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



29 February, 2008

Tougher British system now up

Employers who hire illegal immigrants can be fined 10,000 pounds per worker from today in cases involving negligence, compared with previous figure of 5,000. If the employer acts knowingly the penalty could be an unlimited fine or jail. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, described the moves, which include a points-based immigration system for people from outside the European Union, as "the biggest changes to British immigration policy in a generation".

Highly skilled migrants who wish to extend their stay will have to have suitable employment. The points-based system will be tested for highly skilled migrants applying from India in April, and extended to the rest of the world by the summer. The system will then be extended to skilled workers with a job offer, students, and temporary workers. A tier for low-skilled workers is not planned while vacancies can be filled by migrants from Eastern Europe.

The system puts in question the scheme under which Commonweatlh citizens with a British grandparent are allowed to settle in this country. The Labour MP Austin Mitchell said that any proposal to scrap "ancestral visas" would cause anger.

Source



Top Democrats trying to block the SAVE bill

("Secure America through Verification and Enforcement")

For months, leading Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chief Rahm Emanuel have tried to talk tough on illegal immigration. Mr. Emanuel told The Washington Post last year that immigration is "the third rail of American politics," adding that "anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people," earning himself angry denunciations from the far-left fringe. Last month, Mrs. Pelosi joined House Minority Leader John Boehner in announcing that the House-passed economic stimulus bill would "not allow any taxpayer funds to be distributed to illegals." The Democratic leadership's efforts to sound tough on illegal immigration have created serious friction with some members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which believes the Democratic leadership is too timid about pushing for amnesty legislation.

If senior Democrats were really serious about a get-tough approach toward illegal immigration, we would be urging the Republican minority to reach across the aisle and work with the Democratic leadership to come up with a genuine bipartisan solution. But unfortunately, the Democrats are putting together an elaborate con job: using tough-sounding rhetoric while working behind the scenes with open-borders advocates in the business community to win support from firms that have become very dependent on cheap foreign labor. The goal of these Democrats - and possibly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well - is to defeat a bipartisan bill that takes a no-amnesty, enforcement-oriented approach to illegal immigration. Specifically, they are very worried about the fact that a growing number of moderate and conservative Republicans and Democrats (and even a few liberals) are cosponsoring the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, H.R. 4088, introduced by Rep. Heath Shuler, North Carolina Democrat.

The SAVE Act is an omnibus bill that would strengthen border security and require that employers verify that their workers are legally present in the United States. Forty-seven Democrats and 89 Republicans are cosponsoring the Shuler bill, which is currently bottled up in the House Judiciary Committee, where liberals like Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat and chairwoman of the Immigration Subcommittee, will work to ensure that it stays there. Cosponsors range from conservative Republicans like Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colorado); Rep. Brian Bilbray (California), chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus; and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (California) to moderate and liberal Democrats like Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado, Reps. Sanford Bishop of Georgia and Artur Davis of Alabama (both members of the Congressional Black Caucus); and Rep. Ciro Rodriguez of Texas, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Right now, Republican supporters of H.R. 4088 are circulating a discharge petition in an effort to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote. They need 218 members' signatures, meaning that at least 20 Democrats would have to take the supreme act of rebellion: directly defying Mrs. Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and the rest of the party leadership to bring to a vote legislation that the leadership wants no part of. Senior Democrats, worried that they may not be able to keep the bill tied up in committee, have come up with a Plan B - muddling the issue by attaching a killer amendment to the Shuler bill, which would come in the form of an amendment proposed by Rep. Joe Baca, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

The Baca Amendment would give illegal aliens who pass a background check a "five-year temporary worker permit" that expires on Dec. 31, 2012. It would also provide employers who hired illegal aliens "safe harbor" (apparently some measure of immunity from prosecution) for past hiring of illegal aliens. If Mr. Shuler gets enough signatures to force his bill to the floor to be debated, Democrats hope to neuter it by attaching the Baca Amendment. If Mr. Baca's proposal were to become law, open-borders advocates could come back later and pass legislation putting these illegals on a path to citizenship. While not endorsing the Baca Amendment, a senior official with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told Congressional Quarterly that he believed there was "some kind of deal in the works."

Fortunately, not everyone in the business community is pushing for amnesty. The National Federation of Independent Business, a leading group representing small businesses, has endorsed Mr. Shuler's bill as drafted. "I can't believe the leadership would be able to get any benefit from that," Mr. Bilbray says of Mrs. Pelosi's efforts to derail the SAVE Act with amnesty legislation. "What happened last summer," with the defeat of the Senate amnesty bill, "should be a warning," he told The Washington Times.

Source





28 February, 2008

The barely sane U.S. immigration bureaucracy again

It seems counterintuitive. The government pulls people suspected of being here illegally out of airplane lines and then pays to detain, prosecute and deport them to the country they were headed to in the first place. Public defenders say it's a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money. "What's silly about this is that they are on their way home. They have gotten the message that they shouldn't be here," said Houston's Federal Public Defender Marjorie Meyers. "It's not cost-effective."

Not true, says Houston's U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle. The people they are prosecuting are repeat violators of U.S. immigration laws and it's not only necessary, but also efficient, to stop them and prosecute them, he said. "We had already expended some time, effort and money before to institute deportation," DeGabrielle said. To allow them to come back into the country without proper permission and then just let them leave would minimize what the government is trying to accomplish, he said. "We feel it's definitely worth the resources to hold these people accountable," DeGabrielle said.

It's not the number of people who've been detained and prosecuted that has public defenders most concerned. The numbers have been relatively small. But a trend could be developing: five cases since July, four in the past three months. All five had been deported previously, had no criminal convictions and were stopped and detained by Customs and Border Protection officials at Bush Intercontinental Airport while trying to board planes to leave the country. The four men and one woman were heading south - to Mexico, Honduras or El Salvador. All were accused of the felony of re-entering the United States illegally after their prior deportation. A felony record will make it difficult for them to ever get legal permission to come back to this country. DeGabrielle said there is no new policy, and the cluster of people stopped while leaving the country, at least four of them just flying through Houston making a connection, is a coincidence. His office is not convinced they were leaving the country for good, he said, since all have come back without permission before.

Generally, the suspects are detained first at the airport, then brought downtown into custody of the U.S. Marshals Service. They then plead guilty to having entered the country illegally and are sentenced to time served, then deported at government expense, the lawyers involved said. The biggest cost to taxpayers is the detention, which a Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman said averages $66.96 a day nationwide. They are held for two to three months, so that cost would be roughly $4,000 to $6,000. Added to that is the cost of deportation - a bus trip to the border for Mexico, a plane ride for other countries. And then there is a portion of the salaries of the government lawyers and the court personnel involved, plus court costs.

In the earliest case noticed by the public defenders in Houston in July, Freddy Navarro-Doblado was accompanied by a California police officer who had planned to take him all the way to Honduras. Instead, Navarro-Doblado was taken into custody in Houston.

The other four cases were in December and January. "It's a Catch-22 for these people. They can't leave the country to make it right," said Michael Herman, an assistant federal public defender who's handling some of the cases. "They are self-deporting, but they wind up in shackles and chains when these people have ... heeded the cry of the public for them to leave."

One defendant was sentenced this month by U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas. Hector Manuel Palafox-Acevedo, 29, pleaded guilty to the felony of entering the United States without proper documentation and was sentenced to the two months he has already served in detention. He will now be deported to Mexico, where he was heading when he was stopped as he tried to board a plane Dec. 12. Herman defended Palafox-Acevedo in court and said he was heading to his hometown on a one-way ticket to Mexico to get married to his fiancee, a U.S. citizen, and work to get proper papers to come back to the United States legally. He said Palafox-Acevedo has been here since he was 14, working as a machine operator and migrant worker and recently helping his fiancee raise her children.

Palafox-Acevedo, a slight man wearing detention center khakis, cried as he told the judge on Feb. 11 he would not come back to the United States again. "The only thing I want is to go back," Palafox-Acevedo told the judge tearfully through a court interpreter. "I am afraid of going back to jail." But as prosecutor Bert Isaacs noted, Palafox-Acevedo has been deported without a felony conviction three times: in 2002, 2006 and 2007. Isaacs asked the judge to hold Palafox-Acevedo longer while a full background check was done. "I don't know whether Mr. Palafox-Acevedo has gotten the message or not," Isaacs told the judge, when asking for the maximum penalty of six months in prison, given all the sentencing factors in the case. But the judge said it would not be a good use of resources to do a further background check since Palafox-Acevedo had already been vetted.

Kelly Klundt, a spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Washington, D.C., said the agency checks passenger lists to find people who have broken the law, which has helped stop a child abduction and find large amounts of currency and drugs. "We have an obligation and the authority to intercept them," Klundt said. She said she hasn't been asked about these kinds of detentions and prosecutions anywhere but Houston, and that it is the prosecutors' decision whether to see the cases through.

Source



Democrats bring the politics of fraud to immigration "reform"

For months, leading Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chief Rahm Emanuel have tried to talk tough on illegal immigrationIllegal-Immigration-Ruling Dec-07 . Mr. Emanuel told The Washington Post last year that immigration is "the third rail of American politics," adding that "anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people," earning himself angry denunciations from the far-left fringe. Last month, Mrs. Pelosi joined House Minority Leader John Boehner in announcing that the House-passed economic stimulus bill would "not allow any taxpayer funds to be distributed to illegals." The Democratic leadership's efforts to sound tough on illegal immigration have created serious friction with some members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which believes the Democratic leadership is too timid about pushing for amnesty legislation.

If senior Democrats were really serious about a get-tough approach toward illegal immigration, we would be urging the Republican minority to reach across the aisle and work with the Democratic leadership to come up with a genuine bipartisan solution. But unfortunately, the Democrats are putting together an elaborate con job: using tough-sounding rhetoric while working behind the scenes with open-borders advocates in the business community to win support from from firms that have become very dependent on cheap foreign labor. The goal of these Democrats - and possibly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well - is to defeat a bipartisan bill that takes a no-amnesty, enforcement-oriented approach to illegal immigration. Specifically, they are very worried about the fact that a growing number of moderate and conservative Republicans and Democrats (and even a few liberals) are cosponsoring the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, H.R. 4088, introduced by Rep. Heath Shuler, North Carolina Democrat.....

Right now, Republican supporters of H.R. 4088 are circulating a discharge petition in an effort to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote. They need 218 members' signatures, meaning that at least 20 Democrats would have to take the supreme act of rebellion: directly defying Mrs. Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and the rest of the party leadership to bring to a vote legislation that the leadership wants no part of. Senior Democrats, worried that they may not be able to keep the bill tied up in committee, have come up with a Plan B - muddling the issue by attaching a killer amendment to the Shuler bill, which would come in the form of an amendment proposed by Rep. Joe Baca, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

The Baca Amendment would give illegal aliens who pass a background check a "five-year temporary worker permit" that expires on Dec. 31, 2012. It would also provide employers who hired illegal aliens "safe harbor" (apparently some measure of immunity from prosecution) for past hiring of illegal aliens. If Mr. Shuler gets enough signatures to force his bill to the floor to be debated, Democrats hope to neuter it by attaching the Baca Amendment. If Mr. Baca's proposal were to become law, open-borders advocates could come back later and pass legislation putting these illegals on a path to citizenship. While not endorsing the Baca Amendment, a senior official with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told Congressional Quarterly that he believed there was "some kind of deal in the works." ....

When it comes to immigration, the Democrat House leadership is not to be trusted. They are creating a track record to run against. They are also creating an opportunity for Republicans to work with some Democrats on bipartisan ways to thwart liberalism.

Source





27 February, 2008

Immigrants incarcerated less frequently

When I saw the headline above, I thought: Aha! This is the usual Leftist attempt to deceive by ignoring facts that do not suit. It is true that illegals do not have particularly high crime rates overall. BUT THEIR CHILDREN DO. So I was pleased to see that mentioned. I have highlighted in red why immigrant crime is low. But the kids are citizens so they do not have such incentives.

Note also that the report is about immigrants IN GENERAL. Very few illegal immigrants may have been included. Failure to note that explicitly was the real deception in the article. Do you think that illegal and legal immigrants might be kinda different?

Note also that even though the crime rate among illegals may not be high as a percentage, there are still a lot of criminal illegals so effective immigration law enforcement would still significantly reduce the number of crooks in the country.

Countering a widespread belief, a new report shows California's foreign-born population -- including illegal immigrants -- makes up only a sliver of the state's population of inmates. The report released Monday by the Public Policy Institute of California also suggests that the foreign-born population, which makes up more than a third of the state's adults, plays a disproportionately smaller role in serious crime. "Crime, Corrections, and California: What Does Immigration Have to Do with It?" gives one of the clearest glimpses yet into the effect of immigrants and immigration on the state's justice system. It also aims to dispel the perception that cities with large foreign-born populations are criminal hot beds, with several California cities showing a dip in police activity amid recent immigration waves.

But while the findings are surprising, they do not account for a complete relationship between immigration and crime. The report did not, for example, examine petty crimes such as shoplifting and vandalism, which would not necessarily result in jail time. The findings also do not take into consideration the effect that immigrants' children might have on crime.

Kristin Butcher, one of the report's co-authors, said the low rate of incarceration could be linked to U.S. immigration policies, which call for carefully weeding through visa applicants and deporting illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes such as gang involvement and murder. "The type of people who are immigrating are less likely to commit crimes because they're here for jobs," said Butcher, a professor at Wellesley College and a fellow for the nonpartisan policy research group.

The report underscores what Salvador Bustamante has been telling people for several years about the foreign-born population -- and illegal immigrants in particular. "A lot of people have painted immigrants as the criminal element in our society, and that isn't the case," said Bustamante, Northern California director of Strengthening Our Lives, a statewide nonprofit group that works to empower immigrants. He said immigrants come to the United States to work, often trying to stay under the radar of authorities and away from criminal activity to avoid deportation. "The more we can do to dispel the myths that have been created about immigrants will help with immigrant rights and immigration reform," he said.

The findings do not sit well with Bill Cole, an advocate for more stringent laws to make sure illegal immigrants who commit crimes are deported. Bill Cole's ex-wife, Sara, was hit by drunk driver Lucio Rodriguez -- an illegal immigrant previously convicted of driving drunk --in September, nearly severing her legs. Rodriguez has since pleaded guilty to drunk driving charges. "What we're trying to do is make the community safer," Bill Cole said.

The institute obtained its findings by examining the state's foreign-born population, which includes anyone born outside the United States, regardless of their naturalization status, Butcher said. It then focused on men ages 18 to 40 in jails, institutions and state prisons, drawing comparisons with their U.S.-born counterparts using California Census data.

Source



Courts unable to keep up with border arrests

The government has started cracking down on illegal border crossers in the Tucson Sector. But limited resources in Arizona's federal-court system are blocking the goal of prosecuting everyone who enters the country illegally.

The Border Patrol has referred 757 cases to authorities since the government began prosecuting illegal crossers in the Tucson area on Jan. 14. Up to 42 are prosecuted daily, and there are plans to prosecute up to 100 cases a day in the busiest human-smuggling area on the border. But federal courts in Tucson can hold only 60 immigration defendants a day, and even if they could handle the 100-a-day workload, that amounts to prosecuting only 10 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol.

Still, officials expect the threat of prosecution and prison time to deter illegal crossers. The Operation Streamline policy, which has proved effective in the Yuma Sector and two parts of Texas, involves filing charges against nearly everyone caught crossing the border illegally.

Mexican authorities confirm that illegal immigrants have been deterred from crossing into the Yuma Sector by the prospect of spending two weeks to six months in prison for the misdemeanor crime. Historically, illegal immigrants have immediately been shipped back to Mexico if they did not have criminal records. Foreign criminals are deported after serving their prison sentences. And if they are caught re-entering illegally again, they are charged with felonies, which can carry sentences up to five years.

Demand on courts

The U.S. District Court of Arizona is the nation's busiest, presiding Chief Judge John M. Roll said. He said judges in his district sentence 500 felons a year, compared with a national average of 90. His office has asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to lend magistrates. U.S. Magistrate Glenda Edmonds said she and her colleagues in Tucson typically handle half a dozen pretrial hearings a day. To meet the demand of the new flux of immigration cases, one magistrate takes them all for a week in a rotation system. "If we get to the point where we get to 100 cases a day in this building, we will need at least one more magistrate," Edmonds said.

Lawyers are also in short supply. The Department of Homeland Security has lent the U.S. Attorney's Office four lawyers to help prosecute the new immigration cases. First Assistant Federal Public Defender Heather Williams said there are only 32 panel lawyers who are willing to handle Streamline cases on a contract fee from the government. The court may increase the maximum caseload per lawyer or assign a public defender exclusively to immigration cases, Williams said, concluding that her office "will be able to handle fewer criminal cases."

Operation Streamline was created to deter illegal immigration. The Yuma Sector saw a 70 percent drop in arrests last year at a time arrests borderwide fell 20 percent. The policy was credited, along with extra border agents and improved fencing. Yet even in the Yuma Sector, where the Border Patrol arrests one-tenth of those arrested in the Tucson Sector, authorities have been unable to prosecute everyone. The Border Patrol has referred 1,511 immigrants for prosecution since the program was extended to the entire sector in the fall. It made 4,066 arrests. Courtroom holding space is a limiting factor in Yuma, too. Judges say they can handle up to 75 prosecutions a day, but because of space constraints, only 30 cases can be sent.

In the Tucson Sector, the Border Patrol has no immediate plans to phase in more than 100 prosecutions daily. That means at its peak, only one in 10 of those arrested can be prosecuted.

Still, Deputy Chief Robert Boatright said the clampdown is having results. He said that, in the 15-mile target area where the program was launched, a 79 percent recidivism rate has plummeted to 46 percent. Elsewhere in the Tucson Sector, immigrants re-enter 80 to 92 percent of the time. "We've been able to gain control of that area, maintain control of that area and widen out that area," Boatright said.

Tucson Sector agents arrested 11 percent fewer border crossers in January than they did a year earlier, although many believe this has as much to do with a slowing U.S. economy and Arizona's strict employer-sanctions law.

Boatright said even a 10 percent risk of being imprisoned appears too great for many immigrants. "I've talked to detainees, and they say it's just not worth it to them," said Ray Kondo, assistant chief in Arizona for the U.S. Marshal Service, which transports and houses the prisoners.

Effect on prisons

With federal detentions taking in the extra misdemeanor-immigration convicts, some prison-reform watchdogs worry that the prisons will run out of bed space and create a demand for more prisons or a crunch to release other criminals early. Kondo said that won't happen because once prosecutions reach their quota, people will be deported as fast as they are convicted. Even if Arizona's prisons get overloaded, federal prisoners can, and routinely do, get transferred to facilities throughout the country.

Reformists such as Judy Greene of Justice Strategies are unconvinced, knowing the government faces a million border crossers a year. "This looks tough but accomplishes very little. It will increase pressure for expanding the detention systems," she said. "It's going to cost a lot of money and drain resources from more important cases."

Two weeks ago, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Tucson Democrat, met for the fourth time with judges and federal agents about Streamline. Her spokesman, C.J. Karamargin, said Giffords supports the stronger enforcement and has been advised that it has worked elsewhere, but Giffords shares concerns about the drain on resources for the criminal-justice system. "Those concerns are valid," Karamargin said, "She wants these federal agencies to have the resources but doesn't want them wasted on something ineffective

Source





26 February, 2008

Stupid British immigration bureaucracy -- and "caring" Leftist politicians

"I'd have more chance of being allowed to stay and care for my frail mother if I was a foreign criminal"

All Deborah Phillips wants to do is care for her increasingly frail 80-year-old mother. She has no intention of claiming benefits and would save the taxpayer the cost of helping to look after another elderly woman. But because Miss Phillips was born in the United States, moving to England when she was three, she has been refused permission to stay and must leave the country with her seven-year-old daughter Alexandra by the end of April. When that happens her English mother Betty Phillips will be left alone.

Despite huge support from her local community and the backing of her MP, Immigration Minister Liam Byrne has rejected her request for residency.

Miss Phillips, 48, believes she would have a better chance of avoiding deportation if she was a foreign criminal or terror suspect facing the risk of persecution back home. She said: "Some of these people stay here with the help of human rights laws. What about the human rights of my English mother and her right to a family life? "Sometimes I feel like a criminal. I'm just a very soft target because I am doing everything by the rules. It is annoying because terrorist suspects are treated better and allowed to live here. I don't see the logic in that. We are not costing the Government a penny." Miss Phillips, who lives with her mother in Cottingham, near Hull, has a U.S. Navy pension and works part-time as a volunteer teaching assistant.

"We are not a burden on this Government nor are we criminals. I just want to be able to look after my mum. Once the Home Office gets rid of us, they will never let us back in. Then what would happen to this 80-year-old woman?"

Her mother lost her husband Phil, 77, who suffered from Alzheimer's, in May 2005. She has had two small strokes and suffers from arthritis, heart trouble and hypertension. She is also prone to stress and anxiety. Miss Phillips, who has been turned down four times for permission to live permanently in this country, insists her mother is too frail to take to the U.S. Her mother, a former teacher, is English and her late father was American.

Miss Phillips came here as a small child in 1963 when her father retired from the U.S. Navy. She speaks with an English accent, went to school and college in Hull and lived here until she too joined the U.S. Navy at 21 and went to sea. After leaving the Navy and working in the U.S. she decided to join her family in Yorkshire. Miss Phillips, whose brother David, 45, is a businessman in Kentucky, wanted to return to care for her parents and made the move in December 2003. "I always knew I could come back to England one day because this is my home," she said. "My parents needed looking after. I never knew it would cause this bother."

The divorcee misses out on automatic citizenship by 15 months after a rule change in 2003. Children born abroad to a British mother and foreign father after February 7, 1961, and before January 1, 1983, can now become British citizens through the maternal line. Miss Phillips missed out because she was born on November 5, 1959.

She first applied for residency in August 2005 but hit a mountain of red tape. In May 2006, Miss Phillips - and her daughter - were forced to leave Britain but returned in June last year aboard a U.S. military cargo plane after her mother's health deteriorated. "But I made no secret of what I was doing and applied again for permission to stay," she said. "Again I've been turned down."

The latest refusal from the Home Office gives one reason as "she (her mother) may also rely on friends and neighbours to some degree to alleviate her sense of loneliness and isolation". Miss Phillips said: "The day after receiving the notice one of mum's neighbours, they are all OAPs, was taken away in an ambulance. The Home Office doesn't even know who my mum's neighbours are."

Tory MP David Davis, who represents Haltemprice and Howden in East Yorkshire, said: "This decision is a disgrace when somebody born to a British woman is being threatened with deportation at a time when the Government cannot even deport foreign criminals. "This woman wants to stay in this country to care for her elderly mother and is actually saving the state money and making a positive contribution to society."

Source



Immigration Officials Identify Killer Driver in Bus Crash

Looks like she's an illegal

Immigration officials have identified the driver of the van involved in the school bus crash that killed 4 children in southwestern Minnesota last week. 24-year-old Olga Marina Franco, of Guatemala, was the driver of the van. The woman first gave investigators the name Alianiss Nunez Morales told them she was from Mexico.

ICE agents first interviewed Franco Feb. 21 and developed probable cause that she is in the United States illegally and that she is not using her true identity, the agency said in a statement. During that interview Franco told ICE agents that she was from Mexico. ICE agents ran Franco’s fingerprints through its databases and found no match, which indicates that she had no prior contact with immigration officials. "The only name we have for her is the name she gave us when she was booked," Claude Arnold, ICE special agent in charge of investigations, said last week.

Authorities in Lyon County have charged her with four counts of criminal vehicular homicide. She's also charged with running a stop sign and driving without a license. ICE has placed a detainer on Franco, so if she is released from the county’s custody for any reason, she will be turned over to ICE and placed in deportation proceedings. Franco did not have a Minnesota driver's license, and "she doesn't have a (driver's license) anywhere that we're aware of," said Lt. Mark Peterson of the Minnesota State Patrol.

LAST WEEK

A criminal complaint released Friday detailed the four criminal vehicular homicide charges against Franco. According the the complaint, Alianiss Nunez Morales, 23, of Minneota, Minn. (the name given to investigators at the time) was driving a van that ran a stop sign before hitting a bus carrying 28 students from Lakeview School. Morales was also charged with a stop sign violation and for driving without a valid license.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT DETAILS

According to the criminal complaint, Morales was driving a 1998 Plymouth Voyager without a valid drivers’ license, failed to stop for a stop sign and struck the school, bus resulting in the deaths, of Reed Stevens, Emilee Olson and brothers Hunter and Jesse Javens.

In an interview with a State Trooper, bus driver Dennis Devereaux said he noticed the minivan going “pretty fast” and said he didn’t think it would be able to stop at the stop sign.

Devereaux said it looked like the van went airborne as it crossed the railroad tracks before the intersection and he didn’t have time to brake or accelerate. He hoped he would make it past the Highway 24 intersection but the minivan hit the bus near the back sending it into a spin before it fell to its side. According to the criminal complaint, several other drivers who witnessed the crash told troopers the van was moving at high speeds and saw it hit the side of the bus.....

The school bus was carrying 28 students. Cottonwood Fire Chief Dale Louluagie confirmed that 3 fatalities of the crash died immediately upon impact and the fourth victim died around 8 p.m. Tuesday night....

Source





25 February, 2008

The 'Virtual Fence' Has Its Limits

Homeland Security confirms that Boeing's 28-mile prototype of electronic border surveillance will not be expanded

The major Presidential candidates talked up its innovative approach to securing the U.S.-Mexico border. Aerospace and defense giant Boeing, along with dozens of subcontractors, anticipated that it would give them a lucrative foothold in future government work worth billions of dollars. And fervent advocates of stronger obstacles to illegal immigration hoped the U.S. had finally found a more affordable way to fortify its southwest border than building hundreds of miles of physical barriers.

But Homeland Security Dept. officials have decided that an experimental 28-mile "virtual fence" meant to extend the U.S. Border Patrol's eyes and ears along the U.S.-Mexico border-a web of radar, infrared cameras, ground sensors, and airborne drones-won't be copied anywhere else in its entirety. The project was plagued with design, software, and other glitches; had fallen months behind schedule; and sometimes proved inoperable. The government agreed to pay Boeing almost the full $20 million for successful completion of the prototype endeavor just south of Tucson, known as Project 28. But in choosing not to expand the project, Homeland Security officials are dashing expectations and causing embarrassment from Capitol Hill to the campaign trail.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff acknowledged on Feb. 22 that the government would use only some "elements of P28" in other locations. The virtual fence and its components, he said, are "not a standalone strategy." More traditional ground-based radar and airborne surveillance drones will be deployed in some places. Chertoff said Boeing deserved payment because "all of the defects" in the prototype project were either "cured" or "immaterial." Boeing agreed to give the government a $2 million discount on future work and said it has spent more than twice the award amount developing and remedying Project 28.

A Boeing spokesman said the company has proved the virtual fence concept works. And the government has agreed to pay Boeing an additional $64 million to develop a "common operating picture" software system for Border Patrol agents in vehicles and command centers.

Still, critics contend the government didn't get what it paid for with Project 28. The Government Accountability Office has said the project suffered from insufficient government monitoring and direction. While acquainted with operating war-fighting systems, Boeing knew little about border patrol realities. "The poorly structured contract that prevented the line Border Patrol agents from pointing out obvious flaws and caused an overreliance on contractors has resulted in a system that has been described as providing 'marginal' functionality at best," says Representative Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Authorities remain determined to build better barriers, both physical and high tech. But even the most futuristic border scenarios are widely viewed among specialists in immigration and enforcement as likely to fail without more comprehensive approaches (BusinessWeek, 2/7/08) to immigration reform or stepped-up workplace enforcement, penalties for employers, and more reliable tools to verify an employee's work status.

But that hasn't stopped the major candidates from trumpeting the promise of high-tech solutions. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) did so during their Feb. 21 debate in Texas. Immigration will be a significant issue for Texas voters in a Mar. 4 primary. Both Democrats have voted in favor of hundreds of miles of physical fencing along the Mexico border. In the Austin debate, however, both emphasized the kind of innovation that Project 28 represented. "Let's deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier," said Clinton. "I frankly think that will work better." Obama concurred. "There may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing," he said. "But for the most part, having Border Patrol, surveillance, [and] deploying effective technology-that's going to be the better approach." Likewise, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), once a prime architect of comprehensive immigration reform, has for weeks urged securing the border first through a mix of physical and technological barriers.

The allure of a technology fix is understandable, given what federal agents are up against. Along nearly 2,000 miles of scorching desert, steep canyons, winding rivers, and urban mazes, they routinely strive for the unattainable-to stop the flow of people so desperate for better lives that they will climb, run, swim, tunnel, bribe, and even hide in car undercarriages to get into the U.S. The number of Border Patrol agents has almost doubled since 2000, to 14,900, supplemented now by up to 3,000 National Guard troops. Still, migrants continue to cross. And they'll continue to come, as long as Mexico's per capita income remains one-fifth that of the U.S. and employers in El Norte continue to welcome them.

The government has been extending barriers for more than a decade, and there was much talk of technological solutions even during the administration of Clinton's husband, President Bill Clinton. As of Feb. 23, the government has built 302 miles of physical fence. The effort has taken 15 years.

The Bush Administration, meanwhile, is extending a crackdown on some illegal immigration. Federal contractors soon must participate in "E-Verify," a system now used by 53,000 employers to confirm employees' work status. And starting the week of Mar. 1, federal fines imposed on employers who hire undocumented migrants-$2,200 for first offense, and up to $10,000 after that-will rise by 25%.

Source



Black groups don't like Britain's new rules

A new immigration proposal announced recently to increase citizenship fees and landing charges for visa holders arriving in the United Kingdom (UK) has left Caribbean nationals and non-European residents in Britain worried. One of their major fears is that thousands of persons who have been living and working in the UK for decades might receive little or no social security benefits. The Sunday Gleaner has learnt that already, some lobby groups, including the Jamaica diaspora and Facilitator for a Better Jamaica (FFBJ), are examining the proposal and other immigration developments to make an appropriate response and representation.

Under the new immigration proposal, immigrants arriving in Britain will be required to pay an extra 20 pounds landing charge on top of their visa fees. Naturalisation fees attract over 700 pounds, while it costs 75 pounds for a British passport. At the same time, there is widespread speculation that there will be additional increases in immigration fees at the start of the financial year in April.

The extra charge is slated to fund schools, hospitals and other social services said to be under stress from an influx of migrants mainly from countries of the European Union. The British government is expected to rake in 15 million a year from the levy.

At the same time, social benefits in Britain are to be linked with citizenship and those who have been denied British passports will lose a wide range of welfare services, including child benefits, housing benefits and income support. Prisoners who serve time in Britain will automatically lose their rights to British citizenship and the benefits it offers.

Founder of Facilitators for a Better Jamaica (FFBJ) Sylbourne Sydial said his concern was not one of alarm, but one of unease as the new measures being implemented were a "smack in the face of multiculturalism and a shift from the Commonwealth." "Since the formation of the FFBJ's home office consultation team," he said, "we have seen that these different and new proposals - in the form of increase in fees, reduction in vacation period, 20 pounds landing charges and the many changes in the immigration rules - show very clearly that there is a shift in UK policy towards former Commonwealth nations of which Jamaica is a part."

While a number of Jamaicans and other West Indian nations with whom The Sunday Gleaner spoke are seeking to speed up the process of acquiring citizenship, Jamaican-born journalist, Luke Williams, believes the long-term impact on Jamaica and the Caribbean will be devastating. "What is happening is demoralising and is exploitation in many forms including financial and brain drain. It's a double-whammy: They (the British Government) are getting extra money from the high fees and putting pressure on those not considered the best, as well as getting rid of those they do not want," he said. [That's a bad idea??]

A Jamaican-trained medical doctor (Dr Brown) at the Greater Almond Street [Ormond St?] Hospital in Central London noted that many West Indian doctors are now looking alternative places to practise their skills. "Many are looking at places like the US and Canada. Some may even return home as the European Union has opened up and there is an influx of doctors," she said.

Source





23 February, 2008

Feds to Raise Fines for Hiring Illegals

The government will raise by 25 percent the fines it levies against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, officials said Friday. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the increase, which is the first boost in fines in nearly a decade.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency responsible for investigating illegal hirings, has stepped up its enforcement of the employer sanctions law in the past year, leading to a dozen major busts. Currently, fines range from $275 to $11,000 depending on the offense. The agency says some penalties could include at least six months in jail.

Between Oct. 1, 2006 and Sept. 30, 2007, ICE fined employers more than $30 million for violating immigration laws. ICE arrested 92 employers and 771 employees. The agency also began deportation proceedings for more than 4,000 people who were working in the country illegally.

Source



Obama, Clinton would consider suspending immigration raids

During a Democratic presidential debate in Austin, Texas, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said they would consider suspending work site immigration raids until Congress passes an immigration overhaul which includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Clinton said she would request such legislation in the first 100 days of her administration. "When we see what's been happening, with literally babies being left with no one to take care of them, children coming home from school, no responsible adult left, that is not the America that I know," Clinton said.

Other immigration highlights from the debate:

Clinton: "We need a path to legalization, to bring the immigrants out of the shadows, give them the conditions that we expect them to meet, paying a fine for coming here illegally, trying to pay back taxes, over time, and learning English. If they had a committed a crime in our country or the country they came from, then they should be deported. But for everyone else, there must be a path to legalization."

Obama: "It is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric when it comes to the immigration debate, because there has been an undertone that has been ugly. Oftentimes, it has been directed at the Hispanic community. We have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate.and that is unacceptable."

Obama on the border fence: "There may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. But for the most part, having border patrolled, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach."

Source





22 February, 2008

Foreign brides who plan to live in Britain 'must speak English'

Thousands of foreigners who want to marry a British person and move to Britain will have to take an English language test, the Prime Minister announced yesterday. Gordon Brown said that the test would help to prevent foreign brides being exploited. He made his surprise announcement only five hours after a Home Office Green Paper on overhauling citizenship rules said that consultations on English tests for foreigners were continuing.

The Prime Minister said in a speech in North London: "We will introduce a new English language requirement for those applying for a marriage visa and planning to settle in the UK - both as part of our determination that everyone who comes here to live should be able to speak English and to make sure that they cannot be exploited."

The English language test will apply to tens of thousands of spouses, particularly those from the Indian sub-continent. A total of 47,000 spouses and fianc‚es, including 17,000 from the sub-continent, were admitted to the UK in 2006. Ministers have for some time been concerned that some of those arriving from the sub-continent have no knowledge of English, are vulnerable to exploitation and cannot get access to the job market. It was unclear last night whether failure to pass the English language test would lead to outright refusal to come to Britain or whether a temporary visa would be granted.

Mr Brown's announcement came after proposals to reform citizenship rules under which migrants who want a British passport or to settle permanently in the country will have to undergo a probationary period of up to three years. Foreigners will be expected to leave the country if they fail to take citizenship or apply to settle permanently, as the Government seeks to end the situation where migrants "languish in limbo" having been allowed to stay. The Government is also considering ending the "ancestral visa" scheme under which Commonwealth citizens aged over 17 with a British grandparent are allowed to enter Britain to seek work and settle. [That would be very offensive to Australians. The Australian government has in the past retaliated against British restrictions on Australians by introducing similar restrictions on Brits] A scheme under which retired migrants with an annual income of at least 25,000 pounds are allowed to enter Britain, receive free healthcare and then settle may also be scrapped.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, made clear that she expected the number of new citizens - more than 1.1 million since Labour came to power 1997 - to increase as a result of the overhaul of citizenship rules. She said: "I would want to see a larger proportion of those that are here moving to full British citizenship. You will not be able to languish in limbo. Once your period of temporary residence comes to an end you will need to apply for the next stage or leave."

Gaining citizenship will take at least six years from arrival in the UK instead of the current five years, and could take as long as eight years. The probation period will last a year if the foreigner takes part in community activities such as charity fundraising, running a sports group or other voluntary work. Migrants who undertake no community or voluntary work will have to wait the existing five years plus a minimum three years on probation. Full access to non-contributory benefits will not be granted after a person has been in the UK for five years, but only after an applicant has completed the probationary period.

A fund financed by a surcharge on immigration applications will be set up to give cash to areas that experience problems because of immigration, such as oversubscribed schools. The fund is expected to raise tens of millions of pounds a year.

Migrants who have served a prison sentence will be barred from citizenship and minor offenders given a non-custodial sentence may have to serve three years on probation. A draft Bill based on the proposals is due this summer, and full legislation is expected in November.

Source



Stupid immigration swoop in Wales

This is typical of the lazy British bureaucracy. Just to show that they are doing something, they pick on the easy targets. Anybody can find illegals working in restaurants any time but as the restaurant workers are hard-working and providing a useful service they should be bottom priority. But grabbing the problem illegals -- parasitical Muslims and blacks -- would need work.

Note: I am NOT saying that ALL blacks and Muslims are parasitical. But I am saying that there are many in that category. In this age of political correctness, one has to guard against wilful misrepresentation of what one is saying.

Eight Malaysian and Chinese nationals found working illegally at restaurants and a takeaway in a Gwynedd town have been arrested. The Thai Emperor, Everyday Takeaway and Honour Chinese restaurants in Caernarfon were visited by a Border and Immigration Agency team and police. Six of those arrested, who had such jobs as cooking and serving customers, are due to be removed from the UK. The owner of all three premises was given a formal written warning. He will also face future visits by immigration officers, said the agency.

The operation on Wednesday evening followed intelligence. Officers went into all three places at the same time and checked the documents of staff to discover if they had the right to work in the UK. At Thai Emperor, a Malaysian man, 34, and woman, 31, were arrested and are due to be removed from the UK in the coming days. Next door, in Everyday Takeaway, a Malaysian man, 32, was arrested and is also due to be removed. Five illegal workers were arrested at the Honour Chinese restaurant, in Castle Square, including two Chinese men, aged 29 and 33, who were both failed asylum seekers. Steps are being taken to remove them from the UK as soon as possible, said the agency.

Two Malaysian women, aged 24 and 29, and a 39-year-old Malaysian man will be removed from the UK in the coming days. Another Chinese man arrested was later released after producing evidence he was working legally. All those arrested were taken to Caernarfon and St Asaph police stations for questioning. Jane Farleigh, regional director of the Border and Immigration Agency in Wales and the South West said: "This successful operation shows that we will find and arrest illegal workers wherever they are in Wales." [BULLSHIT! When a British bureaucrat's mouth is moving in public, you can be sure that he/she is misrepresenting something] She added: "Illegal working hurts good business, undercuts legal workers and law-abiding businesses, creates illegal profits and puts those employed at risk."

Source





21 February, 2008

Illegal Deported 14 Times, Caught Again

Post below lifted from Interested-Participant. See the original for links

(Eagle County, Colorado) A 22-year-old illegal alien was arrested yesterday and charged with human smuggling after being stopped on I-70 driving a van carrying 13 other illegal aliens.

Omar Alaverez-Mecedo, age 22, was arrested and charged with Human Smuggling, a class three felony, and operating a vehicle without a valid driver's license, a class two misdemeanor.

In the course of the investigation it was discovered that "Omar Alaverez-Mecedo's" real name is Israel Robles-Gaytan. According to ICE, Robles-Gaytan had already been caught and deported fourteen times; he gave law enforcement officials a different name each time.

Robles-Gaytan will be charged with Criminal Impersonation and 2nd degree Forgery in addition to the charges of Human Smuggling and operating a vehicle without a valid driver's license.

Robles-Gaytan was booked into custody at the Eagle County Detention Facility with immigration holds.

Presumably, Robles-Gaytan will be deported again and that would make 15 total deportations, placing him in the bonus round. It's probably covered in a confidential Homeland Security memo, but I'd guess that he is now eligible for cash awards for each additional deportation.

Kidding aside, it's difficult to understand how border patrol and immigration agents maintain any enthusiasm for their jobs. Everything they do seems to be automatically undone.



New conditions for obtaining British citizenship proposed

Immigrants with children and elderly relatives [who apply for citizenship] may have to pay a special levy to help to fund public services, under proposals to be published in a Green Paper today. The money would go into a British trust fund as part of a package of proposals for "earned" citizenship aimed at encouraging applicants for British passports to contribute to society. It is estimated that such a fund could raise up to 15 million pounds a year. A document leaked to Channel Four News states: "Money for the British trust fund will be raised through increases to certain fees for immigration applications, with migrants who tend to consume more in public services - such as children and elderly relatives - paying more than others."

The Green Paper also contains a proposal that immigrants who have worked in Britain for five years be put on probation for an additional year before they can become full British citizens. The document says that this would be to "incentivise immigrants to make the commitment to becoming British citizens and fully integrate into society". A Home Office spokesman said last night: "We are not commenting before the Green Paper is published."

Gordon Brown has already suggested that applicants should be asked to undertake community or voluntary work as a way of introducing them to British institutions and people. Ministers have rejected a points-based system for citizenship or fast-tracking applicants to a passport. They are, however, looking at barring people from becoming citizens if they have been convicted of a serious criminal offence. The existing citizenship requirement is that a person must have lived in Britain for five years, passed a test in English and demonstrated a knowledge of life in Britain.

Before he became Prime Minister Mr Brown said: "In any national debate it is right to consider asking men and women seeking citizenship to undertake some community work in our country or something akin to that which introduces them to a wider range of institutions and people in our country prior to enjoying the benefits of citizenship."

Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, who has been drawing up the proposals, said that the message had to be that becoming a British citizen was not something that was simply handed out but should be earned. In a recent speech he said that Britons had made clear that they thought newcomers should pay taxes and that no favours should be given to the rich. "I asked people whether successful migrants - like high-earning footballers or surgeons - should get ahead faster. I got a pretty blunt answer. Treat everyone the same. Just make sure no one's dodging their dues." He added that people wanted applicants to obey British laws. "When an offence is serious, I am afraid we do want to show newcomers the exit door," Mr Byrne said.

Source





20 February, 2008

Ron Paul reports:

I am no Paulist but he seems to talk sense below to me

For decades we have welcomed new immigrants to our American "melting pot". We respect those who come here peacefully to pursue their American Dream. But Americans have noticed lately that modern problems associated with illegal immigration are at a crisis point. Taxpayers are now suffering the consequences. Costs of social services for the estimated 21 million illegal immigrants in this country are approaching $400 billion. We educate 4.2 million children of illegals at a cost of $13.8 billion. There have been almost 2 million anchor babies born in this country since 2002, with labor and delivery costs of between $3 and 6 billion.

There are currently 360,000 illegals in our prisons and we have spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate them since 2001. In Prince William County near DC, ICE can't deport criminal illegals fast enough and has actually asked its local jails to slow down on referring them. Jurisdiction over illegal immigration lies at the federal level, yet many municipalities are struggling with the compounding problems of mandated costs and tied hands. My office has heard from at least one sheriff in my district considering seeking compensation from the Federal government for the cost of so many illegal immigrant inmates that wouldn't be here if the Federal government was doing its job and protecting our borders. The problems are widespread.

One thing is certain: If we subsidize them, they will come. We have rolled out the social services red carpet, so it is no surprise that many from other countries are eager to come take advantage of our very generous system. We must return to the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to take care of themselves and respect our laws. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but we simply have no choice. We can't afford these policies anymore. Since we are $60 trillion in debt, there should be no taxpayer-paid benefits for non-citizens.

My bill, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, stops non-citizens from collecting Social Security Benefits. This bill, by the way, picked up three new cosponsors this week and is gaining momentum.

Also, we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border. It just doesn't make sense. The practice of birthright citizenship is an aberration of the original intent of the 14th amendment, the purpose of which was never to allow lawbreakers to bleed taxpayers of welfare benefits. I have introduced HJ Res 46 to address this loophole. Other Western countries such as Australia , France and England have stopped birth-right citizenship. It is only reasonable that we do the same. We must also empower local and state officials to deal with problems the Federal government can't or won't address. Actions like this are a matter of national security at this point.

Illegal immigration is draining and frustrating the American taxpayer. I will continue to work for a solution that does not reward those who break our laws.

Source



Colorado: Is immigration as important as the bark beetle?

U.S. senator Ken Salazar paid a visit to Grand Junction today. He wants to hear your concerns so he can take them back to the state senate. Among those, oil and gas, the bark beetle problem, and home foreclosures.

Salazar also addressed Mesa County residents both in favor and opposed to illegal immigration. Salazar says he'd like to see the United States adopt a system that works for everyone, but it's an extremely difficult issue with varying opinions.

The senator says the first step is to successfully secure our borders. He says there also needs to be a systematic process employers use to verify whether a worker is legal or not. Salazar hopes the November presidential election will yield positive results on this issue.

Salazar: "Whoever is president, on either the Democratic or Republican side, will work with the Congress and try to get an immigration package through that works because if we don't get an immigration reform package that works, we end up compromising our national security." Salazar says it's impossible to keep national security when we have half a million people coming into the country, and we don't know who they are.

The senator also says we need to find a path forward with respect to the 12 million undocumented workers living in the United States. He says because this affects small business, not doing so, could compromise our economic security even further.

Source





19 February, 2008

Stupid Protestant bishops in Kansas issue statement on immigration

Real Protestants don't have Bishops anyway! They don't need a man in a funny hat to help them communicate with their God. But perhaps that is my Presbyterian background speaking. And how insulting these potentates are! They are asserting that critics of illegal immigration are motivated by "fear and heated political rhetoric". If I were one of their parishoners I would find myself another church pronto!

And who are they to pontificate on whether the "U.S. economy depends upon immigrant labor"? The USA did perfectly well without illegals for centuries! I live in a civilized and prosperous English-speaking country that has virtually NO illegals! There are no Hispanics picking Australia's lettuces and tomatoes but we still have plenty of both! Can the mitred ones explain that? About time these knowall bishops went back to preaching the Gospel, methinks -- and perhaps discovering its message about humility

Leaders of three Protestant denominations are calling on Kansans to reject fear and heated political rhetoric when dealing with immigration. Issuing the statement are Bishops Dean Wolfe of the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas; Scott Jameson Jones of the Kansas Area United Methodist Church; and Gerald Mansholt of the synod covering Kansas and Missouri in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.

They acknowledged that respect for the law is crucial and that the Bible commands believers to respect and obey government authorities. However, they said, the U.S. economy depends upon immigrant labor and federal and state laws do not reflect that reality.

The bishops noted that the New Testament commands Christians to love their neighbors.

Source



Meddling Catholic bishops too

At least the tone of these guys is more respectful and Christian but it is their Hispanic flock they should be preaching to -- preaching what Jesus said about Caesar and what St Paul said about the superior authorities. And one of the Bishops seems to have had a mental breakdown. IF an illegal DOES pay taxes (some do but most don't) he WILL get the rebate the good bishop is talking about

Two American Catholic bishops have suggested changes in US immigration regulations, saying that current policies are unfair to immigrants and their families.

Bishop John Wester, the chairman of the US bishops' committee on migration; and Bishop Jaime Soto, the chairman of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, made their suggestions in a letter ot Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. They argued that more vigorous enforcement effort by the Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency (ICE) have taken a toll on immigrant families.

The bishops asked that ICE suspend enforcement during times of natural disasters, and said that the agency should not patrol for illegal immigrants near churches, hospitals, or schools. They asked for greater protection of the legal rights of those detained for illegal immigration.

Earlier his month Bishop Wester had sharply criticized the economic-stimulus package approved by Congress because it does not provide tax rebates to illegal immigrants. That approach, the bishop said, "reveals the hypocrisy of our laws" because illegal immigrants pay taxes but do not enjoy the benefit of the rebates.

Source





18 February, 2008

Appalling immigration abuse by authorities

Baby held in locked room at airport dies. One hopes there is a proper investigation of this, not just a claim that the officials "followed their protocols"

A 14-day-old infant traveling here for heart surgery died at Honolulu International Airport on Friday after he, his mother and a nurse were detained by immigration officials in a locked room, a lawyer for the boy's family said.

The Honolulu medical examiner's office yesterday identified the infant as Michael Futi of Tafuna, American Samoa's largest village, which is located on the east coast of Tutuila Island. Autopsy findings have been deferred. According to police, the child died at 5:50 a.m. It is unknown why immigration officials detained the mother, the nurse and the child.

Scott Ishikawa, a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation, said the child went into respiratory failure while in the customs office, which is located near the baggage claims area of the overseas terminal. Airport paramedics were called about 6:10 a.m., he said.

The group arrived on a Hawaiian Airlines flight that landed at 5:30 a.m. "We were later told the baby was coming here for heart surgery," Ishikawa said. Attorney Rick Fried said the child had come to Hawai'i from American Samoa for heart surgery. The boy's family plans to file a wrongful death lawsuit, Fried said

Source



Hopeless bureaucracy bypassed

Rule on background checks eases for some immigrants. It's a reasonable step but how about others who are held up for years by the same moronic bureaucracy that cannot find the time to process their applications?

A change in immigration rules will allow thousands of immigrants, already in the United States and applying for legal residency, to get their green cards before FBI background checks are completed, officials said Friday. Critics said the change could allow criminals to get through and threaten national security.

The change, which affects only legal immigrants already in the country waiting to adjust their status to legal resident, was outlined in a memo dated Feb. 4 written by Michael Aytes, associate director for domestic operations with the Citizenship and Immigration Services. "In the unlikely event that the FBI name checks reveal actionable information after the immigration judge grants an alien permanent residency status, (the Department of Homeland Security) may detain and initiate removal proceedings against the permanent resident," according to the memo.

One of the reasons for the decision, immigrant rights advocates say, is that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency responsible for deciding residency applications, is dealing with backlogs that mean years-long waits for some residency applicants.

The change would grant applicants their legal residency, or green cards, if they have been waiting on the background checks more than six months.

That worried Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Solana Beach, who said completing the background checks is a matter of national security. Bilbray is chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, which generally favors stricter immigration controls. "What we're dealing with is not just an inconvenience," Bilbray said in a phone interview from Washington. "It's an exposure to someone that shouldn't be in the country."

A leading critic of the backlogs has been the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency's own ombudsman, Prakash Khatri. In a 2007 report, Khatri called the backlogs one of the most "pervasive and serious problems" in the immigration system. The report said the agency was waiting for FBI name-check results in about 146,000 cases that had been otherwise completed. On Friday, the agency announced Khatri's resignation, but said his departure had nothing to do with his criticism of the backlogs. A spokesman said Khatri plans to return to the private sector.

Civil rights groups welcomed the change. "It seems like a step in the right direction," said Julia Harumi Mass, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's office in San Francisco. The civil rights organization has filed several lawsuits on behalf of immigrants applying for citizenship who have had to wait for months and even years for their applications to be processed because of the FBI checks. The group contends that the databases the bureau relies on are riddled with errors that lead to the delays.

Although acknowledging that the process is slow and cumbersome, Jessica Vaughn, a senior policy analyst with the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington organization that supports stricter immigration controls, said the checks are necessary. Vaughn said the agency had considered removing the FBI background checks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "The thinking was that there were so few hits that they thought they could deal with a few bad apples," she said. "Of course, that was before 9/11 and they found out what would happen if just a few people got through."

Those who support the agency's change said the suggestion that it could create security problems are unfounded. That's because the FBI checks will continue and the immigrants can be deported if the bureau's investigation discovers a problem. Frederick Hill, a spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, said the congressman supports the change because it speeds the process, but still deports the immigrant if he or she fails the background check. Hill added that Issa supports more funding to reduce the FBI backlog. "We need to make playing by the rules a more attractive option," Hill said.

Source





17 February, 2008

Immigration task force targets fake IDs in Georgia

Something spooked the man selling fake IDs outside Los Primos restaurant in Chamblee. He told his customer — a police informant, it turns out — to meet him down the street at a gas station on Buford Highway because the area was too "hot." There, he sold the informant a fake green card and a fake Social Security card. Police turned on the blue lights and busted him.

Miguel Gonzalez Cadena, 32, an illegal Mexican immigrant, had been deported five times before and was arrested last year, federal officials say. He won't tell police whom he works for, but he's been charged with forgery and is now serving a two-year federal sentence for illegal re-entry into the United States, according to ICE officials.

Catching the guy selling documents on the street is the first step for police, state investigators and federal immigration officers who are trying to bust fake ID rings. For the past 2 1/2 years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has run a task force in Atlanta targeting fake IDs and those who seek to fraudulently obtain visas. It's one of several such task forces in the country. "It's a significant problem. It is really the first step in individuals' attempts to legitimize themselves here and gain employment," said Ken Smith, Special Agent in Charge of the Atlanta office of ICE. "The bigger question is, if we don't know who these people are, what are they going to use these documents to do? Could they gain employment at a critical infrastructure, like an airport?"

False identification also creates more paperwork for federal agencies such as the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service when more than one person uses the same Social Security number. The federal agencies try to track down the real owner of the number. A citizen may find that someone has used his or her Social Security number in a fake ID to get a job.

The Atlanta fake ID task force has opened more than 100 investigations; brought five federal cases; and federally indicted about 40 people. Those efforts dovetail with Gov. Sonny Perdue's Georgia Secure ID initiative, in which the state has devoted money for investigators at driver's license offices and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to rout out fake identification. "The state of Georgia is one of the better we've seen in attacking this," said Brock Nicholson, Deputy Special Agent in Charge of the Atlanta office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "The governor wants to get this under control."

Wednesday in federal court for the northern district of Georgia, five Mexican men who manufactured and sold fake Social Security cards, green cards, work permits and driver's licenses received federal sentences ranging from two and a half years to six years. They worked out of the Twelve Oaks apartment complex in Marietta and sold documents for about $100 each to customers outside a coin laundry in Smyrna.

As Georgia has devoted more resources to combating fake IDs, the counterfeiters move their operations around, making it harder to catch. One investigator also has noticed a decreased willingness by counterfeiters to manufacture a fake Georgia driver's license, although they'll make ones from other states. They tell customers police are more likely to spot a fake Georgia driver's license.

The fake ID rings range from one-man shows to labs that have an owner and several "lieutenants" who mark out shopping centers and other places for sales. Several runners work for each lieutenant, selling the documents on the street, said Wilson Cabrera, a criminal investigator with the Governor's office of Consumer Affairs. The lieutenants have to pay a weekly fee to sell documents. "It's the same thing like the drug dealers. They operate the same way. You have your neighborhood and you supply for that and no one else can come into that," Cabrera said.

The quality of fake documents ranges from cards with a photo that's obviously been cut and pasted, to green cards and Georgia driver's licenses on sturdy plastic with good photos, seals and even holograms, investigators said. Of course the best documents are real ones, where an illegal immigrant can simply assume someone's identity, ICE agents said.

Profit for counterfeiters varies. In one document lab, ICE investigators found $30,000 in a shoe box. The owner of a lab may also own a legitimate printing business, investigators said. Fake documents can be a nice side income. "Depending on how aggressive you are and how hard you want to work, the sky's the limit," Nicholson said.

Source



Irish illegals!

There is a lot of affection for the Irish in the USA so I am sure that any move to give them improved access would have wide support

[Boxer] Duddy has thrown his support to the New York-based Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, attending meetings and wearing a T-shirt into the ring promoting the group's website, legalizetheirish.org. The group estimates there are 50,000 undocumented Irish workers in the United States, lost in the shuffle of illegal immigrants from other parts of the globe and the bureaucracy that comes with applying for green cards and citizenship.

In 2006, the Irish were granted 2,038 green cards and 1,754 became U.S. citizens, according to the most recent data available from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Those numbers are on par with countries like Armenia and Belarus, and pale in comparison to the nearly 84,000 naturalized Mexicans and 47,500 from India.

"What we're seeing now is 20,000 immigrating to Australia each year that would come to the U.S. if they could come legally," said Kelly Finchem, executive director of the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform. "Irish people come to the U.S. almost reflexively." The group has political support from both sides of the aisle, and appears well-positioned for the November election. Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both expressed support for immigration reform, as has Republican front-runner John McCain.

It was McCain who attended a rally in the Bronx a couple years ago in support of the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill, a comprehensive reform package that included a temporary guest worker program and provisions that would have allowed undocumented immigrants a chance to work toward citizenship. The bill made it through the Senate but died in the House. Duddy also attended that town hall meeting and was asked to pose a question to McCain. "The moderator said we have a question from John Duddy, a couple thousand stand up and give him a standing ovation," Finchem said. "I'm sure Sen. McCain was wondering what was going on."

Duddy downplays his role in the campaign. He readily admits he doesn't understand American politics but figures if his people support him, the least he can do is support them. Besides, the dashing young Irishman has had his own problems with the immigration service. Realizing from a young age he wanted to be a professional boxer, Duddy moved to New York about four years ago in search of better trainers and better competition. When he went home for a visit, he learned he had overstayed his visa. It took months of wrangling to trim the red tape that allowed him to return to the U.S.

"People who come to work and are good citizens and didn't fill out the right paperwork, I look at it as personal," Duddy said through a thick brogue. "But again, I'm not a big influence on it. "I wear a T-shirt and appear at some events. I sort of look at myself as everybody else."

Source





16 February, 2008

Mexican President ignores the obvious

Mexican President Felipe Calderon urged California lawmakers on Wednesday to help his government address the volatile issue of illegal immigration in a way that will benefit his country and the United States. "We need to make migration legal, safe and organized," [It is ALREADY legal. The problem is that Mexicans don't obey the law!] Calderon told the legislature of the most-populous U.S. state, whose large and fast-growing Mexican-American population figures prominently in debates over illegal immigration.

The question of what to do about the millions living in the United States without papers has been one of the hot-button issues in the U.S. presidential election, with Republican candidates in particular vying to demonstrate their toughness on the issue.

Calderon, who has expressed concerned about an atmosphere full of prejudice generated by anti-immigrant rhetoric, urged cooperation. "We are at a historical turning point," said the conservative leader, on his first trip to the United States as Mexico's president. "Future generations will judge us by the decisions we make today. Did we work together to provide organized and humane migration, or did we continue to allow hundreds to die each year? "The choice is not between migration and security or between migration and prosperity," he said. "The choice is between a future of integration and success for both, or a future of distrust and resentment between us." [Obeying American laws would be a great place to start!] Many of those who attempt to sneak into the United States die in the rugged terrain along the border each year.

Calderon disputed contentions that Mexico is turning a blind eye to internal economic problems that spur its citizens to head north. "Migration carries off the best among us: our bravest, our youngest and our strongest people," he said.

Calderon urged California lawmakers to view Mexicans as assets to the economy, recalling the state's long historic ties with his country and guest-worker programs that tapped its labor from the 1940s through the 1960s. "This lesson from our past shows us the way to forge a better future as partners," Calderon said.

Mexico was deeply disappointed at the U.S. Congress' failure to pass President George W. Bush's comprehensive overhaul of immigration laws in June. It is also angry with the United States for building a security fence on parts of the southern border to keep illegal immigrants from Mexico out. [So America should not try to enforce its laws??]

Republican Assembly Leader Mike Villines said California's Republican lawmakers, among the most vocal U.S. critics of illegal immigration, remain very concerned. But he said he appreciated that Calderon bluntly addressed illegal immigration in his first speech to the state Legislature. "He came and addressed an issue pretty square-on," Villines told reporters in the Assembly's chamber.

Paul Farmer, a member of the civilian border patrol group known as the Minutemen, who have stoked the political debate over illegal immigration in recent years, criticized Calderon's visit. "We're tired of him sending his welfare people over here and draining our economy," Farmer said near a Sonoma County winery that Calderon visited after his speech.

Source



Feds admit mistakenly jailing citizens as illegal immigrants

The cases concerned have all been very sloppily and negligently handled (as far as I can see) and all those immigration empoyees involved need to be fired if any message is to be sent to their colleagues elsewhere. In an area of much contention, standards need to be of the highest

A top Immigration and Customs Enforcement official acknowledged Wednesday that his agency has mistakenly detained U.S. citizens as illegal immigrants, but he denied that his agency has widespread problems with deporting the wrong people. Gary Mead, ICE's deputy director of detention and removal operations, testified during a House of Representatives subcommittee hearing that U.S. citizens have been detained on "extremely" rare occasions, but he blamed the mix-ups on conflicting information from the detainees. Nonetheless, Mead said his agency is reviewing its handling of people who claim to be U.S. citizens "to determine if even greater safeguards can be put in place."

The testimony before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law came after immigration advocates told McClatchy that they'd seen a small but growing number of cases of U.S. citizens who've been mistakenly detained and sometimes deported by ICE. They accuse agents of ignoring valid assertions of citizenship in the rush to deport more illegal immigrants. Unlike suspects charged in criminal courts, detainees accused of immigration violations don't have a right to an attorney, and three-quarters of them represent themselves.

Last month, Thomas Warziniack, a U.S. citizen who was born in Minnesota and grew up in Georgia, was mistakenly detained for weeks in an Arizona immigration facility and told that he was going to be deported to Russia. Warziniack, 40, was released after his family, who learned about his predicament from a McClatchy Newspapers reporter, produced his birth certificate.

In another high-profile example, ICE agents in California mistakenly deported Pedro Guzman, a mentally disabled U.S. citizen, to Mexico. Guzman was found months later when he tried to return to the United States.

Mead contended that both Warziniack and Guzman said they were illegal immigrants, and he said ICE agents have to be careful not to release the wrong people. Guzman and Warziniack had been serving time for minor offenses when their jailers turned them over to immigration authorities. Although Mead said that Guzman is the only U.S. citizen he knows who's been deported erroneously, immigration lawyers have said they've found at least seven others. In the past four years, ICE agents have detained more than 1 million people.

House committee members also heard stories of ICE agents interrogating or detaining U.S. citizens in their homes, at their workplaces and on the street. Marie Justeen Mancha, a 17-year-old born in Texas, said ICE agents raided her family's home in Georgia in 2006 while her mother was running an errand. Her mother is also a U.S. citizen. "I started to hear the words, 'Police! Illegals!'" she recalled. "I walked around the corner from the hallway and saw a tall man reach toward his gun and look straight at me." Mancha said the agents left after grilling her about her citizenship. "I carry that fear with me every day, wondering when they'll come back," she said. Mancha is one of five U.S. citizens named in a pending lawsuit by the Southern Poverty Law Center that alleges wrongful interrogations or detentions by ICE in Southeast Georgia.

Rep. Steven King, R-Iowa, the ranking minority member of the committee, described the cases as isolated and urged the agency not to be distracted from detaining and deporting illegal immigrants. "ICE does not aim to harass and detain U.S. citizens," he said. But Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the committee, said that after hearing such stories, she feared an "overzealous government is interrogating, detaining and deporting its own citizens."

Nancy Morawetz, who runs an immigration rights clinic at New York University, said getting proof of citizenship is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for detainees, especially when they're shipped to a facility far from home. In 2006, the Vera Institute of Justice, a New York nonprofit organization, identified 125 people in immigration detention centers who immigration lawyers believed had valid U.S. citizenship claims. "As a country we do not have a national identity card," Morawetz said in an interview. "People don't walk around with a 'C' on their forehead that says they're a U.S. citizen."

Source





15 February, 2008

New Zealand finally does the decent thing: U-turn grants centenarian's wish

A 101-year-old widower will live out his twilight years with his only living relative in New Zealand after immigration officials reversed a decision to send him back to England. The widower, a retired research chemist who has been living with his English-born New Zealand-resident son since 2006, was refused residency on a technicality - his son hadn't lived here for the required minimum 184 days in each of the three years before his application was made.

In his application for residency, the centenarian told immigration officials he no longer wished to live alone in Britain and his 63-year-old son thought the sensible and responsible option was for him to come to live with him and his wife. The 101-year-old arrived on a visitor's permit in July 2006. It expired in April 2007, but he didn't renew it because he believed he wasn't required to while his residence application was being determined.

In his appeal to the independent Residence Review Board (RRB), the man said he had "adequate financial resources" to support himself and met Immigration New Zealand (INZ) health requirements. Despite the man's savings of some $363,000 and receiving an annual pension of almost $83,000, the RRB confirmed INZ's decision to decline the man's application saying there were no special circumstances. "Overall, the appellant's age, his financial resources, the fact that his son lives in New Zealand and the fact the appellant has no family in Great Britain do not make him special," the RRB said. "There is no evidence that the appellant could not have continued to live in Great Britain alone and without his son, as he had done for many years."

But immigration officials softened their hardline stance after intervention from Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove, who asked them to take another look at the man's case. An INZ spokeswoman confirmed to NZPA today the man would be allowed to stay.

New Zealand welcomed another centenarian immigrant yesterday when 102-year-old Briton Eric King-Turner arrived in Wellington aboard the Saga Rose cruise ship. Mr King-Turner, New Zealand's oldest immigrant, moved halfway across the world with his New Zealand-born wife of more than 12 years, Doris, 89. They are believed to be settling in Nelson, where Mrs King-Turner is understood to own a house.

The spokeswoman told NZPA where cases do not meet policy requirements, there was provision for the individual merits of the case to be looked at, "and in this case residency was granted". "It is important to note that no two cases are exactly the same and where discretion is used it is based on the specific circumstances of that case," she said. Mr Cosgrove said both he and Associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones had discretion to ask officials to look again at exceptional cases referred to them. He said he asked immigration officials to review the man's case after he became aware of publicity in the media. Ministerial intervention was rarely used and only in exceptional circumstances. "I'm pleased," Mr Cosgrove told NZPA. "I think it's a good decision and I hope the gentleman has a good life."

Source



Rhode Island getting roiled

Rhode Island, facing a budget crisis that will lead to massive cutbacks, is engulfed in the most intense battle over illegal immigration in New England, with Republicans and Democrats alike calling for a crackdown on unauthorized workers. In the past few weeks, state lawmakers and the governor have proposed a battery of measures targeting unauthorized workers, from expelling undocumented children from the state's healthcare system to making English the official language to jailing business owners and landlords who harbor illegal workers. Even the father of the state's first baby born in the New Year was caught up in the issue. Days after a beaming Mynor Montufar appeared in the news, the illegal immigrant was picked up for deportation to Guatemala.

The increasingly vitriolic debate, playing out in coffee shops, on talk radio, and television, is dividing a state that has long taken pride in its immigrant roots. Lawmakers and angry taxpayers say the state is facing a $550 million budget deficit and cannot afford government services for illegal immigrants. But immigrants accuse their critics of betraying their own heritage, pointing out that Italians, Irish, and other groups came to the United States for the same reason as today's immigrants: to work. "If this is the country of immigrants, why the witch hunt?" said Enio Garcia, a Goya foods salesman, as he took orders at a market in Central Falls, a city outside of Providence. "They've forgotten where they came from."

Lawmakers and others say Rhode Island has been forced to search for its own solutions over the past year because Congress failed to do something about the 12 million immigrants in the United States illegally.

Nationally, other states are also taking on immigration. In Arizona, a law that took effect this year threatens to shut down businesses that intentionally hire illegal immigrants. Oklahoma began denying government benefits to illegal immigrants last year and made it a felony to harbor them. "We need to start taking care of the people who are residents of the state of Rhode Island, who rightfully belong here, who come here, pay taxes, and support all these programs," said state Senator Christopher B. Maselli, a Democrat and the great-grandson of Italian knife makers, who is cosponsoring the legislation that, among other things, would punish landlords and business owners who harbor illegal workers. "They're sick and tired of having to support people who don't come here the right way."

Rhode Island has long touted its immigrant past, and the contributions of European immigrants who once toiled in the textile mills. In downtown Providence, a new memorial commemorates the Irish famine. Across the street, a marble plaque honors Italian explorer Giovanni da Verrazzano. Illegal immigrants account for 20,000 to 40,000 of the state's 1 million residents, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. For years, immigrants from Latin America and other lands felt safe strolling the streets and working in factories. But in the last few years, that has changed. Immigrants now say they are squirreling away money, staying indoors, and worrying about recent immigration raids.

Many immigrants were shaken by the arrest of Montufar, who had defied a deportation order. He also had convictions for disorderly conduct and domestic assault. In an especially dramatic turn, one of the Montufar family's boarders, David De La Roca, 27, was found hanged in an apparent suicide the day of Montufar's arrest. He was also an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala.

Lilliana, 34, an undocumented immigrant from Colombia, says one of her co-workers at a shoe factory breaks into a sweat when strangers enter the room, afraid they are immigration agents. "There are so many bad people out there. Why don't they go and get them?" said Lilliana, speaking in Spanish as she shopped at a mini-market in Central Falls, which has one of the highest proportions of immigrants in the state. "Leave the working people alone."

In Rhode Island, criticism of illegal immigrants crosses party lines. The Republican governor, Donald L. Carcieri, supports a bill to make English the state's official language, mainly a symbolic move. After an undocumented worker from Mexico cut his face open with a chainsaw and recently collected $30,000, Carcieri said he would file legislation to end workers' compensation benefits for illegal workers. Carcieri is already under fire for eliminating the jobs of three Southeast Asian interpreters last year, part of a reduction of 1,000 state jobs.

At the State House, Maselli and another Democratic lawmaker filed the bill, modeled after an Oklahoma law, that would punish landlords and business owners who hire or rent apartments to illegal immigrants. Another bill, which has dozens of cosponsors in the House and Senate, would force businesses to screen new workers through a federal database. Carcieri declined to comment, though he has aired his views repeatedly on talk radio and said the state should not support people who are here illegally.

Advocates for immigrants say illegal immigrants are the scapegoats for the financial troubles in a state that has been strained in the past by allegations of corruption and overspending. Juan Garcia, a community organizer in Providence, said cracking down on immigrants hurts the state's economy, pointing to the arrest of Montufar, 21, as one example. With Montufar out of work, Carmen Marrero, his 19-year-old girlfriend and a US citizen, said she is applying for aid for herself and her three children. "Now, there are four more people who are going on the rolls," Garcia said.

Critics of illegal immigrants say they hope the publicity over the legislation will pressure illegal immigrants to leave Rhode Island. In Lincoln, a rural town of brightly painted farmhouses, rolling fields, and few immigrants from Latin America, Terry Gorman is leading a grass-roots push for a statewide crackdown on illegal immigrants from his tanning salon in a strip mall. He founded Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement in 2006 after a friend without health insurance was hit with a $6,600 hospital bill, which Gorman believes an illegal immigrant could have avoided. Currently, the group has 450 members who attend legislative hearings and campaign against lawmakers who disagree with them. The group mailed dozens of bricks to US congressmen to show their support for a proposed wall along the southern border. Gorman, 67, a grandson of Irish immigrants, said he is often called racist for his work, but insisted that he is against lawbreakers only. "If you're from Poland, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Haiti, and anywhere in South America, if you're in the United States illegally, then I'm against you," he said.

A few stores away, paint shop owner Ted Sliney said he agreed with Gorman that immigrants should not be here illegally. He said he works 11- to 12-hour days to help pay an $800-a-month health insurance bill. "I don't mean to seem cruel, but I feel like I'm carrying the weight of the world on my shoulders," he said.

Critics of illegal immigrants draw a line between today's immigrants and their own ancestors, pointing out that previous generations followed the rules. But advocates for immigrants and others say it used to be a lot easier to get into the United States. "You can't really compare the experiences of the early immigrants with the current ones," said Darrell West, a public policy and political science professor at Brown University. "A hundred years ago half of these people arriving would have been considered illegal immigrants."

In Central Falls, immigrants say they are just following in the footsteps of previous generations. The bodegas, chicken stands, and bakeries on Dexter Street are stocked with cheeses, sour creams, and breads from their homelands. Colorful posters advertise Mexican groups playing at the Knights of Columbus, and DVDs for learning English hang from the walls in a Colombian store.

Garcia, the Goya foods salesman, said immigrants are leaving for other states. "The barrio is empty," said Garcia, a native of Guatemala who became a US citizen five years ago. "That's the fear that exists in this state. Rhode Island has changed."

More here





14 February, 2008

Europe announces plans for sweeping immigration controls

Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. "Plans" are all very well but pushing them through to realization is another thing

The European Commission has announced plans to introduce sweeping new immigration controls across the countries covered by the Schengen agreement. The plans include a satellite surveillance system monitoring the entire territory of the EU. They would also require all visitors to the EU to provide fingerprints so their movements can be tracked. EU citizens will also be required to submit fingerprints if they want to participate in new fast-track customs controls.

The EU says the measures are being proposed to counter fears about terrorism and security following last December's extension of the passport-free Schengen area to nine of the newer member states. However, civil liberties groups say they are an unwarranted infringement on privacy and are designed to prevent immigration from Africa [It is undoubtedly designed to prevent ILLEGAL immigration from Africa but is that a problem?] under the guise of combating terrorism.

Ireland and Britain will have a choice whether or not to participate in the new measures as the two countries are currently not in the Schengen area.

Source



Crazy Canadian border patrols

A tangle of conflicting laws on both sides of the border is tying the hands of joint Canada-U.S. border squads, undermining efforts to nab international criminals, says a newly released report. Team members can't radio one another. They have to surrender their sidearms when crossing into the other country. And they're forbidden from crossing the Canada-U.S. border except at official stations, even though criminals prefer the isolated points in between.

"Communication among partners and the co-ordination of activities has not been fully achieved," says the document, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. The censored internal report, prepared by the public works department, examines the first five years of the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams, which expanded nationally in April 2002. The teams include RCMP officers, Canadian and U.S. border guards, American immigration and customs officers and the U.S. coast guard. The Mounties, the lead agency for Canada, have committed 150 officers and $25 million a year to the program. There are 23 teams situated along 15 regions of the Canada-U.S. border, poised to catch drug smugglers, illegal immigrants and terrorists.

The evaluation, completed in late 2006, found a raft of problems, including incompatible radios that won't communicate with equipment from the other side of the border. The radio problem is partly legal: a cat's cradle of federal, state and provincial laws require special licensing to use designated frequencies on each side of the border.

Gun laws in each country also effectively prevent officers from routinely carrying their duty sidearms and similar weapons into the other country. Canadian laws are so strict an RCMP officer who is given dispensation to carry a sidearm into the United States must forfeit the weapon on re-entering Canada.

Source





13 February, 2008

Over two million foreigners are now working in Britain

The number of foreign workers in the UK has risen above two million for the first time, The Daily Telegraph can disclose. There has been a 75 per cent increase in workers from abroad in the last six years, while the number of British employees has dropped by half a million, new figures show

The rise has followed an influx of hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans into the UK since 2004. At the same time the number of British people claiming incapacity benefit has soared while there has also been an increase in people emigrating. Official figures from the Labour Force Survey show that the number of foreigners in the UK workforce increased between 2001 and last year by 864,000 - to just over two million people. This is equivalent to one in 14 of a total working population. The Conservatives last night said the disclosure undermined Gordon Brown's vow to create jobs for British workers.

The figures were contained in a letter from Karen Dunnell, the national statistician and director of the Office for National Statistics, to the Conservative MP James Clappison, a member of the Commons home affairs select committee. He said: "Ministers are really out of touch with what is happening in the jobs market. "The Government has overseen a significant increase in the employment of foreign citizens but have had much less success in creating jobs for British citizens."

Shadow home secretary, David Davis, said: "These figures further undermine Gordon Brown's grand and unwise pronouncement to create British jobs for British workers. "In fact, they show the number of UK-born citizens in employment has actually fallen by half a million in the last six years. "There is nothing wrong with the fact that immigrants to the UK should join the workforce but it is a matter of concern that we have more than a million people under 25 not in employment, education or training."

The figures showed there was a 75 per cent increase in the number of "non-UK nationals" working in Britain compared with 2001, when the figure was just 1.15 million. More than 700,000 workers from Eastern Europe have registered to work in the UK from the eight countries which joined the European Union in 2004. By contrast the number of UK-born nationals in the workforce fell, between 2001 and 2007, down by 500,000 from 24.4 million in 2001 to 23.9 million last year.

Critics claim many British workers are either simply unemployed or claiming to be too ill to work. Around 4.8 million people are currently claiming out-of-work benefits. Around 2.6 million are on incapacity benefits - 120,000 more than when Labour came to power in 1997. Last weekend David Freud, the Government's new welfare adviser, told The Daily Telegraph that as many as 1.9?million people claiming incapacity benefit could in fact work.

An additional factor in the fall in British workers is emigration. In the 12 months to July 2006, 385,000 people left the country, thought to be the highest number since the 1960s. A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions said: "It is well known the UK workforce has declined due to demographic changes. "Our challenge now is to help utilise the workforce out there, helping those people who have not yet got into the labour market to do so through targeted help and support."

Source



Immigration nastiness triggered by a socialized medicine system

A 101-year-old Briton may be kicked out of New Zealand after immigration bosses rejected his plea to spend his final years living with his son, his only living relative. Despite savings of 145,000 pounds and a 33,000 a year pension, the widower may have to pack his bags after being told his circumstances "do not make him special." A retired research chemist whose son is a university professor, the man, who has not been named, had pleaded to stay in New Zealand after arriving in 2006.

Details of his case emerged yesterday, just three days before the arrival of 102-year-old Eric King-Turner, from Hampshire, who will be New Zealand's oldest ever immigrant. Mr King-Turner has been allowed to move with his Kiwi-born wife, Doris, 87, and has spent the last weeks sailing from Southampton to his new home.

But although the unnamed man told the country's Residence Review Board that he, like Mr King-Turner, is hale and hearty, officials have been unmoved by his plight fearing he may be a drain on health resources.

The centre of gravity of my immediate family is very clearly in New Zealand," wrote the man in a letter reported in a New Zealand newspaper yesterday. Hard-nosed bureaucrats, however, said if they wanted to stay in touch his son should make the 24,000 mile round trip to visit him in Britain. "Overall the appellant's age, his financial resources, the fact that the appellant has no family in Great Britain, do not make him special," the board said in a written decision. "The board appreciates the submission made that the appellant's son is the only living family member the appellant has, but for many years the appellant has lived in Great Britain, apart from his son and alone. "Presumably his son has visited him in that time and there is no evidence as to why his son could not continue to do this in the future."

The decision has drawn fire from New Zealand's opposition spokesman on immigration, Dr Lockwood Smith. "I don't think we have a very smart policy when it comes to old folk," he said. "To just say no is not good enough. "I know there are concerns that elderly people become a drain on society but where people are of significant means and they have assets and a pension it ought to be possible." More than 10,000 Britons were granted New Zealand residency permits last year, nearly 25 per cent of all immigrants.

Source





12 February, 2008

The latest from CIS

1. The Weaponization of Immigration .

EXCERPT: . . . America's support for policies that offer citizenship to deserving persons and safeguard its borders are as essential to liberty as its brave men and women at arms. A wise and implacable urgency should inform our actions as a nation and a people. Nothing less than the survival of America is at stake. The outcome of this conflict will indeed be 'fundamental and astounding.'

********

2. What Happened to Immigration? Reports of the issue's demise are greatly exaggerated. .

EXCERPT: McCain's move to the right on immigration (at least rhetorically) since the failure of his amnesty bill provides further evidence of the sustained significance of immigration, a move that is manifested by his pledge to secure the borders "first" (though the corollary is that he would then have an amnesty, something people often don't hear). As John O'Sullivan notes, "one of the endearing things about McCain is his inability to pander in a convincing way," so many people don't believe his claims to have "seen the light" on immigration. On the other hand, many do. For instance, the California exit polls showed that 29 percent of those who favored mass deportation of illegals as the solution to illegal immigration voted for McCain. (Deportation supporters made up a plurality - 38 percent - of California Republican primary voters.) With most people completely unaware of McCain's deeply held ideological multiculturalism, it's no surprise that voters tuning into the race only a few days before the contest could be taken in by McCain's pretense.

The rest of the Republican field further bolsters the claim that the immigration issue resonates with voters. Initially, Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter seemed the only hawkish candidates on immigration; however, the rest of the candidates quickly followed suit. Romney, after seeming open to amnesty in 2005, came out against it and repeatedly attacked Giuliani for presiding over a sanctuary city while mayor of New York. Giuliani saw that he needed to sound tough, so he came out against the Senate amnesty bill last summer and told audiences, "I could end illegal immigration in three years." Mike Huckabee's comments as Arkansas governor in support of illegal immigrants led many to think that he would clone McCain on the issue - but instead he modeled his immigration platform on an article I'd written for National Review. Fred Thompson explicitly promoted "attrition through enforcement" and, along with Huckabee, actually proposed significant reductions in legal immigration, marking the first time in generations that such has happened in a presidential campaign.

********

3. Los Angeles Times Debate on Immigration .

EXCERPT: Illegal aliens are people too. And precisely because they are people like any others, they respond to incentives just like anyone else. What we've seen over the past year or so is that when government changes the incentives that illegal immigrants face, they change their behavior. In other words, immigration enforcement is working . . .

********

4. Immigration Enforcement Disrupts Criminal Gangs in Virginia.

EXCERPT: Immigration law enforcement has been a key ingredient in the success of criminal gang suppression efforts in Virginia, says a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies. As state lawmakers consider steps to address the illegal immigration problem this session, they should give high priority to institutionalizing partnerships between state and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and federal immigration authorities (ICE), as well as to immigration's fiscal costs. A large share of those involved with the immigrant gangs active in Virginia, such as MS-13, Surenos, and 18th Street, are illegal aliens. Their illegal status means they are especially vulnerable to law enforcement, and local authorities should take advantage of the immigration tools available in order to disrupt criminal gang activity, remove gang members from the streets, and better protect the public. Once explained, these measures are generally supported in communities around the state, including immigrant communities where much of the immigrant gang violence and crime occurs. Among the findings . . .

********

5. Mexico First? McCain has embraced a Vicente Fox aide as his own .

EXCERPT: The contempt for American citizenship that McCain has shown by naming this political bigamist to a post in his campaign isn't even the whole problem. One might also ask how McCain could even consult with a person of such extreme views, let alone name him Hispanic outreach director. McCain's support for amnesty and accelerated mass immigration is bad enough, but you can, at least in theory, be for those things and still support firm borders and patriotic assimilation.

But McCain's Hispanic outreach director is a man who has spent years opposing the very legitimacy of America's borders and Americanization in the most public way possible. The man has been on every TV-news show in creation rejecting as pass‚ the very idea of sovereign borders and patriotic assimilation into the American mainstream.

********

6. John McCain, Multiculturalist: Immigration is just one problem .

EXCERPT: We all know John McCain is terrible on immigration. For years he held America's sovereignty and security hostage to amnesty and increased immigration, and his newfound support for "enforcement first" is so insubstantial and transparently insincere that it insults our intelligence. He's so bad that Americans for Better Immigration ranks his performance in office as the worst of all the presidential candidates - including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And as Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, passage of McCain's bill "would represent the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years."

But his support for de facto open borders is merely one manifestation of a larger problem - John McCain is a multiculturalist.

I don't mean he eats tacos at the Cinco de Mayo parade (nothing wrong with that!) - I mean he's an ideological multiculturalist. Francis Fukuyama has described (PDF) the ideology of multiculturalism this way: "not just as tolerance of cultural diversity in de facto multicultural societies but as the demand for legal recognition of the rights of ethnic, racial, religious, or cultural groups." At almost every turn over his entire public career, John McCain has supported the pluribus over the unum.

********

7. Would tighter security curb illegal immigration? Yes. .

EXCERPT: Border security is one piece of the very large controlling-immigration puzzle. But policing borders, including the use of physical barriers where necessary, has been integral to the preservation of national sovereignty for centuries. In our country, some two-thirds of the illegal population has snuck across the border with Mexico; the rest entered legally - as tourists, students, etc. - and never left.

********

8. Jewish Establishment Off-Key In Immigration Debate .

EXCERPT: Finally, as George Orwell perhaps understood best, the corruption of politics and of language are interconnected. Besser uses the terms "liberal" and "progressive" to describe supporters of "comprehensive immigration reform." One wonders what sort of "progressive" would endorse a scheme concocted by President Bush, boosted by the Wall Street Journal and the nation's most exploitative industries to create a permanent underclass of impoverished immigrants, thus reducing wages and worsening working conditions for America's most vulnerable?

If you support a sordid scheme that devastates America's working class and working poor, puts at risk our national security, environment and social safety net and surrenders national sovereignty, find another label for your beliefs.

********

9. Amnesty John: If this is straight talk, who needs lies? .

EXCERPT: As with the terminological issue, the most disturbing aspect of the Social-Security-for-illegal-aliens discussion is not so much the content of McCain's policy prescriptions (which we should be happy to debate), but his brazen dishonesty, making "Straight Talk" not just a joke but an Orwellian portent. Real Straight Talk would be to say "Sure, it's an amnesty, but we don't really have any choice" or "Of course, I support Social Security for today's illegal immigrants as part of my amnesty plan." But to get the nomination, McCain has thrown Straight Talk off the bus.

********

10. Economist Debate on Foreign Students .

EXCERPT from Jessica M Vaughan: What's the downside? There isn't one, say representatives of the higher education industry. The Institute for International Education claims that foreign students and their families contribute about $13 billion annually to the U.S. economy. But this analysis is too simplistic, relying on generalizations about the actual tuition paid by foreign students and ignoring the cost of government subsidies that go to all students in public and private schools. IIE's own data show that 11 percent of foreign undergraduate students and 47 percent of foreign graduate students are supported "primarily" by the host college or university with scholarships, tuition waivers, employment, or fellowships. No student, foreign or local, pays enough in tuition to cover the actual cost of the education -- all college and university students are subsidized by taxpayers. Harvard University economist George Borjas reports that the average per-student subsidy may reach $6,400 in private universities and $9,200 in public universities, totaling several billion dollars per year.

Source: Center for Immigration Studies
1522 K St. NW, Suite 820
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076
center@cis.org www.cis.org



Putnam findings confirmed in Australia

Immigration destroys social cohesion and community spirit

Migrants from non-English speaking countries are less likely to be volunteers than Australian-born people or migrants from English-speaking nations, a new study shows. Ethnically diverse neighbourhoods have lower levels of volunteering - even among their Australian-born residents.

The study, by Ernest Healy, senior research fellow at the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, challenges the notion that ethnic diversity leads to a stronger, more cohesive society. "When you create societies from mixed backgrounds it may not lead to overt violence . but to something scarier, a withdrawal from the civic sphere," Dr Healy said, "a feeling of less connectedness."

Using levels of volunteering as an indicator of social cohesion, the study shows that suburbs with a high degree of ethnic diversity have markedly lower rates of volunteering than more homogenous localities. The study, based on 2006 census data for Melbourne, shows migrants from non-English speaking countries are less likely to be volunteers than Australian-born or people from English-speaking countries, even when their income and age are similar. Length of residence in Australia makes little difference, and nor does citizenship, but English proficiency has a small impact. About 18 per cent of Australian-born middle-income earners aged 25-64 were volunteers, for example, but only 13 per cent of those from non-English speaking countries. But in ethnically diverse areas, both the Australian-born residents and the migrants from non-English speaking countries are less likely to volunteer than their counterparts in the more homogenous neighbourhoods.

Dr Healy said the results were likely to be similar for Sydney. He said it would be wrong to conclude migrants from non-English speaking countries were unfriendly and uncaring and less altruistic than Australian-born people. It was likely their altruism was directed to friends, families and neighbours, not through organised civic, sporting, and welfare organisations. However, altruism directed through formal groups represented a "commitment to the broader social good".

The findings appear to support research by Robert Putnam, of Harvard University, that ethnic diversity can hasten a withdrawal from "collective life". Dr Healy said the assumption multiculturalism would automatically lead to strong cohesive communities without government assistance may have been naive. [Idiotic, in fact]

Source





11 February, 2008

Leprosy in Arkansas

The information below is not entirely accurate. The method of transmission of leprosy is not known with any certainty and part of the reason is that most people seem to be immune to it. Thalidomide is an effective treatment for it in men and there are also drug therapies for women

The medical community is warning the public: a leprosy outbreak in Springdale could blossom into an epidemic, if something isn't done soon. Doctors say at least nine cases of leprosy have been confirmed in Springdale. Local doctors say they would be shocked by even one case of leprosy in their entire career, so they say something must be done soon, in order to stop leprosy's spread. Springdale MD Jennifer Bingham says, "my initial response was: I am shocked. I am shocked we are seeing this. It's a true reason to be very worried."

Medical specialists say the Marshall Islands have the most cases of leprosy, in the world. And the city with the largest number of Marshallese people, outside the Marshall islands, is Springdale. And Bingham says, it makes sense, then, that leprosy is spreading to the city. "It's from the Marshall islands; that's why we're seeing it."

Bingham says she is all for Marshallese people entering the United States, after proper medical tests. But whether they're immigrants or not, she says people must stick to treatment, when infected. And she says, when she treats those from the Marshall Islands, this doesn't happen. "We're not getting the compliance that is absolutely essential to take care of this process."

Bingham says without cooperation, leprosy, which has no vaccine, and is transmitted through the air, will spread, and could easily become an epidemic. "People absolutely should be concerned. What I'm afraid of, is when people start thinking about it enough, it will already be out of control."

So now, Bingham, and others like Mayoral candidate Nancy Jenkins, say government help is the next step. Jenkins says she's angered the federal government has been so lax with border patrol. She says, "We've just opened the borders and said, 'Come on in! Bring your diseases! Bring 'em!' Why are we doing that? Those who have it need to be quarantined and treated, or sent back to their country."

Source



Courts Upholding Local Immigration Laws

After groups challenging state and local laws cracking down on illegal immigration won a series of high-profile legal victories last year, the tide has shifted as federal judges recently handed down several equally significant decisions upholding those laws.

On Thursday, a federal judge in Arizona ruled against a lawsuit by construction contractors and immigrant organizations who sought to halt a state law that went into effect on Jan. 1 imposing severe penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The judge, Neil V. Wake of Federal District Court, methodically rejected all of the contractors' arguments that the Arizona law invaded legal territory belonging exclusively to the federal government.

On Jan. 31, a federal judge in Missouri, E. Richard Webber, issued a similarly broad and even more forcefully worded decision in favor of an ordinance aimed at employers of illegal immigrants adopted by Valley Park, Mo., a city on the outskirts of St. Louis.

And, in an even more sweeping ruling in December, a judge in Oklahoma, James H. Payne, threw out a lawsuit against a state statute enacted last year requiring state contractors to verify new employees' immigration status. Judge Payne said the immigrants should not be able to bring their claims to court because they were living in the country in violation of the law.

These rulings were a sharp change of tack from a decision in July by a federal judge in Pennsylvania who struck down ordinances adopted by the City of Hazleton barring local employers from hiring illegal immigrants and local landlords from renting to them. In that case, the judge, James M. Munley of Federal District Court, found that the Hazleton laws not only interfered with federal law, but also violated the due process rights of employers and landlords, and illegal immigrants as well.

Hazleton was the first city to adopt ordinances to combat illegal immigration, laws that the mayor, Louis J. Barletta, said would make it "one of the toughest places in the United States" for illegal immigrants. After the Hazleton decision, many cities and towns that had been considering similar statutes against employers and landlords dropped the effort, fearing legal challenges that they would be likely to lose.

The recent federal decisions will probably give new encouragement to states and towns seeking to drive out illegal immigrants by making it difficult for them to find jobs or places to live. "These are not equivocal decisions," said Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, who was the lead lawyer in the Valley Park case and assisted in the Arizona case. "Both judges gave sweeping victories to the cities and states involved," said Mr. Kobach, who was also one of the leading lawyers representing Hazleton.

In another earlier, much-watched case, the City of Escondido, Calif., in December 2006 dropped an anti-illegal immigrant housing ordinance and agreed to pay $90,000 in lawyers' fees to the landlords and illegal immigrants who brought a lawsuit. By contrast, in the Valley Park decision, Judge Webber wrote that the residents challenging the statutes had failed to "create a genuine issue of material fact on any of the allegations." He wrote that the city's employer ordinance "is not pre-empted by federal law." That decision was especially notable because earlier versions of the Valley Park ordinances had been struck down in state court. After the state decision, the city dropped its statutes barring illegal immigrants from renting housing, turning to federal court only to defend its sanctions on employers.

Judge Payne of Oklahoma, ruling Dec. 12 on state laws that took effect in November, went furthest in questioning the rights of illegal immigrants. "These illegal alien plaintiffs seek nothing more than to use this court as a vehicle for their continued unlawful presence in this country," he wrote. "To allow these plaintiffs to do so would make this court an `abettor of iniquity,' and this court finds that simply unpalatable."

In Arizona and Missouri, groups challenging the laws have said they will seek new injunctions or appeal; the Hazleton decision is currently under appeal. Lawyers fighting the local statutes said these were creating a nationwide checkerboard of conflicting laws, and have generated discrimination against Hispanics who are not illegal immigrants. As of November, 1,562 bills dealing with immigration were introduced in state legislatures in 2007 and 244 became law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Source





10 February, 2008

Georgia Senate takes on immigration in 2 bills

Measures passed to outlaw safe havens, toughen driver's license penalties

Georgia lawmakers waded back into the debate over immigration on Thursday, passing one measure that would outlaw sanctuary cities and another that would boost penalties for driving without a valid drivers license. Sanctuary cities - where officials are prohibited from reporting illegal immigrants - became a flashpoint in the Republican presidential primary. Rudolph Giuliani was accused of presiding over a safe haven for illegal immigrants as mayor of New York City. The Georgia bill would prohibit sanctuary cities here, although the bill's sponsor conceded that no such cities formally exist in the state.

State Sen. Chip Pearson argued on Thursday that police in some jurisdictions were being told not to ask about immigration status of those they apprehend, which creates de facto sanctuary communities. The sweeping immigration bill that passed in Georgia in 2006 already requires police to check the immigration status of people they arrest. But Pearson said his bill would give that law additional teeth. Across the nation, 60 sanctuary cities are recognized by rule or regulation, Pearson said.

The measure passed in the state Senate 45-8 on Thursday. The driver's license bill had been vetoed last year by Gov. Sonny Perdue, who cited concerns that it could ensnare new transplants to the state who hadn't yet obtained a driver's license.

The sponsor, state Sen. John Wiles, said he had modified the bill so that a first-time offender could obtain a valid Georgia license and escape punishment. Under Wiles' bill, a driver who is stopped for a fourth time in five years without a valid license would be prosecuted as a felon. Wiles, a Marietta Republican, said the bill was about keeping the roads free of unlicensed drivers and wasn't targeting illegal immigrants. But opponents of illegal immigration praised the measure for doing just that. The Dustin Inman Society sent out an e-mail release to supporters saying it was one of "several pieces of legislation aimed at illegal immigration in Georgia."

The bill passed 38-13. Two Democrats spoke against it saying it could encourage racial profiling. "This bill will create some incidents that we don't want happening to anyone," state Sen. Gloria Butler, D-Stone Mountain, said.

It's not Georgia's first foray into the politically charged debate over illegal immigration. Georgia's ruling Republicans made national headlines when they passed a law in 2006 that critics and supporters at the time labeled the toughest state in the nation. It requires verification that adults seeking many state-administered benefits are in the country legally. It sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and requires companies with state contracts to check the immigration status of employees.

Source



The myth that illegal immigrants are needed

The Farm Worker Myth

In recent years, ripening crops regularly are accompanied by stories suggesting we need illegal immigrant labor to bring in the harvest. For example, on July 20, 2007, a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "Immigration Non-Harvest," breathlessly began with this paragraph:

"Peak harvest season is approaching in much of the country, and the biggest issue on the minds of many growers isn't the weather but how in the world they'll get their crops from the vine or off the tree. Thanks to Congress's immigration failure, farmers nationwide are facing their most serious labor shortage in years."

Visions of crops rotting in the fields make for vivid journalism. But in September, 2007 a Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress (updated from a 2004 version) entitled "Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy," found little cause to worry about crops ripening and spoiling, stating that,

"Trends in the agricultural labor market generally do not suggest the existence of a nationwide shortage of domestically available farm workers...Employment on farms did not show the same upward trend as other industries during the 1990s expansion. While nonfarm jobs generally have risen thus far in the current decade, farm jobs generally have fallen. The length of time hired farm workers are employed has changed little or decreased over the years. Their unemployment rate has varied little and remains well above the U.S. average, and underemployment among farm workers also remains substantial. These agricultural employees earn about 50 cents for every dollar paid to other employees in the private sector."

Any significant shortage of farm workers ought to have been reflected in an increase in their wages, according to the law of supply and demand. But, from 2001 to 2006, the ratio of hourly field worker wages (those engaged in planting, rending and harvesting crops) to private nonfarm worker wages maintained a constant 0.54 for six consecutive years. That doesn't preclude the existence of temporary spot shortages, but it does argue against a systemic shortage of farm workers.

[A 2007 study written by Philip Martin, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Davis, for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) entitled "Farm Labor shortages: How Real? What Response" further substantiated the conclusions of the CRS Report, and, consequently, challenges the premise of the WSJ editorial.]

Busting The Myth Across Industries

Employment statistics invariably lag behind the calendar. A March 2006 CIS study of the top 22 occupations in 2005 indicated that in no occupational category did immigrant employees outnumber native employees. In other words, native-born U.S. workers are already doing jobs where high concentrations of illegal immigrant are also employed. The largest share of immigrant employees was 44.7%, and the category was "Farming, fishing and forestry." The largest raw number of immigrant employees was in "Construction and extraction" where 2,209,000 immigrants (26.1% of the total labor force) were outnumbered by 6,250,000 native employees.

A deeper examination into statistics that focuses on less-educated workers (high school degree or less) indicates a higher concentration among immigrant employees. In "Farming, fishing and forestry," less-educated immigrants outnumber natives 364,000 to 338,000. But, there were an estimated 56,000 unemployed (14.2%) native workers in that category. In construction, native unemployment was 12.1% with 577,000 unemployed native workers.

The point: low-skilled illegal immigrant workers are wage leveraging native workers out of the occupational categories typically cited by perpetuators of the myth. The job categories include, but not limited to: farm workers, construction laborers, cleaning and maintenance providers, and food preparers. Here's one example of that wage-leveraging impact from the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR):

"In Los Angeles, unionized black janitors had been earning $12 an hour, with benefits. But with the advent of subcontractors who compose roaming crews of Mexican and El Salvadoran laborers, the pay dropped to the minimum wage of $3.35 per hour. Within two years, the unionized crews had all been displaced by the foreign ones, and without any other skills, most of the native workforce did not find new work."

The myth becomes truth if amended to read: Illegal immigrants accept jobs that American workers won't do for poverty level wages and no benefits (including healthcare).

The Truth Behind The Myth

Some conspiracy theorists claim that an open borders policy aims to create poverty in the U.S. while relieving poverty in Mexico as part of a grand scheme to eventually unite the two countries into one, minimally in the style of a European Union. The truth, though, is alluded to in a December 2006 "Special Report" entitled "Undocumented Immigrants In Texas: A financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy," released by Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Strayhorn, the mother of President George W. Bush's former press secretary, Scott McClellan, and an unsuccessful opponent of Texas Governor Rick Perry in the last election, offered this summary of her study:

"The absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion. Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received. However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not paid for by the state."

In other words, sure there are costs involved in hiring "undocumented workers." But, forget the laws against illegal immigration and employing illegal immigrants, say some. The benefits are good for the Texas economy and outweigh the costs.

Two famous, now deceased, Americans warned us against uncontrolled immigration. Barbara Jordan, Chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, testifying before a Joint Congressional Committee on June 28, 1995, said,

"The Commission recommends the elimination of the admission [as legal immigrants] of unskilled workers. Unless there is another compelling interest, such as in the entry of nuclear families and refugees, it is not in the national interest to admit unskilled workers. Especially when the U.S. economy is showing difficulty in absorbing disadvantaged workers and efforts towards welfare reform indicate that many unskilled Americans will be entering the labor force."

Jordan's warnings were ignored, as were the words earlier of the founder and president of the American Federation of Labor, Samuel Gompers, who, in a Letter to Congress in March, 1924, wrote:

"America must not be overwhelmed. Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet...two hostile forces of considerable strength. One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength (broad backs) at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages. The other is composed of racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country."

To paraphrase Will Rogers, it's not the warnings you don't hear that hurt you; it's the ones you hear and don't heed.

Source





9 February, 2008

Looking to November: Will immigration be the fulcrum?

Post below lifted from Tiger Hawk. See the original for links

Popped awake, got up to look at Super Tuesday results, and now I cannot help myself. I cannot shake the idea that even though both parties seem set to nominate immigration softies, candidate John McCain will end up moving to the right on the issue between now and November.

Among the Democrats, neither Hillary nor Obama can afford to alienate Hispanic voters even if they were so inclined. This makes it impossible for either of them to move to the center on the question of Mexican immigration until one of them has the nomination sewn up. Until that happens, will they compete in their rhetorical willingness to create incentives, rather than disincentives, for Mexicans to come here illegally? I believe that the winning Democratic nominee will have to say things on the subject of Mexican immigration that will make them vulnerable in November.

Among the Republicans, apparent frontrunner John McCain also happens to be the leading dove on immigration matters. However, he has had to harden his position on border security to get this far, and he knows that he cannot win in November without repairing his relationship with conservatives. A decisive commitment on immigration, as his been discussed on The Corner all night, might do the job.

John McCain, however, is not, as Senators go, prone to retreating on issues that he regards as matters of principle. That will make it difficult for him to say everything he needs to say to placate conservatives for whom immigration is a top issue (as regular readers know, it is far from my top issue). McCain has a difficult decision to make.

McCain's position is made all the more difficult by this rather obvious point: The Republicans really have no big issue to run on in the general election other than immigration. The economy may or may not be as bad as portrayed, but it is not a vote-winner for Republicans. Americans are tired of the war, and not just Iraq. They want to believe that Islamic terrorism is not a real danger to the homeland. They are aided in this by both the Democrats and the mainstream media, who have essentially decided that the absence of a second attack on American soil has nothing to do with the Bush administration's foreign policy or homeland security programs. And, with the exception of immigration from points south, the big culture war issues have essentially been decided by the center of American politics. None of the other issues that animate conservatives have the potential to turn enough votes to hand victory to John McCain in November. Except immigration.

If John McCain takes his new status as frontrunner seriously, he will realize that there is no issue other than immigration that has the power to drive a sufficient number of votes to the Republican side. By moving to the right on immigration, declaring himself wrong now, he can both placate conservatives and rally the party while the Democrats are still taking shots at each other. John McCain, border state conservative, can win by grabbing the only really big issue left to Republicans in this campaign -- the defense of our border and our culture from a surge of Mexican immigrants. That would move a lot of votes and give McCain a chance in the fall. It is hard to see what other issue can deliver victory.

The problem, of course, is that an anti-immigration "reform"/secure-the-borders campaign will seem like old-style nativism to a lot of people, a charge that Republicans have been susceptible to since they absorbed the "Know-Nothings" just before the Civil War. It will also alienate most Hispanics from the Republican party for at least a generation.

Finally, for those of us for whom immigration is a minor issue, the elevation of the subject to the top will make for a very tedious and possibly nasty general election campaign. Nobody will feel good about the result in November. But is there another route to Republican victory in the general election?



Illegal Immigration and the American Workforce: Summarizing the debate

At the beginning of the new year, one of the nation's toughest new anti-illegal-immigration laws went into effect in Arizona. The bill, pushed forward by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, requires business owners operating within the state to verify the legal status of all new hires. Under the new law, businesses risk losing their state and local licenses if they intentionally employ undocumented workers. The law also stipulates the formal investigation of alleged violations and outlines the procedure counties must follow in handling complaints: "[the law] requires the Attorney General or county attorney, upon receipt of a complaint that an employer allegedly intentionally or knowingly employs an unauthorized alien, to investigate the complaint." Likewise, the new measure also requires businesses to verify the eligibility of all newly hired employees by using the Department of Homeland Security's "E-Verify" system.

Vacating the State

Across the state, newspapers are publishing accounts from workers, business owners, and labor and immigration activists who contend that the new law has already had negative effects on Arizona businesses. Numerous business owners have told reporters that they have been forced to lay off many employees to comply with the new requirements. In southern counties, close to the Arizona-Mexico border, owners of apartment buildings in low-and moderate-income neighborhoods claim that their tenants are vacating in droves, leaving behind scores of empty apartments. And several school districts have seen a decline in enrollment attributed to illegal-immigrant families leaving the state. Despite such reports, district attorney offices in most Arizona counties have received few complaints about businesses employing illegals.

Before Arizona enacted its new law, at least 30 other states had passed statutes aimed at curbing the hiring of illegal aliens. During the past few years, the federal government has also attempted to introduce immigration reform legislation. The most recent bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (cobbled together from components of three failed bills), was sponsored by U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid, but failed to progress through the House of Representatives for a vote. The major changes in the bill included giving temporary legal status to illegal immigrants currently residing in the country and providing funding for increased border security. Opposition to the bill was strong from the beginning; many anti-illegal-immigration groups balked at the "guest worker" provisions of the bill; immigration advocacy groups contested the bill's emphasis on tougher border control.

The Great Debate

In recent months, the national debate over illegal immigration has figured prominently in the presidential race. Candidates on both sides of the aisle are routinely grilled about their proposed solutions to the problem of illegal immigration.

Although it is impossible to pinpoint the exact number of illegal aliens currently employed in the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports an estimated 12.5 million non-citizens (of whom 75 percent are estimated to be from Mexico and Latin America) are employed in this country. U.S. Border Patrol figures cite similar numbers, noting that more than 12 million foreign nationals have illegally crossed U.S. borders in search of work.

Those who study illegal immigration spar over whether it is beneficial or harmful for the American economy. Some posit that illegal immigrants, who often work for less money and benefits than their native-born, naturalized and legal counterparts, take jobs from Americans. Advocates of tough immigration reform, such as the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), assert that illegal immigrants cost the federal government $10 billion a year in social services. Likewise, CIS states, because illegal immigrants are undereducated, they are generally limited to low-wage jobs-often being paid "under the table." (CIS reports that nearly two-thirds of illegal immigrants have not earned a high school diploma, compared to 85 percent of the U.S. population.) They also maintain that taxes paid by illegal workers do not cover the collective cost of the state and federal benefits they receive.

Immigration proponents argue that illegal workers are a necessary and beneficial component of the American economy. According to these supporters, illegal workers fill a void by taking on low-paying, often unpleasant, and physically demanding jobs, including many in the agricultural, construction and service industries that Americans are seemingly less willing to do. Some economists predict that, without the illegal-immigrant workforce, the American labor force would shrink by as much as 3 or 4 percent and that the overall economic growth rate would likewise suffer. Benjamin Powell, an economist at the Independent Institute, cites the 2004 crackdown on illegal workers in the western United States as an example of the negative effect of a decreased immigrant workforce. The regional sweep by authorities reportedly led to $1 billion in losses when farmers couldn't hire enough workers to pick lettuce crops, which were left to rot in the field.

Border Patrol

Hoover senior fellow Russell Roberts argues that, despite the number and type of jobs immigrants perform, the United States would, if necessary, survive without illegal workers. "If we closed our borders, all the things that immigrants do now would either be done by `native' Americans (presumably at higher wages with resulting higher prices) or be done by machines or would not be done at all," Roberts states. "The country would not collapse. We'd just be poorer, on average. And so would the people who come here in search of work."

Regardless of economic forecasts and rallies that support immigrants' contributions, unfavorable opinions about illegal immigrants appear to be on the rise across the United States. In 2006, the Pew Hispanic Center reported that 52 percent of the U.S. population felt that illegal immigrants are "a burden to the country, taking jobs and housing and creating strains on the healthcare system."

Timothy Charles Brown, a Hoover research fellow who believes illegal workers can positively benefit American business, calls for regulation of illegal workers. "We need a holistic approach that looks at illegal immigration not as a political problem but as a business opportunity," Brown explains. "By transforming illegal immigration from a large-scale, off-the-books, black-market operation into a revenue-producing program that manages the movement of workers in and out of the U.S. economy, we could maximize its benefits to all four major stakeholders-the workers, their employers, the countries the workers come from, and the American taxpayers."

Conversely, Victor Davis Hanson, the Hoover Institution's Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow, argues, "by closing the borders, the U.S. would stop subsidizing Mexican failure." Hanson states Mexico must rid itself of the corruption, elitism, and cronyism that has continued to stagnate its economy and forces its citizens to cross the border in search of opportunity. The solution to ending illegal immigration, Hanson believes, lies in the hope that someday, "Tijuana might become as prosperous as San Diego." The goal of the United States, Hanson explains, should be to help Mexico by providing the "tough love" it needs. According to Hanson, closing borders, but also offering favorable trade incentives, will spur Mexican citizens to seek employment at home and demand more from their own government.

Stephen Haber, the Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and the A. A. and Jeanne Welch Milligan Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford, likewise views illegal immigration as more than a U.S. domestic issue. Haber explains that the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico increased dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s, coinciding with Mexico's economic collapse. According to Haber, if the United States were to pull the plug on illegal immigrants, Mexico could face widespread political and social instability, resulting, over time, in serious consequences for its closest neighbor, the United States. And, Haber warns, "there is no scenario in which a politically and socially unstable Mexico is in the interest of the U.S." -Michelle Bussenius,

Source





8 February, 2008

Overhaul set for U.S. guest-worker plan

The Bush administration today plans to announce the most significant overhaul in two decades of the nation's agricultural guest worker program, in a bid to dramatically increase the number of legal foreign laborers available to harvest crops.

The revised regulations, many months in the works, would make it easier for growers to bring foreign workers to the United States and could alleviate the critical farmworker shortage largely caused by the U.S. crackdown on illegal border crossings.

After Congress failed to overhaul immigration laws last summer, the White House announced a 26-step plan to tackle immigration issues through administrative fixes. Altering the legal-farmworker program would mark the most significant achievement to date. "There is huge potential here to replace the massive illegal workforce with a legal one," said Leon Sequeira, an assistant secretary at the Department of Labor.

The greatest effect would be in California, the nation's largest agricultural state. Some farmers have had to plow rotting crops back into their fields for lack of workers at harvest time. But lawmakers and growers said Tuesday that more than an administrative fix was needed to solve the state's chronic farm labor shortages.

The proposed changes to the program, which would relax the requirements for the H-2A visas granted to foreign farmworkers, come against a backdrop of growing anger over illegal immigration and tension among the presidential candidates over the issue. The new regulations could be a boon to growers, who have long complained that the program is too cumbersome and leaves them little choice but to turn to illegal immigrants.

The simplified rules are certain to generate outrage among anti-immigration activists, who say the program steals jobs from Americans. At the same time, advocates for farmworkers charge that under the new rules, growers could exploit workers by paying them less than they do now.

The proposed changes, which would take effect after a 45-day period of public comment, would modify how foreign laborers are paid and housed, and slightly expand the types of industries that can use the program. The administration would also ease the standards farmers must now meet to show they have tried to hire U.S. citizens first. "The overarching departmental goal is to encourage the use of the H-2A program to provide agricultural employers access to legal workers," said the Labor Department's Sequeira. Sequeira noted that, of the nation's 1.2 million farmworkers, more than half tell Labor Department surveyors that they are in the U.S. illegally. Many advocates believe the actual percentage of illegal workers is close to 70%.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was skeptical that the proposed changes would make much difference, noting that only about 2% of farm jobs are now filled through the notoriously bureaucratic program. "Growers frequently cannot get labor through the H-2A program when they need it. Simply tweaking regulations can't fix that problem," she said. "I'm afraid that these H-2A modifications make a bad situation worse -- by lowering wage rates and undermining existing labor protections for U.S. and foreign farmworkers."

Feinstein pushed for Congress to pass a farm labor bill that was negotiated over years by worker advocates, industry groups and unions, but failed to move forward this year in the politically fraught uproar surrounding immigration. That bill, called AgJOBS, would create a new guest worker program that would allow laborers to eventually become citizens.

"The key to real reform is AgJOBS. Growers support it. Workers support it. And bipartisan majorities in Congress support it," Feinstein said. "It would provide incentives for a stable, reliable agricultural workforce and provide long-term H-2A reform."

'A question of execution'

In addition to the Labor Department, the departments of State, Homeland Security and Agriculture have a role in the program. Labor and Homeland Security focused on making the program easier for growers to use, strengthening worker protections and improving enforcement, but critics questioned how these proposals would actually work. "It's going to be a question of execution," said a Senate aide briefed on the changes. The aide, who was not authorized to speak on the record, expressed concern about some proposals, including a change to the way workers are paid.

One of the proposed changes would set wages based on a worker's occupation and skill level. "Depending on how it's done, it has the potential to lower farmworkers' wages, potentially significantly," said the aide. Other changes would give workers more time to search for a new H-2A job after their existing one ends. Employers would have to certify under penalty of perjury that they wouldn't change the terms of work after they hired the temporary workers.

Tracking program

Homeland Security would create a pilot program to track whether H-2A workers leave the country when their visas expire. Employers that violate the program's regulations would face substantially higher fines and penalties. Growers would also be forbidden from passing along to workers any costs incurred from participating in the program.

Farmworker advocates called those provisions promising, but harshly criticized administration proposals to ease regulations concerning U.S. workers, including one that requires growers to go through several steps to show they have tried to hire an American before they can bring in H-2A workers.

"These employers routinely violate the law already and we need more law enforcement under the H-2A program, not less," said Bruce Goldstein, of Farmworker Justice, an advocacy group affiliated with the National Council of La Raza. "They're just looking for some formula to lower wage rates of both U.S. workers and foreign workers. "There is no economic or moral justification for these harsh changes."

But growers singled out the same proposal for praise and cautiously commended the overhaul. "Government is infamous for having different agencies not work together well, not understanding each other's roles and not particularly caring," said Michael Gempler, current president of the National Council of Agriculture Employers. "As a result the consumer suffers, so this is a very valuable thing to do."

Source



Alleged cop killer's employer charged in immigration violations

A federal grand jury on Wednesday indicted a landscaping owner on immigration violations, accusing him of harboring an illegal immigrant who was later charged with capital murder in the death of a Houston police officer.

Robert Lane Camp, 47, was arrested last month on a criminal complaint that accuses him of taking significant steps to help Juan Leonardo Quintero remain on the job at Camp Landscaping in Deer Park before the September 2006 killing of officer Rodney Johnson.

Camp is charged with encouraging or inducing Quintero to enter the country illegally and later harboring the immigrant in the Houston area. Quintero worked for Camp for at least 11 years, according to an affidavit filed by the investigating immigration agent....

The affidavit and indictment accuses the entrepreneur of a decade of assistance to Quintero. In August 1998, Camp posted a $10,000 bond for the immigrant after he was jailed on an indecency with a child charge and hired an attorney to defend him. After the worker was deported in May 1999, Camp sent him money in Mexico and later bought him a plane ticket from Phoenix to Houston after Quintero re-entered the U.S. illegally through Arizona. Camp then bought a home in Houston and rented it to Quintero, who is listed in federal court records as Juan Leonardo Quintero-Perez....

He must have really liked this guy's work. He also must not care much about the rule of law. Quintero apparently could not provide a valid drivers license at a traffic stop and is alleged to have shot the officer four times in the head as he was writing up a ticket. His trial is scheduled for later this year.

The case has several interesting elements including the driver's license issue and the employer issue. Perhaps they can ask Obama and Hillary Clinton about it when they are in Houston for a debate. Quintero has apparently forfeited his path to citizenship.

Source





7 February, 2008

How McCain could get the vote out on immigration

As John Judis says, it's his biggest problem with the conservative base; indeed, it may be his only big one. Right-wingers aren't going to sit at home in a McCain-Hillary race because of the Gang of 14 or waterboarding or McCain-Feingold, but some of them might just stay home if they think there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the candidates on immigration. With this in mind, John O'Sullivan argues that he needs to take a pledge to never support anything like the comprehensive reform he backed last year; meanwhile, Peter Robinson suggests that he promise to sign an executive order to build fences along the border the day he takes office.

Knowing McCain, the former seems to me unlikely to happen, while the latter pledge doesn't seem like it would go nearly far enough. So if I were advising his campaign, I'd tell him to wait till he has the nomination sewn up - so he can't be accused of pandering to primary voters - and then roll out, as part of a broader domestic-policy agenda, a "comprehensive" (yes, that word) border security proposal, one that not only boosts spending for fence-building, agent-hiring, and new technologies along the U.S.-Mexico line, but swipes a bunch of Fred Thompson's proposals on beefing up interior enforcement as well. And he should pledge, on his honor, to make the plan a top priority for his first one hundred days in office - for instance, by promising not to sign any spending bill that Congress sends him until they deal with border security in the manner he suggests. This is already effectively his message: He's said that the lesson of last year is that voters want enforcement first. But by putting real meat on the bones of that "enforcement first" promise, he can convince at least some conservatives that he really has learned his lesson - while simultaneously leaving the door open, as he seems determined to do, to supporting some sort of earned-legalization program well down the road.

This is, not coincidentally, roughly my own position on immigration - serious enforcement today, some form of amnesty if and when we manage to reduce the rate of illegal entry. But I happen to think it's a winning political message as well, particularly for a candidate trying to manage the difficult feat of simultaneously staying true to his own reputation for principle, placating the Republican base, and winning a general election.

Source



New immigration points system begins in Britain

Details of Britain's new Australian-style points based immigration system (PBS) were announced today as the Government published the rules for highly skilled foreign workers applying to come to the UK. The regulations will start coming into force on 29 February when any highly skilled foreign nationals currently working in Britain who want to extend their stay will need to apply under the new system.

In April, the new system will begin to be rolled out overseas when anyone from India who wants to work in the UK as a highly skilled migrant will need to apply under PBS. By the summer the new highly skilled system will operate worldwide.

Speaking from Delhi during a visit to discuss how PBS will work with the Indian Government, Borders and Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said: "Our points system is starting on time and on plan. "I've no problem with taking the best systems in the world, like Australia's points system, and bringing them to the UK. "This is a key part of the huge shake-up to our border security this year." "We want India to come first because India is Britain's most important market for highly skilled migrants."

The Highly Skilled tier 1 will build upon the success of the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme by continuing to attract the most talented people with the skills the UK needs to remain a global leader in the fields of finance, business and technological innovation.

The announcement follows the completion in January of the Border and Immigration Agency's global rollout of fingerprinting for all visas three months early. Now every person in the world coming to the UK on a visa has their fingerprints taken and their details checked against watch-lists - if they're on the list for the wrong reason they can't come in and could be banned from applying to come again for up to 10 years.

Source





6 February, 2008

Britain: Immigrants 'should learn how to queue'

Newcomers to Britain should receive welcome packs containing advice such as not to spit in the street and how to queue [line up] in shops, a minister said. The packs would also urge them not to play music too loudly, not to touch people without permission and not to throw litter, said Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.

She said local councils should provide the information packs to help immigrants better integrate into British society. "It is only right that we expect migrants to play by our rules. In return we have a role in explaining just what those rules are," Ms Blears was quoted as saying by the BBC. "Information packs are a way of getting that info across - providing a rough guide to the country, the county and the city and helping to ensure that new arrivals avoid doing or saying things that might upset local settled communities or getting into trouble with the law."

Britain has long welcomed immigrants, whether from its former colonies in Asia and the West Indies, or more recently from the new European Union member countries of central Europe, notably Poland. But concern has grown in recent years about the integration of new arrivals and immigrant populations, with the spotlight in particular on Muslim communities amid concern over the growth of Islamist militancy.

The new information packs - which will be consulted upon before the final versions are produced - would include advice on basic values such as respect for the law.

Ms Blears acknowledged that teaching people to queue - often seen by foreigners as a quintessentially British activity - might not seem as important as, for example, as fighting crime involving minority communities. "There may be cases where it is legitimate and necessary to target resources at dealing with a specific issue like working with young men to tackle gun crime in the black community," she said. "But overall we need a rebalancing in how we focus resources with much greater importance placed on integrating different communities," the minister added.

Source



Australia needs immigration to tackle skills shortage?

The article below is just a do-gooder opinion and is a lot of nonsense. Maybe a less airy-fairy educational system is needed and less generous welfare payments but immigration is entirely optional. China and India are undergoing rapid growth and they are not importing workers. They export workers! Japan's years of high growth were also 99% an indigenous Japanese effort. And with nearly 5% of the Australian workforce unemployed the sense of priorities here is crazy. There is plenty that could be done to get that 5% into work. In the long Menzies era, unemployment was generally under 2%. If Australia can manage that once it can do so again

Adding to the problems of a booming economy is Australia's looming labour shortage. A paper prepared for the Academy of Social Sciences Experts say the country needs to boost immigration by 30 per cent within the next 20 years to meet its growing work force demand. Many job vacancies will be created when millions of baby boomers retire. They will also create the need for more workers to care and cater for them as they age.

Australia has always relied on immigration to fill jobs and keep its economy growing, but there are now signs the level of immigration will have to ramped up to stop a skills shortage getting worse. Manpower recruitment company spokesman Steve Hinch says the skills shortage is already upon us. "We have 260,000 vacant jobs across this country at the moment," he said.

Australian National University demography professor, Peter McDonald, has been examining Australia's population and future labour force needs. He says rising fertility and immigration levels are not enough to keep the work force growing. "Over the last 20 years or so, we've had a growth rate as high as about 2 per cent, and it's now down to about 1.2 per cent per annum," he said. "If it were to be 1 per cent per annum from now on, the levels of immigration required would be higher than they are now. "At the moment, they're higher by historical standards."

Professor McDonald says that migration over the next 20 years would need to go up by about 50,000 per year, from about 170,000 to 220,000 each year. "Later on, after 20 years, it would be going up again to up around 300,000," he said. "We also say it's very important to consider domestic skills, that we need to be looking at the production of skills within Australia as well. "But the notion is that because of increased living standards, because of the need to renew a lot of infrastructure in Australia, because of the ageing of the population - a lot of different reasons - we expect the demand for labour in the future to remain very strong."

More here





5 February, 2008

Border security, immigration would get budget boost in '09

In step with the Homeland Security Department's goals for 2008, President Bush has requested funding to boost cybersecurity and border security programs in fiscal 2009. Overall, he wants to increase the department's budget by 6.8 percent. Bush's fiscal 2009 budget request for DHS, released today, calls for $12.14 billion for border security and immigration enforcement, a 19 percent increase over fiscal 2008 funding. He asked appropriators for an additional $775 million for the beleaguered Secure Border Initiative, which so far has completed 280 miles of the 670-mile pedestrian and vehicular fence planned to be in place by the end of 2008.

Bush's request for additional cybersecurity spending is in line with one of the main goals DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff identified for 2008. DHS said it responded to more than 37,000 cyber incidents last year - more than double the number of the previous year. "An unfortunate consequence of living in a networked, technologically dependent world is that terrorists and others seek to use our own technology against us," Chertoff said today. He refused to go into details about the entire cybersecurity budget, citing classification limitations. "This administration is currently intently focused on cybersecurity." Bush also wants to boost the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team, which protects federal networks and cyber infrastructure, by more than $80 million. Specifically, the administration is asking for increased funding for DHS' Einstein program, which tracks malicious activity on federal computer systems.

Bush asked for significantly more money for Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Coast Guard than in 2008. The Coast Guard, for example, would receive more than $990 million for its Deepwater program - more than $200 million more than it got in 2008.

James Carafano, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he was not surprised by the proposed increases in funding for those two areas. They represent the administration taking a look at its long-term priorities, he said. "This is kind of a natural evolution," Carafano added.

But Bush also plans to cut grant programs to state and local governments administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency by more than $1 billion. The 2009 budget would reduce funding for those programs to $1.9 billion from the almost $3.2 billion they got in the 2008 enacted budget - a proposal that Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, criticized in a press release today.

DHS officials say that because they have new programs, the Bush administration is actually asking for $2.2 billion for state and local grants, which they say is in line with what it had asked for in fiscal 2008. Specifically, the State Homeland Security Grant Program would get about a quarter of what Congress enacted for fiscal '08, going from $950 million to $200 million. Money available through grants for urban areas deemed to be at high risk for terrorist attacks would go up slightly. Port security, public transportation security assistance and trucking security grants to state and local governments would also be halved.

Carafano said the decision to reduce grants to state and local governments was likely to avoid their becoming a way to administer pet projects. But Thompson said the administration's decision "neglects firefighters, police officers and other emergency service providers who respond to our calls for help by slashing their funding." He also questioned Bush's decision to cut funding for the National Infrastructure Protection Plan Program and its commitment to some information-sharing initiatives, including state and local intelligence fusion centers.

At the budget briefing, a DHS official said grants for fusion centers would still be available. The administration pledged to support the centers' capabilities last year as part of its National Information Sharing Strategy.

Source



Gulf Arabs getting nervous about immigrants

Last month the United Arab Emirates got its own, first-ever comic book superhero, Ajaaj. His mission? To promote national identity in a state overrun by foreigners, where natives could become negligible in 20 years.

A cultural melting pot, the seven-member oil-rich Gulf federation stands out as an oasis of prosperity in the troubled Middle East, and Dubai as the jewel in the crown. But for native Emiratis, this glory has come at a price, reports Middle East Online. Foreigners continue flocking in, transforming demographics and prompting some analysts to warn that the indigenous population could end up strangers in their own land.

Enter cartoon hero "Ajaaj", the brainstorm of Watani, the UAE's social development program which tapped into pop culture as a way to target both natives and foreigners. An ancient fictional character, "Ajaaj" (which means sandstorm in Arabic), has been recast as a trim, young, Emirati man ready to upstage Western comic book icons. His feats are set in the future, in the UAE in 2020, and he is part of Watani's efforts to "uphold the national identity and encourage a sense of good citizenship", said the group's general coordinator Ahmad Obaid al-Mansuri.

The UAE's population stood at 4.1 million at the end of 2005, of whom 825,000, or just 21.9%, were Emiratis, according to official figures. Indian nationals are the largest group at more than 1.3 million, with other Asians, Iranians, Arabs and Westerners also swelling the ranks of expatriates. English, not Arabic, is the common language. And Western expats feel so at home that some seem oblivious to their hosts, disregarding the sensitivities of a largely conservative local Muslim population.

In fast-developing UAE, the foreign influx ranges from poorly-paid construction workers to hard-partying professionals. And if the present trend continues, Emirati natives will dwindle to 2% of the population by 2025, the executive director of Dubai's Statistics Centre, Aref al-Muhairi, warned in the daily Al-Ittihad.

Emiratis' concerns occasionally spill into the mainly government-guided local press, and the government recently set up a committee to tackle what is euphemistically called the "demographic imbalance." Though the issue has been around for decades, analysts say that debate has not translated into action. According to lawyer and rights activist Mohammad al-Roken, "we should not be surprised if after a decade we reach a situation where it becomes accepted that this society has no specific identity, but is a cosmopolitan society where the majority dictates the rules." Already today, Emiratis are "under pressure to abandon their language and speak English as one of the means of getting by," he noted.

With no sign that the open-door policy to capital and skills will be reversed anytime soon - one newspaper reported that Dubai is getting 800 new residents every day - Watani and other groups have stepped in. Even before Ajaaj, a hard-cover comic for young readers to come out once a month in Arabic and English, Dubai Television aired a series last year featuring four indigenous female characters from times past that turned into a big hit. Seminars and children's camps have also been organised with the goal of "communicating the national identity to other groups in order to achieve harmony".

Watani, which means My Homeland and was launched in December 2005, has had an impact, according to Mansuri. "People now use the UAE's map, flag and other national symbols in their slogans and advertisements. This applies to multinationals, not just local companies." And Ajaaj, he said, had already received "very positive feedback" in its first month, even from non-Arabic-speaking foreign residents. The question now is whether the UAE superhero will prove sturdy enough to stand up to his Western counterparts.

Source





4 February, 2008

Obama versus Hillary on illegals

By Ruben Navarette

The Democratic presidential candidates met up Thursday evening in a televised debate on CNN, and the discussion included -wait for it- immigration. That issue bedevils the Democratic Party, which has to balance the concerns of Latinos who feel as if they're being blamed for all the ills of society with the populist, pro-labor faction that claims that illegal immigrants decrease wages. That is the challenge facing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And this week, we got a chance to see who rises to it and who rolls over. Obama rose. Clinton rolled.

The Illinois senator was asked to respond to a question from a viewer about the "negative economic impact of immigration on the African-American community" - most notably high unemployment rates and declining wages. Obama pointed out that African-Americans had high unemployment rates long "before the latest round of immigrants showed up." There were, he said, "a whole host of reasons why we have not been generating the kinds of jobs that we are generating." And he cautioned against using the immigration issue to divide Americans. Obama talked about his plan to secure the border and provide the undocumented with a path to legalization provided they meet certain conditions.

Then, in remarks that were so bold and honest as to be refreshing, Obama insisted that blaming immigrants for unemployment in the inner city amounts to "scapegoating," something for which he said he had no appetite.

But apparently, Hillary Clinton did have an appetite for it. Now that her campaign has burned some bridges to African-American voters thanks to Bill Clinton's clumsy race baiting in South Carolina, it was as if she was desperate to a pander a little to African-Americans - even if it was at the expense of Latino immigrants.

She was asked an altogether different question - about why she opposed driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. She eventually got around to answering it, but not before detouring into the question that Obama was asked because, she said, "it deserves an answer."

Diving into the muck, Clinton said we have to be honest about the fact that, in many parts of the country, there have been job losses attributable to "employers who exploit undocumented workers and drive down wages." She said she meets "people who have been pushed out of jobs and factories and meat processing plants, and all kinds of settings." Clinton even talked about a man that she'd met - an African-American - who told her that he used to have a lot of construction jobs and that now "it seems like the only people who get them anymore are people who are here without documentation."

Hillary didn't say what she told the man in response. Here's what I would have told him: "Sir, I'm sorry you say you can't find as many construction job as you'd like, or as much as you'd expect. But if you want someone to blame, forget the undocumented and look in the mirror. If you find yourself competing with people who aren't here legally, who often don't have more than a 6th grade education or speak the language, and you lose out in that competition, well, there is something wrong with this picture - something that tougher immigration laws won't solve. Maybe you need to specialize your work, so you can demand a higher price. Or maybe you need to find another line of work. Either way, life is about competition. And it's not the job of government to protect you from it."

I think that was what Barack Obama was hinting at, and why - in answering that question - he performed a public service. Hillary Clinton just performed.

Source



Review of a hot controversy

My own view is that the agents acted wrongly in the heat of the moment but that they should receive only a token punishment in the circumstances.

With its pecan groves and dusty cotton fields, the calm surrounding this stretch of the U.S.-Mexican border belies its role in one of the country's fiercest immigration dramas, one that has led to congressional hearings, impassioned protests and outrage from conservative media.

It all began three years ago, when U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos and Jose Compean chased a van driven by Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, a Mexican national. Davila ditched the van about 100 yards from the border and sprinted across the Rio Grande toward Mexico, but not before Compean fired his gun at him and missed, and Ramos hit Davila with a single shot that sliced his buttocks and urethra.

As Davila disappeared across the border, agents found nearly 800 pounds of marijuana in the van he was driving. On other points, the narrative diverges: Ramos and Compean say they fired their weapons only because they believed Davila had flashed a gun at them, and they insist they informed their supervisor about the shooting.

Other agents disputed this claim during a federal trial, saying Ramos and Compean shot an unarmed man from behind, tried to cover it up and failed to report it properly. A jury in El Paso convicted the two agents of assault, obstruction of justice and civil rights violations, and each received lengthy federal prison sentences: 11 years for Ramos, 12 for Compean.

Even before the trial began, conservative media took up the cause, portraying Ramos and Compean as martyrs to an immigration policy out of control. Ann Coulter wrote about the incident, and talk radio has filled hours with the subject. CNN's Lou Dobbs has featured the story, calling the agents' imprisonment an "outrage" and "warrantless."

And as can be expected in a presidential campaign season in which immigration is a hotly discussed issue, several candidates have weighed in. Mitt Romney, who issued no pardons as governor of Massachusetts, told conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham that "if there is prosecutorial indiscretion" in this case -- and he suspects there is -- "these cases deserve a very careful look and potentially a pardon."

At a "Meet Mike Huckabee" event last month in Iowa, the former Arkansas governor said, "Of course I would review their case," adding that he hoped the agents would be back home by Valentine's Day 2009, just after a new president takes office.

Republican Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Duncan Hunter of California, both presidential candidates until recently, have each introduced legislation either asking President Bush to pardon the men or proposing a congressional pardon, which would be unprecedented.

Bush has so far declined to pardon Ramos and Compean, with spokeswoman Dana Perino noting that the men's case is on appeal. Neither has applied for a pardon, which requires admitting guilt. "He will not sign that paperwork," said Monica Ramos, Ignacio's wife. "He's not going to beg for a pardon."

Democrats, too, have gotten in on the debate. Last summer, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California held hearings on the case, saying the agents' sentences were too harsh and their case should be reviewed. Democratic Rep. Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts recently introduced a resolution in the House calling on Bush to commute the agents' sentences to time served. The bill has bipartisan support with 75 co-sponsors. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have not commented on the case.

Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted, said that Ramos and Compean are far from heroes and that the conservative media gloss over many of the facts, forgetting that a jury unanimously convicted them. "They shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and posed no threat," Sutton said in a statement. "They lied about what happened, covered up the shooting, conspired to destroy evidence and then proceeded to write up and file a false report."

Davila, the man who was shot, got immunity for the drugs in his van in exchange for testifying against the agents, but he is now in a west Texas jail on unrelated smuggling charges. He has pleaded not guilty and has filed a $5 million claim against the Border Patrol for violating his civil rights in the shooting.

In a recent visit to the site of the shooting -- a dusty, desolate patch just outside Fabens, population 8,000 -- Joe Loya, Ramos' father-in-law, kicked the dirt and disagreed with Sutton's characterization. "It's nothing but lies, lies, lies," Loya said. "This place makes me so angry." In the distance, four Border Patrol agents watched Loya from their trucks with binoculars as they scanned the border about 100 yards away. "Supervisors don't like to see us out here," he said, staring back at the men. "Too bad."

Source





3 February, 2008

GOP candidates tone down immigration rhetoric

When the Republican presidential hopefuls made their pitches on immigration to California voters this week, Harry Pachon thought he heard something new. A certain sensitivity. Beyond the standard call to secure the border, Mike Huckabee cautioned "not to be cruel." John McCain urged "a humane and compassionate approach." Mitt Romney, who earlier in the primary season talked about deporting people in 90 days, said in Wednesday's GOP debate that students should be allowed time to finish their school year and families to make arrangements before returning to Mexico.

"There's a new language of qualifying the rhetoric, of toning it down," said Mr. Pachon, who heads the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute at the University of Southern California. "They finally woke up to realize immigration might be the third rail of politics in the Latino community."

Republicans seeking votes in next week's 21-state Super Tuesday are walking a tightrope: They must appeal to a party base that demands a get-tough approach on illegal immigration but not alienate Latino voters who might be willing to support them. A recent California Field Poll of GOP voters found that illegal immigration ranked among the highest on the list of election issues important to Republicans. California Democrats listed health care on top.

California, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico are among the Super Tuesday states with large Hispanic populations. While Latinos tend to vote Democratic by a margin of 2-1, President Bush was able to win a much larger share, a key part of his successful electoral coalition. In Texas, which holds its primaries March 4, Hispanic voters will be crucial on the Democratic side but also could be important as a marginal source of support if the fight for the GOP nomination is ongoing. In California, Latinos constitute 17 percent of the state electorate. The two GOP front-runners come to the Latino-rich state with divergent positions - Mr. Romney opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants and Mr. McCain favors a pathway to citizenship.

Conservatives have blasted Mr. McCain for sponsoring legislation that they considered amnesty for those already here illegally. Chastened by that, he now emphasizes border security before any other immigration changes are enacted.

Mr. McCain's advisers believe his experience in the military plays well with Latinos. Don Sipple, a California political consultant whose clients have included George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger, said Mr. McCain is better positioned on immigration among the state's moderate electorate than Mr. Romney. Mr. McCain leads Mr. Romney by 12 points in the Golden State in a late January poll. Mr. Sipple said "the immigration issue is fraught with danger for Republicans," but GOP candidates can run on the issue by taking a position that has wide support. For example, he said, Mr. Schwarzenegger campaigned against driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in 2003 in his successful run to replace the recalled incumbent, Gray Davis. He said the idea had support even among many Hispanic voters.

Jesse Miranda is an expert on Latino evangelicals, a swing-voter group potentially receptive to Republican candidates on education and conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage. He said candidates should avoid a harsh tone that sends the message "you're not welcome" to Latinos. "What may be missing is the history of the relationship between the two countries," said Mr. Miranda, who heads Alianza de Ministerios Evangelicos Nacionales. "We have 100 years of back and forth in what used to be migration. Suddenly, it's immigration."

Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, and the fractious debate over immigration reform could have a downside for the GOP in the future. "They have a clear example in California in 1994," Mr. Pachon said, referring to Republican Gov. Pete Wilson's re-election bid in which he trumpeted opposition to state services for illegal workers. "Two years after that, the Legislature changed hands from Republican to Democrat and every marginal [congressional] district went Democratic," Mr. Pachon said.

Mr. Bush got 40 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, and that carried over somewhat to other Republicans. But exit polls indicate that GOP candidates got just 30 percent among Hispanic voters in 2006, and more recent surveys suggest the anti-Republican trend continues. A Pew Hispanic Center survey from December showed Latinos could be an important swing vote in the presidential election in November. Four of the six states that Mr. Bush carried by 5 percentage points or less in 2004 have large Latino populations.

Source



Judge supports laws against hiring illegals

In an unambiguous 57-page decision handed down on January 31, U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber ruled that local governments have a right to take action against illegal immigration by suspending or denying business licenses to employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Judge Webber granted the City of Valley Park, Missouri's, request for summary judgment in dismissing a case seeking to prevent the city from implementing local ordinances meant to crack down on businesses that employ illegal aliens. His ruling rejected every one of the arguments made by the plaintiffs in this suit.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), a Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm representing citizens in immigration-related matters, worked closely with the City of Valley Park in drafting ordinances that were approved in February 2007, and provided legal representation to the city in defending the ordinances against the suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) on behalf of a few business owners and anonymous illegal immigrants.

"Judge Webber's ruling represents an across-the-board victory for the people of Valley Park, and for the principle that local communities have a legal right to discourage illegal immigration by denying business licenses to companies that employ illegal workers," stated Prof. Kris Kobach, lead counsel for Valley Park and of counsel with IRLI.

In his precedent setting decision, Judge Webber ruled that carefully crafted ordinances, such as the one enacted in Valley Park, a St. Louis suburb, are not preempted by the federal government's exclusive right to regulate immigration. Rather such ordinances constitute the normal function of local governments to regulate the terms under which business may be conducted in their jurisdiction, and that federal laws prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens encourage local governments to act in this manner.

"The Valley Park decision is a clear green light for other cities and states to enact similar laws," declared Michael Hethmon, general counsel for IRLI. "Point by point, Judge Webber's decision deconstructs and dismisses each of the arguments that opponents of immigration enforcement have made in this and other cases around the country. As a result of this decision we expect to see many more communities enact common sense ordinances, confident that the law is on their side."

Source





2 February, 2008

Hate Speech Claim in Immigration Debate

Being critical of illegal immigration is "hate speech" apparently. At that rate, we seem very close to being unable to criticize anybody for anything without being accused of "hate" -- though criticizing Christians, conservatives, and whites is always OK of course. Many American universities these days have programs of “white studies” — which consist of one long tirade of real hate towards whites

"A national Latino group said Thursday it is fighting back against what it considers to be "hate speech" that has emerged from the debate over immigration. National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguia announced plans to pressure television network executives and candidates seeking their parties' presidential nominations to clamp down on such remarks.

The group launched a Web site to counter the speech, http://www.wecanstopthehate.org, with clips of what it considers offensive comments on television as well as a tracking of hate crimes.

"Hate groups and extremists have taken over the immigration debate in an unprecedented wave of hate," Murguia said. Although some comments could be considered free speech, "there is a line that sometimes can be crossed when it comes to free speech," she said.

Some of the remarks the Hispanic group identified included referring to immigrants as an "army of invaders" or an "invading force," associating immigrants with animals, accusing immigrants of bringing crime and diseases like leprosy to the U.S., and purveying a conspiracy theory that Latinos are trying to take back parts of the United States once ruled by Mexico....

Murguia accused the television networks of cloaking members of hate groups as anti-immigrant experts on their programs. Among those she singled out was Jim Gilchrist, a co-founder of the Minuteman Project.

In response, Gilchrist called the National Council of La Raza a racial supremacy group that "dwarfs the combination of Black Panthers, KKK, American Indian Movement and Asian gangs." "I'm exercising free speech and I'm giving my opinion," Gilchrist said. "My son-in-law is Mexican and two of my three grandchildren are half Mexican. The Minuteman Project is comprised of every race color and creed. ... She has a right to her opinion, but she's wrong."

Source

Comment on illegals by black conservative Bob Parks:

For many in the Border States, illegal immigration is not an issue. It is a lifestyle. I remember back to the visions of the illegal "day laborers" that loiter in front of Home Depot, waiting for that van or pickup truck that would take them to work. I remember going to that Burger King on the corner of Canoga and Sherman Way, where the odds were 50-50 that my drive-through order would be correct because few of the workers there understood Basic English.

On a larger scale, I remember the pending explosion in the Black community, which has become "The Brown Community", as the illegals are pushing the former residents out by sheer numbers and attitude. I remember the stories of Medi-Cal fraud that cost the state billions of dollars a year, as well as the bungalows-turned-classrooms in what used to be school playgrounds to accommodate the overcrowding of students, many of whom, are children of illegal aliens.

I remember the stories on the local news of hit-and-run accidents, and asking myself if it involved yet another drunk illegal alien driver. You'd be surprised just how often that does occur in Los Angeles almost every other day.

There are talk radio programs, almost solely devoted to this Southern California lifestyle, lamenting the fact that no matter how loudly the citizens of our nation scream about this, our national politicians turn a deaf ear, and in the case of one presidential candidate, offered to forgive-and-forget all of those whose first act in America was violating a federal law upon entry, and are now existing here thanks to fraudulent ID's bought cheap on Alvarado Street.

Out-of-touch northern elitists like Mitt Romney have no business talking about illegal immigration, as it's barely kissed Massachusetts, compared to how it plagues California. John McCain could be considered a traitor to his country, working to instantly naturalize millions of people who broke the law and have no intention of assimilating with us.

Mike Huckabee wants to complete "The Wall". How about someone with some cojones issuing an ultimatum to the Mexican government, telling them to control their people and their northern border as vigorously as they control and terrorize those who encroach upon their southern flank?

Ron Paul has said little publicly about the topic, as it's not mentioned much in the Constitution. How about a television ad or two with those millions of contribution dollars, Congressman?

Illegal immigration may be a campaign issue for "frontrunners" Mitt and John, but it is a painful lifestyle for millions of Americans on a daily basis. It would be more honest if they would just give us the middle finger instead of their campaign pledges to fix the problem. Hopefully, at some point in this election process, they will give us a reason to believe them.

More here





1 February, 2008

Britain's $700 million maternity bill for foreign mothers

Britain pays 350 million pounds a year to provide maternity services to mothers born outside the country, according to a BBC analysis. While the birth rate among British-born women has dropped, the number of immigrants giving birth has risen by three quarters The sudden rise has put such pressure on maternity services that many cannot cope and are having to turn women away. Immigrant women are more likely to suffer complications, require emergency caesarean sections and often are not known to health services until they are in labour.

When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, the NHS spent around a billion pounds a year on maternity services, with one baby in eight delivered to a foreign-born mother. Ten years on, spending has risen to 1.6 billion with almost one baby in four delivered to a mother born overseas, according to an analysis by the BBC's Ten O'Clock News.

While the number of babies born to British mothers has fallen by 44,000 a year since the mid-1990s, the figure for babies born to foreign mothers has risen by 64,000. The overall birth rate is at its highest level for 26 years.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics showed in 2006 there were 15,000 more Eastern European babies born here than a decade earlier, 11,000 more babies from the Indian sub-continent and 8,000 extra babies from African-born mothers.

In parts of London, seven out of 10 babies are now delivered to mothers born overseas. London's chief nurse, Trish Morris-Thompson, admitted the NHS had not realised how immigration would affect maternity services. "The timing of the impact is much quicker than we had anticipated", she said.

Source



Now the Irish are getting fed-up

Summary deportation proposed for illegals

Summary deportation from the State of those who are here illegally and a new category of long-term residence are among the features of a fundamental reform of immigration and asylum law published yesterday. The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill allows people suspected of being here illegally to be arrested without warrant and detained in a Garda [police] station or "prescribed place", including a prison, pending deportation.

Announcing the new measures, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Brian Lenihan said they sought to bring clarity to many aspects of immigration that were at present unclear, particularly the question of lawfulness in the State. "No foreign national will be in any doubt as to whether he or she is lawfully in the State. If you have a permission from the Minister you will be lawfully in the State; but if you have not you will be unlawfully in the State; and unlawful presence brings with it the obligation on the person to leave the State."

The Bill provides mechanisms for those coming here seeking work or to study, via a visa scheme and a residence permit scheme; and an integrated system for applying for asylum and other forms of protection from persecution under international law.

In what is the first major shift in law in the area since the introduction of the 1935 Aliens Act, the Bill also involves an overhaul of the asylum process. Mr Lenihan said applications for asylum have been falling steadily for the past number of years, and were now at their lowest level for a decade. Under the Bill an asylum-seeker can seek a protection application entry permission at the State's frontier. The application will then be investigated by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, which incorporates the previous Refugee Applications Commissioner.

The right to appeal does remain, but to a new body, the Protection Review Tribunal, which replaces the controversial Refugee Appeals Tribunal. It will be required to demonstrate transparency and consistency, and may have full-time members. Under the law there will be more restricted access to judicial reviews of asylum refusals, with provision for deportations to continue while awaiting trial.

Costs are to be awarded against lawyers who bring "frivolous or vexatious" challenges.

There are also new rules for recognising marriage between non-EU citizens, and for marriage between non-EU and Irish citizens.

Immigrant groups and Opposition parties yesterday raised concern at provisions contained in the new Bill. The Immigrant Council said the proposed law would require significant amendment in order to achieve the Government's stated aim of establishing a fair and transparent immigration system. "At first glance there is little evidence that the problems besetting the system now will be addressed - inordinate delays in decision-making, inconsistent decisions, lack of clarity and a reliance on the courts to sort out the mess, with resulting cost implications for taxpayers," said chief executive Denise Charlton.

Labour's justice spokesman Pat Rabbitte said it was not apparent that the pledge to put Ireland's immigration policy on a statutory basis had been delivered in the Bill. "Far from expressing in law what precisely are the rights, entitlements and expectations of migrants from outside the European Economic Area, the Bill appears to be giving the Minister the power to regulate inward migration."

Under the new law those seeking to come to Ireland can apply for a visa, which will entitle them to present themselves at a port, but will not guarantee entry. However, in most cases entry is likely to be allowed to those with visas. Those who come here to work or study can then apply for a residence permit. A residence permit can be short or long-term, renewable or non-renewable.

A long-term residence permit can be applied for after five years (or two for certain categories of people) and is aimed at those coming here with sought-after skills. It entitles the holder to most of the rights and services enjoyed by Irish citizens, including the right to travel abroad without seeking any renewal of the permit.

Source





31 January, 2008

Another ACLU ripoff

Two foreign nationals who said they were forcibly drugged by U.S. immigration officials during failed efforts to deport them have agreed to a settlement in the case, their attorney said Tuesday. In exchange for dropping the lawsuit, Amadou Diouf, a native of Senegal, will get $50,000, and Raymond Soeoth of Indonesia will receive $5,000 and be allowed to stay in the United States for at least two years, said Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The ACLU filed the case jointly with the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson.

Soeoth, who was appealing his case for political asylum, alleged in the lawsuit that he had been sedated with anti-psychotic drugs in December 2004 at a San Pedro detention facility. Diouf, who also was pursuing an appeal for permanent legal status, said he was medicated in February 2006 while on a commercial plane at Los Angeles International Airport.

Soeoth and Diouf became friends while being held for nearly two years at the Terminal Island detention facility in San Pedro. They reluctantly accepted the settlement when Soeoth and his wife lost their immigration appeal and were threatened with deportation, Diouf said. Soeoth, a Christian, fled his predominantly Muslim country in 1999 to escape religious persecution and "greatly feared returning to Indonesia," Arulanantham said.

Earlier this month, immigration officials said they would no longer forcibly sedate foreign nationals without a federal court order. At the time, ACLU lawyers promised to move forward with the lawsuit to gain compensation for Soeoth and Diouf. The settlement could make it more difficult to force the government to release details about its sedation policy, Arulanantham said.

The settlement reached Monday "does not constitute admission of wrongdoing by the government," but it does "reflect the fact that ICE has changed its policy regarding medical escorts for detainees," said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice.

Source



Illegal immigrant holed up in church

Saying she hoped the fear of God would keep federal agents away, undocumented immigrant Flor Crisostomo on Monday vowed to stay in a Humboldt Park church indefinitely to keep Congress focused on immigration reform. Tears streaming down her cheeks, a defiant Crisostomo said she did not believe she was breaking U.S. law, nor did she see herself as hiding.

Arrested in an immigration raid in April 2006, she was ordered to leave the country voluntarily by Jan. 28. Crisostomo sought "sanctuary" in the Adalberto United Methodist Church, the same church that housed undocumented immigrant Elvira Arellano and Arellano's U.S.-born son Saul, for more than a year. "I am taking a stand of civil disobedience to make America see what they are doing," Crisostomo said in a statement that was translated into English. Speaking in broken English, she said immigrants are not terrorists but hard-working people contributing to the economy. "The real problem is the color and the language," she said.

U.S. immigration officials saw the issue differently, releasing a statement that said Crisostomo was given a voluntary departure order Oct. 12, 2006. After an appeal failed in December 2007, she was given 60 more days to leave the country on her own. "Ms. Crisostomo will be taken into custody at an appropriate time and place with consideration given to the safety of all involved," read the statement released by Gail Montenegro, spokesperson for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Montenegro said that it is also illegal to "knowingly harbor an illegal alien," and those who do so can be subject to criminal prosecution.

Source





30 January, 2008

Europeans think Islamic immigration is dangerous

An "overwhelming majority" of Europeans believe immigration from Islamic countries is a threat to their traditional way of life, a survey revealed last night. The poll, carried out across 21 countries, found "widespread anti-immigration sentiment", but warned Europe's Muslim population will treble in the next 17 years. It reported "a severe deficit of trust is found between the Western and Muslim communities", with most people wanting less interaction with the Muslim world.

Last night an MP warned it showed that political leaders in Britain who preach the benefits of unlimited immigration were dangerously out of touch with the public.

The study, whose authors include the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, was commissioned for leaders at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. It reports "a growing fear among Europeans of a perceived Islamic threat to their cultural identities, driven in part by immigration from predominantly Muslim nations". And it concludes: "An overwhelming majority of the surveyed populations in Europe believe greater interaction between Islam and the West is a threat."

Backbench Tory MP David Davies told the Sunday Express: "I am not surprised by these findings. People are fed up with multiculturalism and being told they have to give up their way of life. "Most people in Britain expect anyone who comes here to be willing to learn our language and fit in with us." Mr Davies, who serves on the Commons Home Affairs Committee, added: "People do get annoyed when they see millions spent on translating documents and legal aid being given to people fighting for the right to wear a head-to-toe covering at school. "A lot of people are very uncomfortable with the changes being caused by immigration and politicians have been too slow to wake up to that."

The report says people have little enthusiasm for greater understanding with Islam and attempts to improve relations have been "disappointing". And with the EU Muslim population expected to reach 15 per cent by 2025 it predicts: "Any deterioration on the international front will be felt most severely in Europe."

But leading Muslim academic Haleh Afshar, of York University, blamed media "hysteria" for the findings. She said: "There is an absence of trust towards Muslims, but to my mind that is very much driven by an uninformed media. "To blame immigration is much harder because the current influx of immigrants from eastern Europe are by-and-large not Muslim. The danger is that when people are fearful of people born and bred in this country it is likely that discrimination may follow."

Source



Australian citizenship test a 'stunning' success

Hmmmm... I am not sure I agree with the criterion for success here. Is a test that everyone passes of much use? Maybe so in the circumstances but what the test requires and what it brings about would surely be more important criteria for its "success"

FEARS the citizenship test is unfair to migrants have been proved unfounded by a review showing a stunning 93 per cent pass rate. Indians and Filipinos are doing far better on the exam than Brits and New Zealanders. But a high number of newcomers from war-torn states, most of them refugees, are struggling to get through the quiz, according to an analysis released last night. The study indicates that migrants keen to get citizenship are swotting up on their new country and taking the test seriously.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the Government wanted to ensure the test was not a barrier to migrants in need of support. But he said: "The test can play a valuable role in helping new citizens understand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship."

It was introduced by the former government to "assist" people who want to become Australians understand "Australian values, traditions, history and national symbols". The test, which started on October 1, has to be taken by migrants aged 18-60, before they apply for citizenship.

The Department of Immigration review from October to the end of December found 92.9 per cent passed on their first or subsequent attempts. Candidates are allowed as many attempts as they want. But there were some surprises:

The lowest failure rate was 0.9 per cent for the 338 South African applicants, followed by just 1.1 per cent for the 634 from India, and 1.9 per cent for the 254 from the Philippines. The 1103 British migrants had a 2.26 per cent failure rate, and the 282 New Zealanders, 2.8 per cent. Skilled migrants, who made up 44 per cent of the 9043 people from 172 countries who sat the test, had the best pass rate of 97 per cent, and family reunion migrants, 21.6 per cent of participants had a 90 per cent success rate. However, for migrants here on humanitarian grounds [Mostly Africans] the success rate fell to 80 per cent.

Source





29 January, 2008

Obama revealed: He's a doctrinaire leftwinger on immigration

Barack Obama's defeat in the Nevada caucus revealed a weakness that the Clintons have been only too happy to exploit: Obama doesn't win with Democrat Hispanic voters, or at least he didn't in that state. Hillary Clinton won among Latinos in Nevada, 64-24, making her win there a sign that as the primary season heads west, Obama is going to meet a racial headwind. His solution: Pander to Hispanics by promising to support drivers licenses for illegal aliens.

Asked directly about the issue now, her California campaign spokesman said Clinton "believes the solution is to pass comprehensive immigration reform." "Barack Obama has not backed down" on driver's licenses for undocumented people, said Federico Pena, a former Clinton administration Cabinet member and Denver mayor now supporting Obama. "I think when the Latino community hears Barack's position on such an important and controversial issue, they'll understand that his heart and his intellect is with Latino community."

Obama's intention is to draw distinctions between himself and Clinton on what are otherwise indistinguishable positions on immigration. Both have adopted the standard Democratic approach of favoring tougher enforcement along with earned legalization.

The Illinois senator is differentiating himself in three key areas: driver's licenses, a promise to take up immigration reform his first year in office, and his background as the son of an immigrant (his father was Kenyan) and a community organizer in Chicago.

By dragging his own father into the debate, Obama is also signaling that he'll blur the line between legal and illegal immigration. Most legal immigrants will not appreciate this move, at all. This policy emphasis may help Obama in the primaries but it certainly won't help him in the general election if he's the nominee.

More here



Israeli High Court says black Christians may be Jews (!)

The government must reexamine the eligibility for immigration of thousands of Falashmura and allow an additional 1,500 to move to Israel, the High Court of Justice ruled last week. This decision constitutes a serious blow to the government's plan to end immigration by the middle of this year of members of this community, who claim Jewish ancestry despite conversion to Christianity over the years.

"Justice has been done," said Avraham Nagosa, who heads an umbrella organization for Ethiopian immigrants. "We said they haven't finished and that they need to check whether there are more people who meet the criteria. We asked only that they do the basic thing of checking them. This High Court decision is the beginning, and ultimately all the 8,000 [Falashmura] left will be checked."

However, the Interior Ministry downplayed the decision, saying: "The High Court accepted the state position not to open the lists. Nonetheless, it said the state would do well to determine whether there is room to expand the list of eligibles to 17,000. It is not an order, and the state was asked to announce within three months what it has decided. The matter has been transferred to the cabinet secretary for a decision."

The government decided a year ago that by June, 2008 it would stop bringing over Falashmura and close its offices in Ethiopia. The Foreign Ministry representative in the Ethiopian city of Gondar, who was responsible for investigating the eligibility of Ethiopians seeking to move to Israel, was recalled to Israel a few weeks ago. Some 1,400 Falashmura in Gondar have already received approval to move here, and that group will be immigrating at a rate of 300 a month.

Ethiopian organizations in Israel, and their supporters the world over, have criticized the government plan to bring the Falashmura immigration to an end, arguing that there are more than 8,000 members of the community in Gondar who meet the government criteria for immigration.

In response to a High Court petition on the matter, filed by representatives of the Falashmura, Justices Ayala Procaccia, Miriam Naor and Edna Arbel issued an interim verdict last week stating that the government must allow an additional 1,500 Falashmure to immigrate because the government said in 2004 that there were 17,188 potential Falashmura immigrants, but only 14,620 have received permission to move here.

More here





28 January, 2008

Zogby: American Public Sees Latin America through Narrow Immigration Lens

As the U.S. presidential candidates head into Super Tuesday primaries, decidedly negative views of American adults toward immigration are not only playing a role in the campaigns, but also risk damaging the U.S. relations with Latin America that could take years to repair.

An overwhelming majority of American adults say a candidate's stance on immigration is important to their voting decisions, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows. More than 76 % of the online poll respondents said a candidate's position on immigration is a "very important" or "somewhat important" factor in their decision on who to vote for in the presidential elections of 2008. When asked to choose from among possible policies the United States should adopt as part of its foreign policy with Latin America, the largest percentage of poll respondents, 36%, identified "job creation to stem migration..." as the most important policy.

The Zogby Interactive poll included 7,106 adults nationwide and was conducted January 18-21, 2008. It carries a margin of error of +/- 1.2 percentage points.

"This survey suggests that the United States public sees Latin America increasingly through an immigration lens, and a very negative one at that," said Peter Hakim, the President of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington think tank that collaborated with Zogby on the poll. "The fact is that most Americans think U.S. foreign policy in the hemisphere should prioritize stopping immigration," he added. "U.S. debates over immigration, tinged with anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic sentiments, have sounded mean-spirited and disparaging of Latin America," Hakim said, "and this sours prospects for improving U.S. policy and relations with the region in the years ahead."

The poll also found U.S. public disapproval over remittances, the money sent from migrant workers in the U.S. to their families back home. An ample majority (61%) believe remittances by immigrants to family members living in Latin America "take a significant amount of money away from the United States economy." That figure is particularly surprising, considering that over 20% of the public said in the survey they had either sent remittances or know someone who had.

While immigration and remittances are on the minds of the American public, the poll suggests that Latin America is not a major concern to Americans beyond that

More here



British police chief: `migrant tide adds to crime'

One of Britain's leading police chiefs has warned Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, that his force is struggling to cope with "migration surges" that are leading to increased crime. In a leaked private letter, Mike Fuller, the chief constable of Kent, tells Smith the government's failure to provide extra funds to match the influx of immigrants will have a "negative impact on performance".

Fuller, Britain's most senior black police officer, also warns the soaring cost of translation services is placing a strain on resources. He says he will need more than 500 extra constables if the population increase caused by immigration continues.

The warning will embarrass the government. Last night the Labour-dominated home affairs committee promised to investigate Fuller's complaints that government funding has failed to take into account "surges" in arrivals from overseas. In his letter to Smith dated October 22 last year, the police chief states: "I feel it is essential that I set out the impact that population growth is having in Kent and the pressure it is placing on finite resources."

Fuller estimates 78% of the population growth is accounted for by migration. This has contributed to a rise of more than a third in violent crimes over five years to about 7,800 incidents last year. He estimates the total additional cost to the force to be 34 million pounds over the past three years, but claims increases in funding from the Home Office have failed to keep pace.

Fuller, Britain's first black chief constable, is regarded as a high-flyer. He recently qualified as a barrister, training in his spare time, and has been tipped as a future Metropolitan police commissioner. In his letter he warns that government predictions about immigration and population growth have proved unreliable. He concludes: "There is a danger that if the future funding regime fails to respond to dynamic changes in migration the extra demand this generates will impact negatively on performance."

Fuller says translation services account for an increasing proportion of his budget, with costs having risen by a third over the past three years. According to Fuller, the total population of Kent is forecast to rise from 1.6m now to 1.9m in 2029. Most of this increase will be a result of immigration. He says that if these predictions are correct, he will need an extra 561 constables.

He also warns that Kent suffers special problems policing the ferry ports and Channel tunnel. "As the gateway to Europe, Kent has unique geographical status which places additional strain on limited resources." Fuller is not the first police chief to complain that government funding is failing to take account of rising immigration. Julie Spence, of Cambridgeshire police, warned last year that new arrivals, often from eastern Europe, had left her force struggling to deal with certain offences including knife crime and drink driving. She said immigrant communities had "different standards" from the UK.

When asked last month about Kent, ministers claimed no assessment had been made of the impact of immigration on costs. In a parliamentary answer, Tony NcNulty, the police minister, said: "Kent police do not separately identify costs incurred as a result of immigration."

Damian Green, Conservative immigration spokesman, said ministers had misled the public: "This is clear evidence that all over the country public services have found it impossible to cope with the unplanned and rapid rise in population over the past few years. "This is another largely rural police force which is having to spend money on translation services and cope with extra pressures caused by fast rates of immigration. Without properly controlled immigration this problem will only get worse."

Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the home affairs committee, said: "Mike Fuller raises very important issues concerned with the changing needs of local areas as a result of migration. It is important that in looking at funding formulas the government understands that there are pressures that need to be addressed. We will be looking at this issues when we launch our forthcoming inquiry into policing." A Home Office spokesman said: "We will consider any evidence provided by the police."

Source





27 January, 2008

'Hispanic panic' as Arizona immigration crackdown bites

One month after Arizona introduced a law cracking down on businesses which employ illegal immigrants, Latino workers are fleeing the state and companies are laying off employees in droves, officials and activists say. Arizona has become one of the frontlines of the US immigration debate and broke new ground on January 1 with a law that threatens to put of business companies which knowingly hire undocumented workers. The effects of the law have been immediate, according to businessmen, workers and rights activists who spoke to AFP, with companies driving up wages to attract labor while being forced to part company with prized employees.

Even though a federal judge ruled last week that there will be no prosecutions under the law until March, it has done little to prevent a phenomenon being dubbed "Hispanic Panic." "There's a lot of fear and some people are leaving," said Salvador Reza, an immigrant-rights activist who runs a day labor center in Phoenix. "The fear is not only at the worker level, it's at the employer level. I've never seen that before in my life."

Workers are going back to Mexico or to other states, Reza said. He predicted small businesses forced to lay off skilled employees like welders will now pay them in cash, creating a black economy. "The underground economy is going to take hold now, and there will be less money for the state," Reza said.

Ten men were laid off at Ironco, a steel fabrication company in Phoenix which builds large-scale construction projects. "We had to let them go," president Sheridan Bailey said. "Unfortunately some of these people were our best workers. This is terribly tragic." Two out of three men who apply at Ironco, a construction firm that specialises in buildings and parking garages made with heavy steel, are Hispanic or foreign-born Hispanic, the company said.

Ironco has raised steel fitters' wages 30 percent from a year ago, according to Bailey. "We've raised wages, competing for a diminishing supply (of workers)," he said. "We?ve been on a campaign of quality improvement, training, scouring the waterfront, so to speak, for American vets, ex-offenders trying to find their way back into society."

A crew leader who worked for Rick Robinson's Phoenix landscaping company left the state because his wife is an illegal worker. The worker was scared his wife would be deported. "I've talked to other companies who have said they can't find anybody," Robinson said. "I've heard they're going to Utah or Texas or New Mexico because they don't have a law like this. We and other landscape companies are uncertain as to how far-reaching it will be. People don't know what they can and can't do. The whole thing is confusing, gross, and unfair."

David Jones, head of the Arizona Contractors Association, said he knows of three construction companies which have laid off 30, 40, and 70 employees respectively since the beginning of the year. "They can't stand the risk of losing their license," Jones said. Many workers are heading to neigboring Nevada to find jobs. "We've created a climate which will make Arizona's construction industry subordinate to Nevada," Jones said. "We're all frustrated (with illegal immigration), but I don?t think this is the right approach. If we don?t have a functional guest worker program in this country, we?re going to be in trouble."

Businesses feel exposed to discrimination lawsuits and anonymous malicious complaints from competitors, said Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce vice president Todd Sanders. "What we're hearing from folks is a level of uncertainty because there are some loose ends in the law," Sanders said.

The ripple in Arizona's economy has spread to other sectors. Real estate agent John Aguero Sr. said he gets four to seven calls each day from people asking about what they can do with their homes. Fifteen out of 100 people who call Aguero "are just walking away from their property," he said. One man called and asked how long the foreclosure process would take if he skipped his 1,600 house payments. Aguero told him four months. "Well, I'll save that and just go home (to Guatemala)," Aguero said. "His wife is a citizen but he's not. The whole family will pack up and leave. He has three children, all of whom were born here."

Royal Palms Middle School serves a largely Hispanic and immigrant area of the city. Three or four students have formally left the school since the beginning of the year. Twice that number haven't shown up to school in ten days. Attendance is down five percent. "We've tied what we're hearing to attendance," said principal Lenny Hoover. An announcement was made to students that police cannot come into the school and seize them. "What I have noticed is a great deal of student mental diffidence about it," Hoover said. "They?re worried about it, and kids don?t worry about a lot."

Source



Feds target immigrants far from border

Detective Nick McLendon, on stakeout duty along a dark stretch of eastbound Interstate 20, noticed a red Chevy Suburban with heavily tinted windows and no light over its rear Texas license plate. The missing light gave him all the excuse he needed to pull the SUV over. Packed into the Suburban, he discovered, were 14 illegal immigrants, two suspected smugglers, and a spiral notebook on the front seat, listing the passengers and their destinations in Spanish - "Arterio Ramires to Nuy Yersey; David Luna to Nueba York; Marcelina and Jasmin to Carolina del Norte; Jose Aguilar to Alabama; Josefina Ortega to Chicago; Gustavo Ribera to Florida."

The arrests - some 800 miles from the Mexican border - represented a new and dramatic shift in U.S. immigration enforcement strategy. Federal agents, with help from local law officers like McLendon, a Pearl detective, have begun intercepting illegal immigrants and smugglers along stretches of highway deep in the U.S. interior, where those who have slipped into the country usually have little chance of getting caught. "They think they're pretty much home free once they get up here," said Bill Botts, the assistant chief patrol agent in charge of the Border Patrol's Gulfport, Miss., station. But Operation Uniforce, as the two-week crackdown begun Jan. 13 is called, "is pretty much a shocker for the smuggling organizations."

More than 300 immigrants and suspected smugglers had been arrested as of Tuesday, more than a week into the operation. Interstate 20 has become a major corridor for immigrant smugglers. It peels off from I-10 in West Texas and runs across the South, passing through Atlanta and linking up with other major highways, including I-95, which leads to Miami to the south and Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston to the north. About 40 Border Patrol and customs agents who normally work at or close to the border have been temporarily assigned to the crackdown. They and local law officers have spread out along several miles of I-20 and some of its connecting highways, parking their vehicles out in the open in the median or by the side of the road. After the two weeks are up, they will return to their usual jobs and evaluate what they learned. In the coming weeks or months, they may return to I-20 and do it again.

The hope, though, is whether they come back or not, the crackdown will put immigrant smugglers on notice and disrupt their business by forcing them to take longer, slower and more costly detours. Border Patrol spokesman Ramon Rivera said the vast majority of those caught in the crackdown are Mexicans headed to the East Coast, where they typically land jobs in agriculture, construction and manufacturing. Agents also found a Mexican who had paid a smuggler $400 to get him home to avoid a murder charge in Chicago.

But perhaps more important, the agents also uncovered vital information about a few prolific smuggling rings and a popular Texas stash house where immigrants were being kept after crossing the border. "The intelligence we are getting is absolutely priceless," Rivera said.

The Border Patrol said it had no immediate estimate of the cost of Operation Uniforce. Federal agents ran three such operations closer to the border last year: two in Baton Rouge, La., and one in Mobile, Ala. Those efforts seemed to force the smugglers north from I-10 to I-20. So this time, agents picked up and moved deeper into the interior to I-20, some 800 miles from the nearest border crossing, at Brownsville, Texas.

The Associated Press was allowed to document the operation during an nighttime ride-along last week in Mississippi. On that night, McLendon, who normally pulls over motorists in a search for drugs, found the exhausted immigrants crammed in the Suburban, shoes off, a few blankets on the floorboards, a half-empty jug of water in the back. The passengers, including a girl of about 10, had crossed into the United States from Mexico near Nogales, Ariz., some 1,200 miles away from this Mississippi town.

It was unclear whether they sneaked across the open desert on foot, or passed through a border crossing station and then climbed into the SUV. But the Suburban had made it all the way from the border in Arizona - a receipt in the vehicle showed that someone bought a new battery there on Wednesday - and passed through Dallas on Thursday - the driver stopped for an oil change about 1:30 p.m. - before being stopped outside Jackson, Miss.

If McLendon had come across these immigrants a week earlier, he would have issued a ticket for the missing light and sent them on their way. The nearest fixed Border Patrol station is 160 miles away in Gulfport, and he wouldn't have called it because the agents wouldn't have made the three-hour trip for such a routine matter. This time, Border Patrol agents posted along the highway promptly arrived on the scene, and all 16 people were arrested and held for deportation. "When Border Patrol pulled up you could see the disappointment on their face, that they would be going all the way back," McLendon said.

Source





26 January, 2008

Immigration database to mine 9 federal sources

About time! Sure to be bug-prone, though

A massive new database program that culls information from more than nine federal sources will help law enforcement agents link possible terrorists or other suspected criminals with associates whose records are in the system, federal officials say. The program's goal is to close gaps in information-sharing identified in The 9/11 Commission Report, which chided law enforcement for failing to piece together the hijackers' terrorist cell. Critics say it raises privacy and accuracy concerns. "The system will make connections for us," says Jason Henry, who runs the information-sharing program at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Other federal, state and local law enforcement will be able to access the ICE Pattern Analysis and Information Collection System, dubbed "ICEPIC." It will collect information from databases that track foreign students, visitors and immigrants as well as criminals and suspected terrorists. Among the databases is the government's terrorist watch list. More than 15,000 people have appealed to have their names taken off that list, saying it contains incomplete or inaccurate information. ICE declined to identify all the databases "because that becomes a road map for a terrorist or a member of a criminal organization," Henry said.

Investigators previously searched 10 to 15 databases manually for people who met "suspicious criteria," a process that could take as long as three days per person, Henry says.

Civil liberties and privacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union say they worry investigators will arrest innocent people based on information from flawed databases. "The difficulty is if you have bad data," ACLU attorney Tim Sparapani says. "Then that bad data migrates from one database to another database. You end up with all sorts of innocent people getting stopped or tagged as being suspicious."

James Dempsey of the Center for Democracy & Technology says if the agency builds in safeguards to protect innocent people, the data can be useful. ICE officials say they will not use the system to monitor travel or behavior patterns. "It's not data mining," says spokesman Brandon Alvarez Montgomery. Sparapani counters: "This is data mining of the highest order. They can say the sky is pink, but we all know it's blue." ICEPIC will be posted in the Federal Register on Tuesday and will be in use after a 30-day comment period, Henry says.

Source



An outrageous immigration story...

Arrogant Fascist bureaucrats. It shouldn't need intervention from a Congressman to get a bureaucracy to behave decently and competently

Thomas Warziniack was born in Minnesota and grew up in Georgia, but immigration authorities pronounced him an illegal immigrant from Russia. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has held Warziniack for weeks in an Arizona detention facility with the aim of deporting him to a country he's never seen. His jailers shrugged off Warziniack's claims that he was an American citizen, even though they could have retrieved his Minnesota birth certificate in minutes and even though a Colorado court had concluded that he was a U.S. citizen a year before it shipped him to Arizona.

On Thursday, Warziniack finally became a free man. Immigration officials released him after his family, who learned about his predicament from McClatchy, produced a birth certificate and after a U.S. senator demanded his release. "The immigration agents told me they never make mistakes," Warziniack said in an earlier phone interview from jail. "All I know is that somebody dropped the ball."

The story of how immigration officials decided that a small-town drifter with a Southern accent was an illegal Russian immigrant illustrates how the federal government mistakenly detains and sometimes deports American citizens. U.S. citizens who are mistakenly jailed by immigration authorities can get caught up in a nightmarish bureaucratic tangle in which they're simply not believed. An unpublished study by the Vera Institute of Justice, a New York nonprofit organization, in 2006 identified 125 people in immigration detention centers across the nation who immigration lawyers believed had valid U.S. citizenship claims. Vera initially focused on six facilities where most of the cases surfaced. The organization later broadened its analysis to 12 sites and plans to track the outcome of all cases involving citizens.

Unlike suspects charged in criminal courts, detainees accused of immigration violations don't have a right to an attorney, and three-quarters of them represent themselves. Less affluent or resourceful U.S. citizens who are detained must try to maneuver on their own through a complicated system. "It becomes your word against the government's, even when you know and insist that you're a U.S. citizen," Siulc said. "Your word doesn't always count, and the government doesn't always investigate fully."

Officials with ICE, the federal agency that oversees deportations, maintain that such cases are isolated because agents are required to obtain sufficient evidence that someone is an illegal immigrant before making an arrest. However, they don't track the number of U.S. citizens who are detained or deported. "We don't want to detain or deport U.S. citizens," said Ernestine Fobbs, an ICE spokeswoman. "It's just not something we do." While immigration advocates agree that the agents generally release detainees before deportation in clear-cut cases, they said that ICE sometimes ignores valid assertions of citizenship in the rush to ship out more illegal immigrants....

The attorneys said the chances of mistakes are growing as immigration agents step up sweeps in the country and state and local prisons with less experience in immigration matters screen more criminals on behalf of ICE. ICE's Fobbs said agents move as quickly as possible to check stories of people who claim they're American citizens. But she said that many of the cases involve complex legal arguments, such as whether U.S. citizenship is derived from parents, which an immigration judge has to sort out. "We have to be careful we don't release the wrong person," she said.

In Warziniack's case, ICE officials appear to have been oblivious to signs that they'd made a serious mistake. After he was arrested in Colorado on a minor drug charge, Warziniack told probation officials there wild stories about being shot seven times, stabbed twice and bombed four times as a Russian army colonel in Afghanistan, according to court records. He also insisted that he swam ashore to America from a Soviet submarine. Court officials were skeptical. Not only did his story seem preposterous, but the longtime heroin addict also had a Southern accent and didn't speak Russian.

Colorado court officials quickly determined his true identity in a national crime database: He was a Minnesota-born man who grew up in Georgia. Before Warziniack was sentenced to prison on the drug charge, his probation officer surmised in a report that he could be mentally ill. Although it took only minutes for McClatchy to confirm with Minnesota officials that a birth certificate under Warziniack's name and birth date was on file, Colorado prison officials notified federal authorities that Warziniack was a foreign-born prisoner.

McClatchy also was able to track down Warziniack's three half-sisters. Even though they hadn't seen him in almost 20 years, his sisters were willing to vouch for him. One of them, Missy Dolle, called the detention center repeatedly, until officials there stopped returning her calls. Her brother's attorney told her that a detainee in Warziniack's situation often has to wait weeks for results, even if he or she gets a copy of a U.S. birth certificate.

Warziniack, meanwhile, waited impatiently for an opportunity to prove his case. After he contacted the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, a group that provides legal advice to immigrants, a local attorney recently agreed to represent him for free.

Dolle and her husband, Keith, a retired sheriff's deputy in Mecklenburg County, N.C., flew to Arizona from their Charlotte home to attend her brother's hearing before an immigration judge. Before she left, she e-mailed Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. After someone from his office contacted ICE, immigration officials promised to release Warziniack if they got a birth certificate. After scrambling to get a power of attorney to obtain their brother's birth certificate, the sisters succeeded in getting a copy the day before the hearing. On Thursday, however, government lawyers told an immigration judge during a deportation hearing that they needed a week to verify the authenticity of Warziniack's birth record. The judge delayed his ruling.

"I still can't believe this is happening in America," Dolle said. Warziniack began to weep when he saw his sister. "They still don't believe me," he said. Later that day, however, ICE officials changed their minds and said that he could be released this week. They said they were able to confirm his birth certificate, but they didn't acknowledge any problem with the handling of the case.

The officials blamed conflicting information for the mix-up. "The burden of proof is on the individual to show they're legally entitled to be in the United States," said ICE spokeswoman Kice..... [What an arrogant heap of Soviet sh*t! Guilty until proven innocent! They should deport HER -- to Russia]

In the end, Sanguinetti said, ICE is responsible for making sure that it detains and deports the correct person. Her prisons flag hundreds of prisoners a month as foreign-born, but can't possibly verify the information, she said. "Could it happen again? Sure," Sanguinetti said. "But we would hope that ICE during their investigative process would discover the truth."

Rachel Rosenbloom, an attorney at the Center for Human Rights and International Justice at Boston College who's identified at least seven U.S. citizens whom ICE has mistakenly deported since 2000, believes that the agency should set up a more formal way of handling detainees when they appear to have valid claims of U.S. citizenship. At the very least, she said, ICE could release people such as Warziniack on bond while waiting for immigration judges to hear the cases. "It's like finding innocent people on death row," Rosenbloom said. "There may be only a small number of cases, but when you find them you want to do everything in your power to make sure they get out."

Source





25 January, 2008

"Undocumented" thugs at work

There's one old lady who must wish that only "documented" people could enter the USA

Daly City police have identified a man suspected of driving a getaway vehicle following a botched Jan. 12 robbery that left a 78-year-old woman in critical condition, police Lt. Jay Morena said today. Police arrested Juan Carlos Cuellar, 36, after serving him with a search warrant at his home in the 800 block of Hillside Boulevard in Daly City on Sunday, Morena said. Police were tipped off by a witness who claimed Cuellar had confessed to the crime, Morena said.

Cuellar would not tell police the location of the getaway vehicle, a white 2007 Chevrolet extended-cab pickup truck with license plate No. 8K20092, according to Morena. Police believe the vehicle may contain physical evidence relating to the robbery attempt in which Cuellar's alleged accomplice, 28-year-old Jose Perez-Gonzalez, used a metal bar to pry open a rear sliding door of a 78-year-old woman's Serramonte neighborhood home.

Police believe that Perez-Gonzalez was surprised by the victim and beat her about the face with the pry bar, leaving her "bleeding profusely from massive facial and head trauma," according to police. The suspect then fled the home through the front door, setting off the silent alarm, and left the scene in the getaway car. Police responded to the alarm around 3:40 p.m. and found the victim suffering major injuries, police reported. The woman was taken to a local hospital where today she remains in critical condition, a police detective said.

Investigating officers discovered that Perez-Gonzalez apparently called the victim's home before the robbery pretending to be delivering a package to determine what time the victim would be out of the home. Both men will face a variety of felony offenses, Morena said, which include attempted murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault of an elderly person resulting in great bodily injury and two counts of residential burglary. However, Cuellar will not speak with detectives and Perez-Gonzalez remains at large.

Police believe that Perez-Gonzalez most recently lived on Sandra Court in South San Francisco, but have searched more of the Bay Area in hopes of finding him. He is described as 5 feet 6 inches tall, 145 pounds with black hair and brown eyes. He has a black and red 'Harley Davidson' motorcycle emblem and black dragon band tattooed on his right arm and may have 'Mexico' tattooed in large letters on the inside of his right forearm. In the past he has used the names Antonio Perez, Moses Omar Lopez-Padilla, Jose De Jesus Perez-Gonzalez and Juan Arellano.

Police said Cuellar an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador and Perez-Gonzalez is an undocumented immigrant originally from Guadalajara, Mexico.

Source



Canada toughening up?

Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to get into Canada, as border agents with better access to American criminal databases are turning people back for offenses ranging from assault to drunken driving to shoplifting. Canada has had better access to criminal records since the Sept. 11 terror attacks but lawyers say they are now using the records more aggressively. "There has been some changes in procedures," says Enrico Caruso, a Detroit-based immigration lawyer who says he has received more complaints in recent months from Americans shut out for old non-violent offenses. "There's more questions being asked at the point of entry," he says.

Americans took nearly 44 million trips to Canada in 2000, according to Canada Statistics, the federal government's statistical agency. Fewer than 29 million made the trip in 2006, the last year for which figures were available.

Caruso says one reason for the drop in visitors is concern among some Americans that Canada will stop them because of their past. "It is absolutely the case," he says. "An indiscretion can be anything from a DUI to when you were 18 and scalped tickets to a Red Wings game."

The Canadian Consulate General's office says almost all convictions can bar you from entry and improved sharing of criminal databases have made it easier for Canadian border agents to identify Americans with a criminal past. Canada Border Services spokesperson Derek Mellon says there has been no change in the line of questioning asked by his agents. And he says the number of Americans turned away is small. In fiscal year 2006, he says fewer than 6,000 people were turned away. Mellon said his agency's aim is to ensure the safety of Canadians. "That's the reality of a post-9/11 world," he said. "When people are coming to the country they have to know that there's regulations."

Randy Kutter, a firefighter from Princeton, Minn., had been taking fishing trips to Canada his entire life. But Canadian border agents barred him in 2005 because of two DUI convictions in the 1980s. "I couldn't fault any nation for trying to protect their borders," Kutter said. "I think that people who have paid their debt to society need to be forgiven at some point."

Although the United States has similar access to Canadian records the policy here does not appear to be as stringent. Michael Friel, a spokesman with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, says convictions for crimes like DUI, simple assault, disorderly conduct and breaking and entering do not make a person inadmissible to the United States.

David Cohen, a Montreal-based immigration attorney for 25 years, says that for the first time more than half of his calls in 2007 have come from Americans surprised after being turned back at the border. He said the big difference has been a question asked more frequently of visitors: "Do you have any criminal offenses?" "Normally, that isn't a question that would be asked to U.S. residents coming into Canada," Cohen says. "It was kind of on the honor system."

Source





24 January, 2008

Clinton hypocrisy

By Ruben Navarette

It's hard to find any candidate in either party who is speaking to Hispanics in a way that is substantive, respectful and empowering. Instead, we're served a combination plate of neglect, pandering, and double-talk - with a side of chips and guacamole. That's what Sen. Hillary Clinton offered recently to Hispanic voters while campaigning in a Mexican restaurant in Las Vegas. She was trying to make the point that, even with our differences, all Americans are connected and all their problems are connected despite the fact that "we treat them as though one is guacamole and one is chips."

Look, a white politician trying to relate to Hispanics by using Mexican food as an entree. How original. I asked Richardson what he thought of the analogy. "The remarks are a bit unfortunate," he said. "But with Latinos, she's always been very sensitive. This was a slip of the tongue. But it's still typical of an American mainstream view that we're defined by certain ethnic characteristics."

Mexican Americans are accustomed to politicians trying to relate to them through Mexican food. In his congressional races, Lyndon Johnson went into the Hispanic enclaves of south Texas and handed out tacos and beer. Years later, President Ford tried to bond with a Hispanic audience by biting into a tamale. Too bad Ford didn't realize he had to remove the husk. President Clinton loved Mexican food and consumed it in mythical proportions. During a visit to a Mexican restaurant in Tucson in the late 1990s, Clinton ate enough to sustain a family of four. The next day, there was an article in an Arizona newspaper talking about how Clinton met with black leaders and addressed Native Americans - and how, to show his affinity to Hispanics, he ate tons of Mexican food.

So what? How does that help me - or those Hispanics who hunger for respect from politicians? We get it. Almost everyone likes Mexican food. But listen to the immigration debate and it becomes clear that not everyone likes Mexicans. And that's what those who are running for president should be talking about. Why not can the superficiality and have a mature discussion about issues that impact people's lives?

Instead, when the immigration issue came up during her visit to the restaurant in Las Vegas, Sen. Clinton went for the easy applause line. When a man shouted out that his wife was illegal, Clinton drew cheers when she declared: "No woman is illegal." Not helpful. Clinton should have shown some tough love, and told these folks to take responsibility for their actions. No woman is illegal? What does that even mean?

Surely, people do sometimes engage in unlawful activities and they have to make restitution and ask forgiveness. People will be less likely to do that if you convince them that they didn't do anything wrong.

This kinder and gentler Hillary Clinton may take getting used to. In February 2003, when she was trying to impersonate a hawk on border security, Clinton assured a couple of talk show hosts at WABC radio in New York that she was "adamantly against illegal immigrants." Why, Sen. Clinton. Haven't you heard? No immigrant is illegal.

Now that Clinton is running for president and in hot pursuit of the Hispanic vote, it's no wonder she wants to keep things light and pass the chips and guacamole. The contradictions - between where she is now, and where she used to be - could be hard to swallow.

Source



Michigan to bar licenses to illegal aliens

Michigan will no longer let illegal immigrants get driver's licenses, a practice just seven other states continue to allow. Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, who oversees the motor vehicle department, announced the new policy Monday and said it takes effect Tuesday. The new policy also bars people who are legal but not permanent U.S. residents from getting licenses. Legislation to allow those on temporary work or student visas to get licenses is pending in the Legislature.

The change is aimed at complying with an opinion issued last month by Attorney General Mike Cox, who said granting licenses to illegal immigrants is inconsistent with federal law. Opinions by the attorney general's office are legally binding on state agencies and officers unless reversed by the courts. The new policy applies to first-time applicants for a Michigan driver's license or identification card. Updated procedures for renewals will be released soon.

"This is one more tool in our initiative to bolster Michigan's border and document security," Land said in a statement. "It also puts Michigan's procedure in line with those of most other states." Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington do not require drivers to prove legal status to obtain a license. Michigan borders Canada and contains some of the nation's busiest boundary crossings.

Driver's licenses are among several hot-button issues surrounding the debate over illegal immigration. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer last year proposed allowing illegal immigrants to get licenses, but withdrew the idea under heavy criticism.

Source





23 January, 2008

The good ol' Leftist tactic of doing your best to shut a critic up whom you cannot successfully debate

SCLC are a "rights" organization rather than representatives of a church or group of churches. That both Jesus (Mark 12:17) and St Paul (Romans 13:1-7) tell Chistians to obey the law of the land is one of those "optional" Christian doctrines, for them apparently. Otherwise they would not be suporting illegal imigration by word or deed. And there is only ONE group of racists in the matter. "La Raza" means "The race". How blatant can you get and still earn Leftist and media approval? Completely blatant, apparently -- as long as you don't mention the word "white", of course. Nice to see the SCLC supporting racism. I wonder what the founder of SCLC (M.L. King) would think of that?

A Kansas City parks official whose membership in an anti-illegal immigration group sparked the cancellation of two conventions here has resigned. Kansas City parks board commissioner Frances Semler, a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) which runs patrols on the U.S. border with Mexico as part of its effort to prompt more enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, resigned late on Monday, the city said.

Her resignation marks the latest skirmish in an increasingly emotional debate across America over illegal immigration. Although Kansas City is far from the Mexican border, the focal point for arguments over how to handle illegal crossings into the United States, the debate over Semler's views has spotlighted deep divisions among Americans on the issue.

Last week, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference said because of Semler's views it would join the National Council of La Raza, a U.S. Hispanic advocacy group, in rejecting Kansas City for national conventions previously planned for the city.

Semler said frustration with a lack of enforcement of U.S. immigration laws led her to join the Minuteman group in December. She had planned to attend a meeting of the organization planned for Kansas City on February 1-2 but was warned by Mayor Mark Funkhouser not to attend. "Any individual or organization who speaks with concern of the impact of the well-organized invasion of illegals in this country is subjected to being called terms such as bigot or racist," Semler said in her resignation letter.

Southern Christian Leadership Conference CEO Charles Steele Jr. also urged other civil rights groups to boycott the city. Leaders of the organizations could not be reached for comment on Tuesday, but in the past they and other critics said the Minuteman group is a racist organization that uses guns and intimidation against minorities.

In contrast, the group, which counts about 9,000 members nationally, says it is a peaceful organization trying to uphold U.S. law. Its has member patrols along the U.S. border with Mexico and reports illegal crossings to law enforcement agencies. "Mayor Funkhouser is clearly running a sanctuary city (for illegal immigrants) in Kansas City, and rather than demonstrate some leadership by enforcing the laws, he has chosen to play racial politics..." said Chris Simcox, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps president.

Source



Immigration is an economic issue too

Not surprisingly, Democrats have switched the pitch from Iraq to the economy, because the administration's latest Iraq strategy may actually be working.

An analysis of the economy consists of countless pieces, not the least of which is the issue of "foreigners" - either those who are taking our jobs as we export them to other countries (globalization) or those foreigners who take our jobs at this end as we "import" them - not the jobs - but the foreigners. It's a bit of a double whammy.

Democrats are, of course, railing over the globalized economy as though we can do something to stop it, but some of their strategists believe they are making a mistake to concede the immigrant issue to the Republicans. Democrats never want to concede a negative or populist issue. This is their meat and potatoes - attack anybody and anything - corporations, big oil, anyone who provides a job, drug companies, and the rich - but offer nothing constructive as a solution, other than government.

While their support of either illegal or legal immigration insures them of the Latino vote, the concern of the Democratic intelligentsia is that the majority of voting Americans may see this as an economic issue wrapped up in a patriotic cultural package. Both traditional blue collar and elitist Democrats see their jobs evaporating by being exported, or by being taken both at the low end and the high end by immigrants, both illegal and legal.

According to the World Bank, 36 percent of immigrants to first world countries have college degrees. So the intelligenzia too have cause for concern. This exceeds the percentage of Americans who have college degrees!

And these Democratic strategists are observing a serious immigration backlash in England ("British jobs for British workers"), France, Italy, Denmark, Norway (keep out the "far foreigners").The list is endless. The ethnically homogeneous societies of Scandinavia started panicking with the influx of asylum seeking refugees as far back as the 1980s.

And talk about fences in the U.S., India has completed a 2,500 mile fence along their border with Bangladesh to keep out their great unwashed neighbors. (Reminiscent of the Rabbit-proof or "vermin" fence in Australia which took six years to complete, but is "only" a little more than 2000 miles long.)

With a slowing economy, American voters too are going to worry about foreigners taking their jobs, welfare checks and public services, such as schools and hospitals, which we can't even afford to fund for ourselves.

The last wave of immigration ended in about 1920. Ironically that was the year my father came over. He was a skilled European chef and was responsible for training many U.S. workers. He brought over his brother and my grandfather who started a painting company.

Those were different times. Since there were no social programs, half of the immigrants returned to their native country. The immigrant educational level was about equal with ours. Not much to brag about. A worker with a high school diploma in those days was a high end employee. Nowadays, there is a worker living in 78 percent of immigrant households using at least one welfare program. So they remain, and account for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment.

The primary reason for their poverty is their low education levels - not their work ethic. Thirty-one percent haven't completed high school compared to 8 percent of our native born. So while they make an ideal constituency for the Democratic Party, the poorest 10 percent of Americans - a Democrat constituency - are competing with immigrants for jobs and seeing their wages cut by this competition.

But where history shows us that in the early 20th century immigrant assimilation was rapid, but causing a voter backlash even back then, there is anecdotal evidence today both here and in Europe (particularly with the Muslim immigrant) that immigrants are rejecting the culture of the host country.

This mindset is of interest to me. As a first generation American, and when a young grade-schooler, I naively thought when studying American history, that I was immersing myself in my cultural past. But I never thought that way when studying European history. Thinking about it today, many years later, it seems a bit strange - and on top of that, we lived in ethnically European neighborhoods.

And all of this is occurring as the immigrant population here has reached a record of close to 40 million, with about one in three illegal. To appreciate the cultural and economic implications - consider this: Our percentage of immigrants has quadrupled since 1970 from 9.6 million. Many Americans have seen this happen before their very eyes. This surge is unprecedented in American history. We feel it in our bones.

Public hostility to immigration internationally - much less in the U.S. - cannot be overstated and needs to be addressed by our legislators. Apart from addressing the illegal immigration issue, we need to address the economic implications of legal immigration. At the very least it seems silly to import another welfare constituency, which resists assimilation, and keeps ties with, and dollars flowing back to the mother country.

Political investigations are the only legislative business of interest to the old Democratic warhorses in Congress since the 2006 election. These septuagenarians get up every morning with one thought in mind: Which Republican can we subpoena today?

These are times when America needs a forward looking legislative body in Washington to resolve our immigration and economic issues. Yet we see Democrats governing as in the past by their subpoena power; the latest being the investigation into the CIA destruction of the Abu Zubaydah tapes in 2002 which allegedly show him giving valuable intelligence information after being water boarded.

Apparently the CIA saw the wisdom of destroying these tapes before they saw the light of day and gave the Middle East another "Abu Ghraib" moment. Makes sense to me. Is this the most constructive fact finding effort the House can do to either protect America or move our economy forward?

Source





22 January, 2008

Democrats afraid of their own voters

They close their eyes to anti-illegal-immigration views within their ranks

On Tuesday's Lou Dobbs Tonight, which was repeated on Sunday, CNN host Dobbs chided the media for not including illegal immigration in exit polls of Democratic voters simply because Democratic candidates have avoided discussing the issue to prevent, according to Bill Schneider, "stirring up a lot of passion," and relayed that he had pressured CNN into including the issue in its polls. Dobbs: "Would it surprise you if I were to tell you right here in front of God and everybody I had to convince CNN a couple of years ago to include illegal immigration in a poll because we didn't even in this organization believe it was an important issue, some of us didn't?" He even got Schneider to agree with his contention that the media's "complicity with that motive" of the Democratic candidates in ignoring the issue should "bring a sense of shame to these [media] organizations."

Dobbs set up the discussion with Schneider, Gloria Borger and CNN contributor/liberal talk radio host Roland Martin by showing a report by correspondent Casey Wian about a business owner who refused to hire illegal immigrants, and argued that he ended up suffering because his competitors exploited the cheaper labor of illegal workers. After Borger opined that increasing concern about the economy would lead to the illegal immigration issue moving "front and center" because the two issues are "intertwined," Dobbs brought up CNN's handling of the issue:

Would it surprise you if I were to tell you right here in front of God and everybody I had to convince CNN a couple of years ago to include illegal immigration in a poll because we didn't even in this organization believe it was an important issue, some of us didn't? Bill Schneider, the idea that the Democratic party is not being polled in exit polls on the issue of illegal immigration, you and I have talked about this, the idea that the national press corps doesn't think it's an important issue for Democrats in making that a priority judgement, your thoughts?

Schneider cited the refusal of Democratic candidates to talk about the issue to avoid "stirring up a lot of passion" as the rationale behind the issue's absence in exit poll questions to Democratic voters, but also conceded that "Democrats certainly care about the issue." When asked by Dobbs if it should "bring a sense of shame" to media organizations that they "act in complicity with that motive on the part of these candidates and the Democratic party," Schneider agreed: "I think it should. I think that they should poll on the issues that are of concern to the voters, whether or not the candidates talk about them."

Source



Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

* in the country legally;

* have the means to sustain themselves economically;

* not destined to be burdens on society;

* of economic and social benefit to society;

* of good character and have no criminal records; and

* contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Poblacion, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law. Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)

* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

* A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working without a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

* "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

* Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

Source