Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. TV: Steven Camarota Discusses Amnesty Plans on FOX News
Publication
2. What Back Taxes? Rep. Schumer’s Maneuvers During 1986 Amnesty Shed Light on Sen. Schumer’s Promises Today
Blogs
3. There Must Be a Blue Moon Shining – DOJ Unit Actually Helps Citizens!
4. Univision Discussion Plots a Course for Comprehensive Reform Bill
5. Alaska's Begich Ties Immigration Vote to Access to Cheap Labor for Canneries
6. While Nobody Was Reporting, the Border Was Declared Secure
7. USDA Promoting Mexican Immigrant Welfare Use
8. Judge Tells DHS to Stop Shooting Itself in the Foot
9. Birth Certificate Standards: Drafted Eight Years Ago, Still Not Published
10. Jon Stewart Truth-Squads John McCain on Immigration Reform
Foreigners to lose legal aid in court battles over benefits as Cameron orders end to 'soft touch' Britain
Immigrants are to be banned from receiving legal aid to launch court battles against the government in order to claim benefits.
David Cameron last night vowed to stop Britain being seen as a 'soft touch' as he revealed the first details of a plan to curb the access foreigners have to public money.
The Prime Minister said ministers were scouring the tax and benefits system to close loopholes which make it too easy for newcomers to Britain to claim handouts.
'Our message is very clear. We want immigration that will benefit Britain,' he insisted.
Limiting legal aid in cases involving housing, benefits and other civil claims will save millions from Britain's £billion legal aid bill.
'I think the most important thing is to make sure that while you have free movement you are not a soft touch,' Mr Cameron said.
'That is why we are going through, in fine detail, our benefits system, our tax system, our health system, our housing system, every aspect of our welfare system.'
The Government is determined to use curbs on benefits to deter Romanians and Bulgarians from flocking to the UK in January when restrictions on their travel here are lifted.
Mr Cameron revealed he has ordered Tory ministers to ignore warnings from civil servants that getting tough on immigration was too difficult.
And he said he had been forced to rebuff calls during a trip to India last week to ease curbs on immigrants moving to Britain for low-skilled jobs.
Ministers are also looking at ways to limit the amount of child benefit and tax credits which can be claimed by new arrivals in the UK.
Currently child benefit is paid to 40,000 children who do not live in the UK, costing up to £36million-a-year.
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has now been tasked with drawing up a 'residency test' to prevent new arrivals from immediately gaining automatic access to legal aid for cases in the civil courts.
The PM said: 'I think there is more we can do. One of the aspects that we are reaching fairly early conclusion on is that we can no longer grant legal aid to non-UK nationals or for civil cases, people who are facing housing cases or benefit cases.
'We need a proper residency test for those cases and we’re going to consult on introducing one,' he told the Daily Express.
'That is just one element of a huge range of measures to make sure that people who do come here are coming here because there is a particular job of work they want to do – rather than coming here because they want to use the health service or get a council house.'
A Government study to flesh out the new policy is set to be announced soon.
Mr Cameron said he had made to Tory ministers that they must over-rule officials if they try to derail attempts to take a more strident line on curbing immigration.
'Going through area after area, I’ve told the ministers: tear up your departmental brief, I’m not interested in what you were told to say when you came to this meeting; rip it up, think like a Conservative and make sure you’re really doing what is necessary to ask the difficult questions in your department.
'Make sure that we’re a fair country and a welcoming country but not a soft touch.'
He also promised to continue to reduce the overall net migration to Britain every year, which rose to 200,000 newcomers a year under Labour.
'We were not able to cope with that level of migration and pressure on public services,' he said.
'We've seen the level of net migration come down by a quarter over the last two-and-a-half years. I want to see further progress.'
Mr Cameron spent three days in India last week, where he urged more Indian students to come to Britain.
'I wanted to send a message that if you’ve got a place at a university, if you can speak the English language, there isn’t an arbitrary limit on who can come.
'Afterwards you can work, but only in a graduate job. In India I was pressed quite hard – why can’t we work in non-graduate jobs?
'I was very clear, including when sitting among those 500 girls in the Delhi college, I said we have unemployed people in Britain who need to be put into work.
'I’m not interested in people coming to study in university, then staying on for ages in unskilled jobs. That is not in our national interest.'
Earlier this month, Mr Cameron told the Commons that ministers were looking at a wide range measures to ensure Britain was not seen as a 'soft touch' by foreigners seeking to take advantage of its health or benefits systems.
The Prime Minister, who wants tougher rules to ensure visitors do not ‘take advantage’ of British generosity, said those from outside the EU should pay when they use our hospitals.
Officials should also do more to reclaim the costs of NHS treatment from EU countries whose nationals take ill here.
SOURCE
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Borking Immigration Hawks
The pro-amnesty Right is borrowing its views and its tactics from the Left
By Mark Krikorian
Remember this?
Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens -- Ted Kennedy demonstrating the Leftist talent for distortion and defamation
The high-immigration Right has borrowed not only its immigration-policy views from Ted Kennedy, but now his political tactics as well. Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, American Conservative Union president Al Cardenas — and Senator Marco Rubio — have launched a campaign to bork those on the right who disagree with President Obama’s immigration plans.
The immediate basis of the smear campaign is an article in Human Life Review claiming that the organizations working for less immigration — the advocacy groups Numbers USA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and my own think tank, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) — represent a cabal of abortion-crazed leftists motivated not by concern for the well-being of America but by a hidden population-control agenda. (I don’t say “cabal” for effect — that’s actually the word used in a Politico op-ed by the president and policy director of the American Principles Project.)
Don’t take my word for it — read the Human Life Review piece. Ramesh Ponnuru is right that the review’s editors, like everyone else involved in this attempt to stifle debate, “should be embarrassed.” The article declares that “to CIS, seemingly every supposed problem in the world can be solved by decreasing the size of the human population.” CIS is said to be “openly terrified of increases in national population.”
This is hilarious stuff for anyone who’s read my postings at NRO. (More than a decade’s worth are listed here.) What’s more, the Census Bureau projects that future immigration (rather than the decisions Americans make about how many children to have) will add 100 million people to our population over the next half-century. It’s perfectly reasonable to point out that a government social-engineering program of this magnitude will have implications for our quality of life. But CIS has never taken, and will never take, any position on abortion or euthanasia — or on the flat tax or defense spending either, for that matter.
This effort closely parallels a campaign started by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2007 to marginalize mainstream immigration skeptics as Klansmen and skinheads. That effort is explored in some detail here, in a piece by Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter Jerry Kammer, who is now with CIS.
Both the SPLC and the current smear campaign started with the publication of a report that served as the focal point for other groups. The SPLC published a report designating FAIR a “hate group” (as it did later with the Family Research Council), just as Human Life Review published the above-mentioned article, written by one Mario Lopez of the Hispanic Leadership Fund (whose board includes Norquist, Chavez, Cardenas, the governor of Puerto Rico, former senator Mel Martinez, and others). Other organizations then pointed to the reports in follow-up op-eds, press releases, panel discussions, and closed-door meetings. The SPLC report was key to the National Council of La Raza’s “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign and to the establishment of America’s Voice as a “war room” for the open-borders Left. The Human Life Review article has served the same purpose at Norquist’s Wednesday Meeting and for presentations by Alfonso Aguilar of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles.
This latest effort is the conservative version of declaring CIS, Numbers USA, and FAIR “hate groups,” and the goal in both cases is the same: to silence dissent and thus avoid a debate that Norquist and the SPLC would lose.
SOURCE
British health service foots £1m bill for Polish expectant mothers living in England to return home to give birth
British taxpayers are forking out almost £1million a year for pregnant Polish women to go home and give birth in their native country, it emerged yesterday.
Under European Union rules, set up to provide emergency healthcare between member states, hundreds of Polish women are returning to their families to have their children, with the NHS picking up the bill.
Last year around 500 Poles living in the UK went back to their native land to give birth.
Given that the average cost to the NHS per birth is £1,631, Polish births alone cost the British taxpayer around £850,000 in 2012.
The situation has become more acute following the influx of immigrants into the UK from Eastern Europe over the past decade. Under EU regulations, anyone who comes to Britain to earn a living can fill in an S2 or E112 form, which entitles them to free treatment in any other member state or Switzerland.
The same applies to British women living in a European state.
Latest figures reveal that there were 1,132 cases last year where Britain paid for treatment in European Economic Area countries or Switzerland. Some 995 cases, or around 90 per cent, related to maternity care.
Of these, 519 were for treatment in Polish hospitals, with 174 cases in France and 90 in Germany. There were 74 cases in Slovakia, 49 in the Czech Republic and 21 in Hungary.
The figures are more than double that of 2010 when just 442 of the 1,498 cases related to maternity care.
Gerard Batten, UKIP spokesman on home affairs, said: ‘This is yet another example of how membership of the EU means the UK public purse is being plundered. People fleece us for whatever they can get. Unfortunately all these things are totally legal. We can only put a stop to it by leaving the EU.’
To obtain an E112 form, an NHS consultant must first agree that treatment abroad is right for the patient. The patient must also gain approval from the local health authority and the Department of Health.
Patients are treated under the same care conditions as residents of the country they go to. In nations where state healthcare is not free, the patient may have to pay a percentage of the cost.
Tory MP Chris Skidmore said: ‘When this scheme was set up it was meant to cover for emergency treatment.
‘This particular EU area should be renegotiated when the Prime Minister sets out a repatriation of powers.’
A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘Under EU rules, anyone working and paying tax where they are living, including Britons living abroad, can request treatment in another EU country.
‘This is particularly common in maternity cases where some people prefer to be around family and friends.’
SOURCE
Borking Immigration Hawks
The pro-amnesty Right is borrowing its views and its tactics from the Left
By Mark Krikorian
Remember this?
Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens -- Ted Kennedy demonstrating the Leftist talent for distortion and defamation
The high-immigration Right has borrowed not only its immigration-policy views from Ted Kennedy, but now his political tactics as well. Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, American Conservative Union president Al Cardenas — and Senator Marco Rubio — have launched a campaign to bork those on the right who disagree with President Obama’s immigration plans.
The immediate basis of the smear campaign is an article in Human Life Review claiming that the organizations working for less immigration — the advocacy groups Numbers USA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and my own think tank, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) — represent a cabal of abortion-crazed leftists motivated not by concern for the well-being of America but by a hidden population-control agenda. (I don’t say “cabal” for effect — that’s actually the word used in a Politico op-ed by the president and policy director of the American Principles Project.)
Don’t take my word for it — read the Human Life Review piece. Ramesh Ponnuru is right that the review’s editors, like everyone else involved in this attempt to stifle debate, “should be embarrassed.” The article declares that “to CIS, seemingly every supposed problem in the world can be solved by decreasing the size of the human population.” CIS is said to be “openly terrified of increases in national population.”
This is hilarious stuff for anyone who’s read my postings at NRO. (More than a decade’s worth are listed here.) What’s more, the Census Bureau projects that future immigration (rather than the decisions Americans make about how many children to have) will add 100 million people to our population over the next half-century. It’s perfectly reasonable to point out that a government social-engineering program of this magnitude will have implications for our quality of life. But CIS has never taken, and will never take, any position on abortion or euthanasia — or on the flat tax or defense spending either, for that matter.
This effort closely parallels a campaign started by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2007 to marginalize mainstream immigration skeptics as Klansmen and skinheads. That effort is explored in some detail here, in a piece by Pulitzer Prize–winning investigative reporter Jerry Kammer, who is now with CIS.
Both the SPLC and the current smear campaign started with the publication of a report that served as the focal point for other groups. The SPLC published a report designating FAIR a “hate group” (as it did later with the Family Research Council), just as Human Life Review published the above-mentioned article, written by one Mario Lopez of the Hispanic Leadership Fund (whose board includes Norquist, Chavez, Cardenas, the governor of Puerto Rico, former senator Mel Martinez, and others). Other organizations then pointed to the reports in follow-up op-eds, press releases, panel discussions, and closed-door meetings. The SPLC report was key to the National Council of La Raza’s “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign and to the establishment of America’s Voice as a “war room” for the open-borders Left. The Human Life Review article has served the same purpose at Norquist’s Wednesday Meeting and for presentations by Alfonso Aguilar of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles.
This latest effort is the conservative version of declaring CIS, Numbers USA, and FAIR “hate groups,” and the goal in both cases is the same: to silence dissent and thus avoid a debate that Norquist and the SPLC would lose.
SOURCE
British health service foots £1m bill for Polish expectant mothers living in England to return home to give birth
British taxpayers are forking out almost £1million a year for pregnant Polish women to go home and give birth in their native country, it emerged yesterday.
Under European Union rules, set up to provide emergency healthcare between member states, hundreds of Polish women are returning to their families to have their children, with the NHS picking up the bill.
Last year around 500 Poles living in the UK went back to their native land to give birth.
Given that the average cost to the NHS per birth is £1,631, Polish births alone cost the British taxpayer around £850,000 in 2012.
The situation has become more acute following the influx of immigrants into the UK from Eastern Europe over the past decade. Under EU regulations, anyone who comes to Britain to earn a living can fill in an S2 or E112 form, which entitles them to free treatment in any other member state or Switzerland.
The same applies to British women living in a European state.
Latest figures reveal that there were 1,132 cases last year where Britain paid for treatment in European Economic Area countries or Switzerland. Some 995 cases, or around 90 per cent, related to maternity care.
Of these, 519 were for treatment in Polish hospitals, with 174 cases in France and 90 in Germany. There were 74 cases in Slovakia, 49 in the Czech Republic and 21 in Hungary.
The figures are more than double that of 2010 when just 442 of the 1,498 cases related to maternity care.
Gerard Batten, UKIP spokesman on home affairs, said: ‘This is yet another example of how membership of the EU means the UK public purse is being plundered. People fleece us for whatever they can get. Unfortunately all these things are totally legal. We can only put a stop to it by leaving the EU.’
To obtain an E112 form, an NHS consultant must first agree that treatment abroad is right for the patient. The patient must also gain approval from the local health authority and the Department of Health.
Patients are treated under the same care conditions as residents of the country they go to. In nations where state healthcare is not free, the patient may have to pay a percentage of the cost.
Tory MP Chris Skidmore said: ‘When this scheme was set up it was meant to cover for emergency treatment.
‘This particular EU area should be renegotiated when the Prime Minister sets out a repatriation of powers.’
A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘Under EU rules, anyone working and paying tax where they are living, including Britons living abroad, can request treatment in another EU country.
‘This is particularly common in maternity cases where some people prefer to be around family and friends.’
SOURCE
Monday, February 25, 2013
British government's tough immigration rules defied by top judge
The country's most senior immigration judge has openly defied the Home Secretary by insisting that Parliament’s attempt to get tough on human rights abuses by foreign criminals is outweighed by the European Court.
In a key ruling, the head of the immigration courts said measures introduced by Mrs May last summer to stop criminals claiming the “right to family life” were overridden by judges’ previous decisions on such cases at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Mr Justice Blake also said that “little weight” should be given to Mrs May’s immigration rules in cases involving criminals with children because they were overruled by international agreements and a previous law passed by the Labour government.
As reported by The Telegraph last week, Mrs May is due to introduce laws to strengthen existing measures over concerns that judges were not taking them seriously. The measures are supported by The Telegraph’s “End the Human Rights Farce” campaign.
The judge made his criticisms of Mrs May’s laws in a ruling which allowed a criminal with 30 convictions to stay in Britain, even though the Home Office had tried to deport him.
The case was written as a “reported determination”, meaning that other immigration judges will have to follow its example when deciding other similar appeals.
Olufisayo Ogundimu, a former drug dealer from south London, persuaded the court that he should not be removed to Nigeria, where he was born, because he had fathered a child here and has a baby on the way with another woman.
Mr Justice Blake said in his ruling on Ogundimu’s case that the immigration rules “did not affect the circumstance” when considering the right to family life, which is guaranteed by Article Eight of the Human Rights Act.
In such cases he said that the way to interpret Article Eight was not to consider Mrs May’s rules as most important, despite them being passed with cross-party support by Parliament.
Specifically regarding one of Mrs May’s rules which was designed to mean that having a child in Britain would not strengthen a criminal’s case against being deported, the judge said: “Little weight should be attached to this rule when consideration is being given to the assessment of proportionality under Article Eight.”
Instead, he said the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and part of an immigration Act passed by Labour in 2009 took precedence.
Dominic Raab, the Tory MP who has campaigned for tougher rules, said: “This chronic judicial legislation has undermined public protection and usurped the democratic will of Parliament.
“We now have around 200 Article Eight cases a year, so it is vital and urgent that Parliament amends the law to mandate deportation and brush aside these spurious challenges to the rule of law.”
Ogundimu, 28, arrived in the UK 22 years ago. Tracked down by The Telegraph at his girlfriend’s flat in Chislehurst, south-east London, he said that he was pleased at the decision made by the Immigration and Asylum Upper Tribunal.
“It’s totally wrong to send people back like that because their family lives are here,” he said. “If people are a danger to the public and doing serious offences then send them back, but with me, yeah, I’ve got a criminal record but did not do anything serious.”
He came to Britain aged six in 1991 with his family. Ogundimu first appeared in front of the juvenile courts aged 14 for obtaining property by deception.
He has 30 offences on his criminal record, including an eight-month prison term for possession of cannabis with intent to supply, in 2008.
In 2010, the Home Secretary decided that Ogundimu should be sent to Nigeria to protect the public. Ogundimu fathered a son with a British woman in 2004 and the court heard that he looks after the boy occasionally.
It also heard that Ogundimu is now in a relationship with the mother’s cousin, who is expecting his baby, which was conceived after deportation proceedings began.
The Home Office argued that Ogundimu was not in a “genuine and subsisting relationship” with his son or his girlfriend and that his removal would not breach Article Eight.
He was arrested for possession of cannabis in October 2012, for which he received a caution, but now claims he is trying to lead a blameless life.
Ogundimu moved back in with the mother of his child in June 2010 after being in prison. The judge said that he admitted doing so to convince immigration authorities that he had a genuine family life. He left her for his new girlfriend a year later.
After hearing evidence from Ogundimu’s current partner, the court decided that they were in a genuine relationship and the criminal was also playing a beneficial role in the upbringing of a nine-year-old step-daughter.
Mr Justice Blake’s ruling also indicated that the new rules on applying Article Eight should not be imposed retrospectively, even though Mrs May set out that they should.
The immigration rules say a criminal should not be deported if he or she has a British child and “there is no other family member who is able to care for the child in the UK”.
The judge undermined this by saying: “We doubt whether it is in any child’s best interests to lose the contact and support with a caring and devoted parent simply because someone else can be found to care for them.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government has made clear its intention to bring forward primary legislation to prevent foreign nationals remaining in the UK through abuse of the Human Rights Act.”
SOURCE
Revealed: British PM has broken his pre-election promise on foreign criminals as FEWER are deported
Fewer foreign criminals are being deported despite a pledge by David Cameron more than two years ago to ‘intervene personally’.
Since 2010 there has been a spectacular fall in the number sent home after committing serious offences here. In the year of the General Election, 5,342 were deported.
In 2011, in the Coalition’s second year of office, the figure was down 13 per cent to 4,649.
Figures from the first three quarters of 2012 show that 3,382 were deported. If the trend continued in the final quarter, it would mean the 2012 total is around 4,509 – again, down on the previous year, and 16 per cent down on the election year figure.
Last year the number of foreign prisoners in our jails went up. The number stood at 10,861 as of June 2012, up from 10,779 the year before.
It is the first time in at least four years that the number of foreign prisoners in our jails has increased.
One in eight inmates are now foreign nationals – costing almost £500million a year to house.
In September 2010, Mr Cameron pledged he would ‘intervene personally’ to ensure convicted offenders are sent home to spend the rest of their sentences in their own country.
gipsy cheat free to stay.psd
In October last year the Daily Mail revealed that since the promise was made, just 62 prisoners had been returned to their home country to serve the rest of their sentences.
Now the latest figures show that ministers are also failing to deport foreigners after they have served their sentences here.
Labour’s justice spokesman Sadiq Khan, who obtained the figures, said: ‘David Cameron’s promises to send back thousands of foreign prisoners and to take a personal interest in this matter ring hollow.
‘Not only has he failed to send more prisoners home, but the number in our prisons has actually risen.
‘Over half a billion pounds a year is now spent on keeping foreign prisoners in our prisons, and because of Cameron’s failings, money that would be better spent elsewhere in our justice system to keep our communities safe is being wasted.’
Some 2,220 foreign offenders are in jail for violence against the person while 1,287 are sexual offenders.
There are 947 robbers, 517 burglars, 738 thieves and 434 fraudsters. Some 2,110 of the foreign prisoners are there for drug offences while 105 have committed motoring offences.It costs around £45,000 a year to keep an offender in prison.
The figures, released by justice minister Jeremy Wright, show that the second most common nationality of overseas prisoners is now Polish – overtaking the Irish. Jamaicans top the nationality table, with 900 last year, followed by Poland on 750, and Ireland, 737.
Over the past five years, there has been a trebling of the number of Romanian offenders in our jails, even before the EU restrictions on immigration from that country and Bulgaria are lifted at the end of the year.
Romanians are now the fifth most common nationality in our prisons.
David Green, from the think tank Civitas, said: ‘If you have more immigration, it is not surprising that a proportion of them will be offenders.’
SOURCE
British government's tough immigration rules defied by top judge
The country's most senior immigration judge has openly defied the Home Secretary by insisting that Parliament’s attempt to get tough on human rights abuses by foreign criminals is outweighed by the European Court.
In a key ruling, the head of the immigration courts said measures introduced by Mrs May last summer to stop criminals claiming the “right to family life” were overridden by judges’ previous decisions on such cases at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Mr Justice Blake also said that “little weight” should be given to Mrs May’s immigration rules in cases involving criminals with children because they were overruled by international agreements and a previous law passed by the Labour government.
As reported by The Telegraph last week, Mrs May is due to introduce laws to strengthen existing measures over concerns that judges were not taking them seriously. The measures are supported by The Telegraph’s “End the Human Rights Farce” campaign.
The judge made his criticisms of Mrs May’s laws in a ruling which allowed a criminal with 30 convictions to stay in Britain, even though the Home Office had tried to deport him.
The case was written as a “reported determination”, meaning that other immigration judges will have to follow its example when deciding other similar appeals.
Olufisayo Ogundimu, a former drug dealer from south London, persuaded the court that he should not be removed to Nigeria, where he was born, because he had fathered a child here and has a baby on the way with another woman.
Mr Justice Blake said in his ruling on Ogundimu’s case that the immigration rules “did not affect the circumstance” when considering the right to family life, which is guaranteed by Article Eight of the Human Rights Act.
In such cases he said that the way to interpret Article Eight was not to consider Mrs May’s rules as most important, despite them being passed with cross-party support by Parliament.
Specifically regarding one of Mrs May’s rules which was designed to mean that having a child in Britain would not strengthen a criminal’s case against being deported, the judge said: “Little weight should be attached to this rule when consideration is being given to the assessment of proportionality under Article Eight.”
Instead, he said the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and part of an immigration Act passed by Labour in 2009 took precedence.
Dominic Raab, the Tory MP who has campaigned for tougher rules, said: “This chronic judicial legislation has undermined public protection and usurped the democratic will of Parliament.
“We now have around 200 Article Eight cases a year, so it is vital and urgent that Parliament amends the law to mandate deportation and brush aside these spurious challenges to the rule of law.”
Ogundimu, 28, arrived in the UK 22 years ago. Tracked down by The Telegraph at his girlfriend’s flat in Chislehurst, south-east London, he said that he was pleased at the decision made by the Immigration and Asylum Upper Tribunal.
“It’s totally wrong to send people back like that because their family lives are here,” he said. “If people are a danger to the public and doing serious offences then send them back, but with me, yeah, I’ve got a criminal record but did not do anything serious.”
He came to Britain aged six in 1991 with his family. Ogundimu first appeared in front of the juvenile courts aged 14 for obtaining property by deception.
He has 30 offences on his criminal record, including an eight-month prison term for possession of cannabis with intent to supply, in 2008.
In 2010, the Home Secretary decided that Ogundimu should be sent to Nigeria to protect the public. Ogundimu fathered a son with a British woman in 2004 and the court heard that he looks after the boy occasionally.
It also heard that Ogundimu is now in a relationship with the mother’s cousin, who is expecting his baby, which was conceived after deportation proceedings began.
The Home Office argued that Ogundimu was not in a “genuine and subsisting relationship” with his son or his girlfriend and that his removal would not breach Article Eight.
He was arrested for possession of cannabis in October 2012, for which he received a caution, but now claims he is trying to lead a blameless life.
Ogundimu moved back in with the mother of his child in June 2010 after being in prison. The judge said that he admitted doing so to convince immigration authorities that he had a genuine family life. He left her for his new girlfriend a year later.
After hearing evidence from Ogundimu’s current partner, the court decided that they were in a genuine relationship and the criminal was also playing a beneficial role in the upbringing of a nine-year-old step-daughter.
Mr Justice Blake’s ruling also indicated that the new rules on applying Article Eight should not be imposed retrospectively, even though Mrs May set out that they should.
The immigration rules say a criminal should not be deported if he or she has a British child and “there is no other family member who is able to care for the child in the UK”.
The judge undermined this by saying: “We doubt whether it is in any child’s best interests to lose the contact and support with a caring and devoted parent simply because someone else can be found to care for them.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government has made clear its intention to bring forward primary legislation to prevent foreign nationals remaining in the UK through abuse of the Human Rights Act.”
SOURCE
Revealed: British PM has broken his pre-election promise on foreign criminals as FEWER are deported
Fewer foreign criminals are being deported despite a pledge by David Cameron more than two years ago to ‘intervene personally’.
Since 2010 there has been a spectacular fall in the number sent home after committing serious offences here. In the year of the General Election, 5,342 were deported.
In 2011, in the Coalition’s second year of office, the figure was down 13 per cent to 4,649.
Figures from the first three quarters of 2012 show that 3,382 were deported. If the trend continued in the final quarter, it would mean the 2012 total is around 4,509 – again, down on the previous year, and 16 per cent down on the election year figure.
Last year the number of foreign prisoners in our jails went up. The number stood at 10,861 as of June 2012, up from 10,779 the year before.
It is the first time in at least four years that the number of foreign prisoners in our jails has increased.
One in eight inmates are now foreign nationals – costing almost £500million a year to house.
In September 2010, Mr Cameron pledged he would ‘intervene personally’ to ensure convicted offenders are sent home to spend the rest of their sentences in their own country.
gipsy cheat free to stay.psd
In October last year the Daily Mail revealed that since the promise was made, just 62 prisoners had been returned to their home country to serve the rest of their sentences.
Now the latest figures show that ministers are also failing to deport foreigners after they have served their sentences here.
Labour’s justice spokesman Sadiq Khan, who obtained the figures, said: ‘David Cameron’s promises to send back thousands of foreign prisoners and to take a personal interest in this matter ring hollow.
‘Not only has he failed to send more prisoners home, but the number in our prisons has actually risen.
‘Over half a billion pounds a year is now spent on keeping foreign prisoners in our prisons, and because of Cameron’s failings, money that would be better spent elsewhere in our justice system to keep our communities safe is being wasted.’
Some 2,220 foreign offenders are in jail for violence against the person while 1,287 are sexual offenders.
There are 947 robbers, 517 burglars, 738 thieves and 434 fraudsters. Some 2,110 of the foreign prisoners are there for drug offences while 105 have committed motoring offences.It costs around £45,000 a year to keep an offender in prison.
The figures, released by justice minister Jeremy Wright, show that the second most common nationality of overseas prisoners is now Polish – overtaking the Irish. Jamaicans top the nationality table, with 900 last year, followed by Poland on 750, and Ireland, 737.
Over the past five years, there has been a trebling of the number of Romanian offenders in our jails, even before the EU restrictions on immigration from that country and Bulgaria are lifted at the end of the year.
Romanians are now the fifth most common nationality in our prisons.
David Green, from the think tank Civitas, said: ‘If you have more immigration, it is not surprising that a proportion of them will be offenders.’
SOURCE
Sunday, February 24, 2013
GOP Hispanic folly
Ann Coulter
Don't anyone tell Marco Rubio, John McCain or Jeff Flake that nearly 80 percent of Hindus voted for Obama, or who knows what they'll come up with.
I understand the interest of business lobbies in getting cheap, unskilled labor through amnesty, but why do Republican officeholders want to create up to 20 million more Democratic voters, especially if it involves flouting the law? Are the campaign donations from the soulless rich more important than actual voters?
Without citing any evidence, the Rubio Republicans simply assert that granting 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens amnesty will make Hispanics warm to the GOP. Yes, that's worked like a charm since Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986!
True, Romney lost the Hispanic vote, but so did John McCain, the original Rubio. (McCain lost Hispanics by 67 percent compared to 71 percent who voted against Romney.)
President George H.W. Bush created "diversity visas," massively increased legal immigration and eliminated the English requirement on the naturalization test. In the 1992 election, he won 25 percent of the Hispanic vote -- less than what Romney got.
Although Hispanic politicians, spokesmen and TV networks benefit from Rubio's mass legalization scheme, there's no evidence that Hispanic voters care very much about it.
Amnesty never shows up in polls as a top concern of Hispanics. It's a top concern of employers, not workers -- which isn't going to do much to help Republicans shed that "Party of the Rich" image. After Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, unemployment among Hispanics skyrocketed when, suddenly, there was increased competition for low-skill jobs. That's precisely why businesses want amnesty, not because of their deep concern for the plight of the underclass.
How's this for an idea: Why don't Republicans remind Hispanic voters that the more low-skilled immigrants who are admitted, the lower their wages will be? That at least has the virtue of being untried.
Whatever it is that makes Hispanics love Obama, it's not amnesty. He double-crossed Hispanics on amnesty; in the words of Univision's Jorge Ramos, "You promised (amnesty), and a promise is a promise and with all due respect, you didn't keep that promise." Obama still won 71 percent of their vote.
Indeed, almost alone among demographic groups, the Hispanic vote increased for Obama from 2008 to 2012. Protestants, Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, men, whites, white women -- even single women -- all voted in larger percentages for Romney than they had for McCain.
Only Hispanics and Asians increased their vote for Obama. Coincidentally, these have been our two largest immigrant groups over the last several decades. (It's sort of touching that Democrats couldn't get Americans to vote for them, so they had to bring in new voters from other countries to start winning elections again. Immigrants really are doing the job Americans just won't do.)
The canard about Hispanics being "natural conservatives" comes from the same cliche machine that gave us the one about blacks being "natural conservatives." At least blacks really are social conservatives -- they just vote Democratic, anyway.
As Charles Murray has pointed out, Hispanics are less likely to go to church or be employed than non-Hispanics. They are less opposed to gay marriage than everyone else -- 44 percent compared to 50 percent. (By contrast, 55 percent of African-Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a 2012 Washington Post/ABC poll -- even more, according to how they vote.)
Nor, unfortunately, do Hispanic immigrants become more Republican the longer they've been here, as some Republicans claim without bothering to see if it's true.
To the contrary, they get more liberal. Cubans used to vote Republican nearly as reliably as Mormons. In 2012, 49 percent of Cubans voted for Obama.
Will amnesty win the Cubans back? I don't think so: They already get amnesty under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act. Same with Puerto Ricans, who are automatic American citizens.
Trying to appeal to Hispanics with amnesty would be like trying to win over baseball fans by shouting "Go Yankees!" at a Mets game. Except that would at least capture some baseball fans.
It's not clear that amnesty wins any Hispanics, apart from the ones who can't vote (because they're illegal) and their ethnic "spokesmen," whose power increases as the Hispanic population grows.
So why do Hispanics vote Democratic? Like most legal immigrants since Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, Hispanic immigrants are poor. The poverty rate of second-generation Hispanics is lower than the first -- but the third generation's poverty rate is higher than the second.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Hispanics have the highest illegitimate birthrate in the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2010, for every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women, 80.6 had children out of wedlock, compared to 65.3 for unmarried black women and 29 for unmarried white women.
If Republicans think we can have mass amnesty for millions of government-dependent immigrants and become a more libertarian country, they're crazy.
This isn't because of a failure to "reach out." Republicans can't beat Democrats at the government assistance game. From single mothers to corporate subsidy-takers, they want your money and the Democrats promise to give it to them.
Instead of trying to compete with the ethnic lobbies, welfare schemes and racialized politics of the Democrats, perhaps Republicans should allow our immigration system to admit more immigrants who won't immediately go on government assistance, as 60 percent of new immigrants do now.
Putting 12 million to 20 million of them on a "path to citizenship" won't make them like Republicans; it will make Republicans lose.
SOURCE
Australian government reducing legal immigration
THOUSANDS of low-paid foreign workers will be stopped from coming into Australia and taking local jobs under a crackdown on visas.
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor revealed to the Herald Sun that growth in the 457 visa program was "out of step" with skills shortages and said the Gillard Government had evidence "rogue employers" were abusing it to get cheap labour.
The number of 457 visas has soared from 70,000 to 100,000 in the past two years.
Mr O'Connor said while some industries and regions had genuine shortages that needed temporary foreign workers, laws and regulations needed to be beefed up to stop rorts and close loopholes.
He predicted this could stop "thousands" of foreign workers taking jobs from locals.
"Rogue employers are deliberately employing people from overseas without giving a local a chance," he said.
It is the second time in three days the Gillard Government has moved to stem pain on a hot political issue after it reversed a $107 million funding cut to Victorian hospitals.
The changes, to be announced today by Mr O'Connor, include:
EXTRA investigation powers for inspectors to get information from bosses they suspect of being dodgy.
A NEW test to prove jobs were for "genuine" skills shortages because some employers were creating positions that were really "unskilled and possibly not even a real job".
CLOSING loopholes that allow foreign workers to be paid less than an Australian citizen by increasing from $180,000 to $250,000 the threshold at which they must pay "market rates".
STOPPING employers creating their own market to manipulate pay rates.
RAISING requirements for foreign workers to speak English.
RESTRICTING foreign workers being on-hired to a different employer in regions where there are not skill shortages.
CHECKING that employers offer training for locals to fill skills shortages before they seek foreigners.
"The Government cares about Australians getting jobs first," Mr O'Connor said.
"It has become clear that the growth in the 457 program is out of step with genuine skills shortages and the Government has evidence that some employers are using 457 visas to employ foreign workers over locals."
It has found skilled Australian tradespeople earning $220,000 were under-cut by foreign workers willing to accept $180,000.
Pay levels have been especially manipulated in the IT industry in Melbourne.
Low-skilled jobs have been dressed up as high-skilled ones with one company winning permission to bring in administrators who were really unskilled security guards.
And a Melbourne "start-up" company that didn't make money was created just to secure a cheap foreign worker for other duties.
Mr O'Connor also said the Government would examine the 457 visas of four Filipino welders at the centre of protests at a Werribee water project amid claims the system has been abused because there is no shortage of those skills in the area.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said last year there was "room for expansion" of the 457 program and said claims the market was being flooded with foreign workers was "ridiculous".
SOURCE
GOP Hispanic folly
Ann Coulter
Don't anyone tell Marco Rubio, John McCain or Jeff Flake that nearly 80 percent of Hindus voted for Obama, or who knows what they'll come up with.
I understand the interest of business lobbies in getting cheap, unskilled labor through amnesty, but why do Republican officeholders want to create up to 20 million more Democratic voters, especially if it involves flouting the law? Are the campaign donations from the soulless rich more important than actual voters?
Without citing any evidence, the Rubio Republicans simply assert that granting 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens amnesty will make Hispanics warm to the GOP. Yes, that's worked like a charm since Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986!
True, Romney lost the Hispanic vote, but so did John McCain, the original Rubio. (McCain lost Hispanics by 67 percent compared to 71 percent who voted against Romney.)
President George H.W. Bush created "diversity visas," massively increased legal immigration and eliminated the English requirement on the naturalization test. In the 1992 election, he won 25 percent of the Hispanic vote -- less than what Romney got.
Although Hispanic politicians, spokesmen and TV networks benefit from Rubio's mass legalization scheme, there's no evidence that Hispanic voters care very much about it.
Amnesty never shows up in polls as a top concern of Hispanics. It's a top concern of employers, not workers -- which isn't going to do much to help Republicans shed that "Party of the Rich" image. After Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, unemployment among Hispanics skyrocketed when, suddenly, there was increased competition for low-skill jobs. That's precisely why businesses want amnesty, not because of their deep concern for the plight of the underclass.
How's this for an idea: Why don't Republicans remind Hispanic voters that the more low-skilled immigrants who are admitted, the lower their wages will be? That at least has the virtue of being untried.
Whatever it is that makes Hispanics love Obama, it's not amnesty. He double-crossed Hispanics on amnesty; in the words of Univision's Jorge Ramos, "You promised (amnesty), and a promise is a promise and with all due respect, you didn't keep that promise." Obama still won 71 percent of their vote.
Indeed, almost alone among demographic groups, the Hispanic vote increased for Obama from 2008 to 2012. Protestants, Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, men, whites, white women -- even single women -- all voted in larger percentages for Romney than they had for McCain.
Only Hispanics and Asians increased their vote for Obama. Coincidentally, these have been our two largest immigrant groups over the last several decades. (It's sort of touching that Democrats couldn't get Americans to vote for them, so they had to bring in new voters from other countries to start winning elections again. Immigrants really are doing the job Americans just won't do.)
The canard about Hispanics being "natural conservatives" comes from the same cliche machine that gave us the one about blacks being "natural conservatives." At least blacks really are social conservatives -- they just vote Democratic, anyway.
As Charles Murray has pointed out, Hispanics are less likely to go to church or be employed than non-Hispanics. They are less opposed to gay marriage than everyone else -- 44 percent compared to 50 percent. (By contrast, 55 percent of African-Americans oppose gay marriage, according to a 2012 Washington Post/ABC poll -- even more, according to how they vote.)
Nor, unfortunately, do Hispanic immigrants become more Republican the longer they've been here, as some Republicans claim without bothering to see if it's true.
To the contrary, they get more liberal. Cubans used to vote Republican nearly as reliably as Mormons. In 2012, 49 percent of Cubans voted for Obama.
Will amnesty win the Cubans back? I don't think so: They already get amnesty under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act. Same with Puerto Ricans, who are automatic American citizens.
Trying to appeal to Hispanics with amnesty would be like trying to win over baseball fans by shouting "Go Yankees!" at a Mets game. Except that would at least capture some baseball fans.
It's not clear that amnesty wins any Hispanics, apart from the ones who can't vote (because they're illegal) and their ethnic "spokesmen," whose power increases as the Hispanic population grows.
So why do Hispanics vote Democratic? Like most legal immigrants since Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, Hispanic immigrants are poor. The poverty rate of second-generation Hispanics is lower than the first -- but the third generation's poverty rate is higher than the second.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Hispanics have the highest illegitimate birthrate in the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2010, for every 1,000 unmarried Hispanic women, 80.6 had children out of wedlock, compared to 65.3 for unmarried black women and 29 for unmarried white women.
If Republicans think we can have mass amnesty for millions of government-dependent immigrants and become a more libertarian country, they're crazy.
This isn't because of a failure to "reach out." Republicans can't beat Democrats at the government assistance game. From single mothers to corporate subsidy-takers, they want your money and the Democrats promise to give it to them.
Instead of trying to compete with the ethnic lobbies, welfare schemes and racialized politics of the Democrats, perhaps Republicans should allow our immigration system to admit more immigrants who won't immediately go on government assistance, as 60 percent of new immigrants do now.
Putting 12 million to 20 million of them on a "path to citizenship" won't make them like Republicans; it will make Republicans lose.
SOURCE
Australian government reducing legal immigration
THOUSANDS of low-paid foreign workers will be stopped from coming into Australia and taking local jobs under a crackdown on visas.
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor revealed to the Herald Sun that growth in the 457 visa program was "out of step" with skills shortages and said the Gillard Government had evidence "rogue employers" were abusing it to get cheap labour.
The number of 457 visas has soared from 70,000 to 100,000 in the past two years.
Mr O'Connor said while some industries and regions had genuine shortages that needed temporary foreign workers, laws and regulations needed to be beefed up to stop rorts and close loopholes.
He predicted this could stop "thousands" of foreign workers taking jobs from locals.
"Rogue employers are deliberately employing people from overseas without giving a local a chance," he said.
It is the second time in three days the Gillard Government has moved to stem pain on a hot political issue after it reversed a $107 million funding cut to Victorian hospitals.
The changes, to be announced today by Mr O'Connor, include:
EXTRA investigation powers for inspectors to get information from bosses they suspect of being dodgy.
A NEW test to prove jobs were for "genuine" skills shortages because some employers were creating positions that were really "unskilled and possibly not even a real job".
CLOSING loopholes that allow foreign workers to be paid less than an Australian citizen by increasing from $180,000 to $250,000 the threshold at which they must pay "market rates".
STOPPING employers creating their own market to manipulate pay rates.
RAISING requirements for foreign workers to speak English.
RESTRICTING foreign workers being on-hired to a different employer in regions where there are not skill shortages.
CHECKING that employers offer training for locals to fill skills shortages before they seek foreigners.
"The Government cares about Australians getting jobs first," Mr O'Connor said.
"It has become clear that the growth in the 457 program is out of step with genuine skills shortages and the Government has evidence that some employers are using 457 visas to employ foreign workers over locals."
It has found skilled Australian tradespeople earning $220,000 were under-cut by foreign workers willing to accept $180,000.
Pay levels have been especially manipulated in the IT industry in Melbourne.
Low-skilled jobs have been dressed up as high-skilled ones with one company winning permission to bring in administrators who were really unskilled security guards.
And a Melbourne "start-up" company that didn't make money was created just to secure a cheap foreign worker for other duties.
Mr O'Connor also said the Government would examine the 457 visas of four Filipino welders at the centre of protests at a Werribee water project amid claims the system has been abused because there is no shortage of those skills in the area.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said last year there was "room for expansion" of the 457 program and said claims the market was being flooded with foreign workers was "ridiculous".
SOURCE
Friday, February 22, 2013
More evidence immigration reform won’t fix GOP’s Latino problem
The Leftist writer below has probably got it right, for the moment anyway. If all Democrat efforts for change get blocked, disillusion with them might set in. At that point the GOP could present themselves as the only ones who can get anything done
This afternoon, Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told NPR that he wouldn’t support an immigration bill containing a path to citizenship:
“People have a pathway to citizenship right now: It’s to abide by the immigration laws, and if they have a family relationship, if they have a job skill that allows them to do that, they can obtain citizenship,” Goodlatte said. “But simply someone who broke the law, came here, [to] say, ‘I’ll give you citizenship now,’ that I don’t think is going to happen.”
Ignoring, for now, the fact that the administration’s proposal (to which Goodlatte is presumably referring to) does not just give unauthorized immigrants citizenship — at the earliest, they’d have to wait eight years — it’s worth noting that not even supporting immigration reform will be enough to fix the GOP’s Latino’s problem.
The new survey from the Pew Research Center shows that 63 percent of Hispanics now approve of Obama’s handling of immigration, a near reversal from November 2011, which 28 percent approved and 59 percent disapproved. While some of this is the product of Obama’s reelection — winning tends to boosts your standing with people — my guess is that a substantial amount of the change has to do with the current conversation over immigration reform, and more importantly, the fair odds for a comprehensive bill.
It seems unlikely, then, that a GOP embrace of comprehensive immigration reform will be enough. Given the huge Democratic lean of Latino voters and their general enthusiasm for Obama’s agenda, the most likely political outcome of a comprehensive bill is higher approval for Obama, and a stronger bond between Latinos and the Democratic Party. At most, Republicans might stem the bleeding with Hispanics.
Repairing the relationship is a much larger project. It will require far more than support for a more sensible immigration regime, because Latinos disagree with Republicans on a range of policy priorities, and even when it comes to basic conceptions of the proper role of government.
SOURCE
What Back Taxes?
Sen. Schumer Ensured Illegals Amnestied in 1986 Would Avoid Paying What They Owed
As a member of the House of Representatives during the last big amnesty, Charles Schumer worked behind the scenes to ensure that illegal aliens being legalized through the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) would not be penalized for past failure to pay taxes.
Now a senator, Schumer, along with Marco Rubio and others, is a key figure in the Gang of Eight, a group that put forth an immigration plan pledging that illegal aliens benefitting from a new amnesty would be required to “earn” their amnesty by “settling their debt to society by paying a fine and back taxes”. Schumer's past machinations cast doubt on the sincerity of this pledge.
These are the conclusions of a new analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies, authored by former Rep. Virgil Goode. The report includes a copy of Schumer's January 1987 letter urging Treasury Secretary James Baker to exempt illegals applying for amnesty from having to disclose past non-payment of taxes.
The report can be found here
Rep. Goode’s report provides a strong basis for skepticism that the tough-sounding requirements spelled out in the Schumer/Rubio amnesty proposal would ever be enforced. Only if enforcement comes before discussion of amnesty is there likely to be any compliance with either immigration laws or tax laws.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
More evidence immigration reform won’t fix GOP’s Latino problem
The Leftist writer below has probably got it right, for the moment anyway. If all Democrat efforts for change get blocked, disillusion with them might set in. At that point the GOP could present themselves as the only ones who can get anything done
This afternoon, Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told NPR that he wouldn’t support an immigration bill containing a path to citizenship:
“People have a pathway to citizenship right now: It’s to abide by the immigration laws, and if they have a family relationship, if they have a job skill that allows them to do that, they can obtain citizenship,” Goodlatte said. “But simply someone who broke the law, came here, [to] say, ‘I’ll give you citizenship now,’ that I don’t think is going to happen.”
Ignoring, for now, the fact that the administration’s proposal (to which Goodlatte is presumably referring to) does not just give unauthorized immigrants citizenship — at the earliest, they’d have to wait eight years — it’s worth noting that not even supporting immigration reform will be enough to fix the GOP’s Latino’s problem.
The new survey from the Pew Research Center shows that 63 percent of Hispanics now approve of Obama’s handling of immigration, a near reversal from November 2011, which 28 percent approved and 59 percent disapproved. While some of this is the product of Obama’s reelection — winning tends to boosts your standing with people — my guess is that a substantial amount of the change has to do with the current conversation over immigration reform, and more importantly, the fair odds for a comprehensive bill.
It seems unlikely, then, that a GOP embrace of comprehensive immigration reform will be enough. Given the huge Democratic lean of Latino voters and their general enthusiasm for Obama’s agenda, the most likely political outcome of a comprehensive bill is higher approval for Obama, and a stronger bond between Latinos and the Democratic Party. At most, Republicans might stem the bleeding with Hispanics.
Repairing the relationship is a much larger project. It will require far more than support for a more sensible immigration regime, because Latinos disagree with Republicans on a range of policy priorities, and even when it comes to basic conceptions of the proper role of government.
SOURCE
What Back Taxes?
Sen. Schumer Ensured Illegals Amnestied in 1986 Would Avoid Paying What They Owed
As a member of the House of Representatives during the last big amnesty, Charles Schumer worked behind the scenes to ensure that illegal aliens being legalized through the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) would not be penalized for past failure to pay taxes.
Now a senator, Schumer, along with Marco Rubio and others, is a key figure in the Gang of Eight, a group that put forth an immigration plan pledging that illegal aliens benefitting from a new amnesty would be required to “earn” their amnesty by “settling their debt to society by paying a fine and back taxes”. Schumer's past machinations cast doubt on the sincerity of this pledge.
These are the conclusions of a new analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies, authored by former Rep. Virgil Goode. The report includes a copy of Schumer's January 1987 letter urging Treasury Secretary James Baker to exempt illegals applying for amnesty from having to disclose past non-payment of taxes.
The report can be found here
Rep. Goode’s report provides a strong basis for skepticism that the tough-sounding requirements spelled out in the Schumer/Rubio amnesty proposal would ever be enforced. Only if enforcement comes before discussion of amnesty is there likely to be any compliance with either immigration laws or tax laws.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Arizona Senators Return to Fray on Immigration
The political risks of supporting an immigration overhaul have long been apparent to Senator John McCain, as evidenced by his evolving position on the topic over the years. This week offered another sharp reminder of what getting out in front of the issue can mean when crowds at back-to-back town-hall-style meetings in Arizona turned hostile toward Mr. McCain’s plan to introduce legislation that could lead to legal residency for some who broke the law in entering the country.
“Everybody in this audience, you’re taking away from Social Security to give it to a dependent class of people,” shouted one man, who Mr. McCain eventually called “a jerk.”
The senator, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said he was undergoing “an Orwellian experience” as his constituents shouted that he needed to build the “dang fence” that he had once promised in a notable campaign ad. Attendees also suggested that guns were the only way to stop the influx of immigrants from coming across the border.
Like it or not, Mr. McCain is now back at the center of the immigration debate, sharing the spotlight with Arizona’s other senator, Jeff Flake, also a Republican, as the two men help fight to overhaul the nation’s immigration system. Longtime followers of the immigration debate could be forgiven for having déjà vu.
After all, the sight of the two Arizonans taking the lead on the divisive issue feels a lot like 2007, when Mr. McCain and Mr. Flake, then a member of the House, were each co-sponsors of their own immigration proposal. Mr. McCain that year pressed his broad plan with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Mr. Flake joined with Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois, to introduce a plan to tighten border security while giving illegal immigrants a chance for legal residency.
Then Mr. Flake and Mr. McCain did something of an Arizona shuffle, trading in their calls for a broad overhaul that could lead to legal residency to focus more on border security. During a 2008 Republican presidential primary debate, Mr. McCain disavowed his own 2006 immigration proposal, and Mr. Flake, facing a challenge from the right during his Senate bid last year, called his previous broad approach to immigration reform “a dead end” until the border was secure.
Now the two senators are back as Republican point men on the issue. Though their hope of overhauling the nation’s immigration system in 2007 died on the Senate floor, the two have returned to the negotiating table, with the goal of finishing what they started.
“If you’re from Arizona and you’re not involved in trying to fix the immigration problem, then it’s tough to say you’re representing your state,” said Mr. Flake in an interview. “You ought to be involved. I understand that some people don’t agree with the direction I want to go, but you’ve got to be involved.”
Mr. Flake and Mr. McCain are part of a bipartisan group of eight senators working to produce legislation by the end of March. The two other senators making up the group’s Republican half are Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida.
But the Arizona senators’ journey has involved fits and starts. Facing a primary challenge in 2010 from J. D. Hayworth, a conservative and former talk-radio host, Mr. McCain switched his focus from a comprehensive approach to border security, running an ad that ended with him walking along the state’s border and declaring, “Complete the dang fence.”
During Mr. Flake’s Senate race two years later, he similarly doubled down on border security.
“Those of us who have been pushing this for a decade, we ran into a brick wall, again and again,” Mr. Flake said, explaining his 2012 stance. “And I think all of us recognized the political reality, that unless we addressed the border situation, then we don’t have the political oomph to get it across the line.”
SOURCE
At last, most new jobs in Britain are filled by British workers thanks to stricter immigration policies
The majority of jobs created in Britain over the past year have been filled by workers who were born in this country, official figures revealed yesterday.
It represents a dramatic reversal on Labour’s 13 years in power when there was a haemorrhaging of jobs to foreign workers.
Office for National Statistics figures show that three in four jobs have gone to workers born outside Britain since 1997, even hitting more than 90 per cent at times.
Of the 3.1million increase in employment since 1997, some 2.3million jobs went to foreign-born workers and just 794,000 went to those born in the UK.
But the latest figures reveal that the situation has dramatically reversed, helped by the Government’s stricter immigration policies.
Over the past year, employment levels in Britain have increased by 584,000, with 380,000 (65 per cent) going to British-born workers.
Immigration Minister Mark Harper heralded the long-awaited change, which comes six years after then Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for ‘British jobs for British workers’.
He said: ‘These figures show that we are building a better immigration system that works in the national interest and is supporting growth.
‘The rise in numbers in employment has benefited British citizens first, but our system is still allowing skilled migrants to come to the UK where they are needed by British businesses.
‘This follows significant changes to the immigration rules – clamping down on bogus students who only came to the UK to work, often in low-skilled jobs, while remaining open to the brightest and the best.’
Overall, the ONS said the number of workers in Britain has reached its highest level since records began in 1971, with a record 29.7million people in work.
Despite the stream of dismal economic data, the number of workers soared by 584,000 last year, the biggest annual increase for nearly a quarter of a century.
This is equal to 1,600 new jobs being created every day, a robustness which puzzles experts at a time when economic output is falling.
Dr John Philpott, a director of The Jobs Economist, said: ‘The UK jobs market continues to astound.
‘We are in the middle of both a jobs boom and a pay slump as jobseekers struggle to gain or retain employment in a stagnant economy by pricing themselves into work.
'This is unlike anything seen in this country since the Second World War, with the economy using more and more people at falling rates of pay to produce a static level of output.
‘For the time being this looks like a decent trade-off if the alternative is even higher unemployment.’
And there is evidence that people are finally finding full-time jobs, rather than being forced to accept part-time work, typically poorly paid, in the absence of a better offer.
Between October and December, the ONS said an extra 197,000 people found full-time jobs, the largest increase since records began in 1992.
Tory MP David Ruffley, a member of the influential Treasury select committee, said: ‘These figures suggest that economic austerity really is biting.
‘Before you were either better off on benefits or you turned your back on part-time work.
'But UK-born workers now think that any job is better than being in no job.
‘Whether the threatened influx of Romanians and Bulgarians takes the same view remains to be seen.’
SOURCE
Arizona Senators Return to Fray on Immigration
The political risks of supporting an immigration overhaul have long been apparent to Senator John McCain, as evidenced by his evolving position on the topic over the years. This week offered another sharp reminder of what getting out in front of the issue can mean when crowds at back-to-back town-hall-style meetings in Arizona turned hostile toward Mr. McCain’s plan to introduce legislation that could lead to legal residency for some who broke the law in entering the country.
“Everybody in this audience, you’re taking away from Social Security to give it to a dependent class of people,” shouted one man, who Mr. McCain eventually called “a jerk.”
The senator, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said he was undergoing “an Orwellian experience” as his constituents shouted that he needed to build the “dang fence” that he had once promised in a notable campaign ad. Attendees also suggested that guns were the only way to stop the influx of immigrants from coming across the border.
Like it or not, Mr. McCain is now back at the center of the immigration debate, sharing the spotlight with Arizona’s other senator, Jeff Flake, also a Republican, as the two men help fight to overhaul the nation’s immigration system. Longtime followers of the immigration debate could be forgiven for having déjà vu.
After all, the sight of the two Arizonans taking the lead on the divisive issue feels a lot like 2007, when Mr. McCain and Mr. Flake, then a member of the House, were each co-sponsors of their own immigration proposal. Mr. McCain that year pressed his broad plan with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Mr. Flake joined with Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, Democrat of Illinois, to introduce a plan to tighten border security while giving illegal immigrants a chance for legal residency.
Then Mr. Flake and Mr. McCain did something of an Arizona shuffle, trading in their calls for a broad overhaul that could lead to legal residency to focus more on border security. During a 2008 Republican presidential primary debate, Mr. McCain disavowed his own 2006 immigration proposal, and Mr. Flake, facing a challenge from the right during his Senate bid last year, called his previous broad approach to immigration reform “a dead end” until the border was secure.
Now the two senators are back as Republican point men on the issue. Though their hope of overhauling the nation’s immigration system in 2007 died on the Senate floor, the two have returned to the negotiating table, with the goal of finishing what they started.
“If you’re from Arizona and you’re not involved in trying to fix the immigration problem, then it’s tough to say you’re representing your state,” said Mr. Flake in an interview. “You ought to be involved. I understand that some people don’t agree with the direction I want to go, but you’ve got to be involved.”
Mr. Flake and Mr. McCain are part of a bipartisan group of eight senators working to produce legislation by the end of March. The two other senators making up the group’s Republican half are Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida.
But the Arizona senators’ journey has involved fits and starts. Facing a primary challenge in 2010 from J. D. Hayworth, a conservative and former talk-radio host, Mr. McCain switched his focus from a comprehensive approach to border security, running an ad that ended with him walking along the state’s border and declaring, “Complete the dang fence.”
During Mr. Flake’s Senate race two years later, he similarly doubled down on border security.
“Those of us who have been pushing this for a decade, we ran into a brick wall, again and again,” Mr. Flake said, explaining his 2012 stance. “And I think all of us recognized the political reality, that unless we addressed the border situation, then we don’t have the political oomph to get it across the line.”
SOURCE
At last, most new jobs in Britain are filled by British workers thanks to stricter immigration policies
The majority of jobs created in Britain over the past year have been filled by workers who were born in this country, official figures revealed yesterday.
It represents a dramatic reversal on Labour’s 13 years in power when there was a haemorrhaging of jobs to foreign workers.
Office for National Statistics figures show that three in four jobs have gone to workers born outside Britain since 1997, even hitting more than 90 per cent at times.
Of the 3.1million increase in employment since 1997, some 2.3million jobs went to foreign-born workers and just 794,000 went to those born in the UK.
But the latest figures reveal that the situation has dramatically reversed, helped by the Government’s stricter immigration policies.
Over the past year, employment levels in Britain have increased by 584,000, with 380,000 (65 per cent) going to British-born workers.
Immigration Minister Mark Harper heralded the long-awaited change, which comes six years after then Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for ‘British jobs for British workers’.
He said: ‘These figures show that we are building a better immigration system that works in the national interest and is supporting growth.
‘The rise in numbers in employment has benefited British citizens first, but our system is still allowing skilled migrants to come to the UK where they are needed by British businesses.
‘This follows significant changes to the immigration rules – clamping down on bogus students who only came to the UK to work, often in low-skilled jobs, while remaining open to the brightest and the best.’
Overall, the ONS said the number of workers in Britain has reached its highest level since records began in 1971, with a record 29.7million people in work.
Despite the stream of dismal economic data, the number of workers soared by 584,000 last year, the biggest annual increase for nearly a quarter of a century.
This is equal to 1,600 new jobs being created every day, a robustness which puzzles experts at a time when economic output is falling.
Dr John Philpott, a director of The Jobs Economist, said: ‘The UK jobs market continues to astound.
‘We are in the middle of both a jobs boom and a pay slump as jobseekers struggle to gain or retain employment in a stagnant economy by pricing themselves into work.
'This is unlike anything seen in this country since the Second World War, with the economy using more and more people at falling rates of pay to produce a static level of output.
‘For the time being this looks like a decent trade-off if the alternative is even higher unemployment.’
And there is evidence that people are finally finding full-time jobs, rather than being forced to accept part-time work, typically poorly paid, in the absence of a better offer.
Between October and December, the ONS said an extra 197,000 people found full-time jobs, the largest increase since records began in 1992.
Tory MP David Ruffley, a member of the influential Treasury select committee, said: ‘These figures suggest that economic austerity really is biting.
‘Before you were either better off on benefits or you turned your back on part-time work.
'But UK-born workers now think that any job is better than being in no job.
‘Whether the threatened influx of Romanians and Bulgarians takes the same view remains to be seen.’
SOURCE
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
David Cameron: Immigration rhetoric hasn't damaged relationship with India
David Cameron claims Britain's debate over immigration hasn't damaged our relationship with India, saying Indian students recognise the need for a "controlled" policy.
David Cameron, who is in New Delhi on an official visit to India, said that the students he had talked to during his tour understood the need for the UK to clampdown on bogus colleges which has previously offered young Indians an easy route into Britain.
The Prime Minister claimed that the Coalition inherited 180 "bogus" colleges in the UK that were helping Indians gain visas only for them to turn up "in the economy doing unskilled jobs".
Bonafide Indian students recognised why the Coalition had to shut them down, according to Mr Cameron.
"They recognise we are making a very generous offer in saying their is no limit to the number of students from India who can come and study at British universities."
His comments follow his announcement yesterday of plans to amend the visa system to allow Indians coming to the UK on business to get a visa in just one day.
Britain already runs the largest visa operation in the world in India, processing over 400,000 visa applications a year and granting 9 out of 10 applicants a visa, Mr Cameron said in Mumbai yesterday.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Op-ed: Borking Immigration Hawks: The pro-amnesty Right is borrowing its views and its tactics from the Left
2. Op-ed: Immigration: Amnesty plan a bad idea
3. Op-ed: Prooftexting for Amnesty: Evangelical elites split with
the people in the pews over immigration policy
4. Op-ed: Legalizing illegal immigrants a bad idea
5. Op-ed: Just say no to amnesty redux
6. TV: Jessica Vaughan Discusses Amnesty on FOX News Boston
7. TV: Steven Camarota Debates Costs and Illegal Immigration on the O'Reilly Factor
8. Podcast: Jon Feere Debates Birth Tourism on the Huffington Post Live
Congressional Testimony
9. Jessica Vaughan's statement before the House Committee on the Judiciary
10. Jessica Vaughan's statement before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Publications
11. A Blueprint for Immigration Reform: Revisiting the Jordan Commission Report
12. Immigration and Obamacare: Proposed Medicaid Rules for Verifying Status
13. Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home: Results of a National Survey
14. Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants and the Employment Picture for Less-Educated Americans
Blogs
15. ICE Admits It Missed Yet Another Tunnel at Nogales
16. Can You Use Saul Alinsky's Radical Tactics and Also Be a Conservative?
17. Immigration Fraud Case Busted by SEC, Not DHS
18. McCain to Ramos: "You Don't Get It" on Border Security
19. "Hispanic" Activist Eva Longoria
20. Emotional Pleas Overshadow Rational Arguments at Senate Hearing
21. Speaking Out of Both Sides of Your Mouth
22. Washington Primer: How to Stage-Manage a Congressional Hearing
23. How Dante Would View Illegals and Income Tax Violators
24. The Old Spanish Empire Haunts Our Immigration Debates
25. Amnesty Is a Bad Idea
26. American Opportunity Centers
27. "I Pledge Allegiance..."
28. Nuances on the "Path to Citizenship" Emerge in Protracted House Hearing
29. A Dilemma for Many Diligent Democratic Members of the Congress
30. Evangelical Immigration Table: Are All Welcome?
31. Obama to DACA's: You Can Have Dessert Without Eating Your Spinach
32. A Feast of Immigration Quirks in the Current Issue of Interpreter Releases
David Cameron: Immigration rhetoric hasn't damaged relationship with India
David Cameron claims Britain's debate over immigration hasn't damaged our relationship with India, saying Indian students recognise the need for a "controlled" policy.
David Cameron, who is in New Delhi on an official visit to India, said that the students he had talked to during his tour understood the need for the UK to clampdown on bogus colleges which has previously offered young Indians an easy route into Britain.
The Prime Minister claimed that the Coalition inherited 180 "bogus" colleges in the UK that were helping Indians gain visas only for them to turn up "in the economy doing unskilled jobs".
Bonafide Indian students recognised why the Coalition had to shut them down, according to Mr Cameron.
"They recognise we are making a very generous offer in saying their is no limit to the number of students from India who can come and study at British universities."
His comments follow his announcement yesterday of plans to amend the visa system to allow Indians coming to the UK on business to get a visa in just one day.
Britain already runs the largest visa operation in the world in India, processing over 400,000 visa applications a year and granting 9 out of 10 applicants a visa, Mr Cameron said in Mumbai yesterday.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Op-ed: Borking Immigration Hawks: The pro-amnesty Right is borrowing its views and its tactics from the Left
2. Op-ed: Immigration: Amnesty plan a bad idea
3. Op-ed: Prooftexting for Amnesty: Evangelical elites split with
the people in the pews over immigration policy
4. Op-ed: Legalizing illegal immigrants a bad idea
5. Op-ed: Just say no to amnesty redux
6. TV: Jessica Vaughan Discusses Amnesty on FOX News Boston
7. TV: Steven Camarota Debates Costs and Illegal Immigration on the O'Reilly Factor
8. Podcast: Jon Feere Debates Birth Tourism on the Huffington Post Live
Congressional Testimony
9. Jessica Vaughan's statement before the House Committee on the Judiciary
10. Jessica Vaughan's statement before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Publications
11. A Blueprint for Immigration Reform: Revisiting the Jordan Commission Report
12. Immigration and Obamacare: Proposed Medicaid Rules for Verifying Status
13. Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home: Results of a National Survey
14. Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants and the Employment Picture for Less-Educated Americans
Blogs
15. ICE Admits It Missed Yet Another Tunnel at Nogales
16. Can You Use Saul Alinsky's Radical Tactics and Also Be a Conservative?
17. Immigration Fraud Case Busted by SEC, Not DHS
18. McCain to Ramos: "You Don't Get It" on Border Security
19. "Hispanic" Activist Eva Longoria
20. Emotional Pleas Overshadow Rational Arguments at Senate Hearing
21. Speaking Out of Both Sides of Your Mouth
22. Washington Primer: How to Stage-Manage a Congressional Hearing
23. How Dante Would View Illegals and Income Tax Violators
24. The Old Spanish Empire Haunts Our Immigration Debates
25. Amnesty Is a Bad Idea
26. American Opportunity Centers
27. "I Pledge Allegiance..."
28. Nuances on the "Path to Citizenship" Emerge in Protracted House Hearing
29. A Dilemma for Many Diligent Democratic Members of the Congress
30. Evangelical Immigration Table: Are All Welcome?
31. Obama to DACA's: You Can Have Dessert Without Eating Your Spinach
32. A Feast of Immigration Quirks in the Current Issue of Interpreter Releases
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Immigration and the Pro-Life Movement
Tom Tancredo
There has not even been an amnesty bill introduced yet in the US Senate, and key Republican members of the “Gang of Eight” are panicking. An old saying in politics is, if you’re losing an argument, change the subject. In the amnesty debate, if the facts don’t line up on your side, then slander the opponents with lies and challenge their motives and their pedigree. In the past, these types of attacks came from liberals accusing anyone opposed to illegal immigration as “racists.”
Now, according to a front page story in the Washington Post, Grover Norquist, the US Conference and Catholic Bishops, and the National Immigration Forum are leading the attacks. This group is engaged in a systematic effort to discredit the three largest immigration control organizations in DC, The Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform, and Numbers USA.
The Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform both do powerful research on immigration problems and are all well-regarded in conservative circles and their scholars and expert staff have testified before literally dozens of congressional hearings.
But the third targeted group, NumbersUSA, is the real nemesis of the open borders lobby because it marches up to the Hill and does battle in the trenches. It has been so effective in using its million plus members to lobby Congress that in both the 2006 and 2007 congressional debates, NumbersUSA played a pivotal role in defeating George Bush and John McCain’s hopes for amnesty. Thus, this month’s smear campaign against NumbersUSA should be seen as a preemptive strike aimed at taking out amnesty’s most effective opponent.
What is the main attack line against the Numbers USA and the other two organizations that oppose both illegal immigration and the huge potholes in our broken immigration system? Their crime is that they are “not part of the conservative movement because” FAIR, Numbers USA, and Center for Immigration Studies have board members who support legalized abortion and environmental conservation.
Yep. That’s the line. Well I have, over the course almost 15 years, worked with all of these groups and especially Numbers USA. Never has that collaboration focused on anything but border security and TRUE immigration reform.
During my years in Congress, I had a 100% rating from National Right to Life and a 99% rating from the American Conservative Union. I’ve been called a lot of things in my political career, but a pro-abortion liberal is not one of them. Nonetheless, I’ve considered myself privileged to work with CIS, FAIR, and Numbers USA.
Just as any Republican with half a brain should be skeptical when someone like Senator John McCain (as in McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill) lectures us on immigration issues, they should be just as suspicious when the likes of Grover Norquist, the Catholic Council of Bishops or La Raza put targets on the backs of Numbers USA, FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies and gets front page coverage in The Washington Post. I can assure you that none of the aforementioned band of brothers are out to protect conservatives
SOURCE
Immigrants must live in Britain for a year before claiming benefits, says welfare minister
The Work and Pensions Secretary said hard-working migrants who paid their taxes and contributed to the economy would be welcome.
But he said he wanted to ensure “our door is shut” to benefit tourists and was engaged in a “big battle” with Brussels to reform the rules on welfare payments to residents from elsewhere in the EU.
Last week the Prime Minister promised to overhaul the system for immigrants to ensure that Britain is not “a soft touch”. Ministers have been in talks over tightening the rules allowing migrants access to social housing, the NHS, benefits and elements of the justice system.
Some Conservative Cabinet members fear that the removal of restrictions for EU migrants from Romania and Bulgaria from 2014 will see many more arrive than expected, putting pressure on housing and public services.
Mr Duncan Smith predicted that ministers would be able to introduce “much tougher” regulations to stop immigrants taking advantage of the welfare system.
“We want people to be able to travel to work but we don’t want them to travel to get benefits,” he told BBC One’s Andrew Marr show.
“It’s locking the door to peoples’ access to benefits simply because they want to come here.”
A high level meeting of officials and Cabinet ministers has already taken place to discuss closing “loopholes”, he said, and further talks are expected.
One key measure he hoped to strengthen will be the “habitual residency test”, which sets out the minimum amount of time for which migrants must live in Britain before they can become eligible for benefits.
The minister said the rules were already “reasonably tight” in Job Centres. However, he was “looking at” further reforms so that individuals will need to show they have a lease on a home “of nine-months to a year, rather than just a matter of months”.
Some benefits may be classified as “contributory”, he said, suggesting that individuals may be entitled to receive payments only if they had paid enough tax and national insurance first.
“These are areas we’re tightening up before this starts next year, and I believe we will be able to tighten this up,” Mr Duncan Smith said.
However, he faces a fight with the EU, which is attempting to prevent Britain applying the residency test to migrants from elsewhere in Europe.
“They’re trying to say we don’t have the right to have any kind of test, so that’s a big battle that I’m having with the Europeans,” Mr Duncan Smith said. Britain is being supported in arguing for new rules by the Dutch and Scandinavians, he added.
The minister said he also wanted to stop immigrants sending UK child benefit payments, which are more generous than the European average, to their families in their home countries.
From next year, 29 million Romanian and Bulgarian citizens will gain the right to move to the UK to work and live under rules allowing EU citizens freedom of movement.
Anti-immigration campaigners are calling on ministers to disclose how many Romanian and Bulgarian migrants they expect to arrive next year when the current restrictions on migration from the two countries are lifted.
Mr Duncan Smith said it was “pointless” attempting to predict the figures after Labour severely underestimated the numbers likely to arrive from eastern Europe after 2004. He said he had no knowledge of any official projections.
“If you look at where there Romanians are coming through at the moment it paints a picture, the majority have gone to Germany and Spain. We are ready, though, to make sure that they can’t come here and claim benefits.”
SOURCE
Immigration and the Pro-Life Movement
Tom Tancredo
There has not even been an amnesty bill introduced yet in the US Senate, and key Republican members of the “Gang of Eight” are panicking. An old saying in politics is, if you’re losing an argument, change the subject. In the amnesty debate, if the facts don’t line up on your side, then slander the opponents with lies and challenge their motives and their pedigree. In the past, these types of attacks came from liberals accusing anyone opposed to illegal immigration as “racists.”
Now, according to a front page story in the Washington Post, Grover Norquist, the US Conference and Catholic Bishops, and the National Immigration Forum are leading the attacks. This group is engaged in a systematic effort to discredit the three largest immigration control organizations in DC, The Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform, and Numbers USA.
The Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform both do powerful research on immigration problems and are all well-regarded in conservative circles and their scholars and expert staff have testified before literally dozens of congressional hearings.
But the third targeted group, NumbersUSA, is the real nemesis of the open borders lobby because it marches up to the Hill and does battle in the trenches. It has been so effective in using its million plus members to lobby Congress that in both the 2006 and 2007 congressional debates, NumbersUSA played a pivotal role in defeating George Bush and John McCain’s hopes for amnesty. Thus, this month’s smear campaign against NumbersUSA should be seen as a preemptive strike aimed at taking out amnesty’s most effective opponent.
What is the main attack line against the Numbers USA and the other two organizations that oppose both illegal immigration and the huge potholes in our broken immigration system? Their crime is that they are “not part of the conservative movement because” FAIR, Numbers USA, and Center for Immigration Studies have board members who support legalized abortion and environmental conservation.
Yep. That’s the line. Well I have, over the course almost 15 years, worked with all of these groups and especially Numbers USA. Never has that collaboration focused on anything but border security and TRUE immigration reform.
During my years in Congress, I had a 100% rating from National Right to Life and a 99% rating from the American Conservative Union. I’ve been called a lot of things in my political career, but a pro-abortion liberal is not one of them. Nonetheless, I’ve considered myself privileged to work with CIS, FAIR, and Numbers USA.
Just as any Republican with half a brain should be skeptical when someone like Senator John McCain (as in McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill) lectures us on immigration issues, they should be just as suspicious when the likes of Grover Norquist, the Catholic Council of Bishops or La Raza put targets on the backs of Numbers USA, FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies and gets front page coverage in The Washington Post. I can assure you that none of the aforementioned band of brothers are out to protect conservatives
SOURCE
Immigrants must live in Britain for a year before claiming benefits, says welfare minister
The Work and Pensions Secretary said hard-working migrants who paid their taxes and contributed to the economy would be welcome.
But he said he wanted to ensure “our door is shut” to benefit tourists and was engaged in a “big battle” with Brussels to reform the rules on welfare payments to residents from elsewhere in the EU.
Last week the Prime Minister promised to overhaul the system for immigrants to ensure that Britain is not “a soft touch”. Ministers have been in talks over tightening the rules allowing migrants access to social housing, the NHS, benefits and elements of the justice system.
Some Conservative Cabinet members fear that the removal of restrictions for EU migrants from Romania and Bulgaria from 2014 will see many more arrive than expected, putting pressure on housing and public services.
Mr Duncan Smith predicted that ministers would be able to introduce “much tougher” regulations to stop immigrants taking advantage of the welfare system.
“We want people to be able to travel to work but we don’t want them to travel to get benefits,” he told BBC One’s Andrew Marr show.
“It’s locking the door to peoples’ access to benefits simply because they want to come here.”
A high level meeting of officials and Cabinet ministers has already taken place to discuss closing “loopholes”, he said, and further talks are expected.
One key measure he hoped to strengthen will be the “habitual residency test”, which sets out the minimum amount of time for which migrants must live in Britain before they can become eligible for benefits.
The minister said the rules were already “reasonably tight” in Job Centres. However, he was “looking at” further reforms so that individuals will need to show they have a lease on a home “of nine-months to a year, rather than just a matter of months”.
Some benefits may be classified as “contributory”, he said, suggesting that individuals may be entitled to receive payments only if they had paid enough tax and national insurance first.
“These are areas we’re tightening up before this starts next year, and I believe we will be able to tighten this up,” Mr Duncan Smith said.
However, he faces a fight with the EU, which is attempting to prevent Britain applying the residency test to migrants from elsewhere in Europe.
“They’re trying to say we don’t have the right to have any kind of test, so that’s a big battle that I’m having with the Europeans,” Mr Duncan Smith said. Britain is being supported in arguing for new rules by the Dutch and Scandinavians, he added.
The minister said he also wanted to stop immigrants sending UK child benefit payments, which are more generous than the European average, to their families in their home countries.
From next year, 29 million Romanian and Bulgarian citizens will gain the right to move to the UK to work and live under rules allowing EU citizens freedom of movement.
Anti-immigration campaigners are calling on ministers to disclose how many Romanian and Bulgarian migrants they expect to arrive next year when the current restrictions on migration from the two countries are lifted.
Mr Duncan Smith said it was “pointless” attempting to predict the figures after Labour severely underestimated the numbers likely to arrive from eastern Europe after 2004. He said he had no knowledge of any official projections.
“If you look at where there Romanians are coming through at the moment it paints a picture, the majority have gone to Germany and Spain. We are ready, though, to make sure that they can’t come here and claim benefits.”
SOURCE
Monday, February 18, 2013
Republicans rip Obama immigration plan; Rubio calls it 'dead on arrival'
Congressional Republicans on Sunday criticized a White House plan on immigration reform that allows illegal immigrants to become legal, permanent residents within eight years -- saying Congress will never pass such a proposal and questioning President Obama’s intent.
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said the plan is untenable and so outside of what the country wants that it suggests President Obama is not sincere about passing immigration reform.
“The president is torpedoing his own plan,” Paul told “Fox News Sunday.” “It shows me he is really not serious. … The bill won’t pass.”
The draft immigration bill being circulated by the White House also includes plans for a new visa for illegal immigrants living in the United States, as first reported by USA Today.
Obama's bill would create a "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visa for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country. The bill includes more security funding and requires business owners to adopt a system for verifying the immigration status of new hires within four years, the newspaper said.
On Saturday, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio called the White House proposal "half-baked and seriously flawed."
Rubio -- part of an eight-member, bipartisan Senate panel working on an immigration reform bill -- also said the purported proposal was disappointing to those “working on serious solutions” and repeats failures of past legislation.
He said the White House also erred in not seeking input from Republican lawmakers.
"If actually proposed, the president's bill would be dead on arrival in Congress, leaving us with unsecured borders and a broken legal immigration system for years to come," Rubio said in a statement.
Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said Sunday the White House is working with members and staffers of the so-called “Gang of Eight” and that the White House hasn’t proposed anything so far to Capitol Hill on immigration.
McDonough declined to answer repeated questions on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about why the White House didn’t first consult Rubio, consider the key Republican on the issue.
“We are doing exactly what we said we would do, which is we will be prepared in the event that the bipartisan talks on the Hill … do not work out,” he told NBC.
USA Today also reported that the bill would require that immigrants pass a criminal background check, submit biometric information and pay fees to qualify for the new visa.
Immigrants who served more than a year in prison for a criminal conviction or were convicted of three or more crimes and were sentenced to a total of 90 days in jail would not be eligible. Crimes committed in other countries that would bar immigrants from legally entering the country would also be ineligible.
Those immigrants facing deportation would be eligible to apply for the visa, the newspaper reported. Immigrants would be eligible to apply for a green card within eight years, if they learn English and U.S. history and government, and they would later be eligible to become U.S. citizens.
House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan took back the praise he gave Obama for his State of the Union remarks on immigration.
“Putting these details out without a guest worker program, without addressing future flow, by giving advantage to those who cut in front of line for immigrants who came here legally, not dealing with border security adequately, that tells us that he's looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution,” The Wisconsin Republican told ABC’s “This Week.”
Last month, the group of senators announced they had agreed on the general outline of an immigration plan.
Obama has said he would not submit his own legislation to Congress so long as law makers acted "in a timely manner." If they failed, he said, "I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away."
Paul also told Fox he will submit an amendment to the upcoming Senate bill calling for a General Accounting Office report stating U.S. borders are secure that must be periodically updated.
Clark Stevens, a White House spokesman, said Saturday that Obama still supports a bipartisan effort to craft a comprehensive immigration bill. "While the president has made clear he will move forward if Congress fails to act, progress continues to be made and the administration has not prepared a final bill to submit," he said in a statement.
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, described the draft bill as a "very moderate" proposal. While the path to citizenship was welcomed by Noorani, he said not enough attention was being paid to future immigration.
"Commonsense immigration reform must include a functioning immigration system for the future," Noorani said in a statement. "Reform does not begin and end with citizenship and enforcement alone."
SOURCE
It's MY job to deport foreigners who commit serious crime - and I'll fight any judge who stands in my way, says Home Secretary
Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, foreigners who have committed serious crimes in this country, or who have attempted to cheat the immigration system, should be deported from Britain.
Parliament wants that to happen, the public wants that to happen, and I want that to happen. But, too often, it is not happening.
Time and time again we are treated to the spectacle of people who have been found guilty of rape or serious assault being given the right to stay in this country.
It is not in the national interest that this situation continues. What is going on? The short answer is that some of our judges appear to have got it into their heads that Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, the ‘right to family life’, is an absolute, unqualified right.
This means that if a foreign criminal can show that he has a family in this country, they take the view he has a right to remain here, regardless of the gravity of the offences.
That interpretation is wrong. The Convention is quite plain: the right to family life is not an absolute right, like the right not to be tortured. It is a qualified right, and it can be restricted when that is required, for example, to protect public safety, or for the prevention of crime.
I thought that possibly the problem for the judges was that our Parliament had not explicitly stated how the right to family life could be restricted.
So in June last year I ensured that the House of Commons was able to debate my amendments to the immigration rules. Those amendments stated that in the usual case, any foreign national who was convicted of a serious crime should be deported, regardless of whether or not the criminal had a family in the UK.
After a vigorous debate, the Commons adopted the changes unanimously. There was no division because there was no one in the Commons who opposed them.
I made it clear that I would introduce primary legislation should the Commons’ acceptance of my amendments not be sufficient to persuade judges to change the way they interpreted Article Eight. But I hoped that the outcome of the debate would be enough.
Unfortunately, some judges evidently do not regard a debate in Parliament on new immigration rules, followed by the unanimous adoption of those rules, as evidence that Parliament actually wants to see those new rules implemented.
As a justification for ignoring the new rules, one immigration judge recently stated that ‘the procedure adopted in relation to the introduction of the new rules provided a weak form of Parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament has not altered the legal duty of the judge determining appeals to decide on proportionality for him or herself’.
Just think for a moment what this judge is claiming. He is asserting that he can ignore the unanimous adoption by the Commons of new immigration rules on the grounds that he thinks this is a ‘weak form of parliamentary scrutiny’.
I find it difficult to see how that can be squared with the central idea of our constitution, which is that Parliament makes the law, and judges interpret what that law is and make sure the executive complies with it.
For almost all of the long history of disputes between judges and Parliament, it has been common ground that Parliament is the ultimate law-maker, and that it is not for the judges to be legislators.
It is essential to democracy that the elected representatives of the people make the laws that govern this country – and not the judges.
Yet some judges seem to believe that they can ignore Parliament’s wishes if they think that the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny have been ‘weak’. That appears actually to mean that they can ignore Parliament when they think it came to the wrong conclusion.
Most judges, especially in our higher courts, do not take this attitude. One High Court judge, for example, has explicitly recognised that the new rules are ‘unquestionably valid laws, democratically enacted under a procedure which is necessary for the efficient practical functioning of Parliament’. The majority of judges share his view.
But a minority think that it is their role to determine, for instance, whether or not foreigners who commit serious crimes shall be deported. They are able to frustrate Government policy and prevent the deportation of criminals.
It is now clear that only explicit parliamentary legislation will convince them that the law is what Parliament says it is, not what they think it should be.
I am therefore determined to introduce primary legislation that will specify that foreign nationals who commit serious crimes shall, except in extraordinary circumstances, be deported.
Once this primary legislation has been enacted, it is surely inconceivable that judges in this country will maintain that it is they, rather than Parliament, who are entitled to decide how to balance the foreigner’s right to family life against our nation’s right to protect itself.
It is depressing that the steps we have already taken should have been insufficient to produce that result. The inevitable delays inherent in passing primary legislation will mean that there will be many more foreign criminals who successfully avoid deportation on the basis that they have a family here.
There will also be more victims of violent crimes committed by foreigners in this country – foreigners who should have been, and could have been, deported.
This is not a dispute about respect for human rights, which I certainly agree is an essential part of any decent legal system. It is about how to balance rights against each other: in particular, the individual’s right to family life, the right of the individual to be free from violent crime, and the right of society to protect itself against foreign criminals.
One of the most distressing results of judges taking it on themselves to determine how that balance should be struck, in defiance of Parliament’s wishes, has been the damage done to the notion of human rights: in the popular imagination, ‘human rights’ are wrongly, but perhaps understandably, becoming synonymous with legal dodges that allow criminals to escape proper punishment and to continue to prey on the public.
I am a great admirer of most of the judges in Britain.
I absolutely accept that the power of Ministers should be reviewed and restrained by independent judges who are appointed, not elected, and who are not accountable to the electorate for their decisions.
But the law in this country is made by the elected representatives of the people in Parliament. And our democracy is subverted when judges decide to take on that role for themselves.
SOURCE
Republicans rip Obama immigration plan; Rubio calls it 'dead on arrival'
Congressional Republicans on Sunday criticized a White House plan on immigration reform that allows illegal immigrants to become legal, permanent residents within eight years -- saying Congress will never pass such a proposal and questioning President Obama’s intent.
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul said the plan is untenable and so outside of what the country wants that it suggests President Obama is not sincere about passing immigration reform.
“The president is torpedoing his own plan,” Paul told “Fox News Sunday.” “It shows me he is really not serious. … The bill won’t pass.”
The draft immigration bill being circulated by the White House also includes plans for a new visa for illegal immigrants living in the United States, as first reported by USA Today.
Obama's bill would create a "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visa for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country. The bill includes more security funding and requires business owners to adopt a system for verifying the immigration status of new hires within four years, the newspaper said.
On Saturday, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio called the White House proposal "half-baked and seriously flawed."
Rubio -- part of an eight-member, bipartisan Senate panel working on an immigration reform bill -- also said the purported proposal was disappointing to those “working on serious solutions” and repeats failures of past legislation.
He said the White House also erred in not seeking input from Republican lawmakers.
"If actually proposed, the president's bill would be dead on arrival in Congress, leaving us with unsecured borders and a broken legal immigration system for years to come," Rubio said in a statement.
Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said Sunday the White House is working with members and staffers of the so-called “Gang of Eight” and that the White House hasn’t proposed anything so far to Capitol Hill on immigration.
McDonough declined to answer repeated questions on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about why the White House didn’t first consult Rubio, consider the key Republican on the issue.
“We are doing exactly what we said we would do, which is we will be prepared in the event that the bipartisan talks on the Hill … do not work out,” he told NBC.
USA Today also reported that the bill would require that immigrants pass a criminal background check, submit biometric information and pay fees to qualify for the new visa.
Immigrants who served more than a year in prison for a criminal conviction or were convicted of three or more crimes and were sentenced to a total of 90 days in jail would not be eligible. Crimes committed in other countries that would bar immigrants from legally entering the country would also be ineligible.
Those immigrants facing deportation would be eligible to apply for the visa, the newspaper reported. Immigrants would be eligible to apply for a green card within eight years, if they learn English and U.S. history and government, and they would later be eligible to become U.S. citizens.
House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan took back the praise he gave Obama for his State of the Union remarks on immigration.
“Putting these details out without a guest worker program, without addressing future flow, by giving advantage to those who cut in front of line for immigrants who came here legally, not dealing with border security adequately, that tells us that he's looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution,” The Wisconsin Republican told ABC’s “This Week.”
Last month, the group of senators announced they had agreed on the general outline of an immigration plan.
Obama has said he would not submit his own legislation to Congress so long as law makers acted "in a timely manner." If they failed, he said, "I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away."
Paul also told Fox he will submit an amendment to the upcoming Senate bill calling for a General Accounting Office report stating U.S. borders are secure that must be periodically updated.
Clark Stevens, a White House spokesman, said Saturday that Obama still supports a bipartisan effort to craft a comprehensive immigration bill. "While the president has made clear he will move forward if Congress fails to act, progress continues to be made and the administration has not prepared a final bill to submit," he said in a statement.
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, described the draft bill as a "very moderate" proposal. While the path to citizenship was welcomed by Noorani, he said not enough attention was being paid to future immigration.
"Commonsense immigration reform must include a functioning immigration system for the future," Noorani said in a statement. "Reform does not begin and end with citizenship and enforcement alone."
SOURCE
It's MY job to deport foreigners who commit serious crime - and I'll fight any judge who stands in my way, says Home Secretary
Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, foreigners who have committed serious crimes in this country, or who have attempted to cheat the immigration system, should be deported from Britain.
Parliament wants that to happen, the public wants that to happen, and I want that to happen. But, too often, it is not happening.
Time and time again we are treated to the spectacle of people who have been found guilty of rape or serious assault being given the right to stay in this country.
It is not in the national interest that this situation continues. What is going on? The short answer is that some of our judges appear to have got it into their heads that Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, the ‘right to family life’, is an absolute, unqualified right.
This means that if a foreign criminal can show that he has a family in this country, they take the view he has a right to remain here, regardless of the gravity of the offences.
That interpretation is wrong. The Convention is quite plain: the right to family life is not an absolute right, like the right not to be tortured. It is a qualified right, and it can be restricted when that is required, for example, to protect public safety, or for the prevention of crime.
I thought that possibly the problem for the judges was that our Parliament had not explicitly stated how the right to family life could be restricted.
So in June last year I ensured that the House of Commons was able to debate my amendments to the immigration rules. Those amendments stated that in the usual case, any foreign national who was convicted of a serious crime should be deported, regardless of whether or not the criminal had a family in the UK.
After a vigorous debate, the Commons adopted the changes unanimously. There was no division because there was no one in the Commons who opposed them.
I made it clear that I would introduce primary legislation should the Commons’ acceptance of my amendments not be sufficient to persuade judges to change the way they interpreted Article Eight. But I hoped that the outcome of the debate would be enough.
Unfortunately, some judges evidently do not regard a debate in Parliament on new immigration rules, followed by the unanimous adoption of those rules, as evidence that Parliament actually wants to see those new rules implemented.
As a justification for ignoring the new rules, one immigration judge recently stated that ‘the procedure adopted in relation to the introduction of the new rules provided a weak form of Parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament has not altered the legal duty of the judge determining appeals to decide on proportionality for him or herself’.
Just think for a moment what this judge is claiming. He is asserting that he can ignore the unanimous adoption by the Commons of new immigration rules on the grounds that he thinks this is a ‘weak form of parliamentary scrutiny’.
I find it difficult to see how that can be squared with the central idea of our constitution, which is that Parliament makes the law, and judges interpret what that law is and make sure the executive complies with it.
For almost all of the long history of disputes between judges and Parliament, it has been common ground that Parliament is the ultimate law-maker, and that it is not for the judges to be legislators.
It is essential to democracy that the elected representatives of the people make the laws that govern this country – and not the judges.
Yet some judges seem to believe that they can ignore Parliament’s wishes if they think that the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny have been ‘weak’. That appears actually to mean that they can ignore Parliament when they think it came to the wrong conclusion.
Most judges, especially in our higher courts, do not take this attitude. One High Court judge, for example, has explicitly recognised that the new rules are ‘unquestionably valid laws, democratically enacted under a procedure which is necessary for the efficient practical functioning of Parliament’. The majority of judges share his view.
But a minority think that it is their role to determine, for instance, whether or not foreigners who commit serious crimes shall be deported. They are able to frustrate Government policy and prevent the deportation of criminals.
It is now clear that only explicit parliamentary legislation will convince them that the law is what Parliament says it is, not what they think it should be.
I am therefore determined to introduce primary legislation that will specify that foreign nationals who commit serious crimes shall, except in extraordinary circumstances, be deported.
Once this primary legislation has been enacted, it is surely inconceivable that judges in this country will maintain that it is they, rather than Parliament, who are entitled to decide how to balance the foreigner’s right to family life against our nation’s right to protect itself.
It is depressing that the steps we have already taken should have been insufficient to produce that result. The inevitable delays inherent in passing primary legislation will mean that there will be many more foreign criminals who successfully avoid deportation on the basis that they have a family here.
There will also be more victims of violent crimes committed by foreigners in this country – foreigners who should have been, and could have been, deported.
This is not a dispute about respect for human rights, which I certainly agree is an essential part of any decent legal system. It is about how to balance rights against each other: in particular, the individual’s right to family life, the right of the individual to be free from violent crime, and the right of society to protect itself against foreign criminals.
One of the most distressing results of judges taking it on themselves to determine how that balance should be struck, in defiance of Parliament’s wishes, has been the damage done to the notion of human rights: in the popular imagination, ‘human rights’ are wrongly, but perhaps understandably, becoming synonymous with legal dodges that allow criminals to escape proper punishment and to continue to prey on the public.
I am a great admirer of most of the judges in Britain.
I absolutely accept that the power of Ministers should be reviewed and restrained by independent judges who are appointed, not elected, and who are not accountable to the electorate for their decisions.
But the law in this country is made by the elected representatives of the people in Parliament. And our democracy is subverted when judges decide to take on that role for themselves.
SOURCE
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Registry proposed to check illegal immigration into Europe
German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich is pushing for an EU-wide immigration registry. In return, visa requirements for some countries could be lifted.
The most recent case came as a wake-up call to German security agencies: Even through he was registered with them as a radical Islamist and blacklisted from entering the country, Mohamad Arifi succeeded in doing just that.
Even though Arifi is under suspicion of calling on Islamists in Syria to take up arms, he was speaking freely in the mosques of Heidelberg and Berlin. Exactly how he was able to enter Germany is the subject of an ongoing investigation.
Arifi's case isn't an isolated one. Illegal immigration has risen by 18 percent over the past year, pushing the total to more than 21,000 people who entered Germany without permission. On top of that, there have been around 5,000 cases in which perfectly legal three-month-long residence permits have been silently - and unlawfully - extended by their holders. All of these incidences reflect a clear lack of immigration security.
The European Union has done away with border checks along its internal boundaries. With Germany located at its geographic center, it depends on functional immigration procedures in the countries that line the union's outer frontiers.
If German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich has his way, surveillance of individuals travelling through Germany and the EU is to become tighter. For that, he has his eyes on two groups in particular: Citizens who, until now, mandatorily had to have a visa to enter Germany - such as from the US, African countries or Russia - and those who are already free to enter without a visa, both from within and outside of the EU.
Technically, there are already procedures in place for anyone who has to apply for a visa: German embassies and consulates are to strictly verify the purpose of a visit, find out how the applicant intends to finance travel and living expenses, and inquire about departure details.
Despite a number of bribery scandals in 2000 and 2004, these procedures appear to basically work. In 2012 alone, out of around 2 million visa applications, 138,000 were rejected by German authorities abroad - with security concerns cited as the top reason.
Especially Russia and Turkey are keen to have these strict regulations loosened or lifted altogether for their citizens - a request the German government says it's happy to comply with, but only under the condition that visas be replaced by another control system.
The planned immigration registry is to contain details of all travelers who are exempt from the visa application process and are therefore free to stay for up to 90 days. The idea is that, before their arrival, they register themselves online and clearly state their purpose for visiting the EU or Germany.
There are too many loopholes in current German visa regulations, according to expert policymakers in Berlin such as Michael Hartman of the Social Democrat party. Many Russians, he says, travel from St. Petersburg to Finland, and then continue their journey to Germany. "We know neither of their arrival, nor of their departure," Hartmann says.
As his party's representative in the parliament's Committee on Internal Affairs, he supports a common control system across the EU. "This chaos we have had until now has to stop," he said, adding that currently, no one has a complete overview of the situation.
Reinhard Grindel is the Christian Democrat Union (CDU) party representative within the internal affairs committee. An immigration registry, he said, has one distinct advantage: "If in the future someone doesn't leave after three months, that person specifically could then be searched for."
But Grindel added that he expects any such immigration registry to be up and working in two to three years, at the earliest.
Too much control, says opposition
Grindel's estimates are based at least in part on the upcoming national election this fall, as their outcome is proving hard to predict. And no matter what the result, plans for the immigration registry have already been criticized.
From the ranks of the Free Democratic Party, the CDU's current coalition partner, comes concern about data protection issues. The Greens and the Left party have also expressed concern over too much government control.
As interior politics expert for the Greens, Memet Kilic points to the already existing "Schengen Information System." It's a search system which, he says, is already partially dysfunctional. Kilic therefore remains critical regarding the interior minister's announcement of a more comprehensive approach "following the US example."
Frequent travelers, for example, would be given a "token" - a small technical device - supposed to ease their movements. "What if something like that gets lost or stolen?" asked Kilic, believing that the new system would bring new security loopholes.
Meanwhile, Hartman says that there are definitely no plans to use an immigration registry for generating any form of intelligence files. Grindel is keen to disperse worries that the system could incorporate biometric data, as is the case in the US - for the moment: "I don't think this is something we will wait for, as we know from experience with the Schengen Information System that we can't fulfill the necessary technical requirements for that."
Support from Brussels
Already in 2008, then-EU Interior Commissioner Franco Frattini pushed for a centralized European border control system. This would also use satellites and drones to survey the EU's southern and eastern perimeters. For a long time those plans had been shelved - but that could change.
By the end of February, the European Commission wants to issue recommendations on a legal framework for an EU-wide population register. Once this happens, ideas that are currently taking shape in Germany are likely to gain momentum, too.
SOURCE
Singapore rally demands immigration curbs
MORE than 2000 people attended Singapore's biggest protest in decades on Saturday to demand curbs on immigration amid growing public anger over an expected surge in the foreign population.
The peaceful three-hour rally at an officially designated protest zone was staged by a civic group after the government said foreigners could account for nearly half of the densely packed island's population in less than 20 years.
Organisers put the crowd, shielded by a sea of umbrellas from heavy downpours, at 4000. Police said they were not monitoring the size of the crowd and AFP reporters estimated the turnout at more than 2000 people, many of them clad in black.
"I think it's the largest protest in decades. It is also the first one where anger is directed squarely at the government," said Reuben Wong, an assistant professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.
"People are now more willing to air their grievances. They have been doing it on the internet for the past few years, but it is new for them to physically come down in such numbers."
Rally leaders, who used Facebook and other online platforms to draw support, openly attacked the People's Action Party (PAP), which has been in power for more than 50 years and still controls 80 of the 87 seats in parliament despite losing two by-elections in the past year.
"The large crowd here shows the PAP government that they are not afraid any more, they don't want to hide behind a moniker on Facebook to show their displeasure," said chief organiser Gilbert Goh, a former opposition candidate for parliament.
The crowd repeatedly chanted "We want change" at the height of the protest.
No arrests were made and only a handful of uniformed policemen were seen around the rally venue, a grassy park where protests are allowed without a police permit at a spot known as Speakers' Corner.
A government policy paper last month said the population could range between 6.5 and 6.9 million by 2030, with foreigners making up 45 per cent because Singaporeans are not producing enough babies to sustain economic growth and support a rapidly ageing population.
Citizens currently make up 62 per cent of the current population of 5.3 million.
"Save Singapore -- Say NO to 6.9 million," said a banner at the rally.
Protests are rare in Singapore, a wealthy island republic known for strict security and social controls, but Facebook, Twitter and other social media have set the tone for political debate in recent years.
Multi-racial Singapore has bitter memories of deadly riots in the 1960s.
Saturday's rally came less than two years after the May 2011 election when the ruling party suffered its worst ever performance, with immigration already a sensitive issue.
Foreigners have been blamed for stealing Singaporeans' jobs as well as straining housing, transport and medical services.
SOURCE
German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich is pushing for an EU-wide immigration registry. In return, visa requirements for some countries could be lifted.
The most recent case came as a wake-up call to German security agencies: Even through he was registered with them as a radical Islamist and blacklisted from entering the country, Mohamad Arifi succeeded in doing just that.
Even though Arifi is under suspicion of calling on Islamists in Syria to take up arms, he was speaking freely in the mosques of Heidelberg and Berlin. Exactly how he was able to enter Germany is the subject of an ongoing investigation.
Arifi's case isn't an isolated one. Illegal immigration has risen by 18 percent over the past year, pushing the total to more than 21,000 people who entered Germany without permission. On top of that, there have been around 5,000 cases in which perfectly legal three-month-long residence permits have been silently - and unlawfully - extended by their holders. All of these incidences reflect a clear lack of immigration security.
The European Union has done away with border checks along its internal boundaries. With Germany located at its geographic center, it depends on functional immigration procedures in the countries that line the union's outer frontiers.
If German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich has his way, surveillance of individuals travelling through Germany and the EU is to become tighter. For that, he has his eyes on two groups in particular: Citizens who, until now, mandatorily had to have a visa to enter Germany - such as from the US, African countries or Russia - and those who are already free to enter without a visa, both from within and outside of the EU.
Technically, there are already procedures in place for anyone who has to apply for a visa: German embassies and consulates are to strictly verify the purpose of a visit, find out how the applicant intends to finance travel and living expenses, and inquire about departure details.
Despite a number of bribery scandals in 2000 and 2004, these procedures appear to basically work. In 2012 alone, out of around 2 million visa applications, 138,000 were rejected by German authorities abroad - with security concerns cited as the top reason.
Especially Russia and Turkey are keen to have these strict regulations loosened or lifted altogether for their citizens - a request the German government says it's happy to comply with, but only under the condition that visas be replaced by another control system.
The planned immigration registry is to contain details of all travelers who are exempt from the visa application process and are therefore free to stay for up to 90 days. The idea is that, before their arrival, they register themselves online and clearly state their purpose for visiting the EU or Germany.
There are too many loopholes in current German visa regulations, according to expert policymakers in Berlin such as Michael Hartman of the Social Democrat party. Many Russians, he says, travel from St. Petersburg to Finland, and then continue their journey to Germany. "We know neither of their arrival, nor of their departure," Hartmann says.
As his party's representative in the parliament's Committee on Internal Affairs, he supports a common control system across the EU. "This chaos we have had until now has to stop," he said, adding that currently, no one has a complete overview of the situation.
Reinhard Grindel is the Christian Democrat Union (CDU) party representative within the internal affairs committee. An immigration registry, he said, has one distinct advantage: "If in the future someone doesn't leave after three months, that person specifically could then be searched for."
But Grindel added that he expects any such immigration registry to be up and working in two to three years, at the earliest.
Too much control, says opposition
Grindel's estimates are based at least in part on the upcoming national election this fall, as their outcome is proving hard to predict. And no matter what the result, plans for the immigration registry have already been criticized.
From the ranks of the Free Democratic Party, the CDU's current coalition partner, comes concern about data protection issues. The Greens and the Left party have also expressed concern over too much government control.
As interior politics expert for the Greens, Memet Kilic points to the already existing "Schengen Information System." It's a search system which, he says, is already partially dysfunctional. Kilic therefore remains critical regarding the interior minister's announcement of a more comprehensive approach "following the US example."
Frequent travelers, for example, would be given a "token" - a small technical device - supposed to ease their movements. "What if something like that gets lost or stolen?" asked Kilic, believing that the new system would bring new security loopholes.
Meanwhile, Hartman says that there are definitely no plans to use an immigration registry for generating any form of intelligence files. Grindel is keen to disperse worries that the system could incorporate biometric data, as is the case in the US - for the moment: "I don't think this is something we will wait for, as we know from experience with the Schengen Information System that we can't fulfill the necessary technical requirements for that."
Support from Brussels
Already in 2008, then-EU Interior Commissioner Franco Frattini pushed for a centralized European border control system. This would also use satellites and drones to survey the EU's southern and eastern perimeters. For a long time those plans had been shelved - but that could change.
By the end of February, the European Commission wants to issue recommendations on a legal framework for an EU-wide population register. Once this happens, ideas that are currently taking shape in Germany are likely to gain momentum, too.
SOURCE
Singapore rally demands immigration curbs
MORE than 2000 people attended Singapore's biggest protest in decades on Saturday to demand curbs on immigration amid growing public anger over an expected surge in the foreign population.
The peaceful three-hour rally at an officially designated protest zone was staged by a civic group after the government said foreigners could account for nearly half of the densely packed island's population in less than 20 years.
Organisers put the crowd, shielded by a sea of umbrellas from heavy downpours, at 4000. Police said they were not monitoring the size of the crowd and AFP reporters estimated the turnout at more than 2000 people, many of them clad in black.
"I think it's the largest protest in decades. It is also the first one where anger is directed squarely at the government," said Reuben Wong, an assistant professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.
"People are now more willing to air their grievances. They have been doing it on the internet for the past few years, but it is new for them to physically come down in such numbers."
Rally leaders, who used Facebook and other online platforms to draw support, openly attacked the People's Action Party (PAP), which has been in power for more than 50 years and still controls 80 of the 87 seats in parliament despite losing two by-elections in the past year.
"The large crowd here shows the PAP government that they are not afraid any more, they don't want to hide behind a moniker on Facebook to show their displeasure," said chief organiser Gilbert Goh, a former opposition candidate for parliament.
The crowd repeatedly chanted "We want change" at the height of the protest.
No arrests were made and only a handful of uniformed policemen were seen around the rally venue, a grassy park where protests are allowed without a police permit at a spot known as Speakers' Corner.
A government policy paper last month said the population could range between 6.5 and 6.9 million by 2030, with foreigners making up 45 per cent because Singaporeans are not producing enough babies to sustain economic growth and support a rapidly ageing population.
Citizens currently make up 62 per cent of the current population of 5.3 million.
"Save Singapore -- Say NO to 6.9 million," said a banner at the rally.
Protests are rare in Singapore, a wealthy island republic known for strict security and social controls, but Facebook, Twitter and other social media have set the tone for political debate in recent years.
Multi-racial Singapore has bitter memories of deadly riots in the 1960s.
Saturday's rally came less than two years after the May 2011 election when the ruling party suffered its worst ever performance, with immigration already a sensitive issue.
Foreigners have been blamed for stealing Singaporeans' jobs as well as straining housing, transport and medical services.
SOURCE
Thursday, February 14, 2013
British PM pledges to overhaul benefits system for immigrants
David Cameron has pledged to overhaul the benefits system for immigrants after disclosing that he believes the current system does not pass the “simple common sense test”.
The Prime Minister said he wants to limit immigrants' access to British public services to ensure that the UK is “not a soft touch”.
Mr Cameron has said that he wants to reform the system allowing immigrants access to housing, the health service, the justice system and benefits.
His comments came amid a growing debate about the numbers of new migrants preparing to come to the UK next year.
Twenty nine million Bulgarians and Romanians will gain the right to live and work unrestricted in Britain in 2014 under European “freedom of movement” rules.
The Prime Minister chaired a ministerial working group yesterday during which he questioned members of the Cabinet about ways to withhold some benefits from immigrants.
Speaking during Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Cameron said the Government will look at “every single one of our systems” to ensure that so-called benefits tourists are not taking advantage.
“Britain has always been an open and welcoming economy but it isn't right if our systems are being abused and that is why I chaired yesterday a committee meeting in Whitehall,” Mr Cameron said. “We are going to look at every single one of our systems - housing, health and benefits - to make sure we are not a soft touch for those who want to come here.
“I think it is absolutely vital that we get this right. There are many parts of our current arrangements which simply don’t pass a simple common sense test in terms of access to housing, access to the health service, access to justice and other things which should be the right of all British citizens but they’re not the right of anyone who just chooses to come here.”
The Home Office has repeatedly refused to put any number on the anticipated arrivals from Bulgaria and Romania.
Ministers are concerned about releasing the research into the possible number of arrivals, which they believe will be compared with a prediction that only 13,000 would move to Britain from Poland and other eastern European countries after 2004.
More than one million eastern Europeans then arrived in one of the biggest waves of immigration seen in the UK.
A report from MigrationWatch, a think tank, claimed that 50,000 people a year would arrive until 2019.
SOURCE
Indians welcome in Britain
There is “no limit” on the number of Indian nationals who can come to Britain to study and work, David Cameron has said.
The Prime Minister will next week visit India to tell prospective students that Britain will be “incredibly welcoming” to them if they come to this country to study and work.
Even as he promises voters to cap immigration and deter the arrival of people from countries like Bulgaria and Romania, Mr Cameron will use his trip to try to persuade more Indians to come to Britain.
University leaders and business groups say the Coalition’s tough rhetoric on immigration is harming Britain’s international competitiveness, concerns that are privately shared by some ministers.
Official figures earlier this year showed that the number of Indians studying at British universities fell by a quarter last year, to 30,000.
In an interview with India’s Sunrise TV before his trip, Mr Cameron said he wanted to make sure that Indians are not put off coming to the UK.
“The fact is today, as we stand, and this is going to be the case going forward, there is no limit on the number of students who can come from India to study at British universities, no limit at all,” he said.
“All you need is a basic English qualification and a place at a British university. And what’s more, after you’ve left a British university, if you can get a graduate-level job there is no limit to the amount of people who can stay and work, or the time that they can stay at work.”
The Coalition has set an annual cap on the number of non-Europeans who can come to work in the UK, and the Conservatives have promised to reduced net immigration to “tens of thousands” by the end of the Parliament.
Although there are annual limits on various groups of workers who are allowed into the UK, a change in the cap made last year means that there is no ceiling on the number of foreign graduates of British universities who can work here.
According to the Home Office, only foreign graduates earning at least £20,000 are permitted to stay in the UK. Officials insisted Mr Cameron’s words did not mark a change in that policy.
Some ministers privately worry that the Coalition has failed to explain its policies properly, something the Home Office has angrily denied.
However, Mr Cameron admitted that ministers have not been clear about immigration, saying: “I think we haven’t perhaps communicated this properly.”
He added: “Now we need to take that message out to talented young people in India and say if you want to make that choice, Britain will be incredibly welcoming. Of course we have to control immigration in all its forms, as any country would, but actually Britain’s got an amazing offer to make to students.
The Higher Education Statistics Authority says there were 29,900 Indian students in the UK in 2011/12, down from 39,090 the previous year.
Mr Cameron said: “We have 40,000 Indian students in Britain, I’m really proud of that, but the offer we’ve got – no limit on the numbers, no limit on how you can work in graduate jobs afterwards – I think is a great offer to make.”
The Prime Minister’s message to prospective Indian arrivals in the UK contrasts with his rhetoric on other would-be immigrants, particularly those from eastern Europe. Citizens of Romania and Bulgaria will be able to work freely in the UK next year, and some Conservatives fear a large influx of new workers.
SOURCE
British PM pledges to overhaul benefits system for immigrants
David Cameron has pledged to overhaul the benefits system for immigrants after disclosing that he believes the current system does not pass the “simple common sense test”.
The Prime Minister said he wants to limit immigrants' access to British public services to ensure that the UK is “not a soft touch”.
Mr Cameron has said that he wants to reform the system allowing immigrants access to housing, the health service, the justice system and benefits.
His comments came amid a growing debate about the numbers of new migrants preparing to come to the UK next year.
Twenty nine million Bulgarians and Romanians will gain the right to live and work unrestricted in Britain in 2014 under European “freedom of movement” rules.
The Prime Minister chaired a ministerial working group yesterday during which he questioned members of the Cabinet about ways to withhold some benefits from immigrants.
Speaking during Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Cameron said the Government will look at “every single one of our systems” to ensure that so-called benefits tourists are not taking advantage.
“Britain has always been an open and welcoming economy but it isn't right if our systems are being abused and that is why I chaired yesterday a committee meeting in Whitehall,” Mr Cameron said. “We are going to look at every single one of our systems - housing, health and benefits - to make sure we are not a soft touch for those who want to come here.
“I think it is absolutely vital that we get this right. There are many parts of our current arrangements which simply don’t pass a simple common sense test in terms of access to housing, access to the health service, access to justice and other things which should be the right of all British citizens but they’re not the right of anyone who just chooses to come here.”
The Home Office has repeatedly refused to put any number on the anticipated arrivals from Bulgaria and Romania.
Ministers are concerned about releasing the research into the possible number of arrivals, which they believe will be compared with a prediction that only 13,000 would move to Britain from Poland and other eastern European countries after 2004.
More than one million eastern Europeans then arrived in one of the biggest waves of immigration seen in the UK.
A report from MigrationWatch, a think tank, claimed that 50,000 people a year would arrive until 2019.
SOURCE
Indians welcome in Britain
There is “no limit” on the number of Indian nationals who can come to Britain to study and work, David Cameron has said.
The Prime Minister will next week visit India to tell prospective students that Britain will be “incredibly welcoming” to them if they come to this country to study and work.
Even as he promises voters to cap immigration and deter the arrival of people from countries like Bulgaria and Romania, Mr Cameron will use his trip to try to persuade more Indians to come to Britain.
University leaders and business groups say the Coalition’s tough rhetoric on immigration is harming Britain’s international competitiveness, concerns that are privately shared by some ministers.
Official figures earlier this year showed that the number of Indians studying at British universities fell by a quarter last year, to 30,000.
In an interview with India’s Sunrise TV before his trip, Mr Cameron said he wanted to make sure that Indians are not put off coming to the UK.
“The fact is today, as we stand, and this is going to be the case going forward, there is no limit on the number of students who can come from India to study at British universities, no limit at all,” he said.
“All you need is a basic English qualification and a place at a British university. And what’s more, after you’ve left a British university, if you can get a graduate-level job there is no limit to the amount of people who can stay and work, or the time that they can stay at work.”
The Coalition has set an annual cap on the number of non-Europeans who can come to work in the UK, and the Conservatives have promised to reduced net immigration to “tens of thousands” by the end of the Parliament.
Although there are annual limits on various groups of workers who are allowed into the UK, a change in the cap made last year means that there is no ceiling on the number of foreign graduates of British universities who can work here.
According to the Home Office, only foreign graduates earning at least £20,000 are permitted to stay in the UK. Officials insisted Mr Cameron’s words did not mark a change in that policy.
Some ministers privately worry that the Coalition has failed to explain its policies properly, something the Home Office has angrily denied.
However, Mr Cameron admitted that ministers have not been clear about immigration, saying: “I think we haven’t perhaps communicated this properly.”
He added: “Now we need to take that message out to talented young people in India and say if you want to make that choice, Britain will be incredibly welcoming. Of course we have to control immigration in all its forms, as any country would, but actually Britain’s got an amazing offer to make to students.
The Higher Education Statistics Authority says there were 29,900 Indian students in the UK in 2011/12, down from 39,090 the previous year.
Mr Cameron said: “We have 40,000 Indian students in Britain, I’m really proud of that, but the offer we’ve got – no limit on the numbers, no limit on how you can work in graduate jobs afterwards – I think is a great offer to make.”
The Prime Minister’s message to prospective Indian arrivals in the UK contrasts with his rhetoric on other would-be immigrants, particularly those from eastern Europe. Citizens of Romania and Bulgaria will be able to work freely in the UK next year, and some Conservatives fear a large influx of new workers.
SOURCE
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Minister's damning silence on migrants: He stonewalls four questions on how many Romanians and Bulgarians will come to Britain
Ministers threw a cloak of secrecy yesterday over how many Romanians and Bulgarians they expect to flood into the country.
To fury at Westminster, the Immigration Minister snubbed four MPs who asked him to reveal the figures – saying he did not want to scare people.
Mark Harper said it would not be ‘helpful’ to let the public know what to expect when border controls are lifted in less than 11 months. It is feared the wall of secrecy will leave town halls, schools and hospitals unable to prepare properly.
Tory MPs said it was ‘madness’ to throw open the UK’s borders without giving voters an idea of what to expect. The Government has carried out a study on how many of the 29million citizens of Romanian and Bulgaria might move to the UK when they get full EU rights in January.
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles – who has seen the figures, and has warned of a potential shortage of housing – previously indicated they would be made available for public debate.
But, amid heated exchanges in the Commons yesterday, Mr Harper refused to share what the Government knows. He was asked repeatedly either to release the data or to explain what the Government was doing to deter a new wave of migration from Eastern Europe.
Mr Harper replied that he was chairing a Whitehall committee to look at how to stop migrants abusing the benefits system. Ideas include trying to make it harder for newcomers to access benefits or ask them to carry residence cards.
He told MPs: ‘Speculative projections about future inflows cannot be made with any degree of accuracy and are therefore not particularly helpful. That’s why the Government is focused on dealing with the abuse of free movement rights and also reducing the pull factors for migration. We want to make sure that when people look at the access to our benefits and our public services that no one thinks we are a soft touch in this country.’
An estimate by the MigrationWatch think-tank has suggested the number of arrivals will average 50,000 a year for the first five years – the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle or Plymouth.
Tensions are rising among Tory MPs who want the Government to take firm action.
They fear David Cameron’s promise to reduce net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ will be fatally undermined if large numbers arrive from Romania and Bulgaria, two of the poorest countries in the EU.
Currently, they are subject to transitional controls which limit the number of work permits available to low-skilled workers to around 20,000 a year. But, from the start of 2014, these arrangements will be abandoned, giving workers free access to the UK jobs market.
Speaking at Home Office Questions, Tory Philip Hollobone said his constituents believed it was ‘madness to open our borders to 29million people’.
He called for ministers to force EU nationals who wanted to live in the UK for more than three months to apply for a residency card.
His colleague David Ruffley said action must be taken to curb ‘welfare tourism that can only add to British public spending’. Another Tory, James Clappison, asked Mr Harper specifically to comment on the MigrationWatch estimate of 50,000 a year. But Mr Harper repeatedly refused to provide any indication of numbers.
He said: ‘We want to make sure that we offer what we need to under the treaties, but no more.’
Ministers say they do not want to create ‘scare’ stories – which some MPs have taken to mean the figure is high. However, an alternative scenario is that the number produced by officials is low, and would make the Government a hostage to fortune. Labour has never recovered from saying a mere 13,000 people would come from Poland in 2004, only for hundreds of thousands of workers to arrive.
Last night there were new demands to publish the figures.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch, said: ‘There is surely a need for an intelligent estimate. The worst option, surely, is just to muddle on.’
Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, accused the Government of being ‘confused’ on the issue and urged ministers to commission research on how many immigrants were likely to arrive.
SOURCE
A Blueprint for U.S. Immigration Reform
Revisiting the Jordan Commission Report
In tonight’s State of the Union address, President Obama is expected to re-iterate his stance on immigration. He would do well to examine the thoroughly-researched, well-documented findings of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (the Jordan Commission) that spent more than five years – and numerous hearings – dealing with “comprehensive immigration reform” before taking to the podium.
Named for the late Barbara Jordan, the Commission was comprised of four Democratic appointees and four Republican ones, and with three chairs who were, in turn, a member of the College of Cardinals; a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives; and a former member of the president’s cabinet. Its work was summed up in these words:
"The credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a simple yardstick: people who should get in, do get in; people who should not get in are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave."
The new CIS report is online here.
“The Jordan Commission put forth a plan intended to serve America’s national interests. We could learn today from their emphasis on facilitating assimilation, reducing job competition, and lowering fiscal costs,” comments report author David North, a CIS fellow and respected immigration policy researcher. “Their recommendations included emphasizing the nuclear family and eliminating chain migration categories, the cancelation of the visa lottery which randomly gives out 50,000 green cards a year and focusing instead on needed workers, strong border control, and a worker verification system.”
The Backgrounder describes the detailed recommendations of the Commission’s report, Becoming an American: Immigration and Immigrant Policy, which called for the nation to:
* Integrate the immigrants now in the U.S. more thoroughly;
* Reduce the total number of legal immigrants to about 550,000 a year;
* Rationalize the nonimmigrant visa program;
* Enforce the immigration law vigorously with no further amnesties; and
* Reorganize the management of the immigration processes within the government.
Mr. North contends three factors make the Commission’s report persuasive, even today. First, only one of the members represented an immigration interest group, and there were no unions or corporation representatives, no executives of either more-migration of less-migration organizations. Second, the Commission did not act quickly to suggest an answer to the country’s complex immigration needs; they took five years to study immigration matters and to discuss various approaches. Third, the Commission focused not only on who should be admitted and in what numbers, but also the role immigrants should play in society after admittance.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. CONTACT: Marguerite Telford 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org
February 12, 2013
The rioters Britain can't kick out: 18 months after mayhem that shocked Britain, just 15 out of 200 convicted foreigners have been deported
Only 15 of the hundreds of foreigners who took part in the riots of 2011 have been deported, the Mail can reveal.
Ministers had promised to get tough after violence and mayhem tore apart English cities, but the vast majority of overseas nationals who joined in the destruction are still here.
A combination of EU law and human rights rules is thought to be blocking efforts to deport them and could lead to large numbers being granted the right to stay.
While officials have managed to kick out 15 of the rioters, another 31 have been told they can remain in the country despite their crimes.
More than 200 foreign criminals were convicted for their part in the riots in which shops were plundered, businesses set ablaze and hundreds of millions of pounds of damage done.
Among the offences they carried out were burglary, robbery, theft, criminal damage and disorder. If the remaining cases follow the same pattern – of one rioter kicked out for every two who remain – it would mean more than 130 ending up staying in Britain.
Many remain behind bars at a cost to tax-payers of tens of thousands of pounds a week – but more than 80 are at large having been released. And three convicted foreign rioters have been ‘lost’ by the UK Border Agency after failing to comply with bail conditions.
Ministers had pledged to take tough action to kick out foreign criminals as quickly as possible after the riots in August 2011 which began in Tottenham, north London and spread across the country into several nights of carnage.
Home Office minister Damian Green said at the time: ‘We strongly believe that foreign national lawbreakers should be removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity.
‘We also have the power to cancel visas of foreign nationals found guilty of criminal activity, and this is something we will be looking to do when these cases arise.’
In the following months, it emerged that non-UK nationals played a central role in the mayhem. Figures from the courts showed one in seven of all convicted rioters was from overseas.
The Ministry of Justice released a list showing 44 nationalities of convicted rioters, including those from Afghanistan, Cuba, Ethiopia and Samoa.
The largest group was Jamaicans, followed by Somali and Polish offenders. Other rioters came from Colombia, Iraq, the Congo, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.
The true number of foreign nationals may be even higher as 4 per cent of those taken into remand during the riots refused to tell police their nationality.
The UKBA has set up a special unit, known as Operation Lancaster, to track down and remove foreigners involved in ‘serious criminality’.
But figures released after a request under the Freedom of Information Act show their record to date is lamentably poor.
Of the 201 cases passed to UKBA, only 15 have been kicked out. Some 28 have been given permission to stay because they ‘do not meet deportation criteria’.
Three others have been allowed to remain after legal appeals. A total of 63 are still in prison, or in immigration detention awaiting deportation.
The fact that they are still behind bars suggests officials are more confident of eventually removing them.
Another 53 are at large but classed as ‘still being considered for deportation’. There are 31 who have been given temporary admission while their cases are considered.
The three who have absconded have not been named and officials refused to reveal any further details. Five others are still waiting to be sentenced.
EU rules prevent officials even trying to deport any European nationals sentenced to less than two years in prison.
Non-EU nationals do not qualify for automatic deportation unless they were jailed for at least 12 months.
Peter Cuthbertson, director of the think-tank the Centre for Crime Prevention, said: ‘The average rioter in 2011 had already committed 15 offences, so the public have a right to expect them to be punished properly. They will be appalled by these figures, which show just how important it is to fix our human rights laws.’
Last night, immigration minister Mark Harper said: ‘Many of those convicted of involvement in last summer’s riots are still behind bars – that’s where they belong.
‘We are pursuing deportation in scores of cases and wherever possible, when they have paid their debt to society, we will remove them from the UK.’
SOURCE
Traffickers smuggle 4,000 illegals into Britain for £50 million
A gang that made millions of pounds smuggling immigrants in at a rate of ten a day has been broken up.
Thousands of migrants from Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran paid the people traffickers up to £13,500 each for passage into the UK.
Some 3,800 migrants were smuggled into Britain over 12 months, hidden in lorries on cross-Channel ferries. It is estimated that the gang may have made more than £50million.
Details of the vast profits emerged after the conspiracy was smashed last week by police and immigration officials on both sides of the Channel.
Officials in the UK Border Agency made 20 arrests across the country last Wednesday in one of the biggest ever operations to target people-smuggling gangs.
Two hundred officers raided 35 addresses, including locations in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Coventry.
Forty other raids took place in France and Belgium.
French officials said that they had dealt a ‘body blow’ to illegal immigration by smashing the ‘vast network’.
Officers were deployed on France’s border with Belgium and at migrant camps near Dunkirk to identify the smugglers. Ten individuals were arrested in Belgium, including two suspected ringleaders.
French police said migrants would be put into lorries parked on motorways in Belgium, to board cross-Channel ferries at Calais and Dunkirk. Earlier this month, four children were discovered who were suffering from hypothermia having been stowed away in a refrigerated lorry.
Aged betwewen nine and 16, they were found huddled together in sub-zero temperatures in a trailer full of soft cheese in Dunkirk.
The Slovak vehicle, which was stopped before it boarded a Dover ferry, was heading for Milton Keynes – another seven hours away.
UKBA estimated the fee at £2,000 to £6,000. However, French police said that the price per person as high as 16,000 euros – some £13,500.
The migrants smuggled by the gang were Kurds, an ethnic group found in several states in Asia.
Chris Foster, from UKBA’s criminal and financial investigation team said: ‘We believe we have successfully disrupted a significant organised network.’
SOURCE
Minister's damning silence on migrants: He stonewalls four questions on how many Romanians and Bulgarians will come to Britain
Ministers threw a cloak of secrecy yesterday over how many Romanians and Bulgarians they expect to flood into the country.
To fury at Westminster, the Immigration Minister snubbed four MPs who asked him to reveal the figures – saying he did not want to scare people.
Mark Harper said it would not be ‘helpful’ to let the public know what to expect when border controls are lifted in less than 11 months. It is feared the wall of secrecy will leave town halls, schools and hospitals unable to prepare properly.
Tory MPs said it was ‘madness’ to throw open the UK’s borders without giving voters an idea of what to expect. The Government has carried out a study on how many of the 29million citizens of Romanian and Bulgaria might move to the UK when they get full EU rights in January.
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles – who has seen the figures, and has warned of a potential shortage of housing – previously indicated they would be made available for public debate.
But, amid heated exchanges in the Commons yesterday, Mr Harper refused to share what the Government knows. He was asked repeatedly either to release the data or to explain what the Government was doing to deter a new wave of migration from Eastern Europe.
Mr Harper replied that he was chairing a Whitehall committee to look at how to stop migrants abusing the benefits system. Ideas include trying to make it harder for newcomers to access benefits or ask them to carry residence cards.
He told MPs: ‘Speculative projections about future inflows cannot be made with any degree of accuracy and are therefore not particularly helpful. That’s why the Government is focused on dealing with the abuse of free movement rights and also reducing the pull factors for migration. We want to make sure that when people look at the access to our benefits and our public services that no one thinks we are a soft touch in this country.’
An estimate by the MigrationWatch think-tank has suggested the number of arrivals will average 50,000 a year for the first five years – the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle or Plymouth.
Tensions are rising among Tory MPs who want the Government to take firm action.
They fear David Cameron’s promise to reduce net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ will be fatally undermined if large numbers arrive from Romania and Bulgaria, two of the poorest countries in the EU.
Currently, they are subject to transitional controls which limit the number of work permits available to low-skilled workers to around 20,000 a year. But, from the start of 2014, these arrangements will be abandoned, giving workers free access to the UK jobs market.
Speaking at Home Office Questions, Tory Philip Hollobone said his constituents believed it was ‘madness to open our borders to 29million people’.
He called for ministers to force EU nationals who wanted to live in the UK for more than three months to apply for a residency card.
His colleague David Ruffley said action must be taken to curb ‘welfare tourism that can only add to British public spending’. Another Tory, James Clappison, asked Mr Harper specifically to comment on the MigrationWatch estimate of 50,000 a year. But Mr Harper repeatedly refused to provide any indication of numbers.
He said: ‘We want to make sure that we offer what we need to under the treaties, but no more.’
Ministers say they do not want to create ‘scare’ stories – which some MPs have taken to mean the figure is high. However, an alternative scenario is that the number produced by officials is low, and would make the Government a hostage to fortune. Labour has never recovered from saying a mere 13,000 people would come from Poland in 2004, only for hundreds of thousands of workers to arrive.
Last night there were new demands to publish the figures.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch, said: ‘There is surely a need for an intelligent estimate. The worst option, surely, is just to muddle on.’
Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, accused the Government of being ‘confused’ on the issue and urged ministers to commission research on how many immigrants were likely to arrive.
SOURCE
A Blueprint for U.S. Immigration Reform
Revisiting the Jordan Commission Report
In tonight’s State of the Union address, President Obama is expected to re-iterate his stance on immigration. He would do well to examine the thoroughly-researched, well-documented findings of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (the Jordan Commission) that spent more than five years – and numerous hearings – dealing with “comprehensive immigration reform” before taking to the podium.
Named for the late Barbara Jordan, the Commission was comprised of four Democratic appointees and four Republican ones, and with three chairs who were, in turn, a member of the College of Cardinals; a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives; and a former member of the president’s cabinet. Its work was summed up in these words:
"The credibility of immigration policy can be measured by a simple yardstick: people who should get in, do get in; people who should not get in are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave."
The new CIS report is online here.
“The Jordan Commission put forth a plan intended to serve America’s national interests. We could learn today from their emphasis on facilitating assimilation, reducing job competition, and lowering fiscal costs,” comments report author David North, a CIS fellow and respected immigration policy researcher. “Their recommendations included emphasizing the nuclear family and eliminating chain migration categories, the cancelation of the visa lottery which randomly gives out 50,000 green cards a year and focusing instead on needed workers, strong border control, and a worker verification system.”
The Backgrounder describes the detailed recommendations of the Commission’s report, Becoming an American: Immigration and Immigrant Policy, which called for the nation to:
* Integrate the immigrants now in the U.S. more thoroughly;
* Reduce the total number of legal immigrants to about 550,000 a year;
* Rationalize the nonimmigrant visa program;
* Enforce the immigration law vigorously with no further amnesties; and
* Reorganize the management of the immigration processes within the government.
Mr. North contends three factors make the Commission’s report persuasive, even today. First, only one of the members represented an immigration interest group, and there were no unions or corporation representatives, no executives of either more-migration of less-migration organizations. Second, the Commission did not act quickly to suggest an answer to the country’s complex immigration needs; they took five years to study immigration matters and to discuss various approaches. Third, the Commission focused not only on who should be admitted and in what numbers, but also the role immigrants should play in society after admittance.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. CONTACT: Marguerite Telford 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org
February 12, 2013
The rioters Britain can't kick out: 18 months after mayhem that shocked Britain, just 15 out of 200 convicted foreigners have been deported
Only 15 of the hundreds of foreigners who took part in the riots of 2011 have been deported, the Mail can reveal.
Ministers had promised to get tough after violence and mayhem tore apart English cities, but the vast majority of overseas nationals who joined in the destruction are still here.
A combination of EU law and human rights rules is thought to be blocking efforts to deport them and could lead to large numbers being granted the right to stay.
While officials have managed to kick out 15 of the rioters, another 31 have been told they can remain in the country despite their crimes.
More than 200 foreign criminals were convicted for their part in the riots in which shops were plundered, businesses set ablaze and hundreds of millions of pounds of damage done.
Among the offences they carried out were burglary, robbery, theft, criminal damage and disorder. If the remaining cases follow the same pattern – of one rioter kicked out for every two who remain – it would mean more than 130 ending up staying in Britain.
Many remain behind bars at a cost to tax-payers of tens of thousands of pounds a week – but more than 80 are at large having been released. And three convicted foreign rioters have been ‘lost’ by the UK Border Agency after failing to comply with bail conditions.
Ministers had pledged to take tough action to kick out foreign criminals as quickly as possible after the riots in August 2011 which began in Tottenham, north London and spread across the country into several nights of carnage.
Home Office minister Damian Green said at the time: ‘We strongly believe that foreign national lawbreakers should be removed from the UK at the earliest opportunity.
‘We also have the power to cancel visas of foreign nationals found guilty of criminal activity, and this is something we will be looking to do when these cases arise.’
In the following months, it emerged that non-UK nationals played a central role in the mayhem. Figures from the courts showed one in seven of all convicted rioters was from overseas.
The Ministry of Justice released a list showing 44 nationalities of convicted rioters, including those from Afghanistan, Cuba, Ethiopia and Samoa.
The largest group was Jamaicans, followed by Somali and Polish offenders. Other rioters came from Colombia, Iraq, the Congo, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.
The true number of foreign nationals may be even higher as 4 per cent of those taken into remand during the riots refused to tell police their nationality.
The UKBA has set up a special unit, known as Operation Lancaster, to track down and remove foreigners involved in ‘serious criminality’.
But figures released after a request under the Freedom of Information Act show their record to date is lamentably poor.
Of the 201 cases passed to UKBA, only 15 have been kicked out. Some 28 have been given permission to stay because they ‘do not meet deportation criteria’.
Three others have been allowed to remain after legal appeals. A total of 63 are still in prison, or in immigration detention awaiting deportation.
The fact that they are still behind bars suggests officials are more confident of eventually removing them.
Another 53 are at large but classed as ‘still being considered for deportation’. There are 31 who have been given temporary admission while their cases are considered.
The three who have absconded have not been named and officials refused to reveal any further details. Five others are still waiting to be sentenced.
EU rules prevent officials even trying to deport any European nationals sentenced to less than two years in prison.
Non-EU nationals do not qualify for automatic deportation unless they were jailed for at least 12 months.
Peter Cuthbertson, director of the think-tank the Centre for Crime Prevention, said: ‘The average rioter in 2011 had already committed 15 offences, so the public have a right to expect them to be punished properly. They will be appalled by these figures, which show just how important it is to fix our human rights laws.’
Last night, immigration minister Mark Harper said: ‘Many of those convicted of involvement in last summer’s riots are still behind bars – that’s where they belong.
‘We are pursuing deportation in scores of cases and wherever possible, when they have paid their debt to society, we will remove them from the UK.’
SOURCE
Traffickers smuggle 4,000 illegals into Britain for £50 million
A gang that made millions of pounds smuggling immigrants in at a rate of ten a day has been broken up.
Thousands of migrants from Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran paid the people traffickers up to £13,500 each for passage into the UK.
Some 3,800 migrants were smuggled into Britain over 12 months, hidden in lorries on cross-Channel ferries. It is estimated that the gang may have made more than £50million.
Details of the vast profits emerged after the conspiracy was smashed last week by police and immigration officials on both sides of the Channel.
Officials in the UK Border Agency made 20 arrests across the country last Wednesday in one of the biggest ever operations to target people-smuggling gangs.
Two hundred officers raided 35 addresses, including locations in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Coventry.
Forty other raids took place in France and Belgium.
French officials said that they had dealt a ‘body blow’ to illegal immigration by smashing the ‘vast network’.
Officers were deployed on France’s border with Belgium and at migrant camps near Dunkirk to identify the smugglers. Ten individuals were arrested in Belgium, including two suspected ringleaders.
French police said migrants would be put into lorries parked on motorways in Belgium, to board cross-Channel ferries at Calais and Dunkirk. Earlier this month, four children were discovered who were suffering from hypothermia having been stowed away in a refrigerated lorry.
Aged betwewen nine and 16, they were found huddled together in sub-zero temperatures in a trailer full of soft cheese in Dunkirk.
The Slovak vehicle, which was stopped before it boarded a Dover ferry, was heading for Milton Keynes – another seven hours away.
UKBA estimated the fee at £2,000 to £6,000. However, French police said that the price per person as high as 16,000 euros – some £13,500.
The migrants smuggled by the gang were Kurds, an ethnic group found in several states in Asia.
Chris Foster, from UKBA’s criminal and financial investigation team said: ‘We believe we have successfully disrupted a significant organised network.’
SOURCE
Monday, February 11, 2013
How foreign accents influence the immigration debate
Federal immigration policy is back in the headlines, as a bipartisan group of senators released an outline of its proposed reforms and as a House committee held the first hearings of this Congress on the issue. The deep partisan fissures on immigration are well known. But what’s at the root of many native-born Americans’ concerns about immigration? Ongoing political science research points in part to the issue of language.
When native-born Americans talk about immigration, language differences quickly come to the fore. For instance, in a 2006 article, Pamela Paxton and Anthony Mughan report on focus group conversations about immigration. To explain the importance of speaking English, one Los Angeles participant relayed a story from a trip to Burger King: he ordered a hamburger and received eight.
While Burger King might find such miscommunications profitable, the narrator certainly did not. And he is not alone. A 2006 Pew Research Center survey found that among Americans who encounter non-English speaking immigrants, 43 percent found such encounters bothersome. It’s little wonder that Paxton and Mughan conclude that “the importance that English-speaking Americans attach to language for successful assimilation cannot be overstated”–or that upwards of 90 percent of Americans believe that one must speak English to be American. Questions about language are intertwined with many native-born Americans’ conceptions of national identity, as Deborah Schildkraut details in Press “One” for English.
One way to isolate the effect of Spanish is through randomized experiments. In one set of experiments, researchers Van C. Tran, Abigail Fisher Williamson and I show that people who are exposed to just a single line of Spanish in a survey or exit poll can become more anti-immigration, especially if they encounter the language frequently in their daily lives. Encounters like those in the Burger King seem to have a cumulative effect.
In another set of experiments, Todd Hartman, Benjamin Newman, and Charles Taber show that when a chatroom partner happens to mix English and Spanish, participants’ sense of cultural threat grows. And separately, professor Hartman and his co-authors also find that people vary in the degree to which they push the costs of these inter-cultural exchanges onto the Spanish speakers themselves. That is, some of their respondents ask the Spanish speaker to translate, while others take it upon themselves to do the translation.
What about Democrats and Republicans–do they react differently to these brief uses of Spanish? To address that question, I conducted online experiments with the support of the Russell Sage Foundation in which people from across the United States watched modified ABC News clips about immigration policy. In those clips, the same unauthorized immigrant spoke either English or Spanish–and I provided subtitles in English in both cases, to make sure the respondents understood.
I also included a third, “clear English” condition in which the respondents heard a different person speaking with a very faint accent. I then asked respondents about their support for creating a pathway to naturalization, one of the central questions in today’s debate over immigration.
It turns out that Republicans and Democrats respond differently to Spanish. Two sentences of spoken Spanish have a significant, polarizing effect, making Republicans less supportive of creating a pathway to naturalization. Indeed, the number of Republican identifiers who strongly oppose a pathway to naturalization jumps from 34.5 percent when hearing accented English to 40.5 percent when hearing Spanish–as the figure below illustrates. Spanish has an especially negative impact among Republicans.
And the pattern isn’t just an artifact of the survey setting–it also holds when analyzing the impact of Spanish-language ballots in California’s 1998 primary election. Republican precincts that voted with Spanish-language ballots were more supportive of curtailing bilingual education than similar precincts without such ballots.
It is critical to note, as Dylan Matthews did in this space last week, that research by political scientists Jack Citrin, Amy Lerman, Michael Murakami and Kathryn Pearson shows that today’s Latino immigrants acquire English and lose Spanish rapidly in the second generation, just like past generations of immigrants. But concerns about English have nonetheless colored Americans’ reactions to immigrants from the days of Benjamin Franklin, and they remain an important element in the immigration debate today.
These concerns are widely shared among native-born Americans and prove especially influential among Republicans. So don’t be surprised if proposals related to language, such as expanded English-language instruction, prove central in building legislation that can win support from Republicans and Democrats alike.
SOURCE
Bennet, Obama immigration proposals would hurt American workers
Our leaders’ lack of concern for the well-being of America’s poor and unemployed never ceases to amaze me.
Their antipathy toward America’s most vulnerable was on full display last week as both President Barack Obama and our own Sen. Michael Bennet unveiled their latest plans for so-called comprehensive immigration reform.
Both offer amnesty to about 12 million illegal immigrants, who would then be eligible to bring in tens of millions more through extended “family reunification” (chain migration) policies. They also call for greatly increased numbers of both high-skilled and low-skilled workers, and more guest worker programs.
Economically, these proposals benefit: employers that profit from cheap labor and an increased number of consumers; illegal immigrants getting amnesty; and future streams of immigrants. The plans would push a doubling of legal immigration per year and a resultant dramatic increase in U.S. population.
The proposals offer law-abiding citizens little but the vague promise of better enforcement of immigration laws, along with the certainty of higher unemployment, lower wages as job markets are flooded and an increasingly overcrowded country.
Consider this: The nation’s unemployment rate, which only includes those actively seeking employment, is 7.9 percent. According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, the ratio of job seekers to jobs available is 3.3 to 1. This means there are no jobs for more than two out of three unemployed workers.
The EPI concludes, “In today’s economy, unemployed workers far outnumber job openings in every sector, showing that the main problem is a broad-based lack of demand for workers — and not, as is often claimed, available workers lacking the skills needed for the sectors with job openings.”
In such a bleak jobs environment, with increasing poverty and stagnating wages, no politician concerned with American workers would propose to increase immigration into the U.S. Instead, they should be looking for ways to tighten job markets, increasing options for and strengthening the bargaining position of workers already here.
Why do they push policies to legalize millions of currently illegal workers and increase the number of foreign workers allowed in the future? Perhaps to keep American workers weak and divided.
A rational immigration policy serving the needs of U.S. citizens would decrease the number of immigrants allowed in. It would include mandatory use of the federal E-Verify system for all new hires to dry up the job magnet that attracts illegal workers. It would phase out rather than expand euphemistically-named “guest worker” programs. It would not reward those who have come here illegally with amnesty.
Call your representatives and let them know you don’t support these proposals. Join NumbersUSA or other organizations that are working to protect the interests of American workers.
SOURCE
How foreign accents influence the immigration debate
Federal immigration policy is back in the headlines, as a bipartisan group of senators released an outline of its proposed reforms and as a House committee held the first hearings of this Congress on the issue. The deep partisan fissures on immigration are well known. But what’s at the root of many native-born Americans’ concerns about immigration? Ongoing political science research points in part to the issue of language.
When native-born Americans talk about immigration, language differences quickly come to the fore. For instance, in a 2006 article, Pamela Paxton and Anthony Mughan report on focus group conversations about immigration. To explain the importance of speaking English, one Los Angeles participant relayed a story from a trip to Burger King: he ordered a hamburger and received eight.
While Burger King might find such miscommunications profitable, the narrator certainly did not. And he is not alone. A 2006 Pew Research Center survey found that among Americans who encounter non-English speaking immigrants, 43 percent found such encounters bothersome. It’s little wonder that Paxton and Mughan conclude that “the importance that English-speaking Americans attach to language for successful assimilation cannot be overstated”–or that upwards of 90 percent of Americans believe that one must speak English to be American. Questions about language are intertwined with many native-born Americans’ conceptions of national identity, as Deborah Schildkraut details in Press “One” for English.
One way to isolate the effect of Spanish is through randomized experiments. In one set of experiments, researchers Van C. Tran, Abigail Fisher Williamson and I show that people who are exposed to just a single line of Spanish in a survey or exit poll can become more anti-immigration, especially if they encounter the language frequently in their daily lives. Encounters like those in the Burger King seem to have a cumulative effect.
In another set of experiments, Todd Hartman, Benjamin Newman, and Charles Taber show that when a chatroom partner happens to mix English and Spanish, participants’ sense of cultural threat grows. And separately, professor Hartman and his co-authors also find that people vary in the degree to which they push the costs of these inter-cultural exchanges onto the Spanish speakers themselves. That is, some of their respondents ask the Spanish speaker to translate, while others take it upon themselves to do the translation.
What about Democrats and Republicans–do they react differently to these brief uses of Spanish? To address that question, I conducted online experiments with the support of the Russell Sage Foundation in which people from across the United States watched modified ABC News clips about immigration policy. In those clips, the same unauthorized immigrant spoke either English or Spanish–and I provided subtitles in English in both cases, to make sure the respondents understood.
I also included a third, “clear English” condition in which the respondents heard a different person speaking with a very faint accent. I then asked respondents about their support for creating a pathway to naturalization, one of the central questions in today’s debate over immigration.
It turns out that Republicans and Democrats respond differently to Spanish. Two sentences of spoken Spanish have a significant, polarizing effect, making Republicans less supportive of creating a pathway to naturalization. Indeed, the number of Republican identifiers who strongly oppose a pathway to naturalization jumps from 34.5 percent when hearing accented English to 40.5 percent when hearing Spanish–as the figure below illustrates. Spanish has an especially negative impact among Republicans.
And the pattern isn’t just an artifact of the survey setting–it also holds when analyzing the impact of Spanish-language ballots in California’s 1998 primary election. Republican precincts that voted with Spanish-language ballots were more supportive of curtailing bilingual education than similar precincts without such ballots.
It is critical to note, as Dylan Matthews did in this space last week, that research by political scientists Jack Citrin, Amy Lerman, Michael Murakami and Kathryn Pearson shows that today’s Latino immigrants acquire English and lose Spanish rapidly in the second generation, just like past generations of immigrants. But concerns about English have nonetheless colored Americans’ reactions to immigrants from the days of Benjamin Franklin, and they remain an important element in the immigration debate today.
These concerns are widely shared among native-born Americans and prove especially influential among Republicans. So don’t be surprised if proposals related to language, such as expanded English-language instruction, prove central in building legislation that can win support from Republicans and Democrats alike.
SOURCE
Bennet, Obama immigration proposals would hurt American workers
Our leaders’ lack of concern for the well-being of America’s poor and unemployed never ceases to amaze me.
Their antipathy toward America’s most vulnerable was on full display last week as both President Barack Obama and our own Sen. Michael Bennet unveiled their latest plans for so-called comprehensive immigration reform.
Both offer amnesty to about 12 million illegal immigrants, who would then be eligible to bring in tens of millions more through extended “family reunification” (chain migration) policies. They also call for greatly increased numbers of both high-skilled and low-skilled workers, and more guest worker programs.
Economically, these proposals benefit: employers that profit from cheap labor and an increased number of consumers; illegal immigrants getting amnesty; and future streams of immigrants. The plans would push a doubling of legal immigration per year and a resultant dramatic increase in U.S. population.
The proposals offer law-abiding citizens little but the vague promise of better enforcement of immigration laws, along with the certainty of higher unemployment, lower wages as job markets are flooded and an increasingly overcrowded country.
Consider this: The nation’s unemployment rate, which only includes those actively seeking employment, is 7.9 percent. According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, the ratio of job seekers to jobs available is 3.3 to 1. This means there are no jobs for more than two out of three unemployed workers.
The EPI concludes, “In today’s economy, unemployed workers far outnumber job openings in every sector, showing that the main problem is a broad-based lack of demand for workers — and not, as is often claimed, available workers lacking the skills needed for the sectors with job openings.”
In such a bleak jobs environment, with increasing poverty and stagnating wages, no politician concerned with American workers would propose to increase immigration into the U.S. Instead, they should be looking for ways to tighten job markets, increasing options for and strengthening the bargaining position of workers already here.
Why do they push policies to legalize millions of currently illegal workers and increase the number of foreign workers allowed in the future? Perhaps to keep American workers weak and divided.
A rational immigration policy serving the needs of U.S. citizens would decrease the number of immigrants allowed in. It would include mandatory use of the federal E-Verify system for all new hires to dry up the job magnet that attracts illegal workers. It would phase out rather than expand euphemistically-named “guest worker” programs. It would not reward those who have come here illegally with amnesty.
Call your representatives and let them know you don’t support these proposals. Join NumbersUSA or other organizations that are working to protect the interests of American workers.
SOURCE
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Immigrants in Britain to be banned from taking driving tests in foreign languages in bid to stop cheating and boost road safety
Immigrants are to be banned from taking driving tests in 19 foreign languages in a bid to stop cheating and boost road safety, it was announced Tuesday.
As well as beating fraud and keeping unsafe drivers off UK roads, the move to end foreign translations and translators will increase ‘social cohesion and integration’ in Britain and cut costs, the Government said.
Those learning to drive can currently take their theory and practical driving tests in any of 21 languages.
Nearly 145,000 tests are taken every year in languages other than English and Welsh – from Albanian to Urdu - at a rate of around 2,700 a week.
Of these, 108,374 were for the theory test and 35,000 for the practical test. The evidence also suggests that many were re-takes.
Plans to outlaw the test being carried out in ‘non-national languages’ are set out in a major consultation by the Government’s Driving Standards Agency.
Official figures show that since 2009 some 861 people had their theory test passes revoked after being coached on what to do during their theory and practical tests by ‘back-seat’ translators. Nine DSA-approved interpreters were also struck off for their part in such frauds.
Ministers are also concerned about handing licences to people who are unable to read road signs.
Currently people whose first language is not English or Welsh can request pre-recorded voice-overs for the computer-based car and motorcycle theory tests in 19 foreign languages.
The 19 Languages covered by interpreters are: Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Dari, Farsi, Gujarati, Hindi, Kashmiri, Kurdish, Mirpuri, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Pushto, Spanish, Tamil, Turkish, Urdu.
Candidates can also use approved interpreters on theory tests, usually if a voice-over is not available in a candidate's native language, or where a candidate speaks a dialect that would make a voice-over difficult to understand.
Interpreters can also be used in practical tests to translate the examiner's instructions. Candidates have to pay for interpreters themselves, but the cost of developing and updating voice-overs for the theory test is met by the DSA. Ministers say the service, introduced by Labour, costs taxpayers £250,000 a year.
There are currently 122 approved interpreters for the theory test where the potential for fraud is seen as more acute. However, a DSA spokesman said: ’For the practical test, candidates can bring anyone to interpret for them’.
Of 1.68 million theory tests carried out in 2011-12, some 106,112 used foreign language voice-overs and 2,262 involved an interpreter being present, making a total of 108,374.
When individual theory candidates are counted, some 57,361 requested voiceovers and 1,690 requested interpreters in 2011/12, suggesting many re-sat their tests at least once.
Of the 1.57 million practical driving tests conducted in 2011-12, ‘around 35,000 were conducted with an interpreter present,’ says the new report. When individual practical test candidates are counted, some 19,555 requested interpreters, again suggesting that many took their test more than once.
Announcing the plans to remove voice-overs on the theory test and scrapping the use of interpreters on all tests, road safety minister Stephen Hammond said allowing interpreters on tests for those whose first language is not English ‘presents the risk of fraud’.
Launching the eight-week public consultation, Mr Hammond said the Government’s ‘preferred choice’ was to remove all voice-overs and translation services in non-national languages.
He added that interpreters could, for example, ‘indicate the correct answers to theory test questions’.
Mr Hammond said: ‘There is a potential road safety risk of drivers not understanding important traffic updates or emergency information, but allowing interpreters on tests also presents the risk of fraud, for example if they are indicating the correct answers to theory test questions.’
It would reduce fraud by addressing ‘the problem of an interpreter attending for test with a learner driver and communicating advice beyond a strict translation of the theory test questions or the instructions given by the examiner.’
Lives could also be saved by improving road safety, he stressed, saying: ‘There is concern about the ability of non-English or Welsh speakers to understand road signs and other advice to drivers.’
He said the move would also help to ‘enhance social cohesion and to encourage integration in society by learning the national language’.
Mr Hammond noted: ‘We want to ensure that all drivers have the right skills to use our roads safely and responsibly. We also want to keep test fees to a minimum for candidates, and I am not convinced that providing translations is the most effective use of resources'
SOURCE
Britain's now the migrant magnet of Europe: 600,000 come here in one year... twice as many as go to France
Britain has become the biggest magnet for migrants in Europe, EU officials revealed yesterday.
The highest total recorded – 590,950 – came to live here in 2010, their figures showed. This intake was more than twice the 251,159 migrants who opted to go to France.
It means that this country has overtaken Spain and Germany, where levels fell sharply, as the top target for immigrants seeking jobs and a new home.
The rise in numbers coming here marks a historic immigration landmark and comes as a new wave of incomers from Romania and Bulgaria is expected in 2014.
Whitehall has declined to publish its estimates of how many will come then.
For decades, Germany has had higher immigration levels than Britain while Spain’s rates shot ahead ten years ago as its boom drew millions from Spanish-speaking Latin America.
French immigration dropped below British levels in the 1990s.
But the latest analysis by Eurostat, the EU statistics arm, indicated that economic collapse in Spain and tighter controls in Germany have made Britain the main destination for migrants from Europe and elsewhere.
The comparisons cover 2010 but the UK is likely to have retained top place in the immigration table.
Latest figures show there were 536,000 long-term immigrants to Britain in the year to April 2012.
The level is far ahead of likely totals for Spain and Germany, despite the efforts of the Coalition to cut the numbers of unskilled foreign workers.
Its limited success in this may be further highlighted next year when EU legislation allows Romanians and Bulgarians the unfettered right to live and work in Britain.
German cities facing less pressure from immigration than their British counterparts have already complained of the impact of migrants from the two Eastern European countries. Yesterday, the Mail reported that they have warned Chancellor Angela Merkel about ‘significant costs of poverty migration’ and a risk to ‘social peace’.
Think-tank Migrationwatch warned that restricting the impact of immigration here is going to be a major headache for ministers.
Its chairman, Sir Andrew Green, said: ‘These figures are yet another indicator showing that Labour lost control of immigration. Our mass immigration far exceeds that of all the other major countries in Europe.
‘The Government is making huge efforts to get the numbers under control but it is not going to be easy given that Britain has become the destination of choice in Europe.’
Immigration into Britain was running at just over 300,000 a year until rising under Labour in 1997.
Numbers passed 400,000 in 2003 and 500,000 in 2004 when the borders were opened to workers from Poland and eight other EU countries.
Germany, Spain and almost all other EU countries put curbs on Eastern European workers.
UK officials predicted that only 13,000 Poles would arrive but, in fact, more than a million did so and Polish is now this country’s second most common language.
Immigration peaked in 2010 and dropped to 566,000 in 2011. Full figures for 2012 have not yet been published.
After coming to power in 2010, the Coalition promised to cut net immigration to below 100,000 a year.
But ministers have struggled to reduce this statistic, which measures how migration increases the population after immigration and emigration have been counted.
The figure fell from 252,000 in 2010 to 183,000 at the latest count. However, it is still well above net migration in Germany, whose population swelled by 151,600 in 2010. That year, Spain’s net immigration was just 62,200 as 400,000 quit its collapsing economy.
Eurostat said immigration restrictions had been a success across much of the EU. Limits focused on attracting specific migrants to combat skills shortages, based on language proficiency, work experience, education and age.
It added: ‘Significant resources have been mobilised to fight people smuggling and trafficking.’
The figures reveal how the dramatic fall in migration to Spain and Germany began in 2009 as the recession began to bite. In Germany, it fell from 682,000 in 2008 to 404,000 in 2010. In Spain, it fell from a peak of 958,000 in 2007 to 465,000 in 2010.
The impact of immigration to Britain was underlined by the 2011 census, which showed the population was 63.2million, half a million more than expected.
There were four million immigrants in a decade, whose arrival helped push the population of England and Wales up by 3.7 million.
SOURCE
Immigrants in Britain to be banned from taking driving tests in foreign languages in bid to stop cheating and boost road safety
Immigrants are to be banned from taking driving tests in 19 foreign languages in a bid to stop cheating and boost road safety, it was announced Tuesday.
As well as beating fraud and keeping unsafe drivers off UK roads, the move to end foreign translations and translators will increase ‘social cohesion and integration’ in Britain and cut costs, the Government said.
Those learning to drive can currently take their theory and practical driving tests in any of 21 languages.
Nearly 145,000 tests are taken every year in languages other than English and Welsh – from Albanian to Urdu - at a rate of around 2,700 a week.
Of these, 108,374 were for the theory test and 35,000 for the practical test. The evidence also suggests that many were re-takes.
Plans to outlaw the test being carried out in ‘non-national languages’ are set out in a major consultation by the Government’s Driving Standards Agency.
Official figures show that since 2009 some 861 people had their theory test passes revoked after being coached on what to do during their theory and practical tests by ‘back-seat’ translators. Nine DSA-approved interpreters were also struck off for their part in such frauds.
Ministers are also concerned about handing licences to people who are unable to read road signs.
Currently people whose first language is not English or Welsh can request pre-recorded voice-overs for the computer-based car and motorcycle theory tests in 19 foreign languages.
The 19 Languages covered by interpreters are: Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, Cantonese, Dari, Farsi, Gujarati, Hindi, Kashmiri, Kurdish, Mirpuri, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Pushto, Spanish, Tamil, Turkish, Urdu.
Candidates can also use approved interpreters on theory tests, usually if a voice-over is not available in a candidate's native language, or where a candidate speaks a dialect that would make a voice-over difficult to understand.
Interpreters can also be used in practical tests to translate the examiner's instructions. Candidates have to pay for interpreters themselves, but the cost of developing and updating voice-overs for the theory test is met by the DSA. Ministers say the service, introduced by Labour, costs taxpayers £250,000 a year.
There are currently 122 approved interpreters for the theory test where the potential for fraud is seen as more acute. However, a DSA spokesman said: ’For the practical test, candidates can bring anyone to interpret for them’.
Of 1.68 million theory tests carried out in 2011-12, some 106,112 used foreign language voice-overs and 2,262 involved an interpreter being present, making a total of 108,374.
When individual theory candidates are counted, some 57,361 requested voiceovers and 1,690 requested interpreters in 2011/12, suggesting many re-sat their tests at least once.
Of the 1.57 million practical driving tests conducted in 2011-12, ‘around 35,000 were conducted with an interpreter present,’ says the new report. When individual practical test candidates are counted, some 19,555 requested interpreters, again suggesting that many took their test more than once.
Announcing the plans to remove voice-overs on the theory test and scrapping the use of interpreters on all tests, road safety minister Stephen Hammond said allowing interpreters on tests for those whose first language is not English ‘presents the risk of fraud’.
Launching the eight-week public consultation, Mr Hammond said the Government’s ‘preferred choice’ was to remove all voice-overs and translation services in non-national languages.
He added that interpreters could, for example, ‘indicate the correct answers to theory test questions’.
Mr Hammond said: ‘There is a potential road safety risk of drivers not understanding important traffic updates or emergency information, but allowing interpreters on tests also presents the risk of fraud, for example if they are indicating the correct answers to theory test questions.’
It would reduce fraud by addressing ‘the problem of an interpreter attending for test with a learner driver and communicating advice beyond a strict translation of the theory test questions or the instructions given by the examiner.’
Lives could also be saved by improving road safety, he stressed, saying: ‘There is concern about the ability of non-English or Welsh speakers to understand road signs and other advice to drivers.’
He said the move would also help to ‘enhance social cohesion and to encourage integration in society by learning the national language’.
Mr Hammond noted: ‘We want to ensure that all drivers have the right skills to use our roads safely and responsibly. We also want to keep test fees to a minimum for candidates, and I am not convinced that providing translations is the most effective use of resources'
SOURCE
Britain's now the migrant magnet of Europe: 600,000 come here in one year... twice as many as go to France
Britain has become the biggest magnet for migrants in Europe, EU officials revealed yesterday.
The highest total recorded – 590,950 – came to live here in 2010, their figures showed. This intake was more than twice the 251,159 migrants who opted to go to France.
It means that this country has overtaken Spain and Germany, where levels fell sharply, as the top target for immigrants seeking jobs and a new home.
The rise in numbers coming here marks a historic immigration landmark and comes as a new wave of incomers from Romania and Bulgaria is expected in 2014.
Whitehall has declined to publish its estimates of how many will come then.
For decades, Germany has had higher immigration levels than Britain while Spain’s rates shot ahead ten years ago as its boom drew millions from Spanish-speaking Latin America.
French immigration dropped below British levels in the 1990s.
But the latest analysis by Eurostat, the EU statistics arm, indicated that economic collapse in Spain and tighter controls in Germany have made Britain the main destination for migrants from Europe and elsewhere.
The comparisons cover 2010 but the UK is likely to have retained top place in the immigration table.
Latest figures show there were 536,000 long-term immigrants to Britain in the year to April 2012.
The level is far ahead of likely totals for Spain and Germany, despite the efforts of the Coalition to cut the numbers of unskilled foreign workers.
Its limited success in this may be further highlighted next year when EU legislation allows Romanians and Bulgarians the unfettered right to live and work in Britain.
German cities facing less pressure from immigration than their British counterparts have already complained of the impact of migrants from the two Eastern European countries. Yesterday, the Mail reported that they have warned Chancellor Angela Merkel about ‘significant costs of poverty migration’ and a risk to ‘social peace’.
Think-tank Migrationwatch warned that restricting the impact of immigration here is going to be a major headache for ministers.
Its chairman, Sir Andrew Green, said: ‘These figures are yet another indicator showing that Labour lost control of immigration. Our mass immigration far exceeds that of all the other major countries in Europe.
‘The Government is making huge efforts to get the numbers under control but it is not going to be easy given that Britain has become the destination of choice in Europe.’
Immigration into Britain was running at just over 300,000 a year until rising under Labour in 1997.
Numbers passed 400,000 in 2003 and 500,000 in 2004 when the borders were opened to workers from Poland and eight other EU countries.
Germany, Spain and almost all other EU countries put curbs on Eastern European workers.
UK officials predicted that only 13,000 Poles would arrive but, in fact, more than a million did so and Polish is now this country’s second most common language.
Immigration peaked in 2010 and dropped to 566,000 in 2011. Full figures for 2012 have not yet been published.
After coming to power in 2010, the Coalition promised to cut net immigration to below 100,000 a year.
But ministers have struggled to reduce this statistic, which measures how migration increases the population after immigration and emigration have been counted.
The figure fell from 252,000 in 2010 to 183,000 at the latest count. However, it is still well above net migration in Germany, whose population swelled by 151,600 in 2010. That year, Spain’s net immigration was just 62,200 as 400,000 quit its collapsing economy.
Eurostat said immigration restrictions had been a success across much of the EU. Limits focused on attracting specific migrants to combat skills shortages, based on language proficiency, work experience, education and age.
It added: ‘Significant resources have been mobilised to fight people smuggling and trafficking.’
The figures reveal how the dramatic fall in migration to Spain and Germany began in 2009 as the recession began to bite. In Germany, it fell from 682,000 in 2008 to 404,000 in 2010. In Spain, it fell from a peak of 958,000 in 2007 to 465,000 in 2010.
The impact of immigration to Britain was underlined by the 2011 census, which showed the population was 63.2million, half a million more than expected.
There were four million immigrants in a decade, whose arrival helped push the population of England and Wales up by 3.7 million.
SOURCE
Friday, February 8, 2013
New National Survey: Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home
73 Percent Feel Very Strongly About This View
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) today released a new report, Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home: Results of a National Survey, based on polling conducted by Pulse Opinion Research. The poll found that of likely voters, 52 percent preferred that illegal immigrants in the United States return to their home countries versus 33 percent who preferred they be given legal status.
“Poll wording matters. Most post-election polls on immigration policy have given the public the false choice of conditional legalization or mass deportations. This poll uses neutral wording that allows us to know the views of the American public,” comments Dr. Steven Camarota, CIS Director of Research. “With border security and the enforcement of immigration laws being a key issue with legislators, the fact that 70 percent of those polled were not confident that immigration law would be enforced if there is a legalization and 69 percent believed providing legal status to illegals would encourage more illegal immigration is a good indicator of public sentiment.”
The report can be found online at:http://cis.org/americans-prefer-illegal-immigrants-head-home-results-of-national-survey
Among the findings of this poll:
* Of likely voters, 52 percent responded that they preferred that illegal immigrants in the United States return to their home countries, compared to just 33 percent who would like them to be given legal status.
* There is an enormous gap in intensity between the two views on immigration. Of those who want illegal immigrants to head home, 73 percent indicated that they felt “very strongly” about their view, while just 35 percent of those who want illegal immigrants to get legal status said they felt very strongly about their view.
* One reason the public may prefer that illegals head home is a strong belief that e?orts to enforce immigration laws have been inadequate — 64 percent said that enforcement of immigration laws has been “too little”, while just 10 percent said that it had been too much, and 15 percent said it was “just right”.
* When asked why there is a large illegal population in the country, voters overwhelming (71 percent) thought it was because we had not made a real e?ort to enforce our immigration laws. Only 18 percent said it was because we were not letting in enough immigrants legally.
* Another reason for skepticism about legalization is that most voters (69 percent) agreed with the statement that “giving legal status to illegal immigrants does not solve the problem because rewarding law breaking will only encourage more illegal immigration.” Just 26 percent disagreed.
* When asked if they had confidence that immigration laws would be enforced in the event of a legalization, just 27 percent expressed con?dence that there would be enforcement, while 70 percent indicated that they were not con?dent immigration law would be enforced.
* Enforcement remains politically very popular. Of likely voters, 53 percent indicated that they would be more likely to support a political party that supports enforcing immigration laws versus only 32 percent who said they would be more likely to support a party that supports legalization.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Revival of Australia's "Pacific solution" beginning to bite
The Australian Left has been forced to revive the illegal immigration policies of the conservative Howard government
THE boats are being readied along Java's west coast to ferry thousands of fresh asylum seekers to Christmas Island.
But some among the potential customers are having second thoughts, prompted by Australia's toughened policies.
They are not waiting for a boat, but for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to pronounce them genuine and find them a refugee visa. In the language of Australia's politicians, they want to join the queue and enter through the front door.
The difference, they say, is "the rule" - people arriving without a visa after August 13, 2012, could be sent to Nauru or Manus Island.
"If the rule was not announced then maybe I'd have arrived two, three months ago, I would have arrived in Australia," Mohamad said. "But because of that rule we are waiting. And not just me … there are a lot of people that are waiting for a visa."
Before the rule was introduced he tried take a boat to Australia but says, "I missed it".
He says Labor's policies have been responsible for a steep drop-off in people making the trip from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Indonesia. Those with good reason to fear for their lives still come, but many don't.
"It's stopped - 50 per cent it's stopped, and people are not coming. They are not coming because of that rule." It worked, Mohamad said, because of the stories of people going crazy when sent to Nauru.
Waiting in Indonesia, though, is tortuous. A UNHCR place is reckoned to take three years - during which time they must often beg money from their families to support them in a country where they cannot work.
They were sent originally to be providers for those families, not a burden.
"The Australian government announced, 'Don't go by boat, every year we [will] send 1000 visas'. But we've seen nothing," says an older man, Muhammad Juma, who has waited for almost two years already, much of it in a shabby detention centre.
Many, though, are still taking the illegal route. Last weekend two boats arrived on Christmas Island, one carrying 132 people. As the monsoon season ends and the sea grows calmer, sources say, people smugglers have 50 or more boats ready to sail.
Ashya Danesh has with him his wife, Golsaman, and two sons, Ammer, 16, and Mahdi, 12. Mr Danesh is tortured by his inability to support his family.
The boys cannot go to school in Indonesia and none of them is allowed to work. "If UNHCR helps us and gives house, money, we stay [in Indonesia]. If not, we go by boat," Mr Danesh says.
Rosia - a rarity in that she's a middle-aged woman travelling alone - is also looking for a people smuggler, but does not know how to find one. "I will go on a boat. It's difficult for me to stay here. We don't have any money. A long time we stayed here … no interview with UNHCR." Asked if she was worried about sinking, she smiles: "I don't worry. It's in God's hands."
No one Fairfax Media spoke to this week were familiar with the Opposition's policies, including the latest statements by its immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, that all boats from Sri Lanka would be intercepted by the navy in international waters and turned around. But they know enough to realise no Australian politician is their friend.
"I don't care about the election or things because when a rule is announced that will be followed by the government," Mohamad said.
SOURCE
New National Survey: Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home
73 Percent Feel Very Strongly About This View
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) today released a new report, Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home: Results of a National Survey, based on polling conducted by Pulse Opinion Research. The poll found that of likely voters, 52 percent preferred that illegal immigrants in the United States return to their home countries versus 33 percent who preferred they be given legal status.
“Poll wording matters. Most post-election polls on immigration policy have given the public the false choice of conditional legalization or mass deportations. This poll uses neutral wording that allows us to know the views of the American public,” comments Dr. Steven Camarota, CIS Director of Research. “With border security and the enforcement of immigration laws being a key issue with legislators, the fact that 70 percent of those polled were not confident that immigration law would be enforced if there is a legalization and 69 percent believed providing legal status to illegals would encourage more illegal immigration is a good indicator of public sentiment.”
The report can be found online at:http://cis.org/americans-prefer-illegal-immigrants-head-home-results-of-national-survey
Among the findings of this poll:
* Of likely voters, 52 percent responded that they preferred that illegal immigrants in the United States return to their home countries, compared to just 33 percent who would like them to be given legal status.
* There is an enormous gap in intensity between the two views on immigration. Of those who want illegal immigrants to head home, 73 percent indicated that they felt “very strongly” about their view, while just 35 percent of those who want illegal immigrants to get legal status said they felt very strongly about their view.
* One reason the public may prefer that illegals head home is a strong belief that e?orts to enforce immigration laws have been inadequate — 64 percent said that enforcement of immigration laws has been “too little”, while just 10 percent said that it had been too much, and 15 percent said it was “just right”.
* When asked why there is a large illegal population in the country, voters overwhelming (71 percent) thought it was because we had not made a real e?ort to enforce our immigration laws. Only 18 percent said it was because we were not letting in enough immigrants legally.
* Another reason for skepticism about legalization is that most voters (69 percent) agreed with the statement that “giving legal status to illegal immigrants does not solve the problem because rewarding law breaking will only encourage more illegal immigration.” Just 26 percent disagreed.
* When asked if they had confidence that immigration laws would be enforced in the event of a legalization, just 27 percent expressed con?dence that there would be enforcement, while 70 percent indicated that they were not con?dent immigration law would be enforced.
* Enforcement remains politically very popular. Of likely voters, 53 percent indicated that they would be more likely to support a political party that supports enforcing immigration laws versus only 32 percent who said they would be more likely to support a party that supports legalization.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Revival of Australia's "Pacific solution" beginning to bite
The Australian Left has been forced to revive the illegal immigration policies of the conservative Howard government
THE boats are being readied along Java's west coast to ferry thousands of fresh asylum seekers to Christmas Island.
But some among the potential customers are having second thoughts, prompted by Australia's toughened policies.
They are not waiting for a boat, but for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to pronounce them genuine and find them a refugee visa. In the language of Australia's politicians, they want to join the queue and enter through the front door.
The difference, they say, is "the rule" - people arriving without a visa after August 13, 2012, could be sent to Nauru or Manus Island.
"If the rule was not announced then maybe I'd have arrived two, three months ago, I would have arrived in Australia," Mohamad said. "But because of that rule we are waiting. And not just me … there are a lot of people that are waiting for a visa."
Before the rule was introduced he tried take a boat to Australia but says, "I missed it".
He says Labor's policies have been responsible for a steep drop-off in people making the trip from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Indonesia. Those with good reason to fear for their lives still come, but many don't.
"It's stopped - 50 per cent it's stopped, and people are not coming. They are not coming because of that rule." It worked, Mohamad said, because of the stories of people going crazy when sent to Nauru.
Waiting in Indonesia, though, is tortuous. A UNHCR place is reckoned to take three years - during which time they must often beg money from their families to support them in a country where they cannot work.
They were sent originally to be providers for those families, not a burden.
"The Australian government announced, 'Don't go by boat, every year we [will] send 1000 visas'. But we've seen nothing," says an older man, Muhammad Juma, who has waited for almost two years already, much of it in a shabby detention centre.
Many, though, are still taking the illegal route. Last weekend two boats arrived on Christmas Island, one carrying 132 people. As the monsoon season ends and the sea grows calmer, sources say, people smugglers have 50 or more boats ready to sail.
Ashya Danesh has with him his wife, Golsaman, and two sons, Ammer, 16, and Mahdi, 12. Mr Danesh is tortured by his inability to support his family.
The boys cannot go to school in Indonesia and none of them is allowed to work. "If UNHCR helps us and gives house, money, we stay [in Indonesia]. If not, we go by boat," Mr Danesh says.
Rosia - a rarity in that she's a middle-aged woman travelling alone - is also looking for a people smuggler, but does not know how to find one. "I will go on a boat. It's difficult for me to stay here. We don't have any money. A long time we stayed here … no interview with UNHCR." Asked if she was worried about sinking, she smiles: "I don't worry. It's in God's hands."
No one Fairfax Media spoke to this week were familiar with the Opposition's policies, including the latest statements by its immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, that all boats from Sri Lanka would be intercepted by the navy in international waters and turned around. But they know enough to realise no Australian politician is their friend.
"I don't care about the election or things because when a rule is announced that will be followed by the government," Mohamad said.
SOURCE
Thursday, February 7, 2013
You can't pick 'n' mix your cultures when living in the UK, immigrants told
Immigrant communities cannot adopt a ‘pick ’n’ mix approach’ to living in a liberal democracy, a Home Office minister will insist today. Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne will attack multicultural doctrines which have meant the state turning a blind eye to so-called ‘honour crimes’, forced marriage and female genital mutilation.
He will condemn ‘misplaced cultural sensitivities’ for a failure to tackle such issues in Britain.
Speaking at an event in the House of Lords, Mr Browne will warn that ‘thousands – perhaps hundreds of thousands’ of women and girls in this country are not enjoying the proper ‘benefits of living in our liberal society’.
He will add: ‘That is not because of some accident or oversight. It is because of a deliberate rejection of the emancipation revolution and the equal opportunities now afforded to women and girls.
‘This situation is wrong. It is unacceptable for the individual women and girls whose freedom and opportunities are stifled.
'And it is wrong for our society. There cannot be a pick’n’mix approach to living in a benign liberal country. The benefits must be universal, without exceptions or exemptions.
‘I do not believe that cultural relativism provides an excuse to opt out of our shared liberal social settlement. Everyone should enjoy the freedom to make their own choices, without the fear of social coercion.’
Mr Browne will insist that forced marriage has ‘no place’ in British society, pointing out that the victims are ‘overwhelmingly young women and girls’.
Up to 8,000 young women a year are being pushed into marriage without their consent in Britain, it is feared. Their families are mainly from Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and East Africa.
Currently, the authorities have to try to prove that other laws, such as kidnapping, false imprisonment, harassment or assault, have been broken by those responsible.
But Mr Browne will say the Coalition will create a specific criminal offence making it illegal to force a child or grandchild into a marriage against their wishes.
Ministers argue a blind eye has been turned to extremism for too long for fear of offending minorities.
Some schools have even refused to put up posters advising pupils about forced marriage for fear of causing offence or being branded racist.
Mr Browne will also express alarm about the ‘abhorrent’ practice of female genital mutilation, citing evidence that around 20,000 girls in Britain are at risk.
SOURCE
German cities plead for help from Berlin as 'social peace' is threatened by large number of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants
Cities in Germany have warned that ‘social peace’ there is at risk due to an influx of economic migrants from Bulgaria and Romania.
Reports tell of an epidemic of illegal working, chaos in schools because so many children can’t speak German, and an alarming increase in organised crime since the migrants arrived.
Dortmund, Hanover, Berlin and Hamburg say they are struggling to absorb a six-fold increase in economic migration from the two countries since 2006.
The rise is exacerbated by the euro crisis, which has forced Bulgarians and Romanians to seek a better life in their nearest big economy.
A report by the German Association of Cities says they face ‘significant costs as a result of this poverty migration’.
They are demanding financial support from Chancellor Angela Merkel, telling her ‘the social balance and social peace is extremely endangered’.
In Germany there are more than 90,000 Bulgarians and 159,000 Romanians. They are not allowed to work legally until January 1, as in Britain. But they can stay under EU rules if they declare themselves to be ‘self-employed’.
However the report by the German cities says: ‘The Roma in particular end up in desolate conditions once they are here.’
Police claim Romanian gangs send children out each morning with instructions to steal. And in Munster new arrivals from Romania and Bulgaria last year formed a tent city alongside a canal.
SOURCE
You can't pick 'n' mix your cultures when living in the UK, immigrants told
Immigrant communities cannot adopt a ‘pick ’n’ mix approach’ to living in a liberal democracy, a Home Office minister will insist today. Liberal Democrat Jeremy Browne will attack multicultural doctrines which have meant the state turning a blind eye to so-called ‘honour crimes’, forced marriage and female genital mutilation.
He will condemn ‘misplaced cultural sensitivities’ for a failure to tackle such issues in Britain.
Speaking at an event in the House of Lords, Mr Browne will warn that ‘thousands – perhaps hundreds of thousands’ of women and girls in this country are not enjoying the proper ‘benefits of living in our liberal society’.
He will add: ‘That is not because of some accident or oversight. It is because of a deliberate rejection of the emancipation revolution and the equal opportunities now afforded to women and girls.
‘This situation is wrong. It is unacceptable for the individual women and girls whose freedom and opportunities are stifled.
'And it is wrong for our society. There cannot be a pick’n’mix approach to living in a benign liberal country. The benefits must be universal, without exceptions or exemptions.
‘I do not believe that cultural relativism provides an excuse to opt out of our shared liberal social settlement. Everyone should enjoy the freedom to make their own choices, without the fear of social coercion.’
Mr Browne will insist that forced marriage has ‘no place’ in British society, pointing out that the victims are ‘overwhelmingly young women and girls’.
Up to 8,000 young women a year are being pushed into marriage without their consent in Britain, it is feared. Their families are mainly from Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and East Africa.
Currently, the authorities have to try to prove that other laws, such as kidnapping, false imprisonment, harassment or assault, have been broken by those responsible.
But Mr Browne will say the Coalition will create a specific criminal offence making it illegal to force a child or grandchild into a marriage against their wishes.
Ministers argue a blind eye has been turned to extremism for too long for fear of offending minorities.
Some schools have even refused to put up posters advising pupils about forced marriage for fear of causing offence or being branded racist.
Mr Browne will also express alarm about the ‘abhorrent’ practice of female genital mutilation, citing evidence that around 20,000 girls in Britain are at risk.
SOURCE
German cities plead for help from Berlin as 'social peace' is threatened by large number of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants
Cities in Germany have warned that ‘social peace’ there is at risk due to an influx of economic migrants from Bulgaria and Romania.
Reports tell of an epidemic of illegal working, chaos in schools because so many children can’t speak German, and an alarming increase in organised crime since the migrants arrived.
Dortmund, Hanover, Berlin and Hamburg say they are struggling to absorb a six-fold increase in economic migration from the two countries since 2006.
The rise is exacerbated by the euro crisis, which has forced Bulgarians and Romanians to seek a better life in their nearest big economy.
A report by the German Association of Cities says they face ‘significant costs as a result of this poverty migration’.
They are demanding financial support from Chancellor Angela Merkel, telling her ‘the social balance and social peace is extremely endangered’.
In Germany there are more than 90,000 Bulgarians and 159,000 Romanians. They are not allowed to work legally until January 1, as in Britain. But they can stay under EU rules if they declare themselves to be ‘self-employed’.
However the report by the German cities says: ‘The Roma in particular end up in desolate conditions once they are here.’
Police claim Romanian gangs send children out each morning with instructions to steal. And in Munster new arrivals from Romania and Bulgaria last year formed a tent city alongside a canal.
SOURCE
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
White House Shuts I.C.E. Agents Out of Immigration Reform
Unionized Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents are speaking out against the White House immigration reform plan and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Agents claim the White House has completely shut them out of discussions about how immigration reform will affect the safety of agents, specifically of those working along the dangerous southwest Border with Mexico.
"We went directly to the Obama administration as well as the AFL-CIO with real matters of life and death for unionized American law enforcement officers and they shunned us," explained Crane, "we're talking about 50,000 AFL-CIO affiliate members. We asked both the AFL-CIO and President Obama for help with corruption within our respective Federal law enforcement agencies, climbing officer suicide rates, assaults against officers, and perhaps most alarming, offenses against pregnant female employees.
Following the White House meeting, the Obama Administration cut us off. Cecilia Munoz refuses to correspond with us, and President Trumka hasn't so much as made one public comment fighting for the safety of AFL-CIO federal law enforcement officers. He just doesn't speak on behalf of our union workers."
As usual, Trumka is standing behind Obama will full support, but doesn't have the full support of the union members he claims to represent.
Regarding President Obama's recent speech on immigration reform, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was quoted yesterday by YAHOO NEWS! as stating "Unions did have at one point some differences on the issue, but the entire labor movement is entirely behind this now. We'll be at the table the whole time this thing is being developed to make sure it meets the needs of workers."
Unionized ICE Agents, however, respectfully say, "No President Trumka, there are still differences within the AFL-CIO, and you don't speak for us."
Munoz, the radical former senior vice president of La Raza, is leading Obama's efforts to streamline 11 million illegal immigrants to full legal citizenship. She was put in charge of domestic policy a year ago. As a reminder, this is the kind of behavior La Raza supports, particularly when it comes to "immigration reform."
The radicals are in charge and the guys enforcing the border are being shunned. Fantastic.
SOURCE
Diplomatic row breaks out over British plan to 'warn off migrants' as Bulgarian minister claims 'they'd rather go to Germany'
Bulgarian and Romanian workers will go to other European countries when an immigration ban is relaxed at the beginning of next year, leading politicians from the two countries said today.
Bulgarian foreign minister Nikolay Mladenov said many of his compatriots would much rather travel to Germany, Spain and Italy, as his country has stronger business links with those countries.
He said there was a danger that fears about thousands of immigrants descending on the UK could 'dampen' relations with Bulgaria.
Romanian ambassador to the UK, Dr Ion Jinga, said many immigrants had already by-passed the restrictions by declaring themselves self-employed and finding jobs in sectors such as construction.
The two men were interviewed by Dermot Murnaghan on Sky News amid fears that when the ban preventing immigrants from the two countries working in the UK comes to an end at the beginning of next year, thousands will arrive and look for jobs.
Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union in 2007 but under 'transitional arrangements' workers from the two countries were prevented from travelling to the UK.
Mr Mladenov said the relaxing of the restrictions would not lead to a flood of immigrants coming here.
He said: 'I do not expect the UK to be overwhelmed by a wave of our nationals coming over seeking employment for a number of reasons.
'When we look at the experience of other countries over the last seven years, this has not happened and there is no reason to believe that this would happen in the UK in the January of next year.
Bulgarian foreign minister Nikolay Mladenov said many of his compatriots would much rather travel to Germany, Spain and Italy
'We have not seen since Bulgaria's accession to the European Union mass waves of Bulgarians moving across Europe and seeking illegal rights or illegal immigration to other countries.
'We had some issues in the first days after accession but in a number of cases we acted very swiftly and they were addressed, and so there were no lasting concerns.
'The UK would not be the primary country of choice for many people to go and work. Our economy is mostly connected to the German economy.
'We have a large number of companies working in places like Spain and Italy, where we have long-standing traditions and where the labour market had opened to Bulgarians quite some time ago.
'I really don't believe that there is a need to have these fearful debates that are happening.
'On the contrary, I think people in the United Kingdom, given your history, must understand that immigration has always been beneficial to your economy, just as Britain's membership of the European Union has been beneficial to not only jobs creation but prosperity in your country.'
He added: 'Those Romanians who have wanted to come to Britain, they have already done it. 'There are some restrictions for some areas of activities but no visa requirements, so those who have wanted to come, they have done it.
'It is always a possibility to find a job, even if it is under restrictions, and that solution is to declare yourself self-employed, and many Romanians have done so.
'For instance in the construction sector, there are many Romanians here and that is why your Olympic village was built up last year.'
New data shows the proportion of people across who say English is not their main language ranging from 0.7 per cent in Redcar and Cleveland to 41.4 per cent in Newham in London.
SOURCE
White House Shuts I.C.E. Agents Out of Immigration Reform
Unionized Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents are speaking out against the White House immigration reform plan and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Agents claim the White House has completely shut them out of discussions about how immigration reform will affect the safety of agents, specifically of those working along the dangerous southwest Border with Mexico.
"We went directly to the Obama administration as well as the AFL-CIO with real matters of life and death for unionized American law enforcement officers and they shunned us," explained Crane, "we're talking about 50,000 AFL-CIO affiliate members. We asked both the AFL-CIO and President Obama for help with corruption within our respective Federal law enforcement agencies, climbing officer suicide rates, assaults against officers, and perhaps most alarming, offenses against pregnant female employees.
Following the White House meeting, the Obama Administration cut us off. Cecilia Munoz refuses to correspond with us, and President Trumka hasn't so much as made one public comment fighting for the safety of AFL-CIO federal law enforcement officers. He just doesn't speak on behalf of our union workers."
As usual, Trumka is standing behind Obama will full support, but doesn't have the full support of the union members he claims to represent.
Regarding President Obama's recent speech on immigration reform, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was quoted yesterday by YAHOO NEWS! as stating "Unions did have at one point some differences on the issue, but the entire labor movement is entirely behind this now. We'll be at the table the whole time this thing is being developed to make sure it meets the needs of workers."
Unionized ICE Agents, however, respectfully say, "No President Trumka, there are still differences within the AFL-CIO, and you don't speak for us."
Munoz, the radical former senior vice president of La Raza, is leading Obama's efforts to streamline 11 million illegal immigrants to full legal citizenship. She was put in charge of domestic policy a year ago. As a reminder, this is the kind of behavior La Raza supports, particularly when it comes to "immigration reform."
The radicals are in charge and the guys enforcing the border are being shunned. Fantastic.
SOURCE
Diplomatic row breaks out over British plan to 'warn off migrants' as Bulgarian minister claims 'they'd rather go to Germany'
Bulgarian and Romanian workers will go to other European countries when an immigration ban is relaxed at the beginning of next year, leading politicians from the two countries said today.
Bulgarian foreign minister Nikolay Mladenov said many of his compatriots would much rather travel to Germany, Spain and Italy, as his country has stronger business links with those countries.
He said there was a danger that fears about thousands of immigrants descending on the UK could 'dampen' relations with Bulgaria.
Romanian ambassador to the UK, Dr Ion Jinga, said many immigrants had already by-passed the restrictions by declaring themselves self-employed and finding jobs in sectors such as construction.
The two men were interviewed by Dermot Murnaghan on Sky News amid fears that when the ban preventing immigrants from the two countries working in the UK comes to an end at the beginning of next year, thousands will arrive and look for jobs.
Bulgaria and Romania joined the European Union in 2007 but under 'transitional arrangements' workers from the two countries were prevented from travelling to the UK.
Mr Mladenov said the relaxing of the restrictions would not lead to a flood of immigrants coming here.
He said: 'I do not expect the UK to be overwhelmed by a wave of our nationals coming over seeking employment for a number of reasons.
'When we look at the experience of other countries over the last seven years, this has not happened and there is no reason to believe that this would happen in the UK in the January of next year.
Bulgarian foreign minister Nikolay Mladenov said many of his compatriots would much rather travel to Germany, Spain and Italy
'We have not seen since Bulgaria's accession to the European Union mass waves of Bulgarians moving across Europe and seeking illegal rights or illegal immigration to other countries.
'We had some issues in the first days after accession but in a number of cases we acted very swiftly and they were addressed, and so there were no lasting concerns.
'The UK would not be the primary country of choice for many people to go and work. Our economy is mostly connected to the German economy.
'We have a large number of companies working in places like Spain and Italy, where we have long-standing traditions and where the labour market had opened to Bulgarians quite some time ago.
'I really don't believe that there is a need to have these fearful debates that are happening.
'On the contrary, I think people in the United Kingdom, given your history, must understand that immigration has always been beneficial to your economy, just as Britain's membership of the European Union has been beneficial to not only jobs creation but prosperity in your country.'
He added: 'Those Romanians who have wanted to come to Britain, they have already done it. 'There are some restrictions for some areas of activities but no visa requirements, so those who have wanted to come, they have done it.
'It is always a possibility to find a job, even if it is under restrictions, and that solution is to declare yourself self-employed, and many Romanians have done so.
'For instance in the construction sector, there are many Romanians here and that is why your Olympic village was built up last year.'
New data shows the proportion of people across who say English is not their main language ranging from 0.7 per cent in Redcar and Cleveland to 41.4 per cent in Newham in London.
SOURCE
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Video: Steven Camarota explains the cost of amnesty on FOX News
2. Radio: Mark Krikorian discusses amnesty on the Diane Rehm Show
3. Op-ed: Mark Krikorian corrects a flawed report in the Washington Post
4. Video: Steven Camarota discusses Senate amnesty proposal on ABC News
5. Video: CIS Panel Discussion on Amnesties: Past, Present, Future
6. Radio: Steven Camarota discusses amnesty on public radio
Publication
7. Upholding the Value of Our Citizenship: National Security Threats Should Be Denaturalized
Blogs
8. Really Getting Immigration Right
9. Schumer: Border Security Not a Prerequisite for Amnesty
10. ICE Agents Have Standing to Sue DHS Over DACA
11. 40 Million Illegal Aliens in 2038?
12. Will Rubio Pull Out of the Gang of Eight Now?
13. Can Amnesty Push Survive an Increase in Illegal Entries?
14. The Fine Print: The "Must Pay Their Taxes" Provision in the Obama Amnesty
15. As Mexico Improves, Central America Struggles
16. Another Look at the Forces Behind Birth Tourism
17. When Trespassing Apparently Isn't, and When "Sovereign Citizens" Apparently Aren't
18. Awards for Commentary on Reform Proposal
19. Does McCain Really Mean that 75 Percent of Illegal Aliens Will Be Denied Legal Status?
20. What Was the Point of Obama’s Immigration Speech?
21. Aliens Who Thumb Their Noses at the United States Get Green Cards Anyway
22. Lies, Damn Lies, and Enforcement Promises
23. We've Seen This Senate Amnesty Movie Before
24. Won’t Get Fooled Again
25. Dreamy Enforcement Provisions vs. Genuine Steps Forward: A Checklist
26. Jeb's Tyranny of Immigration Cliches
27. Rubio Refining Immigration Message
28. Irish Overstayer Accused of Murdering Child
29. Categories of Misconduct at CBP
30. Establishment Republicans Support Amnesty - Is Gun Control Next?
31. Harper's Magazine Gives the Free Market a Pass on Immigration
32. Enroll'em First, Verify'em Later
33. The Multiple Negatives in Immigration Speak
Australia knows how to stop the refugee boats
Amanda Vanstone
As the September 14 election approaches, we will no doubt hear more from both major parties on the issue of border control. At least we have agreement on some aspects of this policy area. Both parties understand that there are many, many more refugees in the world than we can afford to accept. They agree that the government decides how many we can afford to take and they agree that those who come by boat, because they can afford to pay a people smuggler, should not have an advantage over poor refugees waiting in camps. Offshore processing is an essential and agreed part of achieving that aim.
If Labor really wants to stop the boats, it should toughen up and agree to reinstate temporary protection visas (by any new-fangled name they may choose to make it look a bit different) and to cut off family reunions. We will have to wait and see if that reality dawns. Labor has come kicking and screaming to adopt so much of the Howard policy agenda. This extra little bit shouldn't be too hard. It would certainly blunt the Coalition attack on the ALP in coming months.
As immigration minister in the Howard government, I am pleased that Labor has at least accepted some of our border protection policies. But I am also irritated. Why? Because Labor constantly sought to portray my party as a bunch of old racists.
The coward's way, which was frequently chosen, was to call John Howard a dog whistler. This sort of rubbish can easily be peddled through interest groups and those commentators keen to use the opportunity to define themselves as being opposed to racism. Now that Labor has similar policies to Howard's, I do not hear them whistling any dog tunes. Funny about that. Perhaps Labor sought to portray the Liberals as racists to assuage some guilt about the ALP's past, or at the very least to divert voters' attention from Labor's record.
If you know any servicemen who served in Timor during World War II, you might ask them about the extraordinary role played by the Timorese criados in helping our troops. While you're there, ask them about the anguish of knowing that we refused to open our hearts and evacuate these people who risked their lives to save Australian lives. We left them behind to face an unsafe and unhappy future.
Then there's former Labor leader Arthur Calwell. He should rightly be acknowledged as the father of our modern immigration system - although you will not hear a Labor person admitting that Robert Menzies, as the then opposition leader, played a critical role in getting it accepted and laid the first brick in Australia's bipartisan approach to immigration by urging the government to be adventurous rather than cautious.
But there was a darker side to the policy; there was a rule (which proved ineffective but demonstrated intent) that there should be 10 Britons for every non-white alien. And returned servicemen with Japanese war brides found Calwell not only unmoved by their desire to bring their wives home but bitterly opposed. He said that while "Any relatives remain of Australian soldiers dead in the Pacific battlefields", it would be "the grossest act of indecency to permit any Japanese of either sex to pollute Australian shores".
Calwell fought vigorously after the war to have Chinese, Malay and Indonesian wartime refugees deported. He had a special bill drafted to deal with one, Mrs Annie O'Keefe, an Ambonese woman with eight children who had fled to Australia with them. Her husband had died fighting the Japanese and she had remarried an Australian. Only the good offices of the departmental secretary saved her.
Then there's Calwell's infamous line about two wongs not making a white. Some argue it was taken out of context, but not that it wasn't said. Calwell was a zealous supporter of the White Australia Policy. In contrast, only a few years later, under the Liberals, Paul Hasluck, as administrator of the territories, was able to secure agreement that Chinese and mixed-race people in Papua New Guinea were able to settle in Australia and become Australian citizens.
Getting closer to the issue of border protection, one might find former Singapore leader Lee Kuan Yew's biography illuminating. He was particularly affronted by the Whitlam government's proposal that Singapore should allow some 8000 Vietnamese refugees to disembark there, whereupon Australia would choose less than 200 to accept here. Singapore could worry about the others.
Whitlam was not a racist. As former Labor minister Clyde Cameron tells the story, Whitlam's opposition was more political. Cameron and Whitlam's deputy, Lance Barnard, had organised a flight in April 1975 to bring Vietnamese orphans and babies to Australia. Cameron says Whitlam justified cancelling the flight by saying he wasn't having "Vietnamese Balts coming to Australia".
If you believe Labor, you might believe it was only because of Whitlam that the White Australia policy was undone. You might be surprised to know that the father of Australian multiculturalism, Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, concluded that the policy "had its demise at the hands of mainly Liberal ministers and finally of the Whitlam Labor government".
The Australia prime minister Lee Kuan Yew most admired was Menzies. The postwar Menzies government was a strong supporter of the Colombo Plan, a key element in our early relations with Asia. People with long memories understand the forward and outward-looking policies Menzies implemented. Lee said Menzies understood "that sentiments and ties of kinship could not displace the realities of geopolitics and geoeconomics in the post-imperial world". That understanding from an Australian can be phrased another way: The Asian Century is around the corner. And yet Julia Gillard seems to think she discovered it!
SOURCE
February 4, 2013
Lou Barletta: Immigration Reform Risks Flood Of The Undocumented
Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) said Sunday that he cannot support providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants because he doesn't think President Barack Obama has any desire to enforce existing immigration laws. Barletta dismissed the record number of deportations already taking place.
"You wouldn't replace your carpet at home if you still had a hole in the roof," he said on ABC's "This Week." "We're talking about any time you start waving a carrot such as American citizenship without securing the borders, that number [of undocumented immigrants] that we have today I believe will double or triple."
Barletta has been an outspoken opponent of any immigration reform that involves citizenship. Last week, he insisted Republicans will not win over Latino voters by passing immigration reform because undocumented immigrants are, according to him, uneducated and therefore unlikely to support the GOP.
"I hope politics is not at the root of why we're rushing to pass a bill. Anyone who believes that they're going to win over the Latino vote is grossly mistaken," Barletta said, according to Lehigh Valley's Morning Call. "The majority that are here illegally are low-skilled or may not even have a high school diploma. The Republican Party is not going to compete over who can give more social programs out. They will become Democrats because of the social programs they'll depend on."
He did not make the same argument on Sunday, instead focusing on the idea that a pathway to citizenship would swell the undocumented population. "This is 1986 all over again," Barletta said, referring to a law signed by President Ronald Reagan that allowed some undocumented immigrants to become citizens but did not successfully curtail future unauthorized immigration.
Since then, deportations have also increased greatly, including under Obama. His administration deported more than 400,000 people in the 2012 fiscal year and is on track to deport many more in 2013.
However, the Obama administration also sued to block Arizona's controversial SB 1070 immigration law and has put in place policies that allow some undocumented immigrants to stay, which Barletta said Sunday discounts its deportation numbers.
"We can argue about that all day long," he said of Obama's immigration enforcement. "I don't know how anyone can argue that this administration is serious about enforcing our laws when they're suing the state of Arizona -- because the federal government has caused the problem and Arizona wants to defend itself."
A number of other Republicans have likewise accused the president of being weak on immigration enforcement as an argument against comprehensive immigration reform. A reform framework put out last week by a bipartisan "gang of eight" in the Senate attempted to address those concerns by tying green cards to stronger border security, granting undocumented immigrants only provisional status until certain border metrics are met.
But some Republicans were still skeptical. On Wednesday, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) called Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the gang of eight, "amazingly naïve" to support such a framework.
"Look, I love and respect Marco," Vitter said on Laura Ingraham's radio show. "I just think he’s amazingly naïve on this issue. This is the same old formula we've dealt with before, including when it passed in 1986, and that is the promise of enforcement and immediate amnesty. And of course, the promises of enforcement never materialize. The amnesty happens immediately, the millisecond the bill is signed into law. And the same is true here."
Despite GOP opposition, Jorge Ramos, a Univision anchor and supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, said on "This Week" that he is more optimistic than ever before that reform can pass.
"I don't remember ever seeing the president and both parties rushing to beat the other to present an immigration proposal," Ramos said. "I haven't seen that. It's the most important immigration news in the last 30 years."
SOURCE
Fix immigration with enforcement first
Immigration reform is coming. Let's get it right. What counts as getting it wrong? The 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act, signed by President Reagan. It granted amnesty to the then 3 million illegal immigrants and promised border enforcement.
Amnesty came. Enforcement never did. Reagan was swindled.
Americans are a generous people. They don't want 11 million souls living in fear among them. They would willingly, indeed overwhelmingly, support amnesty — as long as it is the last. They don't want another Simpson-Mazzoli, another bait-and-switch that lets in another 11 million illegal immigrants — and brings us back where we began.
There is an obvious solution: enforcement first. Hence the attraction of the bipartisan Senate deal reached by the Gang of Eight, led by Democrat Chuck Schumer and Republicans John McCain and Marco Rubio. It is said to feature border enforcement first, then legalization.
Not quite.
It is true that only after some commission deems the border under control do illegal immigrants become eligible for green cards and, ultimately, citizenship. But this is misleading because on the day the president signs the reform — long before enforcement even begins — the 11 million are immediately subject to instant legalization.
It is cleverly called “probationary” legal status. But the adjective is meaningless. It grants the right to live and work here openly. Once granted, it will never be revoked. Consider:
Imagine that the border-control commission reports at some point that the border is not yet secure. Do you think for a moment that the 11 million will have their “probationary” legalization revoked? These are people who, in good faith, would have come out of the shadows, registered with the feds and disclosed their domicile and place of work. Do you think the authorities will have them fired, arrested and deported?
Inconceivable. “Probationary” in this context means, in reality, “forever.” (Unless, of course, you commit some crime.) It means they can stay and work here freely for the rest of their lives.
True, they must await the “enforcement trigger” before they can apply for green cards. But they already have the functional equivalent of a green card. They got that on Day One. That matters more than anything to those living here illegally: the right to continue living here without fear. Forever. That's the very essence of amnesty.
And all this happens before the first scintilla of extra enforcement takes place. Which brings us to the second problem. What does this extra enforcement consist of?
When I heard McCain talk about (among other measures) new high-tech border control with advanced radar and drones, my heart sank. We've been here. In 2006, Congress threw a ton of money at a high-tech fence. Five years, $1 billion and a pathetic 53 (out of 2,000) miles later, Janet Napolitano canceled the program as a complete failure.
That was predictable. And some of us predicting it were pleading for something infinitely cheaper and simpler: a prosaic, low-tech fence. Of the kind built near San Diego (triple-layered) that resulted in an astounding 92 percent drop in apprehensions. Like the Israeli fence built along the West Bank that has reduced terrorist infiltration to practically zero.
There's a reason people have been building fences for, oh, 5,000 years. They work.
The current Senate proposal must be improved, either in the Senate or by the House. It's not complicated. Build the damn fence. And give “probationary legal status” to the 11 million -- not on the day the bill is signed but on the day the fence is completed. Have the president drive in the golden fence post at Promontory Point II and sign the amnesty right there. Great photo op.
With the sequencing — and thus the incentives — so properly aligned, I assure you the fence will go up with amazing alacrity. As it should. The point is not to punish anyone or to make things harder, but to ensure we don't have to do this again — agonizing over the next 11 million cruelly living here in the shadows.
I know many Republicans are coming over to immigration reform because of the 2012 election results. Fine. I've been advocating this for seven years (“First a wall -- then amnesty,” April 7, 2006). Welcome aboard.
But remember: Enforcement followed by legalization is not just the political thing to do. It is the right thing to do — an act both of national generosity and national interest. It has long been the best answer to the immigration conundrum. It remains so.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Video: Steven Camarota explains the cost of amnesty on FOX News
2. Radio: Mark Krikorian discusses amnesty on the Diane Rehm Show
3. Op-ed: Mark Krikorian corrects a flawed report in the Washington Post
4. Video: Steven Camarota discusses Senate amnesty proposal on ABC News
5. Video: CIS Panel Discussion on Amnesties: Past, Present, Future
6. Radio: Steven Camarota discusses amnesty on public radio
Publication
7. Upholding the Value of Our Citizenship: National Security Threats Should Be Denaturalized
Blogs
8. Really Getting Immigration Right
9. Schumer: Border Security Not a Prerequisite for Amnesty
10. ICE Agents Have Standing to Sue DHS Over DACA
11. 40 Million Illegal Aliens in 2038?
12. Will Rubio Pull Out of the Gang of Eight Now?
13. Can Amnesty Push Survive an Increase in Illegal Entries?
14. The Fine Print: The "Must Pay Their Taxes" Provision in the Obama Amnesty
15. As Mexico Improves, Central America Struggles
16. Another Look at the Forces Behind Birth Tourism
17. When Trespassing Apparently Isn't, and When "Sovereign Citizens" Apparently Aren't
18. Awards for Commentary on Reform Proposal
19. Does McCain Really Mean that 75 Percent of Illegal Aliens Will Be Denied Legal Status?
20. What Was the Point of Obama’s Immigration Speech?
21. Aliens Who Thumb Their Noses at the United States Get Green Cards Anyway
22. Lies, Damn Lies, and Enforcement Promises
23. We've Seen This Senate Amnesty Movie Before
24. Won’t Get Fooled Again
25. Dreamy Enforcement Provisions vs. Genuine Steps Forward: A Checklist
26. Jeb's Tyranny of Immigration Cliches
27. Rubio Refining Immigration Message
28. Irish Overstayer Accused of Murdering Child
29. Categories of Misconduct at CBP
30. Establishment Republicans Support Amnesty - Is Gun Control Next?
31. Harper's Magazine Gives the Free Market a Pass on Immigration
32. Enroll'em First, Verify'em Later
33. The Multiple Negatives in Immigration Speak
Australia knows how to stop the refugee boats
Amanda Vanstone
As the September 14 election approaches, we will no doubt hear more from both major parties on the issue of border control. At least we have agreement on some aspects of this policy area. Both parties understand that there are many, many more refugees in the world than we can afford to accept. They agree that the government decides how many we can afford to take and they agree that those who come by boat, because they can afford to pay a people smuggler, should not have an advantage over poor refugees waiting in camps. Offshore processing is an essential and agreed part of achieving that aim.
If Labor really wants to stop the boats, it should toughen up and agree to reinstate temporary protection visas (by any new-fangled name they may choose to make it look a bit different) and to cut off family reunions. We will have to wait and see if that reality dawns. Labor has come kicking and screaming to adopt so much of the Howard policy agenda. This extra little bit shouldn't be too hard. It would certainly blunt the Coalition attack on the ALP in coming months.
As immigration minister in the Howard government, I am pleased that Labor has at least accepted some of our border protection policies. But I am also irritated. Why? Because Labor constantly sought to portray my party as a bunch of old racists.
The coward's way, which was frequently chosen, was to call John Howard a dog whistler. This sort of rubbish can easily be peddled through interest groups and those commentators keen to use the opportunity to define themselves as being opposed to racism. Now that Labor has similar policies to Howard's, I do not hear them whistling any dog tunes. Funny about that. Perhaps Labor sought to portray the Liberals as racists to assuage some guilt about the ALP's past, or at the very least to divert voters' attention from Labor's record.
If you know any servicemen who served in Timor during World War II, you might ask them about the extraordinary role played by the Timorese criados in helping our troops. While you're there, ask them about the anguish of knowing that we refused to open our hearts and evacuate these people who risked their lives to save Australian lives. We left them behind to face an unsafe and unhappy future.
Then there's former Labor leader Arthur Calwell. He should rightly be acknowledged as the father of our modern immigration system - although you will not hear a Labor person admitting that Robert Menzies, as the then opposition leader, played a critical role in getting it accepted and laid the first brick in Australia's bipartisan approach to immigration by urging the government to be adventurous rather than cautious.
But there was a darker side to the policy; there was a rule (which proved ineffective but demonstrated intent) that there should be 10 Britons for every non-white alien. And returned servicemen with Japanese war brides found Calwell not only unmoved by their desire to bring their wives home but bitterly opposed. He said that while "Any relatives remain of Australian soldiers dead in the Pacific battlefields", it would be "the grossest act of indecency to permit any Japanese of either sex to pollute Australian shores".
Calwell fought vigorously after the war to have Chinese, Malay and Indonesian wartime refugees deported. He had a special bill drafted to deal with one, Mrs Annie O'Keefe, an Ambonese woman with eight children who had fled to Australia with them. Her husband had died fighting the Japanese and she had remarried an Australian. Only the good offices of the departmental secretary saved her.
Then there's Calwell's infamous line about two wongs not making a white. Some argue it was taken out of context, but not that it wasn't said. Calwell was a zealous supporter of the White Australia Policy. In contrast, only a few years later, under the Liberals, Paul Hasluck, as administrator of the territories, was able to secure agreement that Chinese and mixed-race people in Papua New Guinea were able to settle in Australia and become Australian citizens.
Getting closer to the issue of border protection, one might find former Singapore leader Lee Kuan Yew's biography illuminating. He was particularly affronted by the Whitlam government's proposal that Singapore should allow some 8000 Vietnamese refugees to disembark there, whereupon Australia would choose less than 200 to accept here. Singapore could worry about the others.
Whitlam was not a racist. As former Labor minister Clyde Cameron tells the story, Whitlam's opposition was more political. Cameron and Whitlam's deputy, Lance Barnard, had organised a flight in April 1975 to bring Vietnamese orphans and babies to Australia. Cameron says Whitlam justified cancelling the flight by saying he wasn't having "Vietnamese Balts coming to Australia".
If you believe Labor, you might believe it was only because of Whitlam that the White Australia policy was undone. You might be surprised to know that the father of Australian multiculturalism, Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, concluded that the policy "had its demise at the hands of mainly Liberal ministers and finally of the Whitlam Labor government".
The Australia prime minister Lee Kuan Yew most admired was Menzies. The postwar Menzies government was a strong supporter of the Colombo Plan, a key element in our early relations with Asia. People with long memories understand the forward and outward-looking policies Menzies implemented. Lee said Menzies understood "that sentiments and ties of kinship could not displace the realities of geopolitics and geoeconomics in the post-imperial world". That understanding from an Australian can be phrased another way: The Asian Century is around the corner. And yet Julia Gillard seems to think she discovered it!
SOURCE
February 4, 2013
Lou Barletta: Immigration Reform Risks Flood Of The Undocumented
Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) said Sunday that he cannot support providing a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants because he doesn't think President Barack Obama has any desire to enforce existing immigration laws. Barletta dismissed the record number of deportations already taking place.
"You wouldn't replace your carpet at home if you still had a hole in the roof," he said on ABC's "This Week." "We're talking about any time you start waving a carrot such as American citizenship without securing the borders, that number [of undocumented immigrants] that we have today I believe will double or triple."
Barletta has been an outspoken opponent of any immigration reform that involves citizenship. Last week, he insisted Republicans will not win over Latino voters by passing immigration reform because undocumented immigrants are, according to him, uneducated and therefore unlikely to support the GOP.
"I hope politics is not at the root of why we're rushing to pass a bill. Anyone who believes that they're going to win over the Latino vote is grossly mistaken," Barletta said, according to Lehigh Valley's Morning Call. "The majority that are here illegally are low-skilled or may not even have a high school diploma. The Republican Party is not going to compete over who can give more social programs out. They will become Democrats because of the social programs they'll depend on."
He did not make the same argument on Sunday, instead focusing on the idea that a pathway to citizenship would swell the undocumented population. "This is 1986 all over again," Barletta said, referring to a law signed by President Ronald Reagan that allowed some undocumented immigrants to become citizens but did not successfully curtail future unauthorized immigration.
Since then, deportations have also increased greatly, including under Obama. His administration deported more than 400,000 people in the 2012 fiscal year and is on track to deport many more in 2013.
However, the Obama administration also sued to block Arizona's controversial SB 1070 immigration law and has put in place policies that allow some undocumented immigrants to stay, which Barletta said Sunday discounts its deportation numbers.
"We can argue about that all day long," he said of Obama's immigration enforcement. "I don't know how anyone can argue that this administration is serious about enforcing our laws when they're suing the state of Arizona -- because the federal government has caused the problem and Arizona wants to defend itself."
A number of other Republicans have likewise accused the president of being weak on immigration enforcement as an argument against comprehensive immigration reform. A reform framework put out last week by a bipartisan "gang of eight" in the Senate attempted to address those concerns by tying green cards to stronger border security, granting undocumented immigrants only provisional status until certain border metrics are met.
But some Republicans were still skeptical. On Wednesday, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) called Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the gang of eight, "amazingly naïve" to support such a framework.
"Look, I love and respect Marco," Vitter said on Laura Ingraham's radio show. "I just think he’s amazingly naïve on this issue. This is the same old formula we've dealt with before, including when it passed in 1986, and that is the promise of enforcement and immediate amnesty. And of course, the promises of enforcement never materialize. The amnesty happens immediately, the millisecond the bill is signed into law. And the same is true here."
Despite GOP opposition, Jorge Ramos, a Univision anchor and supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, said on "This Week" that he is more optimistic than ever before that reform can pass.
"I don't remember ever seeing the president and both parties rushing to beat the other to present an immigration proposal," Ramos said. "I haven't seen that. It's the most important immigration news in the last 30 years."
SOURCE
Fix immigration with enforcement first
Immigration reform is coming. Let's get it right. What counts as getting it wrong? The 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act, signed by President Reagan. It granted amnesty to the then 3 million illegal immigrants and promised border enforcement.
Amnesty came. Enforcement never did. Reagan was swindled.
Americans are a generous people. They don't want 11 million souls living in fear among them. They would willingly, indeed overwhelmingly, support amnesty — as long as it is the last. They don't want another Simpson-Mazzoli, another bait-and-switch that lets in another 11 million illegal immigrants — and brings us back where we began.
There is an obvious solution: enforcement first. Hence the attraction of the bipartisan Senate deal reached by the Gang of Eight, led by Democrat Chuck Schumer and Republicans John McCain and Marco Rubio. It is said to feature border enforcement first, then legalization.
Not quite.
It is true that only after some commission deems the border under control do illegal immigrants become eligible for green cards and, ultimately, citizenship. But this is misleading because on the day the president signs the reform — long before enforcement even begins — the 11 million are immediately subject to instant legalization.
It is cleverly called “probationary” legal status. But the adjective is meaningless. It grants the right to live and work here openly. Once granted, it will never be revoked. Consider:
Imagine that the border-control commission reports at some point that the border is not yet secure. Do you think for a moment that the 11 million will have their “probationary” legalization revoked? These are people who, in good faith, would have come out of the shadows, registered with the feds and disclosed their domicile and place of work. Do you think the authorities will have them fired, arrested and deported?
Inconceivable. “Probationary” in this context means, in reality, “forever.” (Unless, of course, you commit some crime.) It means they can stay and work here freely for the rest of their lives.
True, they must await the “enforcement trigger” before they can apply for green cards. But they already have the functional equivalent of a green card. They got that on Day One. That matters more than anything to those living here illegally: the right to continue living here without fear. Forever. That's the very essence of amnesty.
And all this happens before the first scintilla of extra enforcement takes place. Which brings us to the second problem. What does this extra enforcement consist of?
When I heard McCain talk about (among other measures) new high-tech border control with advanced radar and drones, my heart sank. We've been here. In 2006, Congress threw a ton of money at a high-tech fence. Five years, $1 billion and a pathetic 53 (out of 2,000) miles later, Janet Napolitano canceled the program as a complete failure.
That was predictable. And some of us predicting it were pleading for something infinitely cheaper and simpler: a prosaic, low-tech fence. Of the kind built near San Diego (triple-layered) that resulted in an astounding 92 percent drop in apprehensions. Like the Israeli fence built along the West Bank that has reduced terrorist infiltration to practically zero.
There's a reason people have been building fences for, oh, 5,000 years. They work.
The current Senate proposal must be improved, either in the Senate or by the House. It's not complicated. Build the damn fence. And give “probationary legal status” to the 11 million -- not on the day the bill is signed but on the day the fence is completed. Have the president drive in the golden fence post at Promontory Point II and sign the amnesty right there. Great photo op.
With the sequencing — and thus the incentives — so properly aligned, I assure you the fence will go up with amazing alacrity. As it should. The point is not to punish anyone or to make things harder, but to ensure we don't have to do this again — agonizing over the next 11 million cruelly living here in the shadows.
I know many Republicans are coming over to immigration reform because of the 2012 election results. Fine. I've been advocating this for seven years (“First a wall -- then amnesty,” April 7, 2006). Welcome aboard.
But remember: Enforcement followed by legalization is not just the political thing to do. It is the right thing to do — an act both of national generosity and national interest. It has long been the best answer to the immigration conundrum. It remains so.
SOURCE
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Rubio’s amnesty: A path to oblivion for the GOP
Ann Coulter
Apart from finding out that Barack Obama did far worse in his re-election than nearly any other incumbent who won re-election, the only thing that perked me up after Nov. 6 was coming across a Time magazine published after the 2004 election, when George W. Bush won a second term.
In the mirror image of all the 2012 post-election analyses, the Democrats were said to be finished, out of ideas, hopelessly unpopular. It’s like watching MSNBC, with the word “Democrats” replaced with “Republicans.”
Democrats had thrown everything they had into beating Bush, crushing the Howard Dean wing of their party and running a moderate — a Vietnam veteran, no less! They had George Soros, Michael Moore and Code Pink working like fiends to topple Bush.
Still, they lost to an incumbent. As Time noted, the Democrats had “lost five of the past seven presidential elections.”
But the pendulum swings. The Democrats came roaring back in 2006 and again in 2008. There’s no reason Republicans can’t do the same, unburdened by having to run against an incumbent in 2016.
Unless Marco Rubio has his way.
The Democrats never change their ideas; they change the voters. For decades, Democrats have been working feverishly to create more Democrats by encouraging divorce (another Democratic voter!), illegitimacy (another Democratic voter!) and Third World immigration (another Democratic voter!).
Strangely, some Republicans seem determined to create more Democratic voters, too. That will be the primary result of Sen. Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan.
IT’S NOT AMNESTY! Rubio’s proponents cry. They seem to think they can bully Republicans the way the Democrats do, by controlling the language.
Rubio’s bill is nothing but amnesty. It isn’t even “amnesty thinly disguised as border enforcement.” This is a wolf in wolf’s clothing.
Despite all the blather about how Rubio demands “Enforcement First!” the very first thing his proposal does is make illegal aliens legal. (Don’t call them “illegal aliens”!)
The ability to live and work legally in America is the most valuable commodity in the world; it’s the Hope Diamond of the universe. I know young, well-educated Canadians who waited a decade for that privilege.
Step One of Marco Rubio’s plan is: Grant illegal aliens the right to live and work in America legally. (Rubio’s first move in poker: Fold.)
People who have broken our laws will thus leap ahead of millions of foreigners dying to immigrate here, but — unwilling to enter illegally — waiting patiently in their own countries.
The only thing the newly legalized illegal immigrants won’t get immediately is citizenship. Rubio claims that under his plan, they won’t be able to vote or go on welfare. But in practice, they’ll have to wait only until the ACLU finds a judge to say otherwise.
Even under Rubio’s scheme, all the children born to the 11 million newly legalized illegals will be instant citizens, able to collect welfare for their whole families and vote as soon as they are old enough.
Which won’t be long: The vast majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, and Hispanics have a higher teen birthrate than any other ethnic group. In California, a majority of all Hispanic births are illegitimate. That’s a lot of Democratic voters coming.
And look how great that’s turned out! With Hispanics on track to become the largest ethnic group in California this year, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is incapable of electing any Republican statewide anymore. Taxes keep going up, and there’s no one left to pay the bill.
That will be our entire country if Republicans fall for Rubio’s phony “Enforcement First!” plan. Perplexingly, some Republicans seem determined to turn the whole nation into California, in the foolish hope of winning one last election.
No border can be secure when the pot of gold on the other side is an American green card. (Again playing games with language, Rubio doesn’t call the right to legally live and work here a “green card,” but in practical effect, that’s what it is.)
So when exactly does the enforcement part of Rubio’s “Enforcement First!” plan kick in? Answer: Never.
Or rather, enforcement becomes both impossible — because nothing will stop them if legalization is the lure — and irrelevant — because there’s no penalty for leaving the border wide open.
Even if enforcement “fails,” are the 11 million illegals already legalized by Rubio going to be asked to leave? Of course not.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is a Republican who — as a Princeton and Harvard Law graduate — does not yearn for “strange new respect” from the elites. This week, he said of Rubio’s amnesty plan: “To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally.”
If only other Republicans didn’t ride the tea party to victory before realizing they really just want to be John McCain.
SOURCE
A Pointless Amnesty: Hispanics won't vote GOP anyway
Illegal immigration is a curious subject: It is one of the few domains in which the authorities entrusted with enforcing the law feel obliged to negotiate the most concessionary terms and conditions with those who are breaking it, as though law enforcement were an embarrassing inconvenience. But the rule of law, national security, and economic dynamism are not mere pro forma matters — they are in fact fundamental, a reality lost on our would-be “comprehensive” immigration reformers.
There are several new immigration proposals in the political pipeline: one from President Obama, one from a bipartisan group in the Senate, and one from a bipartisan group in the House. Each of the proposals contains an amnesty for the dozen million or so illegals already in the country, and none of them contains adequate security provisions. Panicked Republicans are looking for a grand bargain, but they are wrong on both the politics and the policy. Piecemeal reform emphasizing empirical security benchmarks is a far better option.
The terms of the amnesty vary in the different proposals, but is far from obvious that there should be a “path to citizenship” on any terms for illegals at this time. Whether it is desirable to regularize the status of those illegals already here, and on what terms such a regularization might be offered, are questions that can be answered only when the immigration system is under control. That is a matter of political prudence — the experience of the 1980s amnesty suggests that it is easier to offer an amnesty than to secure the border — but also of context: Reviewing and processing the millions of illegals already here would be a vast administrative task, and we will not know how to go about managing it intelligently until we see what the environment looks like after illegal immigration is under control.
Why an amnesty now? Maybe it is only the polls. John McCain, a principal instigator of the Senate group, has made his motives clear: “Elections, elections — the Republican party is losing the support of Hispanic citizens.” His plan apparently is to develop a bipartisan approach to helping Republicans win elections; perhaps Chuck Schumer imagines other outcomes. Senator McCain has not said why he believes that the interests of Hispanic citizens are to be identified with those of non-citizens, why those interests should trump the interests of citizens (including Hispanic citizens) harmed by the lawlessness of our borders, or why a senator with an established record for supporting amnesty could not muster one in three votes from those Hispanic citizens.
Republican immigration reformers with an eye to political reality should begin by appreciating that Latinos are a Democratic constituency. They did not vote for Mitt Romney. They did not vote for John McCain. They did not vote for George W. Bush, and in the election before that they did not vote for George W. Bush again. In 1998, George W. Bush was reelected to the governorship of Texas with 27 percent of the African-American vote — an astonishing number for an unabashed conservative. Bush won 68 percent of the overall vote in that election, carrying 240 out of Texas’s 254 counties. Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Gary Mauro.
And, if we are to take Hispanics at their word, conservative attitudes toward illegal immigration are a minor reason for their voting preferences. While many are in business for themselves, they express hostile attitudes toward free enterprise in polls. They are disproportionately low-income and disproportionately likely to receive some form of government support. More than half of Hispanic births are out of wedlock. Take away the Spanish surname and Latino voters look a great deal like many other Democratic constituencies. Low-income households headed by single mothers and dependent upon some form of welfare are not looking for an excuse to join forces with Paul Ryan and Pat Toomey. Given the growing size of the Hispanic vote, it would help Republicans significantly to lose it by smaller margins than they have recently. But the idea that an amnesty is going to put Latinos squarely in the GOP tent is a fantasy.
More HERE
Rubio’s amnesty: A path to oblivion for the GOP
Ann Coulter
Apart from finding out that Barack Obama did far worse in his re-election than nearly any other incumbent who won re-election, the only thing that perked me up after Nov. 6 was coming across a Time magazine published after the 2004 election, when George W. Bush won a second term.
In the mirror image of all the 2012 post-election analyses, the Democrats were said to be finished, out of ideas, hopelessly unpopular. It’s like watching MSNBC, with the word “Democrats” replaced with “Republicans.”
Democrats had thrown everything they had into beating Bush, crushing the Howard Dean wing of their party and running a moderate — a Vietnam veteran, no less! They had George Soros, Michael Moore and Code Pink working like fiends to topple Bush.
Still, they lost to an incumbent. As Time noted, the Democrats had “lost five of the past seven presidential elections.”
But the pendulum swings. The Democrats came roaring back in 2006 and again in 2008. There’s no reason Republicans can’t do the same, unburdened by having to run against an incumbent in 2016.
Unless Marco Rubio has his way.
The Democrats never change their ideas; they change the voters. For decades, Democrats have been working feverishly to create more Democrats by encouraging divorce (another Democratic voter!), illegitimacy (another Democratic voter!) and Third World immigration (another Democratic voter!).
Strangely, some Republicans seem determined to create more Democratic voters, too. That will be the primary result of Sen. Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan.
IT’S NOT AMNESTY! Rubio’s proponents cry. They seem to think they can bully Republicans the way the Democrats do, by controlling the language.
Rubio’s bill is nothing but amnesty. It isn’t even “amnesty thinly disguised as border enforcement.” This is a wolf in wolf’s clothing.
Despite all the blather about how Rubio demands “Enforcement First!” the very first thing his proposal does is make illegal aliens legal. (Don’t call them “illegal aliens”!)
The ability to live and work legally in America is the most valuable commodity in the world; it’s the Hope Diamond of the universe. I know young, well-educated Canadians who waited a decade for that privilege.
Step One of Marco Rubio’s plan is: Grant illegal aliens the right to live and work in America legally. (Rubio’s first move in poker: Fold.)
People who have broken our laws will thus leap ahead of millions of foreigners dying to immigrate here, but — unwilling to enter illegally — waiting patiently in their own countries.
The only thing the newly legalized illegal immigrants won’t get immediately is citizenship. Rubio claims that under his plan, they won’t be able to vote or go on welfare. But in practice, they’ll have to wait only until the ACLU finds a judge to say otherwise.
Even under Rubio’s scheme, all the children born to the 11 million newly legalized illegals will be instant citizens, able to collect welfare for their whole families and vote as soon as they are old enough.
Which won’t be long: The vast majority of illegal aliens are Hispanic, and Hispanics have a higher teen birthrate than any other ethnic group. In California, a majority of all Hispanic births are illegitimate. That’s a lot of Democratic voters coming.
And look how great that’s turned out! With Hispanics on track to become the largest ethnic group in California this year, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is incapable of electing any Republican statewide anymore. Taxes keep going up, and there’s no one left to pay the bill.
That will be our entire country if Republicans fall for Rubio’s phony “Enforcement First!” plan. Perplexingly, some Republicans seem determined to turn the whole nation into California, in the foolish hope of winning one last election.
No border can be secure when the pot of gold on the other side is an American green card. (Again playing games with language, Rubio doesn’t call the right to legally live and work here a “green card,” but in practical effect, that’s what it is.)
So when exactly does the enforcement part of Rubio’s “Enforcement First!” plan kick in? Answer: Never.
Or rather, enforcement becomes both impossible — because nothing will stop them if legalization is the lure — and irrelevant — because there’s no penalty for leaving the border wide open.
Even if enforcement “fails,” are the 11 million illegals already legalized by Rubio going to be asked to leave? Of course not.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is a Republican who — as a Princeton and Harvard Law graduate — does not yearn for “strange new respect” from the elites. This week, he said of Rubio’s amnesty plan: “To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with rule of law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally.”
If only other Republicans didn’t ride the tea party to victory before realizing they really just want to be John McCain.
SOURCE
A Pointless Amnesty: Hispanics won't vote GOP anyway
Illegal immigration is a curious subject: It is one of the few domains in which the authorities entrusted with enforcing the law feel obliged to negotiate the most concessionary terms and conditions with those who are breaking it, as though law enforcement were an embarrassing inconvenience. But the rule of law, national security, and economic dynamism are not mere pro forma matters — they are in fact fundamental, a reality lost on our would-be “comprehensive” immigration reformers.
There are several new immigration proposals in the political pipeline: one from President Obama, one from a bipartisan group in the Senate, and one from a bipartisan group in the House. Each of the proposals contains an amnesty for the dozen million or so illegals already in the country, and none of them contains adequate security provisions. Panicked Republicans are looking for a grand bargain, but they are wrong on both the politics and the policy. Piecemeal reform emphasizing empirical security benchmarks is a far better option.
The terms of the amnesty vary in the different proposals, but is far from obvious that there should be a “path to citizenship” on any terms for illegals at this time. Whether it is desirable to regularize the status of those illegals already here, and on what terms such a regularization might be offered, are questions that can be answered only when the immigration system is under control. That is a matter of political prudence — the experience of the 1980s amnesty suggests that it is easier to offer an amnesty than to secure the border — but also of context: Reviewing and processing the millions of illegals already here would be a vast administrative task, and we will not know how to go about managing it intelligently until we see what the environment looks like after illegal immigration is under control.
Why an amnesty now? Maybe it is only the polls. John McCain, a principal instigator of the Senate group, has made his motives clear: “Elections, elections — the Republican party is losing the support of Hispanic citizens.” His plan apparently is to develop a bipartisan approach to helping Republicans win elections; perhaps Chuck Schumer imagines other outcomes. Senator McCain has not said why he believes that the interests of Hispanic citizens are to be identified with those of non-citizens, why those interests should trump the interests of citizens (including Hispanic citizens) harmed by the lawlessness of our borders, or why a senator with an established record for supporting amnesty could not muster one in three votes from those Hispanic citizens.
Republican immigration reformers with an eye to political reality should begin by appreciating that Latinos are a Democratic constituency. They did not vote for Mitt Romney. They did not vote for John McCain. They did not vote for George W. Bush, and in the election before that they did not vote for George W. Bush again. In 1998, George W. Bush was reelected to the governorship of Texas with 27 percent of the African-American vote — an astonishing number for an unabashed conservative. Bush won 68 percent of the overall vote in that election, carrying 240 out of Texas’s 254 counties. Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Gary Mauro.
And, if we are to take Hispanics at their word, conservative attitudes toward illegal immigration are a minor reason for their voting preferences. While many are in business for themselves, they express hostile attitudes toward free enterprise in polls. They are disproportionately low-income and disproportionately likely to receive some form of government support. More than half of Hispanic births are out of wedlock. Take away the Spanish surname and Latino voters look a great deal like many other Democratic constituencies. Low-income households headed by single mothers and dependent upon some form of welfare are not looking for an excuse to join forces with Paul Ryan and Pat Toomey. Given the growing size of the Hispanic vote, it would help Republicans significantly to lose it by smaller margins than they have recently. But the idea that an amnesty is going to put Latinos squarely in the GOP tent is a fantasy.
More HERE
Friday, February 1, 2013
Why Immigration Reform Won't Help the GOP Win Over Hispanic Voters
Republican skepticism of government overall, not the party's stance on borders, alienates the growing demographic.
Leading Republicans are jumping on the immigration reform bandwagon, hoping that taking the issue off the table will give them a second chance to make inroads with Hispanic voters. But even with a bipartisan deal looking within reach, the Republican party may not benefit as much as strategists expect.
Indeed, there's evidence that Hispanic resistance to the Republican Party is as rooted in the GOP's skeptical view of government, as it is their disagreement with GOP hardliners on immigration. The Republican Party calls for smaller government, but many Latinos look to government assistance as a necessity. Forty-two percent of Hispanic voters say that a government job offers the best chance of gaining career success, compared to only one-third of white voters, according to a June Allstate/National Journal/Heartland Monitor poll.
"Our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program," Florida Senator Marco Rubio told Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday. "It always has been. It's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to someone, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government."
That's the argument Republicans are banking on. Texas Senator Ted Cruz made a similar pitch this weekend, saying that Hispanic voters should be a natural constituency for Republicans because 2.3 million of them own small businesses, and polls show that the economy, not immigration, is their top concern.
But attitudes about the government are not the only area where the GOP and Hispanics diverge. Asked whether they trusted President Obama and Democrats or Mitt Romney and Republicans on the economy, 71 percent of Latino voters preferred the president, according to a November Latino Decisions poll. The president polled similarly well on a host of questions, including women's issues and foreign policy.
Even on social issues where there is perceived to be a natural fit among religious Hispanic voters and the GOP, a divide exists. A majority of Hispanic voters now back gay marriage, according to a Pew Research Center Poll, for instance.
"I think Republicans are going to have to come up with a comprehensive plan for appealing to Hispanic voters," said one former GOP leadership aide. "Immigration is not going to solve the issue for them, but it will help."
So far that plan consists of talking about messaging. While Republicans acknowledge there's a communications gap with Hispanic voters, the strategy for repairing it remains murky. Many conservatives say it's time to retire language that could be viewed as nativist or racially insensitive. A document released Tuesday by the Hispanic Leadership Network, a Republican outreach group, offers advice to conservatives in how to talk about immigration without using language that may inadvertently offend Hispanics.
"I think there are some in the movement who portray immigration as a potential threat to the fabric of the culture," said former Democratic representative-turned-Republican Artur Davis in an interview. "A Latino hears that. That doesn't sound the way you want it to sound and it raises all kinds of red flags."
Given the longstanding divide between Hispanics and the GOP on immigration, it's hard to imagine all the damage will be resolved with one bipartisan reform bill. In California, Republicans did irreparable damage to their relationship with the state's sizable Hispanic population after former GOP Gov. Pete Wilson backed Proposition 187 in 1994 that prohibited illegal immigrants from using government services.
"If the only time you talked to your wife was on an issue you disagreed about how good would your relationship be?" asked California Republican party chairman Tom Del Beccaro said. "Republicans need to talk to them about all the issues they care about."
SOURCE
Polish is Britain's second language and nearly one in five people in London only speak English as a second tongue
The second most commonly spoken language in the country is now Polish, according to official figures yesterday.
A breakdown from the 2011 national census showed that there are 546,174 people in England and Wales who say Polish is their main language and that Welsh – long the second language in the UK – is spoken by 562,000 people.
When Scotland and Northern Ireland publish their census findings, their newcomers from Poland are bound to push the total for the whole of the UK above the number of Welsh speakers.
Polish was virtually unheard on the streets of Britain a decade ago but its use has soared since the country joined the EU in May 2004.
The Labour government of that period estimated that only 13,000 Poles a year would come to the UK, but between December 2003 and December 2010 the number living in the UK increased from 75,000 to 532,000.
Immigration from Poland was at its highest in 2007 when 96,000 entered the UK. Nearly a quarter of all Polish citizens in Britain live in London. Some 148,000 now live in the capital, two per cent of its population.
There are also high concentrations of Polish speakers in small towns across Britain, particularly those in Eastern England with agricultural industries.
Boston, the Lincolnshire town at the heart of a row over immigration on BBC1’s Question Time last week, had 3,006 people who speak Polish as a main language out of 62,243 residents, roughly one person in 20.
The census figures show that other Eastern European languages are now in the list of the most popular, including Lithuanian, spoken by 85,000 people, and Latvian, first language of 32,000.
The greatest number of languages is spoken in London, where more than 100 different ones are used in every borough but three.
The census also found that claims made of languages sometimes said to be widely spoken and culturally important were overblown.
Just 557 people said they spoke Cornish as a first language last year. Even more rare were Gaelic Scottish, which had 58 speakers, and Manx Gaelic, 33.
Last year a report by the Welsh Language Board said the number of fluent Welsh speakers is falling by around 3,000 people a year.
In all, four million people in England and Wales have a main language that is not English.
Among these, 726,000 said they do not speak English well and 138,000 speak no English at all. [Mostly Pakis?]
SOURCE
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
Why Immigration Reform Won't Help the GOP Win Over Hispanic Voters
Republican skepticism of government overall, not the party's stance on borders, alienates the growing demographic.
Leading Republicans are jumping on the immigration reform bandwagon, hoping that taking the issue off the table will give them a second chance to make inroads with Hispanic voters. But even with a bipartisan deal looking within reach, the Republican party may not benefit as much as strategists expect.
Indeed, there's evidence that Hispanic resistance to the Republican Party is as rooted in the GOP's skeptical view of government, as it is their disagreement with GOP hardliners on immigration. The Republican Party calls for smaller government, but many Latinos look to government assistance as a necessity. Forty-two percent of Hispanic voters say that a government job offers the best chance of gaining career success, compared to only one-third of white voters, according to a June Allstate/National Journal/Heartland Monitor poll.
"Our argument about limited government is always harder to sell than a government program," Florida Senator Marco Rubio told Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday. "It always has been. It's easier to sell cotton candy than it is to sell broccoli to someone, but the broccoli is better for you, and the same thing with a limited government."
That's the argument Republicans are banking on. Texas Senator Ted Cruz made a similar pitch this weekend, saying that Hispanic voters should be a natural constituency for Republicans because 2.3 million of them own small businesses, and polls show that the economy, not immigration, is their top concern.
But attitudes about the government are not the only area where the GOP and Hispanics diverge. Asked whether they trusted President Obama and Democrats or Mitt Romney and Republicans on the economy, 71 percent of Latino voters preferred the president, according to a November Latino Decisions poll. The president polled similarly well on a host of questions, including women's issues and foreign policy.
Even on social issues where there is perceived to be a natural fit among religious Hispanic voters and the GOP, a divide exists. A majority of Hispanic voters now back gay marriage, according to a Pew Research Center Poll, for instance.
"I think Republicans are going to have to come up with a comprehensive plan for appealing to Hispanic voters," said one former GOP leadership aide. "Immigration is not going to solve the issue for them, but it will help."
So far that plan consists of talking about messaging. While Republicans acknowledge there's a communications gap with Hispanic voters, the strategy for repairing it remains murky. Many conservatives say it's time to retire language that could be viewed as nativist or racially insensitive. A document released Tuesday by the Hispanic Leadership Network, a Republican outreach group, offers advice to conservatives in how to talk about immigration without using language that may inadvertently offend Hispanics.
"I think there are some in the movement who portray immigration as a potential threat to the fabric of the culture," said former Democratic representative-turned-Republican Artur Davis in an interview. "A Latino hears that. That doesn't sound the way you want it to sound and it raises all kinds of red flags."
Given the longstanding divide between Hispanics and the GOP on immigration, it's hard to imagine all the damage will be resolved with one bipartisan reform bill. In California, Republicans did irreparable damage to their relationship with the state's sizable Hispanic population after former GOP Gov. Pete Wilson backed Proposition 187 in 1994 that prohibited illegal immigrants from using government services.
"If the only time you talked to your wife was on an issue you disagreed about how good would your relationship be?" asked California Republican party chairman Tom Del Beccaro said. "Republicans need to talk to them about all the issues they care about."
SOURCE
Polish is Britain's second language and nearly one in five people in London only speak English as a second tongue
The second most commonly spoken language in the country is now Polish, according to official figures yesterday.
A breakdown from the 2011 national census showed that there are 546,174 people in England and Wales who say Polish is their main language and that Welsh – long the second language in the UK – is spoken by 562,000 people.
When Scotland and Northern Ireland publish their census findings, their newcomers from Poland are bound to push the total for the whole of the UK above the number of Welsh speakers.
Polish was virtually unheard on the streets of Britain a decade ago but its use has soared since the country joined the EU in May 2004.
The Labour government of that period estimated that only 13,000 Poles a year would come to the UK, but between December 2003 and December 2010 the number living in the UK increased from 75,000 to 532,000.
Immigration from Poland was at its highest in 2007 when 96,000 entered the UK. Nearly a quarter of all Polish citizens in Britain live in London. Some 148,000 now live in the capital, two per cent of its population.
There are also high concentrations of Polish speakers in small towns across Britain, particularly those in Eastern England with agricultural industries.
Boston, the Lincolnshire town at the heart of a row over immigration on BBC1’s Question Time last week, had 3,006 people who speak Polish as a main language out of 62,243 residents, roughly one person in 20.
The census figures show that other Eastern European languages are now in the list of the most popular, including Lithuanian, spoken by 85,000 people, and Latvian, first language of 32,000.
The greatest number of languages is spoken in London, where more than 100 different ones are used in every borough but three.
The census also found that claims made of languages sometimes said to be widely spoken and culturally important were overblown.
Just 557 people said they spoke Cornish as a first language last year. Even more rare were Gaelic Scottish, which had 58 speakers, and Manx Gaelic, 33.
Last year a report by the Welsh Language Board said the number of fluent Welsh speakers is falling by around 3,000 people a year.
In all, four million people in England and Wales have a main language that is not English.
Among these, 726,000 said they do not speak English well and 138,000 speak no English at all. [Mostly Pakis?]
SOURCE
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.