduced in Congress linking amnesty to the payment of taxes. Many illegal immigrants showing up at tax preparation offices around the country say they hope that filing a return will create a paper trail that could lead to citizenship one day.

In Raleigh, N.C., a tax preparer found 350 immigrants waiting outside his office at 7 a.m., including one dragging a suitcase that held $14,000 in cash for back taxes. In Baltimore, a community agency offering free tax help that was deserted the day after 69 people were rounded up in immigration raids elsewhere in the city was crowded again within 24 hours. And a help center in Queens did record business among illegal immigrants like Dionicio Quinde Lima, who has worked in construction strictly off the books since he arrived from Ecuador three years ago, but was eager to join the fold of United States taxpayers last week. "I feel it's my responsibility to pay," said Mr. Lima, 39, clutching a $202 money order for the Internal Revenue Service. "And if it helps me get papers, fine. The most important would be a permit to travel back and forth to see my family."

Illegal immigrants do not have Social Security numbers, but the Internal Revenue Service allows them to file taxes by assigning applicants individual taxpayer identification numbers. The numbers were introduced in 1996 to encourage noncitizens with United States income, including foreign investors, to file returns. It is generally accepted that most of the 11 million numbers issued since then have gone to illegal immigrants. The I.R.S., which does not ask about immigration status, is barred from divulging taxpayer information, with very limited exceptions, to other agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security.

In the 2005 tax year, the last for which such data is available, 1.9 million returns were filed with the primary taxpayer's using an individual taxpayer number, known as an ITIN, up 30 percent from 2004. Applications for the numbers spiked last year, with 1.5 million new ITINs issued through the beginning of November, more than any full year since the program started.

Nancy Mathis, a spokeswoman for the I.R.S., said the agency did not know the reason for the increase, but added, "It is likely due to more effective outreach by community organizations and proposed legislation last year linking payment of taxes to eventual citizenship."

In 2005 alone, more than $5 billion in tax liability - the total owed, including money withheld from paychecks during the year - was reported in the 2.9 million returns that listed at least one person with an ITIN, she said. And between 1996 and 2003, such filers reported nearly $50 billion of tax liability.

Organizations pushing for stricter immigration enforcement have criticized the use of the individual numbers by illegal immigrants, saying that allowing them to file returns, pay taxes and receive refund checks legitimizes their illegal presence. But the I.R.S. says it is just doing its job as a tax collector, and is not an immigration enforcement agency. "Clearly, we maintain a separation between the two systems," Mark W. Everson, the commissioner of the I.R.S., said recently. "We want your money whether you are here legally or not and whether you earned it legally or not."

And because most immigration bills make the payment of back taxes a prerequisite for legal status, that message seems to be getting through more clearly than ever. "Right now there's quite a stampede going on in many areas, including mine," said Blaire Borthayre, a consultant in Hispanic marketing based in Raleigh who described early-morning crowds gathering outside Family Tax Service, her husband's tax preparation business. "It's word of mouth." One client, she said, was a Mexican man who lugged in a suitcase holding $14,000, cash he had set aside to pay his taxes over six years of work as a landscaper. Like many, he had only recently learned that he could file a legitimate tax return, said Ms. Borthayre, who is the author of several books on tax preparation with ITINs.

Like Social Security numbers, individual taxpayer numbers have nine digits, but all begin with a "9." The appeal of the numbers grew as they were accepted in some places as alternative identification to open a bank account, qualify for credit or even obtain a driver's license - all uses that the I.R.S. opposed and has tried to curb, Ms. Mathis said.

Source



Enforcing current immigration laws is the answer

There are numerous news stories regarding criminal acts by illegal aliens. In just the last few weeks, for example, Mexican illegals attacked US National Guard troops who retreated ON AMERICAN SOIL because our political leaders in Washington refuse to allow those troops to carry and use weapons.

Then there's the story that caused Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly to hyperventilate: an illegal alien - once again - raped a child. But the kicker is the judge in the case released the criminal alien on $5,000 bail, which is actually only a $500 bail bond. The judge did this knowing that the child rapist had committed a previous sex crime in the US for which he was deported back to Mexico.

Meanwhile, the new Democrat-led Congress is hellbent on raising taxes, but they're not interested in protecting the people whom they bleed for tax money - the American people.

The US Congress is continuing its battle to pass new immigration laws, but they are perpetrating a fraud on the American people. The problem isn't about the need for new laws; the problem is about the lack of enforcement of existing laws. The US Constitution provides the executive branch with a number of inherent powers such as the enforcement of immigration laws.

The Constitution also mandates that the President protect American sovereignty and the American people. That is the number one priority for our government - or it should be. And congress is mandated to provide domestic tranquility for Americans. Criminal alien gangbangers do not add to our domestic tranquility.

Why is it suddenly necessary for congress to pass laws on illegal immigration when we haven't been enforcing the laws that already exist. The executive branch has the power to add border agents, equipment and other resources. The President has the power to use the military if necessary to enhance border protection. Passing laws is an easy, painless process. The trick is to enforce those laws.

And why isn't the US government arresting illegal aliens while they are protesting in our city's streets all across the country? The protests are said to be sponsored by left-wing groups including Open Borders and MEChA.

The University of Texas at El Paso recently conducted a study that found the following: Treating illegal immigrants in hospitals accounts for nearly one quarter of the uncompensated costs at border county hospitals in Cochise County. That county in Arizona spends tens of thousands of dollars just picking up trash left at campsites by these illegals.

Prosecuting and jailing illegals costs this county an additional $5 million a year. And 25 percent of Cochise County's budget is paid for health care for the uninsured, the majority of whom are illegally in the country.

In another study of a sample group of 55,000 criminal aliens, it was discovered they accounted for over 400,000 arrests and more than 700,000 criminal acts including felonies. In Los Angeles, the city that's hosting the protest - which was whole-heartedly endorsed by its mayor - 95% of the outstanding arrest warrants for homicides are for illegal aliens and 65% of all felony warrants are for so-called undocumented immigrants. Are they committing the crimes Americans won't commit?

Source



16 April, 2007

What the people want is as clear as a bell

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released the results of a nationwide poll conducted in partnership with Zogby International concerning the American people's attitudes towards illegal immigration.

Among the highlights of the poll conducted March 22 - 26, 2007:

Overall, 66% of likely voters believe that more emphasis should be placed on law enforcement when addressing the issue of illegal immigration, including 51.6% of Hispanics and 56.8% of self-described political "liberals." Only 5% said the emphasis on law enforcement should be diminished, including 3% of Hispanics.

79% believe public officials should not use taxpayer funds to operate day laborer sites that help illegal aliens, including 71.9% of Hispanics and 70% of self-described political "liberals."

72% of likely voters believe local law enforcement officers should help enforce federal immigration laws, including 40% of Hispanics and 55% of self-described political "liberals."

"The American people speak with one voice on the topic of illegal immigration. Virtually every voter demographic - even those supposedly most sympathetic to illegal aliens - want our illegal immigration laws to be strictly enforced," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Overwhelmingly, the American people want local officials to help address illegal immigration through law enforcement, not taxpayer subsidies and 'sanctuary' policies."

Source



Contest "degrades" immigration issue

From Louisiana State U:

"The campus College Republican event "Are you legal?" - a campuswide game with students labeled as undocumented immigrants - is offensive and shows an ignorance of issues surrounding immigration.

A similar contest led by the College Republicans at New York University in February caught the eye of national media and was the subject of widespread protest in the area. The College Republicans must have had knowledge of the trouble the event caused elsewhere but held the event anyway.

Source

So exactly WHO was it that caused the "trouble"? Would it be Republicans having fun or violent Leftist thugs? In which case exactly whom should we be criticizing? Or are Leftists retarded children who cannot help their violent impulses?



More illegals for lucky old Britain

A planned welfare centre offering showers and soup to migrants near Calais threatens to encourage illegal immigration into Britain, the Conservatives claimed yesterday. The new centre will provide information on how to claim asylum to the hundreds of migrants sleeping in makeshift camps in an area known as "the jungle".

John Reid, the Home Secretary, will raise the issue when he holds long-arranged talks with Francois Baroin, the new French Interior Minister, in London on Tuesday. But the Home Office made clear that the primary item for discussion was counter-terrorism rather than the threat of illegal immigration.

Opponents of the Calais plan have already described the facilities as "Sangatte II" after the refugee camp shut down in 2002, but the new centre will not provide anywhere for migrants to sleep. It will offer food, showers and information and advice to the hundreds who are now sleeping rough.

Damian Green, the Tory immigration spokesman, said that the proposed centre would act as a magnet by encouraging people to congregate and attempt to enter Britain illegally. "It's clearly Sangatte II. I think it's hugely disappointing that the French Government is allowing this to happen," he said. "They made an agreement with the British Government a few years ago that they weren't going to have facilities in Calais which just encourage people to arrive there to try to come to this country illegally. "It's disappointing that our own Home Office doesn't seem to be doing anything about this. As I understand it, they are saying, `It's no Sangatte II, we shouldn't worry about it'."

Mr Green said that most of the refugees were being transported by commercial people-traffickers, whom he described as "some of the most evil people in the world". He accused the Home Office of being "appallingly complacent" over the issue.

No minister from the Home Office commented on the planned welfare centre yesterday. Instead Lin Homer, the director general of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and Brodie Clark, the head of UK border control, were put forward for media broadcasts.

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: "This is a serious situation. It speaks volumes about Dr Reid's attitude to dealing with this situation that there is not a minister in sight. "Any Home Secretary should take responsibility for his or her brief and not hide behind officials."

Officers from Kent County Council have visited Calais on a fact-finding mission during which they discussed the plans with local officials. They hope that it will not become a "pull factor" encouraging other migrants to head towards Calais and then to try to enter Britain. But the officers admit that this will depend on how the French authorities police the centre.

Richard Ashworth, the Conservative MEP for the South East, said that the new centre had the "right intentions, but ultimately they are creating another hub for people wanting to enter the UK unlawfully".

A Home Office spokesperson said: "There have always been humanitarian services for migrants in the Calais area. We have had assurances from the French that they are opposed to any centre which will attract illegal immigrants and traffickers."

Official figures show that the number of illegal immigrants detected entering Kent from Calais fell 88 per cent from more than 10,000 in 2002 to 1,500 in 2006. The Red Cross-run Sangatte refugee camp in northern France closed in December 2002 after an agreement between Britain and France.

Source



15 April, 2007

Texas city surrenders to student protesters

The Round Rock school district had arrested those students who walked out of class in order to protest in favour of illegal immigrants. The students sued, claiming they had a first amendment right to do what they did -- even though past SCOTUS decisions have held that behaviour "disruptive" to teaching is NOT protected by the First. The city decided not to fight on, allegedly on cost grounds:

The Round Rock City Council votes to accept a settlement with the 70 students who filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the city and who are still awaiting trial for participation in an immigration demonstration over a year ago.

Settlement Terms
1. Round Rock will dismiss all pending municipal trials against students
a. City attorney will recommend that Williamson County drop the appeal of the one student case that was lost
2. Expungement of student arrest records
a. RR/RRISD will not oppose expungement of the students' arrest records, but will cooperate with the process
b. Round Rock will set up $33,000 expungement fund, administered by TCRP, from which person can draw up to $400, if s/he wants to expunge record

3. RRISD will seal disciplinary records
a. Will include explanatory note from us in the sealed envelope
b. Will destroy records 3 years from date of incident (cannot destroy earlier because of law)
c. Will not disclose existence of sealed records to people/entities requesting academic records

4. Payment: $100 to each person represented by TCRP (about 70 students)

5. Attorney's fees and costs to TCRP: $50,000

6. Each client will sign release of RR and RRISD

7. Community Forum
a. each student will attend one of 3 community forums of First Amendment
b. format
1. 3 hours
1 speaker = Q&A
Break
1 speaker = Q&A
c. For each session, RR/RRISD selects one of the speakers; TCRP, the other
d. dismissal of disruption case is not contingent on attending forum

Source. See also here



Australian leader wants immigration HIV ban

Prime Minister John Howard said Friday that Australia should bar immigrants with HIV, and his government was examining ways to make its tough restrictions even stronger. HIV-AIDS workers accused Howard of promoting the racist belief that immigrants -- particularly Africans -- were responsible for bringing the disease to Australia. Advocates also said they were puzzled by the idea of tightening laws that reject most HIV-positive prospective migrants and refugees now.

Howard was asked in a radio interview in Melbourne, the capital of Victoria state, if he thought people with HIV should be allowed into Australia as migrants or refugees. Howard replied that while he wanted more advice on the issue, "my initial reaction is, no." "There may be some humanitarian considerations that could temper that in certain cases, but prima facie -- no," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting. "I think we should have the most stringent possible conditions in relation to that." He said Health Minister Tony Abbott was "examining ways of tightening things up."

Many countries, including the United States, restrict immigration and visa approvals for people with HIV, though there are often exceptions. Australia has long had rules that can be used to block people with communicable diseases such as tuberculosis from entering. Exceptions can be made in some circumstances, such as when an HIV-positive prospective migrant is related to an Australian citizen. AIDS activists say there are few countries, such as Qatar, Russia and the United Arab Emirates, that impose outright bans on immigration by HIV-positive people.

Don Baxter, of the nongovernmental group the Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations, said prospective immigrants are given HIV tests and most HIV-positive applicants were rejected on the grounds that they could place an unfair burden on the public health system.

Chris Lemoh, an infectious disease specialist who is researching HIV-AIDS among African immigrants in Victoria, said a ban on people with HIV would be a "hysterical overreaction." "It mixes racism with a phobia about infectious disease," he said. "To not allow people to come on the basis of any health condition is immoral, it's unethical and it's impractical to enforce." Pamela Curr, an advocate at the Asylum Seeker Resource Center, said Howard's comments promoted an "untruth" that foreigners -- particularly Africans -- were to blame for the HIV problem in Australia.

Source



14 April, 2007

Chagas: A MOST unpleasant legacy of uncontrolled immigration

Chagas, a parasitic disease which can kill victims decades after infection, has spread from Latin America to the United States and Europe due to inadequate blood screening, the World Health Organisation said. The United Nations agency said it's expanding its program to eliminate Chagas, which has become a "global problem", with the help of Bayer HealthCare. Bayer's donation of 2.5 million tablets of Lampit, known generically as nifurtimox, will help treat an estimated 30,000 patients over the next five years, covering new acute cases among youngsters, it said.

Chagas, which currently affects an estimated nine million people, mainly children in rural areas of Latin America, has emerged in the United States, Spain and several other European countries after large-scale migrations, the WHO said.

No exact death toll exists for the "silent killer" which causes the slow swelling of victims' internal organs, resulting in their eventual death, according to the WHO. Most victims may not know they have contracted Chagas as the infection may remain dormant for decades after they have been bitten by a blood-sucking insect similar to a large bed bug which transmits the parasite. "This disease still poses a threat to so many people in Latin America and now that threat has spread to other countries via blood banks lacking adequate screening of infected donors," said Mirta Roses Periago, WHO director for the Americas region.

The Geneva-based WHO has been working to wipe out the disease and the number of those infected has fallen from 16-18 million people in 1990. Transmission of the disease has been interrupted in Chile, Uruguay, a large part of Brazil, as well as vast areas of Central America, Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay, the WHO said. The most endemic regions remain the Chaco regions of Bolivia and Argentina, as well as parts of Mexico, Peru and Colombia, according to Jannin.

Source



Illegals pay taxes by IRS numbers while keeping mum to Immigration

They hope a track record of on-time payments will aid their citizenship applications, but critics who favor tougher enforcement of federal immigration rules say it's absurd for the government to work with people it should be tracking down and deporting. It legitimizes the presence of immigrants who are here illegally, critics say, and sends a mixed message about the country's interest in enforcing its own rules. "The word schizophrenic comes to mind," said Marti Dinerstein, president of Immigration Matters, a research firm that advocates tighter immigration enforcement. "There is something fundamentally wrong about this."

The IRS created a nine-digit Individual Tax Identification Number in 1996 for foreigners who don't have Social Security numbers but need to file taxes in the U.S. But it is increasingly used by undocumented workers to file taxes, apply for credit, get bank accounts or even buy a home. The IRS issued 1.5 million ITINs in 2006 - a 30 percent increase from the previous year. To obtain one, a person needs to submit to the IRS an application and a document that serves as proof of identity, such as a visa or driver's license. All told, the tax liability of ITIN filers between 1996 and 2003 was $50 billion. The agency has no way to track how many were immigrants, but it's widely believed most people using ITINS are in the United States illegally.

One number hints at the number of illegal immigrants having income taxes deducted from their paychecks. In 2004, the IRS got 7.9 million W-2s with names that didn't match a Social Security number. More than half were from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, states with large immigrant populations, leading experts to believe they likely represent the wages of illegal immigrants. Even immigrants who use ITINs to file taxes are forced to make up a Social Security number when they get a job.

Critics like Dinerstein believe the process makes room for law violators, and in some cases, might endanger the country by allowing them to operate more freely. "That's why people who are living here illegally rushed to get ITINS like they're chocolate candy," said Dinerstein. "It's a national security issue."

IRS spokeswoman Nancy Mathis said the ID numbers are issued strictly to track a tax return's progress through the system, noting the tax code says nothing about whether foreigners filing taxes are here legally or not. "It serves no other purpose," she said, "and was never intended to serve any other purposes." Nor does the IRS share immigrants' personal information with ICE or any other agency, Mathis said.

To avoid any resemblance with Social Security cards, the IRS stopped issuing cards and instead sends a letter bearing the tax ID number. Still, these numbers do end up being put to other uses by a population eager for any form of official ID, and by companies interested in doing business with them. Many banks now allow illegal immigrants to open an account with their ITIN, and Bank of America has a pilot program in Los Angeles that allows customers to use the numbers to sign up for a credit card. Others have created mortgage products for ITIN-bearing immigrants, including Citibank, which offers one in partnership with ACORN Housing Corp. "They want to go forward, work, be a normal taxpayer," said Erica Gonzalez, a staffer in ACORN's Fresno office, where demand for the tax ID has shot up in recent years. "If they want to establish themselves here, this lets them do that." Five states - West Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Utah, and Illinois - also allow ITINs to be used as identification for a drivers' license.

Source



13 April, 2007

Los Angeles police sued for not questioning drug suspects about immigration status

A classic Leftist tactic being taken up by others

Illegal immigration opponents have sued the Los Angeles Police Department, taking aim at its long-standing policy of ignoring most suspects' immigration status. The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Superior Court seeks to force officers to inform federal immigration officials when illegal immigrants are arrested on drug charges. The department prohibits officers from inquiring about the immigration status of suspects, a policy strongly supported by Police Chief William Bratton and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of unidentified police officers who are afraid to speak out but argue the policy creates a situation where the same illegal immigrants are repeatedly arrested when they could have been deported, lawyer David Klehm said. "Everyone I spoke to told me their hands were tied with this policy," Klehm said.

The lawsuit relies on a section of the state's Health and Safety Code that states that in drug cases involving a non-citizen, "the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation."

Los Angeles police officers do not ask about immigration status while interviewing victims, witnesses and suspects, and do not arrest people based on immigration status. Officers do involve immigration officials if a suspect is a gang member who has been previously deported or if a suspect is arrested for a felony or multiple misdemeanors. Bratton has argued that the police department does not have the resources to work as immigration agents. Klehm, an anti-illegal immigration activist based in Orange County, filed a similar lawsuit against the San Jose Police Department a few weeks ago.

Source



Britain building more jails for illegals

Security concerns about the kind of immigration centre which could come to RAF Coltishall have risen following news of spiralling escape figures at a similar complex in Cambridgeshire. A government decision on whether to locate an immigration removal centre at the now closed RAF site is still awaited. But the anxieties of local people have been fuelled by new figures which show that the Oakington centre had a major rise in attempted and actual escapes.

There were 19 escapes and seven attempts last year, compared to four of each in 2005. Last month, two detainees broke out after climbing over a fence, just weeks after the escape of four other detainees.

District councillor Alan Mallett said: "That sort of thing is obviously going to be of considerable concern to people in the village. The lack of security has always been a major concern should RAF Coltishall become an immigration centre." However, he added that an escapee would not "hang about" in the area. Coltishall parish council chairman John Harding added: "Security has always been the main concern of the people living in the area of the three parishes. It's a worrying trend for anybody who might be living nearby."

RAF Coltishall closed last year after an illustrious 60-year history stretching back to the second world war. Senior members of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), the arm of the Home Office responsible for immigration and asylum, travelled to Norfolk last month to answer questions from councillors, MPs and other parties about possible plans for a holding centre, with a final decision not expected until the end of May.

A Home Office spokesman last night said any centre at Coltishall would have "prison standard" perimeter fencing which was higher than that at Oakington, where "procedural and physical security improvements" had been implemented to reduce the number of escapes.

Source



12 April, 2007

More on the British experience of immigrants

Traffic on the northbound M1 was forced to a halt on Easter Monday after all lanes were blocked by a gang of men armed with baseball bats, bottles and knives who attacked two people in another car, police said yesterday. Motorists watched as four cars that had been travelling in a convoy stopped across the northbound motorway near junction 15 in Northamptonshire, blocking it completely.

Up to 15 men got out and milled around on the road. Four or five of them descended on a Ford Focus they had forced to stop and then attacked the car, the driver and a front-seat passenger. Northamptonshire Police said that they believed that the attack, which took place at about 1.15pm, must have been planned, although the occupants of the Focus told officers that it was unprovoked and they had no idea why they had been singled out. The police are trying to discover if there was an earlier incident before the attack that could have provoked road rage, and are studying closed-circuit television footage from the motorway. A spokesman for Northamptonshire Police said that it was unlikely the attack had not been planned. "We are looking to see if there had been some sort of road-rage incident before this particular incident took place," he said.

The four Asian men in the Focus were travelling north when they noticed that they were being followed by a lime-green Rover 200. They were flashed and pelted with bottles, which bounced off the car, before the Rover cut them up and forced them to stop. The hard shoulder and the roadway itself were then blocked by three other vehicles - a black Audi A3, a black Toyota Prius and possibly a red Audi A3. A crowd of black men, aged between 20 and 30, and wearing black clothing, gold chains and bracelets, spilt on to the road as the attack began.

The driver and his passengers were not badly hurt and the attackers, who are thought to have been driving from London, got back into their cars and sped away.

Northamptonshire Police alerted other forces farther along the M1 but the convoy was not spotted again. Officers were examining film yesterday from motorway cameras and were carrying out checks on registration numbers yesterday. Northamptonshire Police said that other similar incidents may have happened elsewhere on the motorway.

Source



The vast cost of illegal immigration into the USA

When George W. Bush visited the U.S. Border Patrol's Yuma Station Headquarters in Arizona Monday - for the second time in a year - his message on illegal immigration sounded a bit tougher than in the past. "Illegal immigration is a serious problem - you know it better than anybody," he told a group of border agents. "It puts pressure on the public schools and the hospitals, not only here in our border states, but states around the country. It drains the state and local budgets.Incarceration of criminals who are here illegally strains the Arizona budget. But there's a lot of other ways it strains the local and state budgets. It brings crime to our communities."

The president touted his get-tough-on-the-border policies, enacted under pressure from the then-Republican Congress, and singled out Operation Jump Start, under which National Guard troops assist border agents. But he also stressed the need for "comprehensive" reform, and when he did his message sounded like the George W. Bush of old. "Past efforts at reform failed to address the underlying economic reasons behind illegal immigration," the president said. "People are coming here to put food on the table, and they're doing jobs Americans are not doing."

With those words, the president was revisiting the great question in the debate over illegal immigration: Is the presence of illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico, a boon to the U.S. economy, or a drag? It's a question that has long divided Bush supporters; the Wall Street Journal editorial page tells us that a lenient immigration policy is absolutely vital for American prosperity, while enforcement-first advocates tell us a strict policy is the only thing that will ensure continued economic health.

Both have plenty of statistics to cite to make their case. But now a scholar at the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, has found a new and revealing way to get at the answer.

Rector has just published a study, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer," that is ostensibly not about immigration at all. He takes the most detailed look yet at the economics of the 17.7 million American households made up of people without a high-school degree. With numbers from the Census Bureau, the Congressional Research Service, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other government agencies, Rector found what they make, what they spend, and how much they receive in government services.

The reason Rector chose to look at low-skilled workers is that it is estimated that nearly two-thirds of illegal immigrants fall into that category. (By way of comparison, slightly less than ten percent of native-born Americans are in that group.) By focusing on those workers, Rector was able to make use of information on them that is more detailed and precise than information on immigrants as a whole. And any conclusions he reached would be applicable to a large majority of illegal immigrants who are already in this country as well as those who would come here under various immigration reform proposals.

Rector began by calculating the dollar value of the benefits those low-skill workers receive from the government. There are direct benefits, like Medicare and Social Security, and means-tested benefits, like food, housing and medical benefits specifically for low-income people. Then there is public education, along with population-based services like police and fire protection, parks, and roads. (Those services benefit everyone, and their cost usually increases as the population increases.) After that, there is interest on the public debts, a burden spread throughout all income groups, and the cost of what Rector calls "pure public goods" - national defense, scientific research, and a few other areas - which benefit everyone but do not necessarily rise in cost as the population rises.

Rector found that in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill households received an average of $32,138 per household - the great majority in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits. (Rector excluded from that figure the cost of public goods and interest; with those included, he says, each low-skill household receives an average of $43,084.) Against that, Rector found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes. (The biggest chunk of that was the Social Security tax - $2,509 - followed by state and local taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, and federal income taxes, but Rector counted everything, including highway levies and lottery purchases.) In the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household received $22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes - the $32,138 in benefits, excluding public goods, minus the $9,689 in taxes.

Taking that $22,449, and multiplying it by the 17.7 million low-skill households, Rector found that the total deficit for such households was $397 billion in 2004. "Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion," Rector writes. "This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services."

More here



11 April, 2007

Canada to facilitate intake of Muslims from Bangladesh

Full service Canadian Immigration Centre will not start its operation in Dhaka by August 2007 but from the next year (2008).

A press release by High Commission of Canada confirmed it, contrary to the incorrect information published by an Immigration Law Consultancy Bureau (ILCB) on a daily newspaper regarding to the starting date of the full service Canadian Immigration in Dhaka.

The High Commission expects to move to the new chancery in Madhani Avenue, Baridhara after the completion of the new structure in 2008, where the full service Immigration Centre will be open thereafter.

Until then, all immigration applications will continue to be processed at the High Commission of Canada in Singapore while all the visitors, students and temporary workers applicants will continue to be processed in Dhaka.

Source



Looking the Other Way on Immigrants

Some Cities Buck Federal Policies

HIGHTSTOWN, N.J. -- After federal agents launched a massive raid on an apartment complex here two years ago, other illegal immigrants in this quiet town near Princeton University grew so wary of the law, authorities say, that many began hiding behind headstones in a local cemetery when patrol cars approached. But these days, the immigrants of Hightstown are more likely to be the ones calling the cops.

In the aftermath of a series of raids in 2004, the town council in this historic borough of 5,300 -- transformed in recent years by an influx of at least 1,300 Latin Americans -- unanimously approved a sort of immigrant bill of rights. Joining a growing list of cities enacting a no-questions-asked policy on immigration status, Hightstown now allows its undocumented residents to officially interact with local police and access city services without fear of being reported to federal authorities.

It has opened new lines of communication here, officials say. One illegal immigrant at the complex where the raids were staged called on the police recently to help place a family member in alcohol rehabilitation; others have reported domestic abuse, extortion, theft and other crimes. Some are calling the town's pro-immigrant mayor for advice on City Hall weddings and landlord troubles. Hightstown has added services aimed at immigrants, including free bilingual computer classes last month. Noting the shift, one Spanish-language newspaper recently dubbed Hightstown the "Paradise Town" of New Jersey.

"People are talking about how the police here can be trusted, so I called them right after I was mugged," said Julio, 33, a Guatemalan illegal immigrant who was assaulted in Hightstown last year. He said he was robbed several times in Texas before moving to New Jersey three years ago, but was too fearful to call law enforcement there. Here, "they came out to meet me, made a report and gave me a ride home. They haven't caught the guys who did it, but at least I didn't feel like I was the one who committed a crime."

As Congress once again prepares to consider immigration bills, the debate is already playing on the nation's Main Streets, with liberal enclaves extending protections to illegal immigrants as conservative locales seek to push them out. The country is deeply divided on immigration, with 29 percent of respondents in a December Washington Post-ABC News Poll calling immigrants "good" for their communities and an equal number describing them as "bad." About 39 percent said they make no difference.

With federal authorities enlisting local law enforcement agencies to act as their "eyes and ears" on the ground, a number of towns have responded with highly publicized zero-tolerance policies on illegal immigrants. In Hazelton, Pa., the Illegal Immigration Relief Act -- passed last year but being challenged in federal court -- denies licenses to businesses that employ illegal immigrants, fines landlords $1,000 for each illegal immigrant discovered renting their properties and requires that city documents be in English only. Other towns have deputized police officers to act as local immigration cops.

But equally fervent are a less well-known but fast-growing number of "sanctuary" cities and towns -- from Seattle to Cambridge, Mass. -- where local authorities are effectively rejecting the federal government's call for tougher enforcement and instead bestowing a measure of local acceptance.

In New Haven, Conn., for example, officials have prohibited police from asking about an immigrant's legal status, and in July the city will introduce municipal identification cards, providing undocumented immigrants with a "locally legal" form of ID that will make it easier for them to apply for bank accounts and sign rental leases. Overall, at least 20 cities and towns have approved pro-immigration measures over the past three years, according to the D.C.-based Fair Immigration Reform Movement. Analysts and advocates say almost as many -- including at least five in New Jersey, where about one in 17 residents is an illegal immigrant -- are considering similar resolutions.

"What we're seeing is a surge in immigration policy at the local level," said Michael Wishnie, a Yale University law professor who has worked with New York City on pro-immigration measures. "What they have in common is that mayors are basically saying, 'Look, this is a major issue for us, and if Congress can't fix it, we will.' "Initially coined by immigrant groups in the 1980s, when a number of cities approved local laws granting a haven to the victims of civil wars in Central and South America, the term "sanctuary city" has been adopted in recent years by opponents of pro-immigrant ordinances. They argue that the new crop of towns approving such measures is effectively sanctioning illegal immigration.

Source



10 April, 2007

The unfortunate British experience

The UK is in the grip of a serious 'brain drain', a leading academic has warned. Well-educated professionals and managers are leaving the country in droves, according to John Salt, an expert on migration from University College London. In their place, low-skilled workers from Eastern Europe are flooding in - leading to a 'de-skilling' of the workforce.

Professor Salt's findings will fuel concerns over Labour's opendoor immigration policies. According to official figures, between 2000 and 2005 a net total of 272,000 Britons emigrated, while a net total of 639,000 non-Britons moved here. But experts warn that in the past two years, up to 700,000 workers have actually arrived from the former Eastern Bloc. The majority are taking low-skilled jobs.

Professor Salt said that in 2005, 29 per of those arriving were in low-grade jobs and 37 per cent were not in work. Only a third were professionals. Of those leaving the UK, almost half - 42 per cent - were professionals or managers. They are heading mainly for New Zealand, Australia, the U.S., and Canada. In his report for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Professor Salt said: "Migration flows are tending towards a de-skilling of the UK labour market."

A Home Office spokesman said it was introducing a points-based immigration scheme from 2009 which will make it harder for lowskilled migrants to gain work visas.

Organised gangs are offering to smuggle thousands of illegal immigrants into Britain for as little as 200 pounds from a new base near the closed Sangatte welfare centre, it has emerged. Up to 500 migrants at a time are sleeping in the French camps being run by Afghan gangs. The flow of arrivals is so constant that authorities in Calais are planning to open a new welfare centre, dubbed Sangatte Two.

Source



British conservatives not allowed to criticize immigration

The future of a Conservative candidate was hanging in the balance last night after he became embroiled in a race row over his campaign literature, The Times can reveal. Luke Mackenzie, a Tory candidate in a British National Party (BNP) target ward in Basildon, was accused of peddling scare stories by suggesting that people who wanted to stop asylum-seekers being given council houses should vote Conservative. David Cameron faced calls to disown the candidate last night, but the Conservative Party avoided immediate action, saying that it would examine the election leaflet this week. This contrasted with the swift action last month to dismiss Patrick Mercer from the Tory front-bench after he referred to “black bastards” in the Army. A Tory spokesman said: “We encourage all councillors to confront the BNP and not to pander to them.”

Mr Mackenzie, who is standing against the local council’s only ethnic minority councillor, told The Times that he did not believe that his remarks would inflame racial tensions because “people were aware of this anyway”. The leaflet, headed “Conservatives: We’re on your side”, refers to being on the “front line” in a “battle”, talking about local people “getting organised” and “fighting back”. It says: “I support Conservative policy of giving council housing to Basildon residents and not [of it] being used to house asylum seekers. There is a shortage of homes, but at the same time the Labour Government is encouraging record levels of immigration.”

Opposition politicians said that the remarks were highly inflammatory and echoed the message used by the BNP in other parts of the country.

Mr Mackenzie, a 21-year-old politics student at Westminster University, is standing in the local elections against Labour’s Swatantra Nandanwar in a ward where the BNP took 22.7 per cent of the vote in 2004. The party’s record for the area is 25.3 per cent in the Fryerns ward last year. This year the BNP is contesting 11 of the 14 seats up for election in Basildon, part of a remarkable surge of activity across the country. It is to field 655 candidates, double the number who stood last time. It currently has 49 council seats.

Mr Mackenzie denied accusations he was stoking up racism. “At the end of the day it’s [the main parties] not saying things like this that is encouraging racism tension because the only place people can turn to is the British National Party.” He said that there was strong feeling among residents that people from outside the area were causing a housing shortage. “They blame the influx of immigration [as one reason for this], because there isn’t enough housing in the UK and you’ve got thousands of people coming from abroad.”

Asked what he thought Basildon residents felt about immigration, he said: “They think it’s entirely out of control.” He said that it was a view that he shared, adding: “The cause of this is that there is no real control over who is here.” It is already virtually impossible for asylum seekers to get housing in Basildon after the council changed the system to give preference to people who have been in the area a long time.

Jon Cruddas, a Labour MP and deputy leadership contender who campaigns against the BNP, said: “This dangerous exploitation of people’s fears is a gift to extremist organisations such as the BNP. Peddling myths about immigrants pouring into a town or about asylum seekers supposedly being given council housing ahead of other residents is incredibly unhelpful. If David Cameron is serious about fighting racism he should disown this candidate straight away.”

Source



9 April, 2007

THE VIRGINIA BEACH TRAGEDY

Even illegals who repeatedly break the law are allowed to stay in the USA -- with dangerous consequences

Tragedy struck recently in Virginia Beach when two young girls with their lives still ahead of them were needless killed. Their death came at the hands of a drunken driver who should not have been driving at all. The killer, Alfredo Ramos, was an illegal immigrant with a long list of traffic related violations.

Ramos was charged with manslaughter in the deaths of Allison Kunhardt, 17, and Tessa Tranchant, 16. It was not his first DUI conviction. He was convicted of DUI in Chesapeake, Virginia earlier this year . He also has a public intoxication conviction in Virginia Beach, as well as two other convictions for identity theft and for failure to wear a seat belt. Other outstanding charges include driving without a license and driving without insurance.

According to local police reports, Ramos was traveling at high speed in a 1998 Mitsubishi down Virginia Beach Boulevard. He slammed into the rear of Allison Kunhardt's Plymouth Duster, which was stopped at a red light. The two girls, who were best friends, were pinned inside the vehicle. Emergency personnel finally managed to cut open the car and pull them free of the wreckage. Paramedics were on hand to tend immediately to the girls; however, one of them was pronounced dead at the scene. Both girls were transported via ambulance to a local hospital where the second girl subsequently died. Everyone involved in the accident was wearing their seatbelts. Ramos suffered only minor cuts, bruises, and miscellaneous injuries.

On April 2nd, Ramos, age 22, was arraigned on the manslaughter charges. He told the judge that he had no memory of the accident al all and admitted to being in the country illegally. Ramos, who was born in Mexico, has been in the U.S. for approximately seven years. He was working as a waiter at a popular Virginia Beach Mexican restaurant - - Mi Casita.

If convicted of the manslaughter charges, Ramos could face deportation according to U.S. immigration laws. Such laws provide for the legal deportation of any illegal alien criminally convicted for committing either a felony or crime of moral turpitude. This covers most theft crimes (except identity theft), rape, manslaughter, and murder.

Ever since the senseless death of the teens on Friday, March 30th, Fox News Network talk show host Bill O'Reilly has pounded Virginia Beach mayor, Meyera Oberndorf for her city's failure to properly act on the illegal immigrant's ability to drive the roads of Virginia. He even went so far as to call Virginia Beach a "sanctuary city," referring to the fact that Ramos's illegal alien status had not been reported to the proper authorities in spite of his many criminal convictions.

Oberndorf blasted back saying that neither she nor "any member of the council has ever adopted any legislation to make this a sanctuary city. But what we have done is we, years ago, set up a Human Rights Commission, so that all people will be given the opportunity to be heard, to be responded to, as we would any citizen."

In additional to Oberndorf, O'Reilly called judge Colon Whitehurst a villain for not sentencing the convicted immigrant to jail the second time around. He claimed to be appalled by the fact that the judge merely put the criminal back on the street which, of course, eventually led to the death of the two teenage girls. He also blasted Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine for "not caring much about policing illegal aliens." He noted that he plans to continue his tirade on this issue until justice is received on behalf of the two murdered girls

Source

Another comment on the Virginia Beach Tragedy:

If any of you have been watching The O'Reilly Factor and other outlets, you will know that last week two Virginia Beach teenage girls were killed by a drunk driver. The driver was an illegal alien. And here is what should make you absolutely furious:

Since last Novemeber, the driver had been convicted TWICE of alcohol related crimes, and of identity theft. This, to be fair, happened in Chesapeake and not the Beach. The judge, Colon Whitehurst gave Ramos (I think thats his name) a 90 day sentence for his conviction - THEN SUSPENDED IT! Oh, and he threw out his driver's liscense. Which makes tons of sense because, as an illegal, he has a right to a driver's liscense, right? O'Reilly pointed out that Virginia Beach is a "sanctuary city," something I had never really heard of before. But Virginia Beach will not turn in or report illegals, which is why O'Reilly is savaging Mayor Meayra Oberndorf.

I emailed the office of Attorney General Bob McDonnell, who incidently represented Virginia Beach in the House of Delegates for nearly 20 years, about the break down in local, state, and federal communication. Here is what McDonnell's office told me:

"To your first question we are looking into this situation to see what we can do to prevent this from occuring in the future. As you know the AG is encouraging localities to enter into agreements with ICE. He also continues continues to encourage the Governor to do the same for DMV, DOC and the state police. Stay tuned on all of this as we will certainly have more to say in the future.

On the issue of why can't a locality report an illegal to ICE, there is no statutory prohibition to this. The rub is unless they have some sort of agreement with ICE they can't hold that individual. They can hold an illegal under the very narrow provision that if an illegal is arrested for a felony, and has returned here illegally after already being convicted of a felony they can hold that person for 72 hours for ICE to pickup, but that is a very very narrow provision"

So the key is that localities must enter into ICE agreements. Some areas in Northern Virginia have done this, in the town of Herndon and in Prince William County. Unfortunately, political correctness reigns supreme even in a right-leaning state like Virginia locally and on school boards and boards of supervisors....

The problem in Virginia comes with Democrat Gov. Tim Kaine and the State Senate, right now dominated by a majority Republican caucus with aged, powerful RINOs. Though several are retiring this year, and still others are receiving primary challenges, its clear that its too late for those girls in Virginia Beach. Chief among the obstructionists is State Senator Kenneth Stolle (pronounced STALL-EE), OF VIRGINIA BEACH!

Source



Illegal immigration into Britain via France

Do-gooders are once again the main facilitators

The leader of the people smuggling gang waved dismissively at the charred wreckage of his woodland camp, torched during a raid by the Calais border police. Sher, a tubby Afghan in his late twenties and one of the most notorious of the gangsters who smuggle stowaways into Britain, told an undercover reporter: "We were raided by the police and they burnt the camp down. But we set up a new one the following day." He and his helpers had already handed out blankets, quilts and pillows to the 70 or so young Afghans who had paid him the going rate of 300 to 1,000 euros. Makeshift tents, lashed together from bin-liners, were once again standing in the woodland.

Thanks to Secours Catholique (Catholic Aid), a charity, there had not even been an interruption to the free food supplies. Stacks of tinned rice, tuna, meat, fresh bread, cakes, tea, milk and sugar were waiting for collection as usual at 7pm at the edge of the forest.

The police, said Sher, are "ferocious". He added: "They hassle us too much." But although he resents their interference in his lucrative trade, it is a distraction that he and his fellow gang leaders have learnt to cope with. Within minutes of the reporter entering the camp, he and four others were chased by the police. As the group sat by the metal fence that borders the motorway, a police car arrived on the hard shoulder and chased the group back into the scrub-land. This was the second time the reporter had been chased by police in a week.

Sher's camp, or "the jungle" as he and his fellow Afghans call it, lies about nine miles south of Calais in woodland near the picturesque village of Nielles-las-Ardres. Half a dozen or so similar camps house about 500 illegal immigrants - or "clandestines", as the locals call them - on the periphery of Calais. They are all within striking distance of the A26 motorway, L'Autoroute des Anglais. It ends at the Calais ferry port, carrying an endless flow of juggernauts towards Britain.

The present-day images are a worrying echo of the old Sangatte refugee camp, when immigrants swarmed over wire fencing to clamber aboard UK-bound freight trains. The welfare facilities on the Calais dockside, near the railway station, act as a magnet for the new wave. Up to 200 gather there for lunch and dinner, and tea and croissants are provided in the morning. Most are Afghans but some are from Eritrea and Sudan, and there are a few Iranians and Palestinians.

Secours Catholique, the main charity helping the migrants, also provides clothes and blankets and gives people lifts to nearby facilities where they can shower and shave. Although the French police arrest immigrants who they see on the streets of Calais, the charities and the government have brokered a deal whereby the dockside has become a "tolerance zone" during the day, with no arrests. The smugglers take full advantage of this to tout for business.

Things look as if they can only get better for the smuggling gangs. A new welfare centre, dubbed Sangatte Two, is to be built conveniently close to the Calais ferry port in a disused football stadium. It will offer food, clothing, toilet facilities, immigration advice and medical care for about 300 migrants at a time.

Talk to the Home Office in Britain and it paints a very different picture. John Reid's aides say that since the closure of Sangatte, the number of people caught trying to enter Britain through Kent has dropped from 10,000 in 2002 to 1,526 in 2006. However, the Sunday Times investigation suggests that the Home Office, which three years ago spectacularly underestimated how many legal migrants would come here from Poland, has again miscalculated. The 500 illegal immigrants reckon to spend between two to three weeks at Calais, implying that up to 200 get to Britain every week. With the addition of those stowing away at Dunkirk, St Omer and Brussels, an estimate of 10,000 arrivals in the UK looks cautious.

Sher runs his gang with the help of three fellow Afghans, each of whom is an illegal immigrant. They have associates in British cities who can collect money in advance from the relatives of would-be immigrants to Britain. The undercover reporter, posing as an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh desperate to go to London, was told the tariff by Jameel Asmol, a member of the gang. If the money is paid in the UK, then the rate is 1,000 euros. If the would-be immigrant gives cash in hand to the gang, he can pay as little as 300. If the would-be immigrant wants a guaranteed entry into Britain, he has to pay the smugglers 4,400. In this case, the immigrant would be smuggled into the UK with the connivance of a truck driver, said Asmol.

The camp is close to a motorway truck-stop where some drivers stop to sleep. As night approached, the reporter watched five people being taken by the gang to be hidden inside lorries. All except one headed to the motorway empty-handed; the last one to leave took a carrier bag full of clothes. The bravest stowaways get into Britain by holding onto one of the axles of the truck. Bosh, one of the gang, explained: "In a long lorry, there are three axles at the back but one of them is not used and is pulled up. We get you to cling on throughout the whole journey."

The gang plays a wary game of cat-and-mouse with the police. Sher told the reporter that the previous night, police suddenly stormed the truck stop as five immigrants were about to clamber into the lorries. The five were arrested but the gang leaders managed to get away.

The reporter watched as the migrants lit a fire at their makeshift camp, heating metal bars until they became red hot before rubbing their thumbs and index fingers over the metal. One explained that this was to thwart the police who take the finger-prints of every illegal immigrant they arrest.

Those stowaways who do get into the trucks are often caught in Calais. Gamma ray detectors spot movements inside the container and there are also heart beat detectors and CO2 probes for human breath. As part of the tariff charged by the gangs, they promise the would-be immigrants that no matter how many times they get caught, they will be put back in lorries until they reach Britain....

Asmol explained that it was common for relatives in Britain to pay for immigrants in Calais. Within minutes he gave a mobile phone number for his associate Rahulla, who was based in Birmingham....

The charities refuse to accept that their assistance may contribute to the build-up of migrants. Jacky Verhaegen, head of migrant welfare for Secours Catholique, said: "These migrants don't leave Afghanistan because they heard that the soup we provide is good. They come here to go to England. We have to help these people because they are poor."

The new welfare centre, to be paid for by the French authorities, will open this autumn. Critics of "Sangatte Two" accuse the French of reneging on the spirit of the deal struck in 2002 between Nicolas Sarkozy, now a candidate for the French presidency, and David Blunkett, then home secretary. This made it clear that no such centre would be built again in Calais.

Blunkett said this weekend: "Given the much tougher border controls and surveillance put in place since closure, it is amazing that local, as well as national, French politicians do not appear to have sufficiently recognised the danger of conflict that sucha centre will present."

Unlike the original Sangatte facility, the new centre will have no overnight accommodation, say its creators. A spokesman for Jacky Henin, mayor of Calais, said: "For three years we have asked the French, the European and British governments to do something but no one has done anything." He blamed Britain for the presence of illegal immigrants. "Why do the British government give work to migrants? Why is it possible to get jobs in Britain without identity cards?" he said.

More here



8 April, 2007

A sick system

Read below the immense contortions needed to get an illegal deported -- mainly because of American Leftists who do their utmost to create difficulties for law enforcement. Even a judgment against the woman from the 9th Circus was not good enough for them

Despite an 11th-hour legal appeal, Isabel Aguirre, the Palo Alto mother of four U.S.-born children, decided to leave Friday on a flight bound for Mexico, ending the illegal immigrant's long battle to remain in the United States. Disappointed Palo Alto residents and Bay Area religious leaders fought to keep the family stateside - and even contemplated church sanctuary to shield them from federal immigration authorities. On Friday, attorneys in San Francisco and Los Angeles pursued last-minute efforts to extend Aguirre's stay so her minor children could complete the school year.

But in the end, Aguirre rejected all appeals and complied with a 2005 deportation order. After a day filled with anguished decisions, and an anonymous "scary phone call" to her home the night before, she chose to take her children to Mexico instead of giving them up to foster care in the Bay Area. Federal immigration agents were to escort the family to the plane.

Aguirre and her husband, Pedro Ramirez, a longtime manager at an Albertson's grocery store in Palo Alto who has been in the United States since 1985, were arrested Feb. 28 by agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Ramirez was deported the same day and his wife was strapped with an ankle security monitor and placed under house arrest. She was given until Friday to leave the country.

"She's just very concerned about complying with the law," said Los Angeles attorney Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights, a legal and immigrant advocacy organization. "She, like many immigrants, share a real fear of breaking the law." Schey said he spoke with Aguirre through an interpreter Friday afternoon and asked her if she wanted lawyers to pursue an extension, an effort backed by various religious groups. "She decided to go back," Schey said.

Officials of ICE said the couple were originally ordered deported in 2002 after an immigration judge ruled they were illegal immigrants. But after a long legal battle, which the couple said was botched by a lawyer who was eventually disbarred, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them in 2005. "She and the people in the community have made a point that she didn't get adequate legal representation," said ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice. "This immigration case was in litigation for almost a decade, and the court found that they had no legal basis to be here."

Aquirre and Ramirez were arrested as part of a national crackdown on illegal immigrants who have ignored previous deportation orders. An estimated 18,000 have been arrested under "Operation Return to Sender," in which ICE agents also target immigrants who have criminal convictions. The agency has also stepped up crackdowns across the nation on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The arrests of Aguirre and Ramirez became the rallying cry of immigrant advocates in the Bay Area, who denounced ICE sweeps they say have caused the breakup of families made up of legal and illegal immigrants. The couple's four children - Pedro Jr., 15; Adrian, 12; Yadira, 10; and Adriana, 6 - were all born at Stanford Medical Center and raised in East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. All of them were attending schools in Palo Alto. "It's absurd," Schey said. "Four American children are effectively being forced to leave their own country."

After her husband was deported and she faced the deportation deadline, Aguirre was confronted with a dilemma - leave her children to foster care or bring them with her to join her husband in Apatzingan, a city southwest of the Michoacan state capital of Morelia. Once her deportation battle became public, Aguirre not only had to decide her own fate but took at least one unsettling call Thursday night. Schey said the anonymous caller told Aguirre "she better leave," and characterized it as "a scary call" that caused her to worry about her kids.

Aguirre - through her eldest son, Pedro and family friends - declined to be interviewed. Pedro Ramirez Jr., a freshman at Gunn High School, said he spoke with his father on Friday morning and told him that the family was preparing to leave. "I'm just glad we're going to be together as a family again," Pedro Jr. said, standing in the doorway of their living room, strewn with clothes, books and toys. "I miss my dad. We'll be with him again." Friday morning, two unidentified friends of Aguirre drove her to the ICE office in San Francisco to get the security bracelet on her ankle removed, ending weeks of house arrest. Two hours later, she returned to the pink, one-story rented bungalow in Palo Alto. After lunch, family friends arrived with suitcases, apparently to help them pack.

The Rev. Lawrence Goode, pastor of the family's church, St. Francis of Assisi in East Palo Alto, said the last-minute attempt to get Aguirre to stay was "to buy a little time." "It wasn't something to defy the law," he said. "It was another way to get her another hearing with the court, an extension so the kids can finish school." Six years from now, when Pedro Jr. is 21 - he is a U.S. citizen and carries a U.S. passport - he may be able to petition for his parents to return to the Bay Area, Schey said.

Source



Records show 98% of illegal border-crossers not prosecuted

For all the tough talk out of Washington on immigration, illegal immigrants caught along the Mexican border have almost no reason to fear they will be prosecuted. Ninety-eight percent of those arrested between Oct. 1, 2000, and Sept. 30, 2005, were never prosecuted for illegally entering the country, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal data. Nearly 5.3 million immigrants were simply escorted back across the Rio Grande and turned loose. Many presumably tried to slip into the United States again.

The number of immigrants prosecuted annually tripled during that five-year period, to 30,848 in fiscal year 2005, the most recent figures available. But that still represented less than 3 percent of the 1.17 million people arrested that year. The prosecution rate was just under 1 percent in 2001. The likelihood of an illegal immigrant being prosecuted is "to me, practically zero," said Kathleen Walker, president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Federal prosecutors along the nation's southern border have come under pressure from politicians and from top officials in the Justice Department to pursue more cases against illegal immigrants. But few politicians are seriously suggesting the government prosecute everyone caught slipping across the border. With about 1 million immigrants stopped each year, that would overwhelm the nation's prisons, break the Justice Department's budget and paralyze the courts, immigration experts say.

The Justice Department itself says it has higher priorities and too few resources to go after every ordinary illegal immigrant. Instead, the department says it pursues more selective strategies, such as going after immigrant smugglers and immigrants with criminal records.

T.J. Bonner, the union chief for Border Patrol agents, said the most effective solution would be to dry up job opportunities in the U.S. by cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. "The employers are the ones breaking the law," he said, suggesting the creation of an "idiot-proof" system to check the immigration status of workers and the prosecution of any employers who knowingly hire those in this country illegally. "It's much like our tax laws: People don't pay their taxes out of an overriding sense of citizenship; it's a healthy dose of fear," Bonner said.

Under federal law, illegally entering the country is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and up to six months in prison for a first time. A second offense carries up to two years. If an immigrant has been prosecuted and deported and then sneaks back into the country, he can be charged with a felony punishable by up to two years behind bars. Those with criminal records can get 10 to 20 years. The federal figures on arrests and prosecutions were collected and provided to the AP by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University in New York.

The number of illegal immigrants arrested at the border is dwarfed by the number who make it through. "For every person we catch, two or three get by us," Bonner said.

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said in a statement that 30 federal prosecutors have been added to the Southwestern border to handle the rising number of immigration and border drug cases and noted that securing more prosecutions would require hiring more judges and public defenders and building more courtrooms and jails. Authorities also note that illegal immigrants who make it past the border are not necessarily home free. In the past year, immigration officials have conducted numerous raids on workplaces.

Boyd noted that the Border Patrol can charge illegal immigrants with civil violations punishable by fines of $50 to $250. But Border Patrol officials said most Mexican immigrants are not sent before a judge to be fined. "The majority are offered and granted ... voluntary removal back to Mexico," said Xavier Rios, an assistant chief Border Patrol agent in Washington. "We don't seek to prosecute everyone." Boyd said the Justice Department pursues charges if a case involves human smugglers, if an immigrant has a felony record in the U.S., or if he has been deported before. "When you consider the other high-priority laws that the department is charged with enforcing, such as drug trafficking, firearms offenses, violent crime, national security, child pornography, and corporate fraud, the department is achieving a balance of immigration enforcement with other important areas," Boyd said.

Source



7 April, 2007

Government objects after bond granted to Cuban militant

A federal judge on Friday ordered Cuban militant Luis Posada Carriles set free on bail pending trial on charges he lied in a bid to become a U.S. citizen, and the government immediately asked that he remain jailed. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone didn't immediately rule on federal prosecutors' request, in which they argued Posada should remain in custody while they determine if they can appeal the decision. Posada, 79, is wanted in Cuba and Venezuela on charges that he was in Caracas when he plotted the deadly 1976 bombing of a Cuban jetliner. He also has been ordered deported by a federal immigration judge, though U.S. authorities have been unable to find a country willing to accept the former CIA operative.

Felipe D.J. Millan, Posada's El Paso attorney, said Posada remained jailed in Otero County, N.M. Friday afternoon. Millan said he did not know when Posada could be released, but said it would likely not happen over the holiday weekend. "He deserves to go home and live in peace and enjoy his family," Millan said. "Obviously we'll do whatever we need to do to post bond. We'll try to get him as soon as possible."

Shortly after Cardone's order was issued, lawyers for the Justice Department filed a two-page motion asking to keep Posada jailed for at least another week while the government reviews appeal options and the conditions of release outlined in the order.

In Cardone's nine-page ruling, she ordered that Posada post a $250,000 cash or corporate surety bond. His wife and two adult children must post a $100,000 appearance and compliance signature bond and agree to take responsibility of Posada upon his release. The judge also ordered that Posada, a former CIA operative who had a role in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, live with his wife in Miami under 24-hour home confinement and submit to electronic monitoring.

In its motion, the government argued that because of the timing of the order, about 2 p.m. Eastern time on Good Friday, Posada could be released before government lawyers had time to decide and get permission to file an appeal. "The United States needs time to consider the adequacy of these conditions and whether to appeal this court's ruling," the prosecutors wrote.

Posada has been jailed since May 2005, when he was arrested on an immigration violation after telling authorities that he sneaked across the Mexican border into Texas. An immigration judge later ordered that he be deported, but ruled that Posada could not be sent to Cuba, where he was born, or Venezuela, where he is a naturalized citizen, because of fears that he could be tortured.

Posada has been in a legal fight with the Justice Department to be set free from an immigration jail pending his deportation. He filed suit last year, asking a federal judge to force the government to set him free while the government continued to look for a country that would take him. Several countries, including Mexico, have refused him entry and a federal magistrate judge in El Paso ruled last year that government had until Feb. 1 to justify his continued imprisonment.

After his indictment in January on charges that he lied in interviews and on an application to become a naturalized citizen, Posada was arrested and moved from an immigration jail in El Paso to another facility in New Mexico. U.S. immigration authorities then successfully argued that Posada's legal fight to be freed by immigration authorities was moot since he was no longer in their custody. It was unclear Friday what impact Posada's deportation order would have on Cardone's order.

"The question is, if he is released from Otero County jail, what will immigration do," Millan said. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman in El Paso issued a single sentence statement on the case Friday afternoon. "We will be evaluating the judge's decision and will take appropriate action," ICE spokeswoman Leticia Zamarripa wrote. His criminal trial is scheduled to begin May 11.

Source



Radio Host Talks Tough On Immigration

Nationally-syndicated radio talk show Mike Gallagher told a Greenville audience that Americans are fed up with illegal immigration and it is time for the nation's leaders to begin paying attention. Gallagher spoke to a crowd of about 600 Thursday night at the Hyatt Regency as part of radio station WORD's speakers series.

Gallagher called on Congress and President George W. Bush to secure the border. "The Senate and the House voted to put up a fence, and now they say there won't be a fence," Gallagher said. "President Bush says he wants to be tough on the borders and it doesn't seem like we're being tough on the borders." Gallagher, whose show airs at 10 a.m. weekdays on WORD, is a former Greenville resident and local radio host.

Estimates are that there are 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States. According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll of issues Republicans want Congress and the president to address, immigration ranks fourth. But most presidential candidate are steering clear of the topic. "Immigration seems to be on the mind of voters -- less so on the minds of presidential candidates," Greenville News political writer Dan Hoover said. "It seems to be such an insoluble issue that they'd rather not address it or address it only when pressed."

Source



6 April, 2007

Jeff Flake's libertarian views on illegal immigration

Flake's position on illegal immigration brings up a philosophical question: to what extent does one compromise one's principles in order to achieve them? At what point is it better to adopt a pragmatic solution, rather than an idealistic approach?

U.S. Representative Jeff Flake from Arizona claims that he was recently removed from his seat on the House Judiciary Committee because of his mixed voting record on illegal immigration. He recently introduced a bill to address illegal immigration with Democrat co-sponsor Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, the STRIVE Act (Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy). The STRIVE Act consists of four parts: 1) border security, 2) interior enforcement, 3) a guest worker program authorizing up to 400,000 more unskilled immigrant workers per year, and 4) requiring illegal immigrants currently in the country to leave the country first, then they can return legally under the guest worker program, known as the "touchback" provision. Some of these proposals were included in bills last year that failed to pass.

Flake justifies his support for relaxing immigration laws as part of his libertarian philosophy. However, columnist Robert Robb reminds Flake that the libertarian economist Milton Friedman once said that "open borders are incompatible with a modern welfare state." Flake's position on illegal immigration brings up a philosophical question: to what extent does one compromise one's principles in order to achieve them? At what point is it better to adopt a pragmatic solution, rather than an idealistic approach? The libertarian Institute for Justice, led by Clint Bolick, adopted a pragmatic approach several years ago, beginning with school vouchers. Instead of taking a hard line position against using taxpayers' money for education, IJ supported school vouchers, which redistributed taxpayer dollars to private schools. Idealistically, libertarians prefer to privatize all public education. But realistically, the public schools are not going away anytime soon. Redirecting some of the money to the private sector may have been better than getting nowhere fighting the deeply entrenched public school system head on.

Libertarians want both open borders and the dismantling of the welfare state. The welfare state shows no sign of shrinking. Although the federal government imposed time limits on welfare payments ten years ago, other welfare programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, and disability benefits are increasing. According to the most recent U.S. census poll from 2003, 44 million people in the U.S., or one out of every six, receive government services for the poor. In 1996, there were only 39 million. Many Republican politicians are too afraid to vote to cut social welfare programs like Medicaid. Should libertarians forego their efforts to open the borders because the welfare state is increasing, or should they incrementally begin to open the borders, hoping that the welfare state will eventually begin to shrink?

Some elected libertarian conservatives, like Representative Ron Paul of Texas, choose the former. Flake is gambling on the latter. In Flake's view, enhancing border security means also increasing the size and oversight of the government. His voting record on illegal immigration legislation reflects his efforts to balance his libertarian views with his conservative views on crime. While in Congress he has voted for several enforcement measures, including outlawing border tunnels, building a border fence, ending sanctuary policies, requiring businesses to use an electronic system to check legal eligibility of new hires, requiring that the federal government cooperate with local authorities and pick up illegal immigrants that are detained. Flake has been less of an immigration hawk on bills that would expand the number of immigrants permitted to enter the country legally. Betterimmigration.com gives Flake a "C" grade in reducing immigration, whereas Rep. Paul received a B/B+.

It's a no-win situation for Flake. Because he tries to balance his voting record between competing conservative and libertarian views on illegal immigration, he ends up pleasing neither, and ironically ends up on the same side as the Democrats. With Congress controlled by Democrats, and the Bush administration's middle of the road approach to illegal immigration, Flake's bill might actually stand a chance of becoming law.

Source



Proof that the immigration authorities CAN crack down on Hispanic criminals if they want to

How perverse that it is people who have given no trouble since their entry who are selected out for attention -- while other Hispanics with long criminal records in the USA are still in the USA

Immigration agents have arrested three former foreign military officers who entered the U.S. after lying about their pasts during Peru's struggle with the Shining Path guerrilla movement and Argentina's "dirty war." The arrests of the three, who are accused of crimes against humanity in their home countries, points out how often alleged human rights violators have sought refuge in the United States. They were arrested under expanded powers granted to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement under changes in 2004 to U.S. intelligence law. The agency is part of the Homeland Security Department.

Telmo Ricardo Hurtado-Hurtado was arrested in Miami and charged with criminal visa fraud. Ernesto Guillermo Barreiro was arrested in a rural area in the state of Virginia., where he sold artwork and antiques, and charged with criminal violations of U.S. visa laws. Juan Manuel Rivera-Rondon was arrested in Baltimore and detained pending proceedings to send him back to Peru. The immigration agency "will not allow the United States to be a safe haven for those who have come to our country in an effort to evade prosecution and punishment for the crimes they have committed against others," its chief, Julie Myers, said when the arrests were announced this week.

Some people accused of human rights violations have sought refuge in the U.S. to avoid prosecution and punishment for crimes committed in their home countries. Sometimes they have lived and worked in U.S. communities where their former victims have sought asylum. The immigration agency has created a unit to track and prosecute alleged human rights violators. So far the unit has identified over 800 cases from 85 countries, with people returned to Haiti, Somalia, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Honduras and Bosnia.

According to court papers, Hurtado-Hurtado commanded a Peruvian army platoon in 1985 that was seeking out members of the Shining Path guerrilla movement in the village of Accomarca. He and his troops herded 69 villagers, including women and children, into a building and massacred them, the documents say, and he "threw hand grenades into the rooms and finally proceeded to set them on fire so that the bodies of the victims were burnt."

On May 31, 2005, the Peru's Supreme Court requested that the U.S. extradite Hurtado-Hurtado to face charges relating to the massacre. He faces criminal charges in the U.S. for lying on his visa application when he said he had never been arrested or convicted of a crime. After being prosecuted on those charges in Miami, he will be returned to Peru to face trial. Rivera-Rondon is wanted by Peru for taking part in the same massacre as Hurtado. He faces administrative charges in the U.S. and proceedings that would return him to Peru for trial. Barreiro, a retired Army major who was chief interrogator of Argentina's most feared torture chamber, is accused of being personally responsible for the torture and death of several individuals during Argentina's "dirty war."

Source



5 April, 2007

Chicago raid

Federal immigration agents arrested 62 sanitation workers during a Wednesday morning raid at Cargill Inc.'s pork plant in Beardstown, Illinois, some on identity theft charges and others for being illegal immigrants, immigration officials said. The arrests disrupted meat production at the plant for about three hours, but no Cargill employees were arrested, immigration and company officials said.

The raid was smaller in scope than one four months ago that temporarily shut down six Swift & Co. meat plants and prompted calls from the meat industry for changes in federal immigration laws to make it easier to hire immigrant workers. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said those arrested on Wednesday were sanitation workers employed by Chattanooga, Tennessee-based Quality Service Integrity Inc., which was hired by Cargill. "The investigation, which is ongoing, began in January. The ICE investigation revealed that most of the QSI work force was composed of illegal aliens," ICE said in statement released at a news conference. QSI was cooperating with ICE officials, but had no other comment, said Bill White, QSI's director of human resources.

Some of those arrested were soon released to care for their children or for health reasons, ICE officials said. "We cooperated with ICE by giving them access to wherever they needed to go," Cargill spokesman Mark Klein said. Cargill employs about 2,200 people at the plant, which can slaughter about 18,000 hogs a day, said Klein. Immigration officials told a news conference in Chicago that 13 workers were arrested on charges of identity theft, and another 49 on immigration charges. Those arrested included the QSI manager at the plant and a QSI personnel administrator.

Cargill Inc., a privately held agribusiness conglomerate based in Minnesota, is the nation's second-largest beef producer and fourth-largest pork producer, according to industry estimates. Beardstown, located about 200 miles southwest of Chicago, is a small river town of about 6,000 people, about a third of whom are Hispanics who were attracted by work at the Cargill plant. "We welcome immigrants any time, but there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. If people are illegal, we're not going to tolerate it," Mayor Bob Walters told Reuters by telephone.

Source



Immigration offices flooded with visa petitions for tech workers

The limit on such visas seems crazy. Why keep out highly-skilled people? A country that keeps out the highly-skilled but lets in hordes of dummies is not rational

Federal immigration offices have been flooded during the past two days with applications from technology companies for special visas for highly skilled foreign workers. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began accepting applications on Monday for the 65,000 H-1B visas available for fiscal 2008, and the window for applications is almost certain to close by Tuesday evening. USCIS spokeswoman Chris Rhatigan said that more than 150,000 H-1B petitions had been received by service centers in California and Vermont by the close of business on Monday -- more than double the amount visas that are available. USCIS is required to accept applications for at least two full businesses days.

Rhatigan said USCIS would begin manually entering the data for all the H-1B applications it receives during the first two days into a computer-generated system that will randomly select which ones will be evaluated for approval. She did not estimate how long the data entry process would take because it is not yet certain how many applications will be entered into the system. "The computer-generated process makes this a fair and impartial system," she said. The overflow of applications means that it will be a toss-up as to whether even the applications that were received the moment the filing process opened will be approved. Companies throughout the technology sector are looking to use the visas to fill vacancies for highly skilled jobs with foreign workers.

"As bad as a lot of people thought it would be, this is a lot worse," said Peter Roberts, an immigration lawyer at McCarter & English in Stamford, Conn. "The impact on companies is going to be commensurately worse." Roberts also noted it is troubling that companies are seeking the visas to fill so many positions they do not feel can be staffed adequately otherwise.

Robert Hoffman, a lobbyist for Oracle and the co-chairman of the Compete America coalition, said closing the application process so quickly effectively will lock out students who are set to earn their degrees this spring. Applications for the next round of H-1B visas available for fiscal 2009 will be accepted in April of next year. "It really indicates how important it is for Congress to address this issue," Hoffman said.

Two House members have floated a proposal to boost the current cap on H-1B visas to 115,000. But that proposal, sponsored by Reps. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., is part of a comprehensive immigration reform package that addresses a host of other border security and citizenship issues - so its fate currently depends on whether Congress can pass expansive immigration overhaul legislation. "We have every reason to believe Congress is serious about comprehensive immigration reform," Hoffman said. "It would address both the short-term and long-term problems."

Source



4 April, 2007

Australian immigration detainees launch hunger strike

It's publicity such as we read below (this particular report from a far-Left site) that now prevents most illegals from even thinking about coming to Australia. Illegal immigration into Australia has now become so rare that the mainstream Australian press mostly treat it as a non-issue. The Left are however doing us all a good turn by continuing to do their best to frighten illegals off

I personally would favour more sympathetic treatment of Falun Gong refugees as there is no doubt that they do suffer badly in China -- but Falun Gong is widely followed in China (which is why it is persecuted) so there is no doubt that the floodgates would be opened wide if a more sympathetic policy were adopted

About 60 prisoners at one of Australia's notorious immigration detention centres launched a hunger strike on March 28 to protest against a new wave of refugee deportations, including the removal to China of a 35-year-old female member of the Falun Gong sect. As of yesterday, 25 detainees were continuing the fast into its second week. Despite receiving almost no coverage in the mainstream media, the protest at Sydney's Villawood Detention Centre-the scene of scores of previous hunger strikes-once again serves to highlight the inhumanity of the Howard government's mandatory detention of all asylum seekers.

Refugee activists said the Chinese woman was wanted by police in her home country for defending Falun Gong practitioners and attempting to expose their persecution. She screamed, awaking the other inmates, as at least six guards dragged her from the detention centre in her pyjamas at 4 a.m. on March 28. The guards, employed by Global Solutions Ltd, the private company that runs the centre, were acting under the instructions of the immigration department, following the failure of two previous efforts to deport the woman. The government flouted an agreement it had made with detainees to give 48 hours' notice of any removal. That same night, on March 28, a Tanzanian asylum seeker was taken to hospital after slashing himself with broken glass. His condition and whereabouts remain unknown.

The hunger strikers have raised three demands: an end to forcible removals, the abolition of mandatory detention, and reports from the government on the fate of previously deported refugees, numbers of whom are known to have been killed or imprisoned on their return. A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews has contemptuously denied any knowledge of the action. She confirmed that the woman had been placed on a flight to China, and claimed that the detention centre was calm after a "bit of noise". Two weeks before the Chinese woman's removal, two other detainees were deported: a Nepalese man, locked in Villawood for three years, and a Filipino woman. Earlier in February, six people were deported from Villawood, including three Chinese asylum seekers.

On March 27, the day before the hunger strike began, up to 40 detainees protested about another Chinese national, An Xiang Tao, being confined in an isolation cell. An was isolated after being taken to hospital with head wounds that he apparently inflicted on himself when detainees were told that he was being removed to China. An, also a Falun Gong practitioner, arrived in Australia in 2000 and had been in detention for four years before his deportation was ordered by the Federal Court earlier this year. About 100 Villawood detainees of many different nationalities formed a human blockade to prevent that taking place in late February.

The government's forced removals are blatant violations of basic democratic rights, as well as international refugee law. It is well known that Chinese deportees face religious and political persecution in China. The Chinese government banned the Falun Gong spiritual group in 1999 and has subjected its supporters to imprisonment and various forms of repression.

An and eight other asylum seekers have taken a case to the Australian government's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) for human rights transgressions and racial discrimination in Villawood. The action was brought after a number of Chinese officials visited the country in 2005, and were permitted to question 24 Villawood detainees. The interrogations gave An and other Chinese detainees even further reason to fear retribution from Beijing. An's lawyer, Michaela Byers, told the media: "He fears that they will detain him on arrival, and that he may match someone on a data base who needs an organ transplant." A report published last year, based on investigations undertaken by a former Canadian cabinet minister, accused Chinese authorities of killing Falun Gong practitioners and selling body parts to foreigners.

The conditions faced by the detainees in Villawood are nothing short of barbaric. In October 2005, six Chinese asylum seekers held a hunger strike at Villawood for up to 55 days to protest against mandatory detention and their conditions. The protest exposed the fact that nothing had improved inside the detention centres despite cynical efforts by the Howard government to placate growing public disgust at the systematic mistreatment of asylum seekers and other so-called "illegal immigrants". Last November, over a hundred Chinese, Indian and Vietnamese detainees staged a 48-hour hunger strike in protest against the poor and punitive conditions, and the length of their detention. Some had been locked up for more than four years and separated from their families.

More here



359 Arrested in Calif. Immigration Sting

U.S. authorities arrested 359 suspected illegal immigrants during a two-week operation that ended Tuesday. Most arrested in the San Diego area were Mexican but the suspects included people from 15 countries, including Cambodia, Cuba, Israel, Laos and Thailand. They were either returned to their countries or held in jail to wait for an appearance before an immigration judge. The arrests were part of Operation Return to Sender, which has resulted in more than 18,000 arrests nationwide since it was launched last year. The campaign targets illegal immigrants with criminal records and those who have ignored deportation orders. "Our message is if you are ordered deported, you should obey the immigration court's order," said Robin Baker, Immigration and Customs Enforcement field director for detention and removal in San Diego. "Otherwise, ICE is going to track you down and send you home."

Fifty of those arrested had criminal records, including past convictions for child sex offenses, robbery, and drug violations, according to immigration officials. Nearly all the arrests occurred at homes, authorities said. Only 62 people were targets in the operation - the rest were nearby when agents appeared, known as "collateral arrests."

Critics said the operation created a climate of fear. "They're trying to sell it as something where they target (criminals) but it's become part of a larger dragnet," said Pedro Rios, director of the American Friends Service Committee's San Diego office. "It's not effective, and it's not a good way to do enforcement."

The arrests come amid signs of heightened immigration enforcement away from U.S. borders. A raid at a leather factory in New Bedford, Mass., last month resulted in the arrest of 361 workers suspected of being illegal immigrants. Nearly 70 people were arrested last week during an immigration raid at a temporary employment agency in Maryland.

Source



3 April, 2007

Britain rushes to deport Darfuris

The usual British irrationality. The Darfuris probably are genuinely endangered. But for bureaucratic convenience they get targeted while the country has any number of less-deserving "refugees". Sudanese refugees do however have a high rate of crime and dependancy on the taxpayer so their deportation is undoubtedly in Britain's best interests

Dawn had just broken when the bombs dropped on the village in Darfur where Amuna Ibrahim, four months pregnant with her second child, was tending to her young son. The air assault on Hamada was a prelude to an attack by the Janjawid, the Arab "devils on horseback", who left 105 people, more than half the village, dead. The horrors of that day, two years ago, have barely subsided. But, as Mrs Ibrahim sits barefoot on the floor of her home in Doncaster, she faces new horrors - the prospect that she and her two children, one born in Birmingham, are to be sent back to the land from which she fled.

She is among scores of Darfuris summoned in recent days by the Home Office. The sudden rush to deport them - some are due to be flown back tomorrow - comes before a crucial Court of Appeal ruling that could stop Britain from sending them back to Khartoum, the seat of the government that sent the murderous horsemen and bombers to wreak havoc on Darfur.

Mrs Ibrahim grabbed her son, Omar, and fled the Janjawid attack. When she returned, at the end of the day, Hamada was burnt-out and littered with the corpses of women and children. Mrs Ibrahim, 33, who arrived in Britain 18 months ago, is among 60 Darfuri asylum-seekers who have received letters in the past week, ordering them to report to immigration officials. At least two dozen more, who were in the process of making fresh asylum claims, have been taken into detention in preparation for their deportation - against the explicit advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who insists that Darfuris are at risk if returned to Khartoum.

Lawyers and campaigners say that the unprecedented flurry of activity is the Government's attempt to meet deportation targets before the Khartoum route is closed to it. John Bercow, the former Conservative frontbencher who raised the issue in the Commons this week, called on the Government to suspend the deportations until after the judicial ruling. "It is unacceptable for the Government to steamroller ahead with a policy that may be very soon judged out of order," he told The Times. "By returning them, the Government is exposing vulnerable people to possible imprisonment, torture or death."

His comments came after revelations about a Darfuri deported from Britain to Khartoum who was tortured on arrival by intelligence agents. They had apparently been made aware of his return by Sudanese embassy officials in London who had worked with the Home Office to deport him. A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We constantly monitor the situation in Sudan and in line with current case law continue to consider that it is safe to return Sudanese nationals, including those from Darfur, found not to be in need of international protection."

Mohammed Abdulhadi Ali, who fled to Britain three years ago after his village in Darfur was burnt to the ground, is due to be deported tomorrow. He received a letter eight days ago summoning him to an immigration interview where he was told that his asylum application had failed because he was unable to prove that he would be at risk in Khartoum, despite proving he was a Zarghawa, a member of the Darfuri tribe routinely targeted as enemies of the State. He spoke to The Times shortly after officials handed him his plane tickets. "If I have to go, I will be killed the moment the plane lands," Mr Abdulhadi said tearfully. "I am a Zarghawa. There is no future for me if I go back."

His lawyer has argued that the Home Office omitted to consider crucial evidence, including tribal scars that mark him out as a Zarghawa. It is not what the victims of "ethnic cleansing" expected from Britain. "Britain gave me the feeling I could be safe here. Now they are sending me to my death. Is this human rights?" asks Mr Abdulhadi.

Source



Britain: Allegedly revamped immigration agency gets to work

A revamped immigration agency that is more accountable to the public was launched on Monday. The Home Office's Immigration and Nationality Directorate started work under the new title of the Border and Immigration Agency and with its officers wearing new uniforms. Staff will have a visible presence at all ports with uniformed immigration officers and new signage. It is part of a widespread shake-up of immigration services, and comes after a string of crises at the Home Office.

Last year, then Home Secretary Charles Clarke was forced out of office after it emerged 1,000 foreign prisoners had been released without being considered for deportation. John Reid took over from Clarke, but has struggled to keep the huge department out of the headlines.

Beginning a UK-wide tour to meet frontline Border and Immigration Agency staff, chief executive Lin Homer said the new agency aimed to be "more responsive to the communities it serves". "It will engage with a whole range of partners from police, local councils and agencies to deliver the sort of service that the public expects," he said. "It will be more open and accountable with clear, published targets, so the public can see whether it is delivering -- putting us in a stronger position to deliver the transformation we have promised." The new body will focus on local-level immigration, with six regional directors responsible for delivering a range of day-to-day immigration services. The six regions are: Scotland and Northern Ireland; North East, Yorkshire and Humberside; North West; Wales and the South West; London and the South East; and Midlands and East of England.

Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said the number of asylum seekers had fallen to the lowest level since 1993 and deportations were at an all-time high. But he added: "We want to give the Border and Immigration Agency freedom not only to work globally delivering border security, but act locally tackling local immigration policing priorities." Earlier this year, Byrne unveiled measures to give immigration officers new powers to arrest smugglers or criminals at airports and harbours.

Under the Borders Bill, which must clear parliament, foreign prisoners will also face automatic deportation if they have committed a serious offence, such as crimes against children, terrorism or drugs offences and been sentenced to imprisonment. Foreign nationals living in Britain will also be required to hold an identity card with biometric data such as fingerprints in a bid to crack down on illegal working. The identity card scheme will be rolled out in 2008.

Source



2 April, 2007

Spanish troubles

The original Hispanics are getting invaded too! Report below from Spain's Canary Islands, West of Africa:



The government of the islands has released figures for the first quarter of 2007

Figures from the government on the Canary Islands have shown that the number of illegal immigrants intercepted while trying to reach the islands has dropped by 60%.

Official figures given for the first quarter of this year show that 39 vessels were intercepted and 1,525 immigrants taken into custody. It compares with 3,914 people during the same period last year.

January saw the highest number so far this year, with 864. Numbers dropped in February to 358, and in March to 303.

Lanzarote and El Hierro are the only two of the seven islands which make up the archipelago to see an increase in immigrant arrivals this year: up to 234 from 17 for Lanzarote, and from 77 up to 251 for El Hierro. The other islands saw a decrease of approximately 70%.

Source



'Immigrant' is a Racist Word in Britain

Be glad if you DON'T live in Britain:

"Use of the word immigrant as an insult can amount to proof of racial hostility, the court of appeal ruled yesterday. The court held that a charge of racially aggravated assault against a woman who attacked a GP after referring to him as "an immigrant doctor" had been wrongly thrown out by Judge Breen at Luton crown court in January.

He decided that "immigrant" did not denote membership of a specific racial group under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. But three appeal judges said he should have left the matter to the jury.

Source

1 April, 2007

What do we really think about immigration?

Polls can give you any answer you want so what about some principles?

At first blush, that question seems ridiculous. Each of us, it seems, knows exactly how we feel about immigration, legal and illegal. What is more, each of us seems very sure that we hold a majority view. And each of us -- from immigration doves like the editorial page writers for the Wall Street Journal to immigration hawks like Tom Tancredo -- tends to hold his view with some vehemence.

Dozens, if not hundreds, of polls have been taken on the subject. Polls, of course, often produce tendentious results -- it depends on how you ask questions. And there are now polls of polls and roundups of polls galore on the subject. I started searching polls after reading a column by Jeff Jacoby in which he said, basing his conclusion on a Gallup poll, that 59 percent of Americans favor some sort of path to legality for existing illegal immigrants.

That poll most certainly exists. I have placed a link to it, and to Jeff Jacoby's original two columns on immigration, at the end of this column. I have similarly placed links to other polls I cite at the end of the column, rather than break up the presentation in text.

THE GALLUP RESULTS ARE ECHOED in many other polls. Fox News' Opinion Dynamics polls, from April of 2006, found that 69 percent of respondents favored allowing illegal immigrants currently in the country to stay under a grant of legal guest worker status. Time magazine, in a poll summarized by Immigration Forum, and taken in March of 2006, finds that 79 percent of responders favor a "guest worker" program. Some 80 percent favor letting illegal immigrants stay if they have a job, learn English, and pay taxes.

But Gallup's result on the deportation question differs sharply from other polls, likely because of methodology. Gallup gave respondents a one-in-three choice: deport, temporary guest-worker, or path to citizenship. Under that stringent choice, only 24 percent supported deportation. Fox, which asked a great many questions, but without insisting on exclusive answers, found that 57 percent of people favored deporting illegal aliens.

A POLITICIAN SEEKING AN IMMIGRATION-BASED platform might find it hard to figure out what it is that Americans do think. The Center for Immigration studies commissioned a Zogby poll to determine what likely voters thought of the contrasting House and Senate immigration bills. By more than two to one, respondents preferred the restrictionist, enforcement-first provisions of the House bill.

That would seem to support findings in the Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll, which says that 90 percent of respondents think immigration is a "very serious" (60 percent) or "somewhat serious" (30 percent) problem. Want confusion? The lead to the story about the same poll says, "Seven in 10 people say they favor allowing illegals that have jobs to apply for temporary-worker status, but eight in 10 think it is unfair to grant rights to illegal immigrants while so many others wait to come to the United States legally."

IT IS NO WONDER POLICY-MAKERS don't do anything about immigration. Legislators and executives mostly have to make either-or choices. Everyday Americans, when forced to choose between enforcement and legality, largely favor some legal path. But, when not forced to make a decision, Americans' views are all over the map. We are a caring people, but we are also pissed off. That's a tough horse for any politician to ride.

Source



Ironic: Fence firm hired illegals

The head of a California company hired by the U.S. government to help build a fence along the Southwest border to curb the flow of illegal aliens into the United States has been sentenced on charges of hiring illegals for the job. Mel Kay Jr., 64, founder, chairman and president of the Golden State Fence Co., pleaded guilty in December in federal court in San Diego to felony charges of hiring the illegals and was sentenced Wednesday to six months home confinement, three months probation and 1,040 hours of community service. Michael McLaughlin, 42, manager of the company's Oceanside, Calif., office, who also pleaded guilty in December to charges of hiring illegals, was sentenced to six months home confinement. U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz in San Diego also ordered Kay to pay a $200,000 fine as part of a plea agreement, while McLaughlin was fined $100,000.

"Prosecution is long overdue in this area," Judge Moskowitz said at sentencing. "Honestly, the government's efforts have been at the border, not with the employer. Obviously, the government has signaled a change with this case." Judge Moskowitz, in explaining his decision not to impose a possible maximum sentence of five years in prison, said a company "that pays top dollar and did not get a competitive advantage, should receive different treatment." He said the court could not ignore the background of "hardworking people who treated others fairly. Contrary to the vast majority of people who hire illegal immigrants, there was no abuse [here]."

The company, which built more than a mile of a 15-foot-high fence near the Otay Mesa border crossing in the San Diego area to protect against illegal immigration, agreed separately to pay $5 million on a misdemeanor count -- one of the largest penalties ever imposed on an employer for immigration violations. Golden State Executive Vice President Gary Hansen said the company was "grateful" the judge chose probationary sentences rather than incarceration. "Mel and Mike are hardworking men who have worked all their lives to make a better life for themselves and the people around them," Mr. Hansen said. "Their acts were not egregious, nor were they exploitive to the undocumented workers. We believe the court recognized the strength of their character when making its decision."

Golden State was notified in writing in July 1999 that at least 15 of its employees at its Oceanside office were discovered to be illegal aliens following a visit by agents from the now-defunct U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. At that time, Golden State executives said they were terminating the illegal workers, but in September 2004, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents found that 49 Golden State employees at the Oceanside office were illegal aliens. Three of those employees were identified as being among the illegal workers listed in the 1999 notice. In November 2005, ICE agents seized evidence at the company's offices in Oceanside and Riverside, Calif., showing that the two offices had engaged in a pattern of hiring illegal aliens. From September 2004 to September 2005, agents said, Golden State hired more than 10 illegal workers listed in the 1999 and 2004 notices.

The guilty pleas followed a multiyear investigation by ICE. "This settlement and guilty plea clearly show that employers who knowingly and blatantly hire illegal workers will pay dearly for such transgressions," Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers, who heads ICE, said at the time. Golden State currently employs more than 700 workers at eight locations throughout Southern California.

Source