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

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



30 April, 2011

Strict Immigration Laws 'Save Denmark Billions'

Denmark's strict immigration laws have saved the country billions in benefits, a government report has claimed. The Integration Ministry report has now led to calls among right-wing populists to clamp down further on immigrants to increase the savings.

The extremely strict laws have dramatically reduced the flow of people into Denmark in recent years, and many government figures are delighted with the outcome. "Now that we can see that it does matter who comes into the country, I have no scruples in further restricting those who one can suspect will be a burden on Denmark," the center-right liberal integration minister, Søren Pind, told the Jyllands Posten newspaper.

Pind was talking after the ministry's report -- initiated by the right-wing populist Danish People's Party (DPP) -- came to the conclusion that by tightening immigration laws, Denmark has saved €6.7 billion ($10 billion) over the last 10 years, money which otherwise would supposedly have been spent on social benefits or housing. According to the figures, migrants from non-Western countries who did manage to come to Denmark have cost the state €2.3 billion, while those from the West have actually contributed €295 million to government coffers.

'Restrictions Pay Off'

The report has led to jubilation among right-wing politicians: "We now have it in black and white that restrictions (on immigrants) pay off," said DPP finance spokesman Kristian Thulesen Dahl. The DPP will almost certainly exploit the figures in future negotiations over the Danish economy.

But the report has sparked outrage from opposition parties like the centrist Social Liberal Party, which dismissed it as undignified and discriminatory. The party's integration spokeswoman, Marianne Jelved, said: "A certain group of people is being denounced and being blamed for our deficit, being made into whipping boys." She added: "We cannot classify people depending on their value to the economy. That is degrading in a democracy that has a basic value of equality."

Still, the announcement has not come as surprise. The right-wing populist DPP, which has been working with the ruling center-right coalition government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen since 2001, has in the past made its aims very clear: a complete halt to immigration into Denmark from non-Western countries. "A Somali who is no good for anything, that is simply not acceptable," said DPP leader Pia Kjærsgaard. Similarly, center-right liberal Prime Minister Rasmussen has also said anyone who would be a burden on Denmark is not welcome in the country.

Right-wing populists have even demanded a ban on satellite dishes so that TV stations like al-Jazeera and Al Arabiya cannot be beamed into Danish living rooms. There have also been suggestions to exempt migrants from the minimum wage -- supposedly to make it easier for foreigners to gain access to the labor market.

The small Scandinavian country already has the strictest immigration and asylum laws in Europe. For example, foreign couples are only allowed to marry if both partners are at least 24 years old. The number of asylum seekers and relatives of immigrants seeking entry into Denmark dropped by more than two-thirds within nine years as a result of the tough laws.

A Decisive Issue in Denmark

But things may soon get pushed even further. Elections are due to be held this fall, and the ruling parties apparently want to put forward even stricter rules, driven by the xenophobic rhetoric of the right-wing populists. In polls, the approval ratings of more liberal politicians have fallen, and the opposition center-left Social Democrats have promised not to change current immigration laws if they win the election. Immigration will always be a big issue in Denmark -- almost 10 percent of Denmark's 5.5 million people are migrants -- and the issue was a decisive one in the last election, in 2007.

In November, the government agreed to stricter laws and made the entry of immigrants' spouses more difficult. Only those who collect enough "points" may come to Denmark in the future -- with points being determined by factors such as academic qualifications and proof of language proficiency. In addition, the equivalent of €13,000 must be deposited with the state in the form of a bank guarantee to cover any future public assistance. Socially deprived areas with a disproportionately high number of immigrants will be subject in future to a so-called "ghetto strategy" designed to prevent high concentrations of foreigners in public housing areas. Migrants will be assigned housing, and three-year-old children who do not speak Danish well enough will be required to attend state child care.

Some immigrants have already turned their back on Denmark voluntarily. Increasing numbers of Somalis are moving away, especially to the UK, the Jyllands Posten reported on Thursday, because of discrimination.

SOURCE





MA: Immigration program comes under fire

Critics of a program that will allow federal authorities to check the immigration status of all criminal suspects in Massachusetts clashed here last night with a smaller number of supporters of the initiative.

The program, called Secure Communities, is active on a pilot basis in Boston and is scheduled to be implemented nationwide in 2013. Under the program, fingerprints of all suspects arrested in the state will be sent to the US Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Detainees could face deportation if they are in the United States illegally.

But more than 200 activists blasted the program last night at a forum hosted by Governor Deval Patrick’s administration at Chelsea High School, saying it will result in the deportation of immigrants who do not have violent criminal records, among other pitfalls.

“It’s unfair,’’ Franklin Peralta, 33, of Jamaica Plain said before the meeting. “There are laws in place already to deport serious criminals. This is deporting innocent people.’’

But Christen Varley, president of the Greater Boston Tea Party, said the program targets dangerous felons, which critics are not acknowledging.

“These people here today don’t understand the distinction’’ between the targeted felons and the rest of the immigrant population, she said. “It’s not in their interest to have criminals running around either.’’

The Patrick administration has held a series of meetings in communities around the state to discuss the program. Passions ran high in the lobby of the school before last night’s meeting, as opponents chanted slogans including, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, deportation has got to go,’’ and held signs protesting the program.

The mood during the meeting was equally charged, as spectators repeatedly booed when Mary Beth Heffernan, the state’s public safety secretary, and Curtis Wood, another state public safety official, discussed the program.

Tempers flared during the public comment period when supporters and opponents traded barbs and shouted each other down. The topic is especially poignant in Chelsea, which is a sanctuary city, meaning local authorities cannot ask residents about their immigration status.

Robert Cappucci, 40, of Medford said he backs Secure Communities and said of the illegal immigrants living in the country, “all 12 million of them are criminals.’’

“My best friend died eight years ago because illegal immigrants brought illegal drugs into this country,’’ he said, prompting a round of boos and catcalls. “The law must be obeyed.’’

The boos turned to cheers moments later when Lyn Meza, 65, of Chelsea said the program will harm cities and towns in the state. “It’s an attack on our community,’’ she shouted into the microphone.

Immigrant rights activists said they fear the program will discourage immigrants from reporting crime and increase racial profiling.

Heffernan said that law enforcement officials around the state have acknowledged that profiling is a problem and that training programs have been launched to combat the issue.

Gladys Vega — executive director of the Chelsea Collaborative, which advocates for immigrant rights — said Secure Communities will lead to profiling, mistrust of local police, and less crime being reported. “Governor Patrick should opt out’’ of the program, she said before the meeting. A program like this, she added, will take local police cooperation a step backward.

SOURCE



29 April, 2011

Australia's rejection of "asylum seeker" claims stokes detention centre unrest

IMMIGRATION officials have begun delivering a fresh round of rejections to detainees on Christmas Island, sparking concerns of more unrest.

A detainee who received one of the rejections this week sewed his lips together. A fellow detainee was found pacing the detention centre with razors in his mouth.

The Australian has been told that the Immigration Department is in the process of handing down about 200 decisions to asylum-seekers on Christmas Island and, in keeping with recent rejection rates, many of them will be what are termed "negatives".

Yesterday, protests and disputes continued at Villawood and the island's family camp but federal police and guards succeeded in ending a three-day rooftop protest at the Christmas Island detention centre by locking more than 1000 fellow detainees in their compounds on Wednesday night.

The men on the roof were told that the centre would remain "in lockdown" until they came down. The standoff lasted about four hours before the six men used a ladder left by guards to climb down, The Australian has been told.

"They got told that the others locked in their rooms would be really angry with them if they kept up their protest because as long as they stayed up there no one would be allowed out in the fresh air," one centre worker said.

Centre manager Serco took the step after West Australian Premier Colin Barnett urged the federal and NSW governments to send in police to get detainees off rooftops at Villawood and Christmas Island.

Yesterday two Iraqi men in the Perth immigration detention centre were receiving medical checks after guards intervened to stop them acting on threats to kill themselves.

It emerged yesterday that by February this year, the incidence of self-harm inside Australia's immigration detention centres was already more than four times higher than last financial year.

The number of self-harm attempts in immigration detention was the highest since 2003-04 and surpassed the 2002-03 total of 182, one of the worst years for self-harm attempts.

Responding to questions on notice from Senate estimate hearings in February, Immigration head Andrew Metcalfe revealed that, as of the end of February, there were 186 incidents of self-harm across the network this financial year.

Since then there have been numerous suicide attempts and protests that have resulted in serious incidents of self harm.

The figures came as Mr Metcalfe also revealed there were 46 full-time mental health staff at mainland detention centres, with three facilities in Perth and Brisbane having no available staff on-site.

SOURCE




Texas Senate pushes immigration checks by cops

The Texas Senate has approved a bill that would require law enforcement agencies to run anyone arrested through a federal immigration enforcement program.

The Secure Communities program identifies immigrants who could be deported because of their immigration status and is just one of several provisions in the bill approved by the Senate Thursday. The program is already used county jails.

The bill by Republican Sen. Tommy Williams would also require proof of U.S. citizenship to obtain or renew a driver's license if the information hasn't been previously provided.

Williams said that's because a license no longer just gives permission to drive, but serves as a secure form of ID.

The bill contains an additional $8 fee for a driver's license that will go toward improving outdated technology and inadequate staffing.

SOURCE



28 April, 2011

States unmoved by SB 1070 backlash

In the year since Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation's toughest immigration measure into law, Arizona has been besieged by protests, boycotts and a barrage of negative headlines - not to mention a lawsuit from the Obama administration.

But that hasn't deterred a handful of other states from following Arizona's lead.

The Justice Department sued over the law, prompting a federal judge to block the most controversial parts of Arizona's SB 1070 before they could take effect, a decision upheld by an appellate court earlier this month.

While those rulings may have convinced many states to abandon similar Arizona-style immigration bills this session, others are plowing ahead with their own legislation targeting illegal immigrants.

Their message is simple: If Washington won't fix the broken immigration system and secure the border, states will.

The Florida House is weighing a bill that would allow local law enforcement to check the immigration status of people who are under investigation or who they suspect are in the country illegally.

In Alabama, the House and Senate are reconciling bills that would give state and local police broad authority to check the citizenship of people stopped for other reasons. The South Carolina Senate approved similar legislation. And Georgia GOP Gov. Nathan Deal is expected to sign a similar immigration bill that recently cleared the legislature.

"This is a critically important issue that we felt needed to be dealt with this year," said state Rep. Matt Ramsey, a Peachtree City Republican who wrote the Georgia bill. "The day that we stop addressing tough issues because of threats from the ACLU is the day that we've completely abdicated our responsibility as state policymakers."

The American Civil Liberties Union, one of a handful of groups that sued Arizona last year to block the law from taking effect, has vowed to legally challenge states that attempt to pass so-called "copycat" immigration legislation. And other SB 1070 opponents are warning cash-strapped states that they'll have to dig deep into their coffers to defend the laws.

"It's rather stunning when you think about it: These states will have to deal with lawsuits. They will have to spend millions of dollars defending these laws in court. They're going to bear the brunt in the loss of reputation and tourism and convention dollars," said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigration advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

In the wake of SB 1070's enactment, cities and organizations across the country signed on to an economic boycott of Arizona. Groups, including the Service Employees International Union and the National Association of Legal Professionals, announced they wouldn't set foot in Arizona, while the National Urban League nixed its 2012 conference in Phoenix.

A study last fall, commissioned by the liberal Center for American Progress and conducted by respected Arizona economist Elliott D. Pollack, found that the Grand Canyon State lost more than $140 million from canceled conventions and conferences.

But Ramsey argued that the financial burden of providing health care and public education to illegal immigrants is much heavier. He cited a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an anti-immigration group, that said Georgia schools pays $1.5 billion each year to educate K-12 undocumented children. The study, however, included U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, who are technically citizens.

"We in the states are struggling financially to deal with this crushing burden that's being placed on us by the federal government's complete and total abdication of their responsibility to secure the nation's borders," Ramsey said.

Brewer signed SB 1070 into law on April 23, 2010, against the backdrop of the politically charged 2010 campaign, an act that transformed the GOP governor overnight into a national hero of the right and the chief villain of Hispanic and pro-immigration groups.

President Barack Obama dismissed the law as "misguided," and his Justice Department sued last July to stop it, arguing that immigration enforcement falls under the power of the federal government, not states.

A federal district judge ruled that several of the law's most controversial provisions - including one requiring police to check the citizenship status of anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant, and another making it a state crime to be in the country illegally - were unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision earlier this month.

But Brewer has stood her ground, counter-suing the federal government for failing to secure the border and vowing to take her fight to the Supreme Court.

In a statement marking the one-year anniversary of SB 1070, Brewer said national support for the legislation has been strong, measured by public polls and nearly $4 million in private donations for the law's legal defense fund. Arizona's actions - and the national attention that followed - have put pressure on Obama to secure the border and prompted his decision last May to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the Southwest border, Brewer said.

"Arizona has been more than patient in waiting for Washington to take concrete steps to stem the flow of illegal immigration," Brewer said. "After decades of federal inaction and misguided policy, I and the Legislature had no choice but to stand up for the rule of law and the citizens of this great country. Arizona is willing to do the job that the federal government won't do."

Obama administration officials have argued that the border is safer than ever, noting that border patrol apprehensions - a key indicator for illegal immigration activity - are down significantly, and seizures of illegal currency, drugs and weapons are up.

Last week at the White House, the president showed renewed interest in comprehensive immigration reform, challenging key stakeholders to help him pass a plan that would beef up border security and offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

"There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to achieve a system that is fair, is equitable, is an economic engine for America that helps the people who are already here get acculturated, and make sure that our laws aren't being broken but we're still true to our traditions," Obama said during a stop in California last week.
The courts ultimately will settle the constitutionality debate - and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) predicted they'll confirm the law "is unconstitutional, it's unfair, it's prejudiced, it's biased and it is un-American," he told hundreds of pro-immigration activists after leading an anti-SB 1070 march last weekend at the Arizona Capitol in Phoenix.

Other states are heeding that warning. Already this legislative session, similar immigration bills have failed in at least 10 states, including California, Kansas, Nebraska and New Hampshire. Utah passed an omnibus immigration bill that couples strict Arizona-style measures with a guest worker program - a provision that prompted House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) to urge the Justice Department to sue the state.

Meanwhile, states pressing forward with anti-immigration legislation are studying the legal pitfalls that have ensnared the Arizona law, ensuring they don't suffer a similar fate.

Last week, the Alabama Senate passed a bill that would require police officers to verify someone's immigration status when they stop them for another infraction, if they have suspicion that person is in the country illegally. The bill also would make it illegal to employ, harbor or transport an illegal immigrant, and would require businesses with more than 25 employees to use the federal E-Verify online system to check the immigration status of workers.

The House-passed bill is similar but would only require businesses to use E-Verify if they receive state contracts or grants.

With lawsuits on the horizon, Republican Gov. Robert Bentley urged House and Senate negotiators to iron out their differences and send him legislation that will withstand legal scrutiny.

"We need a bill that's not only strong but one that's defendable," Bentley said, according to the Birmingham News. "If it goes to court, we'll have to defend it."

SOURCE





Obama blasts Ga. bill targeting illegal immigrants

President Barack Obama called Georgia’s Arizona-style immigration enforcement bill "a mistake,” possibly setting the stage for a showdown between Georgia and the federal government.

Opponents of Georgia’s House Bill 87 said they were glad to see the president weigh in against the legislation, but they want the Obama administration to go further and challenge it in court. At the same time, supporters said the state needs to act because the federal government has failed to do enough about illegal immigration.

Both sides expect the measure, which authorizes local police to investigate suspected illegal immigrants, to wind up in court. Opponents say they are drafting a lawsuit to block HB 87. Gov. Nathan Deal's office confirmed Wednesday the governor would sign it during the first two weeks of May.

Obama addressed HB 87 in an interview with WSB-TV this week. He defended the federal government’s efforts to curb illegal immigration and said “comprehensive immigration reform” is the better way to go. “It is a mistake for states to try to do this piecemeal,” he said of Georgia’s measure. “We can’t have 50 different immigration laws around the country. Arizona tried this, and a federal court already struck them down.”

The author of HB 87 -- Republican Rep. Matt Ramsey of Peachtree City -- said Georgia has been forced to take action because the federal government has failed. Illegal immigrants, Ramsey said in statement, are sapping Georgia's taxpayer-funded resources.

"We simply cannot afford to wait on solutions from Washington, D.C.," Ramsey said in response to the president.. "We will continue to take decisive and necessary action as a state to enforce the rule of law and protect our citizens from the problems posed by the federal government’s failure to live up to its most basic responsibility to secure our nation’s borders."

Adelina Nicholls, executive director of the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, was glad to hear the president’s comments. But she wants the Obama administration to get tougher.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said this week she had no comment on whether her agency plans to sue to block Georgia's HB 87 as it has done with a similar law Arizona enacted last year.

On Wednesday, a spokesman for Deal said Georgia plans to work cooperatively with the federal government. Deal, for example, would like to see an immigration enforcement program expanded in Georgia that partners local and federal authorities in illegal immigration crackdowns, the governor’s spokesman said. “We'd welcome a meeting with the president about that,” said Deal spokesman, Brian Robinson.

The Obama administration sued to block Arizona's law last year, arguing such enforcement is for federal authorities . A federal judge sided with the White House and put some elements of Arizona's law on hold. Arizona appealed that decision. A federal appeals court recently upheld the lower court's decision, keeping much of the law on hold pending the outcome of the federal lawsuit.

Arizona has lost dozens of conventions to boycotts after enacting its law. One estimate puts the cost of canceled convention bookings alone at $141 million in Arizona.

Fearing similar fallout, the Atlanta Convention & Visitors Bureau Wednesday announced its executive committee will meet Friday to pass a resolution opposing Georgia's measure. William Pate, the organization’s president, is concerned HB 87 could damage the region’s $10 billion travel and tourism industry.

Other opponents of HB 87 are ratcheting up their pressure on Deal to veto the bill. Some are hanging up banners in Atlanta that are critical of the measure. Others are planning to rally against the legislation Sunday morning outside the state Capitol.

Julio Penaranda, general manager of the Plaza Fiesta mall on Buford Highway in DeKalb County, said he has noticed an impact at his shopping center, which mostly includes Hispanic-owned stores. He and other businessmen say Hispanics fearful of the crackdown have stopped shopping. Some are fleeing the state, they said.

“We have seen a slight increase in sales this year, but as soon as this bill was passed, that has dropped,” Penaranda said. “So we are back to levels of sales that we saw when the recession was just starting to come in.”

Immigration crackdown

Gov. Nathan Deal said he plans to sign a sweeping immigration law next month that would:

* Require Georgia businesses with more than 10 employees to use the federal E-Verify program to determine whether their new hires are eligible to work in the United States.

* Empower local and state police to arrest illegal immigrants and transport them to state and federal jails.

* Punish people who use fake identification to get a job in Georgia with up to 15 years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines.

* Penalize people who — while committing another crime — knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants or encourages them to come to Georgia. First-time offenders would face imprisonment for up to 12 months and up to $1,000 in fines.

SOURCE



27 April, 2011

Africans don't change their spots

Whether in Africa, America, Jamaica, Haiti or in Britain, Africans are characterized by stratospheric rates of violent crime. In recent years, Australia has taken in refugees from Somalia and Sudan -- to a total of about 40,000 people. Very surprisingly, a police chief from the State of Victoria proclaimed a little while ago that the crime rate among Africans in her jurisdiction was unexceptional. Subsequent information suggests that she was lying.

When the police lie, however, how are we to know what is the case? We cannot. But the following list of incidents compiled by Andrew Bolt suggests that Africans in Australia are no different from Africans elsewhere. Remember that these incidents come from a very small community of only 40,000 people and that police rarely mention race where Africans are involved. Usually, it is only when the crime cases come to court that we get information that identifies the criminal as African

From Melbourne yesterday: "Two policemen were pelted with bottles when they went to break up the latest brawl at Braybrook ... Police were investigating whether the incident was related to a brawl the night before at a 'kickback party' for the Miss South Sudan Australia beauty pageant."

Darwin last weekend: "Two teenage boys were wounded with a machete while a third was beaten unconscious ... The attackers were described as being of African appearance."

Toongabbie, April 18: "An elderly motorist escaped unharmed after his moving vehicle was pelted with rocks ... The driver reported seeing three males aged 13 to 14 of African appearance."

Adelaide, April 15: "A Marden woman has been indecently assaulted ... Police described the suspect as of African appearance."

Adelaide, April 15: "Detectives ... are investigating a sexual assault that is alleged to have occurred in a toilet of a city nightclub ... by a male ... of African appearance."

Shepparton, April 15: "Three armed men terrorised two staff members in a brazen attack at a fast food restaurant ... Police are looking for three men ... of African appearance."

Melbourne, April 13: "A man was stabbed in the head during an altercation with two other men ... believed to be of African appearance."

Dandenong, April 11: "Two men ... were approached by four males, one of whom struck the 25 year old man across the head with a baseball bat ... The man armed with the baseball bat is of African appearance."

Melbourne, April 10: "Police said a group of 15 men ... was walking home from a party ... (A) second group ... set upon the party-goers leaving two men with serious stab wounds ... The aggressors were of African appearance."

Melbourne, April 6: "A 24-year-old man was ... stabbed him in the shoulder with a knife ... His attacker is ... of African appearance."

Canberra, April 2: "A 19-year-old man (was) stabbed in the abdomen ... The offender (took) the victim's mobile phone. The offender is described as being African in appearance."

More HERE





North African refugees mass at the Paris gateway to Britain

Desperate immigrants fleeing the chaos in North Africa are massing around the Eurostar terminal in Paris – prompting fears that they will head for Britain. Most are refugees from the recent revolution in Tunisia and the continuing conflict in Libya who have arrived in Europe via Italy.

Up to 1,000 North Africans have set up temporary home in squares surrounding the Gare du Nord, from which fast trains reach the UK in less than two hours. Almost all are complaining about harassment from the French authorities. They say their hopes of finding accommodation and jobs in France are next to nil.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has pledged to do all he can to get rid of the migrants. Some 25,000 North Africans have arrived in Italy by sea since the start of ‘the Arab Spring’ and many then moved on to France.

Paris has accused Rome of abusing the Schengen open-borders treaty, which allows free movement of people between 25 countries in Europe, by issuing travel documents to migrants fleeing North Africa.

Some of the others in Paris are illegal immigrants who may pay people smugglers up to a £1,000-a-head to make the journey to Britain, where they can claim asylum or else disappear into the black economy.

‘It may be our only hope,’ said Hamadi Trikki, a 19-year-old Tunisian who travelled by boat to Italy and then by train. ‘Many of us believed that France would offer us a future because we speak French and have family here, but the French do not want to help us.

‘We were treated as heroes during our Jasmine Revolution but now we are unwanted. People are already offering us passages to England.’ Mr Trikki was speaking from a makeshift camp on the Jemmapes quay in Paris, where charity workers were dishing out soup to some 400 migrants.

Another camp, at Porte de Villette, has Tunisian flags at the entrance. The 300 residents complain daily about the lack of food and threats from the police. Khalid, a 27-year-old Tunisian, said: ‘We know that the English supported the Jasmine Revolution, and that they are also fighting for freedom in Libya by bombing Gaddafi.

SOURCE



26 April, 2011

Australian Government toughens rules on asylum-seeker character test

ASYLUM-seekers who commit offences while in detention will be barred from gaining permanent protection in Australia but will still be allowed to live in the country under temporary visas.

Amid growing violence and unrest in detention centres across the country, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has announced a toughening of the character test to encourage better behaviour among asylum-seekers.

Under the proposed legislation, asylum-seekers convicted of an offence in detention will be prevented from permanently settling in Australia and bringing family members to join them.

Penalties for those possessing or making weapons would also be increased to five years in prison.

The changes would be backdated to today, meaning those involved in recent uprisings at detention centres, but who are yet to be charged, would face the new character test.

“These changes send a clear message to anyone considering engaging in unacceptable behaviour in immigration detention that this will only increase their chances of not being granted a visa,” Mr Bowen said. “This will apply to all people in immigration detention: onshore and offshore arrivals, asylum-seekers, or otherwise.”

However, Mr Bowen admitted those found guilty of offences could not simply be deported. He said a temporary protection visa, akin to those used under the Howard government, would still be available to those found guilty of offences.

“The one thing I'm indicating is that of course we will not (remove) people to where they will be in danger, but there are a range of options available to me including temporary visas, which are less attractive,” he told ABC radio.

The government will rely on support from the opposition to have the legislation passed.

The Gillard government has been struggling to maintain control of immigration centres amid ballooning detainee numbers and a massive processing backlog.

Protests at Villawood detention centre last week left buildings destroyed by fire, while rioting Christmas Island detainees razed facilities last month.

The announcement came as three detainee protesters maintained their vigil on the rooftop of Sydney's Villawood detention centre into a sixth straight day, and after reports a man on Christmas Island had stitched his lips together.

A hunger strike at Western Australia's Curtin detention centre has also continued into a third day while protest groups have rallied against mandatory detention and the treatment of detainees outside Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre in Victoria and at Villawood in Sydney.

SOURCE




Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. The Mormon Church and Illegal Immigration (Backgrounder)

2. Mark Krikorian Debates Birthright Citizenship on CNN (Video)

3. A Misleading Article on Illegal Aliens and Income Tax Payments (Blog)

4. Insecuring the Border (Blog)

5. Angels Dancing on Pins and the Meaning of Moral Turpitude (Blog)

6. GAO Updates Cost of Criminal Aliens (Blog)

7. Deconstructing the New York Times

8. Firm on CIS 'Taking Names' List Zapped Again for Labor Practices (Blog)

9. Father of Earth Day on Population and Immigration (Blog)

10. Failure of Imagination (Blog)

11. Montana Adopts Legal-Presence Requirement of REAL ID Act (Blog)

12. Brookings Holds Spirited Debate on Dream Act Variations (Blog)

13. Agents Speak Out Against 'No Apprehension' Policy (Blog)

14. White House Tries to Calm the Waters (Blog)

15. The Regrettable Demise of the Journal 'People and Place' (Blog)

16. 61% of Americans Oppose Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens (Blog)

17. Immigration Activist Warns of 'Civil War' (Blog)

18. BIA Exposes Weakness in Immigration-Through-Marriage Law (Blog)

19. Framing the Discussion on Univision (Blog)



25 April, 2011

Border Patrol agent being persecuted for doing his job

In what appears to be yet another case of the Mexican Government orchestrating a fake crime against one of their drug smuggling criminals hauling dope into the U.S., Border Patrol Agent Jesus Diaz, a 7-year Border Patrol veteran, was convicted in Federal Court on February 24 of one count of excessive force (under color of law) and 5 counts of lying to Internal Affairs.

He is facing a maximum of 35 years in prison when he is sentenced in November. Meanwhile, he’s been in jail since the verdict nearly two months ago. He’s in solitary confinement 23 hours per day for his safety. So far, the judge has refused to allow bond while Diaz awaits sentencing.

This latest prosecution against a U.S. border agent stems from an October 2008 incident near the Rio Grande River in Eagle Pass, TX where Diaz and several other agents responded to illegal aliens who had crossed the river into Texas with bundles of drugs.

Agents apprehended the aliens and as Diaz was getting ready to put one of the aliens in the truck for transport, he allegedly pulled on his handcuffs, a common law enforcement technique to get suspects to cooperate. It was 1:30 in the morning and Diaz and the other agents were trying to find the drugs brought over by the suspects and determine if any other cartel smugglers were hiding in the bushes nearby. The suspect refused to answer their questions. They eventually found the drugs and all were taken to the station for processing.

Agent Diaz’ wife is also an agent, Field Operations Supervisor (FOS) Diana Diaz, and she is now speaking out about what she calls a travesty of justice. This case was brought by the infamous U.S. Attorney in West Texas, Johnny Sutton, known for his extremely aggressive and controversial prosecution of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean back in 2006. Sutton left office in 2009, but his chief deputy took over and prosecuted this case, once again at the demands of the Mexican Government.

Diaz was tried in September 2010, but the case ended in a mistrial. The DOJ tried the case again in February 2011 and this time they got their conviction, even though federal agent witnesses admitted they had lied to a grand jury. The judge did not allow the fact that they had committed perjury into the second trial.

SOURCE





USA sends criminal Haitians back to Haiti

Where Haiti takes a dim view of them too

"The U.S. deportation policy applies to noncitizens who receive sentences of a year or more in jail. An estimated 700 Haitians are slated for deportation this year, said Barbara Gonzalez of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"The United States cannot deport anyone if there would be a violation of their right to life, or their right to family life, especially if they have children, and their right to fair trial and due process," said Sunita Patel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Although these individuals have served, the their entire sentence in the U.S., they are systematically detained upon arrival in Haiti, even if they are not wanted in this country. Harycidas Auguste, Government Commissioner, acknowledged that detaining deportees "is against Haitian law, which requires speedy processing of suspects and bans the jailing of Haitians who completed sentences in other countries [...] The detentions are completely illegal and arbitrary."

However, Aramick Louis, the secretary of state for public safety, defends and justifies the policy of the Government of Haiti "We can't consider these people to be saints; we have to consider them as they are... We have to control them on some level." It should be noted that these people are released once their families have been identified "Once released, most ex-detainees trying to find a job teaching English or using skills they picked up in the U.S." declared a government official who handles the issue.

There are few support services for the deportees has indicated Michelle Karshan who runs Alternative Chance, a small organization that has worked in this area for a decade. "It's not a popular subject, and after the earthquake even less so [...] because it's adult criminals from the States, it's not a poor peasant child..." Alternative Chance provides a variety of services, including job training and conflict resolution, but Karshan acknowledges that it cannot replace government services.

Still unemployed since his return this year, a deportee explains that he struggles to find his way in Port-au-Prince, where he lives with an aunt. He left a pregnant girlfriend behind in the U.S. and regrets that he won't be able to raise the child. He said he considered suicide... "This deportation has been a downfall for me"

SOURCE



24 April, 2011

California's criminal alien population rises

The number of criminal aliens incarcerated in California rose to 102,795 in 2009, a 17 percent increase since 2003, federal auditors reported Thursday.

This isn't cheap. Nationwide, the Government Accountability Office reports, it costs well over $1.1 billion a year for states to imprison criminal aliens -- those who committed a crime after entering the United States illegally. California, moreover, is more expensive than other states. GAO auditors estimated California spends $34,000 to incarcerate a criminal alien for one year; in Texas, it's only $12,000.

The audit, requested by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, will provide ammunition for states' perennial effort to secure more federal reimbursement dollars.

More than one in four of the illegal immigrants imprisoned in California are behind bars for drug offenses. Many are also repeat offenders. GAO auditors say that, based on a survey, criminal alien inmates have been arrested an average of seven different times.

SOURCE





Riots among illegals ongoing in Australia

This is excellent. It gives publicity to the fact that illegals are often not granted residency and are locked up for long periods. It is the publicity from just such riots that put a stop to illegals coming during the term of the previous conservative government

Three protesters remain on the roof of Sydney's Villawood Detention Centre, as detainees stage a sit-in and go on a hunger strike at Western Australia's Curtin facility. Two of the trio at Villawood have been on the roof since Wednesday morning, the same day a riot involving up to 100 detainees broke out leaving nine buildings gutted by fire.

Twenty-two of those protesters were transferred to Silverwater Correctional Centre, where they were questioned by Australian Federal Police.

On Sunday morning, three detainees were still on the detention centre's roof, protesting against the rejection of their asylum applications.

"They are being negotiated with. Currently, the Australian Federal Police are in charge of the negotiations," a Department of Immigration and Citizenship spokeswoman told AAP on Sunday morning. "They have asked to speak to department staff. We are prepared to meet them, if they come down from the roof."

Meanwhile, Social Justice Network spokesman Jamal Daoud has complained of mistreatment by police. Well known for speaking out on behalf of refugees and detainees, Mr Daoud said he was handcuffed and forced to kneel after an argument with police on Saturday afternoon at the centre.

He said he was taken to Bankstown police station and later released with a $350 fine. "The police officers were acting with deep hate, disregard to basic civil rights," he alleged.

In Western Australia, refugee advocate Ian Rintoul said a hunger strike and sit-in involving around 300 detainees at Curtin Airbase detention centre, in the state's remote West Kimberley region, was expected to escalate. Their protest over visitors being prevented from going to the centre over the Easter weekend began on Saturday morning, Mr Rintoul said.

"The asylum seekers are asking that they be allowed to see refugee supporters, who have travelled from Perth and cities to see them over the Easter weekend," Mr Rintoul said in a statement on Sunday. "Serco (the centre's management company) have insisted that only one-on-one visits will be allowed, an arrangement that will only allow about 50 asylum seekers to see a visitor."

SOURCE



23 April, 2011

Prove You're Here Legally Before Getting Gov’t Services, Voters Say

Most voters in the United States want stricter enforcement of immigration laws, and a vast majority say people should be required to prove they are in the country legally before receiving any federal, state or local services, according to a new poll.

“Before anyone receives local, state or federal government services, should they be required to prove they are legally allowed to be in the United States?” Rasmussen Reports asked likely voters.

Eighty-four percent of respondents answered in the affirmative, while nine percent disagreed.

“Most voters continue to feel that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration,” Rasmussen commented.

In the same vein, the polling firm found that a solid majority oppose birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

It asked, “Suppose a woman enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child in the United States. Should that child automatically become a citizen of the United States?”

No, said 61 percent of respondents, while 28 percent said yes, and percent were undecided. Under current law the child would automatically gain citizenship.

Sixty-three percent of unaffiliated voters, whom both party try to court each election season, agree with the majority that citizenship should not be automatic.

The pollster said the 61 percent result was “up slightly from last August but is the highest level of support for a change in the existing law found in five years of Rasmussen Reports surveying.”

Both questions came to prominence last year. In November, the California Supreme Court in a controversial ruling supported the right of illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition rates. The only requirement is that they are high school graduates and have spent three years at a California high school. Opponents say they plan to appeal the decision before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Regarding the birthright question, four Republican Senators introduced a bill on April 5 that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to curtail automatic citizenship.

Under their proposal, a baby born in the United States would receive citizenship only if at least one parent is a citizen, a legal resident, or a member of the U.S. armed forces.

America’s illegal immigration problem is clearly out of control,” said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), one of the cosponsors of the bill.

Rasmussen reported the results of its poll on Tuesday, and then followed up with another poll Wednesday showing that a majority of likely voters, 63 percent, say securing the border should be the top priority, ahead of legalizing undocumented aliens currently in the country.

Both polls were conducted on April 17 and 18, and carry a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

SOURCE





Pentagon Contradicts Napolitano's Mexican Border Assessment

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s recent description of a U.S.-Mexico border that’s “as secure as it has ever been" appear to be in direct opposition to a Pentagon assessment.

According to officials at Judicial Watch, a public-interest group that investigates public corruption and fraud, U.S. Defense Department officials believe the border is actually a gateway for Mexican criminal organizations that have infiltrated the entire country and joined forces with terrorist groups.

For months the nation’s Homeland Security Secretary has repeatedly insisted that everything is safe and secure on the southwest border, even as violence escalates and overwhelmed federal agents are increasingly attacked by heavily armed drug smugglers.

Just last month Napolitano declared that violence along the Mexican border is merely a mistaken “perception” because the area is safe and “open for business."

Furthermore, President Barack Obama's Homeland Security Secretary assured that “some of America’s safest communities are in the Southwest border region….”

During another speech, Napolitano accused critics of the Obama Administration of exaggerating the problems on the U.S.-Mexican border.

"Our nation's sovereignty is being violated and Americans killed by illegal aliens and all we get are photo opportunities with Obama Administration officials and scoldings from the Mexican government officials including President [Felipe] Calderon," said police officer Iris Veguilla, herself a Latino.

A top Pentagon official contradicts Napolitano's fairytale assessment, pointing out that Mexican criminal organizations extend well beyond the southwest border to cities across the country, including big ones like Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit, according to Judicial Watch.

Addressing a U.S. Senate hearing this week, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Counternarcotics and Global Threats William Wechslerwarned lawmakers that all their constituencies are confronted by the threat of Mexican drug cartels.

Even more alarming is that once in the United States, the Mexican criminal groups are becoming more dangerous by forming networks with each other and insurgent or terrorist groups. In some regions the “threat networking" not only engages in drug trafficking but kidnapping, armed robbery, extortion, home invasions and other serious crimes.

The threat is so great that the assistant Defense Secretary offered federal legislators military assistance in the name of protecting national security.

“Many of the global and regional terrorists who threaten interests of the United States finance their activities with proceeds from narcotics trafficking,” Wechsler reminded, adding that “extremist and international criminal networks frequently exploit local geographical, political or social conditions to establish safe havens from which they can operate with impunity.”

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a staunch supporter of tough immigration enforcement, once again called on Napolitano to resign last week. Tancredo has led many congressional efforts to protect the borders against illegal immigration.

An incident that involved a gunfight in December between Border Patrol agents near Nogales, Ariz., and armed drug smugglers has been a sore point with Tancredo. One member of the U.S. Border Patrol, Brian Terry, was killed by automatic gunfire during a shootout that highlighted the fact that U.S. law enforcement officers are out-manned and outgunned by Mexican criminals.

The Obama administration also claimed it increased the number of Border Patrol agents from about 10,000 in 2004 to more than 20,700 now. However, an examination of records reveals that the increase in border agents occurred during the Bush Administration when the number of agents reached upwards of 18,000 in 2008.

SOURCE



22 April, 2011

Russian immigration official sacked for promoting 'survival of white race'

Russian authorities have fired a top official for saying that the country's immigration policy was tailored to promote the "survival of the white race". Konstantin Poltoranin, the chief spokesman for Russia's Federal Migration Service, also said in televised comments that the "mixing of bloods" has to be managed carefully.

Xenophobia and racism flourish in Russia, and public officials often make statements that would land them in hot water elsewhere in Europe. But Mr Poltoranin crossed the line.

His interview with the BBC was aired on Wednesday and by the evening he had been fired. He was not caught out with a difficult question, but chose to launch into his thesis about the "white race" when asked if there was anything he would like to add at the end of the interview.

Mr Poltoranin was speaking about the poor conditions at a centre for asylum-seekers in Russia, where refugees from Ivory Coast and Ghana spoke of being subjected to racist attacks from local residents and the centre's administration.

Mr Poltoranin appeared to hint that Russia was deliberately unwelcoming to Africans and other asylum-seekers to avoid an influx of migrants as seen in western Europe. He said he did not understand the immigration policy of western European countries. "We want to make sure the mixing of blood happens in the right way here, and not the way it has happened in western Europe where the results have not been good," Mr Poltoranin said.

He added that Russia needed Slavic immigrants to counter its declining population. "What is at stake here is the survival of the white race, and we feel this in Russia," he said.

Moscow has several million migrants who come from the mainly Muslim North Caucasus, which is inside Russia, and from the countries of the former Soviet Union. Nearly one-fifth of Russia's 143 million people are Muslims, and the country prides itself on being home to over 100 nationalities.

But in Moscow and other big cities, racial tensions often cause violence. In December, ethnic Russian football fans rampaged in Moscow and attacked anyone with non-Slavic features.

Workers of Asian appearance from countries like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan complain of frequent racist abuse and attacks. Russia has only a small community of black Africans, but they also face racist attacks. Sova, a rights group that documents racial violence, said that at least 37 people were killed in hate crimes last year in Russia.

"Such remarks are inadmissible for any Russian official, particularly for a representative of the Federal Migration Service," Konstantin Romodanovsky, the service's head, said yesterday.

Mr Poltoranin had been the chief spokesman for the service, which implements immigration policy, since 2005. Yesterday he denied being a racist but stood by his comments.

SOURCE




Rioting illegal immigrants face prosecution after fires at Australian detention centre

TWENTY-TWO detainees at Sydney's Villawood Detention Centre have been removed and are being questioned by police over this week's riot. The Villawood centre erupted in a riot on Wednesday night involving up to 100 detainees, leaving nine buildings gutted by fire.

A Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) spokeswoman said while a small number of detainees remained on a rooftop at the centre, there were no further reports of disturbances last night. "We can report that the centre has been calm throughout the night," she said.

She said that early today, 22 people of interest had been removed from Villawood and taken to Silverwater Correctional Centre in an operation by DIAC, NSW Police, Australian Federal Police and the centre manager Serco. She said they would be questioned in relation to the events of Wednesday and yesterday at the detention centre. No one had been arrested or charged at this stage, she said.

Social Justice Network member Jamal Daoud said detainees had told him overnight that Federal Police in full gear had entered Villawood, searched rooms, removed some detainees - mainly Kurdish and Afghani - and taken them away in a bus. He described the actions as insensitive and said they added tension to an already intense situation. "The detainees are demanding to know the destination their fellow detainees were taken to and on which basis they were identified," he said.

The protest was triggered after two men climbed onto the roof of the main centre early on Wednesday. They were soon joined by 11 others and, by midnight, up to 100 people were involved, vandalising and setting fire to buildings. An oxygen cylinder was torched, leading to an explosion shortly after 2am yesterday.

By yesterday afternoon, six protesters were left on the roof of one building.

The asylum seekers involved in the violent rampage at the Villawood Detention Centre face criminal charges and deportation to their country of origin.

An angry and hard-line Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, yesterday said while he understood the frustration, there was "no justification at all" for setting fire to nine buildings and hurling roof tiles at firefighters.

Mr Bowen said the group of men who took to the roof of the detention centre in Sydney's southwest, sparking the protest, had already had their refugee claims knocked back. Some of them were being readied for deportation to their country of origin.

"These are people in many instances who are not happy with that outcome but ... if they think they will change their visa outcome, if they think they will be accepted as refugees because of this sort of protest action, they've chosen the wrong government and the wrong minister, because that won't be happening."

With the damage bill to run into millions of dollars, Mr Bowen said protesters could potentially face criminal charges following an investigation by the Australian Federal Police.

In Tokyo, Prime Minister Julia Gillard also took a tough stance, sending a message to those involved in the riot. "Violence is wrong and it doesn't help your claim," she said.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the Government should immediately suspend processing of refugee claims of people who were involved in the violent fracas. "If you're not a refugee then you shouldn't be here, and you should be returned," he said.

Mr Bowen said he would "vigorously" apply the character test to asylum seekers who had visa applications pending.

Reports that police were delayed from entering the burning detention centre compound on Wednesday night because of jurisdictional issues were vigorously denied by the Government.

However The Daily Telegraph understands police were called out at 11.20pm but it was 1am before they entered the compound. It is believed it took some time for the riot squad to be assembled.

Because only minor damage was done to accommodation blocks, detainees were able to remain at Villawood last night but Mr Bowen said that may change over the coming days. A temporary kitchen was last night being flown in from Melbourne.

The Villawood Immigration Detention Centre is due to undergo a $187 million redevelopment.

Mr Bowen said the violence would be investigated as part of an existing independent review into the protests that occurred at the Christmas Island immigration detention centre last month.

SOURCE



21 April, 2011

Confirmation of Federal limits on arrests of illegals

An Arizona sheriff says he has been flooded with calls and emails of support from local and federal agents who back his claims that the U.S. Border Patrol has effectively ordered them to stop apprehending illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexican border.

“Upper management has advised supervisors to have agents ‘turn back South’ (TBS) the illegal aliens (aka bodies) they detect attempting to unlawfully enter the country … at times you even hear supervisors order the agents over the radio to 'TBS' the aliens instead of catching them,” one San Diego border agent wrote in an email to Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever.

“This only causes more problems as the aliens, as you know, don't just go back to Mexico and give up. They keep trying, sometimes without 10 minutes in-between attempts, to cross illegally,” continued the email, which was among a number of communications to Dever reviewed by FoxNews.com. “This makes the job for agents more dangerous. Not only are the aliens more defiant, they also begin to feel like they can get away with breaking our federal laws.”

The email is one of more than 100 messages Dever said he received from active and retired Border Patrol agents and law enforcement officers from across the country. Many wrote of what they said was their own experience and first-hand knowledge of Border Patrol’s efforts to reduce apprehension numbers by making fewer arrests.

FoxNews.com first reported this month that Dever said several Border Patrol officials, including at least one senior supervisor, told him they had been directed to keep the number of border apprehensions down by chasing illegal immigrants back toward Mexico.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has recently cited a reduction in border apprehensions as evidence of an increasingly secure border.

Three days after FoxNews.com’s initial report, Border Patrol chief Michael Fisher sent a letter to Dever in which he denied the accusations and invited the sheriff on a ride-along with federal agents at border. "That assertion is completely, 100 percent false," Fisher wrote in the letter. "That it comes from a fellow law enforcement official makes it especially offensive."

But accounts from law enforcement officials around the country continue to pour in supporting Dever and the conversations he says he had with Border Patrol officers, including at least one supervisor, about keeping arrest numbers down.

“This is nothing new, during my career with the border patrol, this was done regularly,” said another email to Dever reviewed by FoxNews.com. “By assigning agents to different tasks, locations, etc., the apprehensions can be increased or decreased dramatically,” wrote Dan McCaskill Jr., a retired Border Patrol agent who worked in the Anti-Smuggling Unit. McCaskill went on to describe how, he said, apprehension numbers were regularly manipulated to achieve various budget, equipment or manpower goals.

In response to request for comment on the new allegations, Homeland Security offered the same statement from Jeffery Self, commander of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Joint Field Command, that was provided to FoxNews.com earlier this month:

“As the commander for border enforcement operations in Arizona, I can confirm that the claim that Border Patrol supervisors have been instructed to underreport or manipulate our statistics is unequivocally false. I took an oath that I take very seriously and I find it insulting that anyone, especially a fellow law enforcement officer, would imply that we would put the protection of the American public and security of our nation’s borders in danger just for a numbers game. Our mission does not waiver based on political climate and it never will. To suggest that we are ambiguous in enforcing our laws belittles the work of more than 6,000 CBP employees in Arizona who dedicate their lives to protect our borders every day.”

Local 2544, the Tucson branch of the National Border Patrol Council union, has also come out in support of Dever, and posted this message on their website after the FoxNews.com report.

“Sheriff Dever is right. We have seen so many slick shenanigans pulled in regards to 'got-aways' and entry numbers that at times it seems David Copperfield is running the Border Patrol. Creating the illusion that all is well and you can start having family picnics in the areas where we work has been going on far too long.

Has there been improvement in some areas? Absolutely. Is the border anywhere near 'under control'? Absolutely not. Do some in management play games with numbers and cater to the wishes of politicians like Janet Napolitano and David Aguilar? Resoundingly, yes. Time for the foolish political games to stop.”

The union posted another response on their website following Fox News’ publication of Fisher’s April 6 letter to Dever:

“Just remember, for years now we have been told from the highest ranking managers in our agency that 'every apprehension is a FAILURE' (Johnny Williams - former INS Western Region Director), and that we 'are NOT immigration officers' (current CBP Deputy Commissioner David Aguilar to Border Patrol agents when he was the Chief of the Border Patrol)….

We have been told that - Apprehensions = failure, we are not 'immigration' officers, we should not 'lower' ourselves to the status of an immigration officer, and our primary job is not apprehending illegal aliens. Couple all this with Secretary Napolitano's recent public announcement about what she expects our apprehension numbers to be this fiscal year, and it's not hard to figure this thing out.”

A second Arizona sheriff, Paul Babeu of Pinal County, also testified at a Senate Homeland Security Committee last week in support of Dever’s charges. Dever was slated to appear at the hearing, but said he could no longer attend when the date of his appearance was changed.

Asked specifically about Dever’s assertion that agents were told to turn back illegals to reduce apprehensions, Babeu told the committee he’d specifically asked his top lieutenant, Matt Thomas, about the claims. "He said, 'Sheriff, I have heard that myself directly from border agents in the Tucson sector,'" Babeu testified.

Babeu told FoxNews.com he’s been told by Border Patrol officials that for every person apprehended at the border, an average of 2.7 succeed in crossing into the U.S. With those numbers, he said he was concerned paramilitary or terror cells equipped with more sophisticated support and training could easily get through.
“This is no longer just public security threat, this is national security threat,” he told FoxNews.com.

T.J. Bonner, retired president of the National Border Patrol Council, said in an interview with FoxNews.com that he’s familiar with “TBS-ing” and shares Babeu’s concerns about criminals and terrorists crossing the border.

“TBS has been going on for a number of years. You’ll never find orders in writing, and some agents have even been disciplined for TBS-ing people. That’s a practice that dates back to quite some time, to try and discourage is part of their 'strategy of deterrence.'"

Bonner said Border Patrol agents are receiving “TBS” orders from someone higher up, but he isn’t sure who. “Agents don’t just do this on their own. The orders must come from on high. They don’t just wake up one day and say I’m going to risk my job, my livelihood,” said Bonner, who retired last year after 32 years with Border Patrol. “I’m not sure if it’s Napolitano or folks in Customs and Border Protection, but somebody wants to silence critics in Arizona to claim success in Arizona.”

As for Dever, he says he’s just hoping that some good will come out of this. “Frankly, I don't want to create a firestorm," he said. "I only want this problem solved.”

SOURCE



The Mormon Church and Illegal Immigration

New Report Examines Contradictions

In the wake of Utah's passage of a guestworker/amnesty bill, the role of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in that effort, and the stance of the Church on immigration issues generally, has come under scrutiny. While nominally neutral on the issue, the Church seems to have moved toward support for illegal immigrants and opposition to immigration enforcement. Contradictions between official Church policies, the statements of senior Church leaders, and the actions of the Church’s public affairs and media groups have sparked considerable debate among members.

A new paper from the Center for Immigration Studies is the first look at this issue. “The Mormon Church and Illegal Immigration” is authored by Ronald W. Mortensen, PhD, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, retired career U.S. Foreign Service Officer, and member of the LDS Church. The report is available here. Among the findings:

* The Church still teaches that 'Members should obey, honor, and sustain the laws in any country where they reside or travel.' In spite of this, the Church baptizes and extends full membership to illegal aliens who are not obeying, honoring, and sustaining the laws of the United States where they now reside.

* The Church calls for compassion for illegal aliens who are committing serious violations of U.S. immigration and criminal laws, but ignores justice for an estimated 50,000 Utah children and over one million Arizona children and their families, who are the victims of job-related identity theft.

* At the same time the Church tells new converts in the poorest countries and villages in the world to stay where they are in order to build up the Church there, its public affairs and media groups and surrogates accuse those who ask people illegally in the United States to return to those very same countries and villages of being mean-spirited and cruel.

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



20 April, 2011

Arizona Prospering After SB 1070

Arizona has replaced Hispanics with Canadians and refugees from other American States

Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immigration law SB 1070 was enacted into law on June 29 of last year. The Obama administration immediately sued Arizona and got an injunction preventing it from going into effect while the case was litigated. Critics warned that the law would hurt Arizona; no one would want to move to Arizona and illegal immigrants would flee the state, ruining the economy.

The sky-is-falling alarmists were wrong. Results from the 2010 Census reveal that Arizona is the second-fastest growing state in the country after Nevada. Lee McPheters, director of the J.P. Morgan Chase Economic Outlook Center at Arizona State University’s W. P. Carey School of Business, predicts that Arizona’s population will increase by close to two percent this year.

Canadians tired of the cold weather are flocking to Arizona, taking advantage of the weak American dollar and the high number of foreclosures in Arizona. Phoenix has the second highest foreclosure rate in the nation.

People all over the country fought back against the boycotts of Arizona, organizing “buycotts” and purposely traveling to Arizona to help with tourism. After the Los Angeles City Council issued a resolution against Arizona, Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce sent Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa a letter saying he would “be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.” Los Angeles gets 25 percent of its electricity from Arizona power plants.

Governor Jan Brewer set up a legal defense fund to cover the costs of defending Arizona against lawsuits over SB 1070. Close to $4 million in contributions has come in from over 43,000 Americans around the country, more than enough to cover the $1.5 million in costs so far. Meanwhile, taxpayers across the country are stuck footing the bill for the Obama administration’s lawsuit.

Reports that SB 1070 is hurting Arizona economically are not taking into account the economic downturn. Since Arizona has been one of the fastest growing states, it now has one of the highest rates of foreclosures. It has been hit harder by the recession than most of the rest of the country. Arizona lost twice as many jobs as the average state during the recession. Even so, by fall of last year Arizona ranked 12th for job creation of the 50 states.

Most Arizonans have noticed little difference in the service industries where illegal immigrants work, such as landscaping, fast food, construction, car washes, and the hotel industry. Although illegal immigrants have fled the state, prices have barely increased, if at all. Illegal immigrants were already leaving Arizona before SB 1070 was passed, due to previous enforcement efforts led primarily by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Senator Russell Pearce. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in Arizona from 2008 to 2009. The Mexican government reports that 23,380 Mexicans returned from Arizona to Mexico between June and September of last year, and BBVA Bancomer Research found that as many as 100,000 Latinos left Arizona total during a similar time frame.

Arizona’s prosperity should come as no surprise. Arizona is a red state, and the 2010 Census indicates that people are fleeing the bluest states for more conservative states like Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho and Utah. Even growth in California has finally slowed; its disastrous liberal policies now outweigh its attractiveness. For the first time in history, California has failed to add a new House seat.

Arizona’s aggressive efforts to crack down on illegal immigration reflect majority opinion. A Rasmussen poll last year found that 60% of voters nationwide favor authorizing local police to stop and verify immigration status. Arizona began passing tough laws against illegal immigration in 2004 and its population still increased faster than most states – even as illegal immigrants were fleeing the state.

Critics point to the failure of other states to pass similar laws this year as evidence SB 1070 is not popular. However, they fail to acknowledge that the hesitation is due to uncertainty over what will happen in the courts. Similar bills were proposed in five states last year, but only Georgia was able to get it through the legislature. Governor Nathan Deal is expected to sign it.

Arizona is becoming a leader in passing laws popular among conservatives. It passed numerous pro-life laws last year, and became one of the first states to opt out of the federal abortion mandate in Obamacare. Last year, Arizona became the fifth state to ban race and gender preferences. Ward Connerly, who spearheaded Proposition 107 in Arizona and similar initiatives in other states, observed recently, “Arizona seems to be the only sane place these days.”

The economic outlook for Arizona is only getting better. In February, Governor Brewer signed the Arizona Competitiveness Package, which greatly improves the conditions for business. Among other things, it reduces the corporate income tax rate from 6.97% to below 4.9% between 2014 and 2017, dropping Arizona from the 24th most favorable state for businesses to the fifth. Up until this bill, Arizona had the highest corporate income tax rate of any neighboring state except California; in a few years it will be lower than all of them with the exception of Nevada which has no corporate income tax. Intel has already indicated it is making a $5 billion investment in Chandler as a result of this bill.

With all the people moving to Arizona these days, maybe it would have been a good thing if SB 1070 had scared some of them away. Fortunately, Arizona is not destined to become another California. It may become crowded, but its extremely conservative legislature will never adopt the bankrupting, politically correct laws that have ruined California.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Panel: Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children (Video, Transcript)

2. Sin 'Salon' (Blog)

3. April in Vekol Valley, Ariz.: Drug Shootings, Again (Blog)

4. DHS Pressies Face a Quandary Regarding Publicizing Some Deportations (Blog)

5. House Hearing Lays Down Record for Ending the Visa Lottery (Blog)

6. Fired Illegals Say Chipotle Was Soft on Immigration (Blog)

7. Rising Frustrations, Call to the Streets (Blog)

8. Massachusetts Health Plan Giveaway (Blog)

9. Salt Lake Chamber Dupes the Supporters of the Utah Compact (Blog)

10. A Worm's-Eye View of IRS Tax Collection Practices vs. Some Aliens (Blog)

11. Univision Does It Again (Blog)

12. 61% of Americans Agree: Unregulated Immigration Increases Poverty (Blog)

13. What about Nativism? (Blog)



19 April, 2011

Lopsided NYT coverage again

In the usual Leftist tradition of seeking boogeymen to account for things they don't like, an article in the NYT about people critical of uncontrolled immigration obsesses over just one man among many, the now elderly environmentalist Dr. John Tanton. In an attempt to redress the balance, Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) made the following statement:

This past weekend, The New York Times ran an article purporting to examine the "evolution of the modern day immigration reform movement." Unfortunately, the article did not chronicle the early grassroots work of many individuals who enabled FAIR to begin a balanced, much-needed discussion of immigration policy reform.

Instead, the piece merely chronicles the evolving string of attacks designed to shut down meaningful debate in this country. By recycling decades-old baseless allegations, quoting out-of-context statements, and implying guilt by association, The New York Times has demonstrated it thinks nothing of using its position to belittle one individual in pursuit of indicting the entire immigration reform movement.

Even more disappointing is that The New York Times missed a golden opportunity to engage its readers in the real questions of today's immigration debate. For example, how does immigration advance our national interests? For most Americans, these interests include balancing the supply and demand for labor, protecting our national security, ensuring that our tax dollars are not depleted by excessive immigration, and preserving our natural resources and energy supplies.

Perhaps the most important question is how do the true stakeholders of our immigration policies – the American public – get a say in a process that is dominated by big business, political parties and immigrant special interests? The fact that FAIR exists to empower Americans in this policy process appears completely lost on The New York Times.

Meanwhile, FAIR's 32-year history is a David and Goliath saga of public service dedicated to debating these issues and developing meaningful solutions that serve all Americans, not just a select few. Our mission is to examine immigration trends and effects, educate American citizens on the impact of sustained high-volume immigration, and offer practical, bipartisan solutions that will best serve American environmental, societal, and economic interests today and into the future.

Our mission is guided by a longstanding abiding policy of never advocating immigration policies that discriminate for or against anyone based on race, creed, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Equal justice under the law is the law of FAIR.

Throughout the battle for sensible immigration reform, FAIR has evolved and grown dramatically, attracting respect and support by diverse groups of individuals across the political spectrum for its support of the American worker, for our national security, our environment – and for our rule of law. The contemporary movement reflects the opinions and concerns, not of one individual, but of millions of Americans worried about the impact and costs of uncontrolled illegal immigration and excessive levels of legal immigration.

FAIR is proud of its long history of achievement in this very emotional and very human debate. The morality of the subject is challenging: people from all sides have very different views. But we have built a bipartisan organization with a highly respected Board of Directors and National Advisory Board composed of nationally known Republicans and Democrats – supported by a broad-based membership, a range of foundations, a diversified funding base, and a strong, professional staff.

FAIR is one of only a few immigration policy organizations – indeed one of the very few charities in the United States – certified by the Better Business Bureau as meeting all giving standards for a charitable organization.

We stand by our record and invite scrutiny by the media and scholars interested in writing unbiased stories and conducting serious research.

SOURCE





Deadlock in Colorado

Senate Democrats have killed two more bills from the GOP-controlled House, both of which dealt with the issue of illegal immigration

A controversial proposal to reduce alleged voter fraud, House 1252 would have allowed the Secretary of State's office to cross-check the state's voter rolls with immigration databases and to send letters demanding further proof of citizenship to any registered voters whose status appeared to be in doubt.

Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican voted into office last November, was pushing for the bill and worried that thousands of people may have been voting illegally in Colorado's elections.

H.B. 1252, sponsored by Rep. Chris Holbert, passed the House, but ran into trouble in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

After testimony from several progressive groups who argued that there's no evidence of voter fraud, the Senate State Affairs Committee voted the bill down Monday afternoon on a 2-3 party-line vote.

That vote followed the same committee's 2-3 vote that killed House Bill 1140, which would have prevented local Colorado communities from opting out of the federal Secure Communities program, aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.

"Senate Democrats continually say illegal immigration is a federal problem that cannot be addressed on the state level," said Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch. "Yet just this morning they voted to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants."

Harvey's right that Monday afternoon's committee votes came just hours after the full Senate approved Senate Bill 126, which would provide unsubsidized in-state college tuition to about 700 undocumented students who qualify.

That vote came down on party lines, with all 20 Senate Democrats voting in favor of the bill, while all 15 Republicans voted against it.

That bill is now set to be introduced in the GOP-controlled House, where it's expected the Republican majority will return the favor to Senate Democrats and kill the bill.

SOURCE



18 April, 2011

France blocks train from Italy as immigration battle heats up

A TRAIN carrying Tunisian immigrants from Italy has been stopped at the French border in an escalation of an international dispute over the fate of North African migrants fleeing political unrest for refuge in Europe.

But France blamed what it said were hundreds of activists on the train planning a demonstration in France, and posing a problem to public order. Traffic was re-established - but not before Italy lodged a formal protest.

"At no time was there a ... closing of the border between France and Italy," French Interior Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henri Brandet said. It was an "isolated problem", he said by telephone, "an undeclared demonstration".

He estimated that up to 10 trains may have been affected, five on each side.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, who earlier in the day told his ambassador in Paris to lodge a strong protest over the blocking of the trains, said that Italy understands that the activists could be a cause of "concern" for France.

But Mr Frattini insisted in a telephone interview with an Italian TV channel today that the Tunisians had the proper paperwork to enter France.

Italy has been giving temporary residence permits to many of the roughly 26,000 Tunisians who have gone to Italy to escape unrest in northern Africa in recent weeks. Many of the Tunisians have family ties or friends in France, the country's former colonial ruler, and the Italian government says the permits should allow the Tunisians to go there under accords allowing visa-free travel among many European countries.

France says it will honour the permits only if the migrants prove they can financially support themselves and it has instituted patrols on the Italian border - unprecedented since the introduction of the Schengen travel-free zone - bringing in about 80 riot police last week. Germany has said it would do the same.

A spokesman for the Italian rail company, Maurizio Furia, told The Associated Press in Rome that the train carrying migrants and political activists who support them wasn't allowed to pass into Menton, France, from the border station of Ventimiglia on Sunday.

Italy lodged a protest with the French Government, calling the move "illegitimate and in clear violation of general European principles" the Italian Foreign Ministry said. Frattini ordered his envoy in Paris "to express the strong protest of the Italian Government."

The French Foreign Ministry had no immediate comment.

However, France's Interior Ministry insisted on the isolated nature of the problem and said that once the train was blocked, activists demonstrated on the train tracks in Vintimiglia, forcing the prefect there to take action because they were blocking traffic.

The ministry spokesman said the French rail authority and the prefect of France's Alpes-Maritimes region, which governs the French border town of Menton, ordered the train blocked because activists planned an unauthorised demonstration once in France.

"France did not demand the closing of rail traffic between France and Italy. It was a consequence" of the activists plans which threatened public order, Mr Brandet said.

The distinction is critical as tensions rise between Paris and Rome over the migrants.

European nations have been increasingly and bitterly sparring over the issue.

SOURCE




Immigration bills bring rare spat between GOP, business interests in Tennessee

Republican lawmakers and Tennessee’s business community are in a rare disagreement, spatting over the GOP’s slate of immigration legislation. And Gov. Bill Haslam is stuck in the middle.

Lawmakers are rolling ahead with a bill that would force Tennessee businesses to check the immigration status of all new hires, dealing a rare, public setback to business groups from the Republican-led legislature.

State representatives are pushing through a measure that would require businesses to run every future employee through a federal government immigration-status check known as E-Verify. They have stuck to their guns even though groups such as the National Federation of Independent Business and the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry have lodged complaints that the system is faulty and costly.

The usually wide divide between business groups and lawmakers has sucked in Gov. Bill Haslam, who is trying to broker a compromise. But the two sides remain far apart, with lawmakers demanding mandatory E-Verify checks and business groups saying that plan is unacceptable.

“One of the things that makes it hard is there’s legitimate interests that don’t always coincide,” Haslam said. “Republicans are pro-business. The flip side is we’re also people who feel like we have a responsibility to uphold the law.”

The E-Verify bill is one of three major immigration measures moving through the legislature. Another bill would require similar checks into the status of people who apply for benefits, and the third would direct police to check the status of anyone they stop or detain.

All three bills have detractors, but the E-Verify bill has drawn the heaviest fire.

Business groups question the accuracy of the system, arguing that even if the Department of Homeland Security’s figures are accepted, E-Verify would return incorrect results 3 percent of the time. The system also is not suited for detecting illegal immigrants who use false identities, and although E-Verify is free, the law would require some businesses to purchase new computers just to access the system, they say.

“The intent is excellent,” said Jim Brown, state director of the NFIB. “It’s the application. I think people want something done, and our members want something done.”

Proposal passes

But the bill won easy passage in the House State and Local Government Committee, drawing support even from the committee’s Democrats. Lawmakers point out that the Department of Labor and Workforce Development would be authorized to hire a full-time employee, at a cost of about $53,600 a year, to assist businesses in looking up workers on E-Verify.

“Just like workers’ comp and unemployment insurance, if we don't make it mandatory for everyone, you’re not going to get anybody to participate,” said state Rep. Joe Carr, R-Lascassas, the bill’s main House sponsor. “I think that the business community is looking out for their singular interest. My approach is a little bit more broad-based than theirs.”

The issue is one of a few this year on which lawmakers have differed with business groups.

Some groups have opposed legislation that would require health insurance policies to offer coverage of up to $2,000 every three years for a pair of hearing aids for children, a mandate that they say will push up businesses’ health insurance costs. But that bill has cleared the House and is making its way through the Senate.

Business groups also have opposed several bills that would require employers to let their workers with handgun carry permits bring their weapons to work if they leave them locked in their cars. They say these bills violate businesses’ property rights, raise safety issues and could leave them liable to lawsuits if someone were shot.

“Just like you can say you don’t want weapons brought into your home, we should be able to say we don’t want them on our property,” said Deborah Woolley, president of the Tennessee Chamber. “It comes back to classic, private property rights.”

But business groups say they still consider the legislature and the Haslam administration to be supporting their interests. They point to policies such as Haslam legislation to cap damages in personal-injury and medical malpractice lawsuits and the administration’s 45-day moratorium and review of state regulations. “There are just disputes from time to time,” Brown said.

Business holds talks

Business groups and Republican leaders say they continue to hold talks on the E-Verify bill as it moves through the legislature. Final votes are not imminent because the bill still has to clear at least one committee in the Senate and two in the House of Representatives.

A potential hurdle is the legislation’s costs. The state would need to hire three inspectors to make sure companies are using E-Verify, bringing the bill’s total cost to $287,100 a year, according to legislative estimates.

Those costs would mainly be covered using tax dollars. Legislative staffers predict the state will punish no more than five companies a year for breaking the E-Verify law, which calls for a fine of $1,000 on companies that intentionally hire illegal immigrants.

Still, the bill continues to pick up steam. In addition to Carr, 60 House lawmakers have signed up as co-sponsors, and Republican leaders say they do expect the measure to pass this session.

“I think everyone agrees with the sentiment that we want to follow the laws of the country,” Haslam said. “Like everything else, you’re weighing costs and benefits.”

SOURCE



17 April, 2011

Miliband ally attacks Labour migration 'lies' over 2.2m they let in Britain

A close ally of Ed Miliband has attacked Labour for ‘lying’ about immigration. Lord Glasman – a leading academic and personal friend of the Labour leader – said that the previous Labour government had used mass immigration to control wages.

In an article for Progress magazine, the Labour peer wrote: ‘Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration … and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.’

Labour let in 2.2million migrants during its 13 years in power – more than twice the population of Birmingham.

Maurice Glasman was promoted to the House of Lords by Mr Miliband earlier this year. He has been dubbed the Labour leader’s ‘de facto chief of staff’ by party insiders and has written speeches for him.

Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 recently: ‘What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing.

‘Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.’

The academic, who directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, criticised Labour for being ‘hostile to the English working class’. He said: ‘In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress.

‘Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters... were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. ‘So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.’

Lord Glasman has also argued for Labour to take a more patriotic stance, opposing the sale of the ports of Dover to the French as ‘lunacy’. He said: ‘I would like to see Ed on the white cliffs saying, “This is forever England”.’

Tory MP Michael Ellis said: ‘What we want to know is: will Ed Miliband admit that the Labour government he was a part of lied to the country? ‘It’s time for Ed Miliband to apologise for Labour’s record on immigration.’

Mr Miliband has denied that Labour let in too many immigrants during its time in government.

A source close to the Labour leader tried to play down the significance of the peer’s remarks. He said: ‘Maurice Glasman is a mate of Ed’s but he is not his guru on this or any other issue.’

SOURCE





Anti-immigrant "True Finns" party to make gains in current Finnish election

Finns go to the polls today in what looks to be a tug-of-war between parties for and against EU bailouts, with the pro-EU crowd recently increasing its slim lead and dampening the spectacular rise of the nationalist True Finns.

The National Coalition, a pro-EU junior member of the current centre-right government, topped the latest poll on Thursday with 21.2% support. Nonetheless the three runner-ups, Prime Minister Mari Kiviniemi’s Centre Party, the leftwing opposition Social Democrats (SDP) and the True Finns, are all lagging less than four percentage points behind.

But while the numbers have remained fairly consistent in recent surveys, the populist, nationalist and immigration-sceptical True Finns have seen their four-year spurt dip slightly, ending at 15.4% on Thursday. “I think that the drop in True Finns support is the real thing. After all, it’s the third poll to indicate a downturn,” political analyst from Tampere University, Ilkka Ruostetsaari, told AFP.

This is still a tremendous feat for the party that won only 4.1% in the last elections in 2007, handing it six of the 200 seats in parliament. And while the party’s chances of making it into the next coalition government have shrunk some, the predicted influx of True Finns MPs means parliament will lurch right no matter what.

For while party leader Timo Soini is considered a moderate with a leftist economic policy, the True Finns’ anti-EU, immigration-sceptic rhetoric has attracted a number of extremists, including a few members of an ultranationalist group called Suomen Sisu. “Soini himself could have a hard time if he’s in the same parliamentary group with some of the more radical members,” political researcher Pasi Saukkonen, of the Centre for Research on Ethnic Relations, told AFP.

Ruostetsaari said the recent boost for the ruling Centre Party and National Coalition was probably due to televised debates. “The alternatives the opposition is offering, especially in how they would handle the EU debt crisis, isn’t coming across as particularly credible,” he said.

In recent broadcast debates, the True Finns have called for Finland to refuse to back any more loans to debt-ridden member states, and the SDP has demanded provisions for banks and investors to take on more responsibility in exchange for agreeing to back more loans.

In contrast, Prime Minister Kiviniemi and particularly National Coalition Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen have stressed Finland’s “responsibility” to the European Union.(!!)

SOURCE



16 April, 2011

Why is the BBC STILL so hideously biased on immigration?

David Cameron has just made the most important speech on immigration of any Prime Minister for many years. He tackled the subject in a frank, open, comprehensive and factual manner, while remaining sensitive to the delicacy of the issues. He set out a clear aim — to get net immigration down to tens of thousands — while disposing of the myth that EU migration would render this impossible.

He didn't shy away from describing the widespread abuse in the immigration system, whether by forced or sham marriages, bogus students, dodgy colleges, or dubious work permits.

This was a very significant contribution from a national leader addressing a sensitive issue that troubles a huge number of people in this country. Yet if you had listened to Radio 4 you would not have known it. Their treatment of this story was abysmal.

The Today Programme, the so-called jewel in the BBC's crown, introduced the item with a sound-bite from the BNP claiming that the Government had adopted their policies, but 20 years too late. How is that for a smear?

This was followed by a hostile interview with the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, in which the presenter accused the Prime Minister of making 'an anti-immigrant statement'. What was he referring to? The Prime Minister's sin, apparently, was to say that 'real communities are bound by common experiences'.

His speech went on to say that 'communities are forged by friendship and conversation, knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. All these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time.' Most of us would think that this was a statement of common sense — not to say the blindingly obvious. But not, it seems if you work for Radio 4.

The rest of the interview bore so little relationship to the Prime Minister's speech that one wondered whether the presenter had even read it.

Next to weigh in was the BBC website which ignored a sensible contribution from the Lib-Dem spokesman, Tom Brake, later on the Today Programme. Instead it led with a headline in which Vince Cable described the Prime Minister's speech as very unwise and risked 'inflaming extremism'. Nobody who had read the text could possibly draw such a conclusion, but the headline suited the BBC's agenda. No surprise then that the World At One followed up with a discussion in which racism and extremism featured prominently.

One is left wondering how it is possible to have a sensible debate on immigration when the largest news organisation in the country is so hideously biased on this subject — to adopt the terminology of its former Director General Greg Dyke, who complained memorably that the corporation was 'hideously white'.

It would be wrong to tar the whole of the BBC with a Radio 4 brush. The BBC is a huge organisation. Some of their journalists are entirely professional, so are some of the editors.

Radio 5 Live, for example, are a good deal more responsive to public opinion on this issue; they know from their phone-ins where public opinion lies and they seem to be less inclined to talk down to their audience. Nevertheless, there is a strong and widespread reluctance, particularly on Radio 4, to tackle the issue of immigration.

Like many on the Left — and I make the connection advisedly — they believe that anyone who raises the subject must have some racist motivation. The fact that 77 per cent of the population want to see immigration reduced, that 50 per cent want it reduced by a lot and that a majority of the ethnic communities also want it reduced, is simply waved away. The public, it seems, are racist or stupid or both.

More HERE





Georgia Lawmakers Target Illegal Immigration

Governor Plans to Sign Bill Granting Police Authority to Check a Suspect's Status

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal said on Friday he would sign into law an Arizona-style immigration bill, a move that would thrust his state into the center of the national debate over securing the country's borders.

The measure "fulfills his campaign promise to crack down on the high expenses that state and local governments here incur because of illegal immigration," spokesman Brian Robinson said in an emailed statement.

Voicing a frustration echoed by other governors, the statement added that it is the federal government's responsibility to "protect our borders and enforce visa and citizenship issues. It's past time that happen."

The bill would, among other provisions, allow police to check the immigration status of certain suspects and require many businesses to verify that employees are eligible to work in the country.

Supporters say it would help Georgia root out the state's undocumented population—estimated at 425,000 by the Pew Hispanic Center—that they believe competes unfairly with legal workers.

"Illegal immigration is destroying Georgia," said D.A. King, president of the Dustin Inman Society, a group that opposes undocumented immigration and backs the bill. "It is lowering our wages, and it is a huge drain on our already inadequate budget dollars."

Opposition to the measure has been intense. Business groups argue that it would sully the state's image nationally and discourage employers. They also worry that the employment verification system—requiring employers to check prospective workers' paperwork against a federal database known as E-Verify—would prove costly and burdensome.

Last-minute changes to the bill satisfied some concerns expressed by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, said spokeswoman Joselyn Baker. Lawmakers agreed to exempt businesses with 10 or fewer employees from the requirement to check workers' employment status.

Farmers claim that the bill would drive out immigrant laborers—both legal and illegal—upon whom they depend to pick fruit and harvest cotton. And civil and immigrant rights groups say the measure would lead to racial profiling.

It will "create an extremely hostile environment in Georgia," said Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials. "Georgia is seen as the home of the civil rights movement ... The irony is that the state will be working against civil rights."

Georgia is one of 30 states that are considering immigration-related proposals, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Others include Oklahoma, Indiana and South Carolina.

As in many other states across the country, Georgia's Hispanic population is experiencing dramatic growth, and that's part of what's driving lawmakers to act, said Debra Sabia, a political-science professor at Georgia Southern University. That population nearly doubled, to 853,000, in the past decade, according to the 2010 census. "The fact is, Georgians have had little experience in assimilating immigrants," she said, "and the rapid growth of the Hispanic community hasn't helped that disquiet."

Latino and immigrant rights groups are vowing to call for boycotts of the state, just as they did in response to the law passed in Arizona. There, many business associations canceled their convention plans in the state. Mr. Gonzalez argues that the same could happen to Georgia. "It will be an economic disaster," he said.

The measure also faces likely legal challenges. "We believe this is an unconstitutional measure," said Azadeh Shahshahani of the American Civil Liberties Union's Georgia chapter. If it passes, "we will examine all the options," including litigation.

Rep. Matt Ramsey, the author of the immigration bill, says he was careful to avoid some of the more controversial language in Arizona's law.

The Arizona measure requires police to check the immigration status of an individual, detained in a lawful stop, who they have a "reasonable suspicion" may be undocumented. In Mr. Ramsey's legislation, police may only check the immigration status of suspects who are under investigation for criminal offenses. Moreover, his bill lacks a provision in the Arizona law—one that made it a state crime for non-citizens not to carry their papers.

"We're very confident from a constitutional standpoint," said Mr. Ramsey.

SOURCE



15 April, 2011

'I shake my head in despair': Top British judge's frustration at the asylum 'merry go round'

A senior judge yesterday described Britain’s immigration appeals system as a lengthy and expensive ‘merry go round’. Lord Justice Pitchford said he despaired at the ‘extraordinary process’ which takes up hours of court time and costs taxpayers a fortune.

His comments came after he ruled on the case of a Zimbabwean asylum seeker still in the country after nearly a decade.

The 28-year-old woman, referred to only as RM for legal reasons, arrived on a five-week visitor visa in 2001 before obtaining a student visa and then claiming asylum. Her asylum case was rejected five years ago but has now been through the Home Office three times and three lengthy appeal hearings and is still not resolved.

Yesterday the judge sent it back for the whole process to start again. The bill to the taxpayer for court costs and legal aid already exceeds £100,000, it is believed.

Ruling on the case at the Court of Appeal he said: ‘I shake my head in despair if not in disbelief at this extraordinary process which occupies so much court time’.

But it was ‘regrettably’ necessary to send the case back yet again to the asylum and immigration tribunal, he said. ‘This means another hearing, and more expenditure of public money on legal costs on both sides, probably with more appeals to follow.’

He said the woman’s future in this country ‘is once more up in the air and still the merry-go-round goes round, and round, and round again’. RM was 18 when she arrived in July 2001. Her visitor visa lasted until September, but rather than return home she asked to stay as a student and was given a visa until October 2002. She then asked to stay indefinitely, claiming she was a dependant of her aunt. But this was refused.

She appealed against that decision but then withdrew the application, and in July 2005 claimed asylum. This was refused by the Home Office in December 2006.

On being told the following month she would be deported RM launched an appeal, claiming she faced persecution in Zimbabwe as her aunt had campaigned for the MDC opposition party. But the judge said her aunt had stopped all involvement with the MDC, and both she and family members had often visited Zimbabwe.

At the next appeal hearing, however, the decision was overturned. The Home Office appealed again, and yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled against RM. Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting with Lords Justice Ward and Leveson, said the immigration judge who allowed her asylum claim was ‘not entitled to assume’ she would be subjected to persecution in Zimbabwe.

SOURCE





Italy's North African problem

IT WAS what Italians call a sfogo: a release of pent-up emotion that contains a dose of hyperbole. But it still came as a shock when, on April 11th, Roberto Maroni, Italy’s interior minister, mused aloud about leaving the European Union, after attempts to persuade his counterparts to share Italy’s illegal immigration burden fell flat.

Mr Maroni’s Northern League, and the conservative government of which it is part, are in a fix because of north Africa’s unrest. The League is committed to blocking illegal immigration. For a while it claimed to have done so. Last year the number of migrants arriving by sea was negligible because of deals with Libya and Tunisia to clamp down on trafficking in the Mediterranean. The boast was specious—most illegal immigrants enter Italy by less visible means—but politically effective.

Now Italy’s migration policy is in ruins. Since the start of the Arab spring more than 25,000 people have arrived in Italy by sea, many on the tiny island of Lampedusa. Most are Tunisians fleeing the economic problems that helped trigger the upheaval. The interim government in Tunis, which is facing a massive refugee problem of its own on the Libyan border, has been reluctant to give priority to helping Italy.

But on April 5th it agreed to take two flights a day of repatriated migrants. In return Italy offered the Tunisians coastal-patrol equipment and €150m ($220m) in unspecified support. Italy hopes the sight of returning migrants will deter others from trying. The risks were brought home last week when a boat carrying over 200 passengers capsized; only 48 survived.

From the EU Mr Maroni sought another deal to allow him to dispatch migrants, but in the opposite direction. He—and his colleague from Malta, which has also been hit by an influx of north Africans—wanted the EU to apply an emergency rule to relocate the refugees across all member states.

This was blocked. But Italy had already issued national residence permits to the migrants, perhaps hoping they would exploit the passport-free Schengen area to slip across to countries like France, where many Tunisians have family. The French, however, pointed out that the Schengen rules grant freedom of movement only to those with proper passports and the means to support themselves. Others can be returned to the EU country in which they arrived. The French have already sent almost 2,000 north Africans back to Italy.

France and Germany argue that, since Italy receives proportionately few requests for asylum (just over 10,000 last year, compared with France’s 52,000 and Germany’s 49,000), it should cope with the relatively modest influx from north Africa. Privately, ministers in Rome accept that the present levels are manageable. But they worry that the Libyan conflict could unleash a bigger exodus, and want the EU to work on a comprehensive approach.

No Libyan government is likely to care about Italy’s fears. The rebels remember the pally relationship between Muammar Qaddafi and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister (who this week said he would probably stand down when his mandate expires in 2013 and named a possible successor, Angelino Alfano, the justice minister). The colonel will feel betrayed by his former ally’s decision to join NATO’s offensive—and on April 12th Mr Berlusconi said he had to be talked out of resigning after changing sides.

With Italy’s Maghreb policy in disarray, the Northern League appears bent on making things worse. Its leader, Umberto Bossi, has backed a boycott of French goods. And a League junior minister has talked of opening fire on vessels carrying migrants—though “not for the moment”.

SOURCE



14 April, 2011

British PM says migration threatens British way of life

David Cameron will claim today that uncontrolled immigration has undermined some British communities. In his most forthright speech on the issue since he became Prime Minister, he will say that mass immigration has led to "discomfort and disjointedness" in neighbourhoods because some migrants have been unwilling to integrate or learn English.

Pledging to cut the numbers entering Britain to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands, Mr Cameron will say that "for too long, immigration has been too high". He will also promise to "stamp out" forced marriages, saying that "cultural sensitivity" cannot be allowed to stop the Government from acting.

In the speech to party members in Hampshire, the Prime Minister will attack Labour for claiming it was racist to talk about immigration, saying it is "untruthful and unfair" not to speak about the issue, however uncomfortable.

The Prime Minister will also blame the welfare state for creating a generation of workshy Britons, leaving the jobs market open for migrants. Figures show that of the 2.5 million extra people in employment since 1997, three quarters were foreign-born workers.

But Mr Cameron will argue that it is not a case of "immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs" because some migrants have created wealth and jobs. He will say that the "real issue" is "migrants are filling gaps in the labour market left wide open by a welfare system that for years has paid British people not to work". "Put simply, we will never control immigration properly unless we tackle welfare dependency," Mr Cameron will say.

He will say that he can see why people have argued that "immigration will remain high because British people won't do the jobs migrant workers do", adding: "We have had persistently, eye-wateringly high numbers of British-born people stuck on welfare."

The speech comes three weeks before the local elections and is likely to be seen as an attempt to convince voters that the Conservatives are in touch with public opinion. The Tories are fighting a large number of council seats in the North where immigration was one of the major issues at last year's general election – with Labour subsequently admitting they failed to address the concern in their heartlands.

Mr Cameron will say: "When there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods. "This has been the experience for many people in our country and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it."

He will attack the levels of immigration under Labour and commit to tackling the obvious "abuses of the system" that routinely happen, including sham and forced marriages. Mr Cameron will say: "For a start, there are forced marriages taking place in our country and overseas as a means of gaining entry to the UK. This is the practice where some young British girls are bullied and threatened into marrying someone they don't want to. "I've got no time for those who say this is a culturally relative issue – it is wrong, full stop, and we've got to stamp it out."

Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in Britain than those who left to live abroad, Mr Cameron will say. "That's the largest influx of people Britain has ever had and it has placed real pressures on communities. Not just pressures on schools, housing and health care – though those have been serious – but social pressures, too."

He will tell his audience that by getting to grips with all forms of immigration he can return it to the levels of the 1980s and 1990s. "And I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade,” Mr Cameron will say.

It follows a speech by Mr Cameron earlier this year in which he said that British Muslims should subscribe to mainstream values of freedom and equality, and claimed that the doctrine of multi-culturalism had “failed”.

Today, Mr Cameron will mount a vigorous defence of the Coalition’s policies, saying they have started to bring immigration down.

He will single out those who have claimed that it was not possible to do so without harming the economy or British universities. Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, fought a fierce Whitehall battle to try to ensure firms were not hampered by caps placed on immigrant workers and was vocal in his criticism of some of No 10’s plans to limit entry into Britain. Mr Cameron will outline the measures to ensure the best economic migrants can still be hired by companies, and will add: “I completely reject the idea that our new immigration rules will damage our economy.”

He will reject concerns about the effect the tightening of rules on student visa applications will have on universities. He hopes to reduce the number of visas issued by 80,000 a year.

Figures yesterday showed a record number of foreign workers are based in Britain. There are almost four million migrants in work in this country despite government pledges to do more for British workers.

The number of people in employment increased by 212,000 during 2010, but more than 80 per cent was made up of migrants, according to the Office for National Statistics. Just over 29 million people were in work in Britain during the last quarter of 2010. Of those, 3.89 million, or one in seven, were people born overseas, the highest level on record. That was a rise of 173,000 on the same period in 2009.

SOURCE





The Heckler’s Veto of Arizona’s Immigration Law

It should come as no surprise to anyone that a panel of judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order today refusing to lift the stay issued by a federal district court against Arizona’s immigration law. After all, the Ninth Circuit is the most often overturned appeals court in the nation, full of judges who routinely issue results-driven opinions that flout the law and precedents issued by the Supreme Court.

We all knew the litigation over Arizona’s law, which requires police officers to check on the immigration status of individuals they have arrested or detained for some other violation if the officers have a reasonable suspicion the individuals are in the country illegally, would end up in the Supreme Court. That Court overturns almost 90% of the Ninth Circuit’s opinions and one can almost always expect the Ninth Circuit to get the law wrong.

However, the dissent written by Judge Carlos Bea of the three-judge panel is well worth reading. He points out the numerous fallacies and mistakes made by the two judges in the majority. As Bea emphasizes, “Congress has provided important roles for state and local officials to play in the enforcement of federal immigration law.” This includes a mandate contained in 8 U.S.C. §1373(c) that the federal government respond to all inquiries from federal, state or local officials about the immigration status “of any individual.”

Further, no agreement with the federal government is necessary for states “to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. §1357(g)(10)(B). The idea that Arizona’s law is preempted simply makes no sense according to Judge Bea when these and other provisions of federal immigration law clearly show that Congress intended “that state officials should assist federal officials” in the enforcement of those laws.

Judge Bea also undermines the concurrence written by Judge John T. Noonan. Noonan’s opinion is that the Arizona statute is incompatible with “federal foreign policy.” But as Bea points out, the majority fails to identify a foreign relation policy established by Congress with which the Arizona law conflicts. In a seeming reference to the unprecedented filing of a brief in the case by Mexico, Bea says that “A foreign nation may not cause a state law to be preempted simply by complaining about the law’s effect on foreign relations generally. We do not grant other nation’s foreign ministries a ‘heckler’s veto.’”

The creative nature of the majority’s opinion is also emphasized by Bea when he points out that the majority’s analysis of the Arizona provision that allows the arrest of individuals who are removable for violation of federal immigration law “will come as a surprise to all parties involved in this case.” That analysis apparently “ignores the contentions in the filings before the district court, the district court’s rationale, the briefs filed in this court, and what was said by the well prepared counsel, questioned at our oral arguments.” In fact, those arguments were carefully avoided by the United States because the analysis “conflicts with the present policy of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.”

This badly-reasoned majority opinion written by a Clinton-appointee is typical. What will follow is either a request for an en banc review by the entire Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. That High Court will eventually make the ultimate decision in what may no doubt turn out to be the most important case on the enforcement of our immigration laws in a generation.

SOURCE



13 April, 2011

The migrants who commit 500 crimes a week but can't be deported from Britain because they're from the EU

European migrants are committing over 500 crimes a week in Britain, according to new figures - but officials are powerless to deport the majority of offenders. More than 54,000 EU citizens have been convicted of criminal offences - including murder - in the past two years.

And the worst offenders have been named as the Poles and Romanians - further fuelling concerns over the most recent EU expansions.

However because of the European Union's rules on freedom of movement, only a handful of those offenders - those who have received a prison sentence of at least two years - can be deported.

The alarming figures published by the Daily Telegraph come following reports last week that the number of crimes committed by foreigners in the UK had virtually doubled in the past two years.

Police have also warned that the foreign offenders are adding pressure to their resources, often due to language barriers. One police leader said that even a simple caution could take six hours to issue to a foreigner who did not speak English.

A spokesperson from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said, 'The growing number of new communities has certainly brought greater complexity to the pattern of crime and have contributed to already stretched resources. 'As police, we have to adapt all the time to deal with new and emerging problems. However we pride ourselves on our strong relationships within our local communities and the way we deal with the issues that emerge.'

Under data exchange systems in the EU, police in the UK will notify another member state if one of its citizens is convicted of a crime. Figures from ACPO show that 27,056 such notifications were made in 2010 while the 2009 figures are slightly higher at 27.379. That is an average equivalent of 520 a week or 75 a day. Topping the list of worst offenders were Polish migrants, who were convicted of 6,777 crimes in 2010, followed by the Romanians at 4,343. Lithuania, Ireland and Latvia had the next highest rates.

The figures show that with the exception of Ireland, the worst offenders came from countries that only joined the EU recently. Poland, Latvia and Lithuania joined the EU on May 1 2004, while Romania followed on January 1 2007.

Details regarding the nature of offences committed or sentences given have not been released.

The Home Office told the Telegraph it was 'committed to removing foreign lawbreakers from the UK'. 'We removed 5,235 foreign national prisoners in 2010,' a spokesman said.

David Cameron has previously promised to tackle the issue. In a speech he made before becoming Prime Minister he promised to introduce powers to deport more foreign criminals.

However many are still allowed to remain in the UK such as Learco Chindamo, the Italian killer of headmaster Philip Lawrence, who was charged with robbery months after being released from prison for the crime. Chindamo had avoided being sent home to Italy after successfully arguing that deportation would infringe his human rights.

SOURCE





Italy quarrels with EU partners over Libyan migrants

Italy quarreled with other European Union governments on Monday over how to handle thousands of migrants fleeing violence in north Africa, while the EU executive urged the bloc to do more for the refugees.

Divisions have deepened among the 27 EU governments on how to tackle the refugee crisis in the region, with some capitals worried that offering shelter to too many migrants will encourage more to attempt illegal entry to Europe.

But the European Commission has said EU capitals need to overcome differences and prepare to resettle some of the almost half a million people displaced by violence so far.

Italy has borne the brunt of the crisis and wants other EU governments to help it care for some 25,000 people who have arrived on its shores as a result of turmoil in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt.

At a meeting of EU interior ministers in Luxembourg to discuss migration pressures, Italy's Roberto Maroni accused his counterparts of failing to show solidarity with Rome. "Italy has been left alone," he said. "I wonder whether in this situation it makes sense to remain in the European Union."

Most EU governments say people arriving in Italy are mostly economic migrants seeking jobs in Europe, and not asylum seekers or refugees in need of international protection.

They say Rome should be able to deal with them, and have reacted angrily to Italy's decision to start offering them temporary residence permits that would allow them to travel freely in most of the EU. "I was quite dissatisfied with Italy's surprise decision to pass on its problems to all the others without prior notice," Dutch minister for immigration and asylum Gerd Leers said.

Austria's interior minister Maria Fekter said Vienna would investigate how it can stop migrants from crossing its borders. "We will look into what extent we will recognize visas issued by Italians, especially whether we allow in people who cannot feed themselves," she said. "This would be a feeding ground for crime which I cannot allow."

However, the EU's home affairs commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, warned EU governments would have to consider taking in more people from north Africa in the future, while stressing the bloc had already assisted Italy with funds and equipment.

She pressed interior ministers to offer shelter to thousands of refugees stranded at Libya's border with Tunisia, mostly poor foreign workers from Asia and other parts of Africa who had worked on Libya's oil fields and construction sites. Aid agencies have repatriated most of them to their countries of origin but several thousand, such as Somalis and Eritreans, cannot be sent back because of unrest at home. "There is war in Libya and more people will flee. We need to prepare," she told reporters.

Malmstrom has failed to secure sufficient offers from EU capitals to resettle 800 people stranded on Malta, a tiny EU member state. "Resettlement from Tunisia is a no-go area for most EU states. It is politically unrealistic," said an EU diplomat familiar with Monday's discussions.

Ministers agreed on Monday on the need to find more cash for the bloc's border control agency, Frontex, to strengthen its ability to patrol the Mediterranean Sea.

SOURCE



12 April, 2011

9th Circus rules against Arizona, as expected

This was always going to go to SCOTUS

Arizona can’t enforce its law requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of people stopped for questioning, a federal appeals court ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco today upheld a lower court ruling that barred the central provisions of the law from taking effect.

“By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government’s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed [Department of Homeland Security] agents,” the appellate panel said.

Today’s ruling may be appealed by Arizona or go back to U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton for a trial on whether to permanently block the law as unconstitutional. Arizona, with the backing of 11 states in court papers, had argued Bolton’s July 28 preliminary order blocking the law should be invalidated.

Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that the federal government is pleased with the ruling.

While the panel didn’t reach broader constitutional questions raised by the challenge to the law, Judge John T. Noonan Jr. wrote in a separate opinion that “foreign policy is not and cannot be determined by the several states.” ‘Absurdity Too Gross’ “That fifty individual states or one individual state should have a foreign policy is absurdity too gross to be entertained,” he said. [That States should not have control over their own police is an absurdity too gross to be entertained, I would have thought]

The panel noted that presidents of five Central American and South American countries and governments of others protested the law.

Arizona Governor Janice Brewer, a Republican, has said the law is a response to the federal government’s failure to help the state deal with an influx of illegal immigrants. The statute makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. “I remain steadfast in my belief that Arizona and other states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute,” Brewer said today in a joint statement with state Attorney General Tom Horne.

U.S. Supreme Court

Brewer said the state is considering its legal options, including whether to seek reconsideration by an 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction imposed by Bolton.

Bolton ruled that Arizona can’t require police officers to try to determine whether someone is legally in the U.S. and then detain that person if they suspect he isn’t. She also blocked a piece of Arizona’s law that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit or perform work. In addition, the ruling barred police officers from making warrantless arrests of people they think might be illegal immigrants.

SOURCE





Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children: A Look at Cash, Medicaid, Housing, and Food Programs (Backgrounder)

2. H-1B + K-12 = ? A First Look at the Implications of Foreign Teacher Recruitment (Memorandum)

3. Amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to Eliminate the Diversity Visa Lottery Immigrant Program (Testimony)

4. BIA Does the Right Thing – Let's Hope America Publicizes It (Blog)

5. Arizona Prop 100 Upheld (Blog)

6. Viewing the H-1B Program from a Different Angle (Blog)

7. Birthright Citizenship Report Sparks Debate (Blog)

8. USCIS Shoots Self in Foot Trying to Streamline an Application Process (Blog)

9. DOL Adds Big D.C.-Area School System to List of H-1B 'Willful Violators' (Blog)

10. 'A Special Political Responsibility of Protection and Nourishment' (Blog)

11. Importing Poverty (Blog)

12. On Decoding ICE Press Releases; or, Why Was That Farmer Criminally Charged? (Blog)

13. USCIS Waives Fees at the Rate of at Least $44 Million a Year (Blog)



11 April, 2011

3 reasons for limiting immigration to Canada

Why is Canada bringing in about 250,000 immigrants per year? We are still going through a recession. Half a million Canadians lost their jobs and have not been able to find jobs that pay as well as the ones they lost. Immigration should be based mostly on Canada's economic need. It is madness to be bringing in so many people when so many people born here cannot find work.

There are cultural reasons for opposing high immigration. Canada's immigration levels since 1990 are an abnormality in Canada's immigration history. Between 1920 and 1990, Canada had a TAP ON, TAP OFF immigration policy. It turned the immigration tap on when Canada needed immigrants. It turned the immigration tap down or off when Canada did not need them. The abandonment of this policy has caused economic problems, but it has also made many Canadians feel like strangers in their own country.

There are environmental reasons for opposing immigration. Our cities are becoming very crowded and dirty. Years ago (1976), our Science Council recommended that Canada shed 2 myths about itself. One was that it had infinite resources. The Science Council said we did not have unlimited resources and we needed to conserve what we had. One resource in particular, our agricultural land, had to be conserved rather than transformed for roads and houses. The other myth Canada had to discard was that could take unlimited numbers of people. The Science Council said Canada's large space did not mean that it could support open-door immigration. The Science Council recommended that Canada cap its population and stabilize it.

SOURCE






Some Arizona cities reluctant to implement new immigration laws

In Arizona, no city has declared itself an official "city of refuge" or begun to issue municipal identification cards. But some cities have been informally labeled sanctuary cities because of their illegal-immigrant-reporting practices.

Shortly after Gov. Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070 into law in April 2010, Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said he believed that Chandler, Mesa and Phoenix all had policies that violated the new law. He warned that municipalities that are not in compliance could face state sanctions and fines.

Although a federal judge halted several parts of SB 1070 from going into effect, the portion of the law that forbids any state or local official or agency from limiting or restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws is in effect.

Chandler and Mesa have responded by making subtle alterations to the way they deal with illegal residents.

In Chandler, Police Chief Sherry Kiyler had long ordered her officers not to inquire about the citizenship of crime victims, witnesses, civil-traffic violators or juveniles convicted of non-violent crimes. The policy was recently changed to allow - but not require - officers to investigate the legal status of any detainee.

Chandler Mayor Jay Tibshraeny, who as a state senator voted for SB 1070, has been pushing the city's police department to be more aggressive about checking immigration status.

But city officials are proceeding carefully. Some still feel the sting of a 1997 immigration raid in which Chandler police and federal immigration officials stopped hundreds of Hispanics. In a review of the raid, then-Attorney General Grant Woods said that officers had illegally used racial profiling in determining whom to stop, had violated the constitutional rights of some of the people stopped or detained, and had likely broken federal law.

The raid also produced a major rift between police and the Hispanic community - something Frank Mendoza, a spokesman for Chandler police, doesn't want to see repeated. "We have a very diverse community," Mendoza said. "We continue to work to uphold that, as it's something we value."

Prior to the passing of SB 1070, the Mesa Police Department had a policy of asking the immigration status of only those arrested for serious crimes. Now Mesa policy allows officers to ask anyone about their citizenship status.

In a 2009 guest column in The Arizona Republic, Pearce called the failure to enforce immigration laws "the greatest threat to our citizens." "Sanctuary-city policies threaten safe neighborhoods, not to mention violate federal law," he wrote. "We must eliminate all sanctuary cities in this state and allow legal citizens the right to sue their government for violating this law."

SOURCE



10 April, 2011

All Quiet on the Southern Front?

According to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, everything is hunky-dory on America's southern border. In her public appearances and speeches, Napolitano consistently claims that things along our side of the U.S.-Mexico border are "safer than ever" and that "spillover violence" is simply "a widespread misperception." In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed column she co-authored with Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Napolitano claimed, "The Southwest Border Is Open for Business." Unfortunately, too much of the business is in drugs, murder and mayhem -- and business is good.

"Illegal immigration is decreasing. Deportations are increasing. And crime rates have gone down." Those oft-repeated assertions by the Obama administration make a nice sound bite, but like so many other things coming from the O-Team, the facts don't square with the rhetoric. As usual, there's more to the story -- and very little of it is being covered by the so-called mainstream media.

Less than 24 hours after Napolitano and Locke boasted about how "major investments to renovate and expand outdated ports of entry" have improved cross-border trade and "bolstered security," two American citizens were murdered while waiting to come into the U.S. at the San Ysidro port of entry, south of San Diego. The incident was buried by the potentates of the press, but Fox News correspondent William La Jeunesse reported the victims were killed by a lone male gunman, who calmly "walked through the lanes of traffic and boldly unloaded five rounds from a 9-mm. handgun." Apparently, the Obama administration's "improvements" on the border do not include long-range, high-resolution cameras capable of identifying a perpetrator just a few yards into Mexico.

In the past four months, two federal law officers have been murdered by heavily armed criminals. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed 13 miles deep in Arizona on the night of Dec. 14-15. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Jaime Zapata was assassinated south of Monterrey, Mexico, on Feb. 15. Napolitano offers reassurance by throwing out numbers. She says federal agents "seized 81 percent more currency, 25 percent more drugs and 47 percent more weapons" last year than they did during the final year of the Bush administration. She also contends that apprehensions of illegal aliens "have dropped by 36 percent over the past two years to less than a third of its all-time high."

The National Border Patrol Council, a union representing Border Patrol agents, isn't buying into the numbers game. In a statement posted March 25, the NBPC said: "Mexico is hemorrhaging violence and we are being hit with the splatter. The U.S.-Mexico border is unsafe and to say anything else is not true."

Auditors at the U.S. Government Accountability Office also maintain that Napolitano's numbers don't add up. According to the congressional bean counters, "over the last three years, apprehensions on federal lands (820 miles of the 2,000-mile border) have not kept pace with Border Patrol estimates." The GAO reports the number of "illegal entries" in 2009 was three times higher than the number of apprehensions.

Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Ariz., agrees. When our Fox News' "War Stories" team interviewed him for a documentary titled "The Third Front," he described the situation along his 82-mile stretch of the U.S.-Mexico boundary as "under siege." Last week, Dever explained how the Department of Homeland Security cooks the books and why drug, gun and money stats are up while apprehensions are down. He has told his outgunned and outnumbered deputies that the Border Patrol's mission is "not to catch anyone, arrest anyone. Their job was to set up posture, to intimidate people, to get them to go back."

All of this pales in comparison with charges now being investigated by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. They want to know whether the Department of Justice is complicit in illegally exporting thousands of firearms being used to threaten and kill American citizens on both sides of the border. According to congressional sources and court documents, weapons recovered after the murders of federal agents Terry and Zapata are linked to a DOJ-approved undercover operation dubbed "Fast and Furious."

Several current and former federal agents allege that the operation began in 2010 as a way to "take down" a major cartel and that it all went seriously awry. One congressional investigator asserts that the DOJ "all but ordered" licensed firearms dealers to "facilitate" the sale of guns to "known and suspected criminals who were illegally moving the weapons across the border." If these charges are borne out, it was all kept secret from Mexican President Felipe Calderon -- as he wages war against drug lords, who have killed nearly 35,000 of his countrymen.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder promises that his inspector general will "fully investigate the matter." And this week in San Fernando, Mexico -- just 50 miles from Texas -- authorities found 59 "freshly buried bodies in mass graves." They were apparently all passengers on a bus that was hijacked March 25. All quiet on our southern front, indeed.

SOURCE






'What about my family rights?' Father's despair as appeal court refuses to deport failed asylum seeker who killed his daughter

A father made an impassioned plea for justice yesterday after a last-ditch attempt to deport his daughter’s killer ended in failure. Paul Houston’s 12-year-old daughter Amy was knocked down and left to die trapped under the car driven by illegal immigrant Aso Mohammed Ibrahim.

But the Court of Appeal dismissed an attempt to overturn two earlier decisions allowing Ibrahim, 33, to stay in Britain because of his ‘right to a family life’.

As the judges announced their verdict, a clearly distressed Mr Houston shouted across the court: ‘My Lords, what about my right to a family? Amy was my child.’

Later, he told the Daily Mail: ‘I had to say something, even if they didn’t reply. Amy was my world, my only child and she had such a bright future.

‘By allowing him to stay, we are rewarding him for his criminal action. He claims that to be sent home would take away his right to family life. But what about mine? What about Amy’s right to life?’

Mr Houston, 41, an engineer from Darwen, Lancashire, has battled for nearly eight years for Ibrahim – who was driving while disqualified and without insurance – to be thrown out of Britain.

The failed asylum-seeker served four months in prison but launched legal action to stay in the UK. He claimed sending him home to Iraq would breach his right to a ‘private and family life’ under the Human Rights Act as he had fathered two children here. The Home Office case that he should be deported went before the judges yesterday, leading to the heart-breaking ruling.

Mr Houston added: ‘They had the opportunity to stand up for hard-working people, the people who pay their taxes and show the world and the country that the Human Rights Act isn’t just about asylum-seekers, criminals and terrorists but the average man. ‘But they let me down and didn’t do that.’

Amy was knocked down by Ibrahim in November 2003 as she walked to buy a music CD near her home in Blackburn. The Iraqi Kurd fled, leaving Amy crying out in pain under his Rover. Hours later, her parents, now divorced, made the decision to turn off her life-support machine.

At yesterday’s hearing, Lord Justice Sullivan and Lord Justice Gross said there had been ‘fatal flaws’ in the way the case was presented but no ‘error of law’. They questioned why the Home Office had not acted to deport Ibrahim for six years, giving him time to create a ‘family life’.

The judges added that officials should have argued for permanent deportation because of his crimes. Instead, they asked for his temporary ‘removal’ to Iraq where he could re-apply for UK citizenship.

Ibrahim arrived in Britain hidden in the back of a lorry in 2001. His application for asylum was refused and an appeal in 2002 failed. After Amy’s death, he served time after admitting driving while disqualified and failing to stop after an accident. He has since racked up criminal convictions, including more driving offences and harassment.

Ibrahim also started a relationship with Christina Richardson and they had two children, Harry, four, and Zara, three. Immigration Minister Damian Green said the latest ruling was ‘extremely disappointing’. He added the issues raised by the ‘tragic case’ could be considered by a commission on human rights law which will be set up later this year. The outcome will also add to pressure on Prime Minister David Cameron over a pre-election pledge to abolish the Human Rights Act.

Mr Houston said that he may go to the European Court of Human Rights if eligible for legal aid. He added: ‘Me and my daughter are victims in this. If they can’t protect the innocent and vulnerable people of society, there’s no point in the justice system.’

SOURCE



9 April, 2011

Posada Carriles acquitted of immigration fraud

A US jury found an elderly Cuban-born former CIA agent, wanted in Venezuela and Cuba for several deadly bombings, not guilty on charges of perjury and immigration fraud. Judge Kathleen Cardone read the verdict after the jury deliberated for three hours after the 13-week trial of Luis Posada Carriles, a fierce opponent of former Cuban president Fidel Castro.

Tears were shed as Posada Carriles, 83, hugged his three defense attorneys at the end of the trial in which 33 people testified including several Cubans.

US prosecutors had sought to prosecute him for years. Arrested and jailed in 2005 for illegally entering the country, Posada Carriles was released on bail in May 2007 by a federal judge in Texas who said the US government had tricked the ex-CIA contractor by using a citizenship interview to obtain evidence against him.

He was charged with 11 counts of perjury, obstruction and immigration fraud in the case, and had faced up to 60 years behind bars if convicted. A Cuban-born Venezuelan national, Posada Carriles spent years allegedly trying to overthrow the Communist government in Cuba.

In 1976 he was jailed in Venezuela for allegedly masterminding the downing of a Cuban jet off Barbados that same year that killed 73 people. The plane had taken off from Caracas.

He escaped in 1985, but was sentenced to eight years in jail in Panama for a 2000 bomb plot to assassinate Castro. He served four years before being pardoned.

Cuba accuses him of several assassination plots against Castro, and of involvement in a 1997 Havana hotel bombing that killed an Italian tourist.

US officials have refused to extradite Posada Carriles to either Cuba or Venezuela, despite extradition requests, on grounds that he could be tortured.

In Miami, Cuban exile leaders were thrilled at the outcome. "Justice has prevailed, even though the Cuban dictatorship sent witnesses to destroy the credibility of (Posada Carriles) and to denigrate the Cuban community in the United States," said Ninoska Perez-Castellon, who heads the fiercely anti-Communist Cuban Liberty Council. "They cannot say that it was not a just trial with anti-Castro influences, because it didn't even take place in Miami," she said.

Cuba "has been left without one of its propaganda tools," Orlando Gutierrez, who heads the Cuban Democratic Directorate, another anti-Castro group, told AFP. "This is a legal decision in a country where the rule of law is respected -- something that does not exist in Cuba," Gutierrez said.

Declassified US documents show that Posada Carriles worked for the CIA from 1965 to June 1976.

With a tangled past reaching back to the doomed CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 and intelligence operations in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile and Argentina, Posada has been a constant embarrassment to Washington.

A key plank of the US case, was an interview with the New York Times Posada Carriles gave in 1998 about several bombings that took place in Cuba a year earlier. The daily quoted him as saying that he was responsible for planning the attacks. However, in the trial Posada's defense team denied the allegations, saying he does not understand English well and could not have made the statements.

SOURCE





Mexican authorities make arrest in ICE agent’s murder



On Tuesday, Mexican authorities announced the arrest of Jose Manuel Garcia Soto (aka "El Safado" or "The Crazy One") in the northern state of San Luis Potosi. Garcia is a member of the Zetas drug cartel and is accused of taking part in the ambush and shooting death of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata.

According to a statement released by the Secretariat of Public Security, Garcia was taken into custody on Saturday.

Mexican police report that Garcia ran extortion, kidnapping, robbery and drug trafficking operations for a Los Zetas cell, under the command of Julian Zapata Espinosa.

On February, 15, ICE agents Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila were ambushed at a so-called “narco-blockade” in the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi. The shooting is believed to have been carried out by Los Zetas Cartel.

These makeshift blockades are becoming a common sight throughout Mexico. Drug traffickers will block a road to keep either law enforcement or operatives from rival cartels out of a certain neighborhood or town.

Of course, the attack took the life of Agent Zapata, while Agent Avila survived his wounds. As per Mexican law, both agents were unarmed.

SOURCE



8 April, 2011

Flood of Tunisians headed for Britain

A flood of refugees from war in Tunisia has arrived in Italy, and Italy has now decided what to do with them, as we see below. Italy will give them permits that will allow them to go anywhere within the Schengen area. Guess one place that is in the Schengen area? Calais! The rest follows. Britain might even accept them legally. Good for Britain's Mosques but not much else in Britain

Italy and Tunisia have signed an accord on handling the immigration emergency. The accord was signed in Tunis by Interior Minister Maroni after lengthy negotiations with the local authorities. Maroni explained that this was "a bilateral technical cooperation accord to counter illegal immigration and to strengthen collaboration between the two countries' police forces; repatiations are also envisaged".

In order to monitor application of the accord, the government has set up an interministerial contact group, which includes, in addition to the Presidency of the Council, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Interior, Defence, Infrastructure and Transport, Economic Development and Labour and Social Policies, with coordination by the Office of the Diplomatic Advisor to the President of the Council.

The accord was illustrated by Berlusconi and Maroni today at Palazzo Chigi in a meeting of the "director's booth" set up by the government, regions and local bodies, at which a government strategy was drafted for the difficult management of the 25,800 persons thus far landed, of which 2,300 are actually refugees fleeing Libya, and the reminder Tunisians.

Reporting to the Lower House, Maroni said that a decree would be signed today on temporary permits for immigrants arriving in Italy that would allow them to circulate throughout the Schengen area. The Interior Minister will be meeting tomorrow with his French counterpart to outline a common intervention system, and will be in Brussels on Monday to request activation of the provisions of EU Directive 55/2001 on temporary protection, which would allow any willing Union Member to take in a share of the immigrants, even after their arrival in Italy.

The theme of immigration will be among the items on the agenda of a summit meeting on 26 April in Rome between Silvio Berlusconi and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

With the exception of public UN sources, reproduction or redistribution of the above text, in whole, part or in any form, requires the prior consent of the original source. The opinions expressed in the documents carried by this site are those of the authors and are not

SOURCE





French interior minister calls for less immigration

French Interior Minister Claude Guéant says the government intends to reduce the number of immigrants allowed to enter the country legally, in statements evoking a divisive and little-understood aspect of contemporary French society.

“I have asked that we reduce the number of people admitted under work immigration visas,” Guéant told the conservative Figaro Magazine in an interview to be published on Friday. “We also continue to reduce the number of foreigners coming to France for family reunification,” he said.

Some 20,000 people are allowed to enter France on work visas and another 15,000 for family reasons each year, according to the Ministry of the Interior, which is responsible for immigration.

Guéant also said he would not exclude changes to France’s policy on asylum seekers, suggesting a cap on asylum visas was also on the table.

The opposition Socialist Party and the organization SOS Racism have already condemned Guéant’s statement as a “provocation”.

Socialist MP Sandrine Mazetier said cutbacks to family reunification visas violated “fundamental rights” and accused the government of exploiting the issue of immigration to divert attention away from the country’s unemployment.

Guéant had already enraged rights groups earlier in the week by saying that the “increase in the number” of Muslims in France posed “a problem”.

His statements come amid widening divisions within President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party, where conservatives embrace a hard line against immigration that party centrists reject.

Missing statistics

According to Mirna Safi, a sociologist and research director with the Paris Institute of Political Studies, France’s policy of restricting immigration has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years.

The only exception has been the so called “competences and talents” visa, proposed by Nicolas Sarkozy in 2003 when he was interior minister. “It was a small and isolated recognition of a need for immigrant workers,” Safi says.

Sarkozy said at the time that the new visa would allow immigrants chosen for their professional capacities to enter France and reverse what he said was a trend of unskilled immigrants leeching on the state’s social programmes.

But the competences and talents visa did not produce a significant increase in legal and professional immigrant workers after 2003, says Xavier Thierry, who tracked immigration flows for France’s National Institute of Demographic Studies (INED) until 2008.

“A stable figure of five percent of immigration for professional reasons may have increased to eight to 10 percent,” Thierry says, adding that a pronounced change in immigration flows could not be determined immediately by annual statistics.

Thierry admits that he was the only researcher at INED to study immigration flows and asked to be taken off the subject after feeling “discouraged”. No one has taken over from him, and data relative to immigration in France, legal or not, is scarce after 2008.

SOURCE



7 April, 2011

We've 'lost' 74,500 asylum seekers in UK admits border chief

Officials have lost track of nearly 75,000 asylum seekers – and are giving up hope of ever finding them. Hundreds of thousands of case files were discovered in boxes at the Home Office more than five years ago in a major immigration scandal.

Last night the acting head of the UK Border Agency said staff will finish processing the backlog of more than 400,000 in July. But Jonathan Sedgwick was forced to admit fewer than one in ten of those has been identified and successfully deported. More than 161,000 have been given the right to stay in Britain, some of whom may have committed criminal offences. Many will have acquired the right as result of staying here for so long because of delays in dealing with their status.

Some 74,500 cases have been placed in a ‘controlled archive’ after officials could find ‘no trace’ of their existence, Mr Sedgwick said. More than 120,000 have been written off as errors or duplicates, and a total of 36,000 have been removed from the country or left voluntarily.

The handling of the backlog emerged as Mr Sedgwick gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Committee chairman Keith Vaz said: ‘It seems that 74,500 of these cases are people who have in effect gone missing, you don’t know where they are. Although you have cleared your backlog, you have taken 74,500 of these cases and stuck them in the controlled archive room.

‘Then you have granted indefinite leave to 40 per cent of the 400,000. How is that clearing the backlog and achieving the Government’s target of reducing immigration?’

Astonishingly, Mr Sedgwick said some of the missing asylum seekers ‘might have died’. He said: ‘It was absolutely not the case that we have closed the door and forgotten about them. ‘We have checked every single one of them against databases to see if there is any track of them. The conclusion of that may be that they have left the country – some of them might have died.’

He admitted some given the right to stay may have committed criminal offences, but could not say how many. He denied that allowing them to remain in the UK amounted to an ‘amnesty’ for asylum seekers, saying: ‘I don’t accept that it’s an amnesty.

‘We have removed very substantial numbers – 36,000 people have been removed as a result of this programme – but as a result of the passage of time additional rights accrue.’

An audit of the asylum backlog in 2006 estimated it could be as high as 283,000 cases – a figure dismissed by Labour ministers. However, a further audit revealed the total was between 400,000 and 450,000. Then home secretary John Reid set the target of clearing the backlog within five years.

Cases placed in the archive are checked against 19 watch lists and databases. If no match is found within six months, the case is considered concluded.

Last month a National Audit Office report found officials had ‘no idea’ where 180,000 migrants whose visas have expired since December 2008 were.

SOURCE





Alabama House Passes Arizona-Style Immigration Bill

The Alabama House of Representatives voted Tuesday to pass an immigration bill modeled after Arizona's, that would give law enforcement officials the authority to demand papers from people in cases "where reasonable suspicion exists that a person is an unauthorized alien," and jail those suspected of being in the country illegally until their immigration status can be confirmed.

The bill, which passed the House by a vote of 73-28, makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant in the state of Alabama, and could lead to trespassing charges for those found to be in the state unlawfully. In Alabama, trespassing carries a sentence of up to a year.

Kim Chandler of The Birmingham News reports that the bill's sponsor, Rep. Micky Hammon (R) said during debate that it "attacks every aspect of an illegal alien's life" and "is designed to make it difficult for them to live here so they will deport themselves."

The bill will now go up for a vote in the state Senate.

Arizona was the first state to sign into law an immigration bill of this kind. Its statute required "a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person" who law enforcement comes into contact with, "if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S."

The law sparked much outrage last year, due to fears that it would encourage racial profiling in the state. President Obama condemned it as well, saying that it "threaten[s] to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."

A number of other states have followed Arizona's lead, including Georgia, which passed one bill in the House last month, and South Carolina, which passed one in its Senate.

SOURCE



6 April, 2011

AZ sheriff: Fed agents told to reduce border arrests

An Arizona sheriff says U.S. Border Patrol officials have repeatedly told him they have been ordered to reduce -- at times even stop -- arrests of illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the U.S. border.

Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever told FoxNews.com that a supervisor with the U.S. Border Patrol told him as recently as this month that the federal agency’s office on Arizona's southern border was under orders to keep apprehension numbers down during specific reporting time periods.

“The senior supervisor agent is telling me about how their mission is now to scare people back,” Dever said in an interview with FoxNews.com. “He said, ‘I had to go back to my guys and tell them not to catch anybody, that their job is to chase people away. … They were not to catch anyone, arrest anyone. Their job was to set up posture, to intimidate people, to get them to go back.”

Dever said his recent conversation with the Border Patrol supervisor was the latest in a series of communications on the subject that he has had with various federal agents over the last two years. Dever said he plans to relay the substance of these conversations when he testifies under oath next month before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

“I will raise my hand to tell the truth and swear to God, and nothing is more serious or important than that,” he said. “I’m going to tell them that, here’s what I hear and see every day: I had conversation with agent A, B, C, D and this is what they told me.”

Dever’s charges were vigorously denied by a commander with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “The claim that Border Patrol supervisors have been instructed to underreport or manipulate our statistics is unequivocally false,” Jeffery Self, commander of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Joint Field Command in Arizona, said in a written statement.

“I took an oath that I take very seriously, and I find it insulting that anyone, especially a fellow law enforcement officer, would imply that we would put the protection of the American public and security of our nation’s borders in danger just for a numbers game," he said. "Our mission does not waiver [waver?] based on political climate, and it never will. To suggest that we are ambiguous in enforcing our laws belittles the work of more than 6,000 CBP employees in Arizona who dedicate their lives to protect our borders every day.”

In recent days, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said the U.S.-Mexican border is more secure than ever, and Homeland Security officials have used recent statistics to support those claims. "There is a perception that the border is worse now than it ever has been," Napolitano said at the El Paso border crossing last week. "That is wrong. The border is better now than it ever has been."

Dever doesn’t agree. “Janet Napolitano says the border is more secure than it’s ever been. I’ve been here for 60 years, and I’m telling you that’s not true,” he said.

The sheriff of Santa Cruz County, which borders Dever’s Cochise County to the west, said, “This is news to me,” when asked about reports that border agents were being told to turn illegal immigrants back to Mexico rather than arrest them.

“It comes as a complete surprise that that would be something that’s going around,” Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said. “I meet with Dever all the time and I have great respect for him, so I expect he’d come forward and say what he knows and give the source. “Not knowing who the source is, how reliable that source is, I really don’t have much of a position,” Estrada said. “I’ve been around a real long time and haven’t heard anything like this. By the same token, you learn new things every day.”

Both sheriffs are elected officials. Dever is a Republican, Estrada, a Democrat.

Others have questioned the methodology and conclusions of the Homeland Security numbers showing the border is more secure. Mark Hanna, CEO of Real Life Enterprises, a Phoenix-based technology integration and security company, has testified before the Arizona Senate about what he called Homeland Security’s flawed methodology used to compile border security statistics. Hanna maintains the numbers are dangerously misleading.

Hanna, who is currently working on a private/public partnership pilot program along the Arizona border, said he attended a February conference at which Michael Fisher, chief of the United States Border Patrol, and Mark S. Borkowski, assistant commissioner for technology and innovation acquisition, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, showed off charts indicating arrests were decreasing and argued the border was more secure. The charts also showed an increase in marijuana seizures along the border and an increase in Border Patrol agents.

But those charts left out crucial data, Hanna said. “Since we don't know how many illegal crossings are occurring, then a decrease in apprehensions might mean that there are fewer illegal crossings, and the border is more secure. But it could also just as easily mean that more illegal border crossings are occurring, and we're just not catching as many.

In order to know how secure the border is, you need to know how many are crossing and the threat level of those who are crossing illegally," he said. “It is a very dangerous condition for the secretary of Homeland Security to be using incomplete data to form such a conclusion, and then repeatedly announce these conclusions as fact,” he said. The Department of Homeland Security did not return repeated requests for comment on Hanna’s specific challenges to the agency’s methodology.

Whatever the methodology, Dever said the numbers don’t accurately describe what’s happening on the ground. “We do not know who’s crossing that border, but that anyone who wants to can. That’s the message our nation needs to hear, that anyone who wants to can, and is. And our own Department of Homeland Security does not have clear definition of what securing the border even means," Dever said.

“People are disgusted, the smiles are gone off their face, their general sense of welfare been taken away from them and until that’s returned you can throw all the numbers on the board. … I’ll tell Napolitano, in spite of all of your declarations and efforts to the contrary, things are not safe. No, they are not secure. "You can use your numbers to say it’s more secure, but it does not define a sense of safety or well-being. You can say it’s more secure, but it’s more dangerous than ever.”

SOURCE





Migrant crime wave revealed: Foreign arrests in Britain have almost doubled in just THREE years

The number of foreign nationals arrested in Britain has almost doubled in just three years, police figures show. And the biggest rises are among rural forces, such as Kent and Cambridgeshire.

In the worst-affected rural areas, arrests of non-Britons have soared nearly four-fold since 2006.

A total of 91,234 foreign nationals were arrested last year on suspicion of crimes including murder, burglary and sex offences. In contrast, the figure for 2008 was 51,899 and 81,625 in 2009.

And the true number is likely to be much higher, as only 19 out of the 52 police forces provided the figures, in response to Freedom of Information requests.

For the country’s biggest force, the Metropolitan Police, foreign-national arrests more than doubled. Scotland Yard recorded 24,264 in 2008, but last year the total reached 58,870.

Critics blame surging migration for placing a huge burden on forces, which are already facing cuts. Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said: ‘I’m not surprised it’s so high because London is getting more diverse by the day.

‘It’s a problem when you get someone in who can’t speak English and we wait hours for an expensive interpreter to hear their side of the story. Even in trivial cases where you might be giving a caution, officers could be off the street for five or six hours.’

Kent Police saw arrests rise from 1,075 in 2006 to 4,119 last year. Surrey Police recorded arrests going up from 1,959 in 2006 to 2,079 last year.

For Cambridgeshire Constabulary, these types of arrests rose from 3,316 in 2008 to 4,803 in 2010. In 2007 it made just 1,850. Durham Constabulary saw arrests rise from 65 in 2006 to 474 last year.

The rise comes despite an overall fall in crime recorded during the past five years.

In January 2008, Mike Fuller, then chief constable of Kent, warned that his force was struggling with an ‘immigrant crimewave’. He said surges in migrant numbers had contributed to sharp increases in violent crime.

An Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman said: ‘The growing number of new communities has certainly brought greater complexity to the pattern of crime and have contributed to already stretched resources.’

Hugh Robertson, Conservative MP for Mid Kent, said: ‘These figures are deeply concerning. Immigration is a key issue that many people in my constituency speak to me about and it’s a very emotive subject. It may be that the rise in arrests is linked to the mass increase in immigration but it’s hard to say for sure.’

Official figures show 5,235 foreign national prisoners were deported last year. Nearly one in seven of the 85,000 inmates in England and Wales was born overseas.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘When people commit a crime they should feel the full force of the law regardless of their nationality. We are committed to removing foreign law breakers from the UK.’

SOURCE



5 April, 2011

Utah's Republican governor under fire over immigration

Two weeks after Utah's Republican Governor Gary Herbert signed into law sweeping immigration reforms, the backlash is still being felt across this conservative state, and Herbert faces possible primary challengers when he seeks reelection next year.

Herbert on March 15 signed a two-pronged package of immigration laws comprised of four bills he called "the Utah solution," including an enforcement measure and another that would create a guest-worker program.

The enforcement measure is weaker than what Arizona is seeking to implement. While that state would allow police to check the immigration status of anyone stopped by officers -- including for traffic violations -- the Utah bill applies only to those arrested for felonies or serious misdemeanors.

The Utah guest worker program allows illegal immigrants in the state to pay a fee and continue at their jobs. That angers conservatives, and because immigration is the federal government's domain, critics say the program could unravel.

Herbert, who said at the time that Utah was doing "the right thing" in passing the reforms, told Reuters in an interview that he was prepared for an election challenge.

"It's hard to know the ramifications of any decision I make. I'm sure there are people critical of any of the thousands of decisions I make," he said, adding that it would be "not too surprising" if candidates used the immigration laws as a platform to run against him.

Herbert, a former county commissioner and real estate agent, faced no serious Republican opposition in his 2010 reelection, where he ran to serve out the final two years of former Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s term.

Then lieutenant governor, he took the top job when Huntsman resigned to become ambassador to China, a post he soon vacates as he considers a possible run for the U.S. presidency in 2012.

Utah is one of the most conservative states in the nation, with local, state and federal Republican candidates usually winning election easily against minority Democratic opponents. Herbert won the 2010 general election handily.

Herbert worked hard behind the scenes to get the immigration bills through Utah's legislature, and won praise over the guest worker program from the Obama administration and Washington Democrats, along with moderate Republicans.

But complaints have poured in from Tea Party activists and anti-illegal immigrant groups. Ron Mortensen is the leader of a local 9-12 group linked to conservative commentator Glenn Beck, said as the main guest worker bill worked its way to final legislative votes: "This is amnesty, pure and simple, and it's against" the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Tea Party favorite, has also criticized the guest worker bill. "If I had been governor, I would have vetoed it," the Utah Republican said on Friday.

And it is Chaffetz' name that is now being bantered about by anti-illegal immigration groups as a possible challenger to Herbert in the Republican nomination contest next year.

Chaffetz said running for governor next year "is not the projection" he's looking at, adding that he was considering a challenge to Senator Orrin Hatch in 2012.

But Herbert is clearly hearing the same rumors. "I hope these new laws will be motivation for our congressional delegation to help lead" on immigration, he said, adding: "They can't sit on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs; it's time for them to get involved."

Chaffetz said he's worked hard on immigration legislation in the past and plans on sponsoring a bill "that could fix this" sometime over the next two years.

While some conservative Utah Republicans may not like the guest worker bill or how the enforcement measure was watered down, the bills are "reflective of mainstream Utah," Herbert said.

"And that is the group that I should look out for. Remember, the (guest worker) bill doesn't become law until 2013. Who knows what may happen on the federal level by then; what other solutions can be found," he said.

SOURCE




Recent posts at CIS below

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

1. Taking Names: List of Firms Barred from Foreign Worker Programs Likely Just Scratches the Surface (Memorandum)

2. Illegal Immigration Profiteers (Blog)

3. House Holds Different Kind of H-1B Hearing – No Employers Present! (Blog)

4. Bernie Sanders and Immigration Reform (Blog)

5. Verified SBInet Success in Much-Vilified Tucson Sector (Blog)

6. Telemundo's Solid Journalism (Blog)

7. Restore Our Border (Blog)





4 April, 2011

The case for LEGAL and SELECTIVE immigration

While the flood of illegals is putting educational and medical services under pressure, however, it is a big ask to let in more legal immigrants. The article below is from the WSJ -- an open borders outfit and they clearly intend the article below to be an argument for allowing in more cheap workers for business. But using as their example the legal immigration of highly talented people shows the desperation of their case. To be trite, they are comparing apples and oranges. The legal immigration of highly talented people and the illegal immigration of poorly educated people whose children are very often crime-prone gang-bangers are two entirely different issues

Here in Silicon Valley, immigrants and first-generation Americans provide the drive and hunger for almost every company worth its salt. But these days protectionism and xenophobia are choking off the supply of H1-B visas for the best and brightest foreigners. Sadly, we no longer lay out the welcome mat for people with names like Grove, Brin, Yang, Bechtolsheim, Huang, Nguyen, Omidyar and Wadhwani.

Some say that the effect of immigrants on Silicon Valley is exaggerated and that venture capitalists should provide more opportunities for homegrown Californians. But the state's xenophobes and protectionists need only take a look at the recent history of the English Premier League to see the staggering and transformative effect that immigrants can have on a market.

Twenty years ago, English professional soccer was in a shambles. Most of the stadiums had just a few seats. Stabbings and fights on the terraces were part of the entertainment. In 1989, 96 people were trampled to death during one tragic game. Almost all the players in the league had been born in England—many within sight of the stadiums in which they played. Clubs in Italy, Spain, Brazil and Argentina provided a more scintillating version of the sport. Revenues from television coverage were small. In less than two decades all that has changed, and today the best soccer in the world is played in England. The reason: immigrants.

The English Premier League is a testament to what happens when immigration barriers are broken down and a market attracts the most talented people from around the world.

In 1992, the year of its formation, there were only 11 soccer players in the English Premier League who had not been born in the United Kingdom or Ireland. Now that number is more than 250—in a league where the total number of players in the overall starting lineup is 220. In 1999, Chelsea became the first team to field a Premier League starting lineup composed entirely of foreign-born players.

The main reason behind this dramatic change was a labor ruling in 1995 by the European Court of Justice. The court ruled that arcane rules restricting the free movement of soccer players were in breach of the law of the European Union. When the rules were lifted, the English Premier League was flooded with the best players in the world.

The economic result of the influx of talented immigrants has been profound. Today the soccer on view in the English Premier League is far and away the most attractive in the world. The domestic market has expanded—hooliganism is in decline, and women and children flock to stadiums on Saturdays. Meanwhile, the export market is more lucrative than ever. More than half a billion people in some 200 countries follow the exploits of Chelsea, Manchester United, Aston Villa, Blackpool and Tottenham Hotspur. A preseason tour of Asia has become de rigueur for the best clubs.

The league has also drawn foreign capital with club owners from the United States, India, Russia and the Middle East. Only three sports leagues—the NFL, MLB and NBA—top the English Premier League in revenues. But these leagues, it should be noted, compete in a domestic market six-times larger than England's.

In 1986, a two-year TV agreement for the top flight of English soccer was sold for 6.3 million pounds, the equivalent of about $10 million today. In 2007, a set of three-year rights was sold for 1.7 billion pounds, or $2.7 billion. It's little wonder that last year the English Premier League won the Queen's award for enterprise in international trade.

Players like Chelsea's Didier Drogba (Ivory Coast), Arsenal's Cesc Fabregas (Spain), and Manchester United's Nemanja Vidic (Serbia) may not possess the technical chops to start technology companies in Silicon Valley. But they answered the same clarion call that rang out to the founders and families that once spawned Intel, eBay, Google, Nvidia, Yahoo and hundreds of other companies formed between San Jose and San Francisco. These soccer players are living proof that the best people score the most goals.

Turning away talent—wherever it's from—only weakens the market and brings down everyone's game.

SOURCE






Tighter border security for New Zealand

A new agreement between Canada and New Zealand will see the country's border security strengthened. The agreement is part of a Five Country Conference (FCC) biometric programme involving immigration authorities from New Zealand, Canada the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom.

Immigration minister Jonathan Coleman said it will give New Zealand officials greater tools to detect identity fraud, as well as process genuine travellers faster by checking fingerprint details, when needed, with their Canadian counterparts. "The ability to check biometric data with international partners will help INZ [Immigration New Zealand] identify people using false identities," he said today.

Organised crime groups and illegal migrants are being targeted. "Organised crime groups and illegal migrants are increasingly using identity and passport fraud to evade detection."

The agreement also means that information on asylum claimants and illegal migrants can be accessed from the other four countries, when people provide no identification.

"This initiative will help Canadian and New Zealand immigration authorities work together to identify immigration fraud and previous deportees who are trying to re-enter our respective countries without permission," says Jason Kenney, minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

All arrangements conform with the respective Privacy Acts of member countries, and fingerprints of the citizens of FCC countries will not be shared, said Coleman. INZ signed similar agreements with Australia and the UK last year.

SOURCE



3 April, 2011

US again denies visas to same-sex couples

After a brief reprieve, immigration authorities are once again denying applications for immigration benefits for same-sex couples.

After a review by Department of Homeland Security lawyers, it was concluded that a law prohibiting the government from recognizing same-sex marriages must be followed, despite the Obama administration’s decision to stop defending the constitutionality of the law in court, said Chris Bentley, a spokesman for US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The law, the Defense of Marriage Act, defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Earlier this week, the agency said applications from foreigners married to US citizens of the same sex would be held in “abeyance’’ while the legal review proceeded. Bentley said Tuesday that the temporary hold on application decisions was not a change in policy.

In February, the government announced it would no longer defend the law

SOURCE





Majority of Italians against hosting North African immigrants

The majority of Italians are against hosting in their country the thousands of North African immigrants who are currently being transferred across the peninsula from the southern island of Lampedusa, according to a survey issued on Friday by Affaritaliani.it online daily.

Over 37 percent of residents are in favor of blocking the refugees before they reach Italian shores and 34 percent say the landed immigrants should be immediately repatriated, while just 29 percent is in favor of hosting them in adequate structures across Italy.

The poll results reflect the humanitarian emergency Italy is facing in the wake of the arrival of over 18,000 immigrants since January, as evacuation plans from Lampedusa proceed at a slow pace.

Italians are divided by territorial belonging. Almost 51 percent of those in the north are against the redistribution of immigrants across the peninsula's 20 regions as envisaged by the government's plan, while all southern residents, who bear the greatest burden of hosting the immigrants, demand shared responsibilities.

On the whole, over 80 percent of Italians criticize the government's handling of the immigration emergency triggered by the North African crises, saying more had to be done to prevent the mass arrivals of refugees.

SOURCE



2 April, 2011

Foreign Worker Programs Appear to Lack Oversight

Report Lists Firms Debarred for Violations

A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies finds high likelihood of missed violations of the rules in major guestworker visa programs and the various employment-based permanent immigrant programs. In addition, the report collects in one place for the first time the information available on employers whose participation in the programs was suspended, at least temporarily, by the federal government due to misconduct.

The report, “Taking Names: List of Firms Barred from Foreign Worker Programs Likely Just Scratches the Surface,” is authored by David North, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and former Assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Labor.

The list of penalized employers included in the report is organized by the state the employers were located in at the time they were debarred. Additionally, the list includes information on the employer name and location, the program the employer was participating in, and information on penalty they received.

Among the improbably low rates of abuse of these programs, based on the proportion of participating employers that were debarred from participation, are these:
Only 1 out of 983 employers using the H-1B program;

Only 1 out of 1,278 employers using the H-2A program;

Only 1 out of 500 employers using the H-2B program; and

Though the exact number of employers participating in employment-based permanent resident programs is unknown, the report estimates only 1 out of 2,500 employers was debarred.

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





Prime Minister of Italy promises to end the 'invasion of migrants'

SILVIO BERLUSCONI has made a lightning visit to Lampedusa, pledging to empty the little island of refugees, nominate local citizenry for a Nobel peace prize - and buy himself a holiday home.

Just days before the beginning of the so-called Rubygate trial in which he is accused of paid sex with a minor, the Italian Prime Minister and an entourage mainly composed of men launched what he flamboyantly called the "Free Lampedusa" plan, sending six ships to disperse the 6000 refugees that are now camped on the island.

"I guarantee that the invasion of migrants will be resolved in 48, maximum 60 hours and Lampedusa will be inhabited only by Lampedusans," Mr Berlusconi said. Six ships would take them to migrant centres on the mainland while others would be deported.

Speaking in front of the municipal hall to a crowd of anxious locals, he said he would ask that "the Nobel for peace be asked for Lampedusa" and asked his Finance Minister, Giulio Tremonti, to explore a 12-month tax holiday for the islanders.

That wasn't all. The tiny island lives off summer tourism - as well as services to the refugees - but this looked all but finished since the latest arrival of refugees camped around the bays and outcrops without sanitary services or shelter.

"[TV stations] RAI and Mediaset will be asked to air pro-island programs … Lampedusa will have a golf course, a casino, a new school and I have bought a house here," he said.

La Repubblica quoted the owners of the tiny villa next door: "We are so moved to know that our new neighbour is the Premier no less … we just didn't expect that". (The house, reported the Italian press, was bought on the internet for less than €2000 [$2700].)

Later, talking to a group of mothers who had been demonstrating against the refugee influx, Mr Berlusconi told a joke: "During a poll, a sample of women were asked if they wanted to make love with Berlusconi. Thirty per cent said maybe. The other 70 per cent said, 'Again?"'

Another woman was given a poetry recitation dedicated to her eyes.

For Mr Berlusconi, this "can do and I don't care" showmanship has been the key to his extraordinary popularity in the polls. Despite crisis after personal crisis - and a mountain of legal cases - the septuagenarian appeared to be invincible, describing himself as the "people's Premier".

SOURCE



1 April, 2011

GOP drafts legislative assault on illegal immigration

Congressional Republicans want more fencing, sensors, agents and drones to keep out all illegal migrants

Congressional Republicans are drafting legislation that would require the federal government to develop a plan to add more fencing, sensors, agents and even drones to stop every illegal entry into the United States.

The legislative effort offers another example of how a more conservative Congress has steered the immigration debate away from the Obama administration's two-pronged push for reforms and improved border security, and toward strict enforcement of immigration laws.

In December, a lame-duck House controlled by Democrats passed the Dream Act, a reform that would have created a path to citizenship for some young illegal immigrants in the U.S., but it was narrowly defeated in the Senate.

The Democrats' Senate majority means the latest legislation is unlikely to pass, but the goal may be more political. By continuing to spearhead such measures, Republicans, who feel they are in agreement with most voters, hope to force Democrats to take a position on immigration issues in advance of the 2012 campaign.

The debate's change in tone also comes as census data show that Latinos comprise the fastest-growing block of voters, potentially a complicating factor for Republican strategists. The number of Latino voters is increasing most in states that in 2010 gained congressional seats and Electoral College votes, according to a study released in January by the Pew Hispanic Center.

Immigration skirmishes seem to excite the Republican base, said Wayne Cornelius, a professor emeritus at UC San Diego who has spent more than 40 years studying cross-border migration. "In the short-term, they calculate they can gain more votes with these hard-liner proposals," he said, but some may have qualms about alienating Latinos.

A Republican strategist acknowledged there was debate within the party about how to handle immigration enforcement without driving away Latino voters who might otherwise agree with the fiscal conservative aspects of the party platform. Republican activists have said they think some Latino voters support the GOP position on immigration.

But many Republicans want a modernized immigration system that is consistent with the values of an immigrant nation, and those party members who speak loudly against reforms are a "vocal minority," said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the debate.

The U.S. has spent more than $4.5 billion to improve border security in the nine years since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and critics argue that stopping every illegal crossing is an impractical goal. "It is all just symbolic showmanship. It will never get through the Senate. It may have short-term electoral utility but will not result in any real legislation," Cornelius said.

But Rep. Candice S. Miller, a Michigan Republican who wrote the Secure Border Act of 2011, said in an interview that "Congress needs to reflect the political will of the majority of the American people, which is to secure our borders."

The Republican effort to push the Homeland Security Department to take a tougher stance on immigration enforcement follows a request last year by all seven Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee that asked the department to determine how much money it needed to deport every illegal immigrant the government encountered.

The Homeland Security Department has not estimated the cost, but a 2005 report by the Center for American Progress concluded it would require $206 billion over five years to deport the estimated 11 million people living in the country illegally.

The Obama administration has, in practice, largely supported the argument that border security is the first priority, Cornelius said. "It is really a red herring. We will never have the border secure enough.... Making immigration reform hostage to border security is a recipe for policy paralysis."

Miller's proposed legislation would require the Homeland Security Department to give Congress a five-year plan to bring unlawful entries and smuggling down to nearly zero, and let Congress decide whether to fund it. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) and 10 other Republicans have agreed to co-sponsor the bill, which could be introduced as early as Thursday.

The proposal may come with such a hefty price tag that it's unrealistic to carry out. But Republicans say cost should not be the Border Patrol's concern. "They need to be very candid with us and tell us what they need," Miller said. "We're the ones passing the budgets and we have to decide amongst ourselves."

Customs and Border Protection developed a strategic plan for securing the border by 2014, but some lawmakers say it doesn't go far enough. The Border Patrol reported to the Government Accountability Office that by October 2010 it had control of 873 miles of the nearly 2,000 miles of the Southwest border, or 44%.

Asking the Homeland Security Department how it can stop all illegal entries is "asking the wrong question," said Doris Meissner, former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, because law enforcement cannot change the underlying forces — jobs and the illegal drug market — that draw migrants and smugglers to the U.S. "Members of Congress may want to pour concrete from sea to shining sea," Cornelius said, "but it is simply not realistic." [Why?]

SOURCE




The Jewish Agency makes a special deal for Australia

The Australian Jewish community is mostly in Melbourne and Zionist sentiment is very strong among them -- with many Australian Jews emigrating to Israel, despite the relative safety of Australia

Australia will be the only Western country where the Jewish Agency will retain a fulltime Israel immigration emissary, despite the organization’s recent decision to replace all such employees with officials dealing with a broad spectrum of issues.

“It was decided that in Australia we keep the classic model, because Australia is a little bit different from other countries in the world,” the Agency’s director of English-speaking countries, Yehuda Katz, told Anglo File this week.

“First of all, they had an amazing increase in aliyah of almost 50 percent between 2009 and 2010,” he said in reference to the jump in immigration to Israel. “Secondly, in Australia we have a unique partnership with the Zionist Federation. We work hand in hand in the encouragement of aliyah and [other activities].”

Last month, a Jewish Agency spokesman told Anglo File there no longer would be in Australia a designated immigration emissary, known as an aliyah shaliach. “It doesn’t make sense anymore, from our perspective, that one shaliach offers educational programs and a different shaliach works on aliyah,” he had said, before learning of a special agreement the Australian Zionist Federation had made with the agency.

The venerable institution recently embarked on a new strategic plan that shifts its focus from promoting immigration to strengthening Jewish identity, including replacing aliyah shlichim with “multifunctional” emissaries.

“From many years of experience, we have found that dedicated aliyah shlichim make a big difference in not just making the aliyah preparation much easier, but also in promoting aliyah, establishing aliyah groups in the Zionist youth movements and giving people the confidence to take the very big step of moving to Israel,” AZF President Philip Chester told Anglo File this week. The Agency’s new strategic plan aside, “all of our [Agency] shlichim have plenty to do with their own movements, communities, etc. without also having to be responsible for aliyah,” he said.

SOURCE






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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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