Public Safety, National Security Priority of the SAFE Act
House Judiciary Bill Would Restore Enforcement
A new Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the SAFE Act (H.R. 2278) finds that the bill would improve public safety by getting tougher on illegal alien criminals. Crimes like the horrific murder of 19-year-old Vanessa Pham in Virginia, whose killer had escaped deportation despite prior arrests; the drunk driving crash in Virginia that killed Sister Denise Mosier, which was the illegal alien driver's third DUI offense; and the recent series of three rapes in Lake Highland, Texas, all might have been prevented with the tools and practices mandated by the SAFE Act.
"We are told that illegal immigrants are in this country to do the jobs Americans won't do, but unfortunately crime is not a job Americans won't do," says Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center. "The SAFE Act will give ICE and local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to rid our communities of criminals and others who are living here in defiance of our laws. Police and sheriffs, as well as career immigration enforcement officials, who have witnessed the recent decline in enforcement with concern, have welcomed this bill as a constructive alternative to the Schumer-Rubio bill."
To view the entire publication visit: http://www.cis.org/better-safe-than-sorry
In contrast to the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill (S.744), which would legalize nearly half the ICE criminal alien caseload, the House Judiciary committee has approved readable, logical legislation presently in stand-alone pieces that address the need for more enforcement first. The need is clear, in light of the federal court statistics showing that non-citizens make up more than 9 percent of all murderers, 31 percent of all drug traffickers, 49 percent of all kidnappers, 31 percent of all money launderers, 17 percent of all auto thieves, and 24 percent of all federal-level fraudsters, sentenced in 2012.
The SAFE Act will help reverse the recent steep decline in enforcement by institutionalizing cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement and closing loopholes in federal law that allow criminal aliens to enter and stay. Key findings of the analysis include:
The SAFE Act would establish federal supremacy in immigration law, but preserve the ability of state and local governments to enact and enforce ordinances within certain parameters, recognizing that the impact of illegal immigration is felt most profoundly at the local level.
To assist ICE in locating the approximately one million aliens who are arrested for state and local crimes each year, the bill encourages local law enforcement agencies to assist in enforcement. It balances a mandate for local agencies to cooperate with ICE with a requirement for ICE to respond to local requests for ICE to take custody of criminal aliens. It improves information sharing in both directions to facilitate cooperation.
The act clarifes that local jails must not release criminals who will be deported and penalizes sanctuary jurisdictions that obstruct enforcement.
The SAFE Act incorporates recommendations from career senior ICE o?cials that would make it easier to disrupt and remove terrorists, gang members, fraudsters, and other dangerous people. It also would make it harder for such individuals to receive visas, asylum, green cards, citizenship, or other bene?ts.
Unlike the Senate Gang of Eight bill (S.744), which would excuse a huge array of crimes and immigration fraud committed by illegal aliens seeking amnesty, the SAFE Act would deal ?rmly with those who have been arrested for drunk driving, sex crimes, gang crimes, espionage, identity the?, immigration fraud, repeat o?enses, and other serious violations by providing for expedited removal and limiting appeals and waivers.
The SAFE Act seeks to restore integrity to our immigration system by cracking down on those who game the system by submitting frivolous applications, who ignore deportation orders, or who fail to appear for hearings. ICE estimates that there are more than 850,000 aliens living here despite being ordered removed, and even more who have failed to show up for hearings.
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary at: http://cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Op-Ed: Return of the 'E' Word: An immigration-enforcement vision for the new century
2. Video: An Interview with David North: Liberal Voice Laments Mass Immigration's Inequitable Impact on the Labor Market
Publications
3. Better SAFE Than Sorry House Judiciary Bill Would Restore Enforcement, Prioritize Safety
Blogs
4. Zuckerberg Shares Stage with Admitted Felon; Turns His Back on Innocent American Children
5. DHS (Albeit Slowly) and the Courts Move on Immigration Abuse Cases
6. Two Forms of Presidential Immigration Misconduct: Executive Action and Administrative Fiat
7. Enforcement Declining Despite High Rates of Alien Crime
8. A One-Time $36 Billion Treasury Raid Would Follow a Major Amnesty
9. ICE Apologetic for "Rounding Up" Immigrants
10. The GOP's Immigration Reform Dilemma: Presidential Enforcement
11. In Which I Agree with Josh Marshall
12. New Twist on Immigration Fraud - Employers Are the Victims!
13. The President's Immigration Villains: Part 2
14. Univision Reports Pressure on Obama to Take Direct Action on Immigration
15. A Trifecta of Non-Immigrant Worker Programs
16. The President's Immigration Villains: Part 1
Monday, August 26, 2013
REPORTER EXPOSES UNSECURED BORDER
Breitbart News’ Brandon Darby walks viewers from the Rio Grande River into a U.S. neighborhood, revealing just how unsecured the U.S./Mexico border really is. Darby walks viewers through the unfinished “Border Fence,” which had no gate or security of any kind. The location was west of Penitas, Texas.
Darby, who is on assignment along the U.S./Mexico border investigating cartels and public corruption, stated by telephone:
"The southeastern stretch of the Rio Grande river is where most of Texas' illegal immigration occurs. The area has many desolate regions and there simply aren't enough resources being applied to the issue.
"Cartels and street gangs control the human smuggling. The region where I took the video is currently heavily disputed between the Mexican Gulf cartel and the Los Zetas cartel, which is actually an armed insurgency," said Darby.
"Transnational crime syndicates usually have a stash house just on the other side of the wall. People cross the river and go to these houses. Then they are taken up various highways and let out just before the known immigration check points. They walk miles and miles from that point to the next stash house."
Darby was referencing a 2012 report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in his assertions about human smuggling.
"Breitbart News has just begun to open the taps on the human stories and issues of public corruption occurring on our southern border. We will continue to surprise our readers and the American public with the information we are uncovering," said Darby.
SOURCE
VICTIMS OF ILLEGAL ALIEN VIOLENCE PLEAD: DUMP SENATE BILL, START OVER
The Remembrance Project, a national organization that dedicates itself to bringing awareness to victims of violence and crime perpetrated by illegal aliens, is calling on key U.S. Senators to dump the 1,200-page “Gang of Eight” immigration bill this week and start over.
The Remembrance Project’s director Maria Espinoza made the call in letters to Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jon Tester (D-MT), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey (D-PA), Max Baucus (D-MT), Rob Portman (R-OH), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) on Tuesday evening.
“I am writing to you today on behalf of all these suffering families to plead with you to vote against final passage of the immigration bill now before the U.S. Senate,” Espinoza wrote to each of the senators. “The most forgotten part of the immigration debate are the victims of illegal alien violence and the lives that will be lost in the future if we don’t learn from the mistakes of the past."
"Sadly, the current senate immigration proposal guarantees more—not less—future victims of illegal alien violence. The Senate proposal provides immediate amnesty to illegal aliens with multiple criminal convictions including child abusers, domestic abusers, sex offenders, drunk drivers, and many violent criminals. It also explicitly provides amnesty to gang members who are responsible for countless deaths in our country each year. These provisions are a slap in the face to the families and memories of victims of illegal alien violence.”
Espinoza argues that citizens in each of those aforementioned senators’ states could find themselves in harm’s way if this bill ever became law. “The citizens in your state, and in every state, would be needlessly and directly endangered by this legislation,” Espinoza wrote.
Espinoza points to how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) National Council president Chris Crane has noted that this bill would make it worse for interior immigration enforcement, and how that would put people in each of those senator’s states at risk.
“The authors of this legislation worked hand-in-hand with rich businessmen and amnesty advocates while never once considering the rights of the victims of illegal alien violence,” Espinoza wrote. “For instance, the legislation includes a provision that would create an “enforcement holiday” for 2.5 years on interior immigration enforcement during the application period. Obviously, criminal offenders will take advantage of this provision to evade deportation and commit further violent crimes against our families.”
Espinoza went on to say that Congress should “shred this bill and go back to the drawing board with American families as their priority.”
Espinoza spoke out against the bill for its lack of enforcement mechanisms last week at a Tea Party press conference on Capitol Hill. “One American life stolen by an illegal alien is one life too many,” Espinoza said at that press conference.
SOURCE
REPORTER EXPOSES UNSECURED BORDER
Breitbart News’ Brandon Darby walks viewers from the Rio Grande River into a U.S. neighborhood, revealing just how unsecured the U.S./Mexico border really is. Darby walks viewers through the unfinished “Border Fence,” which had no gate or security of any kind. The location was west of Penitas, Texas.
Darby, who is on assignment along the U.S./Mexico border investigating cartels and public corruption, stated by telephone:
"The southeastern stretch of the Rio Grande river is where most of Texas' illegal immigration occurs. The area has many desolate regions and there simply aren't enough resources being applied to the issue.
"Cartels and street gangs control the human smuggling. The region where I took the video is currently heavily disputed between the Mexican Gulf cartel and the Los Zetas cartel, which is actually an armed insurgency," said Darby.
"Transnational crime syndicates usually have a stash house just on the other side of the wall. People cross the river and go to these houses. Then they are taken up various highways and let out just before the known immigration check points. They walk miles and miles from that point to the next stash house."
Darby was referencing a 2012 report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in his assertions about human smuggling.
"Breitbart News has just begun to open the taps on the human stories and issues of public corruption occurring on our southern border. We will continue to surprise our readers and the American public with the information we are uncovering," said Darby.
SOURCE
VICTIMS OF ILLEGAL ALIEN VIOLENCE PLEAD: DUMP SENATE BILL, START OVER
The Remembrance Project, a national organization that dedicates itself to bringing awareness to victims of violence and crime perpetrated by illegal aliens, is calling on key U.S. Senators to dump the 1,200-page “Gang of Eight” immigration bill this week and start over.
The Remembrance Project’s director Maria Espinoza made the call in letters to Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jon Tester (D-MT), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey (D-PA), Max Baucus (D-MT), Rob Portman (R-OH), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) on Tuesday evening.
“I am writing to you today on behalf of all these suffering families to plead with you to vote against final passage of the immigration bill now before the U.S. Senate,” Espinoza wrote to each of the senators. “The most forgotten part of the immigration debate are the victims of illegal alien violence and the lives that will be lost in the future if we don’t learn from the mistakes of the past."
"Sadly, the current senate immigration proposal guarantees more—not less—future victims of illegal alien violence. The Senate proposal provides immediate amnesty to illegal aliens with multiple criminal convictions including child abusers, domestic abusers, sex offenders, drunk drivers, and many violent criminals. It also explicitly provides amnesty to gang members who are responsible for countless deaths in our country each year. These provisions are a slap in the face to the families and memories of victims of illegal alien violence.”
Espinoza argues that citizens in each of those aforementioned senators’ states could find themselves in harm’s way if this bill ever became law. “The citizens in your state, and in every state, would be needlessly and directly endangered by this legislation,” Espinoza wrote.
Espinoza points to how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) National Council president Chris Crane has noted that this bill would make it worse for interior immigration enforcement, and how that would put people in each of those senator’s states at risk.
“The authors of this legislation worked hand-in-hand with rich businessmen and amnesty advocates while never once considering the rights of the victims of illegal alien violence,” Espinoza wrote. “For instance, the legislation includes a provision that would create an “enforcement holiday” for 2.5 years on interior immigration enforcement during the application period. Obviously, criminal offenders will take advantage of this provision to evade deportation and commit further violent crimes against our families.”
Espinoza went on to say that Congress should “shred this bill and go back to the drawing board with American families as their priority.”
Espinoza spoke out against the bill for its lack of enforcement mechanisms last week at a Tea Party press conference on Capitol Hill. “One American life stolen by an illegal alien is one life too many,” Espinoza said at that press conference.
SOURCE
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Violent Bosnian with string of convictions can't be deported from Britain because it would violate his human rights
A foreign criminal jailed for a series of violent attacks cannot be deported because it would violate his human rights, it has been ruled.
Sanel Sahbaz, a Bosnian who now lives in Hertford, came to Britain as a child in 1993. Since 2005 he has committed a string of offences including common assault, handling stolen goods, theft, public order offences and assaulting police.
In one incident he attacked his landlord, pushing him to the floor, repeatedly kicking him and stamping on his head until the man fell unconscious.
Sahbaz, 30, qualified for automatic deportation after he was jailed for four years, and the Home Office told him he would be sent home.
But he has now been told he can stay indefinitely after he brought a legal challenge under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to private and family life.
His lawyers argued that if he was sent back to Bosnia it would separate him from his parents, brother and cousin, who are also in Britain, which would breach his rights.
Last night critics said that the ruling by a judge in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber reinforced the need for urgent reform of immigration laws.
SOURCE
Vital migrant I.D checks scrapped: Stowaways no longer fingerprinted at Calais which means they can keep trying to sneak back into Britain to claim asylum
The UK has abandoned identity checks on illegal immigrants trying to sneak into the country from Calais. In a huge security downgrade, Border Force officials no longer photograph or fingerprint immigrants found stowing away in lorries at the Channel ferry port.
Instead, they are handed to French police, who free them, enabling them to try again and again until they succeed.
The scrapping of fingerprinting means that if the migrants reach Britain and apply for asylum under a false identity, claiming to be refugees, immigration officers have no way of identifying them as having previously tried to enter Britain illegally. As a result, they cannot expose their new identity as fake.
Economic migrants, criminals and terrorists can now slip much more easily through the net. This contrasts with the increasingly strict checks on holiday-makers, who have to hand over their passport which contains biometric information to confirm their identities.
Tory MP Peter Bone last night called for the ‘extraordinary’ and ‘disturbing’ loophole to be closed. The scandal, which makes a mockery of Government promises of tougher immigration controls, has been going on for more than three years. It came to light during an official inspection, which published its report two weeks ago.
The security gap also means migrants’ details cannot be checked against prints and photos taken in the EU country where they first enter Europe – often Italy, Greece or Malta. Under the rules, migrants are meant to live in the EU country where they arrived while their asylum claim is processed there.
But many immediately head straight for Britain because the benefits system is more generous. Once in the UK, they can avoid being sent back to the original country of entry by lying about their identity. Terrorists and foreign criminals can create horror stories about their past lives and pretend to be refugees.
Economic migrants seeking a ‘better life’ are also able to fabricate tales of needing urgent asylum, claiming they come from war-torn countries. This creates havoc in the UK’s overburdened asylum system as officials try to sort out who is a genuine refugee.
The Border Force claims it catches 8,000 would-be illegal migrants in lorries in northern France each year.
But this official tally is now in doubt because a migrant whose identity goes unchecked in Calais can make multiple attempts as a stowaway to get to Britain while being counted again and again as a new ‘catch’.
John Vine, independent chief inspector of Borders and Immigration, who wrote the report, said: ‘It seems odd that ordinary travellers are subject to 100 per cent checks when those travelling illegally are not subject to this regime. People attempting to enter the UK concealed in freight vehicles, who are discovered by Border Force, are no longer fingerprinted at Calais.’
British border officials stopped processing ‘clandestines discovered in freight vehicles’ at the port in January 2010. They blamed the lack of available ‘detention’ facilities.
However, the chief inspector has called for the Home Office to ‘reconsider’ identity checks to protect UK borders.
Mr Bone said last night: ‘It is very disturbing that the Border Agency is not doing the basics when it catches illegal immigrants. By definition illegal immigration is a crime and it is very hard to see why it should be treated any differently from any other crime.
‘If we stopped fingerprinting burglars because we lacked detention facilities there would be uproar. Ministers will now have to explain why this offence should be treated differently. The Government needs to take urgent action to correct this extraordinary situation.’
Charlie Elphicke, Tory MP for Dover, said he had been assured that the Home Office would review the situation. He added: ‘It is clearly important that we have the tightest possible border security. The report is clear these people should be fingerprinted and it is right that the Home Office is going to review it.’
Last night the Home Office said scrapping checks freed up the Border Force to concentrate on searching vehicles for stowaways and was decided by the last Labour government. A spokesman added: ‘Would-be illegal immigrants found by Border Force in freight vehicles are handed to the French authorities for processing, including fingerprinting where appropriate.’
However, during a Daily Mail investigation, migrants caught on the lorries said they had not been fingerprinted or photographed by either the British or French authorities. Syrian Rami Kazaz, 35, told the Mail: ‘The British officials hand us over to the French police who let us go. ‘I don’t know of anyone found on a lorry who has had their fingerprints checked. This encourages us to try again.’
Fawzi Aloui, a 29-year-old Tunisian, said he was fingerprinted and photographed in Lampedusa, Italy, after fleeing there by boat from the North African coast three years ago.
‘They checked my identity thoroughly. I have tried to get through to Britain on a lorry every night for three months in Calais. Each time I am caught, the British take no details of who I am or ask which country I came from. I have not been fingerprinted by the French either.’
People-trafficking gangs smuggle at least 30 migrants every day to this country from Calais.
SOURCE
Violent Bosnian with string of convictions can't be deported from Britain because it would violate his human rights
A foreign criminal jailed for a series of violent attacks cannot be deported because it would violate his human rights, it has been ruled.
Sanel Sahbaz, a Bosnian who now lives in Hertford, came to Britain as a child in 1993. Since 2005 he has committed a string of offences including common assault, handling stolen goods, theft, public order offences and assaulting police.
In one incident he attacked his landlord, pushing him to the floor, repeatedly kicking him and stamping on his head until the man fell unconscious.
Sahbaz, 30, qualified for automatic deportation after he was jailed for four years, and the Home Office told him he would be sent home.
But he has now been told he can stay indefinitely after he brought a legal challenge under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to private and family life.
His lawyers argued that if he was sent back to Bosnia it would separate him from his parents, brother and cousin, who are also in Britain, which would breach his rights.
Last night critics said that the ruling by a judge in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber reinforced the need for urgent reform of immigration laws.
SOURCE
Vital migrant I.D checks scrapped: Stowaways no longer fingerprinted at Calais which means they can keep trying to sneak back into Britain to claim asylum
The UK has abandoned identity checks on illegal immigrants trying to sneak into the country from Calais. In a huge security downgrade, Border Force officials no longer photograph or fingerprint immigrants found stowing away in lorries at the Channel ferry port.
Instead, they are handed to French police, who free them, enabling them to try again and again until they succeed.
The scrapping of fingerprinting means that if the migrants reach Britain and apply for asylum under a false identity, claiming to be refugees, immigration officers have no way of identifying them as having previously tried to enter Britain illegally. As a result, they cannot expose their new identity as fake.
Economic migrants, criminals and terrorists can now slip much more easily through the net. This contrasts with the increasingly strict checks on holiday-makers, who have to hand over their passport which contains biometric information to confirm their identities.
Tory MP Peter Bone last night called for the ‘extraordinary’ and ‘disturbing’ loophole to be closed. The scandal, which makes a mockery of Government promises of tougher immigration controls, has been going on for more than three years. It came to light during an official inspection, which published its report two weeks ago.
The security gap also means migrants’ details cannot be checked against prints and photos taken in the EU country where they first enter Europe – often Italy, Greece or Malta. Under the rules, migrants are meant to live in the EU country where they arrived while their asylum claim is processed there.
But many immediately head straight for Britain because the benefits system is more generous. Once in the UK, they can avoid being sent back to the original country of entry by lying about their identity. Terrorists and foreign criminals can create horror stories about their past lives and pretend to be refugees.
Economic migrants seeking a ‘better life’ are also able to fabricate tales of needing urgent asylum, claiming they come from war-torn countries. This creates havoc in the UK’s overburdened asylum system as officials try to sort out who is a genuine refugee.
The Border Force claims it catches 8,000 would-be illegal migrants in lorries in northern France each year.
But this official tally is now in doubt because a migrant whose identity goes unchecked in Calais can make multiple attempts as a stowaway to get to Britain while being counted again and again as a new ‘catch’.
John Vine, independent chief inspector of Borders and Immigration, who wrote the report, said: ‘It seems odd that ordinary travellers are subject to 100 per cent checks when those travelling illegally are not subject to this regime. People attempting to enter the UK concealed in freight vehicles, who are discovered by Border Force, are no longer fingerprinted at Calais.’
British border officials stopped processing ‘clandestines discovered in freight vehicles’ at the port in January 2010. They blamed the lack of available ‘detention’ facilities.
However, the chief inspector has called for the Home Office to ‘reconsider’ identity checks to protect UK borders.
Mr Bone said last night: ‘It is very disturbing that the Border Agency is not doing the basics when it catches illegal immigrants. By definition illegal immigration is a crime and it is very hard to see why it should be treated any differently from any other crime.
‘If we stopped fingerprinting burglars because we lacked detention facilities there would be uproar. Ministers will now have to explain why this offence should be treated differently. The Government needs to take urgent action to correct this extraordinary situation.’
Charlie Elphicke, Tory MP for Dover, said he had been assured that the Home Office would review the situation. He added: ‘It is clearly important that we have the tightest possible border security. The report is clear these people should be fingerprinted and it is right that the Home Office is going to review it.’
Last night the Home Office said scrapping checks freed up the Border Force to concentrate on searching vehicles for stowaways and was decided by the last Labour government. A spokesman added: ‘Would-be illegal immigrants found by Border Force in freight vehicles are handed to the French authorities for processing, including fingerprinting where appropriate.’
However, during a Daily Mail investigation, migrants caught on the lorries said they had not been fingerprinted or photographed by either the British or French authorities. Syrian Rami Kazaz, 35, told the Mail: ‘The British officials hand us over to the French police who let us go. ‘I don’t know of anyone found on a lorry who has had their fingerprints checked. This encourages us to try again.’
Fawzi Aloui, a 29-year-old Tunisian, said he was fingerprinted and photographed in Lampedusa, Italy, after fleeing there by boat from the North African coast three years ago.
‘They checked my identity thoroughly. I have tried to get through to Britain on a lorry every night for three months in Calais. Each time I am caught, the British take no details of who I am or ask which country I came from. I have not been fingerprinted by the French either.’
People-trafficking gangs smuggle at least 30 migrants every day to this country from Calais.
SOURCE
Friday, August 23, 2013
Finland Aids in Aliens' Self-Deportation
When Gov. Mitt Romney suggested that illegal aliens would "sell-deport," many in the media and in pro-illegal alien and amnesty groups laughed and dismissed the idea. However, the government of Finland has moved swiftly to introduce legislation that allows Helsinki to assist immigrants -- illegal aliens, failed asylum seekers, et al. -- who wish to voluntarily return to their home nations.
Currently, such voluntary repatriations are spearheaded by non-governmental organizations such as the Interional Organization for Migration and international bodies such as the EU. These joint efforts have seen over 1,000 people voluntarily leave Finland -- self deport, in other words -- between January 2010 and July 2013. While these numbers are not huge, Finland, with a population of 5.4 million, sees the benefit of this program and wants to let the national government help in the process. Newly-appointed Interior Minister Jaana Vuorio said:
"In Finland we often think that there may be illegal immigrants and that the police could deport then. But it is also the case that there has been an increase in the number of residence permit denials. On the other hand the idea is that a voluntary return is always better since the individuals themselves are committed to returning."
The Finnish government, as well as the EU as a whole, sees voluntary repatriation as a more humane way of removing non-legal immigrants from a country. Unfortunately, many in the United States still see this method as too barbaric a method to be carried out
SOURCE
Congresscritters facing opposition at town-halls, and in primaries!
ANNE MANETAS
More than half way through the Congressional recess, good news continues to emerge indicating that Senate-style comprehensive amnesty legislation won't gain any traction in the House of Representatives. As you may recall, key House Republican leaders already announced the anti-American worker Senate bill is unconstitutional so it is unlikely to get a House vote.
House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) made some strong statements during TownHall events in his district and on radio this week against a comprehensive amnesty bill and amnesty in general. The Washington Post lamented Chairman Goodlatte's comments may indicate there is no future for amnesty in the House (see below). Perhaps Chairman Goodlatte is feeling some of the same heat his colleagues across the country have been feeling at TownHalls this month.
As Melanie reports in her blog, NumbersUSA activists have attended more than 200 TownHall and other events during the August recess to express their opposition to amnesty and immigration increases. These are constituents seeing their own Congressman and not a case of busing people in from the outside or staging political theatre as the other side has done so often.
If constituent pressure during the Congressional recess isn't enough evidence that support for the Senate amnesty bill is a political miscalculation, Members of Congress may be cautioned by the recently announced primary challengers to two of the Senate's most ardent amnesty supporters.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Gang of Eight and chief spokesperson for the Senate amnesty, now faces three primary challenges and likely a fourth. As well, a primary challenger to Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander was announced last week. Citing Sen. Alexander's support for the Senate amnesty, his primary challenger is making the case that Sen. Alexander is out of touch with the desires of most Tennesseans.
Advocates for the Senate immigration bill have a tough sell and their job isn't getting any easier. Trying to convince a public whose chief concern is jobs to support a bill that would increase permanent work permits for new immigrant workers from 10 million over the next decade to 20 million is a tough job and you're not making it any easier! There's no recess for hardworking citizen-activists like yourself.
SOURCE
Finland Aids in Aliens' Self-Deportation
When Gov. Mitt Romney suggested that illegal aliens would "sell-deport," many in the media and in pro-illegal alien and amnesty groups laughed and dismissed the idea. However, the government of Finland has moved swiftly to introduce legislation that allows Helsinki to assist immigrants -- illegal aliens, failed asylum seekers, et al. -- who wish to voluntarily return to their home nations.
Currently, such voluntary repatriations are spearheaded by non-governmental organizations such as the Interional Organization for Migration and international bodies such as the EU. These joint efforts have seen over 1,000 people voluntarily leave Finland -- self deport, in other words -- between January 2010 and July 2013. While these numbers are not huge, Finland, with a population of 5.4 million, sees the benefit of this program and wants to let the national government help in the process. Newly-appointed Interior Minister Jaana Vuorio said:
"In Finland we often think that there may be illegal immigrants and that the police could deport then. But it is also the case that there has been an increase in the number of residence permit denials. On the other hand the idea is that a voluntary return is always better since the individuals themselves are committed to returning."
The Finnish government, as well as the EU as a whole, sees voluntary repatriation as a more humane way of removing non-legal immigrants from a country. Unfortunately, many in the United States still see this method as too barbaric a method to be carried out
SOURCE
Congresscritters facing opposition at town-halls, and in primaries!
ANNE MANETAS
More than half way through the Congressional recess, good news continues to emerge indicating that Senate-style comprehensive amnesty legislation won't gain any traction in the House of Representatives. As you may recall, key House Republican leaders already announced the anti-American worker Senate bill is unconstitutional so it is unlikely to get a House vote.
House Judiciary Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) made some strong statements during TownHall events in his district and on radio this week against a comprehensive amnesty bill and amnesty in general. The Washington Post lamented Chairman Goodlatte's comments may indicate there is no future for amnesty in the House (see below). Perhaps Chairman Goodlatte is feeling some of the same heat his colleagues across the country have been feeling at TownHalls this month.
As Melanie reports in her blog, NumbersUSA activists have attended more than 200 TownHall and other events during the August recess to express their opposition to amnesty and immigration increases. These are constituents seeing their own Congressman and not a case of busing people in from the outside or staging political theatre as the other side has done so often.
If constituent pressure during the Congressional recess isn't enough evidence that support for the Senate amnesty bill is a political miscalculation, Members of Congress may be cautioned by the recently announced primary challengers to two of the Senate's most ardent amnesty supporters.
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Gang of Eight and chief spokesperson for the Senate amnesty, now faces three primary challenges and likely a fourth. As well, a primary challenger to Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander was announced last week. Citing Sen. Alexander's support for the Senate amnesty, his primary challenger is making the case that Sen. Alexander is out of touch with the desires of most Tennesseans.
Advocates for the Senate immigration bill have a tough sell and their job isn't getting any easier. Trying to convince a public whose chief concern is jobs to support a bill that would increase permanent work permits for new immigrant workers from 10 million over the next decade to 20 million is a tough job and you're not making it any easier! There's no recess for hardworking citizen-activists like yourself.
SOURCE
Thursday, August 22, 2013
In New Interview, Liberal Voice Laments Mass Immigration's Inequitable Impact on the Labor Market
An internationally recognized authority on immigration policy and a Fellow of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Mr. David North, argues in a new video that the United States immigration policy is "tilted against the people at the bottom of the American labor market."
The Democrats' tendency towards "third world identification, ethnic identification, and political gratification" contributes in part to poor immigration policy, leading to inequities in the labor market. "The American dream of doing better than the earlier generation is not happening now because wages have stagnated at a deplorably low rate supported by the continued flow of illegal and legal temporary immigrants," noted North, who was a political appointee in both the JFK and LBJ Administrations and has been studying labor and migration matters for 50 years.
North suggests more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws in the interior of the United States to decrease the flow of illegal immigrants into the country and to increase the flow out. "Until the illegal population is down to a reasonable number, I do not think 11 million is a reasonable number.we should not be doing anything else."
View Mr. North's interview at: http://cis.org/Videos/ImmigrationPolicyInterviews/David-North
View the CIS interview series at: http://cis.org/Videos/ImmigrationPolicyInterviews
Among the points made by Mr. North:
1. High Skilled Immigration's Effect on Labor Market
Silicon Valley is replicating the agri-business scenario. Employers are bringing in a large number of docile foreign workers to do what employers want done at a depressed wage, distorting the labor market for the worse and discouraging American workers.
2. The Effects of Continued Mass Immigration
The combination of bringing in a large number of temporary foreign workers and illegal immigrants with little education and not enforcing immigration laws increases the labor force on the bottom end of the scale, causing decreased wages and deteriorating working conditions.
3. Employers and worksite enforcement
Employers exert political pressure to avoid worksite enforcement and keep immigration policy tilted in favor of employers and against the rest of us. If illegal immigrants are discouraged to work, wages would increase and working conditions might have to be improved.
4. The 1986 IRCA and Current Reform Efforts
The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized nearly three million illegal immigrants and promised enforcement of laws to prevent the future flow of illegal immigrants. Given the failure of the enforcement component, more vigorous enforcement of our laws in the interior of the United States is needed to encourage people here illegally to leave before any large scale legalization is considered.
5. The Winners and Losers of Immigration Policy
Our immigration policy is tilted towards the winners in life, the people and the corporations who have assets and power. Employers have created the idea that there is a labor shortage allowing them to bring in workers from overseas. In reality, offering better wages or better conditions would allow them to tap into the millions of unemployed.
View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary at: http://cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
The RNC Chair's Horrific Open-Borders Pandering
By Michelle Malkin
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus had a message last week for outspoken conservatives who support strict immigration enforcement policies: Shut up.
Yes, the head of the RNC is more concerned about protecting the party's Hispanic vote-pandering campaign than protecting law-abiding citizens from the devastating consequences of illegal immigration.
At the RNC's annual summer meeting in Boston, Priebus complained that openly advocating self-deportation policies during last year's election season was "horrific" and that rule-of-law rhetoric "hurts us." Yes, really.
So is it OK to discuss during off-year election cycles? Leap years? Weekends? Holidays? Can the GOP sensitivity police let us in on their approved immigration discussion calendar?
Priebus has yet to explain what exactly is "horrific" about telling foreign rule-breakers that they shouldn't wait for the government to eject them, and that the right thing for them to do would be to abide by our laws and go home on their own. This is an exceedingly and ridiculously polite policy suggestion, given how most other countries treat illegal line-jumpers, border-crossers, visa overstayers and deportation fugitives.
But Priebus treats the idea as if it were an international human rights violation.
Tellingly, the RNC chair has no response to the families of all races, classes and creeds who have raised their voices against America's perilous deportation abyss, systematic non-enforcement and coddling of illegal alien DREAMers who have wreaked violence and havoc on their lives.
The relatives of murdered Los Angeles teen Jamiel Shaw posed a question to Priebus on Twitter after the RNC chair's remarks at the GOP event last week touting minority outreach and diversity: "How many Americans Have U Talked To Whose Kids were Killed by illegals?"
Priebus has not answered.
As I first reported in 2008, 17-year-old Jamiel was gunned down by 19-year-old illegal alien Mexican gang member Pedro Espinoza. Young Espinoza was smuggled into the U.S. illegally when he was a toddler, just like all of the DREAMers the open-borders propagandists are always extolling in sweeping terms.
One day after he was released from jail for serving time for assault with a deadly weapon, this known illegal alien gang-banger was back on the streets. The feds failed to deport him. Local authorities failed to detain him.
Espinoza celebrated his freedom by shooting star student athlete Jamiel execution-style in the head for carrying a red Spider-Man backpack, which the Latino 18th Street Gang thug mistook for gang colors. Jamiel's mother, Army Sgt. Anita Shaw, had to travel home from serving in Iraq on her second tour of duty to join her family in burying her son.
Illegal alien teen killer Espinoza was sentenced to death last fall. Grieving parents Anita and Jamiel Sr. and their loved ones have valiantly kept Jamiel's memory alive by supporting efforts to repeal dangerous illegal alien sanctuary laws, spotlighting lapses in detention and deportation policy, calling attention to violent illegal alien gangs targeting blacks in L.A, and opposing reckless bipartisan amnesty proposals.
As Mr. Shaw told Breitbart's Matthew Boyle: "Just because you were brought here under no fault of your own doesn't mean you give amnesty to everybody." Amen. And instead of phony promises of enforcement later for blanket amnesty now, we need immediate reform of our bloodstained, loophole-ridden, under-funded and systemically sabotaged criminal alien detention and deportation system. Pronto.
Jamiel Shaw's family members are vigilant community organizers against illegal immigration. But their activism will never be hailed by Hollywood, The New York Times op-ed page, the White House or the RNC's elitist open-borders outreach panderers. Mr. Shaw, who testified at a House GOP panel hearing on the horrific consequences of our failed deportation policies earlier this summer, warns astutely that Republicans are "up to something" as they prepare to cut deals with open-borders Democrats in conference.
I think he's right. I also believe it's no coincidence that the RNC is now publicly marginalizing those who dare to challenge the rose-colored DREAMer propaganda of McCain-Graham-Rubio-Ryan-Mark Zuckerberg-La Raza - just as the forces of Amnesty Incorporated conspire behind closed doors.
Question: Why won't Priebus acknowledge the horrific suffering of the Shaws and countless other families who have been harmed by illegal alien nightmares? The political timing is inconveeeenient. Innocent lives be damned.
SOURCE
In New Interview, Liberal Voice Laments Mass Immigration's Inequitable Impact on the Labor Market
An internationally recognized authority on immigration policy and a Fellow of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Mr. David North, argues in a new video that the United States immigration policy is "tilted against the people at the bottom of the American labor market."
The Democrats' tendency towards "third world identification, ethnic identification, and political gratification" contributes in part to poor immigration policy, leading to inequities in the labor market. "The American dream of doing better than the earlier generation is not happening now because wages have stagnated at a deplorably low rate supported by the continued flow of illegal and legal temporary immigrants," noted North, who was a political appointee in both the JFK and LBJ Administrations and has been studying labor and migration matters for 50 years.
North suggests more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws in the interior of the United States to decrease the flow of illegal immigrants into the country and to increase the flow out. "Until the illegal population is down to a reasonable number, I do not think 11 million is a reasonable number.we should not be doing anything else."
View Mr. North's interview at: http://cis.org/Videos/ImmigrationPolicyInterviews/David-North
View the CIS interview series at: http://cis.org/Videos/ImmigrationPolicyInterviews
Among the points made by Mr. North:
1. High Skilled Immigration's Effect on Labor Market
Silicon Valley is replicating the agri-business scenario. Employers are bringing in a large number of docile foreign workers to do what employers want done at a depressed wage, distorting the labor market for the worse and discouraging American workers.
2. The Effects of Continued Mass Immigration
The combination of bringing in a large number of temporary foreign workers and illegal immigrants with little education and not enforcing immigration laws increases the labor force on the bottom end of the scale, causing decreased wages and deteriorating working conditions.
3. Employers and worksite enforcement
Employers exert political pressure to avoid worksite enforcement and keep immigration policy tilted in favor of employers and against the rest of us. If illegal immigrants are discouraged to work, wages would increase and working conditions might have to be improved.
4. The 1986 IRCA and Current Reform Efforts
The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act legalized nearly three million illegal immigrants and promised enforcement of laws to prevent the future flow of illegal immigrants. Given the failure of the enforcement component, more vigorous enforcement of our laws in the interior of the United States is needed to encourage people here illegally to leave before any large scale legalization is considered.
5. The Winners and Losers of Immigration Policy
Our immigration policy is tilted towards the winners in life, the people and the corporations who have assets and power. Employers have created the idea that there is a labor shortage allowing them to bring in workers from overseas. In reality, offering better wages or better conditions would allow them to tap into the millions of unemployed.
View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary at: http://cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
The RNC Chair's Horrific Open-Borders Pandering
By Michelle Malkin
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus had a message last week for outspoken conservatives who support strict immigration enforcement policies: Shut up.
Yes, the head of the RNC is more concerned about protecting the party's Hispanic vote-pandering campaign than protecting law-abiding citizens from the devastating consequences of illegal immigration.
At the RNC's annual summer meeting in Boston, Priebus complained that openly advocating self-deportation policies during last year's election season was "horrific" and that rule-of-law rhetoric "hurts us." Yes, really.
So is it OK to discuss during off-year election cycles? Leap years? Weekends? Holidays? Can the GOP sensitivity police let us in on their approved immigration discussion calendar?
Priebus has yet to explain what exactly is "horrific" about telling foreign rule-breakers that they shouldn't wait for the government to eject them, and that the right thing for them to do would be to abide by our laws and go home on their own. This is an exceedingly and ridiculously polite policy suggestion, given how most other countries treat illegal line-jumpers, border-crossers, visa overstayers and deportation fugitives.
But Priebus treats the idea as if it were an international human rights violation.
Tellingly, the RNC chair has no response to the families of all races, classes and creeds who have raised their voices against America's perilous deportation abyss, systematic non-enforcement and coddling of illegal alien DREAMers who have wreaked violence and havoc on their lives.
The relatives of murdered Los Angeles teen Jamiel Shaw posed a question to Priebus on Twitter after the RNC chair's remarks at the GOP event last week touting minority outreach and diversity: "How many Americans Have U Talked To Whose Kids were Killed by illegals?"
Priebus has not answered.
As I first reported in 2008, 17-year-old Jamiel was gunned down by 19-year-old illegal alien Mexican gang member Pedro Espinoza. Young Espinoza was smuggled into the U.S. illegally when he was a toddler, just like all of the DREAMers the open-borders propagandists are always extolling in sweeping terms.
One day after he was released from jail for serving time for assault with a deadly weapon, this known illegal alien gang-banger was back on the streets. The feds failed to deport him. Local authorities failed to detain him.
Espinoza celebrated his freedom by shooting star student athlete Jamiel execution-style in the head for carrying a red Spider-Man backpack, which the Latino 18th Street Gang thug mistook for gang colors. Jamiel's mother, Army Sgt. Anita Shaw, had to travel home from serving in Iraq on her second tour of duty to join her family in burying her son.
Illegal alien teen killer Espinoza was sentenced to death last fall. Grieving parents Anita and Jamiel Sr. and their loved ones have valiantly kept Jamiel's memory alive by supporting efforts to repeal dangerous illegal alien sanctuary laws, spotlighting lapses in detention and deportation policy, calling attention to violent illegal alien gangs targeting blacks in L.A, and opposing reckless bipartisan amnesty proposals.
As Mr. Shaw told Breitbart's Matthew Boyle: "Just because you were brought here under no fault of your own doesn't mean you give amnesty to everybody." Amen. And instead of phony promises of enforcement later for blanket amnesty now, we need immediate reform of our bloodstained, loophole-ridden, under-funded and systemically sabotaged criminal alien detention and deportation system. Pronto.
Jamiel Shaw's family members are vigilant community organizers against illegal immigration. But their activism will never be hailed by Hollywood, The New York Times op-ed page, the White House or the RNC's elitist open-borders outreach panderers. Mr. Shaw, who testified at a House GOP panel hearing on the horrific consequences of our failed deportation policies earlier this summer, warns astutely that Republicans are "up to something" as they prepare to cut deals with open-borders Democrats in conference.
I think he's right. I also believe it's no coincidence that the RNC is now publicly marginalizing those who dare to challenge the rose-colored DREAMer propaganda of McCain-Graham-Rubio-Ryan-Mark Zuckerberg-La Raza - just as the forces of Amnesty Incorporated conspire behind closed doors.
Question: Why won't Priebus acknowledge the horrific suffering of the Shaws and countless other families who have been harmed by illegal alien nightmares? The political timing is inconveeeenient. Innocent lives be damned.
SOURCE
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
STEM Visas Should Be No-Brainer In Immigration Debate
Although the conversation on immigration reform tends to unfold in terms of border security, enforcement of laws, and pathways to citizenship – there is one critical aspect this debate that has failed to break through all of the other noise. Immigration reform could help the economy grow--if done the right way.
Instead of getting bogged down in negotiations about amnesty and its various forms, conservatives should drive the conversation toward STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) and H1-B visas. These visas can help bring the world’s best and brightest to America--the kind of people who will start businesses, buy homes, pay taxes, and contribute to society.
Conservatives can take a solutions-oriented lead in driving economic growth in America’s high-tech sector by pushing through Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) Skills Visa Act independent of other legislation. The bill would make more H1-B visas available to foreign graduates of U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees who are already in America, allowing us to capitalize on the investment we have made in educating these young people. By bringing this legislation to an immediate floor vote and pressuring the Senate to do the same, House Republicans can set the narrative on the immigration debate.
At a briefing on immigration reform at Microsoft’s offices in Washington, DC, this week, some of the brightest minds in the conservative movement discussed the tricky intersection between technology, immigration, economic growth, and electoral politics.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the conservative think tank American Action Forum, presented on the potential economic benefits of immigration reform. With birth rates in America slipping toward the low levels of continental Europe, we are increasingly reliant on immigrants to keep our population--and accordingly, our labor force, GDP, and economy--from declining.
Holtz-Eakin cautioned, however, that immigration reform must be designed to attract more skilled immigrants looking for work. Among the industrialized nations, the U.S. grants comparatively few visas for economic reasons and by far the most visas for family reunification reasons. For immigration reform to work, he argued, America should follow nations like the U.K. in prioritizing work visas for immigrants with specialized knowledge.
Nowhere is this specialized knowledge more needed than in the STEM fields, where despite the Obama economy’s high unemployment, there are more jobs available than qualified applicants.
According to BLS statistics, the economy creates 3 jobs requiring a B.S. in computer science for every one college student graduating with a B.S. in computer science. These fields represent an opportunity for the brightest tech minds of the world to help jumpstart our economy here in America.
Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the CATO Institute, remarked that the system that many of our ancestors used to enter the country in the early 20th century no longer exists. Finding a modern-day answer to Ellis Island could help streamline legal immigration and fix our broken system.
Immigration reform also represents a ticking time bomb for the Republican Party. Whit Ayres, director of Resurgent Republic, showed charts detailing the decreasing percentage of whites in the electorate, and the Hispanic community’s increasing preference for Democrats. With non-Hispanic whites expected to become a minority of the population by 2040 and the Hispanic population’s continued growth, Republicans simply must make inroads with nonwhite immigrants to remain a national party.
On this point, it was encouraging to hear Dr. Barret Duke of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention talk about his efforts to engage his membership in the immigration debate, and discuss the importance of the evangelical community’s support to the success of broad immigration reform.
STEM visas may not be a “magic bullet” to drive minority voters to the GOP, but they represent a facet of immigration reform that conservatives can embrace. The panelists at this event explained the multitude of reasons why these visas are good, conservative policy, and by promoting a plan to reform immigration based around STEM, Republicans can show the nonwhite community that they are serious about reaching out and welcoming them into the party.
SOURCE
Australian conservative leader takes a tough line on illegal immigrants
Says they will NEVER be granted citizenship
The Coalition has ramped up its hardline stance on refugees, announcing on Friday that almost 32,000 asylum seekers who have already arrived in Australia by boat will never get permanent settlement as well as stripping them of the right to appeal to the courts.
The Coalition would also introduce indefinite work-for-the-dole obligations for those found to be refugees.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott channelled former prime minister John Howard from 2001 when announcing the change to the policy in Melbourne. "The essential point is, this is our country and we determine who comes here," Mr Abbott said.
In 2001, Mr Howard, in the wake of the Tampa stand-off, made a speech at the Coalition's election campaign launch and declared: "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."
The crackdown on asylum seekers already in Australia has outraged the Greens and refugee advocates, with Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young likening it to an "arms race on who can be the cruelest".
As part of the toughened policy, a Coalition government will scrap the right of asylum seekers to appeal to the courts, which in the March quarter brought the number of asylum seekers who were granted refugee status from 65.3 per cent to more than 90 per cent.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the Coalition would return to a "non-statutory" process, in which a single caseworker would decide the fate of asylum seekers.
According to Department of Immigration figures compiled last Friday, 31,986 asylum seekers are either in the community on bridging visas, in community detention, in mainland detention centres or on Manus Island and Nauru.
Mr Morrison and Mr Abbott said on Friday that a Coalition government would deny them the right to ever settle in Australia, creating a crucial point of difference between the two parties, now united on stopping the boats.
"The key points of difference are that Labor would give them permanent visas, but we'll give them temporary visas," Mr Morrison said.
He also flagged tough new rules for assessing the refugee claims of those who arrive by boat without documentation, despite it not being illegal to claim asylum in Australia without papers.
Evoking Howard
The Coalition Leader said he wanted to get back to the "effectiveness" of border protection that operated during the Howard years.
During the last five years of the Howard government, there were on average, three boats a year, he said.
"I will regard myself as having succeeded very well if we can get back to a situation of having three boats a year," he said, adding that the "ideal" would be zero boats.
Mr Abbott said that he was "confident" that the Coalition would reach the three-boats-per-year level by the time it was "well into" a first term of government.
Mr Abbott praised Mr Morrison, saying he had showed "tremendous strength" and "a touch of compassion" in the shadow immigration portfolio.
Mr Morrison said he wanted to end the "tick and flick" approach of Labor, "which is seeing nine out of 10 peopl
SOURCE
STEM Visas Should Be No-Brainer In Immigration Debate
Although the conversation on immigration reform tends to unfold in terms of border security, enforcement of laws, and pathways to citizenship – there is one critical aspect this debate that has failed to break through all of the other noise. Immigration reform could help the economy grow--if done the right way.
Instead of getting bogged down in negotiations about amnesty and its various forms, conservatives should drive the conversation toward STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) and H1-B visas. These visas can help bring the world’s best and brightest to America--the kind of people who will start businesses, buy homes, pay taxes, and contribute to society.
Conservatives can take a solutions-oriented lead in driving economic growth in America’s high-tech sector by pushing through Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) Skills Visa Act independent of other legislation. The bill would make more H1-B visas available to foreign graduates of U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees who are already in America, allowing us to capitalize on the investment we have made in educating these young people. By bringing this legislation to an immediate floor vote and pressuring the Senate to do the same, House Republicans can set the narrative on the immigration debate.
At a briefing on immigration reform at Microsoft’s offices in Washington, DC, this week, some of the brightest minds in the conservative movement discussed the tricky intersection between technology, immigration, economic growth, and electoral politics.
Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the conservative think tank American Action Forum, presented on the potential economic benefits of immigration reform. With birth rates in America slipping toward the low levels of continental Europe, we are increasingly reliant on immigrants to keep our population--and accordingly, our labor force, GDP, and economy--from declining.
Holtz-Eakin cautioned, however, that immigration reform must be designed to attract more skilled immigrants looking for work. Among the industrialized nations, the U.S. grants comparatively few visas for economic reasons and by far the most visas for family reunification reasons. For immigration reform to work, he argued, America should follow nations like the U.K. in prioritizing work visas for immigrants with specialized knowledge.
Nowhere is this specialized knowledge more needed than in the STEM fields, where despite the Obama economy’s high unemployment, there are more jobs available than qualified applicants.
According to BLS statistics, the economy creates 3 jobs requiring a B.S. in computer science for every one college student graduating with a B.S. in computer science. These fields represent an opportunity for the brightest tech minds of the world to help jumpstart our economy here in America.
Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the CATO Institute, remarked that the system that many of our ancestors used to enter the country in the early 20th century no longer exists. Finding a modern-day answer to Ellis Island could help streamline legal immigration and fix our broken system.
Immigration reform also represents a ticking time bomb for the Republican Party. Whit Ayres, director of Resurgent Republic, showed charts detailing the decreasing percentage of whites in the electorate, and the Hispanic community’s increasing preference for Democrats. With non-Hispanic whites expected to become a minority of the population by 2040 and the Hispanic population’s continued growth, Republicans simply must make inroads with nonwhite immigrants to remain a national party.
On this point, it was encouraging to hear Dr. Barret Duke of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention talk about his efforts to engage his membership in the immigration debate, and discuss the importance of the evangelical community’s support to the success of broad immigration reform.
STEM visas may not be a “magic bullet” to drive minority voters to the GOP, but they represent a facet of immigration reform that conservatives can embrace. The panelists at this event explained the multitude of reasons why these visas are good, conservative policy, and by promoting a plan to reform immigration based around STEM, Republicans can show the nonwhite community that they are serious about reaching out and welcoming them into the party.
SOURCE
Australian conservative leader takes a tough line on illegal immigrants
Says they will NEVER be granted citizenship
The Coalition has ramped up its hardline stance on refugees, announcing on Friday that almost 32,000 asylum seekers who have already arrived in Australia by boat will never get permanent settlement as well as stripping them of the right to appeal to the courts.
The Coalition would also introduce indefinite work-for-the-dole obligations for those found to be refugees.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott channelled former prime minister John Howard from 2001 when announcing the change to the policy in Melbourne. "The essential point is, this is our country and we determine who comes here," Mr Abbott said.
In 2001, Mr Howard, in the wake of the Tampa stand-off, made a speech at the Coalition's election campaign launch and declared: "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."
The crackdown on asylum seekers already in Australia has outraged the Greens and refugee advocates, with Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young likening it to an "arms race on who can be the cruelest".
As part of the toughened policy, a Coalition government will scrap the right of asylum seekers to appeal to the courts, which in the March quarter brought the number of asylum seekers who were granted refugee status from 65.3 per cent to more than 90 per cent.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the Coalition would return to a "non-statutory" process, in which a single caseworker would decide the fate of asylum seekers.
According to Department of Immigration figures compiled last Friday, 31,986 asylum seekers are either in the community on bridging visas, in community detention, in mainland detention centres or on Manus Island and Nauru.
Mr Morrison and Mr Abbott said on Friday that a Coalition government would deny them the right to ever settle in Australia, creating a crucial point of difference between the two parties, now united on stopping the boats.
"The key points of difference are that Labor would give them permanent visas, but we'll give them temporary visas," Mr Morrison said.
He also flagged tough new rules for assessing the refugee claims of those who arrive by boat without documentation, despite it not being illegal to claim asylum in Australia without papers.
Evoking Howard
The Coalition Leader said he wanted to get back to the "effectiveness" of border protection that operated during the Howard years.
During the last five years of the Howard government, there were on average, three boats a year, he said.
"I will regard myself as having succeeded very well if we can get back to a situation of having three boats a year," he said, adding that the "ideal" would be zero boats.
Mr Abbott said that he was "confident" that the Coalition would reach the three-boats-per-year level by the time it was "well into" a first term of government.
Mr Abbott praised Mr Morrison, saying he had showed "tremendous strength" and "a touch of compassion" in the shadow immigration portfolio.
Mr Morrison said he wanted to end the "tick and flick" approach of Labor, "which is seeing nine out of 10 peopl
SOURCE
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Immigration or Invasion?
What we insist on calling “immigration” from the Third World to Western European countries like Britain is a historically new phenomenon, for which a case can be made that other, more appropriate terms should be used — like “colonization” and “invasion.”
The definition of “colony,” from which the word “colonization” is derived, is: a) a body of people living in a new territory but maintaining ties with their homeland or b) a number of people coming from the same country, sharing the same ethnic origin or speaking the same language, who reside in a foreign country or city, or a particular section of it.
Either could apply to the people coming to live in Europe from Asia and Africa.
In reference to colonization, dictionaries add “relating to the developing world,” but this is only because colonization primarily occurred there in the past. Word meanings have to change to adapt to the new historic realities.
Similarly, the expressions “native” and “indigenous” previously referred to the original inhabitants of non-European continents, whereas now they are used to describe Germans, French, British, Swedes, Dutch and so on.
“Invasion” has three main meanings: a) the act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer; b) a large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease; c) an intrusion or encroachment, an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
The latter is a perfectly apt description of what is happening in Western Europe.
Even “ethnic cleansing” could be used, since local populations are being replaced by different ethnic groups. London, for instance, is no longer a white-British-majority city, although mainstream media like the BBC and London’s own paper, the Evening Standard, barely mention it, to say nothing of the city mayor Boris Johnson.
From Wikipedia:
"The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.”
[...]
Terry Martin has defined ethnic cleansing as “the forcible removal of an ethnically defined population from a given territory” and as “occupying the central part of a continuum between genocide on one end and nonviolent pressured ethnic emigration on the other end.”
European native populations are being replaced because many locals, tired of being colonized, flee their countries, cities or neighborhoods.
The proportion of white British Londoners fell drastically from 60 percent in 2001 to 44.9 per cent in 2011, partly due to the arrival of so many foreign nationals and partly to a mass exodus of white Britons. David Goodhart, director of Demos, writes in The Financial Times:
"Over the decade between the 2001 and 2011 censuses, the number of white British Londoners fell by more than 600,000 (17 per cent). That is about three times the fall over the previous census period, 1991 to 2001.
“Most of the leading academic geographers did not expect London to become a majority minority city for another 20 or 30 years – they underestimated the extent to which white British people have opted to leave an increasingly diverse London,” says Eric Kaufmann, an academic at Birkbeck College who is leading a project on “white flight” at Demos, the think-tank I lead."
Six hundred thousand is a big city disappearing in just 10 years.
Are we sure that Londoners have abandoned their city because of this “cultural enrichment”? Looking at the areas where white flight mostly occurs provides reasonable evidence that they do: the most multi-racial districts tend to experience high levels of it.
What the large-scale influx of foreigners to Europe can no longer be called is “immigration.” Immigration is what you have when, for example, small groups of French go to live in Britain or the British in Spain.
What distinguishes invasion from immigration are three things: the volume of people involved in the movement, the span of time and frequency of these movements — the same number of people moving to live in a country over 4 years as opposed to 400 years — and the kind of people, in particular how similar or alien to the natives they are, and how easily or improbably they’ll integrate.
The sheer numbers of people who have come to live in the UK in the last few decades have negatively affected the indigenous population’s quality of life in a serious, profound way, even assuming that those people were all law-abiding, upright citizens, which they are not.
There are many areas where this is occurring, including jobs, social services, education and public health – with tuberculosis constantly rising largely due to immigration.
A classic example is the current housing shortage. The UK is suffering its worst housing crisis in modern history. Two or more household units cram into one dwelling, and young people, not being able to afford to move out, live with their parents.
It would be trivializing the issue to say that all housing problems are created by immigration, but it’s impossible to deny the obvious fact they are exacerbating it.
There are other factors contributing to the housing crisis, including the very low interest rates, which result in fewer forced sellers, and the welfare system that, by underwriting sometimes exorbitant rent bills for people who’ve never worked, indirectly encourage landlords to charge more, thus driving up both rental and purchase prices for those who do work.
But one of the main causes is the high number of immigrants increasing the demand for dwellings, while the supply remains low, therefore pushing up house buying and renting prices.
Liberal commentators say that there is no evidence for that, but the evidence is in the most self-explanatory statistics: the more people are in the country, the more properties are needed.
Most immigrants rent, rather than buy, a property in the first 5-10 years since their arrival, which inevitably increases rental prices for everyone, including the indigenous people.
Social housing is also in limited supply. Therefore, the immigrant population that takes a share of it deprives the natives. The percentages are roughly the same: 17 percent of British live in council-rented accommodations, 18 percent of foreigners do.
Leftists and charities would want the government to “build more affordable housing” and “enough homes to meet demand” rather than limit immigration, although it’s difficult to see why the government should act like a construction company in preference to a body that protects and defends the country’s borders.
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Blogs
1. A Mexican Actor's View of Hollywood's Projection of Illegal Immigration to 2154
2. That Handsome Illegal Wanting to Be a Marine - Tell It to the President!
3. RNC Head: U.S. Sovereignty "Horrific", Doesn't Have "Anything to Do with Our Party"
4. Media Misleads on True Nature of H-1Bs
5. Would U.S. Gain Financially if Illegals Joined the Tax System?
6. Mark Zuckerberg's Clever Response to Steve King
7. President Obama's Immigration Sophistry: Part 2
8. Good Reason to Say "No" to Amnesty: It Helps South-of-Border Tyrants
9. Asylum Antics
10. President Obama's Immigration "Bipartisan" Sophistry: Part 1
11. A New Immigration Policy Maker — John Sandweg, Acting Head of ICE
12. Republican Establishment Swallows the Democrat Line on Immigration Reform - Hook, Line, and Sinker
13. A SAFE Ending
14. The GOP's Immigration Leverage: The Power of Options
15. Everything Ezra Klein Knows About Immigration Is Wrong
16. Four Levels of Immorality Within the Illegal Immigration Business
Immigration or Invasion?
What we insist on calling “immigration” from the Third World to Western European countries like Britain is a historically new phenomenon, for which a case can be made that other, more appropriate terms should be used — like “colonization” and “invasion.”
The definition of “colony,” from which the word “colonization” is derived, is: a) a body of people living in a new territory but maintaining ties with their homeland or b) a number of people coming from the same country, sharing the same ethnic origin or speaking the same language, who reside in a foreign country or city, or a particular section of it.
Either could apply to the people coming to live in Europe from Asia and Africa.
In reference to colonization, dictionaries add “relating to the developing world,” but this is only because colonization primarily occurred there in the past. Word meanings have to change to adapt to the new historic realities.
Similarly, the expressions “native” and “indigenous” previously referred to the original inhabitants of non-European continents, whereas now they are used to describe Germans, French, British, Swedes, Dutch and so on.
“Invasion” has three main meanings: a) the act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer; b) a large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease; c) an intrusion or encroachment, an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
The latter is a perfectly apt description of what is happening in Western Europe.
Even “ethnic cleansing” could be used, since local populations are being replaced by different ethnic groups. London, for instance, is no longer a white-British-majority city, although mainstream media like the BBC and London’s own paper, the Evening Standard, barely mention it, to say nothing of the city mayor Boris Johnson.
From Wikipedia:
"The official United Nations definition of ethnic cleansing is “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.”
[...]
Terry Martin has defined ethnic cleansing as “the forcible removal of an ethnically defined population from a given territory” and as “occupying the central part of a continuum between genocide on one end and nonviolent pressured ethnic emigration on the other end.”
European native populations are being replaced because many locals, tired of being colonized, flee their countries, cities or neighborhoods.
The proportion of white British Londoners fell drastically from 60 percent in 2001 to 44.9 per cent in 2011, partly due to the arrival of so many foreign nationals and partly to a mass exodus of white Britons. David Goodhart, director of Demos, writes in The Financial Times:
"Over the decade between the 2001 and 2011 censuses, the number of white British Londoners fell by more than 600,000 (17 per cent). That is about three times the fall over the previous census period, 1991 to 2001.
“Most of the leading academic geographers did not expect London to become a majority minority city for another 20 or 30 years – they underestimated the extent to which white British people have opted to leave an increasingly diverse London,” says Eric Kaufmann, an academic at Birkbeck College who is leading a project on “white flight” at Demos, the think-tank I lead."
Six hundred thousand is a big city disappearing in just 10 years.
Are we sure that Londoners have abandoned their city because of this “cultural enrichment”? Looking at the areas where white flight mostly occurs provides reasonable evidence that they do: the most multi-racial districts tend to experience high levels of it.
What the large-scale influx of foreigners to Europe can no longer be called is “immigration.” Immigration is what you have when, for example, small groups of French go to live in Britain or the British in Spain.
What distinguishes invasion from immigration are three things: the volume of people involved in the movement, the span of time and frequency of these movements — the same number of people moving to live in a country over 4 years as opposed to 400 years — and the kind of people, in particular how similar or alien to the natives they are, and how easily or improbably they’ll integrate.
The sheer numbers of people who have come to live in the UK in the last few decades have negatively affected the indigenous population’s quality of life in a serious, profound way, even assuming that those people were all law-abiding, upright citizens, which they are not.
There are many areas where this is occurring, including jobs, social services, education and public health – with tuberculosis constantly rising largely due to immigration.
A classic example is the current housing shortage. The UK is suffering its worst housing crisis in modern history. Two or more household units cram into one dwelling, and young people, not being able to afford to move out, live with their parents.
It would be trivializing the issue to say that all housing problems are created by immigration, but it’s impossible to deny the obvious fact they are exacerbating it.
There are other factors contributing to the housing crisis, including the very low interest rates, which result in fewer forced sellers, and the welfare system that, by underwriting sometimes exorbitant rent bills for people who’ve never worked, indirectly encourage landlords to charge more, thus driving up both rental and purchase prices for those who do work.
But one of the main causes is the high number of immigrants increasing the demand for dwellings, while the supply remains low, therefore pushing up house buying and renting prices.
Liberal commentators say that there is no evidence for that, but the evidence is in the most self-explanatory statistics: the more people are in the country, the more properties are needed.
Most immigrants rent, rather than buy, a property in the first 5-10 years since their arrival, which inevitably increases rental prices for everyone, including the indigenous people.
Social housing is also in limited supply. Therefore, the immigrant population that takes a share of it deprives the natives. The percentages are roughly the same: 17 percent of British live in council-rented accommodations, 18 percent of foreigners do.
Leftists and charities would want the government to “build more affordable housing” and “enough homes to meet demand” rather than limit immigration, although it’s difficult to see why the government should act like a construction company in preference to a body that protects and defends the country’s borders.
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Blogs
1. A Mexican Actor's View of Hollywood's Projection of Illegal Immigration to 2154
2. That Handsome Illegal Wanting to Be a Marine - Tell It to the President!
3. RNC Head: U.S. Sovereignty "Horrific", Doesn't Have "Anything to Do with Our Party"
4. Media Misleads on True Nature of H-1Bs
5. Would U.S. Gain Financially if Illegals Joined the Tax System?
6. Mark Zuckerberg's Clever Response to Steve King
7. President Obama's Immigration Sophistry: Part 2
8. Good Reason to Say "No" to Amnesty: It Helps South-of-Border Tyrants
9. Asylum Antics
10. President Obama's Immigration "Bipartisan" Sophistry: Part 1
11. A New Immigration Policy Maker — John Sandweg, Acting Head of ICE
12. Republican Establishment Swallows the Democrat Line on Immigration Reform - Hook, Line, and Sinker
13. A SAFE Ending
14. The GOP's Immigration Leverage: The Power of Options
15. Everything Ezra Klein Knows About Immigration Is Wrong
16. Four Levels of Immorality Within the Illegal Immigration Business
Monday, August 19, 2013
Australian Left accused of demonising migrants
TONY Abbott has called on Kevin Rudd to distance himself from a $1 million union advertising crackdown on foreign workers, accusing the Prime Minister of demonising migrants who came to Australia through proper legal avenues.
The Opposition Leader said he was appalled at the stance taken by Mr Rudd on the issue, saying that 457 visa holders contributed to Australian society by working and paying taxes.
“Mr Rudd really should disassociate himself from this particular union campaign, particularly given one of the first things that he said on coming back into the Prime Ministership was `I'm sick of all the politics of division',” Mr Abbott said.
The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) will spend $1 million over the next two weeks in its advertising campaign to claim Mr Abbott wants to “massively expand” the temporary 457 visa program and put foreign workers first.
The campaign includes radio and billboard advertisements as well as television advertisements that began screening last night on free-to-air television networks in Tasmania and Queensland.
One of the ads features a worker who was among 106 redundant employees made to train 457 visa holders kept on by the employer.
Mr Abbott today said employers already had to meet requirement conditions to use foreign workers and that it was already more cost effective to source domestic workers to plug skills shortages.
“It's far more expensive to employ a 457 visa holder than it is to employ a local,” Mr Abbott said.”They aren't stealing our jobs, they are building our country.
“It appalls me, it really appalls me that the unions and Mr Rudd are running this campaign effectively to demonise the skilled migrants upon whose backs our country has been built.
“Just about every Australian is a migrant or a descendent of migrants and frankly we should be honouring and cherishing the contributions that migrants who've come to this country legally, the right way to join our team, have made.”
Mr Abbott made the comments in the western Sydney seat of Lindsay, where he released the Coalition's policy to crack down on gun imports.
Earlier, he was in the Sydney electorate of Bennelong to announce his small business policy.
Mr Rudd's first act after being returned to the prime ministership was to pass through the lower house Labor's contentious 457 visa legislation, placing more onerous requirements on employers.
The new restrictions include labour market testing provisions for employers, tougher monitoring of compliance by the Fair Work Ombudsman and strengthening the ability of the immigration department to prosecute wrongdoers.
It also includes a new dob-in hotline, allowing employees to report employers for unfairly treating foreign workers. It will also require businesses to allocate one to two per cent of payroll for training purposes for every year of the visa sponsorship.
The legislation was opposed by business and industry groups who pressed for evidence of rorts under the current regime.
SOURCE
Jealousy of LEGAL immigrants in West Australia
THE Irish are threatening to boycott WA over a Budget policy to impose $4000 public school fees for children of parents working here on 457 visas.
While some families look at moving interstate or overseas because they can't afford to pay up to $20,000 a year for five children, doctors warn the health system will suffer and principals fear some children simply won't go to school.
The decision to charge $4000 a child, announced in the State Budget this month, is being criticised internationally, making headlines in Dublin's The Irish Times this week.
Australian Medical Association WA president Richard Choong said he had received worrying feedback from Britain and Ireland and the fees would be a "game changer" for many overseas-trained GPs looking to move to WA on a 457 visa.
"This is one of the most negative policy decisions that I have seen for some years and one that will have a seriously negative impact on health in WA," he said. "We know from comments already made to us that this will encourage some GPs on 457 visas to leave WA for other states, or to move to another country.
"For others looking to come to WA from overseas it will mean a complete rethink of their plans. Not many will be able to carry a $4000 fee for the education of their children, especially if they have three or four children."
WA Primary Principals Association president Steve Breen said there was an incorrect assumption that 457 visa holders were highly skilled and therefore highly paid.
"For example, in Katanning there are a number of 457 workers in the abattoir they will struggle to pay the $4000 per student to send their kids to school," he said. "There is a potential for these children to not come to school."
The latest report from the Immigration Department shows there are 6180 people from the UK working in WA on 457 visas, followed by 4070 from Ireland, 3130 from the Philippines and 1330 from the US.
Education Minister Peter Collier said he had received mixed feedback and the Government was working towards making more information available soon.
Irish Families in Perth president Eimear Beattie said families of up to five children were considering moving elsewhere.
"There is a lot of panic out there because a lot of people have got huge families," she said. "This will deter a lot of people from coming out here. A lot of people who want to come out here are now asking if it's even worth coming here on the 457 visa.
"A lot of the families already here are actually thinking of leaving the country altogether, or moving to another state, or going to private schools."
Mother-of-five Claire Calvey said her family, who moved to Paraburdoo last year after arriving on a 457 visa from Ireland, was considering a move to Canada. She is circulating a petition, which has almost 1000 signatures.
Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson said the school fee threatened to "undermine the effectiveness of the 457 visa scheme for current visa holders and their employers".
Opposition education spokeswoman Sue Ellery said a parliamentary inquiry had recommended any school fees be means-tested. "I am concerned that this is going to create a hidden class of children who are not educated," she said.
Mr Collier said the details would be finalised "as soon as possible" but he was confident "that WA will continue to be an attractive working destination for people from overseas".
The number of children of 457 visa holders attending public schools has jumped from 290 in 2005 to 8600 this year.
SOURCE
Australian Left accused of demonising migrants
TONY Abbott has called on Kevin Rudd to distance himself from a $1 million union advertising crackdown on foreign workers, accusing the Prime Minister of demonising migrants who came to Australia through proper legal avenues.
The Opposition Leader said he was appalled at the stance taken by Mr Rudd on the issue, saying that 457 visa holders contributed to Australian society by working and paying taxes.
“Mr Rudd really should disassociate himself from this particular union campaign, particularly given one of the first things that he said on coming back into the Prime Ministership was `I'm sick of all the politics of division',” Mr Abbott said.
The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) will spend $1 million over the next two weeks in its advertising campaign to claim Mr Abbott wants to “massively expand” the temporary 457 visa program and put foreign workers first.
The campaign includes radio and billboard advertisements as well as television advertisements that began screening last night on free-to-air television networks in Tasmania and Queensland.
One of the ads features a worker who was among 106 redundant employees made to train 457 visa holders kept on by the employer.
Mr Abbott today said employers already had to meet requirement conditions to use foreign workers and that it was already more cost effective to source domestic workers to plug skills shortages.
“It's far more expensive to employ a 457 visa holder than it is to employ a local,” Mr Abbott said.”They aren't stealing our jobs, they are building our country.
“It appalls me, it really appalls me that the unions and Mr Rudd are running this campaign effectively to demonise the skilled migrants upon whose backs our country has been built.
“Just about every Australian is a migrant or a descendent of migrants and frankly we should be honouring and cherishing the contributions that migrants who've come to this country legally, the right way to join our team, have made.”
Mr Abbott made the comments in the western Sydney seat of Lindsay, where he released the Coalition's policy to crack down on gun imports.
Earlier, he was in the Sydney electorate of Bennelong to announce his small business policy.
Mr Rudd's first act after being returned to the prime ministership was to pass through the lower house Labor's contentious 457 visa legislation, placing more onerous requirements on employers.
The new restrictions include labour market testing provisions for employers, tougher monitoring of compliance by the Fair Work Ombudsman and strengthening the ability of the immigration department to prosecute wrongdoers.
It also includes a new dob-in hotline, allowing employees to report employers for unfairly treating foreign workers. It will also require businesses to allocate one to two per cent of payroll for training purposes for every year of the visa sponsorship.
The legislation was opposed by business and industry groups who pressed for evidence of rorts under the current regime.
SOURCE
Jealousy of LEGAL immigrants in West Australia
THE Irish are threatening to boycott WA over a Budget policy to impose $4000 public school fees for children of parents working here on 457 visas.
While some families look at moving interstate or overseas because they can't afford to pay up to $20,000 a year for five children, doctors warn the health system will suffer and principals fear some children simply won't go to school.
The decision to charge $4000 a child, announced in the State Budget this month, is being criticised internationally, making headlines in Dublin's The Irish Times this week.
Australian Medical Association WA president Richard Choong said he had received worrying feedback from Britain and Ireland and the fees would be a "game changer" for many overseas-trained GPs looking to move to WA on a 457 visa.
"This is one of the most negative policy decisions that I have seen for some years and one that will have a seriously negative impact on health in WA," he said. "We know from comments already made to us that this will encourage some GPs on 457 visas to leave WA for other states, or to move to another country.
"For others looking to come to WA from overseas it will mean a complete rethink of their plans. Not many will be able to carry a $4000 fee for the education of their children, especially if they have three or four children."
WA Primary Principals Association president Steve Breen said there was an incorrect assumption that 457 visa holders were highly skilled and therefore highly paid.
"For example, in Katanning there are a number of 457 workers in the abattoir they will struggle to pay the $4000 per student to send their kids to school," he said. "There is a potential for these children to not come to school."
The latest report from the Immigration Department shows there are 6180 people from the UK working in WA on 457 visas, followed by 4070 from Ireland, 3130 from the Philippines and 1330 from the US.
Education Minister Peter Collier said he had received mixed feedback and the Government was working towards making more information available soon.
Irish Families in Perth president Eimear Beattie said families of up to five children were considering moving elsewhere.
"There is a lot of panic out there because a lot of people have got huge families," she said. "This will deter a lot of people from coming out here. A lot of people who want to come out here are now asking if it's even worth coming here on the 457 visa.
"A lot of the families already here are actually thinking of leaving the country altogether, or moving to another state, or going to private schools."
Mother-of-five Claire Calvey said her family, who moved to Paraburdoo last year after arriving on a 457 visa from Ireland, was considering a move to Canada. She is circulating a petition, which has almost 1000 signatures.
Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson said the school fee threatened to "undermine the effectiveness of the 457 visa scheme for current visa holders and their employers".
Opposition education spokeswoman Sue Ellery said a parliamentary inquiry had recommended any school fees be means-tested. "I am concerned that this is going to create a hidden class of children who are not educated," she said.
Mr Collier said the details would be finalised "as soon as possible" but he was confident "that WA will continue to be an attractive working destination for people from overseas".
The number of children of 457 visa holders attending public schools has jumped from 290 in 2005 to 8600 this year.
SOURCE
Sunday, August 18, 2013
More immigration puts public tolerance at a tipping point
IMMIGRATION – Ooh! You said a rude word… Not any more. The “I- word” has broken the sound barrier constructed by the Progressive Consensus.
The British public will no longer allow itself to be silenced by the political class on the topic that is now its greatest concern.
Future historians will be baffled to comprehend how the demographic revolution – or rather imposition – of the past half century was implemented. Since the engineering of population movement has always been the most controversial activity imaginable, normally provoking war, the apparent acquiescence of the British public, long known for its sturdy outspokenness and sense of identity, in the drastic reconfiguring of society will appear inexplicable. The obvious question will be: was the population initially favourable to immigration? Hardly. When Enoch Powell made his speech warning against uncontrolled immigration in 1968, the polls recorded 74 per cent of the public in agreement with him.
So, what happened? What happened was the emergence of guided democracy under a new liberal political coalition. The cross-party consensus had tested the water by abolishing capital punishment against the wishes of the public; that emboldened it to extend the dictatorship of the consensus by imposing immigration. Edward Heath’s sacking of Powell was an iconic moment in developing this system of soft totalitarianism. Free speech was eroded, nominally by a succession of “race relations” laws, effectively by the demonisation of all contradictory opinions. The BBC, the print media, modish “opinion formers” all conspired to stifle debate on an issue of critical national importance. To query unrestricted immigration was “racialist”, later modified to “racist”; society was induced to police itself.
Under New Labour the onslaught was intensified. As Andrew Neather, former speech writer to Tony Blair, revealed in 2009: “It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers… was to open up the UK to mass migration… the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” Again, historians will marvel at the frivolity of so irresponsible an approach to such an important issue. So far from rendering “the Right’s” arguments out of date, the migratory flood New Labour encouraged has brought them to the top of the political agenda. Under New Labour “net” immigration quadrupled as three million legal, and probably one million illegal, migrants entered Britain, while one million Britons left.
The weasel term “net” immigration is a favoured device of those whose interest it is to sweep immigration statistics under the carpet. The presumption is that the departures are homebound Polish plumbers; the reality is that many are native-born Britons, further aggravating the demographic imbalance. Today, 12 per cent of the population were born outside the UK; in 2011, 25.5 per cent of births in England and Wales were to mothers born overseas and in London the figure was 56.7 per cent. The lower figures for Scotland are seen as a reproach by Scottish ministers who avow their commitment to increase immigration. Send for the sanity inspector.
For decades, politicians were banned from discussing immigration: any attempt at debate was denounced as “playing the race card”. Bogus asylum seekers were awarded benefits and houses, allowed to indulge in endless spurious legal appeals at taxpayers’ expense and, when the last legal resort was exhausted, still not deported. As EU migrants became the focus of concern, the “racist” charge could hardly be sustained when those being objected to were white-skinned, so “xenophobic” was substituted in the liberal lexicon of knee-jerk abuse.
Now it has emerged that, even before next January’s open-doors deadline, there has already been a 35 per cent increase in immigration from Romania and Bulgaria since last April. To the dismay of the liberal consensus, the public is not dancing in the streets to celebrate this increase in diversity; instead, it looks like a tipping point in public tolerance, not just of immigration but of the political class. This is partly fuelled by awareness that there are already 2,400 Eastern European immigrants enriching our culture in venues such as Wormwood Scrubs, at an annual cost of £90m.
The politicians are making noises about controlling immigration; of course they will do nothing, beyond inanities such as sending out vans with posters advising illegal immigrants to return home. We would not even be talking about it but for the advent of Ukip, the first party to break the consensus and give the public a voice. Among Ukip voters, Europe is down at fifth place in their list of concerns: immigration and homosexual marriage share first place. Such unenlightened attitudes are enough to make a BBC executive on a six-figure salary choke. There is a bad time coming for the progressive consensus.
SOURCE
Papua New Guinea is 100% behind asylum deal with Australia
PNG'S Prime Minister Peter O'Neill has confirmed his country's commitment to the asylum seeker deal agreed with the Rudd government.
Fairfax media reported on Saturday that Mr O'Neill had said his country had not agreed to settle all asylum seekers found to be genuine refugees after they were processed on Manus Island.
Mr O'Neill reportedly said Australia would need to take back a share of them.
"There is no agreement that all genuine refugees will be settled in PNG," he said.
The coalition and the Australian Greens seized on the report, saying it showed the deal was unravelling.
But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the PNG government had confirmed its "100 per cent support" again on Saturday and he could guarantee that no person sent by a a people smuggler on a boat to Australia without a visa would be settled in Australia.
In a short statement released on Saturday night, Mr O'Neill said PNG reaffirmed its 100 per cent commitment to the agreement signed with Australia.
"People who are found to be refugees, identified through the process in collaboration with United Nation High Commission for Refugees will be settled in Papua New Guinea and other participating countries in the region," he said.
"They will not be returned to Australia under the agreement. PNG remains 100 per cent committed to the Regional Resettlement Agreement with Australia."
SOURCE
More immigration puts public tolerance at a tipping point
IMMIGRATION – Ooh! You said a rude word… Not any more. The “I- word” has broken the sound barrier constructed by the Progressive Consensus.
The British public will no longer allow itself to be silenced by the political class on the topic that is now its greatest concern.
Future historians will be baffled to comprehend how the demographic revolution – or rather imposition – of the past half century was implemented. Since the engineering of population movement has always been the most controversial activity imaginable, normally provoking war, the apparent acquiescence of the British public, long known for its sturdy outspokenness and sense of identity, in the drastic reconfiguring of society will appear inexplicable. The obvious question will be: was the population initially favourable to immigration? Hardly. When Enoch Powell made his speech warning against uncontrolled immigration in 1968, the polls recorded 74 per cent of the public in agreement with him.
So, what happened? What happened was the emergence of guided democracy under a new liberal political coalition. The cross-party consensus had tested the water by abolishing capital punishment against the wishes of the public; that emboldened it to extend the dictatorship of the consensus by imposing immigration. Edward Heath’s sacking of Powell was an iconic moment in developing this system of soft totalitarianism. Free speech was eroded, nominally by a succession of “race relations” laws, effectively by the demonisation of all contradictory opinions. The BBC, the print media, modish “opinion formers” all conspired to stifle debate on an issue of critical national importance. To query unrestricted immigration was “racialist”, later modified to “racist”; society was induced to police itself.
Under New Labour the onslaught was intensified. As Andrew Neather, former speech writer to Tony Blair, revealed in 2009: “It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers… was to open up the UK to mass migration… the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” Again, historians will marvel at the frivolity of so irresponsible an approach to such an important issue. So far from rendering “the Right’s” arguments out of date, the migratory flood New Labour encouraged has brought them to the top of the political agenda. Under New Labour “net” immigration quadrupled as three million legal, and probably one million illegal, migrants entered Britain, while one million Britons left.
The weasel term “net” immigration is a favoured device of those whose interest it is to sweep immigration statistics under the carpet. The presumption is that the departures are homebound Polish plumbers; the reality is that many are native-born Britons, further aggravating the demographic imbalance. Today, 12 per cent of the population were born outside the UK; in 2011, 25.5 per cent of births in England and Wales were to mothers born overseas and in London the figure was 56.7 per cent. The lower figures for Scotland are seen as a reproach by Scottish ministers who avow their commitment to increase immigration. Send for the sanity inspector.
For decades, politicians were banned from discussing immigration: any attempt at debate was denounced as “playing the race card”. Bogus asylum seekers were awarded benefits and houses, allowed to indulge in endless spurious legal appeals at taxpayers’ expense and, when the last legal resort was exhausted, still not deported. As EU migrants became the focus of concern, the “racist” charge could hardly be sustained when those being objected to were white-skinned, so “xenophobic” was substituted in the liberal lexicon of knee-jerk abuse.
Now it has emerged that, even before next January’s open-doors deadline, there has already been a 35 per cent increase in immigration from Romania and Bulgaria since last April. To the dismay of the liberal consensus, the public is not dancing in the streets to celebrate this increase in diversity; instead, it looks like a tipping point in public tolerance, not just of immigration but of the political class. This is partly fuelled by awareness that there are already 2,400 Eastern European immigrants enriching our culture in venues such as Wormwood Scrubs, at an annual cost of £90m.
The politicians are making noises about controlling immigration; of course they will do nothing, beyond inanities such as sending out vans with posters advising illegal immigrants to return home. We would not even be talking about it but for the advent of Ukip, the first party to break the consensus and give the public a voice. Among Ukip voters, Europe is down at fifth place in their list of concerns: immigration and homosexual marriage share first place. Such unenlightened attitudes are enough to make a BBC executive on a six-figure salary choke. There is a bad time coming for the progressive consensus.
SOURCE
Papua New Guinea is 100% behind asylum deal with Australia
PNG'S Prime Minister Peter O'Neill has confirmed his country's commitment to the asylum seeker deal agreed with the Rudd government.
Fairfax media reported on Saturday that Mr O'Neill had said his country had not agreed to settle all asylum seekers found to be genuine refugees after they were processed on Manus Island.
Mr O'Neill reportedly said Australia would need to take back a share of them.
"There is no agreement that all genuine refugees will be settled in PNG," he said.
The coalition and the Australian Greens seized on the report, saying it showed the deal was unravelling.
But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the PNG government had confirmed its "100 per cent support" again on Saturday and he could guarantee that no person sent by a a people smuggler on a boat to Australia without a visa would be settled in Australia.
In a short statement released on Saturday night, Mr O'Neill said PNG reaffirmed its 100 per cent commitment to the agreement signed with Australia.
"People who are found to be refugees, identified through the process in collaboration with United Nation High Commission for Refugees will be settled in Papua New Guinea and other participating countries in the region," he said.
"They will not be returned to Australia under the agreement. PNG remains 100 per cent committed to the Regional Resettlement Agreement with Australia."
SOURCE
Friday, August 16, 2013
Canada's Asylum Reform Reduces Claims by Half
Our northern neighbor shows that do-gooder aspects of immigration needn’t be masochistic self-flagellation for the receiving country. By contrast, the United States of Obama is currently doing a doormat imitation by its reaction to a new invasion gimmick of demanding asylum using just the right complaint phrase, namely that the pesticans have a “fear of persecution.” Mexicans et al are mouthing the correct words, even though their situation is one of high crime, not state oppression.
By that standard, Chicagoans could claim asylum in welcoming welfare havens like Sweden or Britain.
Canada has reasonably determined that not all nations are gulags of torture and cruelty. Claimants from genuine totalitarian states are therefore accorded more credibility than likely moochers.
Interestingly, the article below observes that a number of Mexicans have been admitted under the new rules. Some Mexes — specifically police officers, government officials and journalists who have opposed the cartels — might be allowed entry given the criteria of genuine individual danger. But that Canadian policy is entirely different than the surrender to invasion happening now in the US Southwest.
Michael Coren, of Canada’s SunTV, defended the new policy from accusations of it being mean-spirited from the usual open-borders suspects and diversity cultists.
SOURCE
Australian conservatives will henceforth deny settlement to illegals
THE Coalition's asylum seeker policy will take away the people smuggling model of permanant residency, deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop says.
"We will provide temporary residency, so should the situation in their home country improve, then they will be sent back to their home country to help rebuild that nation," Ms Bishop said on the Nine Network on Friday.
"It takes away the people smuggling model that they are selling and that is permanent residency."
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and his immigration spokesman Scott Morrison will announce on Friday that almost 32,000 asylum seekers already in Australia after arriving by boat will never get permanent settlement, creating a crucial point of difference between the coalition and Labor, Fairfax reported.
Ms Bishop said asylum seekers would also have work rights under the policy.
"There is a mutual obligation, if you are here on a temporary protection visa you will be expected to work," she said.
SOURCE
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Remember Maine! The Whitest State, Where Americans Are Still Doing Jobs That “Americans Won’t Do”
Everyone has heard the saying that immigrants—legal and otherwise—are simply “doing jobs Americans won’t do.” Jobs such as farm workers, janitors, landscaping, and housekeeping are labeled as “undesirable” work for Americans, and therefore, amnesty/increased immigration is needed in order to harvest crops, clean houses, and maintain lawn integrity. Yet one blue state seems to be doing just fine—trimmed lawns and all—with Americans doing jobs that “Americans won’t do.” That state is Maine—the whitest state in the Union.
In Maine, about four percent of farm laborers are non-citizens. In California, approximately 73% of farm laborers are non-citizens. California has approximately 2.2 million illegal immigrants residing within her borders. The number in Maine is so small it was not quantifiable in the 2000 Census.
Somehow, even without massive amounts of immigrant labor, Maine produces 25% of all of the lowbrush blueberries in North America in addition to one of the largest potato crops in the nation.
So while the Soviet-style agitprop line is that immigrants are “doing the jobs Americans won’t do,” this does not seem to be the case in the Pine Tree State. Maine’s population is around 1.4 million people, and of those, only a paltry 43,000 are foreign-born—a number which is likely inflated by the number of births across the Canadian border simply because the hospital there was closer.
Maine has experienced a 350% increase in the number of African immigrants since 2000. However, even with this invasion, the state is still 94.9% white, the whitest in the nation. A majority of its immigrant population comes from Canada and Europe—not exactly the stereotypical Hispanic housekeeper or farm laborer. Over half of Maine’s foreign-born residents are now U.S citizens.
Unlike in California, native-born Mainers have somehow retained the ability to pick crops and clean houses. In Aroostook County, the largest county east of the Mississippi and home to the majority of the potato production in the state, potatoes are picked not by immigrants—be they “guest workers” or the illegal variety—but by armies of high school aged children.
Most high schools in Aroostook County start two weeks earlier than elementary and middle schools, to account for a three-week long “harvest break” in late September to pick potatoes. The availability of the (nearly entirely white and native Mainer) schoolchildren is so crucial for the success of the harvest that farmers in several school districts were able to lobby schools to delay the start of the break by one week in 2012 in order to give the crop more time to grow. [Potato harvest break adjusted in parts of Aroostook County to meet farmers’ needs, By Julia Bayly, Bangor Daily News, September 14, 2012]It’s hard to imagine something similar happening in say, California’s central valley.
Even the liberals who make a living off of writing vacuous tracts about the horrors of welfare reform admit that the white, non-immigrant population of Maine is perfectly capable of and willing to do doing jobs that Americans supposedly won’t do.
Barbara Ehrenreich, honorary co-chair of Democratic Socialists of America and author of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, admitted in chapter two (“Scrubbing in Maine”) that she “chose Maine [to work in] for its whiteness”—meaning that nobody would be suspicious that a white housekeeper or maid might secretly be undercover writing a book.
Ehrenreich was also rather stunned at the fact that her (white) coworkers at Merry Maids were not falling over themselves in excitement when she revealed that she was only working there for what was essentially blue-collar pageantry. For her coworkers, working for Merry Maids was not a research activity: it was their best possible source of income.
The immigrants that actually move to Maine are generally not moving to come work on a farm. A popular destination point for a large percentage of non-European and Canadian immigrants is the city of Lewiston, which is located in Androscoggin County. The black population of Androscoggin County has been growing rapidly since 2001, when families of Somalis and Bantus began migrating to Lewiston, a predominantly working-class French-Canadian mill town. They were attracted to Maine by the low crime rates, good schools, and generous welfare benefits Maine had to offer.
According to the 2010 Census, the population of Androscoggin County is about 107,702. Of that number, 3.7% are black or African American, which breaks down to about 4,000 people. While that may seem small, that number is actually a more than 500% increase since the 2000 census, where the county was 0.66% black—for a total of 685 people.
The Somali population in the Lewiston area now is estimated to be around “6,000” total, but census data indicates that that guess is a little high. [Lewiston Somalis Call on Mayor to Apologize or Resign, By Susan Sharon, MPBN, October 4, 2012] Anyhow, instead of doing jobs Americans won’t do, data aggregated by the New York Times in 2009 shows that “>90%” (a polite way of saying “just about everyone”) of the black population in Androscoggin County was receiving food stamps. [Food Stamp Usage Across the Country, November 28, 2009]
In comparison, in 2009, 17% of the white population of Androscoggin County was receiving food stamps, far closer to the national average at the time.
For what it’s worth, downtown Lewiston has seen a number of Somali-owned shops open in recent years—and it’s a well-known fact that no American is willing to open a store, right?
Maine is proof that American citizens are willing and able to do so-called “undesirable” jobs. Mainers, unlike Californians, are actually given the opportunity to work as maids, landscapers, farmers, etc, and houses get cleaned, lawns get mowed, and blueberries get picked each year without major issue. Maine has no supply of cheap illegal immigrant labor, so it must rely on its best natural resource: the people of Maine.
SOURCE
Non-Americans and recent victims of an American education may be unaware that the title of the article above contains an allusion to a once popular slogan: "Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain!". The slogan refers to the sinking of the American battleship, "Maine", in Havana harbour in 1898
Australian Leftist leader plays down new route used by illegals to come to Australia
It sounds like there is reason for concern, however
IT'S time for the federal coalition and their Queensland counterparts to stop fearmongering on asylum seekers, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.
Four asylum seekers have been intercepted crossing the Torres Strait in recent days, prompting warnings from Queensland and federal Liberals that the state could become the new destination for boat people.
"I think it's time that Mr Abbott and his team, particularly those up here in far north Queensland, stopped the fearmongering," Mr Rudd told reporters in Townsville on Tuesday.
Premier Campbell Newman has warned that asylum seekers would use the "porous" border between Papua New Guinea and Queensland to enter the country after being resettled under the Rudd government's PNG solution.
Mr Rudd said it didn't matter where asylum seekers came from, if they arrived on a boat without a visa they would not be settled in Australia.
"Whether it's through Christmas Island or whether it's across the Torres Strait or whether it's from Antarctica, they'll be handled the same under this policy," the prime minister said.
Mr Rudd's comments came as another 39 single adult men were transferred to PNG's Manus Island under Labor's hardline resettlement policy.
Since Mr Rudd announced his PNG arrangement on July 19, 33 boats with 2185 passengers have arrived in Australian waters.
Of those people, 236 have been sent to Manus Island.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the movement of asylum seekers into the Torres Strait showed that the PNG deal on its own was not effective.
"All it does is open up a new front for the people smugglers," he told reporters at a campaign event on Sydney's outskirts.
SOURCE
August 14, 2013
Questions for Lawmakers on Immigration
Twenty questions on amnesty that politicians haven't answered
The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new report highlighting questions on immigration legislation that voters might ask their representatives when trying to determine their actual stance on the issue. Too many politicians have discussed immigration legislation proposals with clich‚d talking points that fail to describe the true impact of increasing legal immigration and amnestying 11 million illegal immigrants. The questions in this report are intended to help move the discussion beyond the evasions and platitudes usually offered by politicians.
The report contains twenty questions for lawmakers on a variety of topics, ranging from the impact an amnesty would have on unemployed Americans to the number of immigrants the proposed legislation would welcome into the United States. The questions also focus on provisions contained in the Senate bill (S.744) like E-Verify, the flawed "back taxes" and English language requirements, and the problem of conducting background checks on millions of illegal immigrants.
Additionally, the questions prompt legislators to respond to findings from the Congressional Budget Office that immigration legislation would lower the wages of many Americans, and that the Senate bill would allow up to two-thirds of illegal immigration to continue. The questions also encourage a response to immigration law enforcement officials who have come out against current proposals.
The report is available online at: www.cis.org/questions-for-lawmakers-on-immigration
"These are the type of questions that constituents and journalists should be asking of politicians promoting amnesty legislation," said Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies. "Thus far, too many politicians have shown a complete lack of understanding of the impact their legislation would have. These questions should foster a deeper conversation between the public and congressional leadership."
View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary at: http://cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Jon Feere
202-466-8185, jdf@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
Why Employers Hire Foreign Workers
It's Not Because of a Labor Shortage
The Center for Immigration Studies has published a new backgrounder, "Motivation for Hiring Alien Workers? Hint: It's Not a Labor Shortage", analyzing the reasons behind the employer push for a massive increase in temporary foreign worker admissions.
The new analysis finds that temporary alien workers are attractive to employers not only because of below-market wages but also because they are indentured by their terms of admission to the United States. Further, these workers are recruited from relatively docile, authority-fearing Third World populations and are thus can be easier to manage than Americans. Finally these programs allow the employer to avoid the nation's age discrimination laws and to hire a disproportionately young work force from overseas.
The backgrounder's author and a Fellow at the Center, David North, comments, "Politicians and advocates for mass immigration were successful in having an enormous increase in foreign worker programs like the H1-B inserted in the Senate bill (S. 744) by citing a labor shortage and the need for the 'best and the brightest.' However, a shortage only exists because employers are not willing to increase wages. It is clearly in their best interest, as opposed to the best interest of the American worker or the economy, to instead get Congress to adjust and expand the work force."
View the paper at: http://cis.org/labor-shortage-not-reason-employers-want-alien-workers.
North also discusses a rarely mentioned policy problem, ethnocentric hiring practices. An H1-B visa employer is not required to adhere to equal employment opportunity laws when hiring overseas, allowing him, if he so chooses, to hire from only one ethnic group or country. But the problem is bigger than just a few small operations; there are entire industries engaging in such practices. The backgrounder cites two specific examples, the outsourcing firms in the computer and IT-related fields, generally, and one set of tax-supported and charter schools, specifically.
Before laying out the motivation for employers to seek increased foreign workers, Mr. North debunks the idea that the United States has a labor shortage or lacks access to the necessary best and the brightest workers. According to the backgrounder, rather than targeting the programs to the limited number of unique situations, "these systems impose both serious displacement and wage-depression impacts on the U.S. labor market."
View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary at: http://cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Canada's Asylum Reform Reduces Claims by Half
Our northern neighbor shows that do-gooder aspects of immigration needn’t be masochistic self-flagellation for the receiving country. By contrast, the United States of Obama is currently doing a doormat imitation by its reaction to a new invasion gimmick of demanding asylum using just the right complaint phrase, namely that the pesticans have a “fear of persecution.” Mexicans et al are mouthing the correct words, even though their situation is one of high crime, not state oppression.
By that standard, Chicagoans could claim asylum in welcoming welfare havens like Sweden or Britain.
Canada has reasonably determined that not all nations are gulags of torture and cruelty. Claimants from genuine totalitarian states are therefore accorded more credibility than likely moochers.
Interestingly, the article below observes that a number of Mexicans have been admitted under the new rules. Some Mexes — specifically police officers, government officials and journalists who have opposed the cartels — might be allowed entry given the criteria of genuine individual danger. But that Canadian policy is entirely different than the surrender to invasion happening now in the US Southwest.
Michael Coren, of Canada’s SunTV, defended the new policy from accusations of it being mean-spirited from the usual open-borders suspects and diversity cultists.
Asylum claims down by more than half in 2013, Canada.com, August 12, 2013
OTTAWA — Little more than six months after the government first unveiled a list of so-called “safe” countries considered to be unlikely producers of refugees, the number of asylum claims has dropped dramatically.
In total, Canada received half as many asylum claims in the first half of this year as it did during the same period last year — 4,558 compared to 10,375.
Between January and June of this year, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) received just 104 claims from Hungary — once the chief producer of asylum seekers, many of them Roma, and a particular concern for the federal government which has argued many of them are illegitimate and merely abusing the system.
During the same period last year, Canada received 13 times as many claims from Hungary — 1,389 of them to be exact.
Meanwhile, 68 claims from Mexico — another mega producer of refugee claimants — were referred to the IRB during the first six months of this year. During the same period last year, Canada received 224.
“This is proof that our government’s reforms to Canada’s asylum system are working. We have seen a significant reduction in the number of claims from countries that have traditionally had high numbers of unfounded claims,” Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said in an email.
“This is good news, especially for genuine refugees whose cases are heard more quickly and benefit from Canada’s protection sooner.”
Between Dec. 15, 2012 and May 31, 2013, Canada added 37 nations to a designated country of origin list introduced as part of a massive refugee reform bill. Because Canada considers these countries to be respectful of human rights and more likely to offer state protection, claimants from these countries are treated differently. They now have their cases expedited, those who are denied refugee status have no right to appeal to the new Refugee Appeal Division and they are deported more quickly.
According to IRB figures, the 37 countries produced a total of 463 claims in the first six months of this year. For the same period last year, these countries produced 2,928 claims. The top producers of claims are now: China (374); Colombia (259); Pakistan (250); Syria (202) and Nigeria (178).
Canadian Council for Refugees executive director Janet Dench called the drop in asylum claims “shocking.”
“Focusing on how to reject people more quickly who don’t deserve protection . . . means also that you’re not giving enough time for some people who do need protection to make their case,” she said.
“Having fewer claims seems to be a goal of government when we would have thought saving more people’s lives would be something we should be happy about.”
Figures obtained by Postmedia News suggest the government is also getting close to meeting new timelines set for determining whether a claim from a designated country is valid or not. According to the IRB, it takes an average of 57 days to make such a determination. The government has vowed to get that down to 45 days.
That said, the board has exceeded expectations when it comes to non designated countries. New guidelines call for determinations to be made within 216 days. The IRB said it now takes, on average, just 86 days for a file to be processed. However, it still takes about 20 months to process older files received before the new rules took effect, according to the IRB.
The figures also don’t account for the time it takes to deport an unsuccessful claimant following a negative decision. However, the Canada Border Services Agency, which is responsible for removals, said it deported 6,345 failed refugee claimants between January and June 2013. The agency could not immediately say which countries the individuals were deported to.
Meanwhile, the IRB approved just a third of all asylum claims during the first six months of this year, a slight drop from 35 per cent during the same period last year.
Of the 1,178 Hungarian claims that were completed in the first six months of this year — a figure that includes both those who applied under the old refugee system and those who applied under the new, more rigid system — about 16 per cent were accepted, an improvement over the same period last year when just six per cent were accepted.
Of the 680 Mexican claims that were completed, 19 per cent were accepted compared to 15 per cent the previous year.
Dench said she’s disappointed to see acceptance rates continuing to drop. Up until 2010, she said, they typically stood over 40 per cent. Given all the restructuring at the IRB after the new refugee determination system was put in place, she expected new adjudicators would err on the side of caution. Instead, she argues, it appears they’ve bought in to the prevailing “negative” view of refugees as fraudsters and queue-jumpers. Between that and the government’s desire to clear cases quickly, she fears bona fide refugees are falling through the cracks as a result.
The fact that 183 Hungarians and 132 Mexicans were accepted as legitimate refugees, “tells us clearly that these are not safe countries,” she added.
“It just confirms how wrong it is for Canada to be labeling certain countries such as these as being safe.”
According to the figures, no other counties with a “safe” designation produced that many bona fide refugees this year. The next closest was Croatia with 28 accepted claims.
SOURCE
Australian conservatives will henceforth deny settlement to illegals
THE Coalition's asylum seeker policy will take away the people smuggling model of permanant residency, deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop says.
"We will provide temporary residency, so should the situation in their home country improve, then they will be sent back to their home country to help rebuild that nation," Ms Bishop said on the Nine Network on Friday.
"It takes away the people smuggling model that they are selling and that is permanent residency."
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and his immigration spokesman Scott Morrison will announce on Friday that almost 32,000 asylum seekers already in Australia after arriving by boat will never get permanent settlement, creating a crucial point of difference between the coalition and Labor, Fairfax reported.
Ms Bishop said asylum seekers would also have work rights under the policy.
"There is a mutual obligation, if you are here on a temporary protection visa you will be expected to work," she said.
SOURCE
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Remember Maine! The Whitest State, Where Americans Are Still Doing Jobs That “Americans Won’t Do”
Everyone has heard the saying that immigrants—legal and otherwise—are simply “doing jobs Americans won’t do.” Jobs such as farm workers, janitors, landscaping, and housekeeping are labeled as “undesirable” work for Americans, and therefore, amnesty/increased immigration is needed in order to harvest crops, clean houses, and maintain lawn integrity. Yet one blue state seems to be doing just fine—trimmed lawns and all—with Americans doing jobs that “Americans won’t do.” That state is Maine—the whitest state in the Union.
In Maine, about four percent of farm laborers are non-citizens. In California, approximately 73% of farm laborers are non-citizens. California has approximately 2.2 million illegal immigrants residing within her borders. The number in Maine is so small it was not quantifiable in the 2000 Census.
Somehow, even without massive amounts of immigrant labor, Maine produces 25% of all of the lowbrush blueberries in North America in addition to one of the largest potato crops in the nation.
So while the Soviet-style agitprop line is that immigrants are “doing the jobs Americans won’t do,” this does not seem to be the case in the Pine Tree State. Maine’s population is around 1.4 million people, and of those, only a paltry 43,000 are foreign-born—a number which is likely inflated by the number of births across the Canadian border simply because the hospital there was closer.
Maine has experienced a 350% increase in the number of African immigrants since 2000. However, even with this invasion, the state is still 94.9% white, the whitest in the nation. A majority of its immigrant population comes from Canada and Europe—not exactly the stereotypical Hispanic housekeeper or farm laborer. Over half of Maine’s foreign-born residents are now U.S citizens.
Unlike in California, native-born Mainers have somehow retained the ability to pick crops and clean houses. In Aroostook County, the largest county east of the Mississippi and home to the majority of the potato production in the state, potatoes are picked not by immigrants—be they “guest workers” or the illegal variety—but by armies of high school aged children.
Most high schools in Aroostook County start two weeks earlier than elementary and middle schools, to account for a three-week long “harvest break” in late September to pick potatoes. The availability of the (nearly entirely white and native Mainer) schoolchildren is so crucial for the success of the harvest that farmers in several school districts were able to lobby schools to delay the start of the break by one week in 2012 in order to give the crop more time to grow. [Potato harvest break adjusted in parts of Aroostook County to meet farmers’ needs, By Julia Bayly, Bangor Daily News, September 14, 2012]It’s hard to imagine something similar happening in say, California’s central valley.
Even the liberals who make a living off of writing vacuous tracts about the horrors of welfare reform admit that the white, non-immigrant population of Maine is perfectly capable of and willing to do doing jobs that Americans supposedly won’t do.
Barbara Ehrenreich, honorary co-chair of Democratic Socialists of America and author of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, admitted in chapter two (“Scrubbing in Maine”) that she “chose Maine [to work in] for its whiteness”—meaning that nobody would be suspicious that a white housekeeper or maid might secretly be undercover writing a book.
Ehrenreich was also rather stunned at the fact that her (white) coworkers at Merry Maids were not falling over themselves in excitement when she revealed that she was only working there for what was essentially blue-collar pageantry. For her coworkers, working for Merry Maids was not a research activity: it was their best possible source of income.
The immigrants that actually move to Maine are generally not moving to come work on a farm. A popular destination point for a large percentage of non-European and Canadian immigrants is the city of Lewiston, which is located in Androscoggin County. The black population of Androscoggin County has been growing rapidly since 2001, when families of Somalis and Bantus began migrating to Lewiston, a predominantly working-class French-Canadian mill town. They were attracted to Maine by the low crime rates, good schools, and generous welfare benefits Maine had to offer.
According to the 2010 Census, the population of Androscoggin County is about 107,702. Of that number, 3.7% are black or African American, which breaks down to about 4,000 people. While that may seem small, that number is actually a more than 500% increase since the 2000 census, where the county was 0.66% black—for a total of 685 people.
The Somali population in the Lewiston area now is estimated to be around “6,000” total, but census data indicates that that guess is a little high. [Lewiston Somalis Call on Mayor to Apologize or Resign, By Susan Sharon, MPBN, October 4, 2012] Anyhow, instead of doing jobs Americans won’t do, data aggregated by the New York Times in 2009 shows that “>90%” (a polite way of saying “just about everyone”) of the black population in Androscoggin County was receiving food stamps. [Food Stamp Usage Across the Country, November 28, 2009]
In comparison, in 2009, 17% of the white population of Androscoggin County was receiving food stamps, far closer to the national average at the time.
For what it’s worth, downtown Lewiston has seen a number of Somali-owned shops open in recent years—and it’s a well-known fact that no American is willing to open a store, right?
Maine is proof that American citizens are willing and able to do so-called “undesirable” jobs. Mainers, unlike Californians, are actually given the opportunity to work as maids, landscapers, farmers, etc, and houses get cleaned, lawns get mowed, and blueberries get picked each year without major issue. Maine has no supply of cheap illegal immigrant labor, so it must rely on its best natural resource: the people of Maine.
SOURCE
Non-Americans and recent victims of an American education may be unaware that the title of the article above contains an allusion to a once popular slogan: "Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain!". The slogan refers to the sinking of the American battleship, "Maine", in Havana harbour in 1898
Australian Leftist leader plays down new route used by illegals to come to Australia
It sounds like there is reason for concern, however
IT'S time for the federal coalition and their Queensland counterparts to stop fearmongering on asylum seekers, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.
Four asylum seekers have been intercepted crossing the Torres Strait in recent days, prompting warnings from Queensland and federal Liberals that the state could become the new destination for boat people.
"I think it's time that Mr Abbott and his team, particularly those up here in far north Queensland, stopped the fearmongering," Mr Rudd told reporters in Townsville on Tuesday.
Premier Campbell Newman has warned that asylum seekers would use the "porous" border between Papua New Guinea and Queensland to enter the country after being resettled under the Rudd government's PNG solution.
Mr Rudd said it didn't matter where asylum seekers came from, if they arrived on a boat without a visa they would not be settled in Australia.
"Whether it's through Christmas Island or whether it's across the Torres Strait or whether it's from Antarctica, they'll be handled the same under this policy," the prime minister said.
Mr Rudd's comments came as another 39 single adult men were transferred to PNG's Manus Island under Labor's hardline resettlement policy.
Since Mr Rudd announced his PNG arrangement on July 19, 33 boats with 2185 passengers have arrived in Australian waters.
Of those people, 236 have been sent to Manus Island.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the movement of asylum seekers into the Torres Strait showed that the PNG deal on its own was not effective.
"All it does is open up a new front for the people smugglers," he told reporters at a campaign event on Sydney's outskirts.
SOURCE
August 14, 2013
Questions for Lawmakers on Immigration
Twenty questions on amnesty that politicians haven't answered
The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new report highlighting questions on immigration legislation that voters might ask their representatives when trying to determine their actual stance on the issue. Too many politicians have discussed immigration legislation proposals with clich‚d talking points that fail to describe the true impact of increasing legal immigration and amnestying 11 million illegal immigrants. The questions in this report are intended to help move the discussion beyond the evasions and platitudes usually offered by politicians.
The report contains twenty questions for lawmakers on a variety of topics, ranging from the impact an amnesty would have on unemployed Americans to the number of immigrants the proposed legislation would welcome into the United States. The questions also focus on provisions contained in the Senate bill (S.744) like E-Verify, the flawed "back taxes" and English language requirements, and the problem of conducting background checks on millions of illegal immigrants.
Additionally, the questions prompt legislators to respond to findings from the Congressional Budget Office that immigration legislation would lower the wages of many Americans, and that the Senate bill would allow up to two-thirds of illegal immigration to continue. The questions also encourage a response to immigration law enforcement officials who have come out against current proposals.
The report is available online at: www.cis.org/questions-for-lawmakers-on-immigration
"These are the type of questions that constituents and journalists should be asking of politicians promoting amnesty legislation," said Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies. "Thus far, too many politicians have shown a complete lack of understanding of the impact their legislation would have. These questions should foster a deeper conversation between the public and congressional leadership."
View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary at: http://cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Jon Feere
202-466-8185, jdf@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
Why Employers Hire Foreign Workers
It's Not Because of a Labor Shortage
The Center for Immigration Studies has published a new backgrounder, "Motivation for Hiring Alien Workers? Hint: It's Not a Labor Shortage", analyzing the reasons behind the employer push for a massive increase in temporary foreign worker admissions.
The new analysis finds that temporary alien workers are attractive to employers not only because of below-market wages but also because they are indentured by their terms of admission to the United States. Further, these workers are recruited from relatively docile, authority-fearing Third World populations and are thus can be easier to manage than Americans. Finally these programs allow the employer to avoid the nation's age discrimination laws and to hire a disproportionately young work force from overseas.
The backgrounder's author and a Fellow at the Center, David North, comments, "Politicians and advocates for mass immigration were successful in having an enormous increase in foreign worker programs like the H1-B inserted in the Senate bill (S. 744) by citing a labor shortage and the need for the 'best and the brightest.' However, a shortage only exists because employers are not willing to increase wages. It is clearly in their best interest, as opposed to the best interest of the American worker or the economy, to instead get Congress to adjust and expand the work force."
View the paper at: http://cis.org/labor-shortage-not-reason-employers-want-alien-workers.
North also discusses a rarely mentioned policy problem, ethnocentric hiring practices. An H1-B visa employer is not required to adhere to equal employment opportunity laws when hiring overseas, allowing him, if he so chooses, to hire from only one ethnic group or country. But the problem is bigger than just a few small operations; there are entire industries engaging in such practices. The backgrounder cites two specific examples, the outsourcing firms in the computer and IT-related fields, generally, and one set of tax-supported and charter schools, specifically.
Before laying out the motivation for employers to seek increased foreign workers, Mr. North debunks the idea that the United States has a labor shortage or lacks access to the necessary best and the brightest workers. According to the backgrounder, rather than targeting the programs to the limited number of unique situations, "these systems impose both serious displacement and wage-depression impacts on the U.S. labor market."
View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act
View the Senate bill, CIS Senate testimony and commentary at: http://cis.org/Border-Security-Economic-Opportunity-Immigration-Modernization-Act
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
British Labour Party 'made mistakes' by opening borders to influx of EU workers, Chris Bryant admits
The Labour Party 'made mistakes' on immigration by going it alone and opening Britain's borders to a huge influx of migrant workers, Chris Bryant admitted today.
Labour's shadow immigration minister said the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were too slow to introduce a points-based system aimed at curbing the number of low-skilled people flocking to the UK.
But the opposition's current policy on immigration was mired in confusion today as Mr Bryant embarrassingly Bryant backtracked on criticism of two of Britain's biggest retailers.
He had planned to use a major speech today to attack Tesco and Next for using cheap migrant labour to undercut local people.
But after the retail giants hit back, the former Labour foreign minister went into reverse, declaring: 'I fully accept that Next and Tesco indeed often go the extra mile to try and recruit more local workers.'
However, in his speech Mr Bryant did finally lay bare the last government's failure to get a grip on immigration, leading to thousands more people moving to the UK than other EU countries.
He admitted: 'Labour made mistakes on immigration. When we came to power in 1997 we had to tackle the complete chaos in the asylum system, when just fifty members of staff were dealing with 71,000 asylum applications every year.
'Labour created the position of Immigration Minister to bring real focus to these issues right across government. 'But although we were right to introduce the points based system in 2008, we should have done that far earlier. 'And when the new A8 countries joined the EU we were so focused on economic growth that when Germany, France and Italy all put in transitional controls on new EU workers, we went it alone. 'The result? A far higher number of people came to work here.'
It has placed Labour at the centre of a new ‘British jobs for British workers row’ over claims big firms deliberately target immigrant workers at the expense of British staff.
In his speech Mr Bryant planned to attack ‘unscrupulous employers’ who seem to ‘deliberately exclude British people’, instead taking on cheaper staff from Eastern Europe.
But in a BBC interview dealing with the political storm triggered by pre-released extracts of the speech, he insisted he was not planning to name any ‘unscrupulous employers’ at all.
He planned to accuse Next of printing job adverts only in Polish to attract cheap labour, and say Tesco moved a distribution centre from Harlow in Essex to ‘Kent’, where a ‘large percentage’ of the staff are from the eastern bloc.
But his attempt to grab the initiative on immigration backfired spectacularly after both the clothes retailer and the supermarket chain denied the claims made in previewed sections of his speech.
Notably, Tesco does not even have a depot in Kent - and Mr Bryant claimed he did not know how the error had found its way into his speech.
And Next said the only reason it employs workers from Poland is because local people refuse to apply for seasonal work. A spokesman for Next said: 'Mr Bryant wrongly claims that Polish workers are used to save money.
'This is simply not true. We are deeply disappointed Mr Bryant did not bother to check his facts with the company before releasing his speech.'
The policy mess is particularity embarrassing for Labour coming at a time when leader Ed Miliband is under fire from his own MPs for failing to make clear to voters where he stands on the big issues of the day.
The spat will also revive memories of Gordon Brown’s first speech as Prime Minister, in which he reacted to uncontrolled migration from Eastern Europe by promising ‘British jobs for British workers’ – a pledge he could not keep.
But Tory Immigration Minister Mark Harper said: 'Labour still won’t say sorry for the uncontrolled immigration they allowed, they still won’t say that immigration is too high and they still won’t say that numbers need to come down.
'This badly confused speech shows that Labour haven’t changed. They still have no idea how they would bring numbers down and they have no credibility on immigration.'
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Commentary: Let There Be Amnesty! The Plan B of the open-borders crowd would dispense with the Constitution
Publications
2. Questions for Lawmakers on Immigration
3. The Employment Situation of Immigrants and Natives in the Second Quarter of 2013
4. Motivation For Hiring Alien Workers? Hint: It’s Not a Labor Shortage
Blogs
5. The Speechifying of Charlie Rose and Concerns of an Immigrant's Grandson
6. Soros-Backed Sojourners Pontificates for Amnesty
7. Alleged Murderer Is an Illegal Alien, but Washington Post Won't Say So
8. The GOP's Immigration Leverage; No, Really!
9. Assorted Examples of Overseas Immigration Practices
10. GOP Congressman Calls Illegal Aliens "Undocumented Citizens", Trusts Obama Administration
11. Why President Obama Will Sign Any Reasonable Immigration Bill that Reaches His Desk
12. Investor Visa Program Gets Another Black Eye, This Time from the FBI
13. Aiming for Greatness: President Obama's Accomplishment Gap
14. Prosecutor: Seattle Law Would Shield Illegal Alien Burglars, Arsonists, Bombers
15. President Obama's Immigration Dilemma: Saving a Flailing Presidency
16. Mayorkas Hearing Testimony Subject of Detailed Analysis by Grassley
17. Removing Criminal Aliens and Protecting Public SAFEty
18. Future Headlines if Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is Enacted
19. Warning: Backing Amnesty Is Bad for Your Political Health
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
British Labour Party 'made mistakes' by opening borders to influx of EU workers, Chris Bryant admits
The Labour Party 'made mistakes' on immigration by going it alone and opening Britain's borders to a huge influx of migrant workers, Chris Bryant admitted today.
Labour's shadow immigration minister said the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were too slow to introduce a points-based system aimed at curbing the number of low-skilled people flocking to the UK.
But the opposition's current policy on immigration was mired in confusion today as Mr Bryant embarrassingly Bryant backtracked on criticism of two of Britain's biggest retailers.
He had planned to use a major speech today to attack Tesco and Next for using cheap migrant labour to undercut local people.
But after the retail giants hit back, the former Labour foreign minister went into reverse, declaring: 'I fully accept that Next and Tesco indeed often go the extra mile to try and recruit more local workers.'
However, in his speech Mr Bryant did finally lay bare the last government's failure to get a grip on immigration, leading to thousands more people moving to the UK than other EU countries.
He admitted: 'Labour made mistakes on immigration. When we came to power in 1997 we had to tackle the complete chaos in the asylum system, when just fifty members of staff were dealing with 71,000 asylum applications every year.
'Labour created the position of Immigration Minister to bring real focus to these issues right across government. 'But although we were right to introduce the points based system in 2008, we should have done that far earlier. 'And when the new A8 countries joined the EU we were so focused on economic growth that when Germany, France and Italy all put in transitional controls on new EU workers, we went it alone. 'The result? A far higher number of people came to work here.'
It has placed Labour at the centre of a new ‘British jobs for British workers row’ over claims big firms deliberately target immigrant workers at the expense of British staff.
In his speech Mr Bryant planned to attack ‘unscrupulous employers’ who seem to ‘deliberately exclude British people’, instead taking on cheaper staff from Eastern Europe.
But in a BBC interview dealing with the political storm triggered by pre-released extracts of the speech, he insisted he was not planning to name any ‘unscrupulous employers’ at all.
He planned to accuse Next of printing job adverts only in Polish to attract cheap labour, and say Tesco moved a distribution centre from Harlow in Essex to ‘Kent’, where a ‘large percentage’ of the staff are from the eastern bloc.
But his attempt to grab the initiative on immigration backfired spectacularly after both the clothes retailer and the supermarket chain denied the claims made in previewed sections of his speech.
Notably, Tesco does not even have a depot in Kent - and Mr Bryant claimed he did not know how the error had found its way into his speech.
And Next said the only reason it employs workers from Poland is because local people refuse to apply for seasonal work. A spokesman for Next said: 'Mr Bryant wrongly claims that Polish workers are used to save money.
'This is simply not true. We are deeply disappointed Mr Bryant did not bother to check his facts with the company before releasing his speech.'
The policy mess is particularity embarrassing for Labour coming at a time when leader Ed Miliband is under fire from his own MPs for failing to make clear to voters where he stands on the big issues of the day.
The spat will also revive memories of Gordon Brown’s first speech as Prime Minister, in which he reacted to uncontrolled migration from Eastern Europe by promising ‘British jobs for British workers’ – a pledge he could not keep.
But Tory Immigration Minister Mark Harper said: 'Labour still won’t say sorry for the uncontrolled immigration they allowed, they still won’t say that immigration is too high and they still won’t say that numbers need to come down.
'This badly confused speech shows that Labour haven’t changed. They still have no idea how they would bring numbers down and they have no credibility on immigration.'
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Commentary: Let There Be Amnesty! The Plan B of the open-borders crowd would dispense with the Constitution
Publications
2. Questions for Lawmakers on Immigration
3. The Employment Situation of Immigrants and Natives in the Second Quarter of 2013
4. Motivation For Hiring Alien Workers? Hint: It’s Not a Labor Shortage
Blogs
5. The Speechifying of Charlie Rose and Concerns of an Immigrant's Grandson
6. Soros-Backed Sojourners Pontificates for Amnesty
7. Alleged Murderer Is an Illegal Alien, but Washington Post Won't Say So
8. The GOP's Immigration Leverage; No, Really!
9. Assorted Examples of Overseas Immigration Practices
10. GOP Congressman Calls Illegal Aliens "Undocumented Citizens", Trusts Obama Administration
11. Why President Obama Will Sign Any Reasonable Immigration Bill that Reaches His Desk
12. Investor Visa Program Gets Another Black Eye, This Time from the FBI
13. Aiming for Greatness: President Obama's Accomplishment Gap
14. Prosecutor: Seattle Law Would Shield Illegal Alien Burglars, Arsonists, Bombers
15. President Obama's Immigration Dilemma: Saving a Flailing Presidency
16. Mayorkas Hearing Testimony Subject of Detailed Analysis by Grassley
17. Removing Criminal Aliens and Protecting Public SAFEty
18. Future Headlines if Comprehensive Immigration Reform Is Enacted
19. Warning: Backing Amnesty Is Bad for Your Political Health
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Monday, August 12, 2013
An Enormous Supply of Potential Workers
2nd Quarter Analysis Shows 57 Million Native-Born Not Working
The 2013 second quarter employment statistics for immigrants and natives show 57.5 million working-age (16-65) native-born Americans unemployed or out of the labor market. The Center for Immigration Studies' analysis of new Census Bureau numbers shows that 17 million more native-born Americans are not working today than in the second quarter of 2000.
Dr. Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research, said, "With the huge potential labor supply presently in the United States, legislation recently passed in the Senate doubling future legal immigration and amnestying 11 million is hard to justify. There is certainly no evidence of a labor shortage in the United States. In fact, of the immigrants who arrived in the last five years, only 48 percent had a job in 2013."
View the entire Backgrounder at: http://cis.org/u6-unemployment-q2-2013
The Backgrounder provides the percent employed of U.S.-born blacks, Hispanics, and of the overall U.S.-born population, broken down by education level for the past 13 years. The charts illustrate the large drop in employment for U.S.-born minorities with less than a college education.
Among the findings:
The more than 57 million native-born Americans of working-age (16 to 65) not working is 10 million larger than in the second quarter of 2007 and 17 million larger than in the same quarter of 2000.
Even excluding younger teens, aged 16 and 17, the total number of adult natives (18 to 65) not working in the second quarter of this year was 50.6 million.
The number of adult natives not working is spread throughout the labor market, including 25 million with no more than a high school education, 16 million with some education beyond high school, and nine million with at least a bachelor's degree.
The U-6 unemployment rate, which is a broader measure, stood at 13.7 percent for natives in the second quarter of 2013 compared to 8 percent in the second quarter of 2007 and 6.8 percent in the second quarter of 2000.
The number of native-born Americans who are U-6 unemployed in the second quarter of this year was 18.2 million. Adding U-6 unemployed immigrants raises the total to nearly 22 million.
Immigrants arrive at all ages and many do not work. Therefore it is not surprising that immigration adds to both the working population and those who are not working. Of the more than five million immigrants who arrived in the country in the last five years only 48 percent had a job in 2013. For recent immigrants who are working age (16 to 65), 59 percent held a job, compared 67 percent for the native-born in the same age group.
View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
New route for illegals wanting to get to Australia
ASYLUM seekers have found their own PNG Solution with two Somalis the latest to sail from Australia's nearest neighbour across the Torres Strait to far north Queensland.
The state's Premier Campbell Newman warned the new front across the border would open up after the Federal Government vowed to send all boat arrivals to PNG or Nauru.
Customs and immigration officers found the two Somalis on remote Boigu Island, 6km south of PNG, on Saturday morning.
They were taken to Thursday Island for health checks with the government vowing to send them to Manus Island or Nauru for resettlement.
Hundreds of Somalis have arrived on asylum boats off Christmas Island this year.
Another boat was intercepted at Saibai Island, 4km south of PNG, carrying two West Papuans on Friday.
A Syrian asylum seeker, who was believed to have flown to Indonesia and onto PNG before travelling by boat, was recently treated in a Queensland health centre.
"Kevin Rudd has very much turned an Australian problem into a Queensland problem. The Premier raised concerns about this policy in July, and was accused by Immigration Minister Tony Burke of peddling hysteria.," Mr Newman's spokesman said yesterday.
"The Federal Government has yet to address the many serious issues that we've raised.
"This latest incident demonstrates the ease of passage from PNG into Queensland, which is what we've been saying since the start."
Since the Government announced the PNG solution just over three weeks ago, 2270 people have arrived with the latest a vessel carrying 52 intercepted near Christmas Island on Saturday night.
Queensland officials have raised concerns that it is possible for asylum seekers to fly, without a passport, from Horn Island to Cairns and onto capital cities.
When Mr Newman warned of an impending influx three weeks ago, Immigration Minister Tony Burke said: "it's hard to imagine anything more hysterical than this one."
On Sunday his office referred questions to Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare.
Mr Clare's spokesman said "Customs and Border Protection continues to maintain a strong presence in the Torres Strait."
There are 13 Customs staff with a flying squad of six available in Cairns to respond if more resources are needed with staff in the Torres Strait having access to two helicopters and multiple vessels.
The spokesman said ten people had arrived so far this year, the same number as in all of 2012 with just one in 2011.
"Clearly if the government is going to continue down this path, then clearly there are going to be calls on the Federal Government to increase the border protection position on the Torres Strait," Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said.
Meanwhile, the Department of Immigration chief Martin Bowles was ordered by Immigration Minister Tony Burke and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to continue the domestic component of its $30 million PNG Solution advertising rollout during the election campaign.
Mr Bowles replied he would obey the Ministers but it is understood senior department officials were uneasy at the direction made during caretaker government.
The Opposition had opposed the continued local promotion of the resettlement solution but head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said in a letter to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott that the conventions were "not legally binding" and "the department does not have the power to enforce the observance of the conventions."
Mr Burke said: "Nothing that he (Scott Morrison) has said changes the irrefutable fact that there are people in Australia in contact with people in the pipeline and if we are going to advertise to every relevant part of the smuggling pipeline then Australia has to be part of that."
SOURCE
An Enormous Supply of Potential Workers
2nd Quarter Analysis Shows 57 Million Native-Born Not Working
The 2013 second quarter employment statistics for immigrants and natives show 57.5 million working-age (16-65) native-born Americans unemployed or out of the labor market. The Center for Immigration Studies' analysis of new Census Bureau numbers shows that 17 million more native-born Americans are not working today than in the second quarter of 2000.
Dr. Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research, said, "With the huge potential labor supply presently in the United States, legislation recently passed in the Senate doubling future legal immigration and amnestying 11 million is hard to justify. There is certainly no evidence of a labor shortage in the United States. In fact, of the immigrants who arrived in the last five years, only 48 percent had a job in 2013."
View the entire Backgrounder at: http://cis.org/u6-unemployment-q2-2013
The Backgrounder provides the percent employed of U.S.-born blacks, Hispanics, and of the overall U.S.-born population, broken down by education level for the past 13 years. The charts illustrate the large drop in employment for U.S.-born minorities with less than a college education.
Among the findings:
The more than 57 million native-born Americans of working-age (16 to 65) not working is 10 million larger than in the second quarter of 2007 and 17 million larger than in the same quarter of 2000.
Even excluding younger teens, aged 16 and 17, the total number of adult natives (18 to 65) not working in the second quarter of this year was 50.6 million.
The number of adult natives not working is spread throughout the labor market, including 25 million with no more than a high school education, 16 million with some education beyond high school, and nine million with at least a bachelor's degree.
The U-6 unemployment rate, which is a broader measure, stood at 13.7 percent for natives in the second quarter of 2013 compared to 8 percent in the second quarter of 2007 and 6.8 percent in the second quarter of 2000.
The number of native-born Americans who are U-6 unemployed in the second quarter of this year was 18.2 million. Adding U-6 unemployed immigrants raises the total to nearly 22 million.
Immigrants arrive at all ages and many do not work. Therefore it is not surprising that immigration adds to both the working population and those who are not working. Of the more than five million immigrants who arrived in the country in the last five years only 48 percent had a job in 2013. For recent immigrants who are working age (16 to 65), 59 percent held a job, compared 67 percent for the native-born in the same age group.
View a new CIS series analyzing the House of Representatives bill, H.R. 2278, at: http://cis.org/SAFE-Act
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
New route for illegals wanting to get to Australia
ASYLUM seekers have found their own PNG Solution with two Somalis the latest to sail from Australia's nearest neighbour across the Torres Strait to far north Queensland.
The state's Premier Campbell Newman warned the new front across the border would open up after the Federal Government vowed to send all boat arrivals to PNG or Nauru.
Customs and immigration officers found the two Somalis on remote Boigu Island, 6km south of PNG, on Saturday morning.
They were taken to Thursday Island for health checks with the government vowing to send them to Manus Island or Nauru for resettlement.
Hundreds of Somalis have arrived on asylum boats off Christmas Island this year.
Another boat was intercepted at Saibai Island, 4km south of PNG, carrying two West Papuans on Friday.
A Syrian asylum seeker, who was believed to have flown to Indonesia and onto PNG before travelling by boat, was recently treated in a Queensland health centre.
"Kevin Rudd has very much turned an Australian problem into a Queensland problem. The Premier raised concerns about this policy in July, and was accused by Immigration Minister Tony Burke of peddling hysteria.," Mr Newman's spokesman said yesterday.
"The Federal Government has yet to address the many serious issues that we've raised.
"This latest incident demonstrates the ease of passage from PNG into Queensland, which is what we've been saying since the start."
Since the Government announced the PNG solution just over three weeks ago, 2270 people have arrived with the latest a vessel carrying 52 intercepted near Christmas Island on Saturday night.
Queensland officials have raised concerns that it is possible for asylum seekers to fly, without a passport, from Horn Island to Cairns and onto capital cities.
When Mr Newman warned of an impending influx three weeks ago, Immigration Minister Tony Burke said: "it's hard to imagine anything more hysterical than this one."
On Sunday his office referred questions to Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare.
Mr Clare's spokesman said "Customs and Border Protection continues to maintain a strong presence in the Torres Strait."
There are 13 Customs staff with a flying squad of six available in Cairns to respond if more resources are needed with staff in the Torres Strait having access to two helicopters and multiple vessels.
The spokesman said ten people had arrived so far this year, the same number as in all of 2012 with just one in 2011.
"Clearly if the government is going to continue down this path, then clearly there are going to be calls on the Federal Government to increase the border protection position on the Torres Strait," Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said.
Meanwhile, the Department of Immigration chief Martin Bowles was ordered by Immigration Minister Tony Burke and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to continue the domestic component of its $30 million PNG Solution advertising rollout during the election campaign.
Mr Bowles replied he would obey the Ministers but it is understood senior department officials were uneasy at the direction made during caretaker government.
The Opposition had opposed the continued local promotion of the resettlement solution but head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said in a letter to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott that the conventions were "not legally binding" and "the department does not have the power to enforce the observance of the conventions."
Mr Burke said: "Nothing that he (Scott Morrison) has said changes the irrefutable fact that there are people in Australia in contact with people in the pipeline and if we are going to advertise to every relevant part of the smuggling pipeline then Australia has to be part of that."
SOURCE
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Five Reasons to Resist the U.S. Bishops on Immigration Reform
Most U.S. Catholic bishops stand "in solidarity with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and its many statements of the past decade in support of comprehensive immigration reform."
Perhaps the bishops hope that whatever influence they have among Catholics, they can use it to further another law that runs more than 1,200 pages. Evidently, the bishops did not have enough betrayal with health care reform.
Here are five reasons why the U.S. bishops ought to change their mind about support for immigration reform.
ONE: The bishops have misled Catholics scripturally about immigration. There are many passages in the Bible that encourage us to welcome the stranger (Deuteronomy 10: 19, or Hebrews 13:1, among others). None of these passages encourage us to welcome an invading army of poor people intent on bankrupting our health care system, debasing our schools, stealing our legal identities and our territory, diminishing our sovereignty, refusing to speak our language, using their children as human shields to stay in the United States, and destroying our neighborhoods.
Illegal immigration from Mexico, encouraged by the corrupt Mexican government, does all the above. To hide these sinful activities by using quotations from the Bible about not welcoming strangers is misleading. The illegal aliens coming to the United States are not strangers to be welcomed; they are an invading foreign army that has to be turned back.
There is much evidence that those who are in the United States illegally from Mexico and other countries are not assimilating or interested in becoming U.S. citizens. The position of the U.S. bishops on immigration will end by dividing the United States into a Spanish-speaking and an English-speaking nation, creating more social unrest.
The late Professor Huntington of Yale University claims, "Mexican immigration poses challenges to our policies and to our identity in a way nothing else has in the past." There is a world of difference between welcoming a stranger and welcoming an invading army of foreigners.
TWO: The U.S. bishops have misled Catholics morally in regard to illegal immigration. The Catholic moral principle of subsidiarity requires us to recognize that solutions to the problems caused by illegal immigration are not always to be found on the national level, but rather on the level of the local community.
To solve Mexico's social problems, illegal immigrants must accept their moral responsibility of working to change conditions in their own countries (and not just Mexico). U.S. Catholics, and especially the bishops, have the moral responsibility to encourage that return, and to administer charitable programs in Mexico that change conditions there. To do otherwise is to encourage greed both in U.S. employers and in illegal aliens. To do otherwise is to have the Church encourage sin.
Amnesty is not mercy. Amnesty is to illegal immigration what enablers are to alcoholics. Amnesty only gets more of the sin of illegal immigration. Undocumented immigrants are citizenship thieves. When someone steals your car, you do not dismiss his theft by calling it undocumented ownership.
Unfortunately, many bishops believe in "social justice" and what can be called the Babylonian Heresy*. They have lost the traditional teachings of the Church in favor of contemporary meanings. The consequence of their actions will be the creation of social upheaval instead of peace among nations.
THREE: Immigration in 2013 is not like immigration in 1895. The U.S. immigration experience we read about in books like Upton Sinclair's The Jungle or Willa Cather's My Ántonia no longer apply.
The twenty-first century must not repeat the mistakes of the nineteenth century when it comes to immigration. Mexico cannot solve its twenty-first-century social problems by exporting poverty to Chicago or Los Angeles.
FOUR: There are cultural differences between the United States and Mexico that are not dissolved by moving people across borders the way money is moved between banks. In this regard, the Catholic Church has effected an incomplete cultural and religious conversion in Mexico. The Church cannot resolve that incomplete conversion by preaching immigration reform to parishioners in the United States.
Because of cultural differences, many Mexican Catholics involved in the immigrant rights movement are Mexican Marxists. They are not peace-loving and pious.
Look at the Mexican Revolution of 1910 or the drug cartels today as example of the incomplete conversion of Mexico to the teachings of Christ. Do the U.S. bishops want to bring these bloody problems to U.S. cities?
The Catholic Church would do better if it had policies that completed the conversion of Mexico, and then went on to evangelize in the urban ghettos of Detroit or Chicago, among the most segregated cities in the United States.
FIVE: What is preventing U.S. bishops from realizing Catholic policies and social teaching when it comes to welfare and immigration? The real answers to immigration and welfare have been in scripture and Catholic morality for centuries.
The fact of the matter is that U.S. bishops are in the thralls of the Democratic Party. This enthrallment is the obstacle to true Catholic charity. If the U.S. bishops want Catholic immigration reform, then they must first have Catholic political reform.
The U.S. bishops must come to see that the Democratic Party stands for many things that Catholics know as sinful and damnable. The bishops must be made to see how the traditional Catholics Democrats of their youth have become the same-sex-marriage Marxists of their old age.
Is this conversion away from the Democratic Party possible? The political reality is that many Catholics bishops are liberals and progressives first, then Catholics second.
Many U.S. bishops have given their belief in immigration reform first to the Democratic Party and Babylonian Heresy, the heresy of our age, equal to the Arian Heresy of ages past. They have become blind shepherds, who may lead their flock into the jaws of the wolf and not even know it.
*Those who hold to the Babylonian Heresy mistakenly teach that Christianity ends with the abolition of nations and the imposition of a New World Order. This view is both theologically and scripturally wrong. St. Thomas argues correctly that the nation is part of the natural social order and is necessary for a fully human life. The Bible teaches us that nations will be with us until the end of time
SOURCE
Gesture politics won’t solve Britain's immigration troubles
While the scale of Britain's immigration problem remains untackled, ministers' tinkering around the edges is doing damage to innocent people
Those Home Office vans telling illegal immigrants to “go home” are only a tiny part of the story. The root cause of our immigration crisis is, as we know, quite simple. The chief reason why, in 2010 alone, as was calculated by Migration Watch, more migrants came to Britain than in all the years between 1066 and 1950 put together – and why it is officially projected that, within 14 years, our population will have risen to 70 million – is that we have lost almost all control of our borders. Not only must we open our doors to any of the 500 million citizens of the EU (even many from outside the EU who have first got into another EU country), but also our immigration rules are subject to a mass of other international obligations to bodies ranging from the UN to the European Court of Human Rights.
One consequence of this is that, as frustration over immigration mounts, our politicians thrash about trying to find peripheral gestures to show that they are trying to keep the numbers down – using the powers of the UK Border Agency (UKBA), a body so laughably incompetent that in March it was reported that the Home Secretary, Theresa May, was threatening to scrap it. The result of this tinkering around the edges is yet another example of how regulation so often these days takes “a sledgehammer to miss the nut”. The real problem remains unaffected, while absurd damage is done to people who are not part of the problem at all.
A little instance of this comes from a reader, Eugene Connolly, a retired lecturer at Edinburgh University, who six years ago met and befriended a Russian interpreter, Anastasia Pugacheva. Year after year, sponsored by Mr Connolly, she has been given visas to visit him in Britain —11 times in all — each time complying with all requirements before returning to her home and job in Moscow.
Last year, however, when she applied for a visa to visit Britain for 72 hours to attend a family wedding, the UKBA officials in Moscow refused it, saying she had not shown that she had “sufficient funds for her stay”. Mr Connolly was so startled by this that he approached his MP, who was merely told by the UKBA that her application was “against immigration rules”.
This year, having completed a law degree and bought a flat, she applied again for a visa, before starting a new job with a Moscow law firm. Again she was refused, this time because she had “failed to address the grounds for refusal of her previous application”. When I asked UKBA to clarify this, I was asked for her full personal details. The response was that they were unable to discuss individual cases, but that “all applications are considered on their individual merits” and that individuals must “provide the necessary information to support their application”. It seemed no one had bothered to look at the evidence she supplied as to why she would be financially supported in the UK and would return home when stated. Denying her entry was merely a jobsworth response to help Mrs May show how splendidly she is keeping immigration under control.
There are more general instances of how playing gesture politics with our immigration policy is not just harming individuals, but also actively damaging our national interest. One of the most glaring is the storm that has blown up in India, from which our universities were, until recently, drawing nearly 40,000 students a year, paying hefty fees and providing them and the UK economy with hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Many of these students are very bright, looking to use their qualifications from top British universities to get good jobs when they return to India, and not a few at postgraduate level take part in cutting-edge research in fields such as computer sciences and biotechnology.
So valued has their contribution been that David Cameron again visited India this year to recruit even more of them — just when, thanks to changes in our immigration rules, their numbers had already fallen by 25 per cent, with this year’s recruits down by nearly a third. First the old rule was abolished that allowed Indian students to work in the UK for two more years to defray their university expenses; they can now only stay on if they land a job paying £20,000 or more a year. They are also now told that they will have to hand over £3,000 before arriving, repayable only when they leave Britain.
This and other restrictions have inspired a wave of hostile publicity in India, with many students who wanted to come to Britain now applying to universities in other countries (applications to US universities have risen by 50 per cent). As one leading Indian newspaper angrily made clear, this puts an end to any idea that India and Britain still enjoy “a special relationship”.
There seems no doubt that Britain is here shooting itself badly in the foot, not just financially and in terms of its reputation, but also in losing a pool of talent that is already heading elsewhere. Mrs May may in general be able to boast that she has reduced net immigration from 240,000 a year to 163,000. But in other respects, she recalls Mrs Partington, that legendary Devon housewife who, when a freak storm was flooding her home with seawater, attempted to push it back out of her door with a broom.
SOURCE
Five Reasons to Resist the U.S. Bishops on Immigration Reform
Most U.S. Catholic bishops stand "in solidarity with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and its many statements of the past decade in support of comprehensive immigration reform."
Perhaps the bishops hope that whatever influence they have among Catholics, they can use it to further another law that runs more than 1,200 pages. Evidently, the bishops did not have enough betrayal with health care reform.
Here are five reasons why the U.S. bishops ought to change their mind about support for immigration reform.
ONE: The bishops have misled Catholics scripturally about immigration. There are many passages in the Bible that encourage us to welcome the stranger (Deuteronomy 10: 19, or Hebrews 13:1, among others). None of these passages encourage us to welcome an invading army of poor people intent on bankrupting our health care system, debasing our schools, stealing our legal identities and our territory, diminishing our sovereignty, refusing to speak our language, using their children as human shields to stay in the United States, and destroying our neighborhoods.
Illegal immigration from Mexico, encouraged by the corrupt Mexican government, does all the above. To hide these sinful activities by using quotations from the Bible about not welcoming strangers is misleading. The illegal aliens coming to the United States are not strangers to be welcomed; they are an invading foreign army that has to be turned back.
There is much evidence that those who are in the United States illegally from Mexico and other countries are not assimilating or interested in becoming U.S. citizens. The position of the U.S. bishops on immigration will end by dividing the United States into a Spanish-speaking and an English-speaking nation, creating more social unrest.
The late Professor Huntington of Yale University claims, "Mexican immigration poses challenges to our policies and to our identity in a way nothing else has in the past." There is a world of difference between welcoming a stranger and welcoming an invading army of foreigners.
TWO: The U.S. bishops have misled Catholics morally in regard to illegal immigration. The Catholic moral principle of subsidiarity requires us to recognize that solutions to the problems caused by illegal immigration are not always to be found on the national level, but rather on the level of the local community.
To solve Mexico's social problems, illegal immigrants must accept their moral responsibility of working to change conditions in their own countries (and not just Mexico). U.S. Catholics, and especially the bishops, have the moral responsibility to encourage that return, and to administer charitable programs in Mexico that change conditions there. To do otherwise is to encourage greed both in U.S. employers and in illegal aliens. To do otherwise is to have the Church encourage sin.
Amnesty is not mercy. Amnesty is to illegal immigration what enablers are to alcoholics. Amnesty only gets more of the sin of illegal immigration. Undocumented immigrants are citizenship thieves. When someone steals your car, you do not dismiss his theft by calling it undocumented ownership.
Unfortunately, many bishops believe in "social justice" and what can be called the Babylonian Heresy*. They have lost the traditional teachings of the Church in favor of contemporary meanings. The consequence of their actions will be the creation of social upheaval instead of peace among nations.
THREE: Immigration in 2013 is not like immigration in 1895. The U.S. immigration experience we read about in books like Upton Sinclair's The Jungle or Willa Cather's My Ántonia no longer apply.
The twenty-first century must not repeat the mistakes of the nineteenth century when it comes to immigration. Mexico cannot solve its twenty-first-century social problems by exporting poverty to Chicago or Los Angeles.
FOUR: There are cultural differences between the United States and Mexico that are not dissolved by moving people across borders the way money is moved between banks. In this regard, the Catholic Church has effected an incomplete cultural and religious conversion in Mexico. The Church cannot resolve that incomplete conversion by preaching immigration reform to parishioners in the United States.
Because of cultural differences, many Mexican Catholics involved in the immigrant rights movement are Mexican Marxists. They are not peace-loving and pious.
Look at the Mexican Revolution of 1910 or the drug cartels today as example of the incomplete conversion of Mexico to the teachings of Christ. Do the U.S. bishops want to bring these bloody problems to U.S. cities?
The Catholic Church would do better if it had policies that completed the conversion of Mexico, and then went on to evangelize in the urban ghettos of Detroit or Chicago, among the most segregated cities in the United States.
FIVE: What is preventing U.S. bishops from realizing Catholic policies and social teaching when it comes to welfare and immigration? The real answers to immigration and welfare have been in scripture and Catholic morality for centuries.
The fact of the matter is that U.S. bishops are in the thralls of the Democratic Party. This enthrallment is the obstacle to true Catholic charity. If the U.S. bishops want Catholic immigration reform, then they must first have Catholic political reform.
The U.S. bishops must come to see that the Democratic Party stands for many things that Catholics know as sinful and damnable. The bishops must be made to see how the traditional Catholics Democrats of their youth have become the same-sex-marriage Marxists of their old age.
Is this conversion away from the Democratic Party possible? The political reality is that many Catholics bishops are liberals and progressives first, then Catholics second.
Many U.S. bishops have given their belief in immigration reform first to the Democratic Party and Babylonian Heresy, the heresy of our age, equal to the Arian Heresy of ages past. They have become blind shepherds, who may lead their flock into the jaws of the wolf and not even know it.
*Those who hold to the Babylonian Heresy mistakenly teach that Christianity ends with the abolition of nations and the imposition of a New World Order. This view is both theologically and scripturally wrong. St. Thomas argues correctly that the nation is part of the natural social order and is necessary for a fully human life. The Bible teaches us that nations will be with us until the end of time
SOURCE
Gesture politics won’t solve Britain's immigration troubles
While the scale of Britain's immigration problem remains untackled, ministers' tinkering around the edges is doing damage to innocent people
Those Home Office vans telling illegal immigrants to “go home” are only a tiny part of the story. The root cause of our immigration crisis is, as we know, quite simple. The chief reason why, in 2010 alone, as was calculated by Migration Watch, more migrants came to Britain than in all the years between 1066 and 1950 put together – and why it is officially projected that, within 14 years, our population will have risen to 70 million – is that we have lost almost all control of our borders. Not only must we open our doors to any of the 500 million citizens of the EU (even many from outside the EU who have first got into another EU country), but also our immigration rules are subject to a mass of other international obligations to bodies ranging from the UN to the European Court of Human Rights.
One consequence of this is that, as frustration over immigration mounts, our politicians thrash about trying to find peripheral gestures to show that they are trying to keep the numbers down – using the powers of the UK Border Agency (UKBA), a body so laughably incompetent that in March it was reported that the Home Secretary, Theresa May, was threatening to scrap it. The result of this tinkering around the edges is yet another example of how regulation so often these days takes “a sledgehammer to miss the nut”. The real problem remains unaffected, while absurd damage is done to people who are not part of the problem at all.
A little instance of this comes from a reader, Eugene Connolly, a retired lecturer at Edinburgh University, who six years ago met and befriended a Russian interpreter, Anastasia Pugacheva. Year after year, sponsored by Mr Connolly, she has been given visas to visit him in Britain —11 times in all — each time complying with all requirements before returning to her home and job in Moscow.
Last year, however, when she applied for a visa to visit Britain for 72 hours to attend a family wedding, the UKBA officials in Moscow refused it, saying she had not shown that she had “sufficient funds for her stay”. Mr Connolly was so startled by this that he approached his MP, who was merely told by the UKBA that her application was “against immigration rules”.
This year, having completed a law degree and bought a flat, she applied again for a visa, before starting a new job with a Moscow law firm. Again she was refused, this time because she had “failed to address the grounds for refusal of her previous application”. When I asked UKBA to clarify this, I was asked for her full personal details. The response was that they were unable to discuss individual cases, but that “all applications are considered on their individual merits” and that individuals must “provide the necessary information to support their application”. It seemed no one had bothered to look at the evidence she supplied as to why she would be financially supported in the UK and would return home when stated. Denying her entry was merely a jobsworth response to help Mrs May show how splendidly she is keeping immigration under control.
There are more general instances of how playing gesture politics with our immigration policy is not just harming individuals, but also actively damaging our national interest. One of the most glaring is the storm that has blown up in India, from which our universities were, until recently, drawing nearly 40,000 students a year, paying hefty fees and providing them and the UK economy with hundreds of millions of pounds a year. Many of these students are very bright, looking to use their qualifications from top British universities to get good jobs when they return to India, and not a few at postgraduate level take part in cutting-edge research in fields such as computer sciences and biotechnology.
So valued has their contribution been that David Cameron again visited India this year to recruit even more of them — just when, thanks to changes in our immigration rules, their numbers had already fallen by 25 per cent, with this year’s recruits down by nearly a third. First the old rule was abolished that allowed Indian students to work in the UK for two more years to defray their university expenses; they can now only stay on if they land a job paying £20,000 or more a year. They are also now told that they will have to hand over £3,000 before arriving, repayable only when they leave Britain.
This and other restrictions have inspired a wave of hostile publicity in India, with many students who wanted to come to Britain now applying to universities in other countries (applications to US universities have risen by 50 per cent). As one leading Indian newspaper angrily made clear, this puts an end to any idea that India and Britain still enjoy “a special relationship”.
There seems no doubt that Britain is here shooting itself badly in the foot, not just financially and in terms of its reputation, but also in losing a pool of talent that is already heading elsewhere. Mrs May may in general be able to boast that she has reduced net immigration from 240,000 a year to 163,000. But in other respects, she recalls Mrs Partington, that legendary Devon housewife who, when a freak storm was flooding her home with seawater, attempted to push it back out of her door with a broom.
SOURCE
Friday, August 9, 2013
Plan B on immigration reform for amnesty supporters: Have Obama issue an order granting temporary amnesty
He did it once before for the DREAMers in a cynical but effective bid to drum up Latino turnout before the election. Why wouldn’t he do it again ahead of the midterms, with Democrats desperate to rally their base to hold back a Republican tide? Remember, this is a guy willing to ignore key provisions of his own landmark health-care law, with not even a pretense of having the legal authority to do so, if it’ll help Democrats politically. According to O’s, he’s constitutionally empowered to Do Good For The People whenever he thinks Congress is dragging its feet too much. If that means imposing a mass moratorium on deportations, hey.
So, plan B in case immigration reform collapses in the House: De facto amnesty for illegals for the rest of Obama’s term. This is the amnesty crowd’s shot across the bow of House Republicans to warn them that if they don’t step up and pass something, Democrats via Obama will get all the credit for what happens next instead of just the vast, vast majority of it:
"The idea behind the “other track” is to freeze the current undocumented population in place through an administrative order, give them work permits, and hope for a better deal under the next president, with the hope that he or she is a Democrat. It’s a significant gamble, but some advocates—particularly those outside of the Washington legislative bartering system—argue that it’s better than what they stand to see under the legislation being discussed now…
The Obama administration … has already flexed its muscle and shown that it is willing to exert authority to stop the deportation of hundreds of thousands of undocumented youth through its deferred-action program announced last year. The immigrant community argues that there is no reason that this administrative authority cannot expand further to include other “low priority” candidates for deportation—i.e., parents of “Dreamers” or parents of children who are citizens because they were born here, people who are employed, people who are caregivers, and so on…
The same legal reasoning for not seeking deportation for unauthorized immigrants—there is no safety-related reason to do so—applies to other noncriminal aliens, immigration analysts argue. Politically, all President Obama needs is proof that Congress can’t get the job done. That could happen in a matter of months with the Republican-led House still unsure of how it will deal with the undocumented population. (To date, no legislation has surfaced in the House, although there is talk of a limited legalization program for undocumented children.)"
The big political target for Democrats in doing isn’t the midterms, in fact. It’s 2016, when the end of Obama’s term will mean the potential cancellation of this policy if a Republican is elected. That’ll hand Hillary (or whoever the Democratic nominee is) a heavy bludgeon to use against the GOP on the stump in front of Latino audiences. Would, say, Marco Rubio vow as nominee to cancel the policy and resume deportations when he and the rest of the Republican leadership will be frantic to claw back some Latino votes from Democrats? The best you can hope for from a Republican under these circumstances is a procedural argument that says unilateral amnesty via executive order is wrong but amnesty passed through proper channels in Congress and then signed by the president is and must be a top priority upon taking office.
Realistically, the only thing holding O back from doing it is the possibility that so many undecideds will be angered by it that it’ll backfire against Democrats in the midterms. How likely is that, though, given that the public on balance has been receptive to comprehensive reform? Did Obama suffer for his unilateral DREAM amnesty last year?
You’d better start thinking about this because, although a few House Republicans have started making noise about legalization during the recess, some purple-district Democrats have also started making noise against it. The House might not be able to pass anything, in which case it’s lights, camera, Obama. But what if they do pass something? Over at the Daily Caller, Mickey Kaus makes a provocative accusation: Stalwart border hawk Ted Cruz is making that more likely to happen than not.
"Into this void stepped Cruz, who made a bold attempt to rouse a “grassroots army” for the cause of … defunding Obamacare. So instead of haranguing their members about unchecked immigration, hard core red-staters would harangue them about the Democrats’ health care plans. Cruz’s strategy had no hope of actually defunding Obamacare,. By attempting to shut down the government over the issue it had a much greater chance of reviving Democratic fortunes. (I thought Republicans had learned from the past two or three times this tactic failed).
And it might wind up giving us amnesty. Democrats are secretly delighted, of course: with the Tea Partiers distracted, fence-sitting Reps might have enough breathing room in the fall to sneak some kind of mass legalization through–maybe not a full “path to citizenship” for everyone, but Dems could go back and fix that later, once the millions of illegals had been given legal status. As an added pro-amnesty bonus, Cruz was helping to rehabilitate fellow defunder Rubio, giving the latter something to posture about once he became too terrified to even mention his deceptive immigration plan."
Instead of tea partiers rallying at town halls against amnesty, they’ll spend August rallying against funding ObamaCare. (Kaus also knocks Cruz for taking a subdued role in the Senate floor fight over immigration compared to someone like Jeff Sessions, something I’ve noted before too.) Let me play devil’s advocate, though: Since Cruz’s bid to defund ObamaCare looks like it’s going to fail (possibly without even gaining the 41 GOP votes needed for a filibuster) and that’ll end up angering the base, could some House Republicans be forced into a more hardline position on immigration in hopes of placating righties who are disappointed about O-Care? I take Kaus’s point about putting on a grassroots show during the August recess over immigration, but how much more evidence does the average House Republican need to know that voting for amnesty is a risky proposition in a red district? How many “Rubio’s star loses luster” stories have been written over the past two months because of what he did on immigration reform? Arguably, Cruz’s ObamaCare gambit amplifies the base’s immigration objections because it presents an omnibus case that the RINOs in D.C. are selling out conservatives on everything.
SOURCE
Immigration and recession boost UK population by 420,000... the fastest growth in Europe
The population in Britain is rising more steeply than anywhere else in Europe, according to official estimates yesterday.
Numbers rose by almost 420,000 in a year, driven by the highest birth rate since 1972.
The figure, which covers the 12 months to the middle of 2012 is more than the population increases in Germany, Belgium, Holland and Sweden combined.
The Office for National Statistics says around four in ten of the additional people are immigrants. Six out of ten are the result of rising birth rates, which brought a 40-year high in the number of babies born last year – 254,400 more births than deaths.
But a major cause of the baby boom is immigration. More than a quarter of all newborns have mothers who were born abroad.
The total number of people living in the UK at the end of last June was 63,705,000.
The rate of population increase last year held steady despite Coalition attempts to reduce immigration, the ONS said. Its report said the 419,900 increase in population for 2011-12 was ‘about average’ for the past decade.
Annual population growth first hit the 400,000 mark in 2005, following the opening of Britain’s borders and labour market to Poles and other Eastern Europeans in 2004.
If the increasing numbers continue unchecked, the population will hit the landmark 70million point in the early months of 2027.
The figure is a level at which many commentators believe housing, transport, utilities, education and the NHS will be severely stretched.
Yesterday’s estimates mean that by the middle of 2012 Home Secretary Theresa May’s efforts to reduce net immigration – the amount by which migrants push up the population each year – to 1990s levels had yet to have an impact on the total number of people in the country. The figure is currently 165,000.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: ‘These figures show the continuing failure of the Government to get a grip on immigration into this country. The results of this increase in population can be felt in communities up and down the country as public services struggle to cope with the increase in demand.’
He added: ‘At the same time we face cuts to frontline services and send billions of pounds abroad in foreign aid. And this is before Romanian and Bulgarian citizens have full access to the UK come January next year.’
The British population increase was almost a third higher than the rise in the next fastest-growing EU country, France. During the same period the French population rose by just over 319,000.
Numbers in Germany went up by 166,000, in Belgium by 91,000, in Sweden by 70,000 and in Holland by 62,000. All have been magnets for immigration in recent years.
But Britain’s population is expected to outstrip those of France and Germany over the coming decades, becoming the most populous country in Europe by 2050.
Numbers here have gone up by more than half a million since the last national census, taken in March 2011. Since 2001 the population increase has been 4.6 million, the ONS said.
London saw the greatest rise in 2011-12, at more than 100,000. The rapid change came despite 51,000 people leaving the capital, mainly for homes in the suburban towns of southern and eastern England.
Paul Vickers of the ONS said: ‘A quarter of the UK population increase happened in London. Together, London, the South East and East of England accounted for over half the growth.’
One in three migrants arriving in Britain went to London. International net migration – the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants – was 69,000.
Simon Ross, of pressure group Population Matters, said: ‘Our growing population is the root of many of our most pressing problems, including a lack of housing, pressure on services and development threats to our countryside and green spaces.
‘These, together with consequent infrastructure investments and transport issues are increasing costs for everyone.
‘Measures by the Government to limit net migration are to be welcomed. However, the Government should also promote the benefits to individuals and society of smaller families.’
SOURCE
Plan B on immigration reform for amnesty supporters: Have Obama issue an order granting temporary amnesty
He did it once before for the DREAMers in a cynical but effective bid to drum up Latino turnout before the election. Why wouldn’t he do it again ahead of the midterms, with Democrats desperate to rally their base to hold back a Republican tide? Remember, this is a guy willing to ignore key provisions of his own landmark health-care law, with not even a pretense of having the legal authority to do so, if it’ll help Democrats politically. According to O’s, he’s constitutionally empowered to Do Good For The People whenever he thinks Congress is dragging its feet too much. If that means imposing a mass moratorium on deportations, hey.
So, plan B in case immigration reform collapses in the House: De facto amnesty for illegals for the rest of Obama’s term. This is the amnesty crowd’s shot across the bow of House Republicans to warn them that if they don’t step up and pass something, Democrats via Obama will get all the credit for what happens next instead of just the vast, vast majority of it:
"The idea behind the “other track” is to freeze the current undocumented population in place through an administrative order, give them work permits, and hope for a better deal under the next president, with the hope that he or she is a Democrat. It’s a significant gamble, but some advocates—particularly those outside of the Washington legislative bartering system—argue that it’s better than what they stand to see under the legislation being discussed now…
The Obama administration … has already flexed its muscle and shown that it is willing to exert authority to stop the deportation of hundreds of thousands of undocumented youth through its deferred-action program announced last year. The immigrant community argues that there is no reason that this administrative authority cannot expand further to include other “low priority” candidates for deportation—i.e., parents of “Dreamers” or parents of children who are citizens because they were born here, people who are employed, people who are caregivers, and so on…
The same legal reasoning for not seeking deportation for unauthorized immigrants—there is no safety-related reason to do so—applies to other noncriminal aliens, immigration analysts argue. Politically, all President Obama needs is proof that Congress can’t get the job done. That could happen in a matter of months with the Republican-led House still unsure of how it will deal with the undocumented population. (To date, no legislation has surfaced in the House, although there is talk of a limited legalization program for undocumented children.)"
The big political target for Democrats in doing isn’t the midterms, in fact. It’s 2016, when the end of Obama’s term will mean the potential cancellation of this policy if a Republican is elected. That’ll hand Hillary (or whoever the Democratic nominee is) a heavy bludgeon to use against the GOP on the stump in front of Latino audiences. Would, say, Marco Rubio vow as nominee to cancel the policy and resume deportations when he and the rest of the Republican leadership will be frantic to claw back some Latino votes from Democrats? The best you can hope for from a Republican under these circumstances is a procedural argument that says unilateral amnesty via executive order is wrong but amnesty passed through proper channels in Congress and then signed by the president is and must be a top priority upon taking office.
Realistically, the only thing holding O back from doing it is the possibility that so many undecideds will be angered by it that it’ll backfire against Democrats in the midterms. How likely is that, though, given that the public on balance has been receptive to comprehensive reform? Did Obama suffer for his unilateral DREAM amnesty last year?
You’d better start thinking about this because, although a few House Republicans have started making noise about legalization during the recess, some purple-district Democrats have also started making noise against it. The House might not be able to pass anything, in which case it’s lights, camera, Obama. But what if they do pass something? Over at the Daily Caller, Mickey Kaus makes a provocative accusation: Stalwart border hawk Ted Cruz is making that more likely to happen than not.
"Into this void stepped Cruz, who made a bold attempt to rouse a “grassroots army” for the cause of … defunding Obamacare. So instead of haranguing their members about unchecked immigration, hard core red-staters would harangue them about the Democrats’ health care plans. Cruz’s strategy had no hope of actually defunding Obamacare,. By attempting to shut down the government over the issue it had a much greater chance of reviving Democratic fortunes. (I thought Republicans had learned from the past two or three times this tactic failed).
And it might wind up giving us amnesty. Democrats are secretly delighted, of course: with the Tea Partiers distracted, fence-sitting Reps might have enough breathing room in the fall to sneak some kind of mass legalization through–maybe not a full “path to citizenship” for everyone, but Dems could go back and fix that later, once the millions of illegals had been given legal status. As an added pro-amnesty bonus, Cruz was helping to rehabilitate fellow defunder Rubio, giving the latter something to posture about once he became too terrified to even mention his deceptive immigration plan."
Instead of tea partiers rallying at town halls against amnesty, they’ll spend August rallying against funding ObamaCare. (Kaus also knocks Cruz for taking a subdued role in the Senate floor fight over immigration compared to someone like Jeff Sessions, something I’ve noted before too.) Let me play devil’s advocate, though: Since Cruz’s bid to defund ObamaCare looks like it’s going to fail (possibly without even gaining the 41 GOP votes needed for a filibuster) and that’ll end up angering the base, could some House Republicans be forced into a more hardline position on immigration in hopes of placating righties who are disappointed about O-Care? I take Kaus’s point about putting on a grassroots show during the August recess over immigration, but how much more evidence does the average House Republican need to know that voting for amnesty is a risky proposition in a red district? How many “Rubio’s star loses luster” stories have been written over the past two months because of what he did on immigration reform? Arguably, Cruz’s ObamaCare gambit amplifies the base’s immigration objections because it presents an omnibus case that the RINOs in D.C. are selling out conservatives on everything.
SOURCE
Immigration and recession boost UK population by 420,000... the fastest growth in Europe
The population in Britain is rising more steeply than anywhere else in Europe, according to official estimates yesterday.
Numbers rose by almost 420,000 in a year, driven by the highest birth rate since 1972.
The figure, which covers the 12 months to the middle of 2012 is more than the population increases in Germany, Belgium, Holland and Sweden combined.
The Office for National Statistics says around four in ten of the additional people are immigrants. Six out of ten are the result of rising birth rates, which brought a 40-year high in the number of babies born last year – 254,400 more births than deaths.
But a major cause of the baby boom is immigration. More than a quarter of all newborns have mothers who were born abroad.
The total number of people living in the UK at the end of last June was 63,705,000.
The rate of population increase last year held steady despite Coalition attempts to reduce immigration, the ONS said. Its report said the 419,900 increase in population for 2011-12 was ‘about average’ for the past decade.
Annual population growth first hit the 400,000 mark in 2005, following the opening of Britain’s borders and labour market to Poles and other Eastern Europeans in 2004.
If the increasing numbers continue unchecked, the population will hit the landmark 70million point in the early months of 2027.
The figure is a level at which many commentators believe housing, transport, utilities, education and the NHS will be severely stretched.
Yesterday’s estimates mean that by the middle of 2012 Home Secretary Theresa May’s efforts to reduce net immigration – the amount by which migrants push up the population each year – to 1990s levels had yet to have an impact on the total number of people in the country. The figure is currently 165,000.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: ‘These figures show the continuing failure of the Government to get a grip on immigration into this country. The results of this increase in population can be felt in communities up and down the country as public services struggle to cope with the increase in demand.’
He added: ‘At the same time we face cuts to frontline services and send billions of pounds abroad in foreign aid. And this is before Romanian and Bulgarian citizens have full access to the UK come January next year.’
The British population increase was almost a third higher than the rise in the next fastest-growing EU country, France. During the same period the French population rose by just over 319,000.
Numbers in Germany went up by 166,000, in Belgium by 91,000, in Sweden by 70,000 and in Holland by 62,000. All have been magnets for immigration in recent years.
But Britain’s population is expected to outstrip those of France and Germany over the coming decades, becoming the most populous country in Europe by 2050.
Numbers here have gone up by more than half a million since the last national census, taken in March 2011. Since 2001 the population increase has been 4.6 million, the ONS said.
London saw the greatest rise in 2011-12, at more than 100,000. The rapid change came despite 51,000 people leaving the capital, mainly for homes in the suburban towns of southern and eastern England.
Paul Vickers of the ONS said: ‘A quarter of the UK population increase happened in London. Together, London, the South East and East of England accounted for over half the growth.’
One in three migrants arriving in Britain went to London. International net migration – the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants – was 69,000.
Simon Ross, of pressure group Population Matters, said: ‘Our growing population is the root of many of our most pressing problems, including a lack of housing, pressure on services and development threats to our countryside and green spaces.
‘These, together with consequent infrastructure investments and transport issues are increasing costs for everyone.
‘Measures by the Government to limit net migration are to be welcomed. However, the Government should also promote the benefits to individuals and society of smaller families.’
SOURCE
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Some Democrats Waver on Immigration
In Republican-Controlled House, Certain Democrats Are Skeptical About Immigration Overhaul
Every Democrat voted for the Senate's immigration bill when it passed the chamber in June. That unanimous party support isn't likely to be replicated if the House votes on its own immigration effort this fall.
In the GOP-controlled House, some Democrats, largely from conservative-leaning districts, are set to bolster the ranks of Republican lawmakers skeptical of the Senate's ideas on immigration. As a small faction within the minority party, they won't likely sway key votes, but amid signs that momentum behind the effort might be flagging, their concerns could put the finish line further out of reach.
Like many of their GOP counterparts, hesitant House Democrats worry about how to handle the 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the U.S.
"I'm opposed to granting amnesty," said Rep. Nick Rahall, a Democrat from West Virginia, whose grandparents legally emigrated to the U.S. from Lebanon. Creating a separate way this group can gain citizenship "would siphon scarce resources away from our already-overwhelmed immigration system and would be unfair to those other immigrants, past and present, who have dutifully waited for their turn to legally enter our country," he said.
Some House Democrats fret that any new immigration laws could repeat what they consider the mistakes of a 1986 law that legalized many illegal immigrants and included measures to stop illegal crossings.
"I want to be certain that it's not 1986 all over again," said Rep. Daniel Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois, who said he's concerned some lawmakers might be willing in future negotiations to roll back the provisions to beef up border security, which were added to the Senate bill in a bid to win GOP support. "I have concerns about if the federal government will be serious about enforcing immigration law in the future," he said.
The exact number of resistant or fence-sitting House Democrats on immigration is hard to determine. Like many Republicans, some centrist Democrats are reluctant to stake out a firm position before the House strategy is set. House leaders have yet to unveil a bill tackling the issue of legalization, though senior GOP lawmakers are expected to introduce legislation this fall that could include granting citizenship to at least a portion of the population.
"I'm going to wait and see what they come up with and then I'll decide,' said Rep. Collin Peterson (D., Minn.), who said Congress needs to come up with a plan to "regularize" immigrants in some fashion. "We're not going to deport them."
The ranks of centrist Democrats in the House have thinned in recent years. The fiscally conservative coalition of Blue Dog Democrats, which played a major role in the health-care debate, has shrunk to just 15 lawmakers, compared with 54 before the 2010 election. Advocates of a broad immigration overhaul, including a new path to citizenship, are targeting the remaining Blue Dogs and the New Democrats, a House coalition of self-described moderate lawmakers.
Earlier this month, 39 of the New Democrats' 53 lawmakers wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), urging him to introduce an immigration bill before the end of September that includes a pathway to citizenship. But some of the group's members, including Rep. John Barrow, a conservative Democrat from Georgia who didn't sign the letter, may still need convincing.
Any such discussion shouldn't begin until employer-verification programs and border security have been strengthened, Mr. Barrow said. "Like a preacher friend of mine once said, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing," he said.
Advocates on both sides of the debate predict Democrats in swing districts will have a tough time embracing any immigration bill unless Republicans first come out in support. Some House Democrats have said their constituents are wary of broad immigration overhaul.
Centrist Democratic think tank Third Way recently targeted Democratic waverers in a memo offering suggestions for what to say if they shift on the issue, including emphasizing the economic effects of an immigration overhaul and the Senate bill's strengthening of border security.
Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, an organization favoring tough immigration curbs, sees a tougher road ahead. "Any Democrat in a district that Romney carried is going to really have a reason to vote against this," he said.
SOURCE
New Australian illegal immigrant message is working, says minister
PEOPLE are getting the message about Labor's tougher stance on boat arrivals, Immigration Minister Tony Burke says
He says he's received reports from Indonesia that there are widespread demands from potential asylum seekers wanting their money back from people smugglers.
Mr Burke says they are realising they would be buying a ticket to Papua New Guinea or Nauru not to Australia.
"When I say the demands for money back are widespread, they are absolutely widespread," Mr Burke told reporters in Sydney.
"They realise that what they have paid for is no longer available to them."
"There is no doubt that the message is getting through."
Mr Burke said the only way to stop people smugglers was to take their product and customers away, and that was starting to happen.
He also said a "very significant number" of people who had been transferred to PNG's Manus Island were now in talks with internationals organisation of migration organising their transfers back home.
He said that could be done fairly quickly if they still had their identity documents with them.
SOURCE
Some Democrats Waver on Immigration
In Republican-Controlled House, Certain Democrats Are Skeptical About Immigration Overhaul
Every Democrat voted for the Senate's immigration bill when it passed the chamber in June. That unanimous party support isn't likely to be replicated if the House votes on its own immigration effort this fall.
In the GOP-controlled House, some Democrats, largely from conservative-leaning districts, are set to bolster the ranks of Republican lawmakers skeptical of the Senate's ideas on immigration. As a small faction within the minority party, they won't likely sway key votes, but amid signs that momentum behind the effort might be flagging, their concerns could put the finish line further out of reach.
Like many of their GOP counterparts, hesitant House Democrats worry about how to handle the 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the U.S.
"I'm opposed to granting amnesty," said Rep. Nick Rahall, a Democrat from West Virginia, whose grandparents legally emigrated to the U.S. from Lebanon. Creating a separate way this group can gain citizenship "would siphon scarce resources away from our already-overwhelmed immigration system and would be unfair to those other immigrants, past and present, who have dutifully waited for their turn to legally enter our country," he said.
Some House Democrats fret that any new immigration laws could repeat what they consider the mistakes of a 1986 law that legalized many illegal immigrants and included measures to stop illegal crossings.
"I want to be certain that it's not 1986 all over again," said Rep. Daniel Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois, who said he's concerned some lawmakers might be willing in future negotiations to roll back the provisions to beef up border security, which were added to the Senate bill in a bid to win GOP support. "I have concerns about if the federal government will be serious about enforcing immigration law in the future," he said.
The exact number of resistant or fence-sitting House Democrats on immigration is hard to determine. Like many Republicans, some centrist Democrats are reluctant to stake out a firm position before the House strategy is set. House leaders have yet to unveil a bill tackling the issue of legalization, though senior GOP lawmakers are expected to introduce legislation this fall that could include granting citizenship to at least a portion of the population.
"I'm going to wait and see what they come up with and then I'll decide,' said Rep. Collin Peterson (D., Minn.), who said Congress needs to come up with a plan to "regularize" immigrants in some fashion. "We're not going to deport them."
The ranks of centrist Democrats in the House have thinned in recent years. The fiscally conservative coalition of Blue Dog Democrats, which played a major role in the health-care debate, has shrunk to just 15 lawmakers, compared with 54 before the 2010 election. Advocates of a broad immigration overhaul, including a new path to citizenship, are targeting the remaining Blue Dogs and the New Democrats, a House coalition of self-described moderate lawmakers.
Earlier this month, 39 of the New Democrats' 53 lawmakers wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), urging him to introduce an immigration bill before the end of September that includes a pathway to citizenship. But some of the group's members, including Rep. John Barrow, a conservative Democrat from Georgia who didn't sign the letter, may still need convincing.
Any such discussion shouldn't begin until employer-verification programs and border security have been strengthened, Mr. Barrow said. "Like a preacher friend of mine once said, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing," he said.
Advocates on both sides of the debate predict Democrats in swing districts will have a tough time embracing any immigration bill unless Republicans first come out in support. Some House Democrats have said their constituents are wary of broad immigration overhaul.
Centrist Democratic think tank Third Way recently targeted Democratic waverers in a memo offering suggestions for what to say if they shift on the issue, including emphasizing the economic effects of an immigration overhaul and the Senate bill's strengthening of border security.
Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, an organization favoring tough immigration curbs, sees a tougher road ahead. "Any Democrat in a district that Romney carried is going to really have a reason to vote against this," he said.
SOURCE
New Australian illegal immigrant message is working, says minister
PEOPLE are getting the message about Labor's tougher stance on boat arrivals, Immigration Minister Tony Burke says
He says he's received reports from Indonesia that there are widespread demands from potential asylum seekers wanting their money back from people smugglers.
Mr Burke says they are realising they would be buying a ticket to Papua New Guinea or Nauru not to Australia.
"When I say the demands for money back are widespread, they are absolutely widespread," Mr Burke told reporters in Sydney.
"They realise that what they have paid for is no longer available to them."
"There is no doubt that the message is getting through."
Mr Burke said the only way to stop people smugglers was to take their product and customers away, and that was starting to happen.
He also said a "very significant number" of people who had been transferred to PNG's Manus Island were now in talks with internationals organisation of migration organising their transfers back home.
He said that could be done fairly quickly if they still had their identity documents with them.
SOURCE
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
3 Reasons Arizona Is Ground Zero for Immigration Policy
While President Obama speaks about the economy at a Phoenix high school on Tuesday, protesters will be outside, reminding the public about his record on immigration.
That's what we've come to expect in recent years.
Arizona became ground zero in the immigration debate when the state passed a law meant to curb illegal immigration in 2010. Critics said that the "show me your papers" law, SB 1070, was discriminatory, and the Supreme Court ruled much of it unconstitutional two years after it was signed into law.
But immigration is still a huge issue in Arizona. Here's why:
1. Location Yeah, we're kind of pointing out the obvious here: Arizona is a border state.
But the number of apprehensions -- immigrants caught crossing the border illegally -- spiked in the Tucson area during the mid-1990s and through the 2000s.
Part of the reason was a plan by Border Patrol to secure traditional smuggling routes and force migrants into more hostile terrain, outlined in a 1994 agency document.
The plan specifically called for locking down the San Diego and El Paso corridors, which more heavily trafficked by migrants at the time. Apprehensions in both those areas dropped off dramatically in the decade that followed.
Over the same period, traffic in Arizona's Tucson sector heated up. The number of people getting caught in that area increased more than fourfold over six years, going from 139,473 apprehensions in 1994 to a record-setting 616,346 in 2000.
2. Demographics Arizona is also a state with rapidly changing demographics. Basically, it's getting more Hispanic.
Among the counties that had the fastest-growing Hispanic populations from 2000 to 2007, Arizona's Maricopa County, which includes parts of Phoenix, placed second with nearly 420,000 new Hispanic residents over that time. Only Los Angeles had more.
And these new residents were coming to a state that didn't have a large Latino population, at least compared to places like California and Texas. Hispanics made up 17 percent of Arizona residents in 1970; they made up more than 30 percent in 2012.
But changing demographics alone aren't what made immigration a major issue. These guys played a role:
3. Politicians For some insight into the political history in Arizona, I reached out to Terry Greene Sterling, a journalist and the author of Illegal: Life and Death in Arizona's Immigration War Zone.
Sterling boiled it down to a few big moments.
First, there was the rise of the Tea Party in the state. Republican politicians like former State Senator Russell Pearce campaigned on stricter immigration policies, attracting voters who didn't want to see Arizona's Hispanic population to continue growing.
As Tea Party conservatives came to dominate the state legislature, they were able to pass the granddaddy of all bills against illegal immigration, SB 1070.
But even that might not have passed if it wasn't for a decision by the Obama administration. When the president tapped then-Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to become his secretary of homeland security in 2009, he upset the balance of power in the state.
Napolitano, a Democrat, left office to head to Washington. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer took her place, eventually signing SB 1070 into law. Had Napolitano stayed in Arizona, she likely would have vetoed the bill.
SOURCE
Russia detains immigrants in 'concentration camps'
Hundreds held in makeshift facility in Moscow as part of a widespread crackdown on illegal immigration
Russian authorities have detained hundreds of migrant workers in a makeshift camp in Moscow as part of a widespread crackdown on illegal immigration.
Human rights campaigners have decried conditions in the camp, which is part of a planned national network of detainment centres to hold foreign nationals facing deportation.
More than 600 people were initially held in tents in the camp in an industrial area of Moscow, although there were reports that 200 were moved to formal detention centres yesterday. Opponents say the centres are illegal, comparing them to concentration camps or gulags.
"The paradox of a concentration camp for illegals is that the concentration camp itself is illegal," writer and activist Oleg Kozyrev tweeted to more than 32,000 followers.
Russia currently has 21 detention centres for immigrants facing deportation, but authorities have prepared a bill that would create 83 special centres across the country's 81 regions.
The immigrant crackdown began after a fight on 27 July at a Moscow market between natives of Russia's Dagestan region and police who had come to arrest one of them on charges of rape. A relative of the wanted man struck an officer with brass knuckles, injuring his forehead. Much of the incident was captured on video in a clip widely circulated on the internet.
On 29 July, police began raiding markets around the city and arresting immigrants whose documents were not in order, most of them from the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Of the 11 million immigrants in Russia, about three million have exceeded their visas and most are thought to be working illegally, according to the head of the migration service.
On 31 July, law enforcement agents closed an illegal garment factory in an industrial area on the city outskirts, detaining at least 1,200 people, most of them from Vietnam. The next day police announced the creation of a temporary camp near the site of the illegal factory to hold some of the detained immigrants, who have 10 days to appeal against a deportation decision. Reporters who were allowed to visit the tents, pitched in a paved area that once held a market, described appalling conditions.
The interior ministry has claimed the site has a capacity of 900, but the Novaya Gazeta newspaper found immigrants crowded into cramped, stifling tents, with four outdoor showers and a long row of portable toilets.
The paper spoke to many held in the camp who had been unable to contact friends and relatives as there is no electricity to recharge their phones.
"It's not the best conditions . their telephone conversations are limited, and they're under guard like in a prison," said Bakhrom Khamroyev, an activist from the society Political Immigrants from Central Asia, who visited the camp.
But Khamroyev said the conditions were better than those in a municipal garage he visited outside Moscow, where 30 Uzbek workers arrested in a raid on Moscow's Kommunarka market on Sunday. He said the immigrant workers, who were being guarded by men with machine guns, told him they had been beaten during the raid.
Ethnic tensions have flared up in Russia, with residents of the southern city of Pugachev taking to the streets protesting against arrivals from the Caucasus region after a Russian man was stabbed to death in a fight with a Chechen teenager.
"I don't support this approach [of mass detentions] but it's legal," said Remat Karimov, a spokesman of the Labour Union of Migrant Workers.
"You need to wait until this is reflected in the fact that there will be no one to construct buildings, there will not be anywhere to eat in Moscow. If they employed these methods in Sochi it wouldn't be possible to hold the Olympics because the buildings are being constructed by mostly illegal immigrants."
SOURCE
August 6, 2013
Democrats divided over immigration strategy
I’m told divisions have opened up among Democrats over how to push immigration reform forward in the House of Representatives, with some advocates urging a more confrontational posture with Republicans, while other Dems insist that such tactics could end up undercutting the already-slim-to-none chances that House Republicans will pass something that could lead to real reform.
At the center of the internal debate is Nancy Pelosi and the question of whether Democrats will file a so-called “discharge petition” for the Senate immigration bill. If a discharge petition were signed by a majority in the House, the measure would get a full floor vote. Those advocating for this course — including Jonathan Chait and Steve Benen, among others — note that if most Dems signed it, only a handful of Republicans would be required to get it through, and since a majority in the House supports reform, that would all but ensure passage (with mostly Dems) in a full vote.
But Dems and advocates are divided over whether it’s a good idea. “There are differences of opinion over whether this is a good strategy,” Frank Sharry, the head of pro-immigration reform America’s Voice, and a leading proponent of using the discharge strategy, acknowledges to me.
A House Democratic leadership aide tells me no decision has been made on whether to proceed with the petition. According to people familiar with the situation, it’s provoking opposition among some Dems on the House “gang of seven,” who fear it could give Republicans in the “gang” an excuse to walk away from an emerging compromise that may be the best hope for anything approaching a comprehensive bill in the House. Some Dems in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and some Dems in border districts also are cool to the idea, because they object to the Senate bill’s huge border security buildup. They would prefer to stake their chances on the possibility of a bipartisan House bill or on conference negotiations designed to reconcile the Senate bill with whatever the House passes.
Another argument being made internally is that there is no reason to decide right now whether to act on the petition; since it must ripen for 30 legislative days (not recess days) anyway. So the decision can be made in September, once folks have a better sense of how immigration played over the break, with no time lost.
By contrast, the arguments for the petition are that it would put pressure on Republicans to act; that it’s folly to expect House Republicans to pass anything significant on their own; and that valuable time — and momentum — after passage of the Senate bill have already been squandered by waiting.
“It puts Democrats on offense, and it puts Republicans in purple districts on defense,” Sharry tells me. “It mobilizes the movement for immigration reform and leans into the legislative fight, rather than hoping John Boehner figures out a way forward.” The theory is that there are at least some House Republicans for whom not acting on reform is politically problematic; filing a discharge petition pressures them to either sign on or go to their leadership and ask it to move forward with something.
Pelosi ultimately will let members decide. “Right now, there’s no consensus that this would accomplish anything at this time,” the Dem leadership aide tells me. “But this is a play that could be used later, should members want to do it.”
For proponents, much of this turns on whether you actually think Republicans will move anything significant forward in the House of Republicans, and whether you think it’s even possible in today’s House to proceed to conference negotiations. “One of the biggest threats we face is that Republicans will slow walk immigration reform to death,” Sharry says. “This is a way to counter that.”
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. TV: Steven Camarota Discusses Press Coverage of Illegal Aliens on FOX News
2. Video: Interview with Mickey Kaus on Waning of Liberal Values in Immigration Debate
Publication
3. USCIS Approach to Data Release: Flood ‘Em with Unreadable Numbers
Blogs
4. Obama's Great Immigration Bluff
5. Burying the Lede: The L.A. Times Shows How It's Done
6. Front Group Pushing Amnesty Hired Illegal Organizer
7. Ms. Tian, the Valedictorian, and Immigration Policy
8. Rep. Labrador Meets the Press: Round 2
9. Judge: Obama’s DREAM Act Amnesty Is Illegal, but ICE Agents Can’t Sue
10. Crooked FSOs Busted for Selling Visas
11. No Action on Mayorkas Nomination Until After August Recess
12. Visa Integrity and Security = A SAFE America
13. Figuring the Damage Done by Detached Elites? Add Youth Unemployment to the List
14. Rep. Labrador Meets the Press: Round 1
15. Rep. Raul Labrador and the Courage of Immigration Convictions
16. Succession Scenarios at Buckingham Palace and at Homeland Security
17. Calling President Obama: A Black Man Seeks Action on Jobs
18. Boehner's Failure to Acknowledge Massive Document Fraud and Identity Theft Leads to Bad Policy
19. Pollsters and Pundits Still Misleading on Back Taxes Provision
20. SAFE and Sound Legislation: Restoring the Parameters of the Constitution
21. Big EB-5 Project is Bankrupt in South Dakota; Investors May Lose Everything
22. More Evidence of Enforcement Stagnation
23. The Mayorkas Controversy Redux Cronyism, Policy Sleaze, and Indifference to the Nation's Security
24. Former GAO Official Talks Straight on Finding a Balance Between Border Security and Interior Security
25. Mayorkas Has Easy Confirmation Hearing — The GOP Boycotts It
26. Further Examination of the Consequences of "Stapling" Provisions
27. Keeping the Homeland SAFE and Secure
28. A Clash Between Two DHS Officials Is Likely to Cast Some Light on EB-5
29. Let's Pay Some Attention to Mexico's Southern Border and the OTMs
30. The GOP and Immigration: Having the Courage of Your Convictions
31. A SAFE Bet: Establishing a Cooperative Model for Federal-State-Local Relations on Immigration
32. Immigration Reform Takes an Anti-American Approach When It Comes to Employment
3 Reasons Arizona Is Ground Zero for Immigration Policy
While President Obama speaks about the economy at a Phoenix high school on Tuesday, protesters will be outside, reminding the public about his record on immigration.
That's what we've come to expect in recent years.
Arizona became ground zero in the immigration debate when the state passed a law meant to curb illegal immigration in 2010. Critics said that the "show me your papers" law, SB 1070, was discriminatory, and the Supreme Court ruled much of it unconstitutional two years after it was signed into law.
But immigration is still a huge issue in Arizona. Here's why:
1. Location Yeah, we're kind of pointing out the obvious here: Arizona is a border state.
But the number of apprehensions -- immigrants caught crossing the border illegally -- spiked in the Tucson area during the mid-1990s and through the 2000s.
Part of the reason was a plan by Border Patrol to secure traditional smuggling routes and force migrants into more hostile terrain, outlined in a 1994 agency document.
The plan specifically called for locking down the San Diego and El Paso corridors, which more heavily trafficked by migrants at the time. Apprehensions in both those areas dropped off dramatically in the decade that followed.
Over the same period, traffic in Arizona's Tucson sector heated up. The number of people getting caught in that area increased more than fourfold over six years, going from 139,473 apprehensions in 1994 to a record-setting 616,346 in 2000.
2. Demographics Arizona is also a state with rapidly changing demographics. Basically, it's getting more Hispanic.
Among the counties that had the fastest-growing Hispanic populations from 2000 to 2007, Arizona's Maricopa County, which includes parts of Phoenix, placed second with nearly 420,000 new Hispanic residents over that time. Only Los Angeles had more.
And these new residents were coming to a state that didn't have a large Latino population, at least compared to places like California and Texas. Hispanics made up 17 percent of Arizona residents in 1970; they made up more than 30 percent in 2012.
But changing demographics alone aren't what made immigration a major issue. These guys played a role:
3. Politicians For some insight into the political history in Arizona, I reached out to Terry Greene Sterling, a journalist and the author of Illegal: Life and Death in Arizona's Immigration War Zone.
Sterling boiled it down to a few big moments.
First, there was the rise of the Tea Party in the state. Republican politicians like former State Senator Russell Pearce campaigned on stricter immigration policies, attracting voters who didn't want to see Arizona's Hispanic population to continue growing.
As Tea Party conservatives came to dominate the state legislature, they were able to pass the granddaddy of all bills against illegal immigration, SB 1070.
But even that might not have passed if it wasn't for a decision by the Obama administration. When the president tapped then-Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to become his secretary of homeland security in 2009, he upset the balance of power in the state.
Napolitano, a Democrat, left office to head to Washington. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer took her place, eventually signing SB 1070 into law. Had Napolitano stayed in Arizona, she likely would have vetoed the bill.
SOURCE
Russia detains immigrants in 'concentration camps'
Hundreds held in makeshift facility in Moscow as part of a widespread crackdown on illegal immigration
Russian authorities have detained hundreds of migrant workers in a makeshift camp in Moscow as part of a widespread crackdown on illegal immigration.
Human rights campaigners have decried conditions in the camp, which is part of a planned national network of detainment centres to hold foreign nationals facing deportation.
More than 600 people were initially held in tents in the camp in an industrial area of Moscow, although there were reports that 200 were moved to formal detention centres yesterday. Opponents say the centres are illegal, comparing them to concentration camps or gulags.
"The paradox of a concentration camp for illegals is that the concentration camp itself is illegal," writer and activist Oleg Kozyrev tweeted to more than 32,000 followers.
Russia currently has 21 detention centres for immigrants facing deportation, but authorities have prepared a bill that would create 83 special centres across the country's 81 regions.
The immigrant crackdown began after a fight on 27 July at a Moscow market between natives of Russia's Dagestan region and police who had come to arrest one of them on charges of rape. A relative of the wanted man struck an officer with brass knuckles, injuring his forehead. Much of the incident was captured on video in a clip widely circulated on the internet.
On 29 July, police began raiding markets around the city and arresting immigrants whose documents were not in order, most of them from the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Of the 11 million immigrants in Russia, about three million have exceeded their visas and most are thought to be working illegally, according to the head of the migration service.
On 31 July, law enforcement agents closed an illegal garment factory in an industrial area on the city outskirts, detaining at least 1,200 people, most of them from Vietnam. The next day police announced the creation of a temporary camp near the site of the illegal factory to hold some of the detained immigrants, who have 10 days to appeal against a deportation decision. Reporters who were allowed to visit the tents, pitched in a paved area that once held a market, described appalling conditions.
The interior ministry has claimed the site has a capacity of 900, but the Novaya Gazeta newspaper found immigrants crowded into cramped, stifling tents, with four outdoor showers and a long row of portable toilets.
The paper spoke to many held in the camp who had been unable to contact friends and relatives as there is no electricity to recharge their phones.
"It's not the best conditions . their telephone conversations are limited, and they're under guard like in a prison," said Bakhrom Khamroyev, an activist from the society Political Immigrants from Central Asia, who visited the camp.
But Khamroyev said the conditions were better than those in a municipal garage he visited outside Moscow, where 30 Uzbek workers arrested in a raid on Moscow's Kommunarka market on Sunday. He said the immigrant workers, who were being guarded by men with machine guns, told him they had been beaten during the raid.
Ethnic tensions have flared up in Russia, with residents of the southern city of Pugachev taking to the streets protesting against arrivals from the Caucasus region after a Russian man was stabbed to death in a fight with a Chechen teenager.
"I don't support this approach [of mass detentions] but it's legal," said Remat Karimov, a spokesman of the Labour Union of Migrant Workers.
"You need to wait until this is reflected in the fact that there will be no one to construct buildings, there will not be anywhere to eat in Moscow. If they employed these methods in Sochi it wouldn't be possible to hold the Olympics because the buildings are being constructed by mostly illegal immigrants."
SOURCE
August 6, 2013
Democrats divided over immigration strategy
I’m told divisions have opened up among Democrats over how to push immigration reform forward in the House of Representatives, with some advocates urging a more confrontational posture with Republicans, while other Dems insist that such tactics could end up undercutting the already-slim-to-none chances that House Republicans will pass something that could lead to real reform.
At the center of the internal debate is Nancy Pelosi and the question of whether Democrats will file a so-called “discharge petition” for the Senate immigration bill. If a discharge petition were signed by a majority in the House, the measure would get a full floor vote. Those advocating for this course — including Jonathan Chait and Steve Benen, among others — note that if most Dems signed it, only a handful of Republicans would be required to get it through, and since a majority in the House supports reform, that would all but ensure passage (with mostly Dems) in a full vote.
But Dems and advocates are divided over whether it’s a good idea. “There are differences of opinion over whether this is a good strategy,” Frank Sharry, the head of pro-immigration reform America’s Voice, and a leading proponent of using the discharge strategy, acknowledges to me.
A House Democratic leadership aide tells me no decision has been made on whether to proceed with the petition. According to people familiar with the situation, it’s provoking opposition among some Dems on the House “gang of seven,” who fear it could give Republicans in the “gang” an excuse to walk away from an emerging compromise that may be the best hope for anything approaching a comprehensive bill in the House. Some Dems in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and some Dems in border districts also are cool to the idea, because they object to the Senate bill’s huge border security buildup. They would prefer to stake their chances on the possibility of a bipartisan House bill or on conference negotiations designed to reconcile the Senate bill with whatever the House passes.
Another argument being made internally is that there is no reason to decide right now whether to act on the petition; since it must ripen for 30 legislative days (not recess days) anyway. So the decision can be made in September, once folks have a better sense of how immigration played over the break, with no time lost.
By contrast, the arguments for the petition are that it would put pressure on Republicans to act; that it’s folly to expect House Republicans to pass anything significant on their own; and that valuable time — and momentum — after passage of the Senate bill have already been squandered by waiting.
“It puts Democrats on offense, and it puts Republicans in purple districts on defense,” Sharry tells me. “It mobilizes the movement for immigration reform and leans into the legislative fight, rather than hoping John Boehner figures out a way forward.” The theory is that there are at least some House Republicans for whom not acting on reform is politically problematic; filing a discharge petition pressures them to either sign on or go to their leadership and ask it to move forward with something.
Pelosi ultimately will let members decide. “Right now, there’s no consensus that this would accomplish anything at this time,” the Dem leadership aide tells me. “But this is a play that could be used later, should members want to do it.”
For proponents, much of this turns on whether you actually think Republicans will move anything significant forward in the House of Republicans, and whether you think it’s even possible in today’s House to proceed to conference negotiations. “One of the biggest threats we face is that Republicans will slow walk immigration reform to death,” Sharry says. “This is a way to counter that.”
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. TV: Steven Camarota Discusses Press Coverage of Illegal Aliens on FOX News
2. Video: Interview with Mickey Kaus on Waning of Liberal Values in Immigration Debate
Publication
3. USCIS Approach to Data Release: Flood ‘Em with Unreadable Numbers
Blogs
4. Obama's Great Immigration Bluff
5. Burying the Lede: The L.A. Times Shows How It's Done
6. Front Group Pushing Amnesty Hired Illegal Organizer
7. Ms. Tian, the Valedictorian, and Immigration Policy
8. Rep. Labrador Meets the Press: Round 2
9. Judge: Obama’s DREAM Act Amnesty Is Illegal, but ICE Agents Can’t Sue
10. Crooked FSOs Busted for Selling Visas
11. No Action on Mayorkas Nomination Until After August Recess
12. Visa Integrity and Security = A SAFE America
13. Figuring the Damage Done by Detached Elites? Add Youth Unemployment to the List
14. Rep. Labrador Meets the Press: Round 1
15. Rep. Raul Labrador and the Courage of Immigration Convictions
16. Succession Scenarios at Buckingham Palace and at Homeland Security
17. Calling President Obama: A Black Man Seeks Action on Jobs
18. Boehner's Failure to Acknowledge Massive Document Fraud and Identity Theft Leads to Bad Policy
19. Pollsters and Pundits Still Misleading on Back Taxes Provision
20. SAFE and Sound Legislation: Restoring the Parameters of the Constitution
21. Big EB-5 Project is Bankrupt in South Dakota; Investors May Lose Everything
22. More Evidence of Enforcement Stagnation
23. The Mayorkas Controversy Redux Cronyism, Policy Sleaze, and Indifference to the Nation's Security
24. Former GAO Official Talks Straight on Finding a Balance Between Border Security and Interior Security
25. Mayorkas Has Easy Confirmation Hearing — The GOP Boycotts It
26. Further Examination of the Consequences of "Stapling" Provisions
27. Keeping the Homeland SAFE and Secure
28. A Clash Between Two DHS Officials Is Likely to Cast Some Light on EB-5
29. Let's Pay Some Attention to Mexico's Southern Border and the OTMs
30. The GOP and Immigration: Having the Courage of Your Convictions
31. A SAFE Bet: Establishing a Cooperative Model for Federal-State-Local Relations on Immigration
32. Immigration Reform Takes an Anti-American Approach When It Comes to Employment
Monday, August 5, 2013
No Amnesty – None, Nada – Until Enforcement is Here to Stay
The United States enjoys and is benefitted by a wonderful attraction to immigrants, people who lawfully come here from other lands to live and be a part of this exceptional nation.
Unfortunately, it also attracts migrants who either cross our borders or enter our ports illegally, or illegally overstay visas. No one knows how many migrants are illegally in the United States today, but the low estimate is 12 million. That's about the population of Illinois or Pennsylvania, and more than the population of any other state except California, Florida, New York and Texas.
In 1986, President Reagan signed a law, the Simpson Mazzoli Act, advertised as if it were the be-all-and-end-all of amnesties for migrants illegally in the United States. Clean it up just this one last time and we'll hereafter strictly enforce our nation's laws!
The estimate was that about 1.8 million persons would "come out of the shadows" to become legal residents. In the event, some three million persons came out of the shadows. A scant four years later, Wyoming Republican U.S. Senator Alan Simpson - the Simpson of Simpson-Mazzoli - said, "Uncontrolled immigration is one of the greatest threats to the future of this country." So much for the enforcement so grandly promised by its supporters in Congress at the time his bill was signed by the president.
They're at it again. President Obama and the Democrat leadership in Congress are hell-bent on converting illegal migrants into legal residents. They have some Republican help. New rhetoric and new statutory language to be sure but, boiled down, it's the same old same old with a craftily created new twist, the Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI).
I'll dispense with details of RPI status and let the interested reader check it out on the Internet. Despite protestation to the contrary one might expect from, say, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., RPI status equals amnesty. This time the usual guesstimate is that 12 million migrants are illegally in our country; applying the Simpson-Mazzoli experience, 3-to-1.8, leads one to believe 20 million could be the reality. Perhaps more. Exceeding the population of every state except California and Texas.
McCain and three other senators (Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida) were the Republican half of the Gang of Eight who wrote this year's amnesty bill in the Senate, the euphemism-loaded Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.
Note that "border security" appears first. Most, reportedly including Spanish-surnamed citizens, believe it must be first in fact, not just in the bill title. Just like Simpson-Mazzoli, though, amnesty (the crafty new RPI arrangement) doesn't await evidence of enforcement; it's concurrent with the president's signature on the bill. It is inconceivable to me that migrants illegally here today and granted RPI status tomorrow would not immediately enjoy (or, with the inevitable amendments and court decisions, soon enjoy) substantially all privileges of any other legal resident except a citizen's right to vote. There will be no going back, so "provisional" is a snare and a delusion; crafty, no? RPI status would be tantamount to holding a green card.
On July 21, the Denver Post published Colorado U.S. Representative Mike Coffman's column in which he said, "First, we must secure our borders and enforce our laws." Right on! But three days later, on July 24, a Denver Post story included the reporter's understanding that Rep. Coffman "believes comprehensive immigration reform - increased border security and a provisional legal status for the millions of undocumented people living in the United States now - needs to happen mostly simultaneously." (Bolding mine.)
Wouldn't that take us back to Simpson-Mazzoli? But maybe 20 million instead of 3 million, their illegal entry rewarded through amnesty with legal permanent residence?
George Santayana famously observed, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
In that same July 24 article, President Obama was quoted, "... there's a tendency, I think, to put off the hard stuff until the end. And if you've eaten your dessert before you've eaten your meal, at least with my children, sometimes they don't end up eating their vegetables." This was in support of one comprehensive reform bill, say the Senate's, in contrast to the step-by-step approach the article reported to be supported by another Colorado Republican in the U.S. House, Cory Gardner.
True to form, the president has a confused interpretation of his own adage. The vegetables needing to be eaten first are called "Enforcement." The various stages of amnesty being proposed (e.g., "temporary provisional" residency, green cards, pathway to citizenship) are dessert that shouldn't even come out of refrigeration in the kitchen 'til the veggies are eaten.
My research indicates that Colorado's other two Republican U.S. representatives, Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton, aren't close to supporting amnesty, let alone in the absence of crystal clear evidence that enforcement has come first. Colorado's Democrats in Congress - Sens. Mark Udall and Gang-of-Eighter Michael Bennet, and Reps. Diana DeGette, Jared Polis and Ed Perlmutter - have apparently supported amnesty from the get-go.
The promise of low-wage workers and immunity from prosecution for ubiquitous illegal employment apparently has U.S. Chamber of Commerce members salivating for another amnesty. Quaking fear of alienating Hispanic voters has Republican consultants timorously clamoring for amnesty.
The Republic should not be compromised for the U.S. Chamber's interests.
I believe the amnesty-supporting political consultants are wrong. Sixty or so years of living in New Mexico, including more than eight as chairman of the state GOP there, leave me with the conviction that Republicans cannot out-pander the Democrats to secure support from Hispanics. Some despise the presence of illegal migrants, so the GOP could actually lose support among those. Others have a variety of (mostly big-government) reasons for supporting Democrats. Sen. McCain has been pandering to voters with Spanish surnames for the nearly three decades I have known him, yet McCain's electoral support among them is, at best, only marginally better than some other Republicans and worse than a few.
Republican obeisance to demands for comprehensive immigration reform is neither owed to the Spanish-surnamed segment of the population nor likely to win or lose its support. Republicans must earn these votes, just like others' votes, by steadfast pursuit of the conservative principles they claim to hold dear.
I concur that the immigration-migration situation of the United States is in disarray and desperately in need of overhaul. Step-by-step is the correct approach. The hard lesson of history teaches that enforcement must be the first of those steps
SOURCE
Immigration spot checks not racist, says Home Office
The Home Office has denied that officials broke the law by carrying out "racist" spot checks on suspected illegal immigrants on the basis of their skin colour.
The denial by immigration minister Mark Harper came after the Equality and Human Rights Commission launched an investigation into the immigration checks for possible discrimination, and anti-racism campaigner Doreen Lawrence also questioned the apparent focus on non-white people in operations being carried out in and around train stations.
Harper said the choice of London tube stations for spot checks was driven by intelligence, and that individuals were targeted on the basis of their behaviour rather than their physical appearance.
The UK Borders Agency's enforcement instructions and guidance reveal that immigration officers have broad discretion to carry out spot checks, with behaviour deemed to be suspicious including: hanging back from a station barrier, avoiding eye contact, a sudden change in walking direction or pace, and seeking to avoid confrontation with someone perceived to be a threat.
The minister revealed that no details of the ethnicity of those questioned were recorded, with officers noting only the nationality, name and date of birth of those they spoke to. Some 17 people were arrested on suspicion of immigration offences at two tube stations where operations were carried out. Data on the numbers stopped for questioning will be released in due course, he added.
"We are not carrying out random checks of people in the street and asking people to show their papers," he told the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme. "That's absolutely not what we are doing. We wouldn't have the lawful authority to do that.
"The operations carried out at two tube stations were based on specific intelligence about concerns that we had about those particular locations and about the times when we conducted the operations. We weren't stopping people based on their race or their ethnicity. We were only stopping people and questioning them where we had a reasonable suspicion that they were an immigration offender."
Harper said the operations were targetting people who "behaved in a very suspicious way". This appears to be a reference to section 31.19.5: basis to stop individuals, which states a person could be justifiably targeted if they seek to avoid immigration officers at a train or tube station as this could be classied as "having an adverse reaction to an immigration presence".
Labour's shadow immigration minister, Chris Bryant, told the Today programme that the recent immigration crackdown had led to a climate of moral panic. He has written to the home secretary, Theresa May, demanding details of the number and ethnic background of people stopped for questioning.
"If it feels as if what is basically happening is that they are going to some parts of the country and stopping every person with a black face, then that is totally unacceptable," he said.
"What we really need from Theresa May – and I think this is a matter of urgency now, because we have had a sort of moral panic that's been created by all of this over the last 10 days and I have a hateful fear that this is what the general election is going to be like – is precise numbers of where these stops and searches were being done, what the percentage was of people who were arrested."
Almost 140 suspected illegal immigrants were arrested on Thursday, in raids that the Home Office controversially publicised on Twitter and condemned by users of the microblooging site as "dystopian" and likened to "UK Hunger Games".
The EHRC, which is responsible for policing the Equalities Act, to which all public bodies are bound, is also investigating the controversial anti-immigration advertising campaign targeting racially mixed areas of London. The government campaign has used mobile billboards warning illegal immigrants to "go home or face arrest".
An EHRC spokesman said on Friday: "The commission is writing to the Home Office about these reported operations, confirming that it will be examining the powers used and the justification for them, in order to assess whether unlawful discrimination took place.
"The letter will also ask questions about the extent to which the Home Office complied with its public sector equality duty when planning the recent advertising campaign targeted at illegal migration.
SOURCE
No Amnesty – None, Nada – Until Enforcement is Here to Stay
The United States enjoys and is benefitted by a wonderful attraction to immigrants, people who lawfully come here from other lands to live and be a part of this exceptional nation.
Unfortunately, it also attracts migrants who either cross our borders or enter our ports illegally, or illegally overstay visas. No one knows how many migrants are illegally in the United States today, but the low estimate is 12 million. That's about the population of Illinois or Pennsylvania, and more than the population of any other state except California, Florida, New York and Texas.
In 1986, President Reagan signed a law, the Simpson Mazzoli Act, advertised as if it were the be-all-and-end-all of amnesties for migrants illegally in the United States. Clean it up just this one last time and we'll hereafter strictly enforce our nation's laws!
The estimate was that about 1.8 million persons would "come out of the shadows" to become legal residents. In the event, some three million persons came out of the shadows. A scant four years later, Wyoming Republican U.S. Senator Alan Simpson - the Simpson of Simpson-Mazzoli - said, "Uncontrolled immigration is one of the greatest threats to the future of this country." So much for the enforcement so grandly promised by its supporters in Congress at the time his bill was signed by the president.
They're at it again. President Obama and the Democrat leadership in Congress are hell-bent on converting illegal migrants into legal residents. They have some Republican help. New rhetoric and new statutory language to be sure but, boiled down, it's the same old same old with a craftily created new twist, the Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI).
I'll dispense with details of RPI status and let the interested reader check it out on the Internet. Despite protestation to the contrary one might expect from, say, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., RPI status equals amnesty. This time the usual guesstimate is that 12 million migrants are illegally in our country; applying the Simpson-Mazzoli experience, 3-to-1.8, leads one to believe 20 million could be the reality. Perhaps more. Exceeding the population of every state except California and Texas.
McCain and three other senators (Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida) were the Republican half of the Gang of Eight who wrote this year's amnesty bill in the Senate, the euphemism-loaded Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.
Note that "border security" appears first. Most, reportedly including Spanish-surnamed citizens, believe it must be first in fact, not just in the bill title. Just like Simpson-Mazzoli, though, amnesty (the crafty new RPI arrangement) doesn't await evidence of enforcement; it's concurrent with the president's signature on the bill. It is inconceivable to me that migrants illegally here today and granted RPI status tomorrow would not immediately enjoy (or, with the inevitable amendments and court decisions, soon enjoy) substantially all privileges of any other legal resident except a citizen's right to vote. There will be no going back, so "provisional" is a snare and a delusion; crafty, no? RPI status would be tantamount to holding a green card.
On July 21, the Denver Post published Colorado U.S. Representative Mike Coffman's column in which he said, "First, we must secure our borders and enforce our laws." Right on! But three days later, on July 24, a Denver Post story included the reporter's understanding that Rep. Coffman "believes comprehensive immigration reform - increased border security and a provisional legal status for the millions of undocumented people living in the United States now - needs to happen mostly simultaneously." (Bolding mine.)
Wouldn't that take us back to Simpson-Mazzoli? But maybe 20 million instead of 3 million, their illegal entry rewarded through amnesty with legal permanent residence?
George Santayana famously observed, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
In that same July 24 article, President Obama was quoted, "... there's a tendency, I think, to put off the hard stuff until the end. And if you've eaten your dessert before you've eaten your meal, at least with my children, sometimes they don't end up eating their vegetables." This was in support of one comprehensive reform bill, say the Senate's, in contrast to the step-by-step approach the article reported to be supported by another Colorado Republican in the U.S. House, Cory Gardner.
True to form, the president has a confused interpretation of his own adage. The vegetables needing to be eaten first are called "Enforcement." The various stages of amnesty being proposed (e.g., "temporary provisional" residency, green cards, pathway to citizenship) are dessert that shouldn't even come out of refrigeration in the kitchen 'til the veggies are eaten.
My research indicates that Colorado's other two Republican U.S. representatives, Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton, aren't close to supporting amnesty, let alone in the absence of crystal clear evidence that enforcement has come first. Colorado's Democrats in Congress - Sens. Mark Udall and Gang-of-Eighter Michael Bennet, and Reps. Diana DeGette, Jared Polis and Ed Perlmutter - have apparently supported amnesty from the get-go.
The promise of low-wage workers and immunity from prosecution for ubiquitous illegal employment apparently has U.S. Chamber of Commerce members salivating for another amnesty. Quaking fear of alienating Hispanic voters has Republican consultants timorously clamoring for amnesty.
The Republic should not be compromised for the U.S. Chamber's interests.
I believe the amnesty-supporting political consultants are wrong. Sixty or so years of living in New Mexico, including more than eight as chairman of the state GOP there, leave me with the conviction that Republicans cannot out-pander the Democrats to secure support from Hispanics. Some despise the presence of illegal migrants, so the GOP could actually lose support among those. Others have a variety of (mostly big-government) reasons for supporting Democrats. Sen. McCain has been pandering to voters with Spanish surnames for the nearly three decades I have known him, yet McCain's electoral support among them is, at best, only marginally better than some other Republicans and worse than a few.
Republican obeisance to demands for comprehensive immigration reform is neither owed to the Spanish-surnamed segment of the population nor likely to win or lose its support. Republicans must earn these votes, just like others' votes, by steadfast pursuit of the conservative principles they claim to hold dear.
I concur that the immigration-migration situation of the United States is in disarray and desperately in need of overhaul. Step-by-step is the correct approach. The hard lesson of history teaches that enforcement must be the first of those steps
SOURCE
Immigration spot checks not racist, says Home Office
The Home Office has denied that officials broke the law by carrying out "racist" spot checks on suspected illegal immigrants on the basis of their skin colour.
The denial by immigration minister Mark Harper came after the Equality and Human Rights Commission launched an investigation into the immigration checks for possible discrimination, and anti-racism campaigner Doreen Lawrence also questioned the apparent focus on non-white people in operations being carried out in and around train stations.
Harper said the choice of London tube stations for spot checks was driven by intelligence, and that individuals were targeted on the basis of their behaviour rather than their physical appearance.
The UK Borders Agency's enforcement instructions and guidance reveal that immigration officers have broad discretion to carry out spot checks, with behaviour deemed to be suspicious including: hanging back from a station barrier, avoiding eye contact, a sudden change in walking direction or pace, and seeking to avoid confrontation with someone perceived to be a threat.
The minister revealed that no details of the ethnicity of those questioned were recorded, with officers noting only the nationality, name and date of birth of those they spoke to. Some 17 people were arrested on suspicion of immigration offences at two tube stations where operations were carried out. Data on the numbers stopped for questioning will be released in due course, he added.
"We are not carrying out random checks of people in the street and asking people to show their papers," he told the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme. "That's absolutely not what we are doing. We wouldn't have the lawful authority to do that.
"The operations carried out at two tube stations were based on specific intelligence about concerns that we had about those particular locations and about the times when we conducted the operations. We weren't stopping people based on their race or their ethnicity. We were only stopping people and questioning them where we had a reasonable suspicion that they were an immigration offender."
Harper said the operations were targetting people who "behaved in a very suspicious way". This appears to be a reference to section 31.19.5: basis to stop individuals, which states a person could be justifiably targeted if they seek to avoid immigration officers at a train or tube station as this could be classied as "having an adverse reaction to an immigration presence".
Labour's shadow immigration minister, Chris Bryant, told the Today programme that the recent immigration crackdown had led to a climate of moral panic. He has written to the home secretary, Theresa May, demanding details of the number and ethnic background of people stopped for questioning.
"If it feels as if what is basically happening is that they are going to some parts of the country and stopping every person with a black face, then that is totally unacceptable," he said.
"What we really need from Theresa May – and I think this is a matter of urgency now, because we have had a sort of moral panic that's been created by all of this over the last 10 days and I have a hateful fear that this is what the general election is going to be like – is precise numbers of where these stops and searches were being done, what the percentage was of people who were arrested."
Almost 140 suspected illegal immigrants were arrested on Thursday, in raids that the Home Office controversially publicised on Twitter and condemned by users of the microblooging site as "dystopian" and likened to "UK Hunger Games".
The EHRC, which is responsible for policing the Equalities Act, to which all public bodies are bound, is also investigating the controversial anti-immigration advertising campaign targeting racially mixed areas of London. The government campaign has used mobile billboards warning illegal immigrants to "go home or face arrest".
An EHRC spokesman said on Friday: "The commission is writing to the Home Office about these reported operations, confirming that it will be examining the powers used and the justification for them, in order to assess whether unlawful discrimination took place.
"The letter will also ask questions about the extent to which the Home Office complied with its public sector equality duty when planning the recent advertising campaign targeted at illegal migration.
SOURCE
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Senator Sessions Urges Republicans to Seize Immigration Limits as a Winning Issue
Jeff Sessions, a leader against the Senate’s destructive amnesty bill in recent months, has sent a memo to fellow Republicans, urging them to reject amnesty. Many in the party have bad ideas in their heads about how a vote for amnesty will put them in the good graces of the overestimated hispanic voter. But it makes no sense to pursue a minority voting bloc when the Republican base strongly rejects amnesty for millions of lawbreaking foreigners.
Sessions argues that Democrats believe they can get away with screwing their own people in the working class because Repubs would be too dim, too bought by big business to stand for American workers.
Actually, the Democrats abandoned working class citizens years ago, when the Ds decided to become the diversity party, excluding all other values.
The upshot is that very few elected officials in Washington give a passing thought to Americans struggling in a worsening economy that is supposed to be recovering from a recession. It’s an opportunity for Republicans, if they are wise enough to embrace it.
The same set of GOP strategists, lobbyists, and donors who have always favored a proposal like the Gang of Eight immigration bill argue that the great lesson of the 2012 election is that the GOP needs to push for immediate amnesty and a drastic surge in low-skill immigration.
This is nonsense.
The GOP lost the election—as exit polls clearly show—because it hemorrhaged support from middle- and low-income Americans of all backgrounds. In changing the terms of the immigration debate we will not only prevent the implementation of a disastrous policy, but begin a larger effort to broaden our appeal to working Americans of all backgrounds. Now is the time to speak directly to the real and legitimate concerns of millions of hurting Americans whose wages have declined and whose job prospects have grown only bleaker. This humble and honest populism—in contrast to the Administration’s cheap demagoguery—would open the ears of millions who have turned away from our party. Of course, such a clear and honest message would require saying “no” to certain business demands and powerful interests who shaped the immigration bill in the Senate.
In Senator Schumer’s failed drive to acquire 70 votes, he convinced every single Democrat in his conference to support a bill that adds four times more guest workers than the rejected 2007 immigration plan while dramatically boosting the number of low-skill workers admitted to the country each year on a permanent basis. All this at a time when wages are lower than in 1999, when only 58 percent of U.S. adults are working, and when 47 million residents are on food stamps. Even CBO confirms that the proposal will reduce wages and increase unemployment. Low-income Americans will be hardest hit.
Ordinarily, this would be an act of political suicide for Democrats. How can they possibly succeed with a plan that will so badly injure American workers? Perhaps Senator Schumer, the White House, and their congressional allies believe the GOP lacks the insight to seize this important issue, push away certain financial interests, and make an unapologetic defense of working Americans. They seem, in fact, to expect the GOP House to drag their bill across the finish line. Indeed, more than a few in our party will argue that immigration reform must “serve the needs of businesses.” What about the needs of workers? Since when did we did we accept the idea that the immigration policy for our entire nation—with all its lasting social, economic, and moral implications—should be tailored to suit the financial interests of a few CEOs?
Americans broadly oppose further increases to our current generous immigration levels by a 2-1 margin, but the opposition among those earning less than $30,000 is especially strong: they prefer a reduction to an increase by a 3-1 margin. And no wonder: according to Harvard’s Dr. George Borjas, it’s the working poor whose wages have declined the most as a result of high immigration levels.
The GOP has a choice: it can either deliver President Obama his ultimate legislative triumph—and with it, a crushing hammer blow to working Americans that they will not soon forgive—or it can begin the essential drive to regain the trust of struggling Americans who have turned away. As Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol wrote in a joint op-ed, “the Gang of Eight bill unleashes a flood of additional low-skilled immigration. The last thing low-skilled native and immigrant workers already here should have to deal with is wage-depressing competition from newly arriving workers… It’s most important that the party perform better among working-class and younger voters concerned about economic opportunity and upward mobility.”
Like Obamacare, this 1,200-page immigration bill is a legislative monstrosity inimical to the interests of our country and the American people. Polls show again and again that the American people want security accomplished first, that they do not support a large increase in net immigration levels, and that they do not trust the government to deliver on enforcement. The GOP should insist on an approach to immigration that both restores constitutional order and serves the interests of the American worker and taxpayer. But only by refusing any attempt at rescue or reprieve for the Senate bill is there a hope of accomplishing these goals.
Instead of aiding the President and Senator Schumer in salvaging a bill that would devastate working Americans, Republicans should refocus all of our efforts on a united push to defend these Americans from the Administration’s continued onslaught. His health care policies, tax policies, energy policies, and welfare policies all have one thing in common: they enrich the bureaucracy at the expense of the people. Our goal: higher wages, more and better jobs, smaller household bills, and a solemn determination to aid those struggling towards the goal of achieving financial independence.
SOURCE
In New Interview, Blogger Mickey Kaus Laments Waning of Liberal Values in Immigration Debate
Political journalist and “neoliberal” blogger Mickey Kaus tells the Center for Immigration Studies how the Democrats’ immigration stance is at odds with the essential goal of promoting social equality among all Americans.
Amnesty and the huge immigration increases in the Senate bill, Kaus says in the interview, "will make it impossible for someone who does basic labor, at the bottom of the labor market ... to make a decent living and live a life of dignity, because you're going to be competing against all the world's poor."
View the interview of Mr. Kaus at: http://cis.org/Videos/ImmigrationPolicyInterviews/Mickey-Kaus
View the CIS interview series at: http://cis.org/Videos/ImmigrationPolicyInterviews
Mr. Kaus, a columnist for the Daily Caller, one of the first political bloggers, and a candidate in the 2010 Democratic Senate primary in California says, “It is crazy that there are no Democrats who wonder about the wisdom of uncontrolled illegal immigration. It has the effect of driving down wages of unskilled Americans especially, but also possibly in the case of importing high-tech people, driving down the wages of middle class people.“
Among the topics addressed by Mr. Kaus:
* Problems with preserving ethnic identity over civic identity
* Massive immigration drives down wages for American workers
* Massive immigration destroys social equality
* Caring for the foreign poor over the American poor
* Drive for amnesty is a drive for the Latino voter
* Black leadership co-opted by pro-amnesty forces
* Welfare debate parallels immigration debate
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Senator Sessions Urges Republicans to Seize Immigration Limits as a Winning Issue
Jeff Sessions, a leader against the Senate’s destructive amnesty bill in recent months, has sent a memo to fellow Republicans, urging them to reject amnesty. Many in the party have bad ideas in their heads about how a vote for amnesty will put them in the good graces of the overestimated hispanic voter. But it makes no sense to pursue a minority voting bloc when the Republican base strongly rejects amnesty for millions of lawbreaking foreigners.
Sessions argues that Democrats believe they can get away with screwing their own people in the working class because Repubs would be too dim, too bought by big business to stand for American workers.
Actually, the Democrats abandoned working class citizens years ago, when the Ds decided to become the diversity party, excluding all other values.
The upshot is that very few elected officials in Washington give a passing thought to Americans struggling in a worsening economy that is supposed to be recovering from a recession. It’s an opportunity for Republicans, if they are wise enough to embrace it.
The same set of GOP strategists, lobbyists, and donors who have always favored a proposal like the Gang of Eight immigration bill argue that the great lesson of the 2012 election is that the GOP needs to push for immediate amnesty and a drastic surge in low-skill immigration.
This is nonsense.
The GOP lost the election—as exit polls clearly show—because it hemorrhaged support from middle- and low-income Americans of all backgrounds. In changing the terms of the immigration debate we will not only prevent the implementation of a disastrous policy, but begin a larger effort to broaden our appeal to working Americans of all backgrounds. Now is the time to speak directly to the real and legitimate concerns of millions of hurting Americans whose wages have declined and whose job prospects have grown only bleaker. This humble and honest populism—in contrast to the Administration’s cheap demagoguery—would open the ears of millions who have turned away from our party. Of course, such a clear and honest message would require saying “no” to certain business demands and powerful interests who shaped the immigration bill in the Senate.
In Senator Schumer’s failed drive to acquire 70 votes, he convinced every single Democrat in his conference to support a bill that adds four times more guest workers than the rejected 2007 immigration plan while dramatically boosting the number of low-skill workers admitted to the country each year on a permanent basis. All this at a time when wages are lower than in 1999, when only 58 percent of U.S. adults are working, and when 47 million residents are on food stamps. Even CBO confirms that the proposal will reduce wages and increase unemployment. Low-income Americans will be hardest hit.
Ordinarily, this would be an act of political suicide for Democrats. How can they possibly succeed with a plan that will so badly injure American workers? Perhaps Senator Schumer, the White House, and their congressional allies believe the GOP lacks the insight to seize this important issue, push away certain financial interests, and make an unapologetic defense of working Americans. They seem, in fact, to expect the GOP House to drag their bill across the finish line. Indeed, more than a few in our party will argue that immigration reform must “serve the needs of businesses.” What about the needs of workers? Since when did we did we accept the idea that the immigration policy for our entire nation—with all its lasting social, economic, and moral implications—should be tailored to suit the financial interests of a few CEOs?
Americans broadly oppose further increases to our current generous immigration levels by a 2-1 margin, but the opposition among those earning less than $30,000 is especially strong: they prefer a reduction to an increase by a 3-1 margin. And no wonder: according to Harvard’s Dr. George Borjas, it’s the working poor whose wages have declined the most as a result of high immigration levels.
The GOP has a choice: it can either deliver President Obama his ultimate legislative triumph—and with it, a crushing hammer blow to working Americans that they will not soon forgive—or it can begin the essential drive to regain the trust of struggling Americans who have turned away. As Rich Lowry and Bill Kristol wrote in a joint op-ed, “the Gang of Eight bill unleashes a flood of additional low-skilled immigration. The last thing low-skilled native and immigrant workers already here should have to deal with is wage-depressing competition from newly arriving workers… It’s most important that the party perform better among working-class and younger voters concerned about economic opportunity and upward mobility.”
Like Obamacare, this 1,200-page immigration bill is a legislative monstrosity inimical to the interests of our country and the American people. Polls show again and again that the American people want security accomplished first, that they do not support a large increase in net immigration levels, and that they do not trust the government to deliver on enforcement. The GOP should insist on an approach to immigration that both restores constitutional order and serves the interests of the American worker and taxpayer. But only by refusing any attempt at rescue or reprieve for the Senate bill is there a hope of accomplishing these goals.
Instead of aiding the President and Senator Schumer in salvaging a bill that would devastate working Americans, Republicans should refocus all of our efforts on a united push to defend these Americans from the Administration’s continued onslaught. His health care policies, tax policies, energy policies, and welfare policies all have one thing in common: they enrich the bureaucracy at the expense of the people. Our goal: higher wages, more and better jobs, smaller household bills, and a solemn determination to aid those struggling towards the goal of achieving financial independence.
SOURCE
In New Interview, Blogger Mickey Kaus Laments Waning of Liberal Values in Immigration Debate
Political journalist and “neoliberal” blogger Mickey Kaus tells the Center for Immigration Studies how the Democrats’ immigration stance is at odds with the essential goal of promoting social equality among all Americans.
Amnesty and the huge immigration increases in the Senate bill, Kaus says in the interview, "will make it impossible for someone who does basic labor, at the bottom of the labor market ... to make a decent living and live a life of dignity, because you're going to be competing against all the world's poor."
View the interview of Mr. Kaus at: http://cis.org/Videos/ImmigrationPolicyInterviews/Mickey-Kaus
View the CIS interview series at: http://cis.org/Videos/ImmigrationPolicyInterviews
Mr. Kaus, a columnist for the Daily Caller, one of the first political bloggers, and a candidate in the 2010 Democratic Senate primary in California says, “It is crazy that there are no Democrats who wonder about the wisdom of uncontrolled illegal immigration. It has the effect of driving down wages of unskilled Americans especially, but also possibly in the case of importing high-tech people, driving down the wages of middle class people.“
Among the topics addressed by Mr. Kaus:
* Problems with preserving ethnic identity over civic identity
* Massive immigration drives down wages for American workers
* Massive immigration destroys social equality
* Caring for the foreign poor over the American poor
* Drive for amnesty is a drive for the Latino voter
* Black leadership co-opted by pro-amnesty forces
* Welfare debate parallels immigration debate
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: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@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
Friday, August 2, 2013
Homeland Security loses track of 1 million foreigners; report could hurt immigration deal
The Homeland Security Department has lost track of more than 1 million people who it knows arrived in the U.S. but who it cannot prove left the country, according to an audit Tuesday that also found the department probably won’t meet its own goals for deploying an entry-exit system.
The findings were revealed as Congress debates an immigration bill, and the Government Accountability Office’s report could throw up another hurdle because lawmakers in the House and Senate have said that any final deal must include a workable system to track entries and exits and cut down on so-called visa overstays.
The government does track arrivals, but is years overdue in setting up a system to track departures — a goal set in a 1996 immigration law and reaffirmed in 2004, but which has eluded Republican and Democratic administrations.
“DHS has not yet fulfilled the 2004 statutory requirement to implement a biometric exit capability, but has planning efforts under way to report to Congress in time for the fiscal year 2016 budget cycle on the costs and benefits of such a capability at airports and seaports,” GAO investigators wrote.
Outside business groups and Republican donors are trying to breathe life into the push for getting an immigration bill through Congress this year.
Nearly 100 top donors and former party officials signed a letter Tuesday pleading with House Republicans to pass a bill legalizing illegal immigrants, saying it could open the door to earning immigrants’ political support.
“Doing nothing is de facto amnesty. We need to take control of whom we let in our country and we need to make sure everybody plays by the same rules,” the donors said in their letter.
They aimed their pitch at House Republicans, who are trying to figure out a way forward and find themselves trapped between rank-and-file Republican voters who say legalizing illegal immigrants is an amnesty, and the party’s elites and donors who say the party cannot survive nationally without embracing legalization as part of a strategy to win over Hispanic voters.
The donor letter was sent the same day that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 400 other businesses and umbrella groups fired off a letter to House leaders of both parties, urging them to pass something — though the business leaders did not specifically call for legalizing illegal immigrants.
The business leaders and donors appeared to be sensing the momentum for immigration slipping away, little more than a month after the Senate passed its version on a bipartisan 68-32 vote.
How to handle visa overstays was a major part of the Senate bill debate when it came through the Judiciary Committee, though the issue received less attention on the Senate floor.
Under current law, the government is supposed to be developing a system to check every visitor’s entry and departure from the country, using biometric identifiers such as fingerprints. The system is supposed to apply to air, land and sea ports of entry.
But members of both parties have said that is a giant task. The Senate bill waters down those requirements, saying only that there must be a biographic-based system, which means using a photo, and that it be limited to air and sea ports.
The GAO said most of the overstays came by airplane, but 32 percent came through land ports of entry, and 4 percent came by sea. The average length of overstay was 2.7 years.
The Congressional Budget Office, which analyzed the Senate bill, said it will cut out about half of all illegal immigration. CBO said stiffer border security will limit those crossing the border illegally but that the system would boost the chances for illegal immigrants to come to the U.S. under new guest-worker programs and stay beyond their visas.
The executive branch is supposed to report annually to Congress on how many people have overstayed their visas but has failed to do so for the past two decades, saying the information isn’t reliable enough.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano told the Senate this year that her department would begin to report in December, but the GAO said Homeland Security officials aren’t sure what methodology they will use.
The department has repeatedly pushed back its deadlines for setting up an exit system at airports, telling GAO investigators this year that it will finalize plans in the near future. But GAO said the department is already behind its own schedule.
“For example, DHS had planned to begin scenario-based testing for biometric air exit options in August 2013; however, according to DHS officials, the department now plans to begin such testing in early 2014,” the auditors said.
The total of 1 million potential overstays in the country is an improvement from two years ago, when the GAO found Homeland Security had lost track of 1.6 million people.
Homeland Security went back and looked at those names and found that more than half had either actually left the country unbeknownst to the government, or had gained legal status that allowed them to remain in the U.S.
Of the others, the department decided most were deemed not to be security risks and so there was no need to track them down. But 1,901 of them were deemed significant national security or public safety threats, and 266 of those were still unaccounted for as of March.
In its official response to the GAO report, the Homeland Security Department said it is creating a working group to try to improve its data, and pointed to its success in reducing the backlog of overstay cases from 1.6 million to 1 million.
“DHS remains committed to strengthening and building upon existing capabilities to better identify and report on potential overstays,” said Jim H. Crumpacker, the department’s liaison to GAO.
SOURCEhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/30/homeland-security-loses-track-of-1-million-foreign/
McCain: We Might Drop Those 20,000 New Border Patrol Agents We Promised
As the House of Representatives prepares to take up the issue of illegal immigration, the Senate is already prepping for conference negotiations with John McCain taking the lead.
It turns out, some of the most crucial aspects of border enforcement already passed by the Senate, including the addition of 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, are likely to be negotiated away, proving once again that the Gang of 8 was a complete sham.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) signaled Tuesday that the dramatic boost in border-security in the Senate’s comprehensive immigration bill could be one of the provisions that may be changed in a potential House-Senate compromise.
During an immigration forum hosted by the AFL-CIO Tuesday, McCain – a key Senate Gang of Eight negotiator – said while a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s undocumented immigrants is a “fundamental element” of the bill, the “rest of it could be adjusted.” He singled out the border security parts as an example.
“We don’t need 20,000 additional border patrol agents,” McCain said Tuesday. “But what we do need is use of technology that has been developed where we can survey the border more effectively.”
The border-security provisions in the Gang of Eight bill, written by Republican Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota, would set aside more than $46 billion to double the number of border patrol agents along the southwestern U.S. boundary, add new surveillance technology and to complete the 700-mile border fence.
In case you missed it, Breitbart News recently proved why we in fact do need more Border Patrol agents and better security along the southern border with Mexico.
Currently, a bipartisan "Gang of 7" is working to present an immigration plan. Details of what they're working on a thin, but many fear border security provisions will be far from sufficient, resulting in amnesty with little enforcement for more than 11 million illegal immigrants.
Broadly, going to conference means losing control of the legislation – meaning pro-amnesty lawmakers will gain control. Even under the best case scenario, House conservatives trying to steer away from amnesty will be a distinct minority on any conference committee. They’d be pared with pro-amnesty Democrats from the House and Senate and pro-amnesty Republicans in the Senate. The deck would be stacked to deliver an amnesty plan that closely resembles the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill.
Congress heads into August recess on Friday and will hear from constituents back at home about this very issue. Debate and details about a plan will most likely emerge in September when lawmakers return to Capitol Hill.
SOURCE
Homeland Security loses track of 1 million foreigners; report could hurt immigration deal
The Homeland Security Department has lost track of more than 1 million people who it knows arrived in the U.S. but who it cannot prove left the country, according to an audit Tuesday that also found the department probably won’t meet its own goals for deploying an entry-exit system.
The findings were revealed as Congress debates an immigration bill, and the Government Accountability Office’s report could throw up another hurdle because lawmakers in the House and Senate have said that any final deal must include a workable system to track entries and exits and cut down on so-called visa overstays.
The government does track arrivals, but is years overdue in setting up a system to track departures — a goal set in a 1996 immigration law and reaffirmed in 2004, but which has eluded Republican and Democratic administrations.
“DHS has not yet fulfilled the 2004 statutory requirement to implement a biometric exit capability, but has planning efforts under way to report to Congress in time for the fiscal year 2016 budget cycle on the costs and benefits of such a capability at airports and seaports,” GAO investigators wrote.
Outside business groups and Republican donors are trying to breathe life into the push for getting an immigration bill through Congress this year.
Nearly 100 top donors and former party officials signed a letter Tuesday pleading with House Republicans to pass a bill legalizing illegal immigrants, saying it could open the door to earning immigrants’ political support.
“Doing nothing is de facto amnesty. We need to take control of whom we let in our country and we need to make sure everybody plays by the same rules,” the donors said in their letter.
They aimed their pitch at House Republicans, who are trying to figure out a way forward and find themselves trapped between rank-and-file Republican voters who say legalizing illegal immigrants is an amnesty, and the party’s elites and donors who say the party cannot survive nationally without embracing legalization as part of a strategy to win over Hispanic voters.
The donor letter was sent the same day that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 400 other businesses and umbrella groups fired off a letter to House leaders of both parties, urging them to pass something — though the business leaders did not specifically call for legalizing illegal immigrants.
The business leaders and donors appeared to be sensing the momentum for immigration slipping away, little more than a month after the Senate passed its version on a bipartisan 68-32 vote.
How to handle visa overstays was a major part of the Senate bill debate when it came through the Judiciary Committee, though the issue received less attention on the Senate floor.
Under current law, the government is supposed to be developing a system to check every visitor’s entry and departure from the country, using biometric identifiers such as fingerprints. The system is supposed to apply to air, land and sea ports of entry.
But members of both parties have said that is a giant task. The Senate bill waters down those requirements, saying only that there must be a biographic-based system, which means using a photo, and that it be limited to air and sea ports.
The GAO said most of the overstays came by airplane, but 32 percent came through land ports of entry, and 4 percent came by sea. The average length of overstay was 2.7 years.
The Congressional Budget Office, which analyzed the Senate bill, said it will cut out about half of all illegal immigration. CBO said stiffer border security will limit those crossing the border illegally but that the system would boost the chances for illegal immigrants to come to the U.S. under new guest-worker programs and stay beyond their visas.
The executive branch is supposed to report annually to Congress on how many people have overstayed their visas but has failed to do so for the past two decades, saying the information isn’t reliable enough.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano told the Senate this year that her department would begin to report in December, but the GAO said Homeland Security officials aren’t sure what methodology they will use.
The department has repeatedly pushed back its deadlines for setting up an exit system at airports, telling GAO investigators this year that it will finalize plans in the near future. But GAO said the department is already behind its own schedule.
“For example, DHS had planned to begin scenario-based testing for biometric air exit options in August 2013; however, according to DHS officials, the department now plans to begin such testing in early 2014,” the auditors said.
The total of 1 million potential overstays in the country is an improvement from two years ago, when the GAO found Homeland Security had lost track of 1.6 million people.
Homeland Security went back and looked at those names and found that more than half had either actually left the country unbeknownst to the government, or had gained legal status that allowed them to remain in the U.S.
Of the others, the department decided most were deemed not to be security risks and so there was no need to track them down. But 1,901 of them were deemed significant national security or public safety threats, and 266 of those were still unaccounted for as of March.
In its official response to the GAO report, the Homeland Security Department said it is creating a working group to try to improve its data, and pointed to its success in reducing the backlog of overstay cases from 1.6 million to 1 million.
“DHS remains committed to strengthening and building upon existing capabilities to better identify and report on potential overstays,” said Jim H. Crumpacker, the department’s liaison to GAO.
SOURCEhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/30/homeland-security-loses-track-of-1-million-foreign/
McCain: We Might Drop Those 20,000 New Border Patrol Agents We Promised
As the House of Representatives prepares to take up the issue of illegal immigration, the Senate is already prepping for conference negotiations with John McCain taking the lead.
It turns out, some of the most crucial aspects of border enforcement already passed by the Senate, including the addition of 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, are likely to be negotiated away, proving once again that the Gang of 8 was a complete sham.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) signaled Tuesday that the dramatic boost in border-security in the Senate’s comprehensive immigration bill could be one of the provisions that may be changed in a potential House-Senate compromise.
During an immigration forum hosted by the AFL-CIO Tuesday, McCain – a key Senate Gang of Eight negotiator – said while a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s undocumented immigrants is a “fundamental element” of the bill, the “rest of it could be adjusted.” He singled out the border security parts as an example.
“We don’t need 20,000 additional border patrol agents,” McCain said Tuesday. “But what we do need is use of technology that has been developed where we can survey the border more effectively.”
The border-security provisions in the Gang of Eight bill, written by Republican Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota, would set aside more than $46 billion to double the number of border patrol agents along the southwestern U.S. boundary, add new surveillance technology and to complete the 700-mile border fence.
In case you missed it, Breitbart News recently proved why we in fact do need more Border Patrol agents and better security along the southern border with Mexico.
Currently, a bipartisan "Gang of 7" is working to present an immigration plan. Details of what they're working on a thin, but many fear border security provisions will be far from sufficient, resulting in amnesty with little enforcement for more than 11 million illegal immigrants.
Broadly, going to conference means losing control of the legislation – meaning pro-amnesty lawmakers will gain control. Even under the best case scenario, House conservatives trying to steer away from amnesty will be a distinct minority on any conference committee. They’d be pared with pro-amnesty Democrats from the House and Senate and pro-amnesty Republicans in the Senate. The deck would be stacked to deliver an amnesty plan that closely resembles the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill.
Congress heads into August recess on Friday and will hear from constituents back at home about this very issue. Debate and details about a plan will most likely emerge in September when lawmakers return to Capitol Hill.
SOURCE
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Spread-eagled against the wall and marched off single-file: How Russia deals with illegal immigrants
Police officers raided Moscow's Tyoply Stan market yesterday to detain dozens of suspected illegal immigrants.
Russian authorities are currently holding a number of large scale operations to identify those staying in the country illegally so they can be expelled.
After rounding up the men, the police and immigration officers then displayed their no-nonsense approach in front of the cameras.
The men were spreadeagled against a large police bus, with their clothing searched by a police officer.
Others were made to wait, standing with their hands behind their necks as officers looked on.
Eventually, when they were all processed, they were frog-marched single-file onto the bus, each made to hold onto the man in front's shoulders.
The authorities in Russia are currently holding large-scale operations to identify illegal immigrants and expel them from the country.
It is believed that out of 11 million migrants currently living in Russia, four million do so illegally.
They are mostly people from states which used to belong to the former Soviet Union, such as Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Speaking at the beginning of this month, Dmitry Demidenko, from Russian Federal Migration Service, said:
'As of June 28, 2013, 11,193,289 immigrants are living in Russia. And 3.76 million out of the whole number live here illegally. 'We are searching for them and expel from the country as we find them.'
SOURCE
'Caring' Australian Greens want to welcome illegal immigrants -- revealing how far Left they are
The Greens would strip away all deterrents from refugee policy and aim to stop deaths at sea by dramatically increasing Australia's refugee intake and boosting the capacity of the United Nations refugee agency to process claims in Indonesia.
The pre-election policy to be released on Wednesday would also shut down detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island, give work rights to those in the community and lift the ban on people in refugee-producing countries coming directly by air to seek asylum.
It would also appoint an Australian ambassador for refugee protection to help broker a regional co-operation response modelled on the approach of Malcolm Fraser with Vietnamese asylum seekers in the 1970s.
The policy has been criticised by Coalition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison who says it "won't stop the boats". Meanwhile, bad weather had delayed the transfer of the first asylum seekers to Manus Island under the Rudd Government's agreement with Papua New Guinea.
Buoyed by polling showing only one in three voters trusts the major parties to "handle refugees with care", the Greens will market themselves as the only party offering "compassion, legality and the only model for saving refugee lives at sea that has ever really worked".
"If you want to stop the people-smuggling business, you have to undercut it, and that means providing a viable option that does not force refugees into the hands of people smugglers in the first place," says the party's spokeswoman on asylum, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
Greens leader Christine Milne will propose a doubling of funding to the United Nations refugee agency to speed up assessment and resettlement of asylum seekers in Indonesia and Malaysia, and a 10,000 increase in Australia's refugee intake. One in three places in the 30,000 program would be set aside for refugees assessed by the UN agency in the region, including at least 3800 in Indonesia.
Senator Milne said the Parliamentary Budget Office has costed an increase in the humanitarian program to 30,000 at $2.5 billion over four years, a fraction of the amount spent on offshore processing.
A Galaxy poll commissioned by the Greens found that almost 50 per cent of voters did not trust either Labor or the Liberals "to put caring for refugees before political interest". The same proportion did not trust either of the major parties to "handle refugees with care".
"Both parties are moving so far to the right, it's difficult to imagine the next level of cruelty they could possibly engage in," Senator Milne told Fairfax Media. "They are bringing shame on Australia in a national and global sense."
Spending an extra $70 million a year to boost the UNHCR's capacity in the region was in line with recommendations of the Gillard government's expert panel and would "take pressure off people feeling like they have no other option than to be on boats".
The policy commits the Greens to restore Australia's migration zone "to match our land and sea territory"; to guarantee legal review and community detention options for refugees who receive adverse ASIO security assessments; and to replace the immigration minister with an independent guardian for unaccompanied children seeking asylum.
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.
Spread-eagled against the wall and marched off single-file: How Russia deals with illegal immigrants
Police officers raided Moscow's Tyoply Stan market yesterday to detain dozens of suspected illegal immigrants.
Russian authorities are currently holding a number of large scale operations to identify those staying in the country illegally so they can be expelled.
After rounding up the men, the police and immigration officers then displayed their no-nonsense approach in front of the cameras.
The men were spreadeagled against a large police bus, with their clothing searched by a police officer.
Others were made to wait, standing with their hands behind their necks as officers looked on.
Eventually, when they were all processed, they were frog-marched single-file onto the bus, each made to hold onto the man in front's shoulders.
The authorities in Russia are currently holding large-scale operations to identify illegal immigrants and expel them from the country.
It is believed that out of 11 million migrants currently living in Russia, four million do so illegally.
They are mostly people from states which used to belong to the former Soviet Union, such as Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Speaking at the beginning of this month, Dmitry Demidenko, from Russian Federal Migration Service, said:
'As of June 28, 2013, 11,193,289 immigrants are living in Russia. And 3.76 million out of the whole number live here illegally. 'We are searching for them and expel from the country as we find them.'
SOURCE
'Caring' Australian Greens want to welcome illegal immigrants -- revealing how far Left they are
The Greens would strip away all deterrents from refugee policy and aim to stop deaths at sea by dramatically increasing Australia's refugee intake and boosting the capacity of the United Nations refugee agency to process claims in Indonesia.
The pre-election policy to be released on Wednesday would also shut down detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island, give work rights to those in the community and lift the ban on people in refugee-producing countries coming directly by air to seek asylum.
It would also appoint an Australian ambassador for refugee protection to help broker a regional co-operation response modelled on the approach of Malcolm Fraser with Vietnamese asylum seekers in the 1970s.
The policy has been criticised by Coalition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison who says it "won't stop the boats". Meanwhile, bad weather had delayed the transfer of the first asylum seekers to Manus Island under the Rudd Government's agreement with Papua New Guinea.
Buoyed by polling showing only one in three voters trusts the major parties to "handle refugees with care", the Greens will market themselves as the only party offering "compassion, legality and the only model for saving refugee lives at sea that has ever really worked".
"If you want to stop the people-smuggling business, you have to undercut it, and that means providing a viable option that does not force refugees into the hands of people smugglers in the first place," says the party's spokeswoman on asylum, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
Greens leader Christine Milne will propose a doubling of funding to the United Nations refugee agency to speed up assessment and resettlement of asylum seekers in Indonesia and Malaysia, and a 10,000 increase in Australia's refugee intake. One in three places in the 30,000 program would be set aside for refugees assessed by the UN agency in the region, including at least 3800 in Indonesia.
Senator Milne said the Parliamentary Budget Office has costed an increase in the humanitarian program to 30,000 at $2.5 billion over four years, a fraction of the amount spent on offshore processing.
A Galaxy poll commissioned by the Greens found that almost 50 per cent of voters did not trust either Labor or the Liberals "to put caring for refugees before political interest". The same proportion did not trust either of the major parties to "handle refugees with care".
"Both parties are moving so far to the right, it's difficult to imagine the next level of cruelty they could possibly engage in," Senator Milne told Fairfax Media. "They are bringing shame on Australia in a national and global sense."
Spending an extra $70 million a year to boost the UNHCR's capacity in the region was in line with recommendations of the Gillard government's expert panel and would "take pressure off people feeling like they have no other option than to be on boats".
The policy commits the Greens to restore Australia's migration zone "to match our land and sea territory"; to guarantee legal review and community detention options for refugees who receive adverse ASIO security assessments; and to replace the immigration minister with an independent guardian for unaccompanied children seeking asylum.
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.