ICE: Illegal aliens must now commit at least three crimes to be deported
On Friday, the Obama administration quietly issued a memo stating that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency will no longer detain or seek to deport illegal aliens charged with misdemeanor crimes.
Among the conditions under which ICE agents are now allowed to issue a detainer, is if "the individual has three or more prior misdemeanor convictions."
Supposedly, there are a few exceptions to the new policy, including those charged with, or convicted of a DUI and sexual abuse.
The memo was signed by John Morton, the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and released on Friday evening.
The Obama administration has become very fond of the infamous so-called 'Friday night document dump,' a long-practiced attempt to not draw attention to the unpopular or damning information contained in the release.
This latest policy, Morton said, restricts action "against individuals arrested for minor misdemeanor offenses."
What are some of the crimes that will now be overlooked by ICE? The following is a partial list of misdemeanors as defined by the state of California:
-Trespassing
-Petty theft
-Disorderly conduct
-Shoplifting
-Receipt for stolen property
-Probation violations
-Driving without a license
-Prostitution
-Reckless driving
-Assault and battery without minimum injury
Not surprisingly, this decision from the Obama administration has been completely ignored by the mainstream press.
SOURCE
Miliband set for policy clash with his own MPs: Labour leader plans to woo middle Britain with tougher stance on immigration
Labour MPs remain firmly opposed to curbs on immigration and red tape, a survey reveals today - as Ed Miliband pledges to unveil a string of policies to woo middle Britain.
In his New Year’s message the Labour leader says the party will finally begin setting out its policies for the next election, with a focus on rebuilding the economy and helping struggling families.
Mr Miliband insists he has learned ‘hard truths’ about what Labour ‘got wrong’ on issues like immigration in the past.
In recent weeks Mr Miliband has flirted with taking a tougher stance on immigration without spelling out how he would limit the number of migrants coming to the UK.
But a new Ipsos/Mori survey suggests that his own MPs remain opposed to a crackdown on immigration.
Some 49 per cent of Labour MPs surveyed said that placing any restriction on immigration would harm the competitiveness of Britain’s economy. Just 22 per cent said immigration controls would not be damaging.
By contrast, 82 per cent of Conservative MPs said that immigration restrictions would not harm the economy.
In his New Year message Mr Miliband also pledges to bring forward new proposals to kickstart the economy, including plans to help ‘small businesses struggling against the odds’.
But the Ipsos/Mori survey reveals that Labour MPs remain deeply opposed to any effort to slash red tape, which is routinely cited as a major problem for small business. Not a single Labour MP agreed that the level of regulation faced by British business was damaging the economy. Almost two thirds (64 per cent) said red tape was not holding back economic growth.
By contrast, 87 per cent of Tory MPs cited red tape as a key factor in holding back Britain’s economy.
Mr Miliband ordered a major policy review in the wake of the 2010 election defeat, saying he would start with a ‘blank sheet of paper’. But so far the review has not produced any major policies.
In a further blow yesterday it emerged that the former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling may quit politics rather than take a Shadow Cabinet job in the run-up to the next election.
Speculation has been mounting at Westminster in recent weeks that Mr Darling could make a dramatic return as Shadow Chancellor as part of a drive to improve Labour’s faltering credibility on the economy. The move would see him replace Ed Balls, whose role in helping Gordon Brown run up the huge budget deficit left by Labour is set to be a key election issue.
Mr Darling, 59, is one of the few figures to emerge from the last Government with his credibility intact after standing up to Mr Brown’s demands for more spending, and helping to shore up the banks.
SOURCE
Friday, December 28, 2012
Extra 20,000 foreign workers could head to the UK
More than 20,000 foreign workers from outside the EU could flock to Britain to replace Romanian and Bulgarian fruit pickers who will be tempted by better jobs when work restrictions are lifted next year (Dec 2013).
The new wave of overseas workers should be allowed to come from countries including Ukraine, Moldova and Croatia, despite 2.51 million unemployed people in the UK, the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) said. Unemployed Britons tend to be based in cities and few are interested in short-term, seasonal work on farms in rural areas, they added.
The Romanians and Bulgarians picking fruit and harvesting crops are expected to drop their tools and head to the cities for what is seen as easier low-skilled work in better conditions in bars and restaurants when restrictions on where they can work are lifted at the end of next year (2013).
Farmers want to clear the way for thousands of other foreign workers from outside the EU to take their place for up to six months at a time, picking strawberries, potatoes and cauliflowers for the supermarket shelves.
Hayley Campbell-Gibbons, chief horticultural adviser for the NFU, said: “Without those 21,500 workers we simply won’t have enough people here to pick crops. “In the past there have been years where we simply haven’t been able to get enough workers – not on that scale, but by a few thousand – and the result is that crops go unharvested and unpicked and food has to come in from elsewhere. “There have been shortages on the shelves. It’s not somewhere we want to go again.”
The Government's immigration advisers are considering the impact on the UK and its seasonal workers on farms once restrictions are lifted and migrants from Romania and Bulgaria can take any job in the UK from January 1 2014.
Numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians living in the UK have already jumped from 29,000 to 155,000 since the two countries joined the EU five years ago, and one Conservative MP, Philip Hollobone, has predicted this could treble again to 425,000 within two years of the restrictions being lifted.
But the mandatory lifting of the work restrictions will also give the 21,500 Romanians and Bulgarians already in the UK under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme (Saws) the freedom to leave their labour-intensive jobs on farms.
Given the choice of picking fruit and having up to six months work or “more comfortable work in better conditions” in hospitality, catering, or care homes, Romanians and Bulgarians on the scheme are expected to leave “as soon as those restrictions are lifted”, Mrs Campbell-Gibbons said. “We suspect we may get some people return for one season, but then they’ll use our farms as a stepping stone into work elsewhere,” she said. We’ve seen that happen in the past.”
The industry has also faced difficulties attracting unemployed Britons to take the jobs, she added. “People in the UK have a preference for permanent work, as opposed to temporary; working outdoors, picking fruit, it’s unskilled work and it’s not seen as a very attractive prospect for the majority.
“Despite government aspirations to achieve it, it’s unrealistic to expect that you can just cut the workforce by 20,000 and expect that to be filled.”
One option would be to create a new scheme for students from anywhere in the world, or to restrict it to workers from countries looking to join the EU, such as the Ukraine, Moldova, or Croatia.
Martin Ruhs, director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said: “The interesting question is, does the UK want to have jobs here that will mainly be done by people who cannot legally do any other jobs.
"If the argument is that this job will not be done by anybody who has free choice of employment, then I think there is a question about, ‘what is it about this sector and is it a good or bad idea for the UK in a way to be encouraging that?’ "It's not a straightforward question.
"On the one hand you could say, ‘Well, the UK shouldn't be in the business of promoting this very labour intensive farming and why not let the industry decline and we start importing?’
"The other argument is that there are many people who have a demand for British strawberries, and if it's important to you to have British strawberries then obviously you need to find a way of keep producing them here, which means you need to find a way of providing labour to his sector.”
Dr Ruhs, who is also a member of the Migration Advisory Committee, said it would report on the future of the Saws scheme early next year. "Saws is one of the key issues that we're looking at, absolutely," he said.
"You could encourage a scheme that brings in non-EU workers from countries that have applied to be members of the EU in the future, or you could bring in countries from elsewhere."
A UK Border Agency spokesman said: “The Government has no current plans to introduce a replacement for the seasonal agricultural workers scheme after 2013, but we recognise the concerns of the agricultural sector and have asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to look into this issue.”
SOURCE
NE: Illegal immigration ordinance makes it way through courts
Fremont’s illegal immigration ordinance moved from U.S. District Court at the beginning of 2012 to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals where, by the end of the year, oral arguments had been heard and Ordinance No. 5165 rested in the hands of a three-judge panel.
In the meantime, however, employment portions of the ordinance went into effect on May 4.
The ordinance, approved by Fremont voters on June 21, 2010, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Laurie Smith Camp on Feb. 20 upheld its employment portions — basically requiring use of the federal E-Verify system — and portions allowing the city to issue occupancy licenses to renters, but struck down portions prohibiting the harboring of illegal aliens, revoking occupancy licenses and penalties following revocation of occupancy licenses.
Both sides declared victory, but the ACLU and MALDEF quickly appealed and the city cross-appealed.
The city council on Feb. 28 unanimously approved a March 5 implementation of portions of the ordinance requiring employers and city contractors to use E-Verify.
The ordinance applies only to new hires after the date of the ordinance’s implementation, but all businesses needed to be registered by May 4.
Penalties for noncompliance could include revocation of city-issued permits, contracts or grants; acceleration of loan terms with the city; or a public hearing.
In the same motion, the council continued to delay implementing the rest of the ordinance until the Court of Appeals issues a final ruling.
The council, on March 13, allocated $450,000 toward implementation of the employment portion. The money will come from funds that had been levied in property taxes the past two years for legal defense of the ordinance.
Later in March, the ACLU and MALDEF submitted claims to the city for legal work totaling more than a combined $1 million.
The $709,000 bill from the ACLU included more than 900 hours of work by attorneys Jennifer Chang Newell and Kenneth Sugarman at a billable rate of $390 per hour.
In contrast, attorney Kris Kobach, who wrote the ordinance and is defending it on behalf of the city at no charge, was seeking about $6,000 for expenses.
Both sides filed a joint motion on March 30 to stay proceedings on bills of costs pending appeals.
The city council on April 10 approved creation of a full-time legal secretary position and an investigator to help City Attorney Paul Payne implement the ordinance. The secretary position has since been filled, but hiring an investigator was put on hold, and that position may not be filled if city officials determine they don’t need it.
“At this point, as the ordinance stands, I believe I’ve got an obligation to go forward with (enforcement). I’m still working out a lot of the details as far as the investigatory end of things,” Payne said in April.
City Administrator Dale Shotkoski said he doesn’t want the city attorney so involved with the immigration ordinance that Payne can’t do the rest of his job.
“This is one ordinance,” Shotkoski said. “There are a whole bunch of them out there. There are also contracts he reviews and a lot of other things he’s doing for us, so we can’t have him spending 90 percent of his time on this ordinance, then we aren’t getting the benefit of having a city attorney.”
Oral arguments at the Court of Appeals were heard in St. Paul, Minn., on Dec. 13.
Chang Newell argued that the ordinance conflicts with and undermines federal control over immigration.
Kobach said plaintiffs could not identify a single federal statute that clearly conflicts with the ordinance, and referred to a federal law he said points to Congress wanting to discourage the unlawful housing of illegal immigrants in subsidized housing.
SOURCE
Extra 20,000 foreign workers could head to the UK
More than 20,000 foreign workers from outside the EU could flock to Britain to replace Romanian and Bulgarian fruit pickers who will be tempted by better jobs when work restrictions are lifted next year (Dec 2013).
The new wave of overseas workers should be allowed to come from countries including Ukraine, Moldova and Croatia, despite 2.51 million unemployed people in the UK, the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) said. Unemployed Britons tend to be based in cities and few are interested in short-term, seasonal work on farms in rural areas, they added.
The Romanians and Bulgarians picking fruit and harvesting crops are expected to drop their tools and head to the cities for what is seen as easier low-skilled work in better conditions in bars and restaurants when restrictions on where they can work are lifted at the end of next year (2013).
Farmers want to clear the way for thousands of other foreign workers from outside the EU to take their place for up to six months at a time, picking strawberries, potatoes and cauliflowers for the supermarket shelves.
Hayley Campbell-Gibbons, chief horticultural adviser for the NFU, said: “Without those 21,500 workers we simply won’t have enough people here to pick crops. “In the past there have been years where we simply haven’t been able to get enough workers – not on that scale, but by a few thousand – and the result is that crops go unharvested and unpicked and food has to come in from elsewhere. “There have been shortages on the shelves. It’s not somewhere we want to go again.”
The Government's immigration advisers are considering the impact on the UK and its seasonal workers on farms once restrictions are lifted and migrants from Romania and Bulgaria can take any job in the UK from January 1 2014.
Numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians living in the UK have already jumped from 29,000 to 155,000 since the two countries joined the EU five years ago, and one Conservative MP, Philip Hollobone, has predicted this could treble again to 425,000 within two years of the restrictions being lifted.
But the mandatory lifting of the work restrictions will also give the 21,500 Romanians and Bulgarians already in the UK under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme (Saws) the freedom to leave their labour-intensive jobs on farms.
Given the choice of picking fruit and having up to six months work or “more comfortable work in better conditions” in hospitality, catering, or care homes, Romanians and Bulgarians on the scheme are expected to leave “as soon as those restrictions are lifted”, Mrs Campbell-Gibbons said. “We suspect we may get some people return for one season, but then they’ll use our farms as a stepping stone into work elsewhere,” she said. We’ve seen that happen in the past.”
The industry has also faced difficulties attracting unemployed Britons to take the jobs, she added. “People in the UK have a preference for permanent work, as opposed to temporary; working outdoors, picking fruit, it’s unskilled work and it’s not seen as a very attractive prospect for the majority.
“Despite government aspirations to achieve it, it’s unrealistic to expect that you can just cut the workforce by 20,000 and expect that to be filled.”
One option would be to create a new scheme for students from anywhere in the world, or to restrict it to workers from countries looking to join the EU, such as the Ukraine, Moldova, or Croatia.
Martin Ruhs, director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said: “The interesting question is, does the UK want to have jobs here that will mainly be done by people who cannot legally do any other jobs.
"If the argument is that this job will not be done by anybody who has free choice of employment, then I think there is a question about, ‘what is it about this sector and is it a good or bad idea for the UK in a way to be encouraging that?’ "It's not a straightforward question.
"On the one hand you could say, ‘Well, the UK shouldn't be in the business of promoting this very labour intensive farming and why not let the industry decline and we start importing?’
"The other argument is that there are many people who have a demand for British strawberries, and if it's important to you to have British strawberries then obviously you need to find a way of keep producing them here, which means you need to find a way of providing labour to his sector.”
Dr Ruhs, who is also a member of the Migration Advisory Committee, said it would report on the future of the Saws scheme early next year. "Saws is one of the key issues that we're looking at, absolutely," he said.
"You could encourage a scheme that brings in non-EU workers from countries that have applied to be members of the EU in the future, or you could bring in countries from elsewhere."
A UK Border Agency spokesman said: “The Government has no current plans to introduce a replacement for the seasonal agricultural workers scheme after 2013, but we recognise the concerns of the agricultural sector and have asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to look into this issue.”
SOURCE
NE: Illegal immigration ordinance makes it way through courts
Fremont’s illegal immigration ordinance moved from U.S. District Court at the beginning of 2012 to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals where, by the end of the year, oral arguments had been heard and Ordinance No. 5165 rested in the hands of a three-judge panel.
In the meantime, however, employment portions of the ordinance went into effect on May 4.
The ordinance, approved by Fremont voters on June 21, 2010, was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Laurie Smith Camp on Feb. 20 upheld its employment portions — basically requiring use of the federal E-Verify system — and portions allowing the city to issue occupancy licenses to renters, but struck down portions prohibiting the harboring of illegal aliens, revoking occupancy licenses and penalties following revocation of occupancy licenses.
Both sides declared victory, but the ACLU and MALDEF quickly appealed and the city cross-appealed.
The city council on Feb. 28 unanimously approved a March 5 implementation of portions of the ordinance requiring employers and city contractors to use E-Verify.
The ordinance applies only to new hires after the date of the ordinance’s implementation, but all businesses needed to be registered by May 4.
Penalties for noncompliance could include revocation of city-issued permits, contracts or grants; acceleration of loan terms with the city; or a public hearing.
In the same motion, the council continued to delay implementing the rest of the ordinance until the Court of Appeals issues a final ruling.
The council, on March 13, allocated $450,000 toward implementation of the employment portion. The money will come from funds that had been levied in property taxes the past two years for legal defense of the ordinance.
Later in March, the ACLU and MALDEF submitted claims to the city for legal work totaling more than a combined $1 million.
The $709,000 bill from the ACLU included more than 900 hours of work by attorneys Jennifer Chang Newell and Kenneth Sugarman at a billable rate of $390 per hour.
In contrast, attorney Kris Kobach, who wrote the ordinance and is defending it on behalf of the city at no charge, was seeking about $6,000 for expenses.
Both sides filed a joint motion on March 30 to stay proceedings on bills of costs pending appeals.
The city council on April 10 approved creation of a full-time legal secretary position and an investigator to help City Attorney Paul Payne implement the ordinance. The secretary position has since been filled, but hiring an investigator was put on hold, and that position may not be filled if city officials determine they don’t need it.
“At this point, as the ordinance stands, I believe I’ve got an obligation to go forward with (enforcement). I’m still working out a lot of the details as far as the investigatory end of things,” Payne said in April.
City Administrator Dale Shotkoski said he doesn’t want the city attorney so involved with the immigration ordinance that Payne can’t do the rest of his job.
“This is one ordinance,” Shotkoski said. “There are a whole bunch of them out there. There are also contracts he reviews and a lot of other things he’s doing for us, so we can’t have him spending 90 percent of his time on this ordinance, then we aren’t getting the benefit of having a city attorney.”
Oral arguments at the Court of Appeals were heard in St. Paul, Minn., on Dec. 13.
Chang Newell argued that the ordinance conflicts with and undermines federal control over immigration.
Kobach said plaintiffs could not identify a single federal statute that clearly conflicts with the ordinance, and referred to a federal law he said points to Congress wanting to discourage the unlawful housing of illegal immigrants in subsidized housing.
SOURCE
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Immigration and Policing
The Obama administration on Friday announced a policy change that — if it works — should lead to smarter enforcement of the immigration laws, with greater effort spent on deporting dangerous felons and less on minor offenders who pose no threat.
The new policy places stricter conditions on when Immigration and Customs Enforcement sends requests, known as detainers, to local law-enforcement agencies asking them to hold suspected immigration violators in jail until the government can pick them up. Detainers will be issued for serious offenders — those who have been convicted or charged with a felony, who have three or more misdemeanor convictions, or have one conviction or charge for misdemeanor crimes like sexual abuse, drunken driving, weapons possession or drug trafficking. Those who illegally re-entered the country after having been deported or posing a national-security threat would also be detained. But there would be no detainers for those with no convictions or records of only petty offenses like traffic violations.
John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, said this was a case of “setting priorities” to “maximize public safety.”
But wait, you ask, shouldn’t ICE have been doing this all along? Didn’t Mr. Morton say in a memo two years ago that ICE would use its “prosecutorial discretion” to focus on the most dangerous illegal immigrants? He did. But for nearly as long as President Obama has been in office, ICE has been vastly expanding its deportation efforts, enlisting state and local agencies to expel people at a record pace of 400,000 a year — tens of thousands of them noncriminals or minor offenders. By outsourcing “discretion” to local cops through a fingerprinting program called Secure Communities, it has greatly increased the number of small fry caught in an ever-wider national dragnet.
Some cities and states have resisted cooperating with ICE detainers for the very reasons of proportionality and public safety that Mr. Morton cited on Friday. California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, told her state’s law enforcement agencies this month that ICE had no authority to force them to jail minor offenders who pose no threat.
Secure Communities and indiscriminate detainers have caused no end of frustration for many police officials, who rely on trust and cooperation in immigrant communities to do their jobs. They know that crime victims and witnesses will not cooperate if every encounter with the law carries the danger of deportation. They have shied away from a federal role that is not theirs to take.
ICE’s announcement seems to make those efforts unnecessary. It puts the Obama administration on the same page as states and cities that have tried to draw a brighter line between their jobs and the federal government’s. A stricter detainer policy is better for police and sheriffs, who can focus more on public safety. It makes people less vulnerable to pretextual arrests by cops who troll for immigrants with broken taillights. And it helps restore some sanity and proportion to an immigration system that has long been in danger of losing both.
SOURCE
Republican Party Showing Shift on Immigration, Gun Control and Tax Hike
For years it seemed there would never be a compromise on issues on which Democrats and Republicans are so ideologically far apart.
But now, seven weeks after an electoral trouncing, Republican party leaders and rank and file are showing a willingness to bend on some of those issues: immigration reform, tax hikes and gun control.
What long has been a nonstarter for Republicans —raising tax rates on wealthy Americans— is now backed by GOP House Speaker John Boehner in his negotiations with President Barack Obama to avert a potential fiscal crisis. Party luminaries like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal have started calling for a wholesale shift in the GOP's approach to immigration after Hispanic voters shunned Republican candidates. And some Republicans who previously championed gun rights now are opening the door to restrictions following a schoolhouse shooting spree earlier this month.
Of particular concern is the margin of loss among Hispanics, a group Obama won by about 70 percent. It took only hours for national GOP leaders to blame Romney for shifting to the right on immigration — and signal that the party must change.
Jindal, a prospective 2016 presidential contender, was among the Republicans calling for a more measured approach by the GOP. And even previously hardline opponents of immigration reform — like talk show host Sean Hannity — said the party needs to get over its immigration stance heavily favoring border security over other measures.
"What you have is agreement that we as a party need to spend a lot of time and effort on the Latino vote," veteran Republican strategist Charlie Black said.
Meanwhile, Boehner's attempt to get his own members on board with a deficit-reduction plan that would raise taxes on incomes of more than $1 million failed last week, exposing the reluctance of many in the Republican caucus to entertain more moderate fiscal positions.
With Republican leaders being pulled at once to the left and to the right, it's too soon to know whether the party that emerges from this identity crisis will be more or less conservative than the one that was once so confident about the 2012 elections. After all, less than two months have passed since the crushing defeat of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who moved far to the right during the primary season and, some in the party say, lost the general election as a result.
But what's increasingly clear is that the party is now engaged in an uncomfortable and very public fight over whether its tenets, still firmly held within the party's most devout ranks, conflict with the views of Americans as a whole.
Most GOP candidates — Romney among them — also long have opposed allowing people in the country illegally to get an eventual path to citizenship. But exit polls from the Nov. 6 election showed most voters favored allowing people working in the U.S. illegally to stay.
SOURCE
Immigration and Policing
The Obama administration on Friday announced a policy change that — if it works — should lead to smarter enforcement of the immigration laws, with greater effort spent on deporting dangerous felons and less on minor offenders who pose no threat.
The new policy places stricter conditions on when Immigration and Customs Enforcement sends requests, known as detainers, to local law-enforcement agencies asking them to hold suspected immigration violators in jail until the government can pick them up. Detainers will be issued for serious offenders — those who have been convicted or charged with a felony, who have three or more misdemeanor convictions, or have one conviction or charge for misdemeanor crimes like sexual abuse, drunken driving, weapons possession or drug trafficking. Those who illegally re-entered the country after having been deported or posing a national-security threat would also be detained. But there would be no detainers for those with no convictions or records of only petty offenses like traffic violations.
John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, said this was a case of “setting priorities” to “maximize public safety.”
But wait, you ask, shouldn’t ICE have been doing this all along? Didn’t Mr. Morton say in a memo two years ago that ICE would use its “prosecutorial discretion” to focus on the most dangerous illegal immigrants? He did. But for nearly as long as President Obama has been in office, ICE has been vastly expanding its deportation efforts, enlisting state and local agencies to expel people at a record pace of 400,000 a year — tens of thousands of them noncriminals or minor offenders. By outsourcing “discretion” to local cops through a fingerprinting program called Secure Communities, it has greatly increased the number of small fry caught in an ever-wider national dragnet.
Some cities and states have resisted cooperating with ICE detainers for the very reasons of proportionality and public safety that Mr. Morton cited on Friday. California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, told her state’s law enforcement agencies this month that ICE had no authority to force them to jail minor offenders who pose no threat.
Secure Communities and indiscriminate detainers have caused no end of frustration for many police officials, who rely on trust and cooperation in immigrant communities to do their jobs. They know that crime victims and witnesses will not cooperate if every encounter with the law carries the danger of deportation. They have shied away from a federal role that is not theirs to take.
ICE’s announcement seems to make those efforts unnecessary. It puts the Obama administration on the same page as states and cities that have tried to draw a brighter line between their jobs and the federal government’s. A stricter detainer policy is better for police and sheriffs, who can focus more on public safety. It makes people less vulnerable to pretextual arrests by cops who troll for immigrants with broken taillights. And it helps restore some sanity and proportion to an immigration system that has long been in danger of losing both.
SOURCE
Republican Party Showing Shift on Immigration, Gun Control and Tax Hike
For years it seemed there would never be a compromise on issues on which Democrats and Republicans are so ideologically far apart.
But now, seven weeks after an electoral trouncing, Republican party leaders and rank and file are showing a willingness to bend on some of those issues: immigration reform, tax hikes and gun control.
What long has been a nonstarter for Republicans —raising tax rates on wealthy Americans— is now backed by GOP House Speaker John Boehner in his negotiations with President Barack Obama to avert a potential fiscal crisis. Party luminaries like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal have started calling for a wholesale shift in the GOP's approach to immigration after Hispanic voters shunned Republican candidates. And some Republicans who previously championed gun rights now are opening the door to restrictions following a schoolhouse shooting spree earlier this month.
Of particular concern is the margin of loss among Hispanics, a group Obama won by about 70 percent. It took only hours for national GOP leaders to blame Romney for shifting to the right on immigration — and signal that the party must change.
Jindal, a prospective 2016 presidential contender, was among the Republicans calling for a more measured approach by the GOP. And even previously hardline opponents of immigration reform — like talk show host Sean Hannity — said the party needs to get over its immigration stance heavily favoring border security over other measures.
"What you have is agreement that we as a party need to spend a lot of time and effort on the Latino vote," veteran Republican strategist Charlie Black said.
Meanwhile, Boehner's attempt to get his own members on board with a deficit-reduction plan that would raise taxes on incomes of more than $1 million failed last week, exposing the reluctance of many in the Republican caucus to entertain more moderate fiscal positions.
With Republican leaders being pulled at once to the left and to the right, it's too soon to know whether the party that emerges from this identity crisis will be more or less conservative than the one that was once so confident about the 2012 elections. After all, less than two months have passed since the crushing defeat of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who moved far to the right during the primary season and, some in the party say, lost the general election as a result.
But what's increasingly clear is that the party is now engaged in an uncomfortable and very public fight over whether its tenets, still firmly held within the party's most devout ranks, conflict with the views of Americans as a whole.
Most GOP candidates — Romney among them — also long have opposed allowing people in the country illegally to get an eventual path to citizenship. But exit polls from the Nov. 6 election showed most voters favored allowing people working in the U.S. illegally to stay.
SOURCE
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
In a year up to 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians will have the right to settle in Britain and claim benefits
And many from the gipsy community can hardly wait
Olympic boxer Bobby George stands on an icy street in the Bulgarian shanty town where he grew up.
A cruel wind whips his dark hair as snow falls on the chaotic rows of shacks which are home to 50,000 of the European Union’s poorest inhabitants.
Plunging his freezing hands into his thin leather jacket, he says despairingly: ‘There is nothing for my gipsy people here.
Their eyes are turning to England where they can have a better life. Hundreds of families want to go to the UK because they have no future in my country.’
George is lucky. Five years ago, he changed his name from Boris Georgiev and left the seedy slum of Fakulteta, on the outskirts of the Bulgarian capital Sofia, to settle in Luton, Beds, with his wife, Tina, and daughter, Gergana, now six. They have since had another daughter, one-year-old Mari.
A couple of weeks ago he returned on a cut-price flight for Christmas and found nothing much has changed. Growling stray dogs chase each other down alleyways, rats scamper over piles of rubbish, and children in slippers, long outgrown with their backs cut out, dodge horse-drawn gipsy carts as they run to the few shops for a 40p loaf of bread.
The Sofia bus route does not reach Fakulteta because the drivers refuse to go there, as do the rubbish collection men. At night, the place is pitched into darkness because there is no street lighting.
The only indication that the city authorities recognise the huge gipsy town’s existence is the electricity meter boxes bolted tightly to the tops of telegraph poles so they cannot be tampered with by residents.
The main supermarket — the owner is himself a gipsy — has stopped all credit because of the debts racked up for unpaid groceries.
No wonder that in a year’s time, when a total of 29 million Bulgarians (and Romanians) gain the right to live, work, and claim state benefits in Britain under EU ‘freedom of movement’ rules, a great many families from Fakulteta plan to decamp the 1,250 miles to the UK.
‘The gipsies have no jobs because ordinary Bulgarians do not like or trust us,’ explains Bobby George.
‘We are discriminated against as gipsy people. In Britain it is different. You treat everyone, black, white, brown or yellow, just the same. Of course, they will want to go.
‘But there will be a day when your country is full up, when you cannot afford to give benefits to any more people from Europe and the rest of the world, too. They hope to get there before that moment happens.’
Bobby, a good-looking 30-year-old with a pugilist’s nose, is probably right about Britain nearing its limits.
The latest Census, published this month, reveals how mass immigration has dramatically changed our country. Since EU borders were opened up in 2004, 1,114,368 Eastern Europeans have uprooted to live in England. Last year, 40,000 Bulgarians and Romanians moved to the UK, joining 130,000 of their countrymen who have settled here during the past decade.
But these numbers are nothing compared with the flood of migrants expected when the rules change in a little over a year’s time.
Until now, migrants from the two former communist nations (officially barred from working or claiming benefits in Britain until the freedom of movement rule comes in on January 1, 2014) have neatly exploited a gaping loophole in the EU rules.
It allows Bulgarians and Romanians claiming to be self-employed to get a British national insurance number and a raft of hand-outs, including housing and child benefit.
Many of the new arrivals have worked hard, cornering the market in car-wash companies, for instance. But others are less industrious, and include Roma gipsies who, remarkably, now sell a third of all copies of the Big Issue.
Even selling one copy a week of the magazine (created to help the British homeless) miraculously gives them self-employed status and allows them to beg with impunity outside shops and on street corners.
Bulgarian and Romanian incomers have been blamed by police in their own countries and in Britain for a massive rise in organised crime, including the trafficking of children to Britain to beg, pickpocket, milk state benefits and even enter the sex trade.
It is estimated that 2,000 children from Romania and Bulgaria are under the control of modern-day Fagins in our major cities.
According to Scotland Yard, a skilful child thief can make up to £100,000 a year ‘working’ on the streets, buses and Tubes in London — cash that is sent back to Roma villages and towns at home.
So critical is the problem that Bulgaria’s Deputy Prime Minister visited Britain earlier this month to meet Home Secretary Theresa May to discuss how child trafficking and other organised crimes can be controlled when the UK doors swing open yet more widely.
Meanwhile, Antoaneta Vassileva, head of Bulgaria’s National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, warns that the UK is now the EU hot-spot for Roma child pickpockets from her country — a problem that will almost certainly get worse when the rules change in a year’s time.
The attitude that Britain is a land where benefits flow like milk and honey is commonplace — even though few of these Roma people speak any English and would struggle to point to Britain on a map.
The Roma, who call themselves ‘gipsy’ proudly because it means ‘free man’ in their language, are an ignored under-class in Eastern Europe.
Back in the communist era, they were protected and were guaranteed jobs — like every adult in Bulgaria.
‘Now everything has changed,’ says Mari. ‘I have to go to the rubbish tip in Sofia to rifle through other people’s throw-outs to find something to sell so my family can eat. You can see why we like Britain where everyone is treated fairly.’
Bobby George, who is acting as my guide, nods in agreement as he listens to the conversation.
The boxer won a bronze medal for Bulgaria as a light welterweight in the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. After turning professional, he left for the UK.
‘I went to Luton because that is where there are cheap flights to Bulgaria. I rent a small flat for my family and half of the £550-a-month rent is paid by housing benefit and, of course, we get the state benefits for the two children.
‘When I am not in training, I try to work. I have done labouring jobs and, officially, I am self-employed so I have a national insurance card. My wife works as a cleaner sometimes, too.’
Bobby — who boxed his way to success via the local Sofia fitness centre — is a devout Christian, like most of the Roma in Bulgaria. On Saturday night, he takes me to the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Fakulteta for the weekly service of worship.
There is perfect singing by the small choir of women, and the visiting pastor stands up at the pulpit to deliver a sermon.
The theme is on obeying the Ten Commandments — and, particularly, the virtue of not stealing.
There is not a flicker of an eyelid in the small whitewashed church as the congregation listens intently to his words. And, at the end, the Roma people bow their heads in prayer and say Amen.
There are decent people here — and Bobby George, with his sporting talent and determination to succeed, is proof that many migrants wish only to strive hard and provide for their families.
But it would be misguided to ignore the concerns that he, and many others, voice at the impact on Britain when we swing open the doors to these hard-pressed people, so marginalised and mistrusted in their own lands.
SOURCE
Australia' conservatives claim latest boat arrivals bring number of asylum-seekers to 25,000 under current Leftist Government
TWO more boats have arrived in Australian waters, which the opposition claims brings the number of asylum-seekers travelling to Australia by sea under the government's watch to 25,000.
HMAS Melville and HMAS Albany were called to help a suspected irregular entry vessel near Christmas Island on Sunday.
It is believed 87 passengers and three crew were on board. They will be transferred to Christmas Island for the usual security, health and identity checks.
A separate vessel with 35 people on board sailed into Australian waters north-west of Cocos Island on Friday.
Coalition border protection spokesman Michael Keenan said this meant 25,000 people had now travelled to Australia by boat during the Gillard government's watch.
"One of the main excuses Julia Gillard had for outing former prime minister Kevin Rudd was his failure to protect Australia's borders," he said in a statement on Monday night.
"Given that over 25,000 people on more than 400 boats have arrived under her leadership, then by her own measure she has categorically failed to restore any control to Australia's borders and stop the boats from coming."
He called for more funding and personnel for frontline border protection agencies.
"The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service has been spread so thin that merchant vessels, Australian Navy ships and Customs vessels are being used as water taxis because our patrol vessels are so overworked and rundown that they are literally cracking under the pressure," he said.
SOURCE
In a year up to 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians will have the right to settle in Britain and claim benefits
And many from the gipsy community can hardly wait
Olympic boxer Bobby George stands on an icy street in the Bulgarian shanty town where he grew up.
A cruel wind whips his dark hair as snow falls on the chaotic rows of shacks which are home to 50,000 of the European Union’s poorest inhabitants.
Plunging his freezing hands into his thin leather jacket, he says despairingly: ‘There is nothing for my gipsy people here.
Their eyes are turning to England where they can have a better life. Hundreds of families want to go to the UK because they have no future in my country.’
George is lucky. Five years ago, he changed his name from Boris Georgiev and left the seedy slum of Fakulteta, on the outskirts of the Bulgarian capital Sofia, to settle in Luton, Beds, with his wife, Tina, and daughter, Gergana, now six. They have since had another daughter, one-year-old Mari.
A couple of weeks ago he returned on a cut-price flight for Christmas and found nothing much has changed. Growling stray dogs chase each other down alleyways, rats scamper over piles of rubbish, and children in slippers, long outgrown with their backs cut out, dodge horse-drawn gipsy carts as they run to the few shops for a 40p loaf of bread.
The Sofia bus route does not reach Fakulteta because the drivers refuse to go there, as do the rubbish collection men. At night, the place is pitched into darkness because there is no street lighting.
The only indication that the city authorities recognise the huge gipsy town’s existence is the electricity meter boxes bolted tightly to the tops of telegraph poles so they cannot be tampered with by residents.
The main supermarket — the owner is himself a gipsy — has stopped all credit because of the debts racked up for unpaid groceries.
No wonder that in a year’s time, when a total of 29 million Bulgarians (and Romanians) gain the right to live, work, and claim state benefits in Britain under EU ‘freedom of movement’ rules, a great many families from Fakulteta plan to decamp the 1,250 miles to the UK.
‘The gipsies have no jobs because ordinary Bulgarians do not like or trust us,’ explains Bobby George.
‘We are discriminated against as gipsy people. In Britain it is different. You treat everyone, black, white, brown or yellow, just the same. Of course, they will want to go.
‘But there will be a day when your country is full up, when you cannot afford to give benefits to any more people from Europe and the rest of the world, too. They hope to get there before that moment happens.’
Bobby, a good-looking 30-year-old with a pugilist’s nose, is probably right about Britain nearing its limits.
The latest Census, published this month, reveals how mass immigration has dramatically changed our country. Since EU borders were opened up in 2004, 1,114,368 Eastern Europeans have uprooted to live in England. Last year, 40,000 Bulgarians and Romanians moved to the UK, joining 130,000 of their countrymen who have settled here during the past decade.
But these numbers are nothing compared with the flood of migrants expected when the rules change in a little over a year’s time.
Until now, migrants from the two former communist nations (officially barred from working or claiming benefits in Britain until the freedom of movement rule comes in on January 1, 2014) have neatly exploited a gaping loophole in the EU rules.
It allows Bulgarians and Romanians claiming to be self-employed to get a British national insurance number and a raft of hand-outs, including housing and child benefit.
Many of the new arrivals have worked hard, cornering the market in car-wash companies, for instance. But others are less industrious, and include Roma gipsies who, remarkably, now sell a third of all copies of the Big Issue.
Even selling one copy a week of the magazine (created to help the British homeless) miraculously gives them self-employed status and allows them to beg with impunity outside shops and on street corners.
Bulgarian and Romanian incomers have been blamed by police in their own countries and in Britain for a massive rise in organised crime, including the trafficking of children to Britain to beg, pickpocket, milk state benefits and even enter the sex trade.
It is estimated that 2,000 children from Romania and Bulgaria are under the control of modern-day Fagins in our major cities.
According to Scotland Yard, a skilful child thief can make up to £100,000 a year ‘working’ on the streets, buses and Tubes in London — cash that is sent back to Roma villages and towns at home.
So critical is the problem that Bulgaria’s Deputy Prime Minister visited Britain earlier this month to meet Home Secretary Theresa May to discuss how child trafficking and other organised crimes can be controlled when the UK doors swing open yet more widely.
Meanwhile, Antoaneta Vassileva, head of Bulgaria’s National Commission for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, warns that the UK is now the EU hot-spot for Roma child pickpockets from her country — a problem that will almost certainly get worse when the rules change in a year’s time.
The attitude that Britain is a land where benefits flow like milk and honey is commonplace — even though few of these Roma people speak any English and would struggle to point to Britain on a map.
The Roma, who call themselves ‘gipsy’ proudly because it means ‘free man’ in their language, are an ignored under-class in Eastern Europe.
Back in the communist era, they were protected and were guaranteed jobs — like every adult in Bulgaria.
‘Now everything has changed,’ says Mari. ‘I have to go to the rubbish tip in Sofia to rifle through other people’s throw-outs to find something to sell so my family can eat. You can see why we like Britain where everyone is treated fairly.’
Bobby George, who is acting as my guide, nods in agreement as he listens to the conversation.
The boxer won a bronze medal for Bulgaria as a light welterweight in the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. After turning professional, he left for the UK.
‘I went to Luton because that is where there are cheap flights to Bulgaria. I rent a small flat for my family and half of the £550-a-month rent is paid by housing benefit and, of course, we get the state benefits for the two children.
‘When I am not in training, I try to work. I have done labouring jobs and, officially, I am self-employed so I have a national insurance card. My wife works as a cleaner sometimes, too.’
Bobby — who boxed his way to success via the local Sofia fitness centre — is a devout Christian, like most of the Roma in Bulgaria. On Saturday night, he takes me to the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Fakulteta for the weekly service of worship.
There is perfect singing by the small choir of women, and the visiting pastor stands up at the pulpit to deliver a sermon.
The theme is on obeying the Ten Commandments — and, particularly, the virtue of not stealing.
There is not a flicker of an eyelid in the small whitewashed church as the congregation listens intently to his words. And, at the end, the Roma people bow their heads in prayer and say Amen.
There are decent people here — and Bobby George, with his sporting talent and determination to succeed, is proof that many migrants wish only to strive hard and provide for their families.
But it would be misguided to ignore the concerns that he, and many others, voice at the impact on Britain when we swing open the doors to these hard-pressed people, so marginalised and mistrusted in their own lands.
SOURCE
Australia' conservatives claim latest boat arrivals bring number of asylum-seekers to 25,000 under current Leftist Government
TWO more boats have arrived in Australian waters, which the opposition claims brings the number of asylum-seekers travelling to Australia by sea under the government's watch to 25,000.
HMAS Melville and HMAS Albany were called to help a suspected irregular entry vessel near Christmas Island on Sunday.
It is believed 87 passengers and three crew were on board. They will be transferred to Christmas Island for the usual security, health and identity checks.
A separate vessel with 35 people on board sailed into Australian waters north-west of Cocos Island on Friday.
Coalition border protection spokesman Michael Keenan said this meant 25,000 people had now travelled to Australia by boat during the Gillard government's watch.
"One of the main excuses Julia Gillard had for outing former prime minister Kevin Rudd was his failure to protect Australia's borders," he said in a statement on Monday night.
"Given that over 25,000 people on more than 400 boats have arrived under her leadership, then by her own measure she has categorically failed to restore any control to Australia's borders and stop the boats from coming."
He called for more funding and personnel for frontline border protection agencies.
"The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service has been spread so thin that merchant vessels, Australian Navy ships and Customs vessels are being used as water taxis because our patrol vessels are so overworked and rundown that they are literally cracking under the pressure," he said.
SOURCE
Monday, December 24, 2012
Audits of companies for illegal immigrants rise
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reached its highest number yet of companies audited for illegal immigrants on payrolls this past fiscal year.
Audits of employer forms increased from 250 in fiscal year 2007 to more than 3,000 in 2012. From fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the total amount of fines grew to nearly $13 million from $1 million. The number of company managers arrested has increased to 238, according to data provided by ICE.
The investigations of companies have been one of the pillars of President Obama's immigration policy.
When Obama recently spoke about addressing immigration reform in his second term, he said any measure should contain penalties for companies that purposely hire illegal immigrants. It's not a new stand, but one he will likely highlight as his administration launches efforts to revamp the U.S. immigration system.
"Our goal is compliance and deterrence," said Brad Bench, special agent in charge at ICE's Seattle office. "The majority of the companies we do audits on end up with no fines at all, but again it's part of the deterrence method. If companies know we're out there, looking across the board, they're more likely to bring themselves into compliance."
While the administration has used those numbers to bolster their record on immigration enforcement, advocates say the audits have pushed workers further underground by causing mass layoffs and disrupted business practices.
When the ICE audit letter arrived at Belco Forest Products, management wasn't entirely surprised. Two nearby businesses in Shelton, a small timber town on a bay off Washington state's Puget Sound, had already been investigated.
But the 2010 inquiry became a months-long process that cost the timber company experienced workers and money. It was fined $17,700 for technicalities on their record keeping.
"What I don't like is the roll of the dice," said Belco's chief financial officer Tom Behrens. "Why do some companies get audited and some don't? Either everyone gets audited or nobody does. Level the playing field."
Belco was one of 339 companies fined in fiscal year 2011 and one of thousands audited that year.
Employers are required to have their workers fill out an I-9 form that declares them authorized to work in the country. Currently, an employer needs only to verify that identifying documents look real.
The audits, part of a $138 million worksite enforcement effort, rely on ICE officers scouring over payroll records to find names that don't match Social Security numbers and other identification databases.
The audits "don't make any sense before a legalization program," said Daniel Costa, an immigration policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. "You're leaving the whole thing up to an employer's eyesight and subjective judgment, that's the failure of the law. There's no verification at all. Then you have the government making a subjective judgment about subjective judgment."
An AP review of audits that resulted in fines in fiscal year 2011 shows that the federal government is fining industries across the country reliant on manual labor and that historically have hired immigrants. The data provides a glimpse into the results of a process affecting thousands of companies and thousands of workers nationwide.
Over the years, ICE has switched back-and-forth between making names of the companies fined public or not. Lately, ICE has emphasized its criminal investigations of managers, such as a Dunkin' Donuts manager in Maine sentenced to home arrest for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants or a manager of an Illinois hiring firm who got 18 months in prison.
Many employers also wonder how ICE picks the companies it probes.
"Geography is not a factor. The size of the company is not a factor. And the industry it's in is not a factor. We can audit any company anywhere of any size," Bench said. He added ICE auditors follow leads from the public, other employers, employees and do perform some random audits.
But ICE auditors hit ethnic stores, restaurants, bakeries, manufacturing companies, construction, food packaging, janitorial services, catering, dairies and farms. The aviation branch of corporate giant GE, franchises of sandwich shop Subway and a subsidiary of food product company Heinz were among some of the companies with national name recognition. GE was fined $2,000.
In fiscal year 2011, the most recent year reviewed by AP, the median fine was $11,000. The state with the most workplaces fined was Texas with 63, followed by New Jersey with 37.
The lowest fine was $90 to a Massachusetts fishing company. The highest fine was $394,944 to an employment agency in Minneapolis, according to the data released to AP through a public records request.
A Subway spokesman said the company advises franchise owners to follow the law. A Heinz spokesman declined comment.
Bench didn't have specifics on what percentage of fines come from companies having illegal immigrants on their payroll, as opposed to technical paperwork fines in recent years.
Julie Wood, a former deputy director at ICE who now runs a consulting firm, said she'd like to see the burden of proving the legality of a company's workforce go from the employer to the government. She'd like to see a type of program, such as E-Verify, be implemented with the I-9 employment form. E-Verify is a voluntary and free program for private employers that checks a workers eligibility.
"At the end of the day, the fine is the least of it," she said. "Usually the company will spend more on legal fees. But it is a huge headache for the company to lose workers."
Wood said she'd like to see the agency go after more criminal charges and focus on companies that treat workers inhumanely.
SOURCE
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper talks immigration, opens up about religion in TV interview
Canada will no longer “passively” accept immigrants as it shakes up its immigration system to ensure it gets the newcomers it needs to fill growing labour shortages, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.
“We have been making some fairly profound changes to how we handle immigration,” Harper said in a year-end interview with Global News.
“We have traditionally just been a country that passively accepts applications. We are now trying to go out and shape those immigration applications and process those in a way that will serve the labour force holes that are emerging.”
Canada faces a labour shortage now that will only worsen as the aging population retires from the workforce, Harper said.
“Even with the challenging economic situation, we have serious labour shortages in many regions of our economy and in many sectors of our economy,” the prime minister said.
Speaking to Global News national anchor Dawna Friesen, the prime minister said that tackling the labour shortage in the long-term will require changes to immigration system as well as changes at home to the education system.
“What we really need are Canadians trained for the jobs and we need an immigration system that’s going to bring people in permanently to take advantage of those opportunities,” he said in the interview that will air Sunday morning.
Harper said training Canadians to fill job vacancies would be one of the “big challenges” for the spring budget, hinting that the federal government is planning further measures on this front.
He voiced frustration that the education system isn’t doing enough to fill what he called a shortage of tradespeople, scientists and engineers. But he said the responsibility lies with the provinces, which handle education, to “reorient” programs to address those shortfalls.
Harper touched a number of topics in the year-end interview, from the crisis to Syria, the tragic school shooting in Connecticut and his own religious beliefs.
A father of a son and daughter, Harper said he had to turn away from the coverage of the shooting, unable to listen to details about the deaths of 20 young children and six school staff.
“I think once you’ve been a father, you’re affected by the deaths of children in a much more profound way than other people. It’s hard for me to talk about,” Harper said.
Asked about how faith influences his decisions, Harper said that he prays regularly to “ask for strength and for wisdom.”
But given Canada’s diverse population, he said he’s also careful not to impose “my particular theological views on the country.”
He said tragedies like the school shooting make him reflect on his faith.
“There are times like this where you know where we’re all reassured by the fact that there is you know a benevolent power ultimately looking over all of us,” he said.
Despite the sharp criticism of opposition critics and the federal spending watchdog, Harper defended the government’s initial process for selecting for the Lockheed Martin F-35 as Canada’s next fighter jet.
He said the previous Liberal government signed on early with an international consortium to develop the jet.
“I think because of that, an assumption was just made all along the way that of course, if we’re developing this plane, this will be the plane we’re purchasing. It’s not an unreasonable assumption,” Harper said.
But the prime minister said that decision will now be reviewed “step by step” to ensure the government is “making the right purchases.”
On the crisis in Syria, he said the days of the Assad regime are numbered but expressed concern that the government that replaces it could still be marked by “sectarian warfare and chaos.”
SOURCE
Audits of companies for illegal immigrants rise
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reached its highest number yet of companies audited for illegal immigrants on payrolls this past fiscal year.
Audits of employer forms increased from 250 in fiscal year 2007 to more than 3,000 in 2012. From fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the total amount of fines grew to nearly $13 million from $1 million. The number of company managers arrested has increased to 238, according to data provided by ICE.
The investigations of companies have been one of the pillars of President Obama's immigration policy.
When Obama recently spoke about addressing immigration reform in his second term, he said any measure should contain penalties for companies that purposely hire illegal immigrants. It's not a new stand, but one he will likely highlight as his administration launches efforts to revamp the U.S. immigration system.
"Our goal is compliance and deterrence," said Brad Bench, special agent in charge at ICE's Seattle office. "The majority of the companies we do audits on end up with no fines at all, but again it's part of the deterrence method. If companies know we're out there, looking across the board, they're more likely to bring themselves into compliance."
While the administration has used those numbers to bolster their record on immigration enforcement, advocates say the audits have pushed workers further underground by causing mass layoffs and disrupted business practices.
When the ICE audit letter arrived at Belco Forest Products, management wasn't entirely surprised. Two nearby businesses in Shelton, a small timber town on a bay off Washington state's Puget Sound, had already been investigated.
But the 2010 inquiry became a months-long process that cost the timber company experienced workers and money. It was fined $17,700 for technicalities on their record keeping.
"What I don't like is the roll of the dice," said Belco's chief financial officer Tom Behrens. "Why do some companies get audited and some don't? Either everyone gets audited or nobody does. Level the playing field."
Belco was one of 339 companies fined in fiscal year 2011 and one of thousands audited that year.
Employers are required to have their workers fill out an I-9 form that declares them authorized to work in the country. Currently, an employer needs only to verify that identifying documents look real.
The audits, part of a $138 million worksite enforcement effort, rely on ICE officers scouring over payroll records to find names that don't match Social Security numbers and other identification databases.
The audits "don't make any sense before a legalization program," said Daniel Costa, an immigration policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. "You're leaving the whole thing up to an employer's eyesight and subjective judgment, that's the failure of the law. There's no verification at all. Then you have the government making a subjective judgment about subjective judgment."
An AP review of audits that resulted in fines in fiscal year 2011 shows that the federal government is fining industries across the country reliant on manual labor and that historically have hired immigrants. The data provides a glimpse into the results of a process affecting thousands of companies and thousands of workers nationwide.
Over the years, ICE has switched back-and-forth between making names of the companies fined public or not. Lately, ICE has emphasized its criminal investigations of managers, such as a Dunkin' Donuts manager in Maine sentenced to home arrest for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants or a manager of an Illinois hiring firm who got 18 months in prison.
Many employers also wonder how ICE picks the companies it probes.
"Geography is not a factor. The size of the company is not a factor. And the industry it's in is not a factor. We can audit any company anywhere of any size," Bench said. He added ICE auditors follow leads from the public, other employers, employees and do perform some random audits.
But ICE auditors hit ethnic stores, restaurants, bakeries, manufacturing companies, construction, food packaging, janitorial services, catering, dairies and farms. The aviation branch of corporate giant GE, franchises of sandwich shop Subway and a subsidiary of food product company Heinz were among some of the companies with national name recognition. GE was fined $2,000.
In fiscal year 2011, the most recent year reviewed by AP, the median fine was $11,000. The state with the most workplaces fined was Texas with 63, followed by New Jersey with 37.
The lowest fine was $90 to a Massachusetts fishing company. The highest fine was $394,944 to an employment agency in Minneapolis, according to the data released to AP through a public records request.
A Subway spokesman said the company advises franchise owners to follow the law. A Heinz spokesman declined comment.
Bench didn't have specifics on what percentage of fines come from companies having illegal immigrants on their payroll, as opposed to technical paperwork fines in recent years.
Julie Wood, a former deputy director at ICE who now runs a consulting firm, said she'd like to see the burden of proving the legality of a company's workforce go from the employer to the government. She'd like to see a type of program, such as E-Verify, be implemented with the I-9 employment form. E-Verify is a voluntary and free program for private employers that checks a workers eligibility.
"At the end of the day, the fine is the least of it," she said. "Usually the company will spend more on legal fees. But it is a huge headache for the company to lose workers."
Wood said she'd like to see the agency go after more criminal charges and focus on companies that treat workers inhumanely.
SOURCE
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper talks immigration, opens up about religion in TV interview
Canada will no longer “passively” accept immigrants as it shakes up its immigration system to ensure it gets the newcomers it needs to fill growing labour shortages, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.
“We have been making some fairly profound changes to how we handle immigration,” Harper said in a year-end interview with Global News.
“We have traditionally just been a country that passively accepts applications. We are now trying to go out and shape those immigration applications and process those in a way that will serve the labour force holes that are emerging.”
Canada faces a labour shortage now that will only worsen as the aging population retires from the workforce, Harper said.
“Even with the challenging economic situation, we have serious labour shortages in many regions of our economy and in many sectors of our economy,” the prime minister said.
Speaking to Global News national anchor Dawna Friesen, the prime minister said that tackling the labour shortage in the long-term will require changes to immigration system as well as changes at home to the education system.
“What we really need are Canadians trained for the jobs and we need an immigration system that’s going to bring people in permanently to take advantage of those opportunities,” he said in the interview that will air Sunday morning.
Harper said training Canadians to fill job vacancies would be one of the “big challenges” for the spring budget, hinting that the federal government is planning further measures on this front.
He voiced frustration that the education system isn’t doing enough to fill what he called a shortage of tradespeople, scientists and engineers. But he said the responsibility lies with the provinces, which handle education, to “reorient” programs to address those shortfalls.
Harper touched a number of topics in the year-end interview, from the crisis to Syria, the tragic school shooting in Connecticut and his own religious beliefs.
A father of a son and daughter, Harper said he had to turn away from the coverage of the shooting, unable to listen to details about the deaths of 20 young children and six school staff.
“I think once you’ve been a father, you’re affected by the deaths of children in a much more profound way than other people. It’s hard for me to talk about,” Harper said.
Asked about how faith influences his decisions, Harper said that he prays regularly to “ask for strength and for wisdom.”
But given Canada’s diverse population, he said he’s also careful not to impose “my particular theological views on the country.”
He said tragedies like the school shooting make him reflect on his faith.
“There are times like this where you know where we’re all reassured by the fact that there is you know a benevolent power ultimately looking over all of us,” he said.
Despite the sharp criticism of opposition critics and the federal spending watchdog, Harper defended the government’s initial process for selecting for the Lockheed Martin F-35 as Canada’s next fighter jet.
He said the previous Liberal government signed on early with an international consortium to develop the jet.
“I think because of that, an assumption was just made all along the way that of course, if we’re developing this plane, this will be the plane we’re purchasing. It’s not an unreasonable assumption,” Harper said.
But the prime minister said that decision will now be reviewed “step by step” to ensure the government is “making the right purchases.”
On the crisis in Syria, he said the days of the Assad regime are numbered but expressed concern that the government that replaces it could still be marked by “sectarian warfare and chaos.”
SOURCE
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Britain's Labour Party gets tough on immigration, in policy as well as rhetoric
It looks as if Labour really are preparing to walk the walk on immigration. Last week Ed Miliband delivered a speech which – while measured in tone and delivery – laid out some of the hardest policy lines ever drawn on the issue by a Labour leader. A language test for public sector workers. Cuts in translation services. Transitional controls for new EU members. And boldest of all, the prospect of support for an immigration cap.
Then yesterday, the shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper followed up. The focal point of her announcement was uncontroversial, a call to allow Afghan interpreters who have worked for British forces in Afghanistan to settle in the UK. But alongside the compassionate commitment to our allies in the war in terror, she again unveiled a hardening of Labour’s immigration policy prospectus, this time in the area of enforcement.
Too little action was being taken to tackle illegal immigration, she said: “People who have entered illegally, absconded from airports or broken the rules undermine the rule of law and badly damage confidence in the entire system. Illegal immigration can also involve criminal exploitation and modern day slavery. Rightly the public feel strongly about this and think it should be the priority for action.”
To tackle this, Labour would provide new powers to the UK Border Agency. They would establish a new, dedicated enforcement task force. And they would give the power of immediate arrest to UKBA compliance officers.
This represents more than warm words. And it certainly goes beyond the agenda of inclusion Ed Miliband was outlining last Friday. Yvette Cooper’s agenda involves arrest, incarceration and deportation. Not One Nation, but a one-way ticket out of Britain.
This is brave stuff for a Labour shadow minister, especially one with long-term designs on the leadership of her party. But again, it is illustrative of the fact that Labour really has decided to grasp the immigration nettle.
Over the coming months Labour is going to try to seize control of the immigration debate, and reshape it. The plan is a simple one – to begin to draw a distinction between “good” and “bad” migration.
The case will be made forcefully for the benefits of skilled migration: “Bringing more talented students from China or Brazil to learn at Britain’s top universities not only brings in substantial investment in the short term,” Cooper said yesterday, “it also helps Britain build cultural and economic links with the future leaders of the fastest growing economies on earth. In total foreign students bring in £8bn a year.”
But at the same time Labour will also be moving to recast itself as the hammer of the illegal immigration industry, the scourge of the people traffickers and the nemesis of the 21st-century white slavers. The message will be “The more illegal immigrants we deport, the more capacity we will have to bring skilled migrants into the country, and effectively integrate them.”
Labour believes they will be helped to shape this message by the Coalition. Shadow ministers regard the Government’s migration cap as too blunt an instrument, and one that will be seen to have failed as net migration begins to rise again in advance of the election.
But they also recognise the benefit of caps and targets for reassuring a nervous electorate that ministers have immigration under a semblance of control. Which is why, Labour insiders say, Ed Miliband has finally been won round to the case for some form of migration limit. “He’s basically there,” said one source close to the Labour leader, “Ed is definitely looking at caps and limits for the manifesto.”
In the past Miliband has adopted a Hokey Cokey approach to issues he feels run against the ideological grain of his party. A speech in which he indicates a shift in stance has invariably been followed by backlash which results either in a period of prolonged silence, or a briefing or article indicating everyone got the wrong end of the stick, and Ed is sticking doggedly to Labour’s traditional policy position after all.
That doesn’t appear to be happening this time. Miliband and Cooper are starting to deploy a consistent narrative over immigration. It hasn’t created uproar within Labour ranks, which is testament to the trust Labour activists have in their leader, and also a recognition of the sensitivities surrounding immigration issue on Labour doorsteps. And for once Miliband is actually aligning flowery rhetoric with hard policy.
Labour’s leader is starting to walk the walk on immigration. If he can start to do it in other policy areas, we could yet see him walking all the way to Downing Street.
SOURCE
Should Canada screen out Muslim immigrants?
A security expert says Canada needs to go beyond screening for terrorists landing on our shores and consider the religious beliefs of some prospective immigrants.
Scott Newark says Canada should be concerned about "Islamist" immigrants.
Newark served as executive officer of the Canadian Police Association and also worked as a security and policy advisor to both the Ontario and federal Ministers of Public Safety.
"We need to think hard about what I would call 'Islamism', the political Islam that has absolutely no interest whatsoever in integration, that is intolerant and unyielding and absolutely committed to eradicating Western values," he said in an interview.
Newark says if Canada did a better job screening prospective immigrants, Omar Khadr might not be household name. [Khadr is a Canadian-born son of an Egyptian caught fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan]
Canada knew of Omar Khadr's father's fundraising activities for al-Qaida, for example, and of his father's taking his children to spend time with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Newark says.
"But we ignored that," he said. "And that is contrary to what's in our own national security interest."
Newark, unsurprisingly, is a fan of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who has made significant changes to the immigration system to keep more undesirables out.
"We're bringing in biometric visas on January 2nd and information sharing with the U.S. so that we can screen out the people who represent a security threat," Kenney recently told reporters.
Dr. Salim Mansur, a political science professor at London's Western University, wants Kenney to go a step further and introduce a moratorium on immigration from Muslim nations.
"This is not racist," Mansur said, referring to Newark's comments. "Their values, ideologies, politics and culture is completely incompatible with the values of Canada as a liberal democracy."
SOURCE
Britain's Labour Party gets tough on immigration, in policy as well as rhetoric
It looks as if Labour really are preparing to walk the walk on immigration. Last week Ed Miliband delivered a speech which – while measured in tone and delivery – laid out some of the hardest policy lines ever drawn on the issue by a Labour leader. A language test for public sector workers. Cuts in translation services. Transitional controls for new EU members. And boldest of all, the prospect of support for an immigration cap.
Then yesterday, the shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper followed up. The focal point of her announcement was uncontroversial, a call to allow Afghan interpreters who have worked for British forces in Afghanistan to settle in the UK. But alongside the compassionate commitment to our allies in the war in terror, she again unveiled a hardening of Labour’s immigration policy prospectus, this time in the area of enforcement.
Too little action was being taken to tackle illegal immigration, she said: “People who have entered illegally, absconded from airports or broken the rules undermine the rule of law and badly damage confidence in the entire system. Illegal immigration can also involve criminal exploitation and modern day slavery. Rightly the public feel strongly about this and think it should be the priority for action.”
To tackle this, Labour would provide new powers to the UK Border Agency. They would establish a new, dedicated enforcement task force. And they would give the power of immediate arrest to UKBA compliance officers.
This represents more than warm words. And it certainly goes beyond the agenda of inclusion Ed Miliband was outlining last Friday. Yvette Cooper’s agenda involves arrest, incarceration and deportation. Not One Nation, but a one-way ticket out of Britain.
This is brave stuff for a Labour shadow minister, especially one with long-term designs on the leadership of her party. But again, it is illustrative of the fact that Labour really has decided to grasp the immigration nettle.
Over the coming months Labour is going to try to seize control of the immigration debate, and reshape it. The plan is a simple one – to begin to draw a distinction between “good” and “bad” migration.
The case will be made forcefully for the benefits of skilled migration: “Bringing more talented students from China or Brazil to learn at Britain’s top universities not only brings in substantial investment in the short term,” Cooper said yesterday, “it also helps Britain build cultural and economic links with the future leaders of the fastest growing economies on earth. In total foreign students bring in £8bn a year.”
But at the same time Labour will also be moving to recast itself as the hammer of the illegal immigration industry, the scourge of the people traffickers and the nemesis of the 21st-century white slavers. The message will be “The more illegal immigrants we deport, the more capacity we will have to bring skilled migrants into the country, and effectively integrate them.”
Labour believes they will be helped to shape this message by the Coalition. Shadow ministers regard the Government’s migration cap as too blunt an instrument, and one that will be seen to have failed as net migration begins to rise again in advance of the election.
But they also recognise the benefit of caps and targets for reassuring a nervous electorate that ministers have immigration under a semblance of control. Which is why, Labour insiders say, Ed Miliband has finally been won round to the case for some form of migration limit. “He’s basically there,” said one source close to the Labour leader, “Ed is definitely looking at caps and limits for the manifesto.”
In the past Miliband has adopted a Hokey Cokey approach to issues he feels run against the ideological grain of his party. A speech in which he indicates a shift in stance has invariably been followed by backlash which results either in a period of prolonged silence, or a briefing or article indicating everyone got the wrong end of the stick, and Ed is sticking doggedly to Labour’s traditional policy position after all.
That doesn’t appear to be happening this time. Miliband and Cooper are starting to deploy a consistent narrative over immigration. It hasn’t created uproar within Labour ranks, which is testament to the trust Labour activists have in their leader, and also a recognition of the sensitivities surrounding immigration issue on Labour doorsteps. And for once Miliband is actually aligning flowery rhetoric with hard policy.
Labour’s leader is starting to walk the walk on immigration. If he can start to do it in other policy areas, we could yet see him walking all the way to Downing Street.
SOURCE
Should Canada screen out Muslim immigrants?
A security expert says Canada needs to go beyond screening for terrorists landing on our shores and consider the religious beliefs of some prospective immigrants.
Scott Newark says Canada should be concerned about "Islamist" immigrants.
Newark served as executive officer of the Canadian Police Association and also worked as a security and policy advisor to both the Ontario and federal Ministers of Public Safety.
"We need to think hard about what I would call 'Islamism', the political Islam that has absolutely no interest whatsoever in integration, that is intolerant and unyielding and absolutely committed to eradicating Western values," he said in an interview.
Newark says if Canada did a better job screening prospective immigrants, Omar Khadr might not be household name. [Khadr is a Canadian-born son of an Egyptian caught fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan]
Canada knew of Omar Khadr's father's fundraising activities for al-Qaida, for example, and of his father's taking his children to spend time with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Newark says.
"But we ignored that," he said. "And that is contrary to what's in our own national security interest."
Newark, unsurprisingly, is a fan of Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who has made significant changes to the immigration system to keep more undesirables out.
"We're bringing in biometric visas on January 2nd and information sharing with the U.S. so that we can screen out the people who represent a security threat," Kenney recently told reporters.
Dr. Salim Mansur, a political science professor at London's Western University, wants Kenney to go a step further and introduce a moratorium on immigration from Muslim nations.
"This is not racist," Mansur said, referring to Newark's comments. "Their values, ideologies, politics and culture is completely incompatible with the values of Canada as a liberal democracy."
SOURCE
Friday, December 21, 2012
Is The Border Secure Enough To Tackle The Immigration System?
Since the mid-1980s, the U.S. Border Patrol has quintupled in size — growing from about 4,000 to more than 20,000 agents.
The government has constructed some 700 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers. It's placed thousands of ground sensors, lights, radar towers, and cameras along the border. And Customs and Border Protection is now flying drones and manned helicopters to locate smuggles and rescue stranded immigrants.
So here's the question: Is the Southwest border secure?
The statistics paint a picture that says "yes." The number of illegal crossers apprehended is at a 40-year-low, which can be partly attributed to a weak U.S. job market and improving economy in Mexico. Drug seizures continue near historic highs and violent crime in border cities on the U.S. side has gone down.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says all of those facts are indicators of progress in the right direction.
"If I were a police chief of a major city and I came in and I said we had reduced crime in four years by 70 to 80 percent, people would say, 'That's a great job'," Napolitano says. "'You're a great police chief.' If you took that and you applied it to what's been going on along the Southwest border, you'd have to say objectively the same thing."
A 'Byzantine' Immigration System
But more and more people are realizing that illegal immigration is tied directly to the broken legal immigration system, not necessarily security.
People come for work without visas because they can't easily get visas. Employers who need guest workers say it's a long, frustrating, costly process to get the workers.
Here's an analogy: Imagine immigration, especially from Latin America, as a two-lane residential street with a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit. Over the decades, it's grown to an eight-lane superhighway. But the speed limit is still 20 miles an hour. That is, visas for needed workers haven't risen along with the traffic.
"If you want to keep it at 20 miles an hour, you have to put a cop every 20 feet. And that's what the 'secure the border first' people are in effect trying to do," says Daniel Kowalski, a Texas-based immigration attorney and editor of Bender's Immigration Bulletin. He says demanding border security first is backwards.
"You need to line the border with border patrol, shoulder to shoulder, and that's just the wrong way to do it," he says. "It's too expensive. It's easier to fix the numbers, rather than militarizing the border."
Because the immigration system is so byzantine, up to half of the estimated 11 million people illegally in the U.S. came in legally, then overstayed their visas. No amount of border security would have stopped that.
How Can Security Be Measured?
Congress still wants to know whether all the resources along the border are working. There is no single objective measure of border security.
Until two years ago, the Department of Homeland Security used something called "operational control," which Arizona Republican Senator-elect Jeff Flake wants the department to keep using.
"In essence, it basically means if someone sneaks across, you have a reasonable expectation of catching them," Flake says. "We're talking about something that is achievable and measurable."
The House has passed a bill requiring DHS to use operational control, but the department says it's obsolete. The measure only counts territory where actual Border Patrol agents are located.
DHS says something it calls the Border Security Index will take into account other things as well: areas covered by technology, air power, the rate of violent crime.
It's been nearly three years since that new index was announced and it hasn't been implemented yet. Even the Government Accountability Office said last year that DHS needs to do a better job of reporting its effectiveness on the border. But, even taking that into account, almost everyone agrees the border is more secure than it was 20 or even 10 years ago.
Napolitano says people who demand complete border security before immigration reform are not being realistic.
"There's no border in the world that doesn't have some form of migration, legal and illegal," Napolitano says. "So saying it has to be zero is like saying we have to put the United States under some sort of Tupperware container and seal it off. That's not how our country operates."
Many lawmakers who've been blocking it now seem to realize that some sort of comprehensive immigration reform is necessary. The political reality is that more border security — or at least more accountability — is still likely to be part of any legislation.
SOURCE
Amnesty decries migrant exploitation in Italy
An informal penalty for lawbreaking?
A new report from Amnesty International is alleging widespread exploitation of foreign migrant workers in Italy, saying they often receive less than the minimum wage and sometimes are not paid at all.
The international human rights group said Tuesday that two visits to Italy this year, mainly in southern farming areas, confirmed other studies that also found a "pattern of labor exploitation" of migrants across Italy. Amnesty said migrant workers are frequently paid much less than Italians doing the same job.
Migrant workers, both legal and illegal, work mainly in farming, tourism and construction in Italy.
The group credits Italian investigators for prosecuting some "extreme" cases of exploitation cases, but contends less serious abuses often go unpunished.
The report focuses on migrant workers from Africa and Asia.
"Amnesty International's research found evidence of instances of widespread and/or severe labor exploitation, in violation of Italy's obligations under several international conventions on labor rights, in particular wages below the minimum wage agreed between unions and employers' organizations, arbitrary wage/salary reductions, delays or non-payment of wages and long working hours," the report said.
The places researchers visited included Rosarno, a southern farm town notorious for a violent tensions between natives and migrants in 2010. At least 38 people were wounded in clashes, which began when two migrants were shot with a pellet gun in an attack the migrants blamed on racism.
Under a crackdown by former Premier Silvio Berlusconi's conservative government, which included an anti-immigrant coalition partner, formal employment contracts are required before migrant workers can obtain residence permits. Thus migrants might feel pressured to accept unattractive job conditions in return for legal permission for themselves and their families to live in Italy.
"The employer's effective power to determine the worker's migration status can easily become a tool to intimidate or threaten workers, undermining their ability to negotiate better wages and working conditions," the report said.
Amnesty International's appeal for improvement of migrant labor conditions and laws risks falling on distracted ears.
Italy's Parliament is about to be dissolved ahead of early elections, and with many politicians campaigning for government stimulus to help spur jobs for Italians during a recession, migrant labor needs are unlikely to get much political attention soon.
SOURCE
Is The Border Secure Enough To Tackle The Immigration System?
Since the mid-1980s, the U.S. Border Patrol has quintupled in size — growing from about 4,000 to more than 20,000 agents.
The government has constructed some 700 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers. It's placed thousands of ground sensors, lights, radar towers, and cameras along the border. And Customs and Border Protection is now flying drones and manned helicopters to locate smuggles and rescue stranded immigrants.
So here's the question: Is the Southwest border secure?
The statistics paint a picture that says "yes." The number of illegal crossers apprehended is at a 40-year-low, which can be partly attributed to a weak U.S. job market and improving economy in Mexico. Drug seizures continue near historic highs and violent crime in border cities on the U.S. side has gone down.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says all of those facts are indicators of progress in the right direction.
"If I were a police chief of a major city and I came in and I said we had reduced crime in four years by 70 to 80 percent, people would say, 'That's a great job'," Napolitano says. "'You're a great police chief.' If you took that and you applied it to what's been going on along the Southwest border, you'd have to say objectively the same thing."
A 'Byzantine' Immigration System
But more and more people are realizing that illegal immigration is tied directly to the broken legal immigration system, not necessarily security.
People come for work without visas because they can't easily get visas. Employers who need guest workers say it's a long, frustrating, costly process to get the workers.
Here's an analogy: Imagine immigration, especially from Latin America, as a two-lane residential street with a 20-mile-an-hour speed limit. Over the decades, it's grown to an eight-lane superhighway. But the speed limit is still 20 miles an hour. That is, visas for needed workers haven't risen along with the traffic.
"If you want to keep it at 20 miles an hour, you have to put a cop every 20 feet. And that's what the 'secure the border first' people are in effect trying to do," says Daniel Kowalski, a Texas-based immigration attorney and editor of Bender's Immigration Bulletin. He says demanding border security first is backwards.
"You need to line the border with border patrol, shoulder to shoulder, and that's just the wrong way to do it," he says. "It's too expensive. It's easier to fix the numbers, rather than militarizing the border."
Because the immigration system is so byzantine, up to half of the estimated 11 million people illegally in the U.S. came in legally, then overstayed their visas. No amount of border security would have stopped that.
How Can Security Be Measured?
Congress still wants to know whether all the resources along the border are working. There is no single objective measure of border security.
Until two years ago, the Department of Homeland Security used something called "operational control," which Arizona Republican Senator-elect Jeff Flake wants the department to keep using.
"In essence, it basically means if someone sneaks across, you have a reasonable expectation of catching them," Flake says. "We're talking about something that is achievable and measurable."
The House has passed a bill requiring DHS to use operational control, but the department says it's obsolete. The measure only counts territory where actual Border Patrol agents are located.
DHS says something it calls the Border Security Index will take into account other things as well: areas covered by technology, air power, the rate of violent crime.
It's been nearly three years since that new index was announced and it hasn't been implemented yet. Even the Government Accountability Office said last year that DHS needs to do a better job of reporting its effectiveness on the border. But, even taking that into account, almost everyone agrees the border is more secure than it was 20 or even 10 years ago.
Napolitano says people who demand complete border security before immigration reform are not being realistic.
"There's no border in the world that doesn't have some form of migration, legal and illegal," Napolitano says. "So saying it has to be zero is like saying we have to put the United States under some sort of Tupperware container and seal it off. That's not how our country operates."
Many lawmakers who've been blocking it now seem to realize that some sort of comprehensive immigration reform is necessary. The political reality is that more border security — or at least more accountability — is still likely to be part of any legislation.
SOURCE
Amnesty decries migrant exploitation in Italy
An informal penalty for lawbreaking?
A new report from Amnesty International is alleging widespread exploitation of foreign migrant workers in Italy, saying they often receive less than the minimum wage and sometimes are not paid at all.
The international human rights group said Tuesday that two visits to Italy this year, mainly in southern farming areas, confirmed other studies that also found a "pattern of labor exploitation" of migrants across Italy. Amnesty said migrant workers are frequently paid much less than Italians doing the same job.
Migrant workers, both legal and illegal, work mainly in farming, tourism and construction in Italy.
The group credits Italian investigators for prosecuting some "extreme" cases of exploitation cases, but contends less serious abuses often go unpunished.
The report focuses on migrant workers from Africa and Asia.
"Amnesty International's research found evidence of instances of widespread and/or severe labor exploitation, in violation of Italy's obligations under several international conventions on labor rights, in particular wages below the minimum wage agreed between unions and employers' organizations, arbitrary wage/salary reductions, delays or non-payment of wages and long working hours," the report said.
The places researchers visited included Rosarno, a southern farm town notorious for a violent tensions between natives and migrants in 2010. At least 38 people were wounded in clashes, which began when two migrants were shot with a pellet gun in an attack the migrants blamed on racism.
Under a crackdown by former Premier Silvio Berlusconi's conservative government, which included an anti-immigrant coalition partner, formal employment contracts are required before migrant workers can obtain residence permits. Thus migrants might feel pressured to accept unattractive job conditions in return for legal permission for themselves and their families to live in Italy.
"The employer's effective power to determine the worker's migration status can easily become a tool to intimidate or threaten workers, undermining their ability to negotiate better wages and working conditions," the report said.
Amnesty International's appeal for improvement of migrant labor conditions and laws risks falling on distracted ears.
Italy's Parliament is about to be dissolved ahead of early elections, and with many politicians campaigning for government stimulus to help spur jobs for Italians during a recession, migrant labor needs are unlikely to get much political attention soon.
SOURCE
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Up to 90,000 students 'in Britain illegally': Thousands fail to attend courses and some don't even register
Ministers have been notified of up to 90,000 foreign students who may be living in Britain illegally.
Audits by universities and colleges have thrown up tens of thousands of students who may have broken the rules by failing to attend their courses or even register.
In August, London Metropolitan University had its licence to bring in foreign students after inspectors found thousands of illegal immigrants were studying there.
Since then, hundreds of other institutions have been examining their books to find if they have students who should not be in Britain.
The Border Agency revoked the Met’s licence after it discovered a quarter of overseas students sampled were in the UK illegally and around half may not have been attending lectures.
Problems have also been discovered at Teesside university and Glasgow Caledonian university.
UK Border Agency chief executive Rob Whiteman told the Home Affairs committee it had received 90,000 notifications since the Summer.
He said: ‘We are now working through them. We have a new team in the new year in the Liverpool area which includes some DVLA staff transferring over and those 90,000 notifications we have received will be processed by the end of March in terms of triaging them, making a decision on whether there’s important information in them.
‘Because the student notifications are greater than we expected - the London Met position led to a great many notifications coming through - we have created an additional team.’
Immigration Minister Mark Harper told the Committee that revoking London Met’s highly-trusted status had served as ‘a lesson’ to colleges and universities over ‘what would happen if they didn’t meet their sponsorship requirements’.
‘I think perhaps if they weren’t taking that seriously I think they will do now,’ he said.
Mr Whiteman also admitted that the Agency had found a backlog of 50,000 applications from immigrants which have not been entered into the UKBA database.
He said it should be cleared by March.
Committee chairman Keith Vaz asked Mr Whiteman if he could confirm the size of cases for entry to the UK that have been received but not put on the agency’s database.
After hearing the figure was 50,000, Mr Vaz said: ‘You have given me a straight and astonishing number.’
Mr Whiteman said the backlog would be cleared by March.
He said: ‘You must remember we receive one million applications a year. We work on the basis that we want all cases put on the system in a week.’
Last week Home Secretary Theresa May said she wanted to eradicate the abuse of the student visa system and encourage only the ‘brightest and the best’ to come to Britain.
SOURCE
Two thirds of Germans believe immigrants are an 'extra burden' which have caused 'serious problems' for the country
Ulrich Kober said that Germany failed to grasp a culture of welcoming foreigners and overplayed its own attractiveness to immigrants
Ulrich Kober said that Germany failed to grasp a culture of welcoming foreigners and overplayed its own attractiveness to immigrants
Two in three Germans believe immigrants have caused 'serious' problems for the country's social services and schools.
The poll - commissioned by the respected Bertelsmann Foundation think tank - shows two thirds of people say immigrants are an 'extra burden' on the country's social services system.
Two thirds of people quizzed in the survey also believe that incomers are a source of conflict with 'native' Germans and cause problems.
There is a widespread belief that in big cities like Berlin and Duesseldorf, where there are high concentrations of Turkish people, the foreign children 'hold back' natives because of their lack of German skills.
The poll comes after official figures showed immigration had leaped to its highest level in 16 years in 2011.
Almost a million people arrived in Germany, many of them from Spain and Greece as well as the new Eastern European states now in the European Union, such as Poland.
Around 163,000 Poles moved to Germany in 2011 and 41,000 Hungarians.
'Germany underestimated the importance of a culture of welcome and overestimated the attractiveness as a country of immigration,' said Ulrich Kober of the Bertelsmann Foundation which commissioned the study released on Monday.
He fears that Germany, which has a falling birthrate and is desperately in need of skilled workers to drive its export led economy onwards, will continue to be 'shunned because we are not attractive to the skilled immigrants we need.'
Less than half of Germans who took part in the survey were in favour of relaxing immigration rules or allowing immigrants to take dual nationality.
Pollsters Emnid said the anti immigration views were less marked in under 29s.
Nearly three quarters - 70 per cent - said immigration could make Germany more attractive to international investors and believed that it facilitated the placing of international companies in the country.
But almost 90 percent of respondents demanded that immigrants adapt to 'German culture' and seek out a 'good relationship' with the Germans they are living amongst. Fully 96 percent thought that learning German should be made mandatory.
The country could pay a heavy price for its anti-immigration views as its older workforce dies out, concludes the Foundation. 'Highly qualified people from non-EU countries actively avoid moving to Germany,' added Herr Kober.
'Without more social openness, we are not attractive for qualified immigrants, who we badly need to counter the demographic development.'
The poll comes after a new research revealed that Germany's population is set to soar by 2.2 million by 2017 as immigrants from failing EU states try to take advantage of the country's stable economy.
Around 6.93 million people with only foreign citizenship lived in Germany at the end of 2011 - 177,300 more than a year earlier. Federal Statistical Office figures showed that the increase of 2.6 percent was the highest in 15 years.
Currently there are 4.3 million Muslims in Germany, making up 5.4 percent of the population. Most of these are of Turkish origin, the descendants of the 'Gastarbeiter' or guest workers who flooded to the country after WW2 to fill the manpower vacuum left by the conflict.
The vast majority, some 88 percent, of arrivals moved to Germany from other European Union countries.
Rising neo-Nazism and a long-held belief among mostly elder-Germans that their's is not a country for immigrants have contributed to the image abroad of the place being unwelcoming to newcomers.
Two thirds of people quizzed in the survey also believe that incomers are a source of conflict with 'native' Germans and cause problems with schools and the education of their own children.
SOURCE
Up to 90,000 students 'in Britain illegally': Thousands fail to attend courses and some don't even register
Ministers have been notified of up to 90,000 foreign students who may be living in Britain illegally.
Audits by universities and colleges have thrown up tens of thousands of students who may have broken the rules by failing to attend their courses or even register.
In August, London Metropolitan University had its licence to bring in foreign students after inspectors found thousands of illegal immigrants were studying there.
Since then, hundreds of other institutions have been examining their books to find if they have students who should not be in Britain.
The Border Agency revoked the Met’s licence after it discovered a quarter of overseas students sampled were in the UK illegally and around half may not have been attending lectures.
Problems have also been discovered at Teesside university and Glasgow Caledonian university.
UK Border Agency chief executive Rob Whiteman told the Home Affairs committee it had received 90,000 notifications since the Summer.
He said: ‘We are now working through them. We have a new team in the new year in the Liverpool area which includes some DVLA staff transferring over and those 90,000 notifications we have received will be processed by the end of March in terms of triaging them, making a decision on whether there’s important information in them.
‘Because the student notifications are greater than we expected - the London Met position led to a great many notifications coming through - we have created an additional team.’
Immigration Minister Mark Harper told the Committee that revoking London Met’s highly-trusted status had served as ‘a lesson’ to colleges and universities over ‘what would happen if they didn’t meet their sponsorship requirements’.
‘I think perhaps if they weren’t taking that seriously I think they will do now,’ he said.
Mr Whiteman also admitted that the Agency had found a backlog of 50,000 applications from immigrants which have not been entered into the UKBA database.
He said it should be cleared by March.
Committee chairman Keith Vaz asked Mr Whiteman if he could confirm the size of cases for entry to the UK that have been received but not put on the agency’s database.
After hearing the figure was 50,000, Mr Vaz said: ‘You have given me a straight and astonishing number.’
Mr Whiteman said the backlog would be cleared by March.
He said: ‘You must remember we receive one million applications a year. We work on the basis that we want all cases put on the system in a week.’
Last week Home Secretary Theresa May said she wanted to eradicate the abuse of the student visa system and encourage only the ‘brightest and the best’ to come to Britain.
SOURCE
Two thirds of Germans believe immigrants are an 'extra burden' which have caused 'serious problems' for the country
Ulrich Kober said that Germany failed to grasp a culture of welcoming foreigners and overplayed its own attractiveness to immigrants
Ulrich Kober said that Germany failed to grasp a culture of welcoming foreigners and overplayed its own attractiveness to immigrants
Two in three Germans believe immigrants have caused 'serious' problems for the country's social services and schools.
The poll - commissioned by the respected Bertelsmann Foundation think tank - shows two thirds of people say immigrants are an 'extra burden' on the country's social services system.
Two thirds of people quizzed in the survey also believe that incomers are a source of conflict with 'native' Germans and cause problems.
There is a widespread belief that in big cities like Berlin and Duesseldorf, where there are high concentrations of Turkish people, the foreign children 'hold back' natives because of their lack of German skills.
The poll comes after official figures showed immigration had leaped to its highest level in 16 years in 2011.
Almost a million people arrived in Germany, many of them from Spain and Greece as well as the new Eastern European states now in the European Union, such as Poland.
Around 163,000 Poles moved to Germany in 2011 and 41,000 Hungarians.
'Germany underestimated the importance of a culture of welcome and overestimated the attractiveness as a country of immigration,' said Ulrich Kober of the Bertelsmann Foundation which commissioned the study released on Monday.
He fears that Germany, which has a falling birthrate and is desperately in need of skilled workers to drive its export led economy onwards, will continue to be 'shunned because we are not attractive to the skilled immigrants we need.'
Less than half of Germans who took part in the survey were in favour of relaxing immigration rules or allowing immigrants to take dual nationality.
Pollsters Emnid said the anti immigration views were less marked in under 29s.
Nearly three quarters - 70 per cent - said immigration could make Germany more attractive to international investors and believed that it facilitated the placing of international companies in the country.
But almost 90 percent of respondents demanded that immigrants adapt to 'German culture' and seek out a 'good relationship' with the Germans they are living amongst. Fully 96 percent thought that learning German should be made mandatory.
The country could pay a heavy price for its anti-immigration views as its older workforce dies out, concludes the Foundation. 'Highly qualified people from non-EU countries actively avoid moving to Germany,' added Herr Kober.
'Without more social openness, we are not attractive for qualified immigrants, who we badly need to counter the demographic development.'
The poll comes after a new research revealed that Germany's population is set to soar by 2.2 million by 2017 as immigrants from failing EU states try to take advantage of the country's stable economy.
Around 6.93 million people with only foreign citizenship lived in Germany at the end of 2011 - 177,300 more than a year earlier. Federal Statistical Office figures showed that the increase of 2.6 percent was the highest in 15 years.
Currently there are 4.3 million Muslims in Germany, making up 5.4 percent of the population. Most of these are of Turkish origin, the descendants of the 'Gastarbeiter' or guest workers who flooded to the country after WW2 to fill the manpower vacuum left by the conflict.
The vast majority, some 88 percent, of arrivals moved to Germany from other European Union countries.
Rising neo-Nazism and a long-held belief among mostly elder-Germans that their's is not a country for immigrants have contributed to the image abroad of the place being unwelcoming to newcomers.
Two thirds of people quizzed in the survey also believe that incomers are a source of conflict with 'native' Germans and cause problems with schools and the education of their own children.
SOURCE
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
DHS to Create a Class of *Undocumented* Permanent Resident Aliens in 2013
Starting on February 1, 2013, America will have a new legal class of aliens — they will be undocumented permanent resident aliens.
This bizarre new category of immigrant was created by a notice in the December 14 Federal Register by order of United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
I discovered this startling anomaly simply by reading the fine print of the Federal Register announcement; I have seen nothing else in print about it.
These aliens will have all the rights of other legal immigrants, but they will not have the government form commonly called a green card to prove it. And it is all perfectly OK with the government. Though the term "undocumented permanent resident alien" is not mentioned as such in the publication, that is, in fact, what these aliens will be.
What USCIS has done is to announce that it will start collecting a previously authorized, but never-collected $165 fee on Department of State-cleared immigrants as they arrive in the United States on and after February 1, 2013. But unlike most government fees it is not, strictly speaking, a mandatory one. The Federal Register announcement states:
Failure to pay the USCIS Immigrant Fee will not directly result in denial of admission to the United States as an immigrant or the loss of status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. However, USCIS will not issue a Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) to an individual who is subject to the USCIS Immigrant Fee until the individual has remitted the fee. Failure to obtain the Form I-551 will make it difficult for the individual … to show that he or she is authorized to accept employment in the United States or to return to the United States from temporary foreign travel.
This is ridiculous. If the government is going to levy a fee on incoming immigrants and they don't pay, they simply should be stopped at the port-of-entry. But, no, DHS does not want to inconvenience any arriving immigrants by demanding payment so it has created a class of undocumented green carders.
The $165 fee (admittedly in addition to earlier ones) is a screaming bargain giving the new arrival full access to the American labor market and other valuable privileges as a legal resident of this nation.
The fee could have been collected as early as September 24, 2010, but wasn't because of a lack of coordination between the Department of State and DHS; that error has cost the U.S. Government $166,000,000 based on the government's own figures, indicating that typically 36,000 immigrants a month come from overseas, and that there was a 28-month gap between the fee's authorization and its first planned collection.
SOURCE
Illegal Labor Pool Impacts U.S. Unemployment
Americans with Minimal Education Compete for Jobs with Illegals
A new study released by the Center for Immigration Studies shows the impact of amnesty on American workers. Illegal immigrants, of whom 79% have no more than a high school education, compete with less-educated U.S.-born citizens for employment opportunities. Of the 54.7 million working-age Americans not holding a job, more than half (27.7million) have no education beyond high school.
The complete study can be found here
"The president seems to believe that jobs are plentiful for less-educated Americans who compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. In fact, the employment picture for such workers remains bleak," notes the study’s author, Dr. Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research.
Of the 11-12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, seven to eight million are thought to be holding jobs. It is less-educated U.S.-born minorities and the young who are impacted the most by the size of the pool of potential workers in the U.S., as their unemployment rates are much higher than those for the population as a whole.
For the native-born who are young (18-29) with a high school education, the unemployment rate is similar to those who have not completed high school (all ages) — 18.5 percent vs. 17.2 percent.
For U.S.-born Hispanics without a high school education, the U-6 unemployment rate is 32.5 percent.• For young U.S.-born Hispanic high school graduates, the U-6 unemployment rate is 28.8 percent.
For U.S.-born blacks without a high school education, the U-6 unemployment rate is 44.4%.
For young U.S.-born blacks without a high school education, the U-6 unemployment is 41.8%.
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.
DHS to Create a Class of *Undocumented* Permanent Resident Aliens in 2013
Starting on February 1, 2013, America will have a new legal class of aliens — they will be undocumented permanent resident aliens.
This bizarre new category of immigrant was created by a notice in the December 14 Federal Register by order of United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
I discovered this startling anomaly simply by reading the fine print of the Federal Register announcement; I have seen nothing else in print about it.
These aliens will have all the rights of other legal immigrants, but they will not have the government form commonly called a green card to prove it. And it is all perfectly OK with the government. Though the term "undocumented permanent resident alien" is not mentioned as such in the publication, that is, in fact, what these aliens will be.
What USCIS has done is to announce that it will start collecting a previously authorized, but never-collected $165 fee on Department of State-cleared immigrants as they arrive in the United States on and after February 1, 2013. But unlike most government fees it is not, strictly speaking, a mandatory one. The Federal Register announcement states:
Failure to pay the USCIS Immigrant Fee will not directly result in denial of admission to the United States as an immigrant or the loss of status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. However, USCIS will not issue a Permanent Resident Card (Form I-551) to an individual who is subject to the USCIS Immigrant Fee until the individual has remitted the fee. Failure to obtain the Form I-551 will make it difficult for the individual … to show that he or she is authorized to accept employment in the United States or to return to the United States from temporary foreign travel.
This is ridiculous. If the government is going to levy a fee on incoming immigrants and they don't pay, they simply should be stopped at the port-of-entry. But, no, DHS does not want to inconvenience any arriving immigrants by demanding payment so it has created a class of undocumented green carders.
The $165 fee (admittedly in addition to earlier ones) is a screaming bargain giving the new arrival full access to the American labor market and other valuable privileges as a legal resident of this nation.
The fee could have been collected as early as September 24, 2010, but wasn't because of a lack of coordination between the Department of State and DHS; that error has cost the U.S. Government $166,000,000 based on the government's own figures, indicating that typically 36,000 immigrants a month come from overseas, and that there was a 28-month gap between the fee's authorization and its first planned collection.
SOURCE
Illegal Labor Pool Impacts U.S. Unemployment
Americans with Minimal Education Compete for Jobs with Illegals
A new study released by the Center for Immigration Studies shows the impact of amnesty on American workers. Illegal immigrants, of whom 79% have no more than a high school education, compete with less-educated U.S.-born citizens for employment opportunities. Of the 54.7 million working-age Americans not holding a job, more than half (27.7million) have no education beyond high school.
The complete study can be found here
"The president seems to believe that jobs are plentiful for less-educated Americans who compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. In fact, the employment picture for such workers remains bleak," notes the study’s author, Dr. Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research.
Of the 11-12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, seven to eight million are thought to be holding jobs. It is less-educated U.S.-born minorities and the young who are impacted the most by the size of the pool of potential workers in the U.S., as their unemployment rates are much higher than those for the population as a whole.
For the native-born who are young (18-29) with a high school education, the unemployment rate is similar to those who have not completed high school (all ages) — 18.5 percent vs. 17.2 percent.
For U.S.-born Hispanics without a high school education, the U-6 unemployment rate is 32.5 percent.• For young U.S.-born Hispanic high school graduates, the U-6 unemployment rate is 28.8 percent.
For U.S.-born blacks without a high school education, the U-6 unemployment rate is 44.4%.
For young U.S.-born blacks without a high school education, the U-6 unemployment is 41.8%.
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.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Republican leaders balance politics and principle on immigration reform
Senior Republicans say the party is struggling to thread the needle on immigration reform, an issue emerging as the next big item on the political agenda once the ongoing deficit talks reach their conclusion.
On the one hand, GOP leaders recognize the party needs a new approach. Mitt Romney performed dismally with Latino voters in November’s general election.
On the other hand, internal skeptics fear that a GOP rush to embrace a more liberal approach to immigration would risk sundering the conservative movement without paying any electoral dividends.
These dilemmas are not entirely new. President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) pushed immigration reform in the middle of the last decade.
They had no success, were subjected to considerable criticism from other conservatives and the issue almost capsized the latter’s run for the 2008 presidential nomination.
The difference this time might be that the party is coming off a sizable election loss in which its unpopularity among Hispanics was a key factor.
Romney received the support of only 27 percent of Latino voters, according to exit polls — a stark contrast to the 44 percent Bush racked up in 2004.
But some influential voices in the party worry that a more centrist line on immigration reform is being pushed too hastily. They also face a tactical decision — whether to support broad reforms or back a more piecemeal approach to the issue.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who will replace Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) in the next Congress, said that while “there is a recognition” that the immigration issue had hurt the GOP with Hispanics, he believed “some might overplay it.”
He added that there was a danger in “thinking [that] if we do immigration reform, we all of a sudden get 44 percent, like Bush. That’s not the case.”
Even so, however, Flake acknowledged that the party’s current position was simply doing it too much damage, especially when the dangers were exacerbated by an inflammatory tone.
“Our policy on immigration, or the voices that come from our party, certainly have alienated some in the Hispanic community, but it also alienates others,” he said. “It’s not just that it’s turned off Hispanics -— and it has — but more broadly it’s turned off a lot of people.”
Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), the chairman of the House Policy Committee, argued that “a vast number of Republicans are supportive of immigration reform.” He also asserted, as do many conservatives, that a significant proportion of the Latino population is simpatico with the GOP’s worldview on economic and social issues.
Lankford emphasized that as Republicans ponder whether to modulate their position on immigration reform, “the first consideration can’t be the political benefit.”
Yet he fears Republicans who supported any kind of sweeping reform would come under attack from their right flank while most of the benefit could accrue to President Obama.
“Whoever is president, they sign it and they get credit for it,” he said. “Some say that if Republicans push immigration reform here, we’ll get credit for it. That’s not true. The president will get credit for it.”
The answer, many Republicans and strategists believe, could lie in part with a shift toward supporting something akin to an expansive DREAM Act, without going so far as any deal involving a broader amnesty.
Republican strategist Hogan Gidley, who worked closely with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and served as the communications director for former Sen. Rick Santorum’s 2012 presidential bid, told The Hill that Republicans need to convince Latinos they are receptive to the challenges the community faces.
“It doesn’t mean we open our borders. It doesn’t mean that we grant amnesty. But Huckabee used to make that point that the children were here through no fault of their own. Why deny them a college education?”
Gidley cautioned that a broader reform package could be a big political loser for Republicans. He cited the amnesty to which President Ronald Reagan agreed in the 1980s, and added “he still never got their votes.”
The lesson to be drawn, he added, was that “we shouldn’t run to change our principles or sell out our convictions for votes, because there is no guarantee that you will get the votes. Then you’re left without your principles and without political support.”
Some Republicans believe that progress could be made simply by adopting a less hostile tone when addressing issues like immigration.
Such an approach, according to pollster Whit Ayres, could help win over those Hispanics who, ethnicity aside, fit the demographic profile of Republican supporters neatly.
“A great deal of what needs to change is adopting an attitude that says, ‘We want Hispanics who believe in limited government and lower taxes and entrepreneurial opportunity as part of our coalition,’ ” he said.
Ayres’ company, North Star Opinion Research, last week released a poll from four battleground states — Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico — that underlined this point.
In each of those four states, the poll found many Hispanics who considered themselves conservative did not vote for Romney in November.
In the three states other than Florida, the margin was striking. In Nevada, 40 percent of Hispanics declared themselves conservative but only 25 percent said they voted for Romney. In New Mexico, the figures were 47 percent and 29 percent, respectively.
“If we simply got the portion of Hispanic voters who consider themselves conservative, we would be back in the hunt,” Ayres said.
For Republicans, the current crisis has been a long time coming.
Strategist Ed Rollins told The Hill he remembered having a conversation in 1982 with legendary consultant Lee Atwater about how to boost the GOP’s standing with blacks and Latino.
Rollins added that the damage that has been done in the interim could not be undone overnight. He counseled the party to think in terms of five-year or 10-year plans that involved selecting more Hispanic candidates among other things.
But a more generous approach to immigration reform, he insisted, had to be part of the picture.
“It might be a piecemeal thing where you begin with the DREAM Act and move beyond it,” he said. “Republicans, realistically, can’t be obstructionist.”
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Publication
1. Amnesty and the U.S. Labor Market: The Employment Picture for Less-Educated Workers
Media Appearance
2. Jessica Vaughan discusses the Secure Communities Program on FOX News Boston
Blogs
3. DHS to Create a Class of *Undocumented* Permanent Resident Aliens in 2013
4. Administration Pushes for Both Floods and Tiny Flows of Migrants
5. "Hispanic" Bishops Offer Sympathy, but to Whom?
6. Government Seems to Juggle Financing of Appeals Process to Increase Migration
7. Great — if Tentative — News at the Border
8. Politico and George Washington University Spread Push Poll on Amnesty
9. More Foreign Workers = More Patents Argument is Disputed at DC Session
Republican leaders balance politics and principle on immigration reform
Senior Republicans say the party is struggling to thread the needle on immigration reform, an issue emerging as the next big item on the political agenda once the ongoing deficit talks reach their conclusion.
On the one hand, GOP leaders recognize the party needs a new approach. Mitt Romney performed dismally with Latino voters in November’s general election.
On the other hand, internal skeptics fear that a GOP rush to embrace a more liberal approach to immigration would risk sundering the conservative movement without paying any electoral dividends.
These dilemmas are not entirely new. President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) pushed immigration reform in the middle of the last decade.
They had no success, were subjected to considerable criticism from other conservatives and the issue almost capsized the latter’s run for the 2008 presidential nomination.
The difference this time might be that the party is coming off a sizable election loss in which its unpopularity among Hispanics was a key factor.
Romney received the support of only 27 percent of Latino voters, according to exit polls — a stark contrast to the 44 percent Bush racked up in 2004.
But some influential voices in the party worry that a more centrist line on immigration reform is being pushed too hastily. They also face a tactical decision — whether to support broad reforms or back a more piecemeal approach to the issue.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who will replace Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) in the next Congress, said that while “there is a recognition” that the immigration issue had hurt the GOP with Hispanics, he believed “some might overplay it.”
He added that there was a danger in “thinking [that] if we do immigration reform, we all of a sudden get 44 percent, like Bush. That’s not the case.”
Even so, however, Flake acknowledged that the party’s current position was simply doing it too much damage, especially when the dangers were exacerbated by an inflammatory tone.
“Our policy on immigration, or the voices that come from our party, certainly have alienated some in the Hispanic community, but it also alienates others,” he said. “It’s not just that it’s turned off Hispanics -— and it has — but more broadly it’s turned off a lot of people.”
Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.), the chairman of the House Policy Committee, argued that “a vast number of Republicans are supportive of immigration reform.” He also asserted, as do many conservatives, that a significant proportion of the Latino population is simpatico with the GOP’s worldview on economic and social issues.
Lankford emphasized that as Republicans ponder whether to modulate their position on immigration reform, “the first consideration can’t be the political benefit.”
Yet he fears Republicans who supported any kind of sweeping reform would come under attack from their right flank while most of the benefit could accrue to President Obama.
“Whoever is president, they sign it and they get credit for it,” he said. “Some say that if Republicans push immigration reform here, we’ll get credit for it. That’s not true. The president will get credit for it.”
The answer, many Republicans and strategists believe, could lie in part with a shift toward supporting something akin to an expansive DREAM Act, without going so far as any deal involving a broader amnesty.
Republican strategist Hogan Gidley, who worked closely with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and served as the communications director for former Sen. Rick Santorum’s 2012 presidential bid, told The Hill that Republicans need to convince Latinos they are receptive to the challenges the community faces.
“It doesn’t mean we open our borders. It doesn’t mean that we grant amnesty. But Huckabee used to make that point that the children were here through no fault of their own. Why deny them a college education?”
Gidley cautioned that a broader reform package could be a big political loser for Republicans. He cited the amnesty to which President Ronald Reagan agreed in the 1980s, and added “he still never got their votes.”
The lesson to be drawn, he added, was that “we shouldn’t run to change our principles or sell out our convictions for votes, because there is no guarantee that you will get the votes. Then you’re left without your principles and without political support.”
Some Republicans believe that progress could be made simply by adopting a less hostile tone when addressing issues like immigration.
Such an approach, according to pollster Whit Ayres, could help win over those Hispanics who, ethnicity aside, fit the demographic profile of Republican supporters neatly.
“A great deal of what needs to change is adopting an attitude that says, ‘We want Hispanics who believe in limited government and lower taxes and entrepreneurial opportunity as part of our coalition,’ ” he said.
Ayres’ company, North Star Opinion Research, last week released a poll from four battleground states — Florida, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico — that underlined this point.
In each of those four states, the poll found many Hispanics who considered themselves conservative did not vote for Romney in November.
In the three states other than Florida, the margin was striking. In Nevada, 40 percent of Hispanics declared themselves conservative but only 25 percent said they voted for Romney. In New Mexico, the figures were 47 percent and 29 percent, respectively.
“If we simply got the portion of Hispanic voters who consider themselves conservative, we would be back in the hunt,” Ayres said.
For Republicans, the current crisis has been a long time coming.
Strategist Ed Rollins told The Hill he remembered having a conversation in 1982 with legendary consultant Lee Atwater about how to boost the GOP’s standing with blacks and Latino.
Rollins added that the damage that has been done in the interim could not be undone overnight. He counseled the party to think in terms of five-year or 10-year plans that involved selecting more Hispanic candidates among other things.
But a more generous approach to immigration reform, he insisted, had to be part of the picture.
“It might be a piecemeal thing where you begin with the DREAM Act and move beyond it,” he said. “Republicans, realistically, can’t be obstructionist.”
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Publication
1. Amnesty and the U.S. Labor Market: The Employment Picture for Less-Educated Workers
Media Appearance
2. Jessica Vaughan discusses the Secure Communities Program on FOX News Boston
Blogs
3. DHS to Create a Class of *Undocumented* Permanent Resident Aliens in 2013
4. Administration Pushes for Both Floods and Tiny Flows of Migrants
5. "Hispanic" Bishops Offer Sympathy, but to Whom?
6. Government Seems to Juggle Financing of Appeals Process to Increase Migration
7. Great — if Tentative — News at the Border
8. Politico and George Washington University Spread Push Poll on Amnesty
9. More Foreign Workers = More Patents Argument is Disputed at DC Session
Monday, December 17, 2012
British Labour party leader: Labour made mistakes on immigration
But no mention of the vast pressure on schools, roads, hospitals and welfare payments that resulted from the immigration upsurge
LABOUR leader Ed Miliband today admitted his party made “mistakes” over immigration when in power – and told migrants they must learn English.
Mr Miliband said the former government failed to tackle the growing problem of racial segregation in British cities, adding that Britain needs a fresh strategy to cope with its multi-ethnic society.
He vowed not to sweep public anxieties over British cultural identity under the carpet – while praising the country’s “tolerant, open-minded society”.
The Labour leader also called on the country to back Mo Farah in the BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards – saying his first victory was the “defining moment” of the London Olympics.
He hailed the Games as an example of Britain’s ethnic diversity in a speech urging more direct action to further integration.
Labour would expect migrants to learn English, tackle landlords who pack migrant newcomers into overcrowded houses and ban recruitment agencies from seeking workers only from particular countries or ethnic groups, he said.
But in his high-profile speech in south London, Mr Miliband insisted that the multi-ethnic Britain revealed in this week’s census and in the summer’s Olympic and Paralympic Games is a cause for celebration.
Drawing on his own parents’ experience as Jewish refugees from the Holocaust, Mr Miliband said: “We should celebrate multi-ethnic diverse Britain. We are stronger for it - and I love Britain for it.”
He continued: “Britain is at its best when it comes together as a nation, not when it stands divided. That’s what One Nation is about.
“But at the same time we know there is anxiety about immigration and what it means for our culture.
“The answer is not to sweep it under the carpet or fail to talk about it, nor is it to make promises that can’t be kept. It is to deal with all of the issues that concern people.”
He admitted that previous Labour administrations were “overly optimistic” in assuming that integration would happen by itself and that Labour did “too little to tackle the realities of segregation in communities that were struggling to cope”.
He added: “The last Labour government made mistakes in this regard. We have said we will learn lessons from eastern European migration and ensure maximum transitional controls in future.
“And we will look at how the Government’s immigration cap works in practice. “But I believe we can all cope with these pressures if we recognise them and understand how to respond.”
Calling on Britain to back Mo Farah as BBC Sports Personality of the Year, he said: “If anything was a defining moment of the Olympics, amidst so many defining moments, it was Mo Farah’s victories.
“And wasn’t that an amazing interview when he was asked: ’Wouldn’t you rather be running for Somalia?’ and he replied: ’This is my country, mate’.”
SOURCE
Labour has no right to lecture on immigration
Labour leader Ed Miliband's call for a 'strategy for integration' is just so much hot air
Exactly 10 years ago, a tiny campaign group captured the headlines with a startling prediction that net immigration to the UK would grow by two million over the next decade. Since this was four times more than occurred in the previous decade, the forecast was rubbished by the Home Office. Moreover, the people behind the group, Migration Watch UK, were denounced as closet racists for even raising the subject. Yet everything that Migration Watch foresaw came true; indeed, as the figures published this week from the 2011 census show, they were overly cautious.
Sir Andrew Green, the founder of the organisation, wanted to inspire a debate about immigration that he thought the politicians wilfully refused to have. There was a good reason for this: until the mid-Nineties most voters believed successive governments had operated sensible immigration controls. However, everything changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening up of the eastern borders into the EU. This resulted in a huge influx of economic migrants, many claiming to be political refugees, initially settling in Germany but eventually in the UK. By the time Labour came to power in 1997, more than 100,000 foreign nationals were claiming asylum annually compared with just a few thousand in the late Eighties.
As a result of chaotic administration at the Home Office, most of these new immigrants were allowed to remain in the country whether they were entitled to or not. At the same time, Labour abolished the “primary purpose rule”, which was intended to ensure that marriage was not being used principally as a means to enter Britain. The rules surrounding work permits became too lax, exit controls from the country were abolished, visa departments became overwhelmed and human rights law made it difficult, if not impossible, to deport illegal immigrants.
Then, in 2004, the Labour government announced that Britain would allow access to its jobs market to workers from the new members from the old Warsaw Pact bloc. It estimated that the impact would be minimal, with about 13,000 people a year coming from the eight countries, including Poland. In the event, around one million have arrived here to work. This combination of events meant that controls over immigration, rigidly applied since 1971, were lost.
Partly, this was beyond the Labour government’s control; but none the less it could – and should – have prepared for the consequences. And the main reason that it didn’t is because Labour leaders simply denied that it was happening. As a result, ministers refused to heed warnings that mass immigration would result in a shortage of housing or lead to pressure on schools, the NHS and transport. Even today – and especially with budget cuts – public services are poorly prepared for the consequences: hundreds of new primary schools, for instance, will be needed over the next 10 years for which plans have not, so far, been made.
So, for Ed Miliband, Labour’s leader, to make the speech he did yesterday stating that “the last government made mistakes” in its immigration policy is the political understatement of the decade. The difficulties that parts of the country face as a result of large-scale immigration, such as a failure of integration, a lack of affordable homes and high benefit dependency, stem from those “mistakes”.
It is pointless for Mr Miliband now to argue that the country is a better place because of the arrival of millions of newcomers. While many people might agree with that sentiment, if that was Labour’s intention all along why did they deny it was taking place? Either they were incompetent or dishonest. Furthermore, Mr Miliband’s call yesterday for a “comprehensive strategy for integration” is just so much hot air in view of his party’s track record. After trying to shut down the debate on immigration for years, Labour now seeks to claim some unique insight into the problems it has caused.
Unhappily, Labour’s failure was so spectacular that the Coalition has responded by making mistakes of its own. David Cameron’s pledge to reduce net immigration to the “tens of thousands” is not only unachievable but is arguably not in the country’s interests. Perversely, this target could be reached even with high levels of immigration if they were matched by a rise in emigration.
What Britain needs is an immigration policy that chooses the people the country wants while being honest about those it wants to exclude. Instead, we are in danger of producing a system that rejects and deters those whose presence here would be of benefit. As this week’s census illustrated, the levels of immigration seen over the past 20 years have been unprecedented in our history. Some economists argue that this has been a good thing because a vibrant economy needs a growing population to sustain it and the indigenous birth rate is unable to do so. But the fact remains that as recently as 15 years ago, ministers and officials were working on the assumption that net immigration would be a quarter of what it is now.
As the party in government for most of that time, Labour should have acknowledged what was happening and acted accordingly. It miserably failed to do so. Why Mr Miliband thinks we should listen to him now is anyone’s guess.
SOURCE
December 16, 2012
A third way on immigration: Instead of deportation or amnesty, the U.S. should adopt legalization without citizenship
This is not a bad idea in theory but pressure not far down the track to convert everyone to full citizenship is foreseeable
The debate over U.S. immigration policy has been rebooted. There now appears to be bipartisan support for what's generally called comprehensive reform. But a stumbling block remains: What to do about the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants among us. Deportation? Complete amnesty? A "path" to citizenship?
There is a way forward, and it can be best summarized by "none of the above." It lies, instead, between these choices. It's legalization without citizenship .
With as few conditions and as broadly as possible, we should offer undocumented immigrants status as "permanent noncitizen residents." Unlike current green card holders, these individuals would never have the option of naturalizing and becoming U.S. citizens. The only exception would be for minors who arrived here with their parents. Provided they have not committed any serious crimes, such individuals should be immediately eligible for citizenship.
Simplicity is one distinct virtue of this approach. The prospect of mass deportations (or the hope of mass self-deportations) is both unpalatable and impractical. And establishing and implementing a complicated pathway to citizenship — or even to a lesser legal status — requires more faith than most Americans have in our government's ability to administer programs effectively and fairly.
For example, one proposal has called for the undocumented to return to their native countries for some period of time and then apply for a visa and "get in line" to return to the U.S. legally. But how would the return trip be monitored? And after that, how effectively would the visa quotas and readmission processes be administered? What would happen when an aging grandmother is returned to a "home" she left 30 years ago, or when illegal parents and their U.S.-born teenagers find themselves on different sides of the divide?
Most Americans understand that undocumented immigrants came here primarily because there were jobs waiting for them, and that American employers and consumers have benefited from their labor. They find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that all Americans are complicit in this problem.
Yet in an era of increasing inequality, others insist they do not see themselves benefiting from the presence of illegals, or of unskilled immigrants generally. And while economic studies consistently demonstrate that there is substantially less competition with immigrants for jobs than many believe, opponents of immigration, especially of illegal immigration, are not wrong when they point to negative impacts on the quality of life in their neighborhoods and to the fiscal burdens on their schools, hospitals and other social service providers.
My proposal — let's call it "mere legalization" — speaks directly to these Americans. To be sure, it would not treat undocumented immigrants as criminals, as many insist. But neither would it treat them as mere victims. It would, as President Obama put it at American University in 2010, "demand responsibility from people living here illegally." Those who chose as adults to take enormous risks and break our laws would be held accountable as responsible agents who must now pay a clear and enduring penalty. Looking forward, any such initiative would have to be accompanied by rigorous and comprehensive enforcement efforts not only along our borders and ports of entry but at work sites throughout the land.
Immigrant advocates and their supporters may reject mere legalization as too punitive, as "second-class citizenship." Yet a quarter of a century after President Reagan's amnesty went into effect in 1987, only two-fifths of those who became legal permanent residents through that program have gone on to become citizens. In light of restrictions imposed in the 1990s on noncitizen eligibility for various federal social welfare benefits, and subsequent programs to increase naturalization rates, such low numbers are particularly striking. Traditionally low levels of naturalization among eligible Mexican-origin immigrants are one factor at work here. Yet the point remains: The overwhelming majority of those covered by Reagan's amnesty have settled for less than full citizenship. So what exactly are we arguing about?
To those who think that permanent noncitizen status is too lenient, I would respond that much would depend on the specifics of any such program, about which Congress would have enormous latitude to do as it sees fit. Even so, under current law and policy, green card holders are treated differently from citizens. Besides not being eligible for certain government jobs and social programs, they are not permitted to serve on state or federal juries. And of course noncitizens do not vote in federal and state elections, though they may in a few local jurisdictions.
When green card holders travel outside the U.S., especially for extended periods, they currently risk being not allowed to reenter. As UCLA law professor Hiroshi Motomura concludes, under prevailing rulings "the Constitution protects a returning lawful immigrant no more than a first-time entrant."
More generally, noncitizen residents have no absolute assurance that they will be allowed to remain here. Failing to keep documents current or committing various crimes, including tax evasion and shoplifting, could result in their deportation. So the status of green card holders is highly contingent on their own behavior and on global politics. And unlike U.S. citizens, they cannot obtain visas for immediate family members outside the usual numerical quotas.
The underlying point is easily lost in the fog of rancorous debate over punishment or amnesty for the 11 million undocumented immigrants among us: The United States is a remarkably absorptive and open society, where newcomers and their children put down roots and develop ties very quickly. Indeed, our openness is so powerful that many among the undocumented have been noisily demanding relief. Why not allow ourselves to feel good about this and use it to propel us toward a middle path?
We don't have to choose between granting citizenship to lawbreakers or imposing onerous penalties that we lack the will and means to implement and enforce. We can choose instead a practical, achievable policy that acknowledges Americans' share of responsibility for this mess, but that also requires illegal immigrants to acknowledge theirs.
SOURCE
German population set to soar by 2.2m as immigrants flee southern Europe
A massive wave of immigration could hit Germany as people flee the crisis-ridden economies of southern Europe
The German population could jump by 2.2 million people by 2017 as people make the trek from the south to Europe’s post powerful economy, researchers at the Kiel Economics have concluded.
The researchers studied net migration to Germany over 50 years, and predicted that as euro-zone countries battle with their economic woes the relative strength and low unemployment rates of Germany will become an attractive lure.
Germany is already a popular destination for young and skilled Greeks, Spaniard and Portuguese, who have grown disheartened with the high unemployment rates and struggling economies that have become hallmarks of their homelands.
The Spanish unemployment rate has hit 24 per cent, and for the under 25s it has reached 54 per cent. In contrast German unemployment stands at 6.9 per cent, and the country has experienced shortages of skilled labour.
Figures for 2012 reveal that increasing numbers of southern European migrants are already on the way, helping to hike up Germany’s population by 389,000 people. Researchers estimate that in 2014 alone some 506,000 new immigrants will enter the country.
Federal statistics also show that for the first half of 2012 immigration to Germany increased by 35 per cent in comparison to the same period last year.
“The main reason is for people to come is that unemployment rates in Germany are comparatively low to those in the euro-zone,” said Carsten-Patrick Meier from Kiel Economics. “We expect unemployment to remain high over the next few years. But in Germany it should remain low and where you have low unemployment you have high wage growth.”
While the German government has tried to attract skilled foreigners, trade unions fear that large numbers of unskilled migrants might try to take advantage of the EU’s open labour market and move to Germany. This could, they claim, result in wages falling and a rise in German unemployment
SOURCE
British Labour party leader: Labour made mistakes on immigration
But no mention of the vast pressure on schools, roads, hospitals and welfare payments that resulted from the immigration upsurge
LABOUR leader Ed Miliband today admitted his party made “mistakes” over immigration when in power – and told migrants they must learn English.
Mr Miliband said the former government failed to tackle the growing problem of racial segregation in British cities, adding that Britain needs a fresh strategy to cope with its multi-ethnic society.
He vowed not to sweep public anxieties over British cultural identity under the carpet – while praising the country’s “tolerant, open-minded society”.
The Labour leader also called on the country to back Mo Farah in the BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards – saying his first victory was the “defining moment” of the London Olympics.
He hailed the Games as an example of Britain’s ethnic diversity in a speech urging more direct action to further integration.
Labour would expect migrants to learn English, tackle landlords who pack migrant newcomers into overcrowded houses and ban recruitment agencies from seeking workers only from particular countries or ethnic groups, he said.
But in his high-profile speech in south London, Mr Miliband insisted that the multi-ethnic Britain revealed in this week’s census and in the summer’s Olympic and Paralympic Games is a cause for celebration.
Drawing on his own parents’ experience as Jewish refugees from the Holocaust, Mr Miliband said: “We should celebrate multi-ethnic diverse Britain. We are stronger for it - and I love Britain for it.”
He continued: “Britain is at its best when it comes together as a nation, not when it stands divided. That’s what One Nation is about.
“But at the same time we know there is anxiety about immigration and what it means for our culture.
“The answer is not to sweep it under the carpet or fail to talk about it, nor is it to make promises that can’t be kept. It is to deal with all of the issues that concern people.”
He admitted that previous Labour administrations were “overly optimistic” in assuming that integration would happen by itself and that Labour did “too little to tackle the realities of segregation in communities that were struggling to cope”.
He added: “The last Labour government made mistakes in this regard. We have said we will learn lessons from eastern European migration and ensure maximum transitional controls in future.
“And we will look at how the Government’s immigration cap works in practice. “But I believe we can all cope with these pressures if we recognise them and understand how to respond.”
Calling on Britain to back Mo Farah as BBC Sports Personality of the Year, he said: “If anything was a defining moment of the Olympics, amidst so many defining moments, it was Mo Farah’s victories.
“And wasn’t that an amazing interview when he was asked: ’Wouldn’t you rather be running for Somalia?’ and he replied: ’This is my country, mate’.”
SOURCE
Labour has no right to lecture on immigration
Labour leader Ed Miliband's call for a 'strategy for integration' is just so much hot air
Exactly 10 years ago, a tiny campaign group captured the headlines with a startling prediction that net immigration to the UK would grow by two million over the next decade. Since this was four times more than occurred in the previous decade, the forecast was rubbished by the Home Office. Moreover, the people behind the group, Migration Watch UK, were denounced as closet racists for even raising the subject. Yet everything that Migration Watch foresaw came true; indeed, as the figures published this week from the 2011 census show, they were overly cautious.
Sir Andrew Green, the founder of the organisation, wanted to inspire a debate about immigration that he thought the politicians wilfully refused to have. There was a good reason for this: until the mid-Nineties most voters believed successive governments had operated sensible immigration controls. However, everything changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening up of the eastern borders into the EU. This resulted in a huge influx of economic migrants, many claiming to be political refugees, initially settling in Germany but eventually in the UK. By the time Labour came to power in 1997, more than 100,000 foreign nationals were claiming asylum annually compared with just a few thousand in the late Eighties.
As a result of chaotic administration at the Home Office, most of these new immigrants were allowed to remain in the country whether they were entitled to or not. At the same time, Labour abolished the “primary purpose rule”, which was intended to ensure that marriage was not being used principally as a means to enter Britain. The rules surrounding work permits became too lax, exit controls from the country were abolished, visa departments became overwhelmed and human rights law made it difficult, if not impossible, to deport illegal immigrants.
Then, in 2004, the Labour government announced that Britain would allow access to its jobs market to workers from the new members from the old Warsaw Pact bloc. It estimated that the impact would be minimal, with about 13,000 people a year coming from the eight countries, including Poland. In the event, around one million have arrived here to work. This combination of events meant that controls over immigration, rigidly applied since 1971, were lost.
Partly, this was beyond the Labour government’s control; but none the less it could – and should – have prepared for the consequences. And the main reason that it didn’t is because Labour leaders simply denied that it was happening. As a result, ministers refused to heed warnings that mass immigration would result in a shortage of housing or lead to pressure on schools, the NHS and transport. Even today – and especially with budget cuts – public services are poorly prepared for the consequences: hundreds of new primary schools, for instance, will be needed over the next 10 years for which plans have not, so far, been made.
So, for Ed Miliband, Labour’s leader, to make the speech he did yesterday stating that “the last government made mistakes” in its immigration policy is the political understatement of the decade. The difficulties that parts of the country face as a result of large-scale immigration, such as a failure of integration, a lack of affordable homes and high benefit dependency, stem from those “mistakes”.
It is pointless for Mr Miliband now to argue that the country is a better place because of the arrival of millions of newcomers. While many people might agree with that sentiment, if that was Labour’s intention all along why did they deny it was taking place? Either they were incompetent or dishonest. Furthermore, Mr Miliband’s call yesterday for a “comprehensive strategy for integration” is just so much hot air in view of his party’s track record. After trying to shut down the debate on immigration for years, Labour now seeks to claim some unique insight into the problems it has caused.
Unhappily, Labour’s failure was so spectacular that the Coalition has responded by making mistakes of its own. David Cameron’s pledge to reduce net immigration to the “tens of thousands” is not only unachievable but is arguably not in the country’s interests. Perversely, this target could be reached even with high levels of immigration if they were matched by a rise in emigration.
What Britain needs is an immigration policy that chooses the people the country wants while being honest about those it wants to exclude. Instead, we are in danger of producing a system that rejects and deters those whose presence here would be of benefit. As this week’s census illustrated, the levels of immigration seen over the past 20 years have been unprecedented in our history. Some economists argue that this has been a good thing because a vibrant economy needs a growing population to sustain it and the indigenous birth rate is unable to do so. But the fact remains that as recently as 15 years ago, ministers and officials were working on the assumption that net immigration would be a quarter of what it is now.
As the party in government for most of that time, Labour should have acknowledged what was happening and acted accordingly. It miserably failed to do so. Why Mr Miliband thinks we should listen to him now is anyone’s guess.
SOURCE
December 16, 2012
A third way on immigration: Instead of deportation or amnesty, the U.S. should adopt legalization without citizenship
This is not a bad idea in theory but pressure not far down the track to convert everyone to full citizenship is foreseeable
The debate over U.S. immigration policy has been rebooted. There now appears to be bipartisan support for what's generally called comprehensive reform. But a stumbling block remains: What to do about the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants among us. Deportation? Complete amnesty? A "path" to citizenship?
There is a way forward, and it can be best summarized by "none of the above." It lies, instead, between these choices. It's legalization without citizenship .
With as few conditions and as broadly as possible, we should offer undocumented immigrants status as "permanent noncitizen residents." Unlike current green card holders, these individuals would never have the option of naturalizing and becoming U.S. citizens. The only exception would be for minors who arrived here with their parents. Provided they have not committed any serious crimes, such individuals should be immediately eligible for citizenship.
Simplicity is one distinct virtue of this approach. The prospect of mass deportations (or the hope of mass self-deportations) is both unpalatable and impractical. And establishing and implementing a complicated pathway to citizenship — or even to a lesser legal status — requires more faith than most Americans have in our government's ability to administer programs effectively and fairly.
For example, one proposal has called for the undocumented to return to their native countries for some period of time and then apply for a visa and "get in line" to return to the U.S. legally. But how would the return trip be monitored? And after that, how effectively would the visa quotas and readmission processes be administered? What would happen when an aging grandmother is returned to a "home" she left 30 years ago, or when illegal parents and their U.S.-born teenagers find themselves on different sides of the divide?
Most Americans understand that undocumented immigrants came here primarily because there were jobs waiting for them, and that American employers and consumers have benefited from their labor. They find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that all Americans are complicit in this problem.
Yet in an era of increasing inequality, others insist they do not see themselves benefiting from the presence of illegals, or of unskilled immigrants generally. And while economic studies consistently demonstrate that there is substantially less competition with immigrants for jobs than many believe, opponents of immigration, especially of illegal immigration, are not wrong when they point to negative impacts on the quality of life in their neighborhoods and to the fiscal burdens on their schools, hospitals and other social service providers.
My proposal — let's call it "mere legalization" — speaks directly to these Americans. To be sure, it would not treat undocumented immigrants as criminals, as many insist. But neither would it treat them as mere victims. It would, as President Obama put it at American University in 2010, "demand responsibility from people living here illegally." Those who chose as adults to take enormous risks and break our laws would be held accountable as responsible agents who must now pay a clear and enduring penalty. Looking forward, any such initiative would have to be accompanied by rigorous and comprehensive enforcement efforts not only along our borders and ports of entry but at work sites throughout the land.
Immigrant advocates and their supporters may reject mere legalization as too punitive, as "second-class citizenship." Yet a quarter of a century after President Reagan's amnesty went into effect in 1987, only two-fifths of those who became legal permanent residents through that program have gone on to become citizens. In light of restrictions imposed in the 1990s on noncitizen eligibility for various federal social welfare benefits, and subsequent programs to increase naturalization rates, such low numbers are particularly striking. Traditionally low levels of naturalization among eligible Mexican-origin immigrants are one factor at work here. Yet the point remains: The overwhelming majority of those covered by Reagan's amnesty have settled for less than full citizenship. So what exactly are we arguing about?
To those who think that permanent noncitizen status is too lenient, I would respond that much would depend on the specifics of any such program, about which Congress would have enormous latitude to do as it sees fit. Even so, under current law and policy, green card holders are treated differently from citizens. Besides not being eligible for certain government jobs and social programs, they are not permitted to serve on state or federal juries. And of course noncitizens do not vote in federal and state elections, though they may in a few local jurisdictions.
When green card holders travel outside the U.S., especially for extended periods, they currently risk being not allowed to reenter. As UCLA law professor Hiroshi Motomura concludes, under prevailing rulings "the Constitution protects a returning lawful immigrant no more than a first-time entrant."
More generally, noncitizen residents have no absolute assurance that they will be allowed to remain here. Failing to keep documents current or committing various crimes, including tax evasion and shoplifting, could result in their deportation. So the status of green card holders is highly contingent on their own behavior and on global politics. And unlike U.S. citizens, they cannot obtain visas for immediate family members outside the usual numerical quotas.
The underlying point is easily lost in the fog of rancorous debate over punishment or amnesty for the 11 million undocumented immigrants among us: The United States is a remarkably absorptive and open society, where newcomers and their children put down roots and develop ties very quickly. Indeed, our openness is so powerful that many among the undocumented have been noisily demanding relief. Why not allow ourselves to feel good about this and use it to propel us toward a middle path?
We don't have to choose between granting citizenship to lawbreakers or imposing onerous penalties that we lack the will and means to implement and enforce. We can choose instead a practical, achievable policy that acknowledges Americans' share of responsibility for this mess, but that also requires illegal immigrants to acknowledge theirs.
SOURCE
German population set to soar by 2.2m as immigrants flee southern Europe
A massive wave of immigration could hit Germany as people flee the crisis-ridden economies of southern Europe
The German population could jump by 2.2 million people by 2017 as people make the trek from the south to Europe’s post powerful economy, researchers at the Kiel Economics have concluded.
The researchers studied net migration to Germany over 50 years, and predicted that as euro-zone countries battle with their economic woes the relative strength and low unemployment rates of Germany will become an attractive lure.
Germany is already a popular destination for young and skilled Greeks, Spaniard and Portuguese, who have grown disheartened with the high unemployment rates and struggling economies that have become hallmarks of their homelands.
The Spanish unemployment rate has hit 24 per cent, and for the under 25s it has reached 54 per cent. In contrast German unemployment stands at 6.9 per cent, and the country has experienced shortages of skilled labour.
Figures for 2012 reveal that increasing numbers of southern European migrants are already on the way, helping to hike up Germany’s population by 389,000 people. Researchers estimate that in 2014 alone some 506,000 new immigrants will enter the country.
Federal statistics also show that for the first half of 2012 immigration to Germany increased by 35 per cent in comparison to the same period last year.
“The main reason is for people to come is that unemployment rates in Germany are comparatively low to those in the euro-zone,” said Carsten-Patrick Meier from Kiel Economics. “We expect unemployment to remain high over the next few years. But in Germany it should remain low and where you have low unemployment you have high wage growth.”
While the German government has tried to attract skilled foreigners, trade unions fear that large numbers of unskilled migrants might try to take advantage of the EU’s open labour market and move to Germany. This could, they claim, result in wages falling and a rise in German unemployment
SOURCE
Friday, December 14, 2012
New Labour's immigration revolution has transformed England, and not entirely for the better
I wonder what odds bookmakers are giving on the Conservatives winning the 2016 mayoral elections, now that Greater London has a white British minority for the first time in history (the figures for London proper are even more startling, especially in areas like Newham).
Yesterday’s census figures are Tony Blair’s legacy: a demographic revolution unprecedented in English history. As Kevin Myers once put it, “London has undergone a demographic transplant unlike that experienced by any European capital since the Fall of Constantinople in 1483”. Vast numbers of foreign nationals now live in Britain, including not just Indians, Poles and Pakistanis, but a surprising number of groups like Germans; only the Irish have declined in number, the Celtic Tiger having brought back some emigrants. (Ireland’s population, now at 6.2 million, is the largest since the famine, yet still smaller than it was in the 1820s. Even Germany and Russia, which endured wars and genocides in the modern era, are triple and double their early 19th-century populations respectively.)
There are many people who welcome this, and not just cynical Labour Party apparatchiks who realise that most immigrants vote Labour (as will their children). Aside from the cultural (and culinary) benefits of diversity, which are in fact sated by fairly small levels of immigration, a society that breaks down the barriers feels nicer. London is, all things considered, a pretty amazing achievement: a city where anyone can walk down the street holding hands with whoever they want.
But much as I like the psychological absence of barriers, we should not pretend that it does not come with huge costs, and that these are mostly borne by the less privileged. How many liberal commentators send their children to inner-city schools that aren’t inside those precious middle-class catchment areas?. Those commentators, often rural-based, talk about unhappy people stuck in high-immigrant areas in the same way conservatives talk about those in areas of high unemployment – move, loser!
I have a book out early in the New Year setting out the arguments against mass immigration, which should make me tremendously popular in the middle-class part of Haringey where I live: an area where the Greens finished ahead of the Tories in the last council election. The truth is I quite like living in a liberal part of town because, aside from the food obviously being better, liberal environments are quite pleasant. It’s that environment which has made England, and in particular London, so open to the world.
But you can have too much of a good thing, and liberalism is a fragile prize. The main cornerstones of liberalism, things such as the jury system and parliamentary rule, are themselves products of very mono-ethnic societies, namely England, Denmark and the Netherlands, where people felt a lot of trust for fellow citizens. The Left likes “diversity” because it hates racism, and because immigrants overwhelmingly vote for the Left, they assume it can only make the country more liberal. But what I suspect (and perhaps fear) is that this demographic experiment our leaders have embarked upon (without asking whether or not we wanted it) is going to make us less liberal. All the evidence, from social sciences and from history, tells us that that highly diverse societies tend to be less trusting, less free, more unequal and more corrupt. These are not the sorts of societies where people will willingly pay for each other’s housing when hard times fall.
That’s probably not what people in nicely diverse middle-class areas of London want to hear, because tolerance is so highly prized. But tolerance is not a faultless good; it can also be the flipside of apathy and selfishness. That’s why “celebrating diversity” is so easy to do.
SOURCE
Migrants 'will push England's house prices up by an extra 10%', Theresa May warns
House prices will rise by more than 10 per cent unless mass immigration is controlled, Theresa May warned yesterday. The increases in the years to come would go beyond other pressures on the housing market – dealing a blow to young Britons already struggling to get on the property ladder.
In a speech in London, the Home Secretary delivered a blunt analysis of the impact of Labour’s ‘open door’ immigration policy.
She said the influx had driven down wages for the working classes and placed huge pressure on schools and social cohesion. Mrs May cited house prices as an example of how demand created by migrants was having an impact on the wider public.
Her officials pointed to research by Professor Stephen Nickell which predicted that, if net immigration runs at 190,000 a year, house prices will end up 13 per cent higher over the next two decades than they would if migration were at zero.
Currently, net migration – the difference between the number of people arriving in the UK and those leaving – is 183,000, though Mrs May has vowed to reduce it to the ‘tens of thousands’.
She said: ‘More than one third of all new housing demand in Britain is caused by immigration. ‘And there is evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house prices could be 10 per cent lower over a 20 year period.’
Mrs May delivered her speech to the Policy Exchange think-tank only 24 hours after publication of the 2011 census.
The survey showed how, under ten years of Labour, nearly four million immigrants joined the population of England and Wales.
In total, 7.5million people who were born abroad were living here last year – and more than half of these have arrived since 2001.
In a blistering attack on the Labour years, Mrs May criticised the last government for failing to measure the impact of immigration on public services and housing, and for assuming it had no impact on the jobs and wages of the settled population.
She warned that mass immigration undermines social cohesion by making it ‘impossible’ to establish the relationships, family ties and social bonds that create a community.
Mrs May said the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a panel of government advisers, had found ‘a clear association between non-European immigration and employment in the UK’ – with 160,000 British workers ‘displaced’ between 1995 and 2010.
Some 23 British workers were kept out of employment for every additional 100 immigrants employed, she said, adding: ‘For those on lower wages, more immigration means more workers competing for a limited number of low-skilled jobs.
farm pay driven by influx.jpg
‘The result is lower wages – and the people who lose out are working-class families, as well as ethnic minority communities and recent immigrants themselves.’
In future, government impact assessments will no longer assume that migrants make a positive contribution to the economy by paying taxes and spending their wages.
The burden they place on public services will also be considered, she said.
Mrs May also denounced the student visa policy inherited from Labour as a ‘mess’ which was ‘abused on an industrial scale’.
Last night Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch, said: ‘At last we have a Home Secretary who is honest about the consequences of mass immigration and ready to take on the bogus arguments for it.’
Fewer than one in every 150 last-ditch immigration appeals is successful, ministers will reveal today as they launch plans to combat ‘spurious’ court actions. Critics say the appeals are often a ploy to let illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers prolong their time in Britain.
SOURCE
New Labour's immigration revolution has transformed England, and not entirely for the better
I wonder what odds bookmakers are giving on the Conservatives winning the 2016 mayoral elections, now that Greater London has a white British minority for the first time in history (the figures for London proper are even more startling, especially in areas like Newham).
Yesterday’s census figures are Tony Blair’s legacy: a demographic revolution unprecedented in English history. As Kevin Myers once put it, “London has undergone a demographic transplant unlike that experienced by any European capital since the Fall of Constantinople in 1483”. Vast numbers of foreign nationals now live in Britain, including not just Indians, Poles and Pakistanis, but a surprising number of groups like Germans; only the Irish have declined in number, the Celtic Tiger having brought back some emigrants. (Ireland’s population, now at 6.2 million, is the largest since the famine, yet still smaller than it was in the 1820s. Even Germany and Russia, which endured wars and genocides in the modern era, are triple and double their early 19th-century populations respectively.)
There are many people who welcome this, and not just cynical Labour Party apparatchiks who realise that most immigrants vote Labour (as will their children). Aside from the cultural (and culinary) benefits of diversity, which are in fact sated by fairly small levels of immigration, a society that breaks down the barriers feels nicer. London is, all things considered, a pretty amazing achievement: a city where anyone can walk down the street holding hands with whoever they want.
But much as I like the psychological absence of barriers, we should not pretend that it does not come with huge costs, and that these are mostly borne by the less privileged. How many liberal commentators send their children to inner-city schools that aren’t inside those precious middle-class catchment areas?. Those commentators, often rural-based, talk about unhappy people stuck in high-immigrant areas in the same way conservatives talk about those in areas of high unemployment – move, loser!
I have a book out early in the New Year setting out the arguments against mass immigration, which should make me tremendously popular in the middle-class part of Haringey where I live: an area where the Greens finished ahead of the Tories in the last council election. The truth is I quite like living in a liberal part of town because, aside from the food obviously being better, liberal environments are quite pleasant. It’s that environment which has made England, and in particular London, so open to the world.
But you can have too much of a good thing, and liberalism is a fragile prize. The main cornerstones of liberalism, things such as the jury system and parliamentary rule, are themselves products of very mono-ethnic societies, namely England, Denmark and the Netherlands, where people felt a lot of trust for fellow citizens. The Left likes “diversity” because it hates racism, and because immigrants overwhelmingly vote for the Left, they assume it can only make the country more liberal. But what I suspect (and perhaps fear) is that this demographic experiment our leaders have embarked upon (without asking whether or not we wanted it) is going to make us less liberal. All the evidence, from social sciences and from history, tells us that that highly diverse societies tend to be less trusting, less free, more unequal and more corrupt. These are not the sorts of societies where people will willingly pay for each other’s housing when hard times fall.
That’s probably not what people in nicely diverse middle-class areas of London want to hear, because tolerance is so highly prized. But tolerance is not a faultless good; it can also be the flipside of apathy and selfishness. That’s why “celebrating diversity” is so easy to do.
SOURCE
Migrants 'will push England's house prices up by an extra 10%', Theresa May warns
House prices will rise by more than 10 per cent unless mass immigration is controlled, Theresa May warned yesterday. The increases in the years to come would go beyond other pressures on the housing market – dealing a blow to young Britons already struggling to get on the property ladder.
In a speech in London, the Home Secretary delivered a blunt analysis of the impact of Labour’s ‘open door’ immigration policy.
She said the influx had driven down wages for the working classes and placed huge pressure on schools and social cohesion. Mrs May cited house prices as an example of how demand created by migrants was having an impact on the wider public.
Her officials pointed to research by Professor Stephen Nickell which predicted that, if net immigration runs at 190,000 a year, house prices will end up 13 per cent higher over the next two decades than they would if migration were at zero.
Currently, net migration – the difference between the number of people arriving in the UK and those leaving – is 183,000, though Mrs May has vowed to reduce it to the ‘tens of thousands’.
She said: ‘More than one third of all new housing demand in Britain is caused by immigration. ‘And there is evidence that without the demand caused by mass immigration, house prices could be 10 per cent lower over a 20 year period.’
Mrs May delivered her speech to the Policy Exchange think-tank only 24 hours after publication of the 2011 census.
The survey showed how, under ten years of Labour, nearly four million immigrants joined the population of England and Wales.
In total, 7.5million people who were born abroad were living here last year – and more than half of these have arrived since 2001.
In a blistering attack on the Labour years, Mrs May criticised the last government for failing to measure the impact of immigration on public services and housing, and for assuming it had no impact on the jobs and wages of the settled population.
She warned that mass immigration undermines social cohesion by making it ‘impossible’ to establish the relationships, family ties and social bonds that create a community.
Mrs May said the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a panel of government advisers, had found ‘a clear association between non-European immigration and employment in the UK’ – with 160,000 British workers ‘displaced’ between 1995 and 2010.
Some 23 British workers were kept out of employment for every additional 100 immigrants employed, she said, adding: ‘For those on lower wages, more immigration means more workers competing for a limited number of low-skilled jobs.
farm pay driven by influx.jpg
‘The result is lower wages – and the people who lose out are working-class families, as well as ethnic minority communities and recent immigrants themselves.’
In future, government impact assessments will no longer assume that migrants make a positive contribution to the economy by paying taxes and spending their wages.
The burden they place on public services will also be considered, she said.
Mrs May also denounced the student visa policy inherited from Labour as a ‘mess’ which was ‘abused on an industrial scale’.
Last night Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch, said: ‘At last we have a Home Secretary who is honest about the consequences of mass immigration and ready to take on the bogus arguments for it.’
Fewer than one in every 150 last-ditch immigration appeals is successful, ministers will reveal today as they launch plans to combat ‘spurious’ court actions. Critics say the appeals are often a ploy to let illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers prolong their time in Britain.
SOURCE
Thursday, December 13, 2012
British government to relax rules on foreign students
Foreign PhD will be allowed to stay in Britain after completing their degrees but Britain will take further steps to "root out abuses" by fake ones trying to get visas, Theresa May said today.
In a key speech, the Home Secretary said foreign PhD students will be allowed to stay in the UK for a year after their studies to encourage more talented immigrants to remain in Britain.
But she will also roll out more face-to-face interviews for overseas applicants, which could make it more difficult for them to get permission to study in the UK in the first place.
Mrs May is trying to bring down immigration to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands. She said today immigration can increase pressure on property prices and reduce wages for low earners. High immigration can make it difficult to have an integrated society, she added.
In an interview with the Financial Times last night, she also hit out at universities, saying they have a responsibility to make Britain more attractive to foreign students.
"The universities have got a job here as well in making sure that people actually understand that we're open for university students coming into the UK," she told the newspaper. "There's a job here not just for the government, I think there's a job for the universities as well to make sure that people know that we are open."
The Home Secretary is also expected to address concerns about tough visa restrictions on Chinese tourists, with plans to roll out more online applications and offer forms in Mandarin.
There have been a number of rows within the Coalition about immigration policy, with accusations that the Home Office's tough restrictions are holding back growth.
Sources said Mrs May, the Prime Minister, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, and George Osborne, the Chancellor, have now reached an agreement on sounding more welcoming to students at the same time as remaining tough over security concerns.
Some cabinet ministers have backed university chancellors who argue that including legitimate students in net migration figures is driving them to other countries and deterring billions of pounds in investment.
Boris Johnson, the London mayor, has also attacked the Government's "crazy" policies on immigration for throttling tourism and discouraging students.
There has been mounting concern about the shifting attitude towards foreign students since London Met University was stripped of its right to teach foreign students.
The Home Office has cracked down on bogus colleges letting in immigrants pretending to be students as part of a drive to being down immigration to the tens rather than hundreds of thousands.
SOURCE
Singapore turns away rescued boat people
Singapore has denied entry to a Vietnamese-registered cargo ship carrying 40 Burmese asylum seekers who were plucked from the sea after their boat sank in the Bay of Bengal.
In an incident similar to the 2001 Tampa affair, where Australia refused entry to Afghan asylum seekers, Singapore said it had blocked the ship because "those aboard do not appear to be persons eligible to enter Singapore".
The asylum seekers are believed to have been in the water for 30 hours before the ship Nosco Victory rescued them on December 5, meaning they would have been in a distressed state.
They are believed to be still aboard the ship anchored off Singapore. Their condition is unknown.
Singapore authorities said the Nosco Victory's captain ignored advice by Indian rescue authorities to take the asylum seekers to the "nearest port of safety", which probably would have been a Bangladeshi port.
The ship was due to dock in Singapore on Sunday.
"As information provided by the vessel's master concerning the rescued persons is sketchy and there is no other official documentation to assist at this point, they do not appear to be persons eligible to enter Singapore," the spokesperson said.
"Under these circumstances, MV Nosco Victory was denied entry to the Port of Singapore."
The ship's agent could not be reached for comment.
The asylum seekers are believed to Rohingyas, a Muslim minority who were fleeing western Burma, where ethnic violence erupted in June.
They were plucked from the sea after the overcrowded Bangladesh-flagged ship Nayou sank at about midday on December 4. Up to 160 other Rohingya aboard the ship are believed to have drowned. The Nayou was en route to Muslim-majority Malaysia, where there is a large Rohingya population.
The sinking is one of at least four in the area since October that has resulted in drowning of several hundred Rohingya - stateless people described by the United Nations as among the world's most persecuted groups.
More than 4000 Rohingya have attempted the perilous journey to Malaysia in the past eight weeks as the UN describes the situation in Rohingya camps in Burma's western Rahkine state as "dire", with widespread starvation.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees last month called on regional countries to keep their borders open to people seeking asylum and international protection from Burma.
The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore spokesperson said the advice given to the captain of the Nosco Victory by Indian rescue authorities was made in consultation with the authority "taking into consideration the safety and security of the ship".
SOURCE
British government to relax rules on foreign students
Foreign PhD will be allowed to stay in Britain after completing their degrees but Britain will take further steps to "root out abuses" by fake ones trying to get visas, Theresa May said today.
In a key speech, the Home Secretary said foreign PhD students will be allowed to stay in the UK for a year after their studies to encourage more talented immigrants to remain in Britain.
But she will also roll out more face-to-face interviews for overseas applicants, which could make it more difficult for them to get permission to study in the UK in the first place.
Mrs May is trying to bring down immigration to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands. She said today immigration can increase pressure on property prices and reduce wages for low earners. High immigration can make it difficult to have an integrated society, she added.
In an interview with the Financial Times last night, she also hit out at universities, saying they have a responsibility to make Britain more attractive to foreign students.
"The universities have got a job here as well in making sure that people actually understand that we're open for university students coming into the UK," she told the newspaper. "There's a job here not just for the government, I think there's a job for the universities as well to make sure that people know that we are open."
The Home Secretary is also expected to address concerns about tough visa restrictions on Chinese tourists, with plans to roll out more online applications and offer forms in Mandarin.
There have been a number of rows within the Coalition about immigration policy, with accusations that the Home Office's tough restrictions are holding back growth.
Sources said Mrs May, the Prime Minister, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, and George Osborne, the Chancellor, have now reached an agreement on sounding more welcoming to students at the same time as remaining tough over security concerns.
Some cabinet ministers have backed university chancellors who argue that including legitimate students in net migration figures is driving them to other countries and deterring billions of pounds in investment.
Boris Johnson, the London mayor, has also attacked the Government's "crazy" policies on immigration for throttling tourism and discouraging students.
There has been mounting concern about the shifting attitude towards foreign students since London Met University was stripped of its right to teach foreign students.
The Home Office has cracked down on bogus colleges letting in immigrants pretending to be students as part of a drive to being down immigration to the tens rather than hundreds of thousands.
SOURCE
Singapore turns away rescued boat people
Singapore has denied entry to a Vietnamese-registered cargo ship carrying 40 Burmese asylum seekers who were plucked from the sea after their boat sank in the Bay of Bengal.
In an incident similar to the 2001 Tampa affair, where Australia refused entry to Afghan asylum seekers, Singapore said it had blocked the ship because "those aboard do not appear to be persons eligible to enter Singapore".
The asylum seekers are believed to have been in the water for 30 hours before the ship Nosco Victory rescued them on December 5, meaning they would have been in a distressed state.
They are believed to be still aboard the ship anchored off Singapore. Their condition is unknown.
Singapore authorities said the Nosco Victory's captain ignored advice by Indian rescue authorities to take the asylum seekers to the "nearest port of safety", which probably would have been a Bangladeshi port.
The ship was due to dock in Singapore on Sunday.
"As information provided by the vessel's master concerning the rescued persons is sketchy and there is no other official documentation to assist at this point, they do not appear to be persons eligible to enter Singapore," the spokesperson said.
"Under these circumstances, MV Nosco Victory was denied entry to the Port of Singapore."
The ship's agent could not be reached for comment.
The asylum seekers are believed to Rohingyas, a Muslim minority who were fleeing western Burma, where ethnic violence erupted in June.
They were plucked from the sea after the overcrowded Bangladesh-flagged ship Nayou sank at about midday on December 4. Up to 160 other Rohingya aboard the ship are believed to have drowned. The Nayou was en route to Muslim-majority Malaysia, where there is a large Rohingya population.
The sinking is one of at least four in the area since October that has resulted in drowning of several hundred Rohingya - stateless people described by the United Nations as among the world's most persecuted groups.
More than 4000 Rohingya have attempted the perilous journey to Malaysia in the past eight weeks as the UN describes the situation in Rohingya camps in Burma's western Rahkine state as "dire", with widespread starvation.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees last month called on regional countries to keep their borders open to people seeking asylum and international protection from Burma.
The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore spokesperson said the advice given to the captain of the Nosco Victory by Indian rescue authorities was made in consultation with the authority "taking into consideration the safety and security of the ship".
SOURCE
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Population of immigrants in England and Wales jumps by THREE MILLION in 10 years as census shows more than one in eight people are foreign
The scale of mass immigration over the last decade was laid bare today when census data revealed that the immigrant population of England and Wales went up by 3million over the past decade.
In 2011, 7.5million residents were foreign-born, making up 13 per cent of the population - up from 4.6million people in 2001.
Another major change came in the decreasing number of Christians - 4million fewer people claimed to belong to the faith as a quarter of Britons said they had no religion.
There were 33.2million people claiming to be Christian, down from 37.3million in 2001 and making up just 59 per cent of the population. 25.1 per cent of people said they had no faith, up from 14.8 per cent a decade earlier, while the proportion of Muslims rose from 3.0 per cent to 4.8 per cent.
The third most popular religion was Hinduism, with 1.5 per cent of the population, while 0.8 per cent were Sikhs and 0.5 per cent Jewish.
The statistics emerged as the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed that English cathedral congregations had grown dramatically in recent years, debunking the 'cliché' that the Church of England is fading away.
The data on religion showed considerable national variation - Knowsley, in Lancashire, is the most Christian town in England with 80.9 per cent of residents following the faith, while in London's Tower Hamlets 34.5 per cent of the population are Muslims.
Norwich is the most godless place in the country, as 42.5 per cent said they had no religion - despite the presence of one of England's most spectacular cathedrals.
Britain's increasing diversity was emphasised by the data released by the Office of National Statistics, as it emerged that the proportion of the nation that is white has fallen below 90 per cent for the first time.
48.2million people described themselves as being white, making up 86.0 per cent of the population of England and Wales, down from 91.3 per cent a decade earlier. 7.5 per cent of the population is Asian, while 3.4 per cent described themselves as black.
Unsurprisingly, London was found to be the most ethnically diverse region, while Wales was the least. London is also home to the most immigrants, as 37 per cent of its residents were born abroad and 24 per cent are not citizens of the UK.
One major reason for the explosion in the foreign-born population is the accession of 12 countries in central and eastern Europe to the EU, giving them the right to live and work in the UK - the population of Poles in England and Wales has grown nine-fold over the decade.
Apart from Poland, the other leading countries of origin for British immigrants were India, Pakistan, Ireland and Germany.
The largest increase in ethnic group over the last decade was seen in the 'White: Other' category where an increase of 1.1million was recorded. This reflects more than half a million Poles who migrated into England and Wales during these years, the ONS said.
Around 2million respondents listed their partners or fellow household members as being of different ethnic groups - 47 per cent more than in 2001.
There are now nearly as many Catholics as Protestants in Northern Ireland, it was revealed today.
According to last year's census, 48 per cent of population describe themselves as Protestant, while 45 per cent are Catholic.
In 2001, 53 per cent were Protestant and 44 per cent Catholic.
Almost half of the population described themselves as British when asked to choose from a list of identities.
A total of 48 per cent considered themselves British, while 29 per cent said they were Northern Irish and 28 per cent called themselves Irish.
Further data show some 4.8million people now hold a non-UK passport. Of these, 2.3million have EU passports.
SOURCE
Mexican Migration May Be Over
I am not sure I agree with Michael Barone on this but it is an interesting POV
Is mass migration from Mexico to the United States a thing of the past?
At least for the moment, it is. Last May, the Pew Hispanic Center, in a study based on U.S. and Mexican statistics, reported that net migration from Mexico to this country had fallen to zero from 2005 to 2010.
Pew said 20,000 more people moved to Mexico from the United States than from there to here in those years. That's a vivid contrast with the years 1995 to 2000, when net inflow from Mexico was 2.2 million people.
Because there was net Mexican immigration until 2007, when the housing market collapsed and the Great Recession began, it seems clear that there was net outmigration from 2007 to 2010, and that likely has continued in 2011 and 2012.
There's a widespread assumption that Mexican migration will resume when the U.S. economy starts growing robustly again. But I think there's reason to doubt that will be the case.
Over the past few years, I have been working on a book, scheduled for publication next fall, on American migrations, internal and immigrant. What I've found is that over the years this country has been peopled in large part by surges of migration that have typically lasted just one or two generations.
Almost no one predicted that these surges of migration would occur, and almost no one predicted when they would end.
For example, when our immigration system was opened up in 1965, experts testified that we would not get many immigrants from Latin America or Asia. They assumed that immigrants would come mainly from Europe, as they had in the past.
Experts have also tended to assume that immigrants are motivated primarily by economic factors. And in the years starting in the 1980s, many people in Latin America and Asia, especially in Mexico, which has produced more than 60 percent of Latin American immigrants, saw opportunities to make a better living in this country.
But masses of people do not uproot themselves from familiar territory just to make marginal economic gains. They migrate to pursue dreams or escape nightmares.
Life in Mexico is not a nightmare for many these days. Beneath the headlines about killings in the drug wars, Mexico has become a predominantly middle-class country, as Jorge Castaneda notes in his recent book, "Manana Forever?" Its economy is growing faster than ours.
And the dreams that many Mexican immigrants pursued have been shattered.
You can see that if you look at the statistics on mortgage foreclosures, starting with the housing bust in 2007. More than half were in the four "sand states" -- California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida -- and within them, as the Pew Hispanic Center noted in a 2009 report, in areas with large numbers of Latino immigrants.
These were places where subprime mortgages were granted, with encouragement from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to many Latinos unqualified by traditional credit standards.
These new homeowners, many of them construction workers, dreamed of gaining hundreds of thousands of dollars as housing prices inevitably rose. Instead, they collapsed. My estimate is that one-third of those foreclosed on in these years were Latinos. Their dreams turned into nightmares.
We can see further evidence in last month's Pew Research report on the recent decline in U.S. birthrates. The biggest drop was among Mexican-born women, from 455,000 births in 2007 to 346,000 in 2010.
That's a 24 percent decline, compared with only a 6 percent decline among U.S.-born women. It's comparable to the sharp decline in U.S. birthrates in the Depression years from 1929 to 1933.
Beneath the cold statistics on foreclosures and births is a human story, a story of people whose personal lives have been deeply affected by economic developments over which they had no control and of which they had no warning.
Those events have prompted many to resort to, in Mitt Romney's chilly words, "self-deportation." And their experiences are likely to have reverberations for many others who have learned of their plight.
Surges of migration that have shaped the country sometimes end abruptly. The surge of Southern blacks to Northern cities lasted from 1940 to 1965 -- one generation. The surge of Mexicans into the U.S. lasted from 1982 to 2007 -- one generation.
The northward surge of American blacks has never resumed. I don't think the northward surge of Mexicans will, either.
SOURCE
Population of immigrants in England and Wales jumps by THREE MILLION in 10 years as census shows more than one in eight people are foreign
The scale of mass immigration over the last decade was laid bare today when census data revealed that the immigrant population of England and Wales went up by 3million over the past decade.
In 2011, 7.5million residents were foreign-born, making up 13 per cent of the population - up from 4.6million people in 2001.
Another major change came in the decreasing number of Christians - 4million fewer people claimed to belong to the faith as a quarter of Britons said they had no religion.
There were 33.2million people claiming to be Christian, down from 37.3million in 2001 and making up just 59 per cent of the population. 25.1 per cent of people said they had no faith, up from 14.8 per cent a decade earlier, while the proportion of Muslims rose from 3.0 per cent to 4.8 per cent.
The third most popular religion was Hinduism, with 1.5 per cent of the population, while 0.8 per cent were Sikhs and 0.5 per cent Jewish.
The statistics emerged as the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed that English cathedral congregations had grown dramatically in recent years, debunking the 'cliché' that the Church of England is fading away.
The data on religion showed considerable national variation - Knowsley, in Lancashire, is the most Christian town in England with 80.9 per cent of residents following the faith, while in London's Tower Hamlets 34.5 per cent of the population are Muslims.
Norwich is the most godless place in the country, as 42.5 per cent said they had no religion - despite the presence of one of England's most spectacular cathedrals.
Britain's increasing diversity was emphasised by the data released by the Office of National Statistics, as it emerged that the proportion of the nation that is white has fallen below 90 per cent for the first time.
48.2million people described themselves as being white, making up 86.0 per cent of the population of England and Wales, down from 91.3 per cent a decade earlier. 7.5 per cent of the population is Asian, while 3.4 per cent described themselves as black.
Unsurprisingly, London was found to be the most ethnically diverse region, while Wales was the least. London is also home to the most immigrants, as 37 per cent of its residents were born abroad and 24 per cent are not citizens of the UK.
One major reason for the explosion in the foreign-born population is the accession of 12 countries in central and eastern Europe to the EU, giving them the right to live and work in the UK - the population of Poles in England and Wales has grown nine-fold over the decade.
Apart from Poland, the other leading countries of origin for British immigrants were India, Pakistan, Ireland and Germany.
The largest increase in ethnic group over the last decade was seen in the 'White: Other' category where an increase of 1.1million was recorded. This reflects more than half a million Poles who migrated into England and Wales during these years, the ONS said.
Around 2million respondents listed their partners or fellow household members as being of different ethnic groups - 47 per cent more than in 2001.
There are now nearly as many Catholics as Protestants in Northern Ireland, it was revealed today.
According to last year's census, 48 per cent of population describe themselves as Protestant, while 45 per cent are Catholic.
In 2001, 53 per cent were Protestant and 44 per cent Catholic.
Almost half of the population described themselves as British when asked to choose from a list of identities.
A total of 48 per cent considered themselves British, while 29 per cent said they were Northern Irish and 28 per cent called themselves Irish.
Further data show some 4.8million people now hold a non-UK passport. Of these, 2.3million have EU passports.
SOURCE
Mexican Migration May Be Over
I am not sure I agree with Michael Barone on this but it is an interesting POV
Is mass migration from Mexico to the United States a thing of the past?
At least for the moment, it is. Last May, the Pew Hispanic Center, in a study based on U.S. and Mexican statistics, reported that net migration from Mexico to this country had fallen to zero from 2005 to 2010.
Pew said 20,000 more people moved to Mexico from the United States than from there to here in those years. That's a vivid contrast with the years 1995 to 2000, when net inflow from Mexico was 2.2 million people.
Because there was net Mexican immigration until 2007, when the housing market collapsed and the Great Recession began, it seems clear that there was net outmigration from 2007 to 2010, and that likely has continued in 2011 and 2012.
There's a widespread assumption that Mexican migration will resume when the U.S. economy starts growing robustly again. But I think there's reason to doubt that will be the case.
Over the past few years, I have been working on a book, scheduled for publication next fall, on American migrations, internal and immigrant. What I've found is that over the years this country has been peopled in large part by surges of migration that have typically lasted just one or two generations.
Almost no one predicted that these surges of migration would occur, and almost no one predicted when they would end.
For example, when our immigration system was opened up in 1965, experts testified that we would not get many immigrants from Latin America or Asia. They assumed that immigrants would come mainly from Europe, as they had in the past.
Experts have also tended to assume that immigrants are motivated primarily by economic factors. And in the years starting in the 1980s, many people in Latin America and Asia, especially in Mexico, which has produced more than 60 percent of Latin American immigrants, saw opportunities to make a better living in this country.
But masses of people do not uproot themselves from familiar territory just to make marginal economic gains. They migrate to pursue dreams or escape nightmares.
Life in Mexico is not a nightmare for many these days. Beneath the headlines about killings in the drug wars, Mexico has become a predominantly middle-class country, as Jorge Castaneda notes in his recent book, "Manana Forever?" Its economy is growing faster than ours.
And the dreams that many Mexican immigrants pursued have been shattered.
You can see that if you look at the statistics on mortgage foreclosures, starting with the housing bust in 2007. More than half were in the four "sand states" -- California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida -- and within them, as the Pew Hispanic Center noted in a 2009 report, in areas with large numbers of Latino immigrants.
These were places where subprime mortgages were granted, with encouragement from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to many Latinos unqualified by traditional credit standards.
These new homeowners, many of them construction workers, dreamed of gaining hundreds of thousands of dollars as housing prices inevitably rose. Instead, they collapsed. My estimate is that one-third of those foreclosed on in these years were Latinos. Their dreams turned into nightmares.
We can see further evidence in last month's Pew Research report on the recent decline in U.S. birthrates. The biggest drop was among Mexican-born women, from 455,000 births in 2007 to 346,000 in 2010.
That's a 24 percent decline, compared with only a 6 percent decline among U.S.-born women. It's comparable to the sharp decline in U.S. birthrates in the Depression years from 1929 to 1933.
Beneath the cold statistics on foreclosures and births is a human story, a story of people whose personal lives have been deeply affected by economic developments over which they had no control and of which they had no warning.
Those events have prompted many to resort to, in Mitt Romney's chilly words, "self-deportation." And their experiences are likely to have reverberations for many others who have learned of their plight.
Surges of migration that have shaped the country sometimes end abruptly. The surge of Southern blacks to Northern cities lasted from 1940 to 1965 -- one generation. The surge of Mexicans into the U.S. lasted from 1982 to 2007 -- one generation.
The northward surge of American blacks has never resumed. I don't think the northward surge of Mexicans will, either.
SOURCE
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Montana: Groups sue to stop immigration initiative
An immigrant's advocacy group and others have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn a voter-approved initiative that requires proof of citizenship for people to obtain certain state services and benefits.
The Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance, the MEA-MFT union and 22-year-old Alisha Blair of Missoula filed the lawsuit on Friday. Blair was born in Canada but is a U.S. citizen.
The lawsuit seeks to block Legislative Referendum 121 from becoming law on Jan. 1 and asks a judge to prevent it from taking effect until arguments can be heard.
The referendum requires certain state agencies to certify that people requesting services are citizens. The plaintiffs argue that the referendum violates the Montana Constitution's right of individual privacy
Supporters argue that it will prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining services at the expense of citizens.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
New Publications
1. As the Numbers Surge: Border Incidents Increase in Arizona
2. Projecting Immigration’s Impact on the Size and Age Structure of the 21st Century American Population
Blogs
3. Class Action Case May Shed Light on a Dark Portion of the H-1B Program
4. Good Fences Make Good Neighbors
5. New USCIS Data Show How DACA Delays Decisions in Other Programs
6. Fraud Acknowledged in Part of EB-5 (Immigrant Investor) Program
7. Notre Dame Professor: Upwardly Mobile Mexican-Americans Not Moving Right
8. Overdogs Claiming to be Underdogs
9. Who Wins the Visa Lottery?
10. "Homegrown" Terror and the Importance of Words
New Topic Pages on the CIS Website
11. Tourist Visa Fraud
12. Visa Fraud
13. Canada and Immigration
14. Marriage Fraud
15. Washington Post and Immigration
Montana: Groups sue to stop immigration initiative
An immigrant's advocacy group and others have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn a voter-approved initiative that requires proof of citizenship for people to obtain certain state services and benefits.
The Montana Immigrant Justice Alliance, the MEA-MFT union and 22-year-old Alisha Blair of Missoula filed the lawsuit on Friday. Blair was born in Canada but is a U.S. citizen.
The lawsuit seeks to block Legislative Referendum 121 from becoming law on Jan. 1 and asks a judge to prevent it from taking effect until arguments can be heard.
The referendum requires certain state agencies to certify that people requesting services are citizens. The plaintiffs argue that the referendum violates the Montana Constitution's right of individual privacy
Supporters argue that it will prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining services at the expense of citizens.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
New Publications
1. As the Numbers Surge: Border Incidents Increase in Arizona
2. Projecting Immigration’s Impact on the Size and Age Structure of the 21st Century American Population
Blogs
3. Class Action Case May Shed Light on a Dark Portion of the H-1B Program
4. Good Fences Make Good Neighbors
5. New USCIS Data Show How DACA Delays Decisions in Other Programs
6. Fraud Acknowledged in Part of EB-5 (Immigrant Investor) Program
7. Notre Dame Professor: Upwardly Mobile Mexican-Americans Not Moving Right
8. Overdogs Claiming to be Underdogs
9. Who Wins the Visa Lottery?
10. "Homegrown" Terror and the Importance of Words
New Topic Pages on the CIS Website
11. Tourist Visa Fraud
12. Visa Fraud
13. Canada and Immigration
14. Marriage Fraud
15. Washington Post and Immigration
Monday, December 10, 2012
Amnesty Isn’t the GOP Gift to Unlock the Hispanic Vote
With President Obama corralling a stunning 71% of the Hispanic vote in his successful 2012 re-election bid, “establishment Republicans” are running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to figure out how to get a piece of America’s fastest growing demographic. (I’ve opined about how the GOP has written off the black vote as unattainable. I guess when the Hispanic vote approaches 90% for Democrats, Republicans will reconsider ignoring blacks like the heels of their shoes.)
House Speaker John Boehner, Karl Rove, Reince Priebus, and shockingly even Sean Hannity are calling for AMNESTY or some variation thereof under the guise of “immigration reform.” This new amnesty gang concluded Romney lost the Hispanic vote because of his “self-deportation” blunder.
Predicting another presidential loss in 2016 unless the party reverses its wicked ways, this GOP pro-amnesty gang believes granting citizenship to the estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country will translate into Hispanic votes. Wrong! Amnesty isn’t the answer to winning the Hispanic vote or why Romney didn’t wow Hispanics.
Romney was inelegant in the way he talked about many topics but that doesn’t mean he was wrong, particularly about stopping illegal immigration. He should have explained what self-deportation meant. If the government enforced the laws, by securing our borders and cracking down on businesses who hire illegal aliens, these criminals who broke the law to come to America would voluntarily go back home.
Before the avalanche of illegal immigrants started pouring across or borders in the 1990s, American citizens worked jobs currently filled by illegal workers. Two exit polls, one conducted by CBS and another by Brietbart News/Judicial Watch, both found more than 60% of Americans supported Arizona’s immigration laws. With unemployment at a record high for the past four years, illegal aliens in the workforce not only take jobs from the country’s 23 million unemployed Americans but it is particularly harmful to Hispanic and black citizens who suffer higher unemployment rates. This is what Romney should have explained.
Americans want enforcement of immigration laws because they know illegal immigrants harm Americans by depressing wages, stealing jobs and increasing taxpayer costs for welfare, education, and social security programs. According to two studies conducted by the Heritage Foundation , the cost of amnesty would run $1 trillion over 30 years, which works out to be about $90 billion a year. This is 70 times the minimum $13.5 billion yearly cost of proposed enforcement bills, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
Counter to the myth the mainstream media and some Republicans are pushing, polls found Hispanics supported Romney's position on mandatory E-verify. According to an October Pulse Opinion poll, 66% of Hispanics supported mandatory E-Verify to prevent companies from hiring illegal immigrants. Another NBC Latino/IBOPE Zogby poll conducted in October 2012 found only 5% of Hispanics felt immigration was a top concern to them.
According to NumbersUSA, Romney’s position on enforcement of immigration laws helped him get more Hispanic votes than pro-amnesty John McCain did in 2008 in 16 of the 20 states with the highest Hispanic population. If the current GOP posturing on amnesty is true, that it will increase the GOP share of the Hispanic vote in the future elections, why does history tell another tale? In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill, granting amnesty to illegal aliens living in America and pledged to secure the borders. Enforcement never happened and two years later in 1988 "George H. W. Bush lost the Latino vote by 39 points."
McCain’s pro amnesty stance didn’t help him win overwhelming support from Hispanics in 2008. Compared to Obama’s 67%, McCain only got 31% of the Hispanic vote.
In 1996, after implementing “Operation Gatekeeper,” aimed at securing the border along San Diego and Mexico, Clinton ran away with 72% of the Hispanic vote compared to Bob Dole’s paltry 21%.
While Obama used executive order to bypass Congress, granting amnesty to Hispanics age 31 and under , his administration deported over 1 million illegal immigrants during Obama's first term in office.
Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote in 2012 compared to Romney’s 29% not because of his “amnesty” giveaway, but because he took his message of “growing the entitlement state and Americans dependency upon government” to Hispanics. Mitt was right, Hispanics, blacks and women voted for the gifts Obama promised them. Maybe Mitt should have bothered offering these groups his gifts. I think the GOP should be taking a message of enforcement to all Americans, along with NumbersUSA's five great solutions, which includes ending birthright citizenship.
The irony of all this pro-amnesty talk from “elites inside the GOP” is none of them mentions the first Hispanic elected US Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, is a pro-enforcement guy. Cruz campaigned on promising “to strengthen border security and help ensure that America remains a nation of laws” not lawlessness, which is what allowing illegal immigration is.
As a friend noted, minorities are choosing Democrats because Republicans are abandoning them. The same friend, a Los Angeles Police Department Detective in South Los Angeles, said “during this election cycle, there was NO one from the national or state GOP campaigning in our area.” LA we have a problem!
Responding to campaign advisor Lionel Sosa in 1984, who said it would be hard to win the Hispanic vote, Reagan replied: “Hispanics are already Republican. They just don’t know it.” Reagan took “his gifts,” the message of conservatism to Hispanics and won 40% of their vote. Amnesty isn’t the key to the GOP unlocking the Hispanic vote, it’s getting the messenger to take its blinders off.
SOURCE
Opposition to a policy is "hate" (?)
The British Left assert that opposition to British policies that attract millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, has to be "hate". But that is getting to sound very hollow in Britain today. But Leftists always resort to abuse when they have no arguments. The guy featured below seems to be some flavour of Trotskyite. Amusing that preaching against real Muslim hate "seems complex"
With the rise of UKIP, and immigration reform back on the agenda, The Huffington Post UK meets Nick Lowles, director of anti-fascist campaigners Hope Not Hate, on one of the UK's most toxic political issues.
For a man who campaigns against extreme hate speech, Nick Lowles inspires a lot of it.
Online, he's called a communist, a censor of free speech, a Zionist, a Muslim apologist, and an Islamophobe, and his attackers range from BNP supporters to Islamists.
It's what can happen when you head an organisation such as Hope Not Hate, which targets extremism and hate speech.
Lowles is clear that his organisation cannot just speak out against the far right, but against any movement or individual who incites hatred, be they hate-preaching bishops or imans, or even mainstream politicians.
And he's had to learn to deal with the hate that comes back in his direction, from those he targets, including the British National Party, the English Defence League, Muslim extremists, and the far-left too.
"I've been doing it 20 years, I've grown myself a thick skin. No-one likes the criticism, from Nazis or from people on the left. But you get used to it.
"And, at the end of the day, you can't ignore it. You have to look at whether the criticisms are valid, but also have faith in your ideas."
Lowles, a former editor of Searchlight (he cut official ties with that anti-fascist organisation last year), founded Hope Not Hate in 2004, to organise communities against the rise in popularity of the BNP.
The group has grown fast, and won ardent celebrity backers like Lord Alan Sugar, Amir Khan, Dermot O'Leary and comedian Eddie Izzard.
But the fight against extremism in 2012, Lowles says, is now changing focus. The BNP is close to total defeat, underlined by their performance in the Rotherham by-election a week ago.
"In Rotherham they got 8% of vote," Lowles said. "It should have been a strong area for them, they had councillors there in the past, Denis MacShane [the Labour MP for Rotherham] departed after a scandal.
"And of course they have been exploiting the grooming issue, the case which was so horrific in Rotherham.
"But there was so much media attention on UKIP. I think the BNP could have got 15% of the vote, but it's clear some voters switched to UKIP, they're seen as more likely alternative."
Lowles believes the BNP are in their "weakest position they've been in for many years, which is surprising given the economy and the continued distrust of mainstream parties. He says the BNP have not really recovered from 2010, when they raised the expectations of their supporters, and completely failed to deliver. "Many of their newer supporters just dropped out.
"And then at the same time, you have the rise of the EDL, much more attractive to a lot of young people. Handing out leaflets, doing respectable election campaigning doesn't really appeal to them."
But the BNP cannot be ignored, and Hope Not Hate is gearing up to attempt to dislodge leader Nick Griffin in the 2014 MEP elections.
Lowles is worried that even though the BNP has lost support, the party's ideas and concerns still permeate many communities. "The conditions that gave rise to them, are still there and getting worse.
"And we have to understand why people voted for the BNP, it was not just about racism or immigration. It was the anti-party politics movement. "The longer we leave that vacuum, some is going to come back to fill it."
The concern is that younger anti-immigration activists flock to the militant EDL, while mainstream parties, like UKIP and even the Conservatives, look to take on the anti-immigration mantle which attracted older, traditional voters of the BNP.
Lowles' answer is to lobby mainstream parties on the way they address immigration - and encourage progressive voices to take a stand.
"People see the "extremist" parties as value parties. My dad was a Labour party man, loyal, very active, an local organiser. And he said to me a few years ago "what does the Labour party stand for?"
"He had to go looking for the mission statement on the website. And for my dad to say that, it really hits you."
The rhetoric of the Conservative party, particularly in the wake of the challenge from UKIP, and the appointment of controversial right-wing, anti-immigration campaign advisor Lynton Crosby, has worried Hope Not Hate.
"Even in the last few days we have seen all sorts of really right-wing views on immigration coming out. And that poses a challenge for Labour.
"On the one hand they can move into the middle, move right-wing, and show voters they can also get tough on immigration.
"But I think demographics of voters in Britain are changing. That's what happened in the US, with Latino voters.
"A progressive alliance forced Obama to change his views on certain issues. He went in on a pretty conservative platform, he ended up announcing immigration reform, the DREAM act, a product of years of campaigning.
"That needs to happen to our politicians in Britain. We need to call them out on things like immigration, child detention, scare them a bit. They can't ignore these issues.
"But it feels like a daunting task to go on the offensive about immigration, against the negativity, to talk about the positives."
Ed Miliband 'must stand up to the negativity on immigration'
Hope Not Hate has come under attack from both left and right in the aftermath of the grooming scandals in the north of England, in Keighley, Rochdale and Rotherham.
It has been accused both of ignoring the issue, and, particularly by the Institute of Race Relations's executive director Liz Fekete, of not taking a hard enough line against the racial narrative in the press.
The group produced leaflets to combat the far-right's anti-Islam campaigning in the aftermath, which "clearly state that a minority of British Muslims are involved in grooming but it will stress that this is a tiny minority of Muslims and it is wrong to blame a whole community.
It is an issue the organisation has struggled with, but it shouldn't be so difficult, Lowles said.
"It's undeniable that a lot of those perpetrators come from the British Pakistani community, when it comes to street grooming by gangs. Does that tell us something about Islam or Pakistanis? No it does not. "I strongly believe this is not about race.
"But the problem is, left unchallenged, these become real racial issues. There are eight or nine big trials concerning this pattern next year, each time there are going to be issues to be taken on."
Hope Not Hate also campaigns against Anjm Choudry's Islamic extremism
He encounters charges of hypocrisy regularly on doorsteps, which has made the organisation more determined to campaign on other areas of extreme hate.
"People say to us on doorstops, you campaign agains the English Defence League, but you don't say anything on Muslims. And we have to. In Tower Hamlets we have campaigned against Hizt-bu-Tahrir [widely perceived an an extreme Islamic movement].
"We have campaigned against Anjem Choudry [Islam4UK and Muslims Against Crusades], and imams are grateful to us that we do. We will be working with mosques in Luton on anti-extremism tactics.
"It seems complex but it shouldn't be. If someone preaches hate, we will stand up against it."
SOURCE
Amnesty Isn’t the GOP Gift to Unlock the Hispanic Vote
With President Obama corralling a stunning 71% of the Hispanic vote in his successful 2012 re-election bid, “establishment Republicans” are running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to figure out how to get a piece of America’s fastest growing demographic. (I’ve opined about how the GOP has written off the black vote as unattainable. I guess when the Hispanic vote approaches 90% for Democrats, Republicans will reconsider ignoring blacks like the heels of their shoes.)
House Speaker John Boehner, Karl Rove, Reince Priebus, and shockingly even Sean Hannity are calling for AMNESTY or some variation thereof under the guise of “immigration reform.” This new amnesty gang concluded Romney lost the Hispanic vote because of his “self-deportation” blunder.
Predicting another presidential loss in 2016 unless the party reverses its wicked ways, this GOP pro-amnesty gang believes granting citizenship to the estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country will translate into Hispanic votes. Wrong! Amnesty isn’t the answer to winning the Hispanic vote or why Romney didn’t wow Hispanics.
Romney was inelegant in the way he talked about many topics but that doesn’t mean he was wrong, particularly about stopping illegal immigration. He should have explained what self-deportation meant. If the government enforced the laws, by securing our borders and cracking down on businesses who hire illegal aliens, these criminals who broke the law to come to America would voluntarily go back home.
Before the avalanche of illegal immigrants started pouring across or borders in the 1990s, American citizens worked jobs currently filled by illegal workers. Two exit polls, one conducted by CBS and another by Brietbart News/Judicial Watch, both found more than 60% of Americans supported Arizona’s immigration laws. With unemployment at a record high for the past four years, illegal aliens in the workforce not only take jobs from the country’s 23 million unemployed Americans but it is particularly harmful to Hispanic and black citizens who suffer higher unemployment rates. This is what Romney should have explained.
Americans want enforcement of immigration laws because they know illegal immigrants harm Americans by depressing wages, stealing jobs and increasing taxpayer costs for welfare, education, and social security programs. According to two studies conducted by the Heritage Foundation , the cost of amnesty would run $1 trillion over 30 years, which works out to be about $90 billion a year. This is 70 times the minimum $13.5 billion yearly cost of proposed enforcement bills, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
Counter to the myth the mainstream media and some Republicans are pushing, polls found Hispanics supported Romney's position on mandatory E-verify. According to an October Pulse Opinion poll, 66% of Hispanics supported mandatory E-Verify to prevent companies from hiring illegal immigrants. Another NBC Latino/IBOPE Zogby poll conducted in October 2012 found only 5% of Hispanics felt immigration was a top concern to them.
According to NumbersUSA, Romney’s position on enforcement of immigration laws helped him get more Hispanic votes than pro-amnesty John McCain did in 2008 in 16 of the 20 states with the highest Hispanic population. If the current GOP posturing on amnesty is true, that it will increase the GOP share of the Hispanic vote in the future elections, why does history tell another tale? In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill, granting amnesty to illegal aliens living in America and pledged to secure the borders. Enforcement never happened and two years later in 1988 "George H. W. Bush lost the Latino vote by 39 points."
McCain’s pro amnesty stance didn’t help him win overwhelming support from Hispanics in 2008. Compared to Obama’s 67%, McCain only got 31% of the Hispanic vote.
In 1996, after implementing “Operation Gatekeeper,” aimed at securing the border along San Diego and Mexico, Clinton ran away with 72% of the Hispanic vote compared to Bob Dole’s paltry 21%.
While Obama used executive order to bypass Congress, granting amnesty to Hispanics age 31 and under , his administration deported over 1 million illegal immigrants during Obama's first term in office.
Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote in 2012 compared to Romney’s 29% not because of his “amnesty” giveaway, but because he took his message of “growing the entitlement state and Americans dependency upon government” to Hispanics. Mitt was right, Hispanics, blacks and women voted for the gifts Obama promised them. Maybe Mitt should have bothered offering these groups his gifts. I think the GOP should be taking a message of enforcement to all Americans, along with NumbersUSA's five great solutions, which includes ending birthright citizenship.
The irony of all this pro-amnesty talk from “elites inside the GOP” is none of them mentions the first Hispanic elected US Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, is a pro-enforcement guy. Cruz campaigned on promising “to strengthen border security and help ensure that America remains a nation of laws” not lawlessness, which is what allowing illegal immigration is.
As a friend noted, minorities are choosing Democrats because Republicans are abandoning them. The same friend, a Los Angeles Police Department Detective in South Los Angeles, said “during this election cycle, there was NO one from the national or state GOP campaigning in our area.” LA we have a problem!
Responding to campaign advisor Lionel Sosa in 1984, who said it would be hard to win the Hispanic vote, Reagan replied: “Hispanics are already Republican. They just don’t know it.” Reagan took “his gifts,” the message of conservatism to Hispanics and won 40% of their vote. Amnesty isn’t the key to the GOP unlocking the Hispanic vote, it’s getting the messenger to take its blinders off.
SOURCE
Opposition to a policy is "hate" (?)
The British Left assert that opposition to British policies that attract millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, has to be "hate". But that is getting to sound very hollow in Britain today. But Leftists always resort to abuse when they have no arguments. The guy featured below seems to be some flavour of Trotskyite. Amusing that preaching against real Muslim hate "seems complex"
With the rise of UKIP, and immigration reform back on the agenda, The Huffington Post UK meets Nick Lowles, director of anti-fascist campaigners Hope Not Hate, on one of the UK's most toxic political issues.
For a man who campaigns against extreme hate speech, Nick Lowles inspires a lot of it.
Online, he's called a communist, a censor of free speech, a Zionist, a Muslim apologist, and an Islamophobe, and his attackers range from BNP supporters to Islamists.
It's what can happen when you head an organisation such as Hope Not Hate, which targets extremism and hate speech.
Lowles is clear that his organisation cannot just speak out against the far right, but against any movement or individual who incites hatred, be they hate-preaching bishops or imans, or even mainstream politicians.
And he's had to learn to deal with the hate that comes back in his direction, from those he targets, including the British National Party, the English Defence League, Muslim extremists, and the far-left too.
"I've been doing it 20 years, I've grown myself a thick skin. No-one likes the criticism, from Nazis or from people on the left. But you get used to it.
"And, at the end of the day, you can't ignore it. You have to look at whether the criticisms are valid, but also have faith in your ideas."
Lowles, a former editor of Searchlight (he cut official ties with that anti-fascist organisation last year), founded Hope Not Hate in 2004, to organise communities against the rise in popularity of the BNP.
The group has grown fast, and won ardent celebrity backers like Lord Alan Sugar, Amir Khan, Dermot O'Leary and comedian Eddie Izzard.
But the fight against extremism in 2012, Lowles says, is now changing focus. The BNP is close to total defeat, underlined by their performance in the Rotherham by-election a week ago.
"In Rotherham they got 8% of vote," Lowles said. "It should have been a strong area for them, they had councillors there in the past, Denis MacShane [the Labour MP for Rotherham] departed after a scandal.
"And of course they have been exploiting the grooming issue, the case which was so horrific in Rotherham.
"But there was so much media attention on UKIP. I think the BNP could have got 15% of the vote, but it's clear some voters switched to UKIP, they're seen as more likely alternative."
Lowles believes the BNP are in their "weakest position they've been in for many years, which is surprising given the economy and the continued distrust of mainstream parties. He says the BNP have not really recovered from 2010, when they raised the expectations of their supporters, and completely failed to deliver. "Many of their newer supporters just dropped out.
"And then at the same time, you have the rise of the EDL, much more attractive to a lot of young people. Handing out leaflets, doing respectable election campaigning doesn't really appeal to them."
But the BNP cannot be ignored, and Hope Not Hate is gearing up to attempt to dislodge leader Nick Griffin in the 2014 MEP elections.
Lowles is worried that even though the BNP has lost support, the party's ideas and concerns still permeate many communities. "The conditions that gave rise to them, are still there and getting worse.
"And we have to understand why people voted for the BNP, it was not just about racism or immigration. It was the anti-party politics movement. "The longer we leave that vacuum, some is going to come back to fill it."
The concern is that younger anti-immigration activists flock to the militant EDL, while mainstream parties, like UKIP and even the Conservatives, look to take on the anti-immigration mantle which attracted older, traditional voters of the BNP.
Lowles' answer is to lobby mainstream parties on the way they address immigration - and encourage progressive voices to take a stand.
"People see the "extremist" parties as value parties. My dad was a Labour party man, loyal, very active, an local organiser. And he said to me a few years ago "what does the Labour party stand for?"
"He had to go looking for the mission statement on the website. And for my dad to say that, it really hits you."
The rhetoric of the Conservative party, particularly in the wake of the challenge from UKIP, and the appointment of controversial right-wing, anti-immigration campaign advisor Lynton Crosby, has worried Hope Not Hate.
"Even in the last few days we have seen all sorts of really right-wing views on immigration coming out. And that poses a challenge for Labour.
"On the one hand they can move into the middle, move right-wing, and show voters they can also get tough on immigration.
"But I think demographics of voters in Britain are changing. That's what happened in the US, with Latino voters.
"A progressive alliance forced Obama to change his views on certain issues. He went in on a pretty conservative platform, he ended up announcing immigration reform, the DREAM act, a product of years of campaigning.
"That needs to happen to our politicians in Britain. We need to call them out on things like immigration, child detention, scare them a bit. They can't ignore these issues.
"But it feels like a daunting task to go on the offensive about immigration, against the negativity, to talk about the positives."
Ed Miliband 'must stand up to the negativity on immigration'
Hope Not Hate has come under attack from both left and right in the aftermath of the grooming scandals in the north of England, in Keighley, Rochdale and Rotherham.
It has been accused both of ignoring the issue, and, particularly by the Institute of Race Relations's executive director Liz Fekete, of not taking a hard enough line against the racial narrative in the press.
The group produced leaflets to combat the far-right's anti-Islam campaigning in the aftermath, which "clearly state that a minority of British Muslims are involved in grooming but it will stress that this is a tiny minority of Muslims and it is wrong to blame a whole community.
It is an issue the organisation has struggled with, but it shouldn't be so difficult, Lowles said.
"It's undeniable that a lot of those perpetrators come from the British Pakistani community, when it comes to street grooming by gangs. Does that tell us something about Islam or Pakistanis? No it does not. "I strongly believe this is not about race.
"But the problem is, left unchallenged, these become real racial issues. There are eight or nine big trials concerning this pattern next year, each time there are going to be issues to be taken on."
Hope Not Hate also campaigns against Anjm Choudry's Islamic extremism
He encounters charges of hypocrisy regularly on doorsteps, which has made the organisation more determined to campaign on other areas of extreme hate.
"People say to us on doorstops, you campaign agains the English Defence League, but you don't say anything on Muslims. And we have to. In Tower Hamlets we have campaigned against Hizt-bu-Tahrir [widely perceived an an extreme Islamic movement].
"We have campaigned against Anjem Choudry [Islam4UK and Muslims Against Crusades], and imams are grateful to us that we do. We will be working with mosques in Luton on anti-extremism tactics.
"It seems complex but it shouldn't be. If someone preaches hate, we will stand up against it."
SOURCE
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Obama plans push for immigration reform
Early next year, the administration will campaign for a comprehensive bill that could include a path to citizenship for 11 million people living illegally in the U.S.
As soon as the confrontation over fiscal policy winds down, the Obama administration will begin an all-out drive for comprehensive immigration reform, including seeking a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants, according to officials briefed on the plans.
While key tactical decisions are still being made, President Obama wants a catch-all bill that would also bolster border security measures, ratchet up penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it easier to bring in foreign workers under special visas, among other elements.
Senior White House advisors plan to launch a social media blitz in January, and expect to tap the same organizations and unions that helped get a record number of Latino voters to reelect the president.
Cabinet secretaries are preparing to make the case for how changes in immigration laws could benefit businesses, education, healthcare and public safety. Congressional committees could hold hearings on immigration legislation as soon as late January or early February.
"The president can't guarantee us the outcome but he can guarantee us the fight," said Eliseo Medina, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 2 million workers. "We expect a strong fight."
The focus comes amid new analysis of census data by the Pew Hispanic Center that shows illegal immigration is down and enforcement levels are at an all-time high.
Democratic strategists believe there is only a narrow window at the beginning of the year to get an initiative launched in Congress, before lawmakers begin to turn their attention to the next election cycle and are less likely to take a risky vote on a controversial bill.
"It's going to be early," said Clarissa Martinez de Castro, director of civic engagement and immigration for the National Council of La Raza. "We are seeing it being organized to be ready."
The White House declined to discuss its possible strategy while still embroiled in the year-end battle over taxes and spending cuts.
"Our focus is on the fiscal cliff," said a White House official who requested anonymity to discuss the matter.
The official pointed to the president's remarks at a postelection news conference, in which Obama said he would turn to immigration very soon after the inauguration.
But Republicans, including some who are in favor of immigration change, are pushing a go-slow approach. Rather than working on one comprehensive bill, Congress should pass a series of bills that help foreign entrepreneurs, technology workers, agricultural workers and those who were brought to the U.S. unlawfully as children, said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is the highest-profile Republican Latino politician and is expected to be an important GOP voice on immigration.
Small parts of the immigration issue should be tackled before addressing how to create a pathway to legal status for most illegal immigrants in the U.S., Rubio said Wednesday.
"Portions of immigration reform can be dealt with quicker than others," he said.
In conversations with congressional offices, White House officials have said the president would be "all in" on the issue and would want to push for a broad bill. But officials have not been specific about exactly how the president will use the bully pulpit or whether immigration will be a showpiece of the inaugural speech on Jan. 21 or the State of the Union address in early February.
One of the key strategic moves still being decided is whether or not the White House sends Congress a piece of legislation or lets lawmakers take the lead in writing the bill. Republican challenger Mitt Romney criticized Obama during the campaign for not presenting a bill to Congress despite promising to pass an immigration initiative in his first term.
One option is to dust off more than 300 pages of draft legislative language for a large immigration bill that went through a time-consuming Cabinet-level review in 2010 and was quietly handed to members of the Senate.
The 2010 initiative, led by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), died in back-room negotiations when it was clear the senators couldn't muster the votes to get it passed.
The draft language creates a renewable visa for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and allows them to eventually get in line for a green card after they submit to background checks, learn English and pay back taxes and a fine. The proposal also would require employers to use a federal database to check workers' immigration status, among other provisions.
Some lawmakers prefer that the White House not dictate the terms of the bill and leave the hard negotiations to an informal group with representatives from both parties as a way to avoid a contentious ideological fight in the committees, said two congressional staffers who were not authorized to speak publicly about the discussions.
A bipartisan group of six senators met behind closed doors in the Capitol for 30 minutes on Tuesday night for what is expected to be the first of many meetings on how to get a version of the immigration bill through Congress. On the Republican side, the newly elected junior senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, joined longtime immigration reform advocates Graham and John McCain of Arizona for the talks. The Democrats were Schumer, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois.
But Angela Kelley, an immigration expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, believes that Obama will have to step into the limelight, as he has over budget negotiations, to get something done on immigration.
"The congressional conversation has started," Kelley said. "It isn't something [Obama] can take his time on because the cameras and the microphones will be on him asking, 'What are you doing about it?' and he will have to have a ready answer."
SOURCE
A sane approach to immigration reform
For more than five years, Arizona has been the bellwether in addressing our country's broken immigration system. Efforts to fill the enforcement gap caused by federal inaction created a firestorm.
We saw more than 6 million (mostly negative) media hits worldwide. We lost hundreds of millions in convention and tourism contracts. And rhetoric associated with the debate on immigration-related issues created unnecessary social divisions in our community.
Ultimately, our efforts created as much controversy as the problems we sought to address.
The Real Arizona Coalition was formed to combat the negative and vitriolic language around the issue of immigration and to broaden public immigration policy beyond an enforcement-only approach. The coalition includes nearly 40 leadership organizations, composed of thousands of individuals -- law-enforcement officials, civil-rights advocates, business leaders, children's advocates, farmers, health-care professionals, state and local government officials, representatives of faith-based groups, and others.
For more than two years, and with the recent participation from the O'Connor House, Real Arizona Coalition members and other leaders have met regularly in a robust exchange of ideas with the goal of giving shape to a federal immigration-reform policy.
We reached a broad consensus we call the SANE platform. It is based principally on acknowledging the presence of the approximate 11 million immigrants already here without lawful authority and recognizing that many businesses and industries presently rely heavily on this existing undocumented-immigrant labor force. It also recognizes the continued and ongoing commercial and labor interests of states and national businesses that need a rational immigration policy.
SANE is by no means the final say on an immigration-reform platform. But it is a starting point for a reasoned and balanced approach to addressing the shortcomings of our current immigration system and establishing an immigration system that supports our economy and reflects the best of our nation's history of welcoming immigrants.
To that end, we have begun vetting our platform with our congressional delegation, state and legislative leaders and others with a vested interest in resolving the broader issue of immigration, with the hope that Arizona can now provide sound and intelligent leadership on immigration reform that advances a 21st-century American economy.
What is SANE?
Secure our sovereign borders. The Yuma, El Centro and San Diego points of entry are examples of secure border sectors where law enforcement effectively and efficiently interdicts illegal crossers. These successes can be reproduced and implemented across the remainder of our national borders. However, because Mexico is Arizona's largest trading partner, our Arizona ports of entry must be secure and operate in a manner that allows our business and industry leaders to continue to explore opportunities to increase cross-border trading and commerce.
Account for those here without lawful authority. Immigration reform requires that we account for those here without lawful authority and provide a formal and orderly process for them to come out of the shadows, undergo a background check and, if no felony crime has been committed, get on the current tax roles and live and work here legally. This process can also provide needed information for a reform of our immigration system.
Necessary bureaucratic reform. Once we have accounted for those here without lawful authority, we must acknowledge that many people will continue to want to come to America for a variety of reasons. Under SANE principles, those who came to our country after a certain date would not be processed under the same rules as the approximate 11 million here without lawful authority. They would be processed under a reformed visa system that addresses concerns raised by business and higher-education leaders about a shortage of labor and the drain of talent caused by our current immigration system. Any who enter without lawful authority will be deported.
Engage all levels of government. We cannot continue to engage in the same dysfunctional behavior that created and supported illegal immigration. All levels of government must be incorporated into a future enforcement effort that will maximize resources to preclude a reoccurrence of problems associated with criminal activity along the border, including but not limited to drug and human traffickers and potential terrorists.
Through the bold, thoughtful support of organizations and individuals like you, representing nearly every interest impacted by immigration, we are confident that Congress can and will find a working solution for a 21st-century American economy.
SOURCE
December 7, 2012
Immigration Not a Fix for an Aging Population
Study Projects 41% Increase in Population by 2050
A new analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Center for Immigration Studies projects the impact of immigration on the size and composition of the U.S. population. The findings reveal that immigration makes for a much larger overall population, while having only a minimal effect on slowing the aging of American society.
Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research, notes, “there is simply no question immigration makes for a much larger and more densely settled country, but it is not a cure for an aging society.”
The complete study can be found here.
Among the findings:
If net immigration (difference between those coming and going) unfolds as the Census Bureau estimated in the last set of projections, the nation’s population will increase from 309 million in 2010 to 436 million in 2050 — a 127 million (41 percent) increase.
The projected increase of 127 million is larger than the combined populations of the U.K. and France.
By itself future immigration will account for 96 million (75 percent) of future population growth.
The immigrant (legal and illegal) share of the population will reach one in six U.S. residents by 2030, a new record, and nearly one in five residents by 2050.
The Center for Immigration Studies, as well as other researchers, has found that immigration levels have fallen somewhat in recent years. While there is no way to know if the level will remain lower, this change can be incorporated into these projections:
A one-third reduction in the Census Bureau’s level of net immigration over the next four decades (2010-2050) produces a total U.S. population of 404 million in 2050 — a 95 million increase over 2010.
Even if immigration is half what the Census Bureau expects, the population will still grow 79 million by 2050, with immigration accounting for 61 percent of population growth.
The underlying level of immigration is so high, even assuming a substantial reduction would still add tens of millions of new residents to the U.S. population and account for most of the population growth.
Consistent with prior research, the projections show immigration only slightly increases the working-age (18 to 65) share of the population. Assuming the Census Bureau’s immigration level, 58 percent of the population will be of working-age in 2050, compared to 57 percent if there is no immigration.
Raising the retirement age by one year would have a larger positive impact on the working-age share over the next 40 years then would the Census Bureau’s projected level of net immigration (68 million).
While immigrants tend to arrive relatively young and have higher fertility than natives, immigrants age just like everyone else, and the differences with natives are not large enough to fundamentally increase the share of the population who are potential workers.
Discussion
While immigration is the primary driver of population growth, even without immigration, the population will increase by 31 million by 2050. The long term trend in immigration has been a steady increase, and this seems likely to continue once the U.S. economy recovers. But, even if immigration is half of what the Census Bureau expected in the 2008 projections, the U.S. population will still grow by 79 million by 2050, with immigration accounting for 61 percent of population growth.
The fundamental question for the American public and policy makers is whether a much larger population and the resulting greater population density will add to or diminish the quality of life in the United States. Immigration is a discretionary policy of the government and can be changed. These projections show us one possible future. We must decide as a country if this is the future we want.
Methodology
The report contains a detailed explanation of the study’s methodology. In sum, the Center for Immigration and Decision Demographics of Arlington, Virginia developed the projections model used in this analysis. We first replicated the official 2008 Census Bureau projections, their last full set of projections, by race/ethnicity. This was possible because the Census Bureau Projections Branch was kind enough to share unpublished data that it used to generate its last major series of projections. In total, the Bureau’s net immigration projection is 68.3 million for the period 2010 to 2050. We vary this base level of immigration to discern its’ impact on population size and composition. These projections follow the Census Bureau’s assumptions about future levels of immigration and death and birth rates, including a decline in the birth rate for Hispanics.
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. 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
Illegal immigration to U.S. stays down, Pew's latest numbers show
There are about 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, a figure that has remained relatively constant over the last two years, according to the latest estimates released Thursday by the Pew Hispanic Center.
The numbers come as President Obama prepares to push immigration reform as a key part of his second-term agenda. They also come as analyses highlight the greater role Latinos played in the recent presidential election.
The 11.1-million figure compares with 11.2 million in 2010 and 11.1 million in 2009.
The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S., which stood at about 8.4 million in 2000, peaked at about 12 million in 2007 and has been tapering since, according to the analysis prepared by demographers Jeffrey Passel and D’Vera Cohn of the Hispanic Center, part of the Pew Research Center.
The decrease was driven mainly by a drop in the number of immigrants arriving from Mexico, the largest source of migration to the U.S. The Pew Hispanic Center reported earlier this year that net immigration from Mexico to the United States had stopped and possibly reversed through 2010.
At the peak, about 770,000 immigrants were arriving annually from Mexico, the majority of them illegally. By 2010, the inflow had dropped to about 140,000, and the majority arrived legally, according to the center’s estimates.
In addition, the number of Mexicans and their children who moved from the United States to Mexico between 2005 and 2010 roughly doubled compared with the five-year period a decade earlier, the center said.
Pew's estimates are based on data mainly from the Current Population Survey, a monthly polling of about 55,000 households conducted jointly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau.
Despite the falling or stable numbers, the political debate on immigration has been rising. Immigration-- and whether to provide a path to U.S. citizenship -- was a litmus test during the GOP battle for the presidential nomination.
In a bid to win the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney moved to the right to appease conservatives who oppose what they call amnesty for undocumented immigrants. The shift made it difficult for the former Massachusetts governor to appeal to Latinos in the general election.
Obama won about 71% of the Latino vote, compared with Romney’s 27%, according to exit polls cited by Pew. That was the best showing by a Democrat since Bill Clinton in 1996.
Latinos accounted for about 10% of all presidential voters this year, a record turnout for the group and a figure that is expected to increase in coming years.
SOURCE
Obama plans push for immigration reform
Early next year, the administration will campaign for a comprehensive bill that could include a path to citizenship for 11 million people living illegally in the U.S.
As soon as the confrontation over fiscal policy winds down, the Obama administration will begin an all-out drive for comprehensive immigration reform, including seeking a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants, according to officials briefed on the plans.
While key tactical decisions are still being made, President Obama wants a catch-all bill that would also bolster border security measures, ratchet up penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants, and make it easier to bring in foreign workers under special visas, among other elements.
Senior White House advisors plan to launch a social media blitz in January, and expect to tap the same organizations and unions that helped get a record number of Latino voters to reelect the president.
Cabinet secretaries are preparing to make the case for how changes in immigration laws could benefit businesses, education, healthcare and public safety. Congressional committees could hold hearings on immigration legislation as soon as late January or early February.
"The president can't guarantee us the outcome but he can guarantee us the fight," said Eliseo Medina, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 2 million workers. "We expect a strong fight."
The focus comes amid new analysis of census data by the Pew Hispanic Center that shows illegal immigration is down and enforcement levels are at an all-time high.
Democratic strategists believe there is only a narrow window at the beginning of the year to get an initiative launched in Congress, before lawmakers begin to turn their attention to the next election cycle and are less likely to take a risky vote on a controversial bill.
"It's going to be early," said Clarissa Martinez de Castro, director of civic engagement and immigration for the National Council of La Raza. "We are seeing it being organized to be ready."
The White House declined to discuss its possible strategy while still embroiled in the year-end battle over taxes and spending cuts.
"Our focus is on the fiscal cliff," said a White House official who requested anonymity to discuss the matter.
The official pointed to the president's remarks at a postelection news conference, in which Obama said he would turn to immigration very soon after the inauguration.
But Republicans, including some who are in favor of immigration change, are pushing a go-slow approach. Rather than working on one comprehensive bill, Congress should pass a series of bills that help foreign entrepreneurs, technology workers, agricultural workers and those who were brought to the U.S. unlawfully as children, said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is the highest-profile Republican Latino politician and is expected to be an important GOP voice on immigration.
Small parts of the immigration issue should be tackled before addressing how to create a pathway to legal status for most illegal immigrants in the U.S., Rubio said Wednesday.
"Portions of immigration reform can be dealt with quicker than others," he said.
In conversations with congressional offices, White House officials have said the president would be "all in" on the issue and would want to push for a broad bill. But officials have not been specific about exactly how the president will use the bully pulpit or whether immigration will be a showpiece of the inaugural speech on Jan. 21 or the State of the Union address in early February.
One of the key strategic moves still being decided is whether or not the White House sends Congress a piece of legislation or lets lawmakers take the lead in writing the bill. Republican challenger Mitt Romney criticized Obama during the campaign for not presenting a bill to Congress despite promising to pass an immigration initiative in his first term.
One option is to dust off more than 300 pages of draft legislative language for a large immigration bill that went through a time-consuming Cabinet-level review in 2010 and was quietly handed to members of the Senate.
The 2010 initiative, led by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), died in back-room negotiations when it was clear the senators couldn't muster the votes to get it passed.
The draft language creates a renewable visa for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and allows them to eventually get in line for a green card after they submit to background checks, learn English and pay back taxes and a fine. The proposal also would require employers to use a federal database to check workers' immigration status, among other provisions.
Some lawmakers prefer that the White House not dictate the terms of the bill and leave the hard negotiations to an informal group with representatives from both parties as a way to avoid a contentious ideological fight in the committees, said two congressional staffers who were not authorized to speak publicly about the discussions.
A bipartisan group of six senators met behind closed doors in the Capitol for 30 minutes on Tuesday night for what is expected to be the first of many meetings on how to get a version of the immigration bill through Congress. On the Republican side, the newly elected junior senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, joined longtime immigration reform advocates Graham and John McCain of Arizona for the talks. The Democrats were Schumer, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois.
But Angela Kelley, an immigration expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, believes that Obama will have to step into the limelight, as he has over budget negotiations, to get something done on immigration.
"The congressional conversation has started," Kelley said. "It isn't something [Obama] can take his time on because the cameras and the microphones will be on him asking, 'What are you doing about it?' and he will have to have a ready answer."
SOURCE
A sane approach to immigration reform
For more than five years, Arizona has been the bellwether in addressing our country's broken immigration system. Efforts to fill the enforcement gap caused by federal inaction created a firestorm.
We saw more than 6 million (mostly negative) media hits worldwide. We lost hundreds of millions in convention and tourism contracts. And rhetoric associated with the debate on immigration-related issues created unnecessary social divisions in our community.
Ultimately, our efforts created as much controversy as the problems we sought to address.
The Real Arizona Coalition was formed to combat the negative and vitriolic language around the issue of immigration and to broaden public immigration policy beyond an enforcement-only approach. The coalition includes nearly 40 leadership organizations, composed of thousands of individuals -- law-enforcement officials, civil-rights advocates, business leaders, children's advocates, farmers, health-care professionals, state and local government officials, representatives of faith-based groups, and others.
For more than two years, and with the recent participation from the O'Connor House, Real Arizona Coalition members and other leaders have met regularly in a robust exchange of ideas with the goal of giving shape to a federal immigration-reform policy.
We reached a broad consensus we call the SANE platform. It is based principally on acknowledging the presence of the approximate 11 million immigrants already here without lawful authority and recognizing that many businesses and industries presently rely heavily on this existing undocumented-immigrant labor force. It also recognizes the continued and ongoing commercial and labor interests of states and national businesses that need a rational immigration policy.
SANE is by no means the final say on an immigration-reform platform. But it is a starting point for a reasoned and balanced approach to addressing the shortcomings of our current immigration system and establishing an immigration system that supports our economy and reflects the best of our nation's history of welcoming immigrants.
To that end, we have begun vetting our platform with our congressional delegation, state and legislative leaders and others with a vested interest in resolving the broader issue of immigration, with the hope that Arizona can now provide sound and intelligent leadership on immigration reform that advances a 21st-century American economy.
What is SANE?
Secure our sovereign borders. The Yuma, El Centro and San Diego points of entry are examples of secure border sectors where law enforcement effectively and efficiently interdicts illegal crossers. These successes can be reproduced and implemented across the remainder of our national borders. However, because Mexico is Arizona's largest trading partner, our Arizona ports of entry must be secure and operate in a manner that allows our business and industry leaders to continue to explore opportunities to increase cross-border trading and commerce.
Account for those here without lawful authority. Immigration reform requires that we account for those here without lawful authority and provide a formal and orderly process for them to come out of the shadows, undergo a background check and, if no felony crime has been committed, get on the current tax roles and live and work here legally. This process can also provide needed information for a reform of our immigration system.
Necessary bureaucratic reform. Once we have accounted for those here without lawful authority, we must acknowledge that many people will continue to want to come to America for a variety of reasons. Under SANE principles, those who came to our country after a certain date would not be processed under the same rules as the approximate 11 million here without lawful authority. They would be processed under a reformed visa system that addresses concerns raised by business and higher-education leaders about a shortage of labor and the drain of talent caused by our current immigration system. Any who enter without lawful authority will be deported.
Engage all levels of government. We cannot continue to engage in the same dysfunctional behavior that created and supported illegal immigration. All levels of government must be incorporated into a future enforcement effort that will maximize resources to preclude a reoccurrence of problems associated with criminal activity along the border, including but not limited to drug and human traffickers and potential terrorists.
Through the bold, thoughtful support of organizations and individuals like you, representing nearly every interest impacted by immigration, we are confident that Congress can and will find a working solution for a 21st-century American economy.
SOURCE
December 7, 2012
Immigration Not a Fix for an Aging Population
Study Projects 41% Increase in Population by 2050
A new analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Center for Immigration Studies projects the impact of immigration on the size and composition of the U.S. population. The findings reveal that immigration makes for a much larger overall population, while having only a minimal effect on slowing the aging of American society.
Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research, notes, “there is simply no question immigration makes for a much larger and more densely settled country, but it is not a cure for an aging society.”
The complete study can be found here.
Among the findings:
If net immigration (difference between those coming and going) unfolds as the Census Bureau estimated in the last set of projections, the nation’s population will increase from 309 million in 2010 to 436 million in 2050 — a 127 million (41 percent) increase.
The projected increase of 127 million is larger than the combined populations of the U.K. and France.
By itself future immigration will account for 96 million (75 percent) of future population growth.
The immigrant (legal and illegal) share of the population will reach one in six U.S. residents by 2030, a new record, and nearly one in five residents by 2050.
The Center for Immigration Studies, as well as other researchers, has found that immigration levels have fallen somewhat in recent years. While there is no way to know if the level will remain lower, this change can be incorporated into these projections:
A one-third reduction in the Census Bureau’s level of net immigration over the next four decades (2010-2050) produces a total U.S. population of 404 million in 2050 — a 95 million increase over 2010.
Even if immigration is half what the Census Bureau expects, the population will still grow 79 million by 2050, with immigration accounting for 61 percent of population growth.
The underlying level of immigration is so high, even assuming a substantial reduction would still add tens of millions of new residents to the U.S. population and account for most of the population growth.
Consistent with prior research, the projections show immigration only slightly increases the working-age (18 to 65) share of the population. Assuming the Census Bureau’s immigration level, 58 percent of the population will be of working-age in 2050, compared to 57 percent if there is no immigration.
Raising the retirement age by one year would have a larger positive impact on the working-age share over the next 40 years then would the Census Bureau’s projected level of net immigration (68 million).
While immigrants tend to arrive relatively young and have higher fertility than natives, immigrants age just like everyone else, and the differences with natives are not large enough to fundamentally increase the share of the population who are potential workers.
Discussion
While immigration is the primary driver of population growth, even without immigration, the population will increase by 31 million by 2050. The long term trend in immigration has been a steady increase, and this seems likely to continue once the U.S. economy recovers. But, even if immigration is half of what the Census Bureau expected in the 2008 projections, the U.S. population will still grow by 79 million by 2050, with immigration accounting for 61 percent of population growth.
The fundamental question for the American public and policy makers is whether a much larger population and the resulting greater population density will add to or diminish the quality of life in the United States. Immigration is a discretionary policy of the government and can be changed. These projections show us one possible future. We must decide as a country if this is the future we want.
Methodology
The report contains a detailed explanation of the study’s methodology. In sum, the Center for Immigration and Decision Demographics of Arlington, Virginia developed the projections model used in this analysis. We first replicated the official 2008 Census Bureau projections, their last full set of projections, by race/ethnicity. This was possible because the Census Bureau Projections Branch was kind enough to share unpublished data that it used to generate its last major series of projections. In total, the Bureau’s net immigration projection is 68.3 million for the period 2010 to 2050. We vary this base level of immigration to discern its’ impact on population size and composition. These projections follow the Census Bureau’s assumptions about future levels of immigration and death and birth rates, including a decline in the birth rate for Hispanics.
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. 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
Illegal immigration to U.S. stays down, Pew's latest numbers show
There are about 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, a figure that has remained relatively constant over the last two years, according to the latest estimates released Thursday by the Pew Hispanic Center.
The numbers come as President Obama prepares to push immigration reform as a key part of his second-term agenda. They also come as analyses highlight the greater role Latinos played in the recent presidential election.
The 11.1-million figure compares with 11.2 million in 2010 and 11.1 million in 2009.
The number of illegal immigrants in the U.S., which stood at about 8.4 million in 2000, peaked at about 12 million in 2007 and has been tapering since, according to the analysis prepared by demographers Jeffrey Passel and D’Vera Cohn of the Hispanic Center, part of the Pew Research Center.
The decrease was driven mainly by a drop in the number of immigrants arriving from Mexico, the largest source of migration to the U.S. The Pew Hispanic Center reported earlier this year that net immigration from Mexico to the United States had stopped and possibly reversed through 2010.
At the peak, about 770,000 immigrants were arriving annually from Mexico, the majority of them illegally. By 2010, the inflow had dropped to about 140,000, and the majority arrived legally, according to the center’s estimates.
In addition, the number of Mexicans and their children who moved from the United States to Mexico between 2005 and 2010 roughly doubled compared with the five-year period a decade earlier, the center said.
Pew's estimates are based on data mainly from the Current Population Survey, a monthly polling of about 55,000 households conducted jointly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau.
Despite the falling or stable numbers, the political debate on immigration has been rising. Immigration-- and whether to provide a path to U.S. citizenship -- was a litmus test during the GOP battle for the presidential nomination.
In a bid to win the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney moved to the right to appease conservatives who oppose what they call amnesty for undocumented immigrants. The shift made it difficult for the former Massachusetts governor to appeal to Latinos in the general election.
Obama won about 71% of the Latino vote, compared with Romney’s 27%, according to exit polls cited by Pew. That was the best showing by a Democrat since Bill Clinton in 1996.
Latinos accounted for about 10% of all presidential voters this year, a record turnout for the group and a figure that is expected to increase in coming years.
SOURCE
Thursday, December 6, 2012
MSNBC Online Interviews prominent Immigration critic -- unfairly
Founded by Roy Beck in 1998, Numbers USA is a grassroots organization and an influential lobbyist group that concerns itself with immigration reform and the threat of mass amnesty. As the unemployment rate among the citizenry continues to grow, over one million permanent work authorizations are handed out each year to immigrants -- further saturating an already stagnant labor market.
Beck sat down for an interview with MSNBC.com's Jane C. Timm recently, only to find himself labeled as the "Grover Norquist of the immigration debate." With no intention of portraying him in a positive light, Timm argued that the 1.3 million grassroots members of Numbers USA will not allow Republican congressmen to moderate their stance on immigration reform. And rather than consider it an anti-amnesty organization, in predictable fashion she presented the group as "racist" in motivation.
Of course, Timm didn't outright make these claims herself, instead turning to left-wing activists like the Southern Poverty Law Center's Heidi Beirich and Aaron Flanagan from the Center for New Community to do so without substantiation or rebuttal. Timm took issue with Numbers USA's ongoing effort to reduce the massive amount of immigrants who receive permanent work authorizations every year, but gives Beirich and Flanagan credit for the opinion:
Following publication on Monday morning, Beck countered with a column of his own in order to set the record straight. He thanked MSNBC for the massive amount of credit it gave his orgnanization for being solely responsible for standing in the way of mass amnesty legislation, but went on to criticize the network for its slanted coverage of immigration reform issues and of Numbers USA in particular, concluding:
Prior to his conclusion, Beck noted that nearly every reporter who does a story on his organization is seemingly under the impression that they pluck their goals out of thin air. In fact, he stated that they come from recommendations of the bipartisan Barbara Jordan Commission that found "the renewal of mass immigration over the last 30 years has created great economic injustices against the most vulnerable members of our society." Something Timm and her editors at MSNBC neglected to mention.
SOURCE
CA. Attorney General: Immigration program is optional
California’s top law enforcer said local police departments can choose whether to comply with a federal program that targets unauthorized immigrants — even if participation in that program is mandatory.
Attorney General Kamala Harris said she released the guidance Tuesday, in the form of a bulletin to law enforcement, because she has received numerous inquiries from those agencies seeking clarification on the Secure Communities program.
Under Secure Communities, police officers and sheriff’s deputies run detainees’ fingerprints through federal databases. If a suspect is deemed to be an unauthorized immigrant, that person is put on a deportation hold and transferred to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The program has been the focus of much controversy, including lawsuits. Supporters said it helps improve public safety by targeting unauthorized immigrants who have broken the law, while opponents said it unfairly captures a large amount of people whose only violation is being in the United States without permission.
More than 82,000 people in California have been deported through Secure Communities since the program began in 2008. On Tuesday, Harris said almost one-third of such deportees did not have a criminal conviction.
“The federal government cannot mandate that these chiefs and sheriffs hold onto immigrants because of the request for detainer,” Harris said during a news conference. “The police chiefs and sheriffs have it within their discretion — within their authority — to honor that request or not.”
Last year, the Obama administration said it would revamp Secure Communities to sharpen the program’s aim against criminals. On Tuesday, ICE officials said they have been working to improve the program.
“ICE has been dedicated to implementing smart, effective reforms to the immigration system that allow it to focus its resources on criminals, recent border-crossers and repeat immigration-law violators,” the agency said in a statement. “The federal government alone sets these priorities.”
Harris views Secure Communities as counter-productive because unauthorized immigrants may fear interacting with police, even if they have been the victims of a crime.
“I have prosecuted crimes against undocumented immigrants where the predator tried to convince the victim that if they reported the crime, they would be treated as the criminal,” Harris said. “The most important point is public safety for everyone, regardless of their status — documented or undocumented.”
In her bulletin, Harris advised: “After analyzing the public-safety risks presented by the individual, including a review of his or her arrest offense and criminal history as well as the resources of the agency, an agency may decide for itself whether to devote resources to holding suspected unlawfully present immigrants on behalf of the federal government.”
Her recommendation aligns with the reasons that Gov. Jerry Brown gave in September when he vetoed the Trust Act, which would have banned law-enforcement agencies from participating in Secure Communities unless the unauthorized immigrant committed a violent felony or had such a record.
In a letter explaining his veto, Brown said he believes federal immigration agents should not “coerce” local agencies into detaining people, but that the bill was too narrow. For example, he said, the legislation exempted crimes such as child abuse, drug trafficking and weapons sales.
Brown also said he would work with lawmakers in Sacramento to rewrite the bill.
Secure Communities, which began as a pilot project with voluntary participation, is now compulsory. Every county in California is enrolled.
Previously, three counties in the state — San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Francisco — unsuccessfully petitioned Brown, then the attorney general, to opt out of the program.
In recent months, the Los Angeles Police Department’s chief has said he wants his officers to make their own decisions about unauthorized immigrants they arrest, especially those accused of petty crimes.
In San Diego County, Sheriff Bill Gore opposed the Trust Act. He wrote a letter to Brown asking that he veto the legislation. Gore said cooperation between local and federal agencies is key to safety in the cross-border region.
“The working relationship we have with the U.S. Border Patrol and customs, both on the streets and in our jails, is vital to our efforts,” Gore wrote.
In contrast, the Chula Vista and National City police departments supported the Trust Act.
Joe Kasper, spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, expressed disappointment in Harris’ bulletin.
“The state could take a real leadership role here and show residents and the rest of the nation a real commitment to enforcing the law. But it comes as no surprise to see California setting the wrong example,” Kasper said. “The message even creates a certain level of ambiguity and uncertainty for law enforcement.”
Christian Ramirez, human rights director for Alliance San Diego, called Harris’ announcement “welcomed news” and said Secure Communities is “ineffective” and has contributed to the “erosion of trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities.”
“Attorney General Harris’ statement signals to immigrant communities that a one-size-fits-all approach to enforcing immigration law does not work, especially when it comes at the expense of community and police relations,” said Ramirez, whose organization advocates for civil rights. “California is getting back on track to ensure that migrant communities are treated with dignity and respect.”
SOURCE
MSNBC Online Interviews prominent Immigration critic -- unfairly
Founded by Roy Beck in 1998, Numbers USA is a grassroots organization and an influential lobbyist group that concerns itself with immigration reform and the threat of mass amnesty. As the unemployment rate among the citizenry continues to grow, over one million permanent work authorizations are handed out each year to immigrants -- further saturating an already stagnant labor market.
Beck sat down for an interview with MSNBC.com's Jane C. Timm recently, only to find himself labeled as the "Grover Norquist of the immigration debate." With no intention of portraying him in a positive light, Timm argued that the 1.3 million grassroots members of Numbers USA will not allow Republican congressmen to moderate their stance on immigration reform. And rather than consider it an anti-amnesty organization, in predictable fashion she presented the group as "racist" in motivation.
Of course, Timm didn't outright make these claims herself, instead turning to left-wing activists like the Southern Poverty Law Center's Heidi Beirich and Aaron Flanagan from the Center for New Community to do so without substantiation or rebuttal. Timm took issue with Numbers USA's ongoing effort to reduce the massive amount of immigrants who receive permanent work authorizations every year, but gives Beirich and Flanagan credit for the opinion:
Those professions of moderation are what's most striking about Beck and Numbers USA -- and what Beirich and Flanagan say makes them so dangerous.
Following publication on Monday morning, Beck countered with a column of his own in order to set the record straight. He thanked MSNBC for the massive amount of credit it gave his orgnanization for being solely responsible for standing in the way of mass amnesty legislation, but went on to criticize the network for its slanted coverage of immigration reform issues and of Numbers USA in particular, concluding:
The hard-line ideologues are those who insist on continuing to give out another one million permanent work authorizations each year -- and ask for even more -- to compete directly with our own unemployed. Numbers USA is always committed to reminding Americans that they have a choice for a different, more humane, immigration policy.
Prior to his conclusion, Beck noted that nearly every reporter who does a story on his organization is seemingly under the impression that they pluck their goals out of thin air. In fact, he stated that they come from recommendations of the bipartisan Barbara Jordan Commission that found "the renewal of mass immigration over the last 30 years has created great economic injustices against the most vulnerable members of our society." Something Timm and her editors at MSNBC neglected to mention.
SOURCE
CA. Attorney General: Immigration program is optional
California’s top law enforcer said local police departments can choose whether to comply with a federal program that targets unauthorized immigrants — even if participation in that program is mandatory.
Attorney General Kamala Harris said she released the guidance Tuesday, in the form of a bulletin to law enforcement, because she has received numerous inquiries from those agencies seeking clarification on the Secure Communities program.
Under Secure Communities, police officers and sheriff’s deputies run detainees’ fingerprints through federal databases. If a suspect is deemed to be an unauthorized immigrant, that person is put on a deportation hold and transferred to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The program has been the focus of much controversy, including lawsuits. Supporters said it helps improve public safety by targeting unauthorized immigrants who have broken the law, while opponents said it unfairly captures a large amount of people whose only violation is being in the United States without permission.
More than 82,000 people in California have been deported through Secure Communities since the program began in 2008. On Tuesday, Harris said almost one-third of such deportees did not have a criminal conviction.
“The federal government cannot mandate that these chiefs and sheriffs hold onto immigrants because of the request for detainer,” Harris said during a news conference. “The police chiefs and sheriffs have it within their discretion — within their authority — to honor that request or not.”
Last year, the Obama administration said it would revamp Secure Communities to sharpen the program’s aim against criminals. On Tuesday, ICE officials said they have been working to improve the program.
“ICE has been dedicated to implementing smart, effective reforms to the immigration system that allow it to focus its resources on criminals, recent border-crossers and repeat immigration-law violators,” the agency said in a statement. “The federal government alone sets these priorities.”
Harris views Secure Communities as counter-productive because unauthorized immigrants may fear interacting with police, even if they have been the victims of a crime.
“I have prosecuted crimes against undocumented immigrants where the predator tried to convince the victim that if they reported the crime, they would be treated as the criminal,” Harris said. “The most important point is public safety for everyone, regardless of their status — documented or undocumented.”
In her bulletin, Harris advised: “After analyzing the public-safety risks presented by the individual, including a review of his or her arrest offense and criminal history as well as the resources of the agency, an agency may decide for itself whether to devote resources to holding suspected unlawfully present immigrants on behalf of the federal government.”
Her recommendation aligns with the reasons that Gov. Jerry Brown gave in September when he vetoed the Trust Act, which would have banned law-enforcement agencies from participating in Secure Communities unless the unauthorized immigrant committed a violent felony or had such a record.
In a letter explaining his veto, Brown said he believes federal immigration agents should not “coerce” local agencies into detaining people, but that the bill was too narrow. For example, he said, the legislation exempted crimes such as child abuse, drug trafficking and weapons sales.
Brown also said he would work with lawmakers in Sacramento to rewrite the bill.
Secure Communities, which began as a pilot project with voluntary participation, is now compulsory. Every county in California is enrolled.
Previously, three counties in the state — San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Francisco — unsuccessfully petitioned Brown, then the attorney general, to opt out of the program.
In recent months, the Los Angeles Police Department’s chief has said he wants his officers to make their own decisions about unauthorized immigrants they arrest, especially those accused of petty crimes.
In San Diego County, Sheriff Bill Gore opposed the Trust Act. He wrote a letter to Brown asking that he veto the legislation. Gore said cooperation between local and federal agencies is key to safety in the cross-border region.
“The working relationship we have with the U.S. Border Patrol and customs, both on the streets and in our jails, is vital to our efforts,” Gore wrote.
In contrast, the Chula Vista and National City police departments supported the Trust Act.
Joe Kasper, spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, expressed disappointment in Harris’ bulletin.
“The state could take a real leadership role here and show residents and the rest of the nation a real commitment to enforcing the law. But it comes as no surprise to see California setting the wrong example,” Kasper said. “The message even creates a certain level of ambiguity and uncertainty for law enforcement.”
Christian Ramirez, human rights director for Alliance San Diego, called Harris’ announcement “welcomed news” and said Secure Communities is “ineffective” and has contributed to the “erosion of trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities.”
“Attorney General Harris’ statement signals to immigrant communities that a one-size-fits-all approach to enforcing immigration law does not work, especially when it comes at the expense of community and police relations,” said Ramirez, whose organization advocates for civil rights. “California is getting back on track to ensure that migrant communities are treated with dignity and respect.”
SOURCE
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Roberto Galo killed a guy. Deport him
As always, Leftists side with the lawbreaker
On Nov. 16, 2010, an unlicensed driver named Roberto Galo took a left turn at Harrison and 16th streets and hit motorcyclist Drew Rosenberg. After Galo then backed over Rosenberg's body, the law-school student died. A jury convicted Galo for manslaughter and driving without a license. After serving 43 days in jail, he was released on home detention.
Don Rosenberg of Westlake Village (Los Angeles County) blames San Francisco politics for his son's death. He also fears that the like-minded Obama administration will shield unlicensed drivers to the detriment of public safety - and Washington isn't giving him reason to believe otherwise.
This sanctuary city has been so eager to protect illegal immigrants who cannot obtain California drivers' licenses that in 2009, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that the city no longer would impound the cars of unlicensed drivers automatically. In 2008, the AAA Foundation for Public Safety reported that 29 percent of fatal car crashes in California involved a driver without a valid license. No worries. San Francisco sent a message to folks who haven't even passed a driver's test: You can drive here and get away with it.
Accidents happen, but Rosenberg doesn't see this crash as an accident - Galo, after all, backed over Rosenberg's son.
You can't blame California's law that denies driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. As a legal immigrant given temporary protective status, Galo was eligible for a driver's license. But he didn't have one, and he drove anyway. That decision demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others and disrespect for California law.
Repeated disrespect. Five months earlier, police stopped Galo for driving the wrong way on a one-way street and driving without a license. He paid a $220 fine. Then-Police Chief George Gascón - now the district attorney - supported the Newsom plan. He even told me at the time that it would help legal residents who couldn't afford to get a license or driver training. Does he still support it? No answer from his office.
The public defender's office, which represented Galo, did not wish to discuss the case.
The next question is whether Galo, having been convicted of two misdemeanors, can remain in the United States legally. While immigration officials have not responded to my queries, aides to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, told me that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told them Galo was guilty of only one crime of moral turpitude - which suggests that he can stay.
Thursday ICE released a statement that said Galo is here lawfully and it "is investigating the options related to his status in light of his criminal convictions."
Jessica Vaughan of the pro-enforcement Center for Immigration Studies told me, "What makes this particular case disconcerting is that authorities seemed willing to overlook this serious violation in order to protect someone from deportation who has killed someone." Will Washington follow San Francisco's example?
If so, thank groups like the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles who have sold the idea that driving without a license is not a big deal. Spokesman Jorge-Mario Cabrera told me, "We don't believe that most traffic offenses should be deportable."
Cabrera feels sorry for the Rosenbergs. But: "Does deportation, exile, bring back the person's son?"
Deportation, however, might prevent the death of someone else's son.
As Rosenberg noted, San Francisco's message to unlicensed drivers is that they can drive, kill somebody and serve only 43 days in jail. The Obama administration, however, could send the message that when immigrants seeking permanent legal status flout the law and drive without a license, and they kill somebody, they will be deported.
The only reason not to send that message: You care more about people who break the law than the law-abiding public.
SOURCE
Illegal immigrant driver's license measure sails through Illinois Senate
The Illinois Senate today approved legislation that would allow tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to have special drivers licenses, but the bill’s fate in the House is still up in the air.
The proposal, sponsored by Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, would allow an estimated 250,000 undocumented immigrants in Illinois to be eligible for the special, three-year licenses to drive a vehicle. With Congress and the White House unable to reach agreement on the overall issue of how to deal with immigration, Cullerton argued the state needs to address safety on public highways now.
Cullerton said it “makes sense” to have people tested and trained in the rules of Illinois roadways rather than go without licenses of any kind.
“We will definitely save lives by passing this bill,” Cullerton said.
But Sen. Chris Lauzen, R-Aurora, spoke stoutly against granting driving privileges to people who are breaking the law by being in the country illegally. Moving Illinois into this territory, Lauzen said, would mean “we have the cart before the horse.”
The Senate approved the bill 41-14, with one lawmaker voting present. (See how they voted by clicking here.) Now it goes to the House, which could take up the issue in early January.
Lawrence Benito, who heads the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said he is still tallying the votes in the House, where a similar proposal passed five years ago.
The special license would be different in color from a regular driving license. It could not officially be used for identification purposes, such as for boarding a plane, buying a gun or voting. To get a special license, a person would have to live within Illinois for at least a year—a provision that would require applicants to provide a copy of a lease, utility bills or other proof or residency.
Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno of Lemont said there is no “perfect solution” for the driving license issue in Illinois when the overall of immigration debate is still unresolved. But she said the Illinois legislation represented a good-faith effort to tackle the public policy problem of people driving on the roads without authority.
SOURCE
Roberto Galo killed a guy. Deport him
As always, Leftists side with the lawbreaker
On Nov. 16, 2010, an unlicensed driver named Roberto Galo took a left turn at Harrison and 16th streets and hit motorcyclist Drew Rosenberg. After Galo then backed over Rosenberg's body, the law-school student died. A jury convicted Galo for manslaughter and driving without a license. After serving 43 days in jail, he was released on home detention.
Don Rosenberg of Westlake Village (Los Angeles County) blames San Francisco politics for his son's death. He also fears that the like-minded Obama administration will shield unlicensed drivers to the detriment of public safety - and Washington isn't giving him reason to believe otherwise.
This sanctuary city has been so eager to protect illegal immigrants who cannot obtain California drivers' licenses that in 2009, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that the city no longer would impound the cars of unlicensed drivers automatically. In 2008, the AAA Foundation for Public Safety reported that 29 percent of fatal car crashes in California involved a driver without a valid license. No worries. San Francisco sent a message to folks who haven't even passed a driver's test: You can drive here and get away with it.
Accidents happen, but Rosenberg doesn't see this crash as an accident - Galo, after all, backed over Rosenberg's son.
You can't blame California's law that denies driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. As a legal immigrant given temporary protective status, Galo was eligible for a driver's license. But he didn't have one, and he drove anyway. That decision demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others and disrespect for California law.
Repeated disrespect. Five months earlier, police stopped Galo for driving the wrong way on a one-way street and driving without a license. He paid a $220 fine. Then-Police Chief George Gascón - now the district attorney - supported the Newsom plan. He even told me at the time that it would help legal residents who couldn't afford to get a license or driver training. Does he still support it? No answer from his office.
The public defender's office, which represented Galo, did not wish to discuss the case.
The next question is whether Galo, having been convicted of two misdemeanors, can remain in the United States legally. While immigration officials have not responded to my queries, aides to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, told me that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told them Galo was guilty of only one crime of moral turpitude - which suggests that he can stay.
Thursday ICE released a statement that said Galo is here lawfully and it "is investigating the options related to his status in light of his criminal convictions."
Jessica Vaughan of the pro-enforcement Center for Immigration Studies told me, "What makes this particular case disconcerting is that authorities seemed willing to overlook this serious violation in order to protect someone from deportation who has killed someone." Will Washington follow San Francisco's example?
If so, thank groups like the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles who have sold the idea that driving without a license is not a big deal. Spokesman Jorge-Mario Cabrera told me, "We don't believe that most traffic offenses should be deportable."
Cabrera feels sorry for the Rosenbergs. But: "Does deportation, exile, bring back the person's son?"
Deportation, however, might prevent the death of someone else's son.
As Rosenberg noted, San Francisco's message to unlicensed drivers is that they can drive, kill somebody and serve only 43 days in jail. The Obama administration, however, could send the message that when immigrants seeking permanent legal status flout the law and drive without a license, and they kill somebody, they will be deported.
The only reason not to send that message: You care more about people who break the law than the law-abiding public.
SOURCE
Illegal immigrant driver's license measure sails through Illinois Senate
The Illinois Senate today approved legislation that would allow tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to have special drivers licenses, but the bill’s fate in the House is still up in the air.
The proposal, sponsored by Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, would allow an estimated 250,000 undocumented immigrants in Illinois to be eligible for the special, three-year licenses to drive a vehicle. With Congress and the White House unable to reach agreement on the overall issue of how to deal with immigration, Cullerton argued the state needs to address safety on public highways now.
Cullerton said it “makes sense” to have people tested and trained in the rules of Illinois roadways rather than go without licenses of any kind.
“We will definitely save lives by passing this bill,” Cullerton said.
But Sen. Chris Lauzen, R-Aurora, spoke stoutly against granting driving privileges to people who are breaking the law by being in the country illegally. Moving Illinois into this territory, Lauzen said, would mean “we have the cart before the horse.”
The Senate approved the bill 41-14, with one lawmaker voting present. (See how they voted by clicking here.) Now it goes to the House, which could take up the issue in early January.
Lawrence Benito, who heads the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, said he is still tallying the votes in the House, where a similar proposal passed five years ago.
The special license would be different in color from a regular driving license. It could not officially be used for identification purposes, such as for boarding a plane, buying a gun or voting. To get a special license, a person would have to live within Illinois for at least a year—a provision that would require applicants to provide a copy of a lease, utility bills or other proof or residency.
Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno of Lemont said there is no “perfect solution” for the driving license issue in Illinois when the overall of immigration debate is still unresolved. But she said the Illinois legislation represented a good-faith effort to tackle the public policy problem of people driving on the roads without authority.
SOURCE
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Party time for illegals given open door by Australia's Leftist government
ASYLUM seekers in Indonesia have swung into party mode and labelled Julia Gillard a "hero" after learning they will receive welfare payments and rent assistance should they make it to Australia by boat.
The wannabe citizens are ecstatic the government has conceded detention centres are beyond maximum capacity and that asylum seekers would need to be released into the community while their applications for refugee status were processed.
They would be given financial and housing support - as well as free basic health care - a massive boost from their current financial status in Indonesia where many are struggling to afford food.
However the asylum seekers, based in Puncak, 80km from Jakarta, said they feared Liberal leader Tony Abbott would be successful in his bid to become prime minister.
"Mr Abbott is not good for refugees and asylum seekers, he does not like us, he is not really a nice man," said Zia Haidari, a 25-year-old Afghanistan man who has attempted - unsuccessfully - to travel to Australia by boat seven times. "Ms Gillard seems to understand how we feel and is trying her best.
"Abdulah Sulamani, 41, heaped praise on Ms Gillard: "She is a hero, you are lucky to have this woman for your country."
Solo mother Fatemeh Khavari, 30, told News Ltd she did not have enough money saved to travel by boat to Australia and had spent time living homeless and hungry in Indonesia with her six-month-old son.
Labor's announcement was music to her ears. "If I can get this free money and house when I come to Australia this will make life very easy for me," Ms Khavari said. "It is very hard right now for us, I cannot afford to buy milk formula, we are very hungry. Me and my child need the generosity of the Australian people. "If that doesn't happen my baby may die."
Ms Khavari - whose reasons fleeing Iran were "private" - said the other factor to draw her towards Australia was free medical care.
"I cannot afford to have vaccinations for my baby so I can get this in Australia.
"The praise directed at the prime minister may be unwelcome by its recipient, with voters unlikely to be impressed with the notion asylum seekers think they are coming to a country with soft laws.
A new monthly record was set in November with 2443 people arriving on boats and Ms Gillard was asked yesterday if she would bring back temporary protection visas and tow boats back to Indonesia.
The government last month announced thousands of asylum seekers threatened with processing in Nauru and Manus Island would be released in the community in Australia on bridging visas with almost $440 a fortnight plus help to pay rent.
It is understood the government is aware large numbers of asylum seekers are rushing to get on boats in Indonesia before the monsoon season and are undeterred by the government's pledge to keep them waiting in the community for protection visas for up to five years under a "no advantage" test.
Ms Gillard said TPVs and tow backs were not policy options hours before the government announced 75 people on two boats had been rescued by the Navy off Christmas Island.
"This is a complicated issue for our nation, for nations around the world," Ms Gillard told Channel 10.
"Anybody who says that there is a simple fix to you is not telling you the truth. It takes a range of policies, and we are putting that range of policies in place."
The desperation in the voices of asylum seekers in Puncak is echoed right throughout the village, where many asylum seekers come prior to embarking on the sea journey to Australia.
They eat their basic evening meals with rusty utensils scattered around. Their tiny bedrooms contain no blankets and sleep up to eight people. The days are dull with no ability to work as work visas from Indonesian officials are non-existent for the travellers.
It is this harsh reality of life in villages like Punchak combined with the arrival of news about Labor's policy backflip that is bringing about party fever and the desire to come to Australia as soon as possible.
Seventeen-year-old Adres, who does not have a surname listed on his passport, said when he arrived on Indonesian soil three weeks ago he planned to apply for refugee status through UNHCR.
But upon learning of the over-filled detention centres in Australia he was determined to travel by sea.
"This is good news for us, if we stay here and apply for status we might not be allowed into Australia, but if we come on boat we get the money and house," Adres said.
"This is a great thing and I am very thanking to the government in your country."
The Afghanistan teenager, whose father was killed in Pakistan, made the journey to Indonesia by plane. He saved for the journey and would use his money to engage people smugglers. "It is a dangerous risk but worth it to get a new country with opportunities. "This is party time."
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Blogs
1. Sloppy Reporting, Media Bias Downplay Very High Immigrant Birth Rates
2. MALDEF, NILC, ACLU Misrepresent DACA in Lawsuit Against Arizona
3. Does the Department of Defense Want the DACAs?
4. The Canadians Are Having a Healthy, Outspoken Foreign Worker
Battle
5. Kyl-Hutchison Version of DREAM Act
6. An Urgently Needed Amendment to Any DREAM Act
..
New Topic Pages on the CIS Website
7. Mexico
8. The Presidential Election
9. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
10. Los Angeles County and Immigration
11. Mississippi and Immigration
12. Alaska and Immigration
Party time for illegals given open door by Australia's Leftist government
ASYLUM seekers in Indonesia have swung into party mode and labelled Julia Gillard a "hero" after learning they will receive welfare payments and rent assistance should they make it to Australia by boat.
The wannabe citizens are ecstatic the government has conceded detention centres are beyond maximum capacity and that asylum seekers would need to be released into the community while their applications for refugee status were processed.
They would be given financial and housing support - as well as free basic health care - a massive boost from their current financial status in Indonesia where many are struggling to afford food.
However the asylum seekers, based in Puncak, 80km from Jakarta, said they feared Liberal leader Tony Abbott would be successful in his bid to become prime minister.
"Mr Abbott is not good for refugees and asylum seekers, he does not like us, he is not really a nice man," said Zia Haidari, a 25-year-old Afghanistan man who has attempted - unsuccessfully - to travel to Australia by boat seven times. "Ms Gillard seems to understand how we feel and is trying her best.
"Abdulah Sulamani, 41, heaped praise on Ms Gillard: "She is a hero, you are lucky to have this woman for your country."
Solo mother Fatemeh Khavari, 30, told News Ltd she did not have enough money saved to travel by boat to Australia and had spent time living homeless and hungry in Indonesia with her six-month-old son.
Labor's announcement was music to her ears. "If I can get this free money and house when I come to Australia this will make life very easy for me," Ms Khavari said. "It is very hard right now for us, I cannot afford to buy milk formula, we are very hungry. Me and my child need the generosity of the Australian people. "If that doesn't happen my baby may die."
Ms Khavari - whose reasons fleeing Iran were "private" - said the other factor to draw her towards Australia was free medical care.
"I cannot afford to have vaccinations for my baby so I can get this in Australia.
"The praise directed at the prime minister may be unwelcome by its recipient, with voters unlikely to be impressed with the notion asylum seekers think they are coming to a country with soft laws.
A new monthly record was set in November with 2443 people arriving on boats and Ms Gillard was asked yesterday if she would bring back temporary protection visas and tow boats back to Indonesia.
The government last month announced thousands of asylum seekers threatened with processing in Nauru and Manus Island would be released in the community in Australia on bridging visas with almost $440 a fortnight plus help to pay rent.
It is understood the government is aware large numbers of asylum seekers are rushing to get on boats in Indonesia before the monsoon season and are undeterred by the government's pledge to keep them waiting in the community for protection visas for up to five years under a "no advantage" test.
Ms Gillard said TPVs and tow backs were not policy options hours before the government announced 75 people on two boats had been rescued by the Navy off Christmas Island.
"This is a complicated issue for our nation, for nations around the world," Ms Gillard told Channel 10.
"Anybody who says that there is a simple fix to you is not telling you the truth. It takes a range of policies, and we are putting that range of policies in place."
The desperation in the voices of asylum seekers in Puncak is echoed right throughout the village, where many asylum seekers come prior to embarking on the sea journey to Australia.
They eat their basic evening meals with rusty utensils scattered around. Their tiny bedrooms contain no blankets and sleep up to eight people. The days are dull with no ability to work as work visas from Indonesian officials are non-existent for the travellers.
It is this harsh reality of life in villages like Punchak combined with the arrival of news about Labor's policy backflip that is bringing about party fever and the desire to come to Australia as soon as possible.
Seventeen-year-old Adres, who does not have a surname listed on his passport, said when he arrived on Indonesian soil three weeks ago he planned to apply for refugee status through UNHCR.
But upon learning of the over-filled detention centres in Australia he was determined to travel by sea.
"This is good news for us, if we stay here and apply for status we might not be allowed into Australia, but if we come on boat we get the money and house," Adres said.
"This is a great thing and I am very thanking to the government in your country."
The Afghanistan teenager, whose father was killed in Pakistan, made the journey to Indonesia by plane. He saved for the journey and would use his money to engage people smugglers. "It is a dangerous risk but worth it to get a new country with opportunities. "This is party time."
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Blogs
1. Sloppy Reporting, Media Bias Downplay Very High Immigrant Birth Rates
2. MALDEF, NILC, ACLU Misrepresent DACA in Lawsuit Against Arizona
3. Does the Department of Defense Want the DACAs?
4. The Canadians Are Having a Healthy, Outspoken Foreign Worker
Battle
5. Kyl-Hutchison Version of DREAM Act
6. An Urgently Needed Amendment to Any DREAM Act
..
New Topic Pages on the CIS Website
7. Mexico
8. The Presidential Election
9. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
10. Los Angeles County and Immigration
11. Mississippi and Immigration
12. Alaska and Immigration
Monday, December 3, 2012
Immigration unity hits Hill reality
About that GOP epiphany on immigration after the election, there’s one small problem that could scuttle a deal: Republicans in Congress can’t even agree on what to do.
Some want piecemeal reform, picking off the most popular planks and leaving the tough stuff — like whether to give millions of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship — for later. Others side with Democrats in saying only a comprehensive deal will get at the problem.
The same rifts that existed long before the election are still there. So at least at this early date, there’s scant evidence that the deal that looked so promising on Nov. 7 will materialize.
“Doing a comprehensive bill is a big mistake,” Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) said. “What you end up having is a bill that nobody likes. Everybody hates one piece of it. It’s a way to actually avoid doing what we need to do to solve the immigration problem.”
Republicans such as Labrador who favor a piece-by-piece approach believe that starting with the more politically digestible pieces could build bipartisan momentum for a broader overhaul. They also note the frustration bred by big legislative efforts such as the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.
“There’s going to be a natural desire to try to pair things up” on immigration, said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the incoming Senate minority whip. “But at some point, the bill gets so big and cumbersome that I think by virtue of the size alone, that that makes it harder to pass.”
The general outlines of a comprehensive package are clear. It would include provisions on border security and law enforcement, reforms to the legal immigration system and some sort of solution for the illegal immigrants living in the United States.
It’s that last piece that Democrats fear would get left behind if Congress took apart immigration reform. A pathway to citizenship is the one thing Democrats and immigration advocates will insist on, but it’s sure to encounter the strongest GOP resistance.
“That is probably the part of immigration reform that needs the greatest reform,” said Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas), the outgoing chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “That’s why I’ve never really understood that people really believe that this piecemeal thing is going to get us anywhere.”
“Why only half fix the problem? Let’s go ahead and fix the whole thing,” added California Rep. Xavier Becerra, the incoming House Democratic Caucus chairman. “If you’ve got a machine that’s not working well, you’re not going to fix just half of it and have it still not work well, let’s go ahead and fix it right.”
More HERE
House Passes STEM Immigration Reform. Racialists Go Crazy
This week the House of Representatives made a positive move in reforming the US immigration process by passing the STEM Jobs Act sponsored by Lamar Smith (R-TX).
STEM Jobs Act of 2012 – Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make up to 55,000 visas available to qualified immigrants who:
(1) have a doctorate degree in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM degree) from a U.S. university;
(2) agree to work for at least five years for the petitioning employer or in the United States in a STEM field upon being lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
(3) have taken all doctoral courses in a STEM field, including all correspondence courses, while physically present in the United States. Makes any such unused visas available to aliens who:
(1) hold a master’s degree in a STEM field from a U.S. university;
(2) agree to work for a total of at least five years for the petitioning employer or in the United States in a STEM field upon being lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
(3) have taken all master’s degree courses in a STEM field, including all correspondence courses, while physically present in the United States; and
(4) hold a baccalaureate degree in a STEM field or in the biological and biomedical sciences.
This act does what our immigration policy should do: ensure a higher level of economic growth in the United States by encouraging the brightest and most talented students in the world to become permanent residents of the United States. It also reduces the wait for the families of the visa recipients to receive residency visas which is now at least two years.
The sponsor of the bill, Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, lauded the bill’s passage.
“Many of the world’s top students come to the U.S. to obtain advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) subjects,” he said in a statement. “We could boost economic growth and spur job creation by allowing American employers to more easily hire some of the most qualified foreign graduates of U.S. universities. These students have the ability to start a company that creates jobs or come up with an invention that could jump-start a whole new industry.”
He also stressed the family component.
“The bill puts families first, allowing the spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents to come to the U.S. after waiting one year for their green cards,” Smith said. “The current green card waiting list is over two years and it has been much longer in the past. This provision will help keep families together rather than leave them miles apart while waiting to legally come to the U.S.”
It also eliminates the grotesque “Diversity Visa” lottery program which divvies up some 55,000 visas each year among applicants from countries that are deemed to have low immigration rates to the United States.
Now the left is all aflutter that yet another source of recruiting for the various ethnic ghettos is endangered.
“It is so disappointing [that] the majority decided to undermine an area of bipartisan agreement on STEM visas by loading up the measure with provisions that are a slap in the face to the core values of the United States,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and one of the Congress’s most vocal proponents for immigration reform policy that would provide undocumented immigrants a path to legalization.
“If you support this bill, you are saying that one group of immigrants is better than another and one type of educated, degree-holding person and their work is more important than anothers,” Gutierrez said. “In order to give visas to those with PhD’s and Masters’ Degrees, Republicans make two demands. First, we take away visas and the only means of legal immigration (most likely) from 50,000 people who may not have PhD’s or Master’s Degrees. Talk about picking winners and losers. My dad, if he had been an immigrant from Ireland or Nigeria or Taiwan would have been told ‘Nope.’ America is not for you. It is like when we used to have signs saying ‘Help wanted, Irish need not apply.’
It doesn’t matter that Luis Gutierrez wouldn’t recognize a core value of the United States if one leapt out of the tall grass and latched onto his butt. This statement reveals the true purpose of the Democrat’s immigration program is not to bring in persons most likely to be productive citizens, rather they are interested in bringing in people who are most likely to become government dependents if not actual wards.
His objection is in equal parts stupid and noxious. The elimination of the diversity visa program will not restrict the ability of people from any area of the world to apply for an visa to immigrate. What it will do is place everyone on the same level playing field by not not bringing in an arbitrary number of people from a few favored countries.
More important, something that Mr. Gutierrez doesn’t seem to understand, is that there is no right to immigrate. Being allowed to live and work in the United States, and to eventually become a citizen, is a privilege granted to relatively few. As a nation we have a responsibility to ensure that we bring in people that have the best chance of supporting themselves and contributing most to the nation. So he is correct that we are choosing winners and losers. The difference being is the winners this bill chooses are people with advanced degrees who speak English and who have progressed by dint of hard work. The winners Mr. Gutierrez and his ilk would choose are people at the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder who have a greater propensity to be the recipients of government largesse and become Democrat voters.
The doggerel written by Emma Lazarus that is now associated with the Statue of Liberty is not now, nor has it ever been, US immigration policy. Lamar Smith’s bill points the way forward in reforming our immigration process and ensuring we invite in potential productive citizens and not act as a receptacle for the most needy and least capable.
SOURCE
Immigration unity hits Hill reality
About that GOP epiphany on immigration after the election, there’s one small problem that could scuttle a deal: Republicans in Congress can’t even agree on what to do.
Some want piecemeal reform, picking off the most popular planks and leaving the tough stuff — like whether to give millions of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship — for later. Others side with Democrats in saying only a comprehensive deal will get at the problem.
The same rifts that existed long before the election are still there. So at least at this early date, there’s scant evidence that the deal that looked so promising on Nov. 7 will materialize.
“Doing a comprehensive bill is a big mistake,” Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) said. “What you end up having is a bill that nobody likes. Everybody hates one piece of it. It’s a way to actually avoid doing what we need to do to solve the immigration problem.”
Republicans such as Labrador who favor a piece-by-piece approach believe that starting with the more politically digestible pieces could build bipartisan momentum for a broader overhaul. They also note the frustration bred by big legislative efforts such as the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.
“There’s going to be a natural desire to try to pair things up” on immigration, said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the incoming Senate minority whip. “But at some point, the bill gets so big and cumbersome that I think by virtue of the size alone, that that makes it harder to pass.”
The general outlines of a comprehensive package are clear. It would include provisions on border security and law enforcement, reforms to the legal immigration system and some sort of solution for the illegal immigrants living in the United States.
It’s that last piece that Democrats fear would get left behind if Congress took apart immigration reform. A pathway to citizenship is the one thing Democrats and immigration advocates will insist on, but it’s sure to encounter the strongest GOP resistance.
“That is probably the part of immigration reform that needs the greatest reform,” said Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas), the outgoing chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “That’s why I’ve never really understood that people really believe that this piecemeal thing is going to get us anywhere.”
“Why only half fix the problem? Let’s go ahead and fix the whole thing,” added California Rep. Xavier Becerra, the incoming House Democratic Caucus chairman. “If you’ve got a machine that’s not working well, you’re not going to fix just half of it and have it still not work well, let’s go ahead and fix it right.”
More HERE
House Passes STEM Immigration Reform. Racialists Go Crazy
This week the House of Representatives made a positive move in reforming the US immigration process by passing the STEM Jobs Act sponsored by Lamar Smith (R-TX).
STEM Jobs Act of 2012 – Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make up to 55,000 visas available to qualified immigrants who:
(1) have a doctorate degree in a field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM degree) from a U.S. university;
(2) agree to work for at least five years for the petitioning employer or in the United States in a STEM field upon being lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
(3) have taken all doctoral courses in a STEM field, including all correspondence courses, while physically present in the United States. Makes any such unused visas available to aliens who:
(1) hold a master’s degree in a STEM field from a U.S. university;
(2) agree to work for a total of at least five years for the petitioning employer or in the United States in a STEM field upon being lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
(3) have taken all master’s degree courses in a STEM field, including all correspondence courses, while physically present in the United States; and
(4) hold a baccalaureate degree in a STEM field or in the biological and biomedical sciences.
This act does what our immigration policy should do: ensure a higher level of economic growth in the United States by encouraging the brightest and most talented students in the world to become permanent residents of the United States. It also reduces the wait for the families of the visa recipients to receive residency visas which is now at least two years.
The sponsor of the bill, Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, lauded the bill’s passage.
“Many of the world’s top students come to the U.S. to obtain advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) subjects,” he said in a statement. “We could boost economic growth and spur job creation by allowing American employers to more easily hire some of the most qualified foreign graduates of U.S. universities. These students have the ability to start a company that creates jobs or come up with an invention that could jump-start a whole new industry.”
He also stressed the family component.
“The bill puts families first, allowing the spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents to come to the U.S. after waiting one year for their green cards,” Smith said. “The current green card waiting list is over two years and it has been much longer in the past. This provision will help keep families together rather than leave them miles apart while waiting to legally come to the U.S.”
It also eliminates the grotesque “Diversity Visa” lottery program which divvies up some 55,000 visas each year among applicants from countries that are deemed to have low immigration rates to the United States.
Now the left is all aflutter that yet another source of recruiting for the various ethnic ghettos is endangered.
“It is so disappointing [that] the majority decided to undermine an area of bipartisan agreement on STEM visas by loading up the measure with provisions that are a slap in the face to the core values of the United States,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and one of the Congress’s most vocal proponents for immigration reform policy that would provide undocumented immigrants a path to legalization.
“If you support this bill, you are saying that one group of immigrants is better than another and one type of educated, degree-holding person and their work is more important than anothers,” Gutierrez said. “In order to give visas to those with PhD’s and Masters’ Degrees, Republicans make two demands. First, we take away visas and the only means of legal immigration (most likely) from 50,000 people who may not have PhD’s or Master’s Degrees. Talk about picking winners and losers. My dad, if he had been an immigrant from Ireland or Nigeria or Taiwan would have been told ‘Nope.’ America is not for you. It is like when we used to have signs saying ‘Help wanted, Irish need not apply.’
It doesn’t matter that Luis Gutierrez wouldn’t recognize a core value of the United States if one leapt out of the tall grass and latched onto his butt. This statement reveals the true purpose of the Democrat’s immigration program is not to bring in persons most likely to be productive citizens, rather they are interested in bringing in people who are most likely to become government dependents if not actual wards.
His objection is in equal parts stupid and noxious. The elimination of the diversity visa program will not restrict the ability of people from any area of the world to apply for an visa to immigrate. What it will do is place everyone on the same level playing field by not not bringing in an arbitrary number of people from a few favored countries.
More important, something that Mr. Gutierrez doesn’t seem to understand, is that there is no right to immigrate. Being allowed to live and work in the United States, and to eventually become a citizen, is a privilege granted to relatively few. As a nation we have a responsibility to ensure that we bring in people that have the best chance of supporting themselves and contributing most to the nation. So he is correct that we are choosing winners and losers. The difference being is the winners this bill chooses are people with advanced degrees who speak English and who have progressed by dint of hard work. The winners Mr. Gutierrez and his ilk would choose are people at the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder who have a greater propensity to be the recipients of government largesse and become Democrat voters.
The doggerel written by Emma Lazarus that is now associated with the Statue of Liberty is not now, nor has it ever been, US immigration policy. Lamar Smith’s bill points the way forward in reforming our immigration process and ensuring we invite in potential productive citizens and not act as a receptacle for the most needy and least capable.
SOURCE
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Fifty-seven percent of Mexican immigrants on welfare
A report by the Center for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org) reveals some startling figures about welfare use by families headed by immigrants.
“In 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program (primarily food assistance and Medicaid) compared to 23 percent of native households,” summarizes the document which was published by the Center for Immigration Studies and examines a wide variety of topics relating to immigration. Click HERE to read the full report.
The document breaks down the immigrant families by country of origin and gives specific types of welfare and percentages of the families that used it in 2010. An average fewer than 23 percent of native households use some type of “welfare” which is specifically defined in the study. 36 percent of households headed by immigrants use some type of welfare. Families headed by immigrants from specific countries or areas of the world range from just over 6 percent for those immigrants from Great Britain to more than 57 percent of those from Mexico using some type of welfare.
This comprehensive study suggests there are approximately 40 million immigrants in the United States of which more than a 25 percent of that number, and the largest overall group, originate from Mexico. The study estimates that approximately 28 percent of immigrants, or just over 11 million, are within the United States illegally. The study also suggests that nearly 50 percent of those immigrants originating from Mexico and Central America are here illegally.
This report is very comprehensive and examines various statistics of immigrants currently residing in the United States. Overall, state and federal aid use by immigrant families is much higher than that used by families headed by citizens of the United States.
The large population of immigrants, both legal and illegal in Eastern Washington and even Spokane affects the states budget dramatically.
The approaching fiscal cliff is forcing congress and the current administration to contemplate cuts to services. Welfare use by immigrants, both illegally and legally within the United States, should be thoroughly examined and considered while making cuts.
SOURCE
Immigration rate into Britain sees biggest fall in 20 years following clampdown on language colleges
Immigration into Britain saw the biggest fall in 20 years last year, official figures showed today. There were 536,000 people who came from abroad to live in this country, down by 42,000 in a year.
The drop was the biggest recorded since immigration went down by 61,000 during the recession of 1991 and the numbers coming in were the lowest since 2004, the year that marked the beginning of the arrival of hundreds of thousands of Polish and Eastern European workers.
Ministers hailed the figures as a major step towards achieving the Government’s aim of reducing immigration to the levels of the 1990s.
The key net migration figure - the number of people added to the population after both immigration and emigration have been counted - dropped by nearly a quarter from 242,000 to 183,000 in the latest count, which covers the 12 months up to the end of March.
The main reason for the fall was a dramatic reduction in numbers of migrants arriving on student visas. Students coming in to join courses at further education colleges went down by 67 per cent, those going to English language schools by 76 per cent.
However students going into the high end of the education system, the universities, went up by one per cent.
David Cameron has promised to reduce net immigration to below 100,000 and yesterday’s figures mean he is close to half way towards achieving the goal.
The drop is a relief to Home Secretary Theresa May who has needed evidence to demonstrate to Tory voters that she is meeting success in reducing immigration.
It may help ease pressure on ministers at a time when the effects of rapid increases in population mainly thanks to immigration have been stoking demand for services like water, power, transport and education.
This week Planning Minister Nick Boles called for an increase of a third in the amount of green land being used for development in order to provide enough housing.
Student numbers have come down following new limits on study visas for people living outside the European Union and a crackdown on bogus colleges used as routes to cheat the immigration system.
New methods, such as interviews in which the English language skills of prospective students can be checked, began to be introduced last year.
Numbers of student visas issued were 26 per cent down on the previous year.
There have also been tighter controls on the issue of work visas for low-skilled workers from outside the EU.
Immigration Minister Mark Harper said: ‘This is a significant fall in net migration and the total number of visas issued is at its lowest since 2005. This shows we are bringing immigration back under control. Our tough policies are taking effect and this marks a significant step towards bringing net migration down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament.
‘At the same time, we continue to attract the brightest and best: these figures show that there has been a small increase in the number of sponsored student visa applications for the university sector - and a further increase in student visit visas. It’s clear that international students continue to come to the UK’s world renowned universities.’
Tory Party chairman Grant Shapps said: ‘Conservatives in Government are committed to getting immigration under control. This big fall in net migration show that the tough steps we have taken to reduce the uncontrolled immigration that Labour presided over are working.
‘It beggars belief that Labour still oppose every single one of these steps, including our cap on immigration.’
The results won approval from Migrationwatch, the think tank which has led criticism of high immigration.
Its chairman Sir Andrew Green said: ‘At last we can see some light at the end of the tunnel. We can now see the first effects of the Government’s measures to reduce immigration. There is a distance to go but they are on the right track.’
But Sarah Mulley of the left-leaning think tank, the Institute of Public Policy Research, said: ‘This fall in net migration has been driven by a significant fall in the number of foreign students coming to the UK.
Steps to reduce abuse of the student visa system are welcome, but if the Government’s net migration target is to be met, they also need there to be a dramatic fall in the numbers of genuine foreign students.
The 24 per cent fall in net migration for the 12 months to April followed a recorded fall in the calendar year 2011.
But the 2011 net migration drop, from 252,000 from 210,000, was dismissed by the Office for National Statistics as ‘not statistically significant’ because of the vagaries of the survey used to gather the figures.
This time, Paul Vickers of the ONS said: ‘We think this is a real change.’ Emigration from Britain helped drive down the net migration total.
Some 353,000 people left to live abroad in the year to the end of March, compared with 336,000 in the previous year. The increase was mainly driven by more people taking jobs abroad.
Study was the main reason for immigration, but there was an eight per cent drop in the number of people coming here for formal study, with 213,000 students arriving this year compared to a peak of 232,000 in the year to March 2011.
Home Office figures released yesterday showed that in the 12 months up to the end of September student visas issued went down by 26 per cent, from 284,649, to 210,921.
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.
Fifty-seven percent of Mexican immigrants on welfare
A report by the Center for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org) reveals some startling figures about welfare use by families headed by immigrants.
“In 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program (primarily food assistance and Medicaid) compared to 23 percent of native households,” summarizes the document which was published by the Center for Immigration Studies and examines a wide variety of topics relating to immigration. Click HERE to read the full report.
The document breaks down the immigrant families by country of origin and gives specific types of welfare and percentages of the families that used it in 2010. An average fewer than 23 percent of native households use some type of “welfare” which is specifically defined in the study. 36 percent of households headed by immigrants use some type of welfare. Families headed by immigrants from specific countries or areas of the world range from just over 6 percent for those immigrants from Great Britain to more than 57 percent of those from Mexico using some type of welfare.
This comprehensive study suggests there are approximately 40 million immigrants in the United States of which more than a 25 percent of that number, and the largest overall group, originate from Mexico. The study estimates that approximately 28 percent of immigrants, or just over 11 million, are within the United States illegally. The study also suggests that nearly 50 percent of those immigrants originating from Mexico and Central America are here illegally.
This report is very comprehensive and examines various statistics of immigrants currently residing in the United States. Overall, state and federal aid use by immigrant families is much higher than that used by families headed by citizens of the United States.
The large population of immigrants, both legal and illegal in Eastern Washington and even Spokane affects the states budget dramatically.
The approaching fiscal cliff is forcing congress and the current administration to contemplate cuts to services. Welfare use by immigrants, both illegally and legally within the United States, should be thoroughly examined and considered while making cuts.
SOURCE
Immigration rate into Britain sees biggest fall in 20 years following clampdown on language colleges
Immigration into Britain saw the biggest fall in 20 years last year, official figures showed today. There were 536,000 people who came from abroad to live in this country, down by 42,000 in a year.
The drop was the biggest recorded since immigration went down by 61,000 during the recession of 1991 and the numbers coming in were the lowest since 2004, the year that marked the beginning of the arrival of hundreds of thousands of Polish and Eastern European workers.
Ministers hailed the figures as a major step towards achieving the Government’s aim of reducing immigration to the levels of the 1990s.
The key net migration figure - the number of people added to the population after both immigration and emigration have been counted - dropped by nearly a quarter from 242,000 to 183,000 in the latest count, which covers the 12 months up to the end of March.
The main reason for the fall was a dramatic reduction in numbers of migrants arriving on student visas. Students coming in to join courses at further education colleges went down by 67 per cent, those going to English language schools by 76 per cent.
However students going into the high end of the education system, the universities, went up by one per cent.
David Cameron has promised to reduce net immigration to below 100,000 and yesterday’s figures mean he is close to half way towards achieving the goal.
The drop is a relief to Home Secretary Theresa May who has needed evidence to demonstrate to Tory voters that she is meeting success in reducing immigration.
It may help ease pressure on ministers at a time when the effects of rapid increases in population mainly thanks to immigration have been stoking demand for services like water, power, transport and education.
This week Planning Minister Nick Boles called for an increase of a third in the amount of green land being used for development in order to provide enough housing.
Student numbers have come down following new limits on study visas for people living outside the European Union and a crackdown on bogus colleges used as routes to cheat the immigration system.
New methods, such as interviews in which the English language skills of prospective students can be checked, began to be introduced last year.
Numbers of student visas issued were 26 per cent down on the previous year.
There have also been tighter controls on the issue of work visas for low-skilled workers from outside the EU.
Immigration Minister Mark Harper said: ‘This is a significant fall in net migration and the total number of visas issued is at its lowest since 2005. This shows we are bringing immigration back under control. Our tough policies are taking effect and this marks a significant step towards bringing net migration down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament.
‘At the same time, we continue to attract the brightest and best: these figures show that there has been a small increase in the number of sponsored student visa applications for the university sector - and a further increase in student visit visas. It’s clear that international students continue to come to the UK’s world renowned universities.’
Tory Party chairman Grant Shapps said: ‘Conservatives in Government are committed to getting immigration under control. This big fall in net migration show that the tough steps we have taken to reduce the uncontrolled immigration that Labour presided over are working.
‘It beggars belief that Labour still oppose every single one of these steps, including our cap on immigration.’
The results won approval from Migrationwatch, the think tank which has led criticism of high immigration.
Its chairman Sir Andrew Green said: ‘At last we can see some light at the end of the tunnel. We can now see the first effects of the Government’s measures to reduce immigration. There is a distance to go but they are on the right track.’
But Sarah Mulley of the left-leaning think tank, the Institute of Public Policy Research, said: ‘This fall in net migration has been driven by a significant fall in the number of foreign students coming to the UK.
Steps to reduce abuse of the student visa system are welcome, but if the Government’s net migration target is to be met, they also need there to be a dramatic fall in the numbers of genuine foreign students.
The 24 per cent fall in net migration for the 12 months to April followed a recorded fall in the calendar year 2011.
But the 2011 net migration drop, from 252,000 from 210,000, was dismissed by the Office for National Statistics as ‘not statistically significant’ because of the vagaries of the survey used to gather the figures.
This time, Paul Vickers of the ONS said: ‘We think this is a real change.’ Emigration from Britain helped drive down the net migration total.
Some 353,000 people left to live abroad in the year to the end of March, compared with 336,000 in the previous year. The increase was mainly driven by more people taking jobs abroad.
Study was the main reason for immigration, but there was an eight per cent drop in the number of people coming here for formal study, with 213,000 students arriving this year compared to a peak of 232,000 in the year to March 2011.
Home Office figures released yesterday showed that in the 12 months up to the end of September student visas issued went down by 26 per cent, from 284,649, to 210,921.
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.