The primary version of this blog is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Political Correctness Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Greenie Watch, Australian Politics, Socialized Medicine, Tongue Tied, Food & Health Skeptic, Education Watch and Gun Watch. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). The archive for this mirror site is here or here.
****************************************************************************************
30 June, 2009
Feds squabble over who directs military’s border role
A proposal to send National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to counter drug trafficking has triggered a bureaucratic standoff between the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security over the military's role in domestic affairs, according to officials in both departments.
The debate has engaged a pair of powerful personalities, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in what their subordinates describe as a turf fight over who should direct the use of troops to assist in the fight against Mexican cartels and who should pay for them.
At issue is a proposal to send 1,500 additional troops to the border to analyze intelligence and to provide air support and technical assistance to border agencies. The governors of Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico made the request in January, drawing support from Napolitano but prompting objections from the Pentagon, where officials argue that it could lead to a permanent, expanded mission for the military.
President Barack Obama has signaled that he is open to the idea, asking Congress for $250 million to deploy the National Guard while also saying he was "not interested in militarizing the border." The issue, which has been stalled before a National Security Council policy committee, will be decided by the president.
Neither Napolitano nor Gates has made the disagreement personal, although some of their aides have privately expressed exasperation at what one called an interagency "food fight."
"It should not be that we always rely on the Department of Defense to fulfill some need," said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., head of the U.S. Northern Command, which is responsible for defending the continental United States. Border law enforcement agencies should have adequate funds to do their job, he said. If the Guard is tapped, it should be for capabilities "that do not exist elsewhere in government," Renuart said. "When we send the National Guard, they go with specific missions, with specific purposes. And we put some duration on that so there is an end state."
Homeland security officials and governors counter that there is a legitimate need for troops to back up border agencies against the most serious threat to the Southwest and that a deployment would not represent a new military mission. Under a 1989 law, the National Guard already assigns 577 troops to help states with anti-drug programs that "can easily expand," the four governors wrote Congress in April.
Napolitano, who as governor of Arizona prompted President George W. Bush to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in 2006, has supported the governors.
Brian de Vallance, senior counselor to Napolitano, said she "feels we have an obligation to do whatever we can do to disrupt those forces that are destroying lives in over 200 American cities. ... It comes down to whether folks want to be as aggressive as we can be against the cartels and take every advantage of this historic opportunity" of cooperation between Mexico and the United States.
The debate goes to the heart of the military's role, which has expanded since the 2001 terrorist attacks, with an increasing commitment of troops and resources to homeland defense, particularly to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear attack or other domestic catastrophe. The deployment of new troops to the border would represent a mission the military has not traditionally embraced.
"What we're seeing is here is a move toward reframing where defense begins and ends," said Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership. "Traditionally the military looks outward, but looking outward has begun a lot closer to home, and it may involve looking just across the border."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) requested 1,000 Guard troops in January that he later said could form 24 border reconnaissance platoons, support Texas Ranger and parks and wildlife tracking teams, and back up air and marine operations. Perry, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) subsequently asked Congress to add personnel to the National Guard's Counter-Drug Program in their states. Currently, troops provide translators, reconnaissance and administrative support, relaying aircraft surveillance images, for example.
Border states bear "unique and/or disproportionate" costs of dealing with illegal immigration, drugs and violence, Brewer wrote. "It is abundantly clear that additional resources are needed — and needed now," the governors wrote in a separate letter.
The fight is largely over money. For the past two years, Pentagon budget officials have tried to slash funding for state drug-fighting operations, citing the financial strain of waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And military officials say governors could pay for their own guard units.
But governors contend that securing the border is a federal responsibility and that Washington should cover the cost.
Paul McHale, Gates's assistant secretary for homeland defense until early this year, said the broader worry is strategic. "The real concern is, if it works once, and it works a second time ... at some point a temporary mission becomes permanent," he said. "Do it four or five times over a decade, and the political and military repercussions are likely negative."
A senior White House national security official said the president is comfortable with the disagreement and "wants to see the kind of creative tension and full-out debate that major policy decisions engender."
The official added, "It's the president's view that ... frankly, that kind of debate among two Cabinet officers like Secretary Gates and Secretary Napolitano, both of whom he holds in high regard, will inevitably lead to a better policy."
The official noted that the administration has already taken some steps, sending 450 DHS and Justice Department agents to the border in March to fight cash and weapons smuggling. And, he pointed out, crime in U.S. border communities and border arrests have fallen.
For now, administration officials are working through differences. In response to the Pentagon concerns that the troops could become permanent, DHS officials are searching for benchmarks that would end a deployment, such as a drop in cartel violence or improved Mexican enforcement.
When the Bush administration sent Guard units to the border, they went as a stopgap measure, backing up the U.S. Border Patrol for two years while it added 6,000 agents. The troops rotated through non-law enforcement duties.
SOURCE
Up to 10,000 Asian refugees expected to head to Australia
"Asia" apparently includes the Middle East these days
A MASSIVE influx of up to 10,000 asylum seekers is expected to head to Australia, Indonesian authorities have warned.
About 1500 asylum seekers have already arrived in Indonesia from Malaysia by boat this year and registered for refugee status, while the same number again are believed to have arrived and not registered, Fairfax newspapers report.
Malaysia is used as a staging point to obtain tourist visas before refugees seek passage to Australia via Indonesia. The refugees are believed to include people from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Burma and Iraq.
An Australian immigration enforcement official says the high volumes of people present a similar situation to the thousands who began arriving in the late 1990s.
With Australian financial and technical support, the Indonesian government will announce on Wednesday a strike team of 12 dedicated police to combat human trafficking. But the sheer number of asylum seekers from Malaysia will put pressure on the new security measures.
Coordinator of the Malaysian immigration support group Tenaganita, Aegile Fernandez agreed that up to 10,000 asylum seekers in Malaysia were planning to come to Australia. "I would put the blame on these agencies that have been promising Australia as the destination,'' she said.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has 49,000 registered refugees and asylum seekers in its records in Malaysia and estimates there are 45,000 unregistered illegal immigrants.
SOURCE
29 June, 2009
Foreign Police in the U.S.
A report from the AP discloses that foreign police officers are now performing law enforcement functions in the United States under a scheme supported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials. Reportedly, foreign police officers from Mexico, Argentina, Colombia and Canada are participating.
Although it's generally indicated that the foreign police are engaged in anti-smuggling operations, it's unclear what specific law enforcement functions they are permitted to perform. For example, it's mentioned that Canadian law enforcement officers have been given arrest authority in New York whereas Mexican officers do not have the same authority in Texas. However, Mexican officers are given the authority to investigate in Texas which logically means they can interview and interrogate suspects.
Consequently, one must ask which nation's laws and procedures are employed when foreign officers perform these functions. Interrogation of suspects under Mexican law is quite different from interrogations conducted under U.S. law.
Also, arrests of suspects in the U.S. by Canadian officers appear to be completely outside the law. And it seems to set a dangerous precedent where any nation could send policemen to the U.S. to arrest somebody to be tried in a court in -- pick a place -- Beijing or Islamabad or Pyongyang.
According to Tim Durst, ICE chief of contraband smuggling, the focus of the effort is information: "We look at it as real-time, firsthand information sharing. It is one of the few ways to go back to the source of smuggling activity."
So, according to Durst, the whole scheme is designed for information-sharing but, as described, it appears to go way beyond simple communications. To my knowledge, putting someone in handcuffs has never been considered "information-sharing."
Nonetheless, the way the scheme supposedly works is that U.S. immigration and border patrol officers tell the Mexican, Colombian, Argentine and Canadian officers the plans for disrupting smuggling operations and the foreign officers tell their colleagues back in Mexico, Colombia, Argentina and Canada what is going down. The intended result is cross-border cooperation in stopping the flow of contraband.
Of course, the whole plan is predicated on a belief that most law enforcers in the foreign countries are not corrupt. I suggest that the belief is flawed with regard to Mexico, Colombia and Argentina where police allegedly often work in unison with smugglers.
In conclusion, I contend that foreign police performing law enforcement functions in the U.S. is not a good idea and it probably violates wheelbarrows-full of existing American laws. And most troubling of all is a statement by Tim Durst, the head anti-smuggling man with ICE: "By working with our foreign partners, we can basically remove the border as a barrier," Durst said.
Frankly, I don't know how anyone in a position of authority could suggest removing the border.
SOURCE
The "don't ask, don't tell" approach to immigration is what has given Britain's despised anti-immigration party an opportunity
By FRASER NELSON
Does it matter if immigrants have taken (or created) all the new jobs in the British private sector? I reveal this in my News of the World column today, as the key fact from a data request I made from the ONS. It’s a divisive topic, and even exploring it make ministers feel uncomfortable. But this ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach to immigration has not just given the BNP the political space needed for its electoral breakthrough three weeks ago, but left ministers ignorant about what’s going on in our labour market. Between Q1 of 1997 and Q1 of 2009, immigrants account for 106% of new jobs in the private sector – ie, there are more new workers (1.55m) than new jobs (1.47m).
I’ll update this post later with key graphs and put online the full response to my data request - this all deserves to be in the public domain. But it does strike me that the best way to fight the BNP is not to ban its MEPs from the House of Commons (as our MPs are now trying to do) but actually start learning about, and dealing with, the dynamics of migration. BNP support is the scream of the forgotten voter – and unless Westminster collectively starts to reach out to these people then the BNP’s success story may well have a good bit left to run.
SOURCE
28 June, 2009
Scandal of the migrant criminals in Britain: How legal lunancy left serial sex offender free to kill girl, 12
In the year to April, Britain received more than 3,500 requests from foreign countries for the return of their criminals. More than 150 were suspected or convicted murderers. The astonishing total was up by a quarter on the previous 12 months.
The vast majority of the 'wanted' suspects hailed from European Union countries. As Detective Chief Inspector Murray Duffin, of the Scotland Yard Extradition and Intelligence Unit, has warned: 'Britain is becoming a magnet for increasing numbers of criminals from the former Eastern bloc countries which are now members of the EU.'
Notably, the number of fugitives being sought by Poland has soared 14-fold since 2004, when the country joined the EU and its citizens were allowed to live in Britain. The Warsaw police now send a charter plane to Britain every month to pick up their countrymen wanted for killings, rape, robbery, burglary, drugs and theft. Last year, officers from the extradition unit returned 275 Poles accused of crimes back home.
Even the police chief of Albania - which is not an EU member - has warned that Britain has become the favourite sanctuary for fugitives. He recently claimed that the UK is harbouring 80 Albanian killers and 20 other serious offenders. Many have got British citizenship after deceiving our authorities and claiming asylum by pretending to be from war-torn Kosovo.
So why does our extradition system take so long to send back the suspected foreign criminals found here? And what are the implications for our own safety as rapists and murderers freely walk our streets?
In London, a fifth of all offences, a third of all sex attacks and half of all frauds are committed by those born overseas. In the West Midlands, the number of foreigners accused of crimes doubled to 3,700 in the five years up to 2008. In the country as a whole, drink-driving convictions of foreigners have shot up 17 times. And it is hard not to suspect that many of them will have had criminal records before they came to Britain. For as one London senior police officer told me: 'A criminal doesn't stop being a criminal just because he moves country - and that is the real problem. Our first call when we get an extradition request from a foreign country is to the British prison authorities, because that is where they are often to be found.' Indeed, about 5 per cent of all extradition requests concern suspects who have already been jailed for offences committed in the UK.
Many have arrived here illicitly, smuggling themselves into Britain hidden in lorries [trucks] arriving from Calais, Dunkirk and Boulogne, or on trains through the Channel tunnel. This week the Home Office said that last year 28,000 foreigners clandestinely tried to enter the country by these routes. 'Inevitably, some are running away from their own justice system,' explained the police officer.
The trouble is, by the time foreign criminals are successfully tracked down it's often too late. In one horrific case, schoolgirl Katerina Koneva, 12, was strangled at her home in Hammersmith, West London, by Andrezej Kunowski, who had spent 15 years in jail in his native Poland for serial sex offences. The 51-year-old was awaiting trial in his home country for further sex attacks when, in June 1996, he was freed on bail for urgent medical treatment and absconded, travelling to Britain under a tourist visa. (Poland was not yet a member of the EU.)
He murdered Katerina a year later, and although the Polish authorities continued to seek his extradition, Kunowski remained at large in the UK for six years after her death. It was only when he was arrested for the rape of a 22-year-old student from London that police were able to use the DNA samples they had taken to link him to Katerina's killing. He is serving life in prison in Britain and is unlikely ever to be released - which means that he will never face justice in his own country.
Yet shocking though his case is, there are many more like him still at large in Britain. In fact, only a fraction of those suspected of crimes in their home country and traced to Britain are ever successfully extradited. Of the 3,526 foreigners for whom extradition requests were made by European Union countries in the past year, 683 were arrested and only one in seven - 516 - returned, according to the latest figures released to the Mail by the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
As for those from outside the EU, the Home Office says that of the 300 'wanted' by the rest of the world since 2003, a third escaped extradition and remain here. There are a myriad legal loopholes to sidestep removal. The suspects' lawyers often claim - successfully - that their clients will suffer human rights abuse or will not face a fair trial back home. The extradition process can be dragged out for years if suspects appeal to the High Court and then up again to the Home Secretary. If they come from outside the EU, many instantly claim asylum. This request has then to be considered by the courts before the extradition process can even begin. In a further twist, those accused of offences carrying the death penalty in their home country cannot - by our law - be returned because Britain has abolished capital punishment.
This begs the question of whether the most dangerous foreign criminals are deliberately settling here because they are safe from extradition. The situation is even more complicated if the suspected foreign criminal has a wife and children in this country. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, they can fight removal, claiming their family life would be disrupted.
The crisis was highlighted earlier this month with the Crimestoppers' campaign to track down foreign criminals here. The 16 named suspects were mainly from Eastern Europe (eight from Albania alone) and included six rapists and six murderers. Lord Ashcroft, who founded Crimestoppers, said: 'Fugitives hide across the globe in all communities. When you look at the criminals that are on the most wanted list, they can be truly horrible people and need to be caught.'
To speed the extradition process, new laws on sending criminals back to Europe were passed in 2003. However, over four days in court, I saw a score of foreigners using every twist and turn in the law to fight removal. Take Fred Undrits, who is wanted in Estonia for burning down a house. The 23-year-old was brought to the extradition hearing from prison, where he is serving a 56-day sentence for shoplifting. He has been in Britain since 2006 and his case might take years to decide.
And what of Albanian Shkelzen Gradica? The 33-year-old has changed his name to Robert and was convicted in his absence in Italy of attempted murder. His defence team argue it could breach his human rights to be sent to Rome because he would not get a fair trial. The reason? Gradica was convicted on the basis of an unreliable witness statement and has never had the chance to answer the allegations against him in an Italian courtroom.
From Poland, Maciej Blaszko, 30, has been accused in Warsaw of attempted robbery and driving while disqualified. Here he has been fighting extradition with a team of lawyers paid for with legal aid funded by the British taxpayer. Blaszko says he won't get a fair trial back home because the police case against him was prepared when he had fled the country for the UK.
And then there was paedophile Julius Horvath, convicted in 1996 of the sexual assault and rape of a child in the Czech Republic. Horvath slipped through our borders and came to Britain in 2000. Despite his dubious past, he successfully claimed asylum. Living in a one-bed council flat in Leeds, he even received job seekers' allowance. The 54-year old has also had numerous run-ins with police here, according to evidence given at the extradition hearing. In the past four years, the Czech has been cautioned for affray, being drunk and disorderly, serious assault and shoplifting. Luckily for him, he has one son living here, and four grandchildren who were born here, which means the chances of him ever going home are slim indeed. Why? His lawyers say that a return would infringe his 'family life' under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
And then there was the suspected Hungarian paedophile Balazs Asztalos. He made a second appearance at the extradition court ten days after he was found by police in Milton Keynes. His employers, S and D Leisure, admitted they did not have a clue their polite young employee was a suspected child molester. 'We were really amazed when he was arrested,' said company owner Stanley Reeves. 'If we'd had the slightest inkling he was on the run from police we never would have given him a job.' The family-run company, which operates bungee rides all over the country, had taken down Asztalos' details from his passport and started to run a police criminal record check on him.
Now Mr Reeves is questioning how Asztalos had not been tracked down to Britain before. He arrived in Britain in 2006. In the extradition court, Asztalos' shoulder-length hair was swept back from his face with gel, and he looked completely different to the shavenheaded figure who had appeared in the Crimestoppers photograph. But already there are nagging doubts about whether he can ever be returned. The court heard that the Hungarian police have questioned three other people - including Asztalos' own mother - in connection with child sex abuse in his home town. Defence barrister Martin Henley told the extradition court the trio had all been released without charge.
And then Mr Henley announced his bombshell. He said that under British laws the extradition request was useless if Asztalos was wanted only for interviews by Hungarian police and was not, thus far, subject to a fullblown arrest warrant. While inquiries are made about exactly what the situation is, the young Hungarian will remain in prison.
Asztalos is innocent until proven guilty, but there are countless other foreign crooks and deviants with dubious pasts who are making Britain an infinitely more unsafe place for decent people to live in. It is a scandal of terrifying proportions.
SOURCE
The boatloads of "refugees" heading for Australia are getting bigger and bigger
Wishy-washy Leftist laws and regulations have revived the flow that the conservative Howard government stopped
The biggest boatload of asylum seekers since the Tampa crisis is heading towards Australia. The vessel, believed to be carrying up to 190 people, is being tracked by border protection authorities. It recently passed between the Indonesian islands of Java and Sumatra and is believed to be southeast of Bali. Authorities are waiting to see if it heads east towards Darwin or southwest towards Ashmore Reef.
The boat is one of several being monitored by Border Protection Command, which tracks suspect vessels as soon as they leave port. If the numbers aboard are as high as authorities believe, the vessel could mark a turning point in the tactics of people smugglers.
Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor's office declined to comment, saying it did not discuss operational matters. Most boats in recent times have carried about 20 unauthorised arrivals. But there are bigger profits to be made by smugglers who are willing to load more people aboard old fishing boats and ferries.
The Norwegian freighter MV Tampa rescued 433 asylum seekers from a leaky boat in 2001, prompting the Howard government's so-called "Pacific Solution". The policy was dismantled by the Rudd Government, which axed mandatory detention and closed processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island. It has also stopped billing immigration detainees for the cost of their stay.
The number of unauthorised boats heading to Australia has been steadily climbing, with 15 arriving already this year. The latest came this week, carrying 49 asylum seekers and four crew. The asylum seeker surge will test refugee processing facilities on Christmas Island, which are reportedly close to capacity.
Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone said the Government was failing to deter boat arrivals. "It's on for young and old again," she said. "The people smugglers clearly have a well established pipeline to Australia and they are using the Rudd Government's soft policies to recruit more clients."
SOURCE
27 June, 2009
Obama hints at amnesty for illegal immigrants
President Barack Obama stayed away from hot-button words in remarks Thursday on immigration reform, but hinted that his immigration push will include some kind of “amnesty” or “legal path” for illegal immigrants already in the U.S. He also praised U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who was at a White House meeting on the issue and has supported a legal path for undocumented immigrants and a guest worker program.
“What’s also been acknowledged is that the 12 million or so undocumented workers are here — who are not paying taxes in the ways that we’d like them to be paying taxes, who are living in the shadows, that is a group that we have to deal with in a practical, common-sense way,” Obama said after the meeting. “And I think the American people are ready for us to do so. But it’s going to require some heavy lifting, it’s going to require a victory of practicality and common sense and good policy making over short-term politics. That’s what I’m committed to doing as president.”
On his former campaign foe, he said: “I want to especially commend John McCain, who’s with me today, because along with folks like Lindsey Graham, he has already paid a significant political cost for doing the right thing. I stand with him.”
Obama also said Thursday he is making U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano a key point person on the immigration reform push. As Arizona’s former governor, Napolitano signed an employer sanctions bill into law and backed deployment of National Guard troops along the Arizona-Mexico border. She, however, was skeptical about a border wall and flirted with the idea of allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses.
SOURCE
Harry Reid's Assault on American Workers
Assume there are 100 people in your community who do the work you do and 100 jobs for that type of work that local employers want to fill. You are in a pretty good position: You can stay employed.
Now assume there are only 95 people in your community who do the work you do and 105 jobs that local employers want to fill. You are in an even better position: You can stay employed and demand a higher wage because the demand for the work you do exceeds the supply of able workers.
You are, in fact, like all workers in a free society, a small business owner. You are an enterprise of one. You have something of value to sell, which is your labor, and you have a right to hold out for the highest price you can get from willing buyers. Harvard Law School graduates have this right, and landscape laborers have this right. It is at the heart of free enterprise, a core element of our American way of life.
Now suppose the government decides to stop enforcing the nation's borders and immigration laws, allowing 25 people from a foreign country who do the same kind of work you do to illegally enter the United States, settle in your community, and begin competing with you and your neighbors for the jobs you hold.
With additional illegal aliens pouring across the border daily, there are already 120 people seeking the 105 jobs of your type in your town. A few of your lifelong friends are laid off. Your own job is threatened. Your employer slashes wages, and you accept the pay cut because the supply of workers now exceeds the demand. You begin wondering when you'll see a pink slip in your pay envelope.
The illegal-alien families, which pay less in taxes than the formerly higher-paid American workers, put their children in public schools, secure health care at public hospitals and place a net financial burden on their neighbors. Taxes go up; the quality of services goes down.
This is before the recession. First, economic growth slows. Then, it stops. Then, it drops off a cliff. Month after month, hundreds of thousands of additional workers are thrown from their jobs as the economy tumbles down a mountainside.
What policy changes do congressional leaders recommend as employment plummets? In Washington, D.C., today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is plotting an attack on the surviving jobs of American workers. "I'm going to do comprehensive immigration reform," Reid told reporters last week. "I'm not going to do it piecemeal. That's an excuse for everybody to do too little.
"We're going to do it all at once, and we're going to have comprehensive immigration reform that will include taking care of our borders, a decent guest-worker program, bringing the 11 million people out of the shadows, doing something that's so important with the employer sanctions bill that really is a catch-22 for everyone and a number of other things," said Reid. "We're going to do it all in one piece of legislation, not give people an excuse that they voted for one thing and think that they're through with it."
What Reid means by "bringing 11 million people out of the shadows" is making illegal immigrants legal -- thus rewarding illegal behavior and encouraging further illegal immigration. What he means by a "decent guest-worker program" is giving employers the power to import foreign workers into the United States and keep those workers laboring here in a status that is inferior to a free American citizen or permanent legal resident.
These imported "guest workers" would not have the right to sell, or withhold, their labor at any time, place and price they choose -- like real Americans do. Such workers would be subject to federal laws and regulations meant to hold them captive to the employers who imported them. Such workers would be half-slave, half-free -- and part of a country dividing against itself.
What Harry Reid is proposing is an assault on American workers and the principle of free labor. It is as contrary to the American way of life as the federal government owning General Motors.
SOURCE
26 June, 2009
Identity Theft, Document Fraud, and Illegal Employment
In May of this year, a Supreme Court decision severely impeded the use of identity theft charges as an immigration enforcement tool. In June, several people were arrested after a fraud scheme was uncovered at a Florida driver’s license bureau. In July, a new Utah law targeting illegal aliens and document fraud will take effect. As these examples show, illegal immigration is inherently tied to document fraud and identity theft. As states continue to search for answers, it is apparent that the Federal government has not yet found a working legislative solution to deter these crimes.
A new Backgrounder by the Center for Immigration Studies considers how illegal aliens perpetrate document fraud and identity theft, the effects on the victims of this crime, as well as some proposals to deter it. “Illegal, but Not Undocumented: Identity Theft, Document Fraud and Illegal Employment,” is written by Ronald Mortensen, PhD, a retired career U.S. Foreign Service Officer and former Society for Human Resource Management senior executive. The Backgrounder is available online here. The findings include:
Illegal immigrants are not “undocumented.” They have fraudulent documents such as counterfeit Social Security cards, forged drivers licenses, fake “green cards,” and phony birth certificates. Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment.
Most (98 percent) Social Security number (SSN) thieves use their own names with stolen numbers. The federal E-Verify program, now mandated in only 14 states, can detect this fraud. Universal, mandatory use of E-Verify would curb this and stop virtually 100 percent of child identity theft.
Illegal immigration and high levels of identity theft go hand-in-hand. States with the most illegal immigration also have high levels of job-related identity theft. In Arizona, 33 percent or all identity theft is job-related (as opposed to identity theft motivated simply by profit). In Texas it is 27 percent; in New Mexico, 23 percent; in Colorado, 22 percent; California, 20 percent; and in Nevada, 16 percent. Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of illegal aliens in their total population are among the top 10 states in identity theft (Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, Nevada, New York, Georgia, and Colorado).
Children are prime targets. In Arizona, it is estimated that over one million children are victims of identity theft. In Utah, 1,626 companies were found to be paying wages to the SSNs of children on public assistance under the age of 13. These individuals suffer very real and very serious consequences in their lives.
Illegal aliens commit felonies in order to get jobs. Illegal aliens, who use fraudulent documents, perjure themselves on I-9 forms, and commit identity theft in order to get jobs are committing serious offenses and are not “law abiding.”
Illegally employed aliens send billions of dollars annually to their home countries, rather than spending it in the United States and helping stimulate the American economy. In October 2008 alone, $2.4 billion was transferred to Mexico.
Tolerance of corruption erodes the rule of law. Corruption is a serious problem in most illegal aliens’ home countries. Allowing it to flourish here paves the way for additional criminal activity and increased corruption throughout society.
Leaders support perpetrators and ignore victims. Political, civic, religious, business, education, and media leaders blame Americans for “forcing” illegal aliens to commit document fraud and identity theft. No similar concern is expressed for the American men, women, and children whose lives are destroyed in the process.
The Social Security Administration and Internal Revenue Service facilitate illegal immigrant-driven identity theft. Both turn a blind eye to massive SSN fraud and take no action to stop it. The Social Security Administration assigns SSNs to new-born infants that are being used illegally. The IRS demands that victims pay taxes on wages earned by illegal aliens using their stolen SSNs, while taking no action to stop the identity theft.
State and local governments need to adopt tougher laws to supplement federal efforts. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is targeting large document fraud rings and the most egregious employers, but their resources are limited and stretched across multiple priorities. In 2007, identity theft cases represented only 7 percent of the total ICE case load.
Employers must do their part. They can ensure that they have a legal workforce by using a combination of the federal government’s E-Verify and Social Security Number Verification Service systems and by signing up for the federal government’s IMAGE program or privately conducted audits.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) Contact: Bryan Griffith, (202) 466-8185, press@cis.org
Four in ten under-20s in London aren't white
Four out of ten young people in London are members of ethnic minorities, it was revealed yesterday. A government report found that more than 700,000 children and teenagers are classed as non-white, around 40 per cent of the age group in the capital.
At present, just over a third of Londoners of all ages are reckoned to be non-white - but the new figures indicate that this share will grow substantially in the future. They also point to the way recent waves of immigration have made a bigger impact on London than other parts of the country.
The analysis from the Office for National Statistics said that in the West Midlands, the second most multi-racial area of the country after London, just 19 per cent of children and teenagers are non-white.
The figures were disclosed in Whitehall's annual Regional Trends report. They drew warnings from migration experts that politicians are taking a risk by ignoring the changing nature of cities and suburbs.
Sir Andrew Green of the Migrationwatch think-tank said: 'This illustrates the massive change that is taking place to our society at a rapid pace and without the indigenous population ever being consulted. 'It is high time that the political class took their heads out of the clouds and responded to the very strong public opinion that wants to bring immigration under control.'
Many of the migrants who have come into Britain in the past ten years have settled in London. Three London boroughs have had majority ethnic minority populations since the turn of the Millennium - Newham, Tower Hamlets and Brent - and others are likely to see whites become a minority in the near future. The estimates yesterday put the under-20 ethnic minority population of London at 714,000.
Around 15 per cent of young Londoners are classed as Asian or Asian British, it said, and 14 per cent black or black British. Lowest populations of ethnic minority youngsters were in the North-East - five per cent of all people under 20 - and in the South-West, at six per cent.
The all-party Balanced Migration group of MPs said that 70 per cent of future population increase and 40 per cent of new households will be a result of immigration.
In a statement, the group's co-chairmen, Labour MP Frank Field and Tory Nicholas Soames, said: 'As we face severe cuts in public spending, it is the politics of madness to continue with immigration policies that will mean us having to provide thousands of new homes for newcomers - not to mention the necessary roads, schools and hospitals - on this unprecedented scale, when our own citizens, both black and white, cannot get homes.'
SOURCE
25 June, 2009
Immigration Reform Now Moves to Center Stage in Washington
It has been delayed twice and is flying in under the healthcare debate, but the president and a select group of lawmakers will finally talk immigration reform at the White House tomorrow. The key players last time around were Sens. Ted Kennedy and John McCain. Kennedy continues to battle brain cancer, but McCain will be among the lawmakers at the meeting. "Yes, he was invited, and yes, he will be attending," McCain Communications Director Brooke Buchanan tells Whispers. But as far as the senator taking a high-profile leadership role, she stays mum. "We'll leave it at that for now," she says. Vigils are being held today in Arizona, including outside McCain's Tucson, Ariz., office, to push for immigration reform this year.
Chatter on what immigration reform will look like is picking up in Washington, too. One idea, being shopped around to congressional staffers and reporters yesterday, would be to create a guest-worker program of sorts. Called the "red-card solution," it would have foreign workers head to employment agencies in their home countries to be matched with American employers and issued a noncitizen work permit, a red, temporary ID card that would allow them to stay and work legally in the United States for as long as they held that specific job. Then they would return home. "I think that's a humane, easy thing to do," says Helen Krieble, the founder and president of the Vernon K. Krieble Foundation, who came up with the idea. A businesswoman herself, Krieble was looking for a way to fill lower-paying jobs at her Colorado equestrian center and found herself in the dilemma of not being able to find Americans for the work and not being able to employ foreign workers legally either. "The antibusiness idea that business people are out to rape the workforce does not appeal to me," she says, reiterating that she could not find Americans to do these jobs. This plan would provide a legal means to work temporarily in the United States but would not help the 12 million illegal immigrants already living here.
But just what Congress will actually approve—or even consider—is an open question. Few Democrats or Republicans in the Senate are signaling that immigration legislation is guaranteed to receive a vote before the end of the year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, noting that it will be considered only after energy and healthcare reform, still gave it a nod. "Being third on the list is pretty good," he shrugged. He did say that the "votes are there" to pass it, however.
Republicans eager to show Hispanics that they care are also pushing for reform, based on the past packages that were rejected during President Bush's second term. Clearly concerned that no package can emerge that starts in Congress, the GOP is urging President Obama to come up with his own plan. "Unless the president comes up with a plan, there not much of a chance," said Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 3 Republican leader. "We know what the options are," added Cornyn, who has previously authored immigration reform legislation. In a likely reference to tomorrow's immigration summit, Cornyn warned the president against just talking about immigration reform. "What we need now is not another photo op," he said. Cornyn also hit the White House for sliding the timing back on beginning immigration reform.
SOURCE
Migrant stowaways at Calais triple in five years
The number of migrants trying to sneak into Britain via Calais has almost tripled in just five years. The revelation that more than 50 a day are being caught follows the re-emergence of refugee camps at Sangatte, close to where lorries board ferries to cross the Channel. In 2004, after the closure of the original Sangatte camp, border officials detected 7,540 stowaways. Last year, the total was 19,399.
Including checks at Coquelles, Dunkirk, Paris and in Belgium the number of migrants caught trying to sneak into Britain was 28,007. But critics point out these are only the illegal immigrants who are caught, with many more likely to have evaded checks.
Immigration minister Phil Woolas said that almost 740,000 searches had been carried out on lorries. He said: ‘We work closely with our French partners to tackle illegal immigration using state-oftheart technology such as carbon dioxide and heartbeat detectors. ‘The illegal migrants in France are not queuing to get into Britain - they have been locked out.’
Stowaways are using a number of methods to try to evade being caught. Ten were found in a lorry of wheelie bins. Officers were alerted to their presence by a sniffer dog, while four Afghans in a lorry load of champagne were discovered by CO2 detectors.
French politicians have blamed Britain for the return of migrant camps to Calais. The mayor of Calais said the UK Government’s policies were ‘imposing’ thousand of migrants on the town, costing the local economy millions. Natacha Bouchart criticised the UK for paying ‘enormous’ state handouts to asylum seekers. Mrs Bouchart said the lure of these payouts was the reason why thousands of foreigners are using the French port as a staging point to get across the Channel.
SOURCE
24 June, 2009
Australia to cut skilled immigration, but let in lots of unskilled immigrants
This is typical Leftist destructiveness. Decoding note: The "Pacific guest worker program" mentioned below consists of bringing in totally unskilled Polynesians, a group known for a high crime-rate, obesity and not much else. "Shutting down the Pacific solution" means giving residence permits to illegal immigrants, mostly Middle Eastern Muslims with all their horrible attitudes. Leftist speech is routinely designed to cover up folly so needs a lot of decoding
Skilled immigration will fall due to the global economic crisis, the Federal Government says. ''I expect the numbers of our program to drop next year ... as a reaction to the economic circumstances,'' Immigration Minister Chris Evans told reporters. Senator Evans said the size of the cut would be a matter for cabinet.
The government was very aware that labour demand would differ across regions and economic sectors. ''It's not a one size fits all.''
In Britain the government is hardening immigration laws as unemployment rises amid the financial meltdown. Non-European Union workers migrating to Britain will, from April, have to hold a masters degree and will have to show they earned a salary of at least $44,000 before moving to the UK.
Despite the pressures on immigration, Senator Evans said the Pacific guest worker program would not be reviewed ''at this stage''. However, he did say the government was reconsidering what occupations should be listed on the commonwealth's critical skills list.
The Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union has already called for construction jobs to be cut from the list. ''The critical skills list is under review and that's one of the things we will look at as the circumstances change,'' Senator Evans said. ''We will probably have a formal look at that in the next couple of weeks.''
South Australia's Master Builders Association has warned against such a cut, saying the soon to come infrastructure spending by government meant plenty of workers would be needed in the sector.
Senator Evans' comments came after meeting with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres. The meeting culminated in the government offering an extra $4.4 million in funding to the body. Mr Guterres admitted the snowballing economic crisis would not help refugees but praised Australia for taking a bigger role in the issue since Labor's election win, especially for shutting down the Pacific solution. ''We believe things are moving in the right direction,'' Mr Guterres said.
SOURCE
Leftist opposition to illegal immigration
A writer on Daily Kos below is actually urging fellow Leftist to watch Lou Dobbs!
Tonite on Lou Dobbs (CNN) you can get a different progressive take on U.S. immigration. No time to tick them off here today, but there are very sound environmental, economic, and even social justice reasons for reducing U.S. immigration numbers. Since I've been discussing overpopulation here of late, this is relevant. Take a look and see what you think. If you are moved to pontificate, let us know your thoughts here.
I, for one, think that importing slave labor so we can live more cheaply is not a compassionate thing to do.
SOURCE
23 June, 2009
U.S. Immigration agency says backlog virtually gone
This very surprising news requires some comment! A California branch of Citizenship and Immigration Services had such a huge backlog a few years ago that irresponsible employees just shredded 90,000 applications without looking at them. I never heard that anyone was punished for that in any way. I guess they pleaded desperation. Reading between the lines, I would say that checks have become a lot less thorough under the Obama regime. Such laxity is not new, however. Michelle Malkin reported over a year ago that background checks were often being skipped altogether. Many cases never reached the FBI. One wonders how many do these days
The FBI is clearing a backlog stretching a year or more for identity checks on people seeking to work and live in the U.S., or become citizens, immigration officials said Monday. Nearly all requests submitted for routine checks are now being answered within 30 days, with the remaining 2 percent within 90 days, U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services said.
"The FBI has made great strides ... and shown its capable of sustaining that service level," Michael Aytes, acting deputy director of the agency, told The Associated Press.
Petitions that require more evaluation or interaction with other agencies don't fall under the backlog count. About 6,000 cases are pending with Citizenship and Immigration Services, including some in which the application was filed several years ago, Aytes said. "They are being looked at, they don't just sit on a shelf," said Gregory Smith, an assistant director for the agency.
The volume of pending FBI name checks for criminal backgrounds and possible security issues hit its peak in November 2007, with about 350,000 pending cases. At the time, more than half had been waiting for more than three months and a large number had been pending for more than a year, Aytes said.
SOURCE
British passports to be given to a record 220,000 migrants this year
The number of British passports given to migrants is set to hit a record 220,000 this year. In the first three months of 2009, 54,615 citizenship applications were approved - up 57 per cent on the same period in 2008. At that rate, the number receiving passports - and with them the right to full benefits - this year will smash the record of 164,540 set in 2007. Last year the total was 129,310, and when Labour came to power in 1997, just 37,010 people were given citizenship. It means approvals have rocketed by almost 500 per cent under the current Government.
Officials blame the massive increase on the fact that ministers are introducing a 'tough' new system of earned citizenship next year. They say migrants are rushing to obtain their passports before they have to undergo an extra probationary period. Under the new system, obtaining a passport will take six to eight years from a migrant's arrival in most cases, rather than the current five.
Critics said the rush shows just how lax the current system is. They also point out that, by handing out so many passports, the Government is changing the make-up of Britain without any public debate. Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is yet another example of the Government's incompetence in managing our immigration system. 'They openly admit they are introducing a new system and that everyone is rushing to get in before it. It just smacks of ministers having no idea what they are doing.'
Grants of settlement, the stage before citizenship, were also up in the first three months of 2009, running at an annual rate of 190,000. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said: 'At this rate, grants of settlement will have trebled under Labour. 'We are on course for a massive increase in the population which nobody wants and on which nobody has been consulted. 'No wonder people are so angry with the political class. It is not just fingers in the till, it is fingers in their ears when the public have a serious concern.'
The top five native countries of those gaining citizenship in the past two years have been India, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and Zimbabwe. India and Pakistan are historic sources of migration, particularly via marriage to a British citizen. The large numbers of Iraqis, Somalis and Zimbabweans reflects the fact that asylum seekers who arrived at the start of this decade have now been in the UK long enough to receive citizenship.
The introduction of the earned citizenship scheme was recently delayed by nine months, to Decemember 2010. Immigration minister Phil Woolas claimed yesterday that it would save taxpayers up to £2billion in benefit claims. He said the new rules will deter some migrants from travelling to the UK or staying long enough to obtain citizenship and benefits. Until a passport application has been approved, migrants do not have access to child benefit, council and housing tax benefits and income support. Mr Woolas insisted: 'The pull factor of coming to the UK is to be taken away.' [What utter bullsh*t!]
The Home Office said last night: 'The increase in settlement grants reflects the success of UK Border Agency staff in clearing outstanding applications. It also reflects the Home Office's decision to tighten up the criteria for settlement. 'In 2006 we raised the qualifying period for settlement from four to five years, which meant that migrant workers who wanted to stay permanently had to wait an extra year. 'We have also set out our plans for earned citizenship which demand that people earn the right to stay. 'We are now looking at raising the bar further by applying a points-based system to the path to citizenship and we will consult on this in the summer.'
SOURCE
21 June, 2009
Fed-up Greeks
Greeks drag migrant workers though street
TWO Greek sheep herders have been arrested for attaching two Bangladeshi migrant workers to their motorcycles and dragging them through the street for allegedly stealing their animals.
The herders, who did not tell police about their stolen sheep, went to a migrant workers' camp at Manolada in southern Greece about 50km from Patras on Saturday and beat up one Bangladeshi until he denounced two of his fellow countrymen. They found the Bangladeshi men, aged 27 and 40, whom they assaulted, attached to their motorcyles and dragged about 400 metres.
Local residents called police who arrested the two Greeks for their violent attack, but also detained the Bangladeshis as suspects in the sheep theft.
Last year, Manolada on the Peloponnese peninsula was the site of strikes by migrants who come to the region as seasonal labourers, mainly picking strawberries, in protest against their harsh work conditions. The migrant workers also go elsewhere in Greece to harvest potatoes, olives and watermelons.
Most of the migrants live in squalor in makeshift huts [just like back in Bangladesh] made from the same plastic as the greenhouses - and are forced to pay a monthly rent of up to €100 ($174) to their employers.
SOURCE
ICE Arrests 37 in Operation Targeting Nevada Gang Members
Using immigration and customs powers to target gang bangers is a great idea. Let's see more of it
A total of 37 foreign nationals with ties to violent street gangs in this area are facing deportation this morning following a three-day enforcement operation led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The arrests were made as part of an ongoing initiative by ICE's National Gang Unit called "Operation Community Shield." As part of the initiative, ICE partners with other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies across the country to target the significant public safety threat posed by transnational street gangs.
ICE received assistance with the operation from the U.S Marshals Service; the Sheriff's offices in Carson City and Douglas County; the Nevada Department of Public Safety Adult Probation Division; and from the Regional Gang Unit comprised of officers from the Reno and Sparks police departments and the Washoe County Sheriff's Office.
"This operation shows our collective resolve to attack and dismantle the street gangs that are threatening our neighborhoods," said Daniel Lane, assistant special agent in charge of the ICE Office of Investigations that oversees the agency's operations in Reno. "ICE will continue to use its unique immigration and customs authorities to target these organizations and combat the violence and intimidation they use to hold our communities hostage to fear."
All of those taken into custody during the operation were arrested on administrative immigration violations and will be placed in deportation proceedings. They will be held in ICE custody and scheduled for a hearing before an immigration judge.
Many of the aliens arrested during the operation have criminal records, including prior convictions for assault, drug violations, burglary, arson, domestic violence, and battery on a peace officer. Among them was a 27-year-old Salvadoran national with ties to the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang who previously served time in Nevada State Prison for battery with a deadly weapon.
The gang arrests occurred in Reno, Sparks and Carson City. The vast majority of those taken into custody are from Mexico, but the targets also included gang members and gang associates from El Salvador and Nicaragua. ICE agents say those arrested are linked to eight different street gangs operating in the area, including the South Side Locotes, the Tokers and the Infamous Soldiers.
"The Regional Gang Unit appreciates the efforts to remove violent gang offenders from our streets," said Reno Police Department Deputy Chief Jim Johns. "These efforts make our neighborhoods safer for all of our residents."
"Operation Community Shield" is a force multiplier that allows for overlapping jurisdictions to provide each other with the most current and aggressive intelligence to target crime," said Carson City Sheriff Ken Furlong. "This type of inter-agency cooperation and joint response helps to eliminate barriers, create efficiency and produce positive results."
Since Operation Community Shield began in February 2005, ICE agents nationwide have arrested more than 13,000 gang members and associates linked to more than 900 different gangs. More than 150 of those arrested were gang leaders.
The National Gang Unit at ICE identifies violent street gangs and develops intelligence on their membership, associates, criminal activities and international movements to deter, disrupt and dismantle gang operations by tracing and seizing cash, weapons and other assets derived from criminal activities.
Through Operation Community Shield, the federal government uses its powerful immigration and customs authorities in a coordinated, national campaign against criminal street gangs in the United States. Transnational street gangs have significant numbers of foreign-born members and are frequently involved in human and contraband smuggling, immigration violations and other crimes with a connection to the border.
To report suspicious activity, call ICE's 24-hour toll-free hotline at: 1-866-347-2423 or visit www.ice.gov.
SOURCE
21 June, 2009
The hopelessly inefficient British immigration bureaucracy again
1 in 3 Pakistan visas not checked. Secret internal report sheds light on successful applications for dubious travel permits
A Whitehall whistleblower has lifted the lid on chaos in the immigration system, disclosing that more than one in three successful visa applications by Pakistanis “lacked credibility”. A secret internal report, leaked to The Sunday Times by an official in the UK Border Agency, discloses how travel permits were granted without even the most basic of checks.
A Borders Agency source claimed that the report — commissioned more than two years ago — was “effectively shelved” and that the concerns raised by Chris Taylor, an official sent to Pakistan to investigate, were ignored by senior managers. The report highlighted bogus bank accounts, letters of introduction from non-existent British companies and “tourists” who left their wives and children at home.
Up to 10,000 young Pakistanis are granted student visas each year and tens of thousands more come to Britain as tourists or business travellers.The security services believe a small minority hope to carry out terrorist attacks.
Taylor warned: “More checks and interviews could have been undertaken.” Hinting at possible corruption, he also identified some officials “who have issued more than their fair share” of suspect visas.
The Home Office insisted the immigration system had improved significantly since the damning 2006 report. However, Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, described the report as “profoundly disturbing”. “It reveals the chaos in our immigration system,” he said. “Given the much publicised terrorism issue in relation to Pakistan, it raises the question: has the government left a gaping loophole in our security?”
SOURCE
As mobs drive Romanian gipsies out of Ulster, we ask who's REALLY to blame?
Gipsies have been loathed wherever they go in Europe because of their high rate of criminality and antisocial behaviour
On a piece of waste ground poisoned by toxic chemicals, a group of teenagers were indulging in an age-old ritual this week. They were making a giant bonfire from old crates and timber stolen from derelict buildings. When a huge pyre had been erected, the youths retired to admire their work from the ‘den’, a hut they’d built for their gang from scrap and furnished with sofas found dumped on the street. There were even broken venetian blinds at the front of the hut, which twisted and moaned in the wind.
Next month, on July 11, the night before the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne — when Protestant King William of Orange defeated the Catholic King James in 1690 — the bonfire will be set ablaze. Along with hundreds of other bonfires lit across Belfast that night, the flames are meant to remind the Catholic majority of that historic Protestant victory, and serve warning that Loyalists will still fight fire with fire if any attempt is made to separate them from British rule.
Yet, as they prepared their fire to coincide with Ulster’s ‘marching season’, it transpired that this generation of young men had also been involved in a sinister, disturbing new ritual: mounting racial attacks on the ‘foreigners’ in their midst. With swastikas daubed on the walls of their den, these youths — aged from 14 to 20 — admitted they had been present during the attacks on Romanian immigrants this week that made headlines around the world. ‘So what if we were?’ said one, curling his lip. ‘They had it coming.’
To cries of anguish from politicians and citizens alike, the tumultuous events of the past week have again thrust Belfast to the forefront of world attention, after more than 100 Romanian gipsies, known as Roma, were forced to flee in terror when gangs armed with bottles and rocks drove them from their homes. In echoes of the sectarian violence at the height of The Troubles, when those from the ‘wrong’ religion were burned out of their homes, these attacks happened in an affluent, liberal part of the city, home to Queen’s University and countless trendy bars and bistros. Violence flared when more than 30 youths gathered outside the homes of about 20 Roma on Sunday night, taunting and jeering and smashing their windows. They came again the following night, hurling rocks and bottles at the windows and making Nazi salutes.
The Romanian families, including a five-day-old baby girl, cowered inside as the mob shouted and swore that the foreign gipsy ‘scum’ should pack up and go — or face the consequences. After police were called, the mob was dispersed and about 20 Romanian families emerged from their damaged homes. Clutching old suitcases and blankets, and looking terrified as the cameras recorded their every move, they were given shelter in a local church hall. But their numbers grew. By Wednesday morning, 115 Roma had congregated, telling the authorities that they did not feel safe in their own homes. As one man lugged an accordion past the waiting photographers, and women sobbed, pictures of these pitiful scenes went round the world.
After being moved into a leisure centre, where mattresses were spread out on indoor tennis courts and local people donated soup and sandwiches, the few Romanians who could speak English claimed that some of the attackers had been armed with guns, although the police later said they had no evidence to support this. ‘They made signs like they wanted to cut my brother’s baby’s throat,’ said Couaccusil Filuis, who’d come from a village near Bucharest, the Romanian capital. ‘They said they wanted to kill us. We are very scared. We have young children. We could go back to Romania, but we have no money. We have to stay here.’
Strugurel Teglas, another Roma, who had been selling newspapers and washing cars in Belfast, said: ‘No money for food in Romania. 'Romania no job. Belfast job. But ten persons come. They drink. They broke in the house. They no good.’
Understandably, the scenes of foreigners being evacuated with their belongings were received with horror. This, after all, is a city still nervously emerging from decades of violence and bloodshed. The last thing anyone wants to see is new fissures in Ulster’s tragic history of ethnic hatred. Indeed, so appalled was Naomi Long, the Lord Mayor of Belfast, that she was in tears when she was asked about the violence. ‘A minority of people in this city have brought shame on us and I urge the good people of Belfast, the overwhelming majority, to co-operate with the police and bring the perpetrators of these racist attacks to justice.’
As Gordon Brown called on the authorities to take all possible action to end the violence, and former IRA terrorists now sharing power condemned those involved in the violence, Mrs Long pledged to do everything possible to persuade the Romanians to stay in Northern Ireland. ‘If they go back to Romania, the thugs will think they have won,’ she added. ‘That is the last thing we want. We must find them permanent new homes.’
Not everyone shares her sentiments. There was fury in The Village, a rugged working-class area a mile from the attacks, some of whose residents joined the mob wanting to drive the Roma out. With murals of the Queen painted on walls and Union Jacks fluttering from virtually every window, the people of The Village are incensed at the ‘special treatment’ they say immigrants receive, while they themselves live in grim terrace homes with outside toilets. ‘These people are sly,’ said Annie Johnson, a local woman. ‘It’s all just a racket — they put on their sad faces and get moved to the top of the queue for housing. ‘Politicians are full of cr*p. They leap into action at the first mention of racism — but what about the poor people who have lived here all their lives?’
Opinion has been inflamed not only by the crimes the police and locals agree some of the Roma commit — but also by the fact that no one has even been able to debate the issue of their presence in the city without being accused of racism. Ian Magill, 45, runs the only shop in The Village, which was once a stronghold for Loyalist terrorists. He is a calm, intelligent man, whose greatest wish is that his three sons do not get into trouble with the law. Dominic, his youngest son, was adopted from Croatia, so Mr Magill can hardly be described as someone with a hatred of foreigners. But he is under no illusions about why people from his area were involved in the violence.
‘People feel like they are under siege because of all the immigrants coming in,’ he said. ‘It’s getting to the stage where people just don’t care any more. ‘You get branded a racist if you speak out about the issue of immigration. But I think I’m being a realist, not a racist, when I say that this is something we must address. ‘Most of the Polish immigrants work — but these people [Romas] don’t,’ he added. ‘They are pretty uneducated and they seem to think that the only way they can survive is to bend the rules. ‘But when you are doing this, and carrying out crimes against local people, it becomes a problem. They shouldn’t be here.’
Not all Mr Magill’s fellow citizens are as considered as he is. At a nearby off-licence, a young, welldressed man of about 30 erupts in anger. He says all these ‘foreigners should be burned out of their f****** homes. All we hear about are their problems. For once, why don’t you write about the problems these people cause to us locals’. He is referring to a wave of petty crime that has swept Belfast over the past two years — the period in which the Roma have arrived.
The crimes, confirmed by police, range from ‘mobbing’ elderly ladies at cashpoint machines, distracting them while they steal cash, to using razor blades to slice the straps of handbags and disappear with possessions before anyone knows. Roma have also been linked with prostitution and people trafficking. But it is the petty crimes that are causing such fury. Countless people I spoke to in The Village reported clothes being stolen from their washing lines — one man claimed to have seen a Roma wearing his distinctive jeans, which had disappeared while hanging out to dry, only for the thief to laugh in his face — and children’s bikes being taken from back yards....
Interpol has since warned that organised criminals among the Romanian immigrants are stealing from indigenous populations on the orders of gangsters back home. British police said last year that they were struggling to cope with a staggering 800 per cent increase in crimes, such as pickpocketing, committed by Romanians since they started coming to Britain in large numbers.
Forces in Germany and France have also reported more crime, some of it violent. In Italy, murders, rapes and kidnappings have been blamed on the newcomers. Inevitably, there is a danger that Roma are unjustly blamed for the crimes of others. But acts of retaliation are taking place everywhere.
Marian Mandache, of Romani Criss, a group dedicated to helping the gipsies, says the violence in Belfast follows a disturbing trend of assaults on the Roma across Europe. ‘Starting in Italy, there have been waves of attacks — as well as in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, everywhere.’
Racial tensions are rising throughout Europe as the pace of immigration intensifies and economies deteriorate. In Italy, the authorities have started fingerprinting Roma immigrants and repatriating them after their alleged crimes led to waves of brutal, retaliatory attacks by locals.
More than 1,000 Roma have arrived in Northern Ireland. Few speak English and ‘begging gangs’ now operate throughout Belfast. Local tourism websites are clogged with comments about aggressive beggars, pickpockets and con artists — though clearly they are not all Roma....
Of course, no right-thinking person can condone the attacks that have seen the Roma families moved this weekend to a new, secret location. Yet it is the lack of debate (or action) on immigration by politicians that has contributed to these festering frustrations, just as it has led to the appalling spectre of two seats for the British National Party in this month’s European elections.
More HERE
20 June, 2009
U.S. 8th Circuit Court Allows Local Governments to Punish Businesses who Hire Illegal Aliens
The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that local governments can suspend the business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens. The case stems from a local ordinance in Valley Park, Mo. where a law was passed that requires local businesses to use E-Verify.
Valley Park passed the ordinance back in 2006, which punishes businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens and requires landlords to rent only to legal residents. The second part of the ordinance was thrown out, and a county judged ruled the first part of the ordinance as unconstitutional. But, after the case made its way into the federal court system where a federal judge in 2008 ruled in favor of Valley Park. The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that decision.
Since the Valley Park ordinance became an issue, Missouri has now passed a bill requiring all public employers to use E-Verify. See our map showing a full list of states that require the mandatory use of E-Verify.
SOURCE
House refuses to bar illegals from federal jobs
Last week, the House Appropriations Committee approved a two-year extension of E-Verify as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations spending bill. The Committee also rejected several important immigration amendments on a party line basis.
The House Appropriations Committee also considered the spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security and rejected two important immigration enforcement amendments:
" Representative Calvert attempted to attach an amendment to the bill that would have permanently authorized E-Verify - the electronically operated system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman David Price (D-NC) and Full Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) spoke in opposition to the amendment, with Price pointing out that the bill included a short, two-year E-Verify reauthorization. Following the remarks by Price and Obey, the amendment was defeated by a 21-36 vote.
" Immediately following the rejection of the Calvert Amendment, Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) offered an amendment that would have required companies who contract with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use E-Verify. Rep. Price again spoke against this amendment as well, and it was ultimately defeated on a 23-35 vote.
Finally, the Appropriations Committee considered the Legislative Branch spending bill. Congressman Kingston attempted to attach a similar E-Verify amendment to this bill, requiring contractors who do business with the U.S. Congress to use E-Verify. This time, Legislative Branch Subcommittee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) opposed the amendment. The Appropriations Committee rejected the Kingston language by a voice vote. (House Appropriations Committee Markup Transcript, June 12, 2009).
More HERE
Numbers USA is pretty steamed about this, saying: "They voted today to keep Americans jobless so multitudes of illegal aliens could keep fed jobs". At a time of high unemployment, the vote should certainly make waves
19 June, 2009
Welfare payments the principal concern behind Britain's points-based migration system
Students are not the only people hurt by the UK’s points-based visa application system. Non-EU citizens who seek employment in the UK are also disadvantaged. The government intends to accomplish three objectives with the new migration control system. First, Gordon Brown’s government wants to curtail the number and type of non-EU citizens working in the UK. Second, the government wants to keep visa holders off the dole. The third government objective is to raise money from visa applications.
The first objective has been publicly stated by the Home Office. The second objective is revealed through a review of the new visa application forms. The points-based system requires all visa applicants to have sufficient funds to support themselves, and any dependants, throughout their stay. Applicants also certify that they will not receive welfare benefits whilst in the UK. The third objective is manifest by hike in visa application fees. For example, unsponsored visa applicants must now pay between £675 and £1020 for the application fee. Sponsored applicants must pay a £265 fee. Even students are required to pay £145 to apply for a visa. Applicants in these three categories who have dependents must pay the same application fee for each dependent. Visa application statistics are sparse for the period since the points-based system was launched, but in the 2006–2007 financial year, the UK government received 2.7 million visa applications. That translates into millions of pounds of revenue for the government.
The concerns underlying the government’s objectives can all be traced to the maladies of the welfare state. Welfare states attract people who are content to live on the dole. The new points-based system cracks down on would-be social loafers from non-EU nations, but European freeloaders are left undeterred. This is especially problematic due to the combination of the UK’s high standard of living and relatively generous welfare benefits. Welfare states are also expensive to run, which explains the high taxes and government fees.
The easy way to eliminate the government’s welfare-based concerns is to do away with the welfare system. That may not be politically practicable at the moment, but an effective compromise would be to pare down welfare benefits to the point that the UK’s dole is much less desirable than welfare programs in other EU nations. This will encourage net negative residents to look elsewhere for government handouts. With fewer freeloaders, many of the government’s immigration concerns will be allayed. The Home Office could then relax its points based system rules to make it easier for industrious, innovative applicants to make positive contributions to the UK economy.
SOURCE
Court backs restrictive LAPD immigration policy
A city can prohibit its police from stopping or arresting people to find out if they are illegal immigrants, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday in a Los Angeles case with implications for San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance.
A taxpayer represented by the conservative group Judicial Watch challenged a 30-year-old Los Angeles Police Department rule barring officers from either arresting anyone for entering the United States illegally or taking any action solely to determine someone's immigration status.
The suit claimed the policy conflicts with a 1996 federal law that requires state and local governments to let their employees share information about someone's immigration status with federal authorities. If a city bars police from obtaining immigration information from people they arrest, Judicial Watch argued, it frustrates the purpose of the law.
But the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles upheld a judge's decision that found no conflict between the local policy and the federal law. The restriction on police conduct during arrests "has no effect on the voluntary flow of immigration information" between local officers and federal authorities, the court said.
Los Angeles police can ask immigration-related questions of people they arrest for other reasons and can relay the information to federal agents, Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling. He said the Constitution prohibits the federal government from requiring state and local governments to enforce immigration law but allows voluntary local enforcement under federal supervision.
San Francisco's 1989 sanctuary ordinance includes a virtually identical provision, barring city employees from arresting, stopping or questioning people based solely on their national origin or immigration status. The ordinance also forbids the use of city money to help enforce federal immigration law, except as required by U.S. or state law.
The policy is being tested by Judicial Watch in a separate suit accusing San Francisco of violating a state law that requires police to notify federal authorities if a suspect in a drug case appears to be a noncitizen. The law applies to legal residents, who can be deported for committing serious crimes, as well as to illegal immigrants.
A state appeals court reinstated the Judicial Watch lawsuit in October, saying the California law was based on the state's authority to limit drug trafficking and was not an invalid attempt to regulate immigration.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office noted that San Francisco police have a written policy allowing them to notify immigration officials when they arrest someone for one of the drug crimes covered by the state law and have reason to believe the person is not a U.S. citizen, as long as that belief is not based solely on the person's appearance or inability to speak English.
In July 2008, Mayor Gavin Newsom reversed a long-standing city practice and said the sanctuary policy allowed police to turn juvenile illegal immigrants over to federal authorities for deportation if they were being held on felony charges.
SOURCE
18 June, 2009
In Britain and in Europe generally, the people are forcing the elite to re-evaluate immigration
MORE than a week after the European Parliament elections, the hand-wringing in Britain over the success of the ultra-right British National Party continues. Having secured two seats in the European Parliament - a first for the BNP - many in the political and media class are rehashing, at least implicitly, the line made famous by German playwright Bertolt Brecht. Surely, they wonder, it is time to elect a new people, a more sophisticated, better informed people not prone to nasty and vicious xenophobia.
Mainstream political leaders - Tory and Labour - mutter in disgust. Newspapers mull over whether a 1920s version of militant fascism is emerging. The BNP, with its racist, anti-immigrant agenda, should be driven out of British politics as an illegitimate force, they say.
The BNP is surely a repellent political force, but again elites have misjudged the meaning of its rise.
For better analysis, you need only jump in a taxi to understand what happens when there is a sense that a nation has lost its way. My taxi driver from Heathrow told me he voted BNP for the first time. The next day, another taxi driver said the same. Another day, another taxi driver, another first-time BNP voter. For them, mainstream parties stopped listening to the concerns of working-class people about immigration. Likewise, you will learn more from the letters pages of British newspapers than from the reams of so-called expert analysis devoted to denouncing the BNP's success as a depressing moment for democracy. "The political process must address such concerns, not simply dismiss them as wrong. Denial simply makes things worse, and repression fuels rage among people who feel they have lost their country and want it back," one correspondent wrote to The Independent.
The emergence of the BNP - and, indeed, other similar anti-immigration parties across Europe - is yet another wake-up call that large swaths of the West have failed to discuss the consequences of fast-growing immigration honestly and openly.
Once again we are reminded that multiculturalism rendered such discussion distasteful, where elites presented immigration as a necessary part of a tolerant society, no matter how incompatible the values of these migrants. All cultures were equal, they preached, while deriding Western culture as somehow less equal. Any reservations about the costs and consequences of immigration were discarded as vile xenophobia from the ignorant, intolerant masses.
It is easy to dismiss the concerns of the working class when you are far removed from the daily, social challenges of immigration.
Our own Mark Latham best described that disconnect back in 2002 when he said that: "In my experience, the strongest supporters of the rights agenda are those who do not have to face the daily consequences of irresponsible behaviour. They have the resources to buy themselves away from social problems ... This gives them the luxury of being able to talk about human rights without the need for social responsibility."
How horrifying it must be for the Left to discover that they are partly responsible for the rise of anti-immigration parties such as the BNP. When people feel disenfranchised, ignored by mainstream politicians who have failed to treat them as adults entitled to a serious debate about immigration and a fading national identity, they will resort to unattractive fringe parties to vent their anger.
They turn to parties such as the BNP and the obsessively nationalist UK Independence Party, which out-polled the ruling British Labour Party. And to Hungary's far right party Jobbik, otherwise known as the Movement for a Better Hungary, which won 14.8 per cent of the poll, securing almost as many votes as the ruling Hungarian socialists. And Geert Wilders's Freedom Party in the Netherlands, which doubled its vote campaigning on anti-Islamic concerns, nationalist parties such as True Finns in Finland and Denmark's far-right Danish People's Party, which picked up a second seat in Strasbourg.
Years ago now, writing in Prospect magazine, David Goodhart wrote an important essay warning liberals about the progressive dilemma that confronts many Western countries: sharing and solidarity can often conflict with diversity. "Acts of sharing are more smoothly and generously negotiated if we take for granted a limited set of common values and assumptions," he wrote.
Yet, the more diverse that once homogenous societies become, the more the common culture is eroded. He warned that the reaction to growing diversity will happen through decades, if not generations. After last week's European elections, more people are now realising the inevitable price of diversity.
In a new book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, which could not have appeared at a better time given the gnashing of elite teeth about the European elections, Christopher Caldwell describes the revolution under way in Europe. Growing immigrant communities are changing Europe to suit their own cultural identities. They are able to do so only because so many European countries have been left confused and enervated, losing their own sense of self. The march of modernity and globalisation, said the ruling political elites and much of the media, requires an unquestioning acceptance of immigration, regardless of the clash of values. The move away from the old-fashioned notion of solidarity and shared values in favour of diversity and multicultural moral relativism is most apparent in the area of women's rights, where increasing numbers of immigrants from different cultures do not share the West's commitment to equality.
Reviewing Caldwell's book last week in The Guardian, Martin Woollacott could not help but ask whether talk of a fading European identity was "right-wing rubbish" from a "luminary of the The Weekly Standard, the American neo-conservative magazine Rupert Murdoch finances". In the past, that is where much analysis would have stopped.
Now, however, more people such as Woollacott are conceding that Caldwell is right in "underlining the fact that immigration was encouraged by elites who took a ludicrously short-sighted view of its costs and consequences". And right too "that we frequently talk about (immigration) in stupid and dishonest ways".
Woollacott concludes that if Caldwell's book "sharpens a so far sluggish debate, it will have served an important purpose".
The same could be said of the recent elections for the European Parliament. If the many messages and political warnings that resonate from the results are heeded, then the elections will have served Europe and Britain well. Only a more honest discussion about immigration - and the importance of national identity - will prevent further political gains to parties that know how to manipulate the concerns of people such as my early morning taxi driver. Repressing these parties will be interpreted as repressing the genuine concerns of voters. If that happens, Britain - and Europe - will learn an even tougher lesson about repression when there is an even stronger, more unfortunate backlash against immigration and open borders.
SOURCE
U.S. to Let Immigration Agents Make Drug Arrests
Sounds good. Any addition to immigration agent powers should be helpful to them
The Obama administration is preparing to give more U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents authority to make drug arrests to assist Mexico's bloody battle with drug cartels, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told senators today. The decision would end a years-long dispute between the Justice and Homeland Security departments, significantly increasing the number of federal drug agents, particularly in border areas.
Holder said that he discussed the question with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano last night and that they were ready to announce an agreement. "I don't want to steal anybody's thunder here, but we have reached, I think, essentially an agreement," Holder said in response to a question from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "I think it's going to be announced within days," he said.
Schumer, chairman of the panel's immigration subcommittee, praised what he called the administration's decision to end a bureaucratic turf war. "I think you've just announced it," Schumer said. In a statement, he added, "This is welcome news because it doesn't make sense for the top agency stationed along the border to lack the power to arrest criminals there."
Separately, Napolitano added that interagency cooperation was a priority of hers and that any agreement "will increase our ability to secure the border, curtail drug trafficking and make our country safer."
By law, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have authority to investigate federal drug crimes, with the FBI concentrating on organized crime. Under an agreement that has not been updated since 1994, DEA also gave arrest authority to U.S. customs agents who make seizures at border crossings. However, since ICE took over customs investigations with the creation of the Homeland Security Department in 2003, it has pushed for expanded authority to match its bigger presence at the U.S.-Mexico border and throughout the country.
ICE has about as many agents as DEA -- about 5,000 compared with 4,800 agents. As of March, DEA had delegated about 1,300 ICE agents with drug arrest authority, ICE officials said, with a cap set at 1,475 agents. "Right now, we have at least three separate agencies, all with different missions, trying to handle border enforcement," Schumer said. "The cartels that smuggle drugs and illegal immigrants have integrated their activities, and now the federal agencies will have a better integrated response."
Competition among the agencies stymied a 2004 effort under then-President George W. Bush to update the 15-year-old "memorandum of understanding," which addressed investigations under Title 21 of the federal criminal code, the section that lays out drug crimes.
After Holder's testimony, DHS Assistant Secretary for ICE John Morton and Michelle Leonhart, acting administrator for DEA, released a statement saying, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Drug Enforcement Agency continue to work towards a Title 21 agreement and we hope to make an announcement soon."
SOURCE
17 June, 2009
AZ: Police not following policy on illegals
Fear of harassment -- legal and otherwise -- by Leftists?
Phoenix police officers are largely failing to comply with a year-old policy that lets them question people about their immigration status, undercutting the effectiveness of a plan aimed at helping crack down on illegal immigration, an Arizona Republic investigation has found.
The tougher policy, adopted partly in response to criticism that the city provided sanctuary to undocumented immigrants by restricting police officers' ability to ask about a person's legal status, gives the officers more discretion to question people and to notify federal officials when they encounter a suspected illegal immigrant.
But a Republic review of internal documents and interviews with police officials found that officers frequently don't ask people they arrest about their immigration status as required, and they rarely report suspected illegal immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Officers also are not always following the policy requirement to document their contact with ICE officials and to get a supervisor's approval before turning suspected illegal immigrants over to federal officials, The Republic found. Those requirements are meant to address concerns that the policy could lead to racial profiling and civil-rights abuses.
Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, who pushed the Police Department to adopt a tougher immigration policy under pressure from the police union and other groups, said he believes the policy has achieved its goal. The new policy, he said, was not intended to mandate that officers enforce immigration laws. The point "was to give another tool to the officers" to check the immigration status of persons committing crimes, not a "dishwasher who isn't here (legally)." "The argument was made a year ago that we (were) tying the hands of the officers that wanted to (check immigration status). So we allowed officers to do it if they followed these rules and regs. But we didn't mandate that they have to do it," Gordon said.
In 2008, about 7,200 suspected illegal immigrants were identified by Maricopa County jail officials following arrests for other crimes by Phoenix officers, Gordon pointed out. Phoenix police officials say they believe any non-compliance with the rules stems from ignorance of, not disregard for, the new requirements. The department has ordered more training. "There appears to be a large number of officers who are not familiar with the policy," said Glen Gardner, a police commander who oversaw the revision of the immigration policy.
Although supervisors received individual training about the new policy, patrol officers were only shown a video during routine briefings before going out on duty. Gardner acknowledges that many officers may not have paid close attention to the video. He also said that as with any new policy, it takes time for officers to learn it.
A police union and other groups that pushed for the tougher policy say they are generally pleased and blame the large number of officers ignoring the policy on too much red tape. But critics worry that some officers, by not documenting contact with ICE, are trying to enforce immigration laws without supervisors knowing, which could lead to civil-rights abuses.
Meanwhile, all law-enforcement officers in Arizona may soon become more involved with arresting illegal immigrants. A bill moving through the state Senate would give police the authority to arrest illegal immigrants on state misdemeanor trespassing charges, leading to possible jail time. A second offense could result in felony charges.
More HERE
Repealing REAL ID?
Rolling Back Driver’s License Security
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has made clear her commitment to repeal the 2005 secure driver’s license law, REAL ID. Recently, the Obama administration has supported senior members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in drafting a soon-to-be introduced bill entitled “Providing for Additional Security in States’ Identification Act of 2009,” also known as the PASS ID Act. The PASS ID Act, in drafts reviewed to date, would repeal key aspects of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, including identity verification and birth record digitization. Janice Kephart, Director of National Security Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, addresses the implications of REAL ID and PASS ID in a new backgrounder, “Repealing REAL ID? Rolling Back Drivers License Security.”
The PASS ID Act would repeal the driver’s license provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005, legislation aimed at ensuring that all states meet minimum driver’s license security standards in order to enhance national security and driver safety, combat drug running, and better safeguard against identity theft and fraud. While no state is required to comply, the 30 or so states that are choosing to actively meet REAL ID minimum standards are helping make America less vulnerable. PASS ID supporters are painting REAL ID as a poorly drafted law that is not supported by the 9/11 Commission recommendations as well as an affront to privacy and states’ rights. The reality is that REAL ID balances liberty and security by protecting legitimate applicants from fraud; states from bad drivers, criminals, and government waste; and federal interests in commercial airport and critical infrastructure security. REAL ID was also based not just on 9/11 Commission recommendations, but also on guidance from the states’ own officials – the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators’ “2004 DL/ID Security Framework,” as outlined in an earlier CIS report by Kephart, “The Appearance of Security: REAL ID Final Regulations vs. PASS ID Act of 2009.”
There is no need to repeal REAL ID. Seventeen states have publicly stated their commitment to implementing REAL ID, while some are preparing to solicit the Department of Homeland Security for a designation as compliant with the first 18 benchmarks. Deadline for this “first tier” compliance under current law is January 1, 2010. More states are working towards compliance, but due to political pressure have decided to keep their compliance efforts discrete. One outcome of PASS ID would be that those states that have REAL ID authorization language in place will be forced to abandon that legislation and begin a new authorization and budget cycle.
Not only would the PASS ID legislation introduce confusion into an ongoing implementation process and repeal 9/11 Commission identity verification recommendations, but it would also give states money without accountability, repeal airport identity security, and eliminate information-sharing between states. Congress should preserve REAL ID, fund it adequately, and take steps to ensure its full implementation.
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. Contact: Janice Kephart, jlk@cis.org
16 June, 2009
CIS roundup
1. 2009 Katz Award Ceremony
Jaxon Van Derbeken, police reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, is this year’s winner of the Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration. The award, presented each year by the Center for Immigration Studies, is intended to recognize journalists who go beyond the cliches so prevalent in reporting on immigration and whose reporting informs deliberations in this important policy area.
********
2. Orchowski addresses PFIR on new book, immigration politics
Excerpt: Nobody disputes that almost all Americans can trace their ancestry to immigrants, but in public debates on immigration, the agreement often stops there. Even catchphrases like 'nation of immigrants' are problematic – how should America balance its proud history as the land of opportunity against our nation's security and economic priorities?
********
3. ICE, CBP, and USCG Budget Hearing
Excerpt: On June 11, the House Subcommittee of Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism held a hearing on the FY 2010 Budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The proposed budget allocates $5.77 billion to ICE, $1.3 billion to CBP, and $9.96 billion to the Coast Guard for the 2010 fiscal year.
********
4. First Virtual Fencing, Now a Virtual Immigration Raid
Excerpt: Of course, this is the whole point of attrition through enforcement — make it impossible for illegal aliens to live a normal life here so they go home. And it works — my colleague Steve Camarota has a paper in the works that suggests the total illegal population may now be below 11 million. And as his earlier piece on the subject found, the decline started before the onset of the recession, so enforcement is a factor, in addition to the obvious increase in unemployment.
********
5. Repealing REAL ID? Rolling Back Driver's License Security
Excerpt: Senior members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs are set to introduce the “Providing for Additional Security in States’ Identification Act of 2009,” also known as the PASS ID Act.1 This act would repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005, legislation aimed at ensuring that all states meet minimum driver’s license security standards in order to enhance national security and driver safety, combat drug running, and better safeguard against identity theft and fraud. While no state must comply, the 30 or so states that are choosing to actively meet REAL ID minimum standards are helping make America less vulnerable. Opponents critical of REAL ID provisions have painted the law as an affront to privacy and states’ rights, but the reality is that REAL ID is the appropriate means by which to maintain liberty and security. Congress should preserve REAL ID, fund it adequately, and take steps to ensure its full implementation.
********
6. REAL ID a No-Brainer in Europe
Excerpt: Most European countries -- including Croatia, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain -- are among those with compulsory national ID card requirements on their citizenry. Non-compulsory national ID cards are issued by Canada, Finland, Iceland, France (previously compulsory), Sweden, and Switzerland. The European Union offers these ID cards as valid EU travel documents in place of a passport. Denmark, Ireland, Norway, and the United Kingdom are the few holdouts in not offering a national ID card. In the United Kingdom, legislation was passed in 2006 to issue national IDs, but with most British citizens already having driver licenses and passports, like in the U.S., British citizens do not see the need for a national ID. However, procurement is already in process to create one, and it should be issued within the next few years. Interestingly, none of these countries has has seen opposition to putting minimum standards in place for driver's licenses like the U.S. special interests continue to do. Our REAL ID law is a no-brainer for most of these countries. Repealing it -- as the not-yet-introduced PASS ID would do (rumor is that Sen. Akaka will drop the bill 'very soon') -- seems simply absurd to those who have lived with ID security for years.
********
7. Welcome to America!
Excerpt: Welcome to America!
That may sound a little funny, since you all have lived here for many years already; you can't become a citizen until living here for at least five years, and for most of you, it’s probably been longer than that.
But until two minutes ago, you were in America, but not of America – that's what changed with the oath you've just taken.
********
8. An End to Immigration?
Excerpt: Matt Dowd made this same argument (much less tentatively and carefully than Barone) a few years back, to which I responded here. In fact, falling fertility has actually correlated with increased immigration from Mexico — correlation isn't necessarily causation, but it does complicate their story line. What's more, when my colleagues Steve Camarota and Karen Jensenius looked at this question last year, they concluded that while the illegal population had fallen (and looks like it's continued to fall — they have a follow-up piece in the works), the legal immigrant population has continued to increase. That's not surprising since there is no real-world scenario short of changes in the immigration law that would lead to reductions in legal immigration — there are just too many people in line, and too many hundreds of millions more abroad not yet in line, for demand for immigration to the U.S. to ever be slaked.
********
9. Can We Retire 'Jobs Americans Won't Do?'
Excerpt: You mean Americans will do farm work?
Colorado farmers have applied for 13 percent fewer foreign worker visas this year and state labor officials believe the cause is the lagging U.S. economy and the thousands of Coloradans looking for work.
********
10. Protect the Public, Not the Illegal Aliens
Excerpt: The Rhode Island legislature is currently considering a bill to require the state’s employers to verify that all new employees are legal workers. Introduced by two Woonsocket-area Democrats, Sen. Marc Cote and Rep. Jon Brien, it passed the RI House in April, by a vote of 38-33. Massachusetts lawmakers should take note — this is a common sense approach to a problem that burdens our state as well.
********
11. A Study in Irrelevancy: The 'Values Downturn' and the Immigration Debate
Excerpt: The supposed big news and dominant motif in a survey released by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in May, 'Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes 1987-2009,' is Americans are far less concerned with 'values' when making political choices than four years ago. Respondents who cite 'values' as the main reason for choosing a president declined by more than half from 27% in Pew’s post-2004 election survey to a tiny current low of 10%. In 'Values Voters in a Downturn,' columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr., boosts the 'extremely useful' survey 'which has not received enough attention' as descriptive, prescriptive, and predictive, benevolently cautioning Republicans against employing a 'culture wars' strategy in opposing Judge Sonia Sotomayor by focusing on 'reverse racism' or resorting to anti-affirmative action absolutism by labeling her a 'quota queen.'
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 www.cis.org
Immigration to push British students out of their own universities?
British sixth formers could be "crowded out" of university places because of an increase in applications from candidates from the rest of Europe, according to vice-chancellors. An unprecedented surge in applications by young people to start higher education in the UK in September has seen the number of British candidates rise by 8.8 per cent from last year. Applications from the rest of the European Union are rising even more quickly, up by 16.4 per cent.
Yet even though 43,367 more Britons and 3,576 more Europeans are chasing places, the Government has set a controversial 10,000 cap on the number of additional places available across the sector. A combination of the cap, the rise in EU applicants and a rule that prevents universities from discriminating in favour of homegrown talent means that British sixth formers risk losing places to well-qualified rivals from abroad. Students from the EU are funded by the Government in the same way as British students, and count in an identical way towards universities' student quotas.
"We have never seen anything like the upsurge in applications," said Malcolm Grant, the provost of University College London. "It is across all sectors, postgraduate, international and even our conventional UK and EU undergraduate applications. "EU students have to be treated the same. There is a crowding out possibility – if you take an EU student it is a place that is not available to a UK student.
"We get superb overseas students, especially from France and Germany, and we must treat them on the same basis and offer them places on the same basis. "They turn up here and they are dead keen to have come to London on their own initiative. They have studied English in a formal way and are pretty impressive."
The number of EU students studying in the UK is already on the rise. Between 2006/07 and 2007/08 there was a six per cent increase to 112,150, while enrolments of Britons actually fell by one per cent. Over the same period, the number of non-EU overseas students increased by four per cent.
The squeeze on places this year will mean even greater competition for courses. It is estimated that as many as 80,000 applicants could fail to find a place. Les Ebdon, the vice-chancellor of Bedfordshire University, who has condemned ministers for restricting higher education at a time of recession, warned that if British students are turned away, while EU students win places, it could lead to a backlash that mirrors the "British jobs for British workers" row. "Institutions are not allowed to discriminate against any student in the EU," said Professor Ebdon, chairman of the Million+ group of newer universities. "And for EU students, the UK is an increasingly popular destination. "But in a situation when you have increased applications, a cap on places and few places through clearing it will be difficult for the public to understand why a Polish student can get a place but their own kids can't."
EU nationals face the same £3,145-a-year tuition fees as their UK counterparts and are entitled to the same grants and subsidised loans, to cover the cost of fees and living expenses. Non-EU overseas students are charged full tuition costs by universities, which average £10,000 a year for arts students, and they do not count against Government student quotas.
Since 2006, EU citizens studying in Britain have been eligible to take out low interest loans to pay for tuition fees, in the same way as British students. They are supposed to pay back what they owe when they graduate. But figures published earlier this year revealed that among the 2,240 EU students who have so far become eligible to start paying back such loans, some 1,580 were not doing so, leaving taxpayers with a £3.8 million bill.
David Lammy, the universities minister, claims that the figure is misleading because a proportion of the 1,580 students will have changed courses and not yet graduated, or are earning below the salary at which loans have to be repaid - £15,000 in the UK, or an equivalent level in their homeland. Students from the EU currently studying currently studying at British universities have borrowed, between them, a further £124 million to cover tuition fees and living costs. It is feared that many who return to their home countries will never repay the money because there is no repayment mechanism outside of the UK. The Student Loan Company has to rely on students informing them of their earnings and making their own arrangements, although it said measures to track EU students will be in place by April next year.
SOURCE
15 June, 2009
British immigration backflip
Foreign doctors told: You can stay in Britain after all
Foreign doctors treating patients in British hospitals will be allowed to stay in this country after an embarrassing U-turn by the Government - triggered by The Mail on Sunday. Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced a change to immigration laws in February that would have forced about 200 non-EU medics to leave the UK. The doctors, who trained here for five years and now work in hospitals as part of a two-year foundation programme, would have had to leave after their visas expired because they would no longer have been classed as 'highly skilled' workers.
Critics claimed the move was a waste of taxpayers' money and could have threatened patient safety when there are shortages of doctors in areas such as cardiology and neurology.
The Mail on Sunday revealed the potential impact of the policy to the Home Office last week. On Friday, officials performed a stunning volte-face and announced that non-EU medics in their second foundation year would be allowed to apply to continue working in Britain. But 100 doctors in the first year of the foundation course will still have to leave.
Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green said: 'This U-turn is yet another example of chaos and confusion at the Home Office. Ministers have no consistent strategy and make up policy on the hoof. 'It is astonishing that they have to rely on The Mail on Sunday to point out errors in their own laws.'
SOURCE
New Zealand Immigration service a 'shambles'
Like all other immigration services I know. The combination of bureaucratic indifference, corruption and political meddling seems to be quite toxic
A minder for the Department of Labour's chief executive is necessary to sort out the "shambles and mess" at the immigration service, Prime Minister John Key says. An Auditor-General's report released this month said the service, part of the Department of Labour, was focused on processing as many visas as possible without worrying about quality. "This meant that staff who were under pressure to meet quantity targets had incentives to approve visas and permits, rather than decline them," the report said.
The report found problems were worse in the Pacific Division than elsewhere in the service. The division was set up by the service's former boss Mary Anne Thompson in 2005, who resigned last year after accusations of a conflict of interest in helping overseas family members gain residency. It was also alleged that she did not have a doctorate from the London School of Economics that many people believed she had when she applied for jobs earlier in her career. Ms Thompson is facing court action on fraud and dishonesty charges.
Recently the service gained media attention for refusing permits to several pregnant women, at least one of whom was too sick to travel. The service last week reviewed its decision on 29-year-old Lithuanian tourist Jurga Skiauteris, so she and her family were allowed to remain in New Zealand until the birth of her baby.
"This was a shambles and a mess left to us by the Labour Government," Mr Key said said on TVNZ's Breakfast programme. "Immigration is part of the Department of Labour so it doesn't just have immigration to worry about it has ACC, it has employment law, it has a lot of different areas."
A person would be appointed to "ride shot-gun" and help change the immigration service, Mr Key said. He was confident Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman could "sort it". Dr Coleman told TV1's Q+A show that the Auditor-General's report was "very bad".
The problems meant some people may be in New Zealand who should not be and others with legitimate rights may have been turned away, he said. The report's recommendations needed to be implemented, permanent senior management was needed to replace those in acting roles, the IT system needed an upgrade worth $117 million over four years and the entire process needed to be taken apart and looked at "from top to bottom".
The cost and risks of separating the immigration service out of the Department of Labour were too high, Dr Coleman said. Two years was the "outside limit" for changes to be made and New Zealand to have "a superb immigration service".
SOURCE
14 June, 2009
The British far-Left do their best to generate publicity and sympathy for anti-immigration party
What they really want is self-publicity but they just succeed in showing who the real thugs are
When Nick Griffin was pelted with eggs outside Parliament this week, the protest divided public opinion over whether it was a legitimate expression of anger or a foolhardy stunt that handed unwarranted publicity to the British National Party. It has also widened a rift in the anti-fascist movement over how to combat the rise of the far-right party.
United Against Fascism (UAF) is planning a series of physical demonstrations over the coming months based on Tuesday’s confrontation, which forced Mr Griffin, the BNP leader and newly elected MEP, to abandon his victory press conference. The approach has frustrated seasoned anti-BNP campaigners, who believe that the stunt allowed Mr Griffin to portray himself as a martyr.
There were violent tussles between the protesters and supporters of Mr Griffin and Andrew Brons, who won the BNP’s second European seat in Yorkshire and the Humber region, and police are investigating two allegations of common assault. UAF, which was set up five years ago as an umbrella organisation for anti-racism groups and trade unions, says that it will picket Mr Griffin wherever he goes. It accepts that there is potential for further violence but insists that the action is necessary to combat the BNP.
Searchlight, a separate organisation that has campaigned against the BNP and its predecessors since the 1960s, is cautious about such protests and says that a more “constructive” approach is needed. Searchlight initially joined UAF when it was created but broke away following policy differences. This week it launched a widespread digital media initiative called Not In My Name. The organisation is being advised by Blue State Digital, the internet strategy firm responsible for President Obama’s winning US campaign, and plans a variety of online initiatives to raise awareness and funds.
This weekend an appeal video featuring various celebrities will be posted online to urge the public to donate. More than 84,500 people have already signed up to its database, making it bigger than those of any of the mainstream political parties.
The Royal British Legion yesterday accused Mr Griffin of trying to politicise “one of the nation’s most beloved symbols” after he repeatedly wore a red poppy during the European election campaign. The charity is demanding that Mr Griffin stop wearing the poppy, after private appeals to his “sense of honour” were ignored. In an open letter to The Guardian, the charity wrote: “True valour deserves respect regardless of a person’s ethnic origin . . . Stop it, Mr Griffin.”
Campaigners are also organising a petition to take to the European Parliament next month, saying that while the BNP has won seats, it does not represent Britain. The number of signatures had exceeded 56,000 by Wednesday, only two days after it was begun. Campaigners aim to surpass 132,094, signatures — the number of votes that Mr Griffin attracted in the North West region.
Searchlight is hoping to raise enough money to wage its biggest campaign against the BNP, from advertisements on buses to leaflets aimed at areas where voters are BNP-friendly. Nick Lowles, the campaign coordinator, said it was a positive way to express discontent. “We need to harness people’s anger in a constructive way, rather than throwing eggs at the BNP,” he said.
However, Anindya Bhattacharyya, a spokesman for UAF, claimed that the strategy was not adequate to defeat the BNP. “If fascists simply organised on the internet then it would be fine. But they foment their race hatred on to the streets. That’s where we have to stand up to them,” he said. UAF is planning an emergency national conference in Manchester on July 18 and aims to picket events such as the BNP’s annual rally in August. Mr Bhattacharyya defended the tactics displayed on Tuesday. He said: “I think the far greater danger is that he [Mr Griffin] becomes legitimised.”
SOURCE
Powerful Democrat Calls Illegal Aliens 'Free Loaders And Scam Artists'
Most liberals regard illegal aliens as "Undocumented Democrats" and a veritable gold mine of opportunity for holding on to political power by coddling those here unlawfully.
For that reason, most Democrat politicians have abandoned patriotic concern about homeland security, the rule of law, stability of the American economy and social order, and preservation of American language and culture. In fact, one can search high and low for a liberal with a patriotic, pro-America stance on illegal immigration, and that search will usually be futile. But there is a notable exception: A U.S. Senator who has shown remarkable wisdom, foresight, and clarity, especially for a Democrat. His office released the following statements concerning illegal immigration:
"In response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens, (I) today introduced the first and only comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress. Currently, an alien living illegally in the United States often pays no taxes but receives unemployment, welfare, free medical care, and other federal benefits. Recent terrorist acts, including the World Trade Center bombing, have underscored the need to keep violent criminals out of the country."
The senator's bill, titled the "Immigration Stabilization Act," overhauls the nation's immigration laws, and calls for a massive scale-down of immigrants allowed into the country. The bill also changes asylum laws to prevent phony asylum seekers.
The senator said the U.S. open door policy is being abused at the expense of honest, working citizens. The senator continued:
"We are a country founded upon fairness and justice. An individual in real threat of torture or long-term incarceration because of his or her political beliefs can still seek asylum. But this bill closes the door to those who want to abuse America's inherent generosity and legal system."
"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs. The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement. Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care, and other benefits often without paying any taxes."
"Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world. Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally."
Specific provisions proposed by the senator in the Immigration Stabilization Act include:
* Reduces annual legal immigration levels. Relatives other than spouse or minor children admitted only if already on immigration waiting lists and their admission does not raise annual immigration levels above approved level.
* Reforms asylum rules to prevent aliens from entering the United States illegally under phony "asylum" claims.
* Expands list of felonies considered "aggravated" felonies requiring exclusion and deportation of criminal aliens. Allows courts to order deportation at time of sentencing.
* Increases penalties for failing to depart or re-entering the United States after a final order of deportation order. Increases maximum penalties for visa fraud from five years to 10 years.
* Curtails alien smuggling by authorizing interdiction and repatriation of aliens seeking to enter the United States unlawfully by sea. Increases penalties for alien smuggling.
* Adds "alien smuggling" to the list of crimes subject to sanctions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
* Expands the categories of property that are forfeited when used to facilitate the smuggling or harboring of illegal aliens.
* Clarifies that a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen. This will eliminate incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits.
* Mandates that aliens who cannot demonstrably support themselves without public or private assistance are excludable. This will prevent admission of aliens likely to be dependent on public financial support. This requirement extends to the sponsor of any family sponsored immigrant.
* Increases border security and patrol officer positions."
What sort of a Democrat would take such a politically incorrect--but morally and legally correct--stance? Perhaps the Democrat with a brain is Zell Miller from the great state of Georgia? Or could it be a reincarnation of Alabama's late conservative firebrand, George Wallace? The answer: None of the above!
In fact, Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced the Immigration Stabilization Act in the United States Senate in 1993. The statements quoted above are from a press release issued by Reid's office on August 5, 1993.
How is it that Harry Reid was exactly right 16 years ago, but is so completely wrong now? Why does Reid oppose programs he once sponsored now that the problem is seven times greater after 9/11?
In the spring of 2006, while the U.S. Senate was debating legislation to make English the official U.S. language, Reid even saw fit to drag out the R word to slander those who supported the English bill. And, of course, Reid has voted for Mexico and against America every time the U.S. Senate has considered amnesty.
Harry Reid: Against illegal immigration, before he was for it! Why?
SOURCE
The "Why" is easy to answer. Reid is a classic illustration of the fact that Democrats have only one fixed principle: Whatever is expedient at the time
13 June, 2009
An understandable goof but a big one
The woman explained but getting bureaucrats to listen or even think is always mountainously difficult. That someone from Argentina might want to come to Britain to learn Welsh sounds a very unlikely story -- but what if that person actually is of Welsh ancestry with family connections in Wales?
A Patagonian woman was sent back to her home country after British immigration officials refused to believe she was travelling to Wales to learn Welsh. Evelyn Talcadrini, from Puerto Madryn, Argentina, was on her way to Glyndyfrdwy, near Llangollen, to spend six months living with a local family to practise her Welsh. But she was put on a flight back to South America within hours of landing in the UK.
Now the Government has agreed to launch an investigation into her treatment after Plaid Cymru's Hywel Williams and Elfyn Llwyd raised the case in the House of Commons during Welsh questions. Mr Williams, Caernarfon MP, said: "She travelled for 35 hours to get to Heathrow, but was summarily ejected and sent back. She is not the only young Welsh Patagonian who has, unfortunately, suffered summary ejection for no good cause that I can see."
The MP said it was a "disgraceful stain on our welcome to Welsh Patagonians." Some 20,000 Welsh people settled in Patagonia in the mid-19th century because they wanted to keep their language and religion at at time when English was becoming the predominant tongue. The first group sailed aboard the Mimosa from Liverpool in May 1865.
Evelyn had been due to spend her time in Wales with Eos Griffiths and his Patagonian-born wife Carina at their home in Glyndyfrdwy, and showed a letter from them to the immigration officials at Heathrow. Mr Griffiths said: "I have known her family for more than 30 years and invited her to stay with us. I thought she would be able to improve her Welsh and learn some English and enjoy the Eisteddfod at Bala this summer."
Wales minister Wayne David said the United Kingdom welcomed Patagonians who were keen to explore their Welsh heritage. "Of course the UK Borders Agency does not have any separate policy in relation to Welsh-speaking people from Patagonia. I give my commitment that the Secretary of State and I will meet the relevant Home Office Minister as soon as possible."
SOURCE
How desperation has made us cast votes for extremism
An article from the heart of middle England (Staffordshire and South Cheshire)
YOU don't have to be a political genius to grasp that as long as the Government fails to tackle the problem of illegal immigration, more voters will turn to the BNP. I can't be the only one who feels that ordinary people are being driven by desperation to vote for the extremist party because their views on immigration are being ignored.
This may be an uncomfortable truth for some people to swallow, but neither Labour nor the Tories can say they haven't been warned. Only a few months ago a nationwide poll showed a majority of supporters of both the major parties putting failure to control immigration at the top of their list of worries. Yet, in spite of the genuine concern, little has been done to restrict the flow of new arrivals. To all intents, Britain operates the open-door policy introduced in 1997. All right, I can already hear the snarls of those who think it's racist even to bring up the subject of immigration, let alone complain about it.
These politically correct diehards would rather we keep silent about our fears and merely 'celebrate diversity' without looking at the consequences of failing to stem an endless tide. Let me put it like this. The worries of millions of ordinary people have nothing to do with race or colour, but everything to do with numbers. Their concern is self-preservation, and why not? It's one of our oldest characteristics. They feel that their culture and whole way of life is under threat and wonder what sort of country their grandchildren will inherit.
I remember Tony Blair acknowledging that there was "cause for complaint" about the extent of illegal immigration and promised to put everything right. But what did the former Prime Minister do? In 2005 he signed away our rights on immigration policies to the European Union. So much for empty promises. This has left Labour hamstrung and unable to initiate anything without the consent of Brussels, though I believe other EU countries have made their own rules on immigration to protect themselves. All I can recall in recent times is a project by former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to get immigrants to earn their British citizenship, which hardly touched on the true problem.
So the BNP has played on public discontent and come up with its own drastic solutions, appealing exclusively to people in working-class districts and gaining support.
I must confess that the spectacular rise of the BNP in Stoke on-Trent surprised me. I've always believed that race relations in the Potteries are good, even very good. Yet local people no longer seem embarrassed to vote for a Far Right party, even though BNP councillors can do nothing to influence national policies on immigration. For that matter, neither can Nick Griffin or Andrew Brons in their capacity as newly-elected MEPs among the 700-odd members of the European Parliament.
I thought it was foolish for protesters to throw eggs at Griffin at Westminster this week. That's not a good way to fight the BNP. Indeed, such behaviour could work in the BNP's favour. Any violent reaction to the party can rebound. In a democracy you beat your opponents by reasoned argument.
On a different tack, I think the fashionable concept of a multicultural society is among the root causes of the problem. It urges us that immigrants have no need to integrate into our society, but remain within their own communities. I feel this is misguided and likely to cause resentment where none has previously existed. To my mind, we should work towards creating a united nation, not one divided on ethnic or religious lines. I hope that doesn't sound like an impossible dream.
But while the Government continues to dodge the issue of controlling illegal immigration, I fear the BNP will continue to thrive.
SOURCE
12 June, 2009
S.F. Crime Reporter Wins Immigration Award
Jaxon Van Derbeken, police reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, is this year’s winner of the Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration. The award, presented each year by the Center for Immigration Studies, is intended to recognize journalists who go beyond the clichés so prevalent in reporting on immigration and whose reporting informs deliberations in this important policy area.
Van Derbeken has worked for the San Francisco Chronicle since 1997, where he has covered the city’s police department. His reporting on the department’s troubled track record in solving violent crime won several awards and led to an overhaul of the department’s investigative arm.
In 2008, as part of his beat, Van Derbeken learned that the city had a policy of not reporting to federal authorities for possible deportation those illegal immigrant drug dealers and other felons who claimed to be juveniles, instead paying for group homes and free flights home. Among the beneficiaries of this aspect of San Francisco’s illegal-alien sanctuary policy was a violent gang member who was later arrested as an adult in the murders of a father and two sons who became innocent victims of a gang war. In the best tradition of journalism, his reporting shone light on hidden aspects of government conduct, forcing city officials to abandon their policy of shielding the juvenile offenders after the first story broke.
This award is named in memory of Eugene Katz, who started his career as a reporter for the Daily Oklahoman. In 1928, he joined the family business, working as an advertising salesman for the Katz Agency, and in 1952 became president of Katz Communications, a half-billion-dollar firm which not only dealt in radio and television advertising but also owned and managed a number of radio stations. Mr. Katz was a member of the Center for Immigration Studies board until shortly after his 90th birthday in 1997. He passed away in 2000.
The Center for Immigration Studies is a non-profit, non-partisan research institute which examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States. It is animated by a pro-immigrant/low-immigration vision, but offers the Katz Award not to promote any point of view but rather to foster informed decision-making on an issue so central to America’s future.
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 www.cis.org
AZ: Panel advances bill to jail illegal migrants
The state Legislature is moving to make federal immigration issues a matter of state law, a change that could mean jail time for illegal immigrants. Under a bill approved by a committee Tuesday, being in the country illegally - historically considered a federal matter - would become a state misdemeanor. A second offense would be a felony. That would mean illegal immigrants found in Arizona could be arrested by local police, accused by local prosecutors and be put behind bars, rather than being turned over to U.S. officials for deportation.
On an 8-3 vote, the Senate Appropriations committee recommended Senate Bill 1162 be approved. The bill originated as a measure to renew funds for Maricopa County Sheriff's Office anti-illegal immigration efforts, but an amendment added Tuesday would create the new state trespassing law. The provisions of the bill fit into an overall strategy long sought by opponents of illegal immigration, who want state penalties for what are now federal crimes. This, they say, will make it easier for local officials to fight illegal immigration and provide jail time for a crime they say too often goes unpunished. "We're back to an old-school push to create state crimes," said Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, who voted for the bill.
The bill drew criticism on two key points: the cost for cities and counties to prosecute and jail illegal immigrants, and a provision that would prohibit government entities from restricting law-enforcement agencies from inquiring about someone's immigration status. Essentially, that would bar any policies that now discourage officials from asking about the immigration status of a person who has been detained or is applying for state benefits. A city or agency that didn't comply with the new law could be sued in Superior Court.
That line drew fire from Karen Peters, a lobbyist for Phoenix, who called it "micromanagement of police operations." "To the extent that this statute would impair our ability to manage our department . . . and to protect witnesses and victims of crimes, that continues to be of enormous concern to us," she said. "This really impairs that mission."
A representative of the Arizona League of Cities and Towns said the provision allowing anyone to sue was overbroad and could lead to frivolous lawsuits. Local governments also would bear the cost of the misdemeanor cases.
Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, testified in support of the bill. He said it would prevent policies like the one Phoenix had in place until last year, which prevented police in most cases from asking about a person's immigration status. "Our officers have paid dearly for that policy," he said. "We wouldn't wish that on any other department in the world." Critics have said the policy was partly responsible for the death of Phoenix Officer Nick Erfle, who was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant in 2007.
Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, the bill's sponsor, said the establishment of a state crime would give law-enforcement officials a way to hold suspected illegal immigrants while investigating other crimes.
In recent years, efforts to establish state penalties for immigration violations have faltered. In 2008, Pearce proposed a bill similar to this year's, which would have put the issue before voters if passed. The bill didn't come to a vote. In 2007, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill that would have barred people from disrupting traffic while they waited along public roads looking for work. The legislation would have affected day laborers, many of whom are undocumented immigrants. Critics have said that large gatherings of laborers threaten safety and spill over onto business property and private land. Napolitano, now the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, called the bill "vague, overbroad and discriminatory" in her veto letter.
SB 1162 must pass two more Senate committees before going to the full Senate. Separately on Tuesday, the state House gave final approval to a measure that would ban so-called sanctuary policies, those intended to prohibit local officials from enforcing immigration laws. Pearce said language in that bill would make it difficult to enforce and that his bill would have a better chance of eliminating sanctuary policies.
SOURCE
11 June, 2009
A few observations about immigration and intelligence
In my comments on IQ, yesterday, I asked why the descendants of African slaves who have in recent decades come to the USA from the Caribbean tend to outperform in various ways the descendants of African slaves whose ancestors were transported directly to what is now the USA. Afro-Americans themselves are well aware of the difference and refer to Afro-Caribbeans as "coconuts" (brown on the outside, white on the inside).
I attributed the difference between the two groups to an immigration effect: "People who have somehow got themselves out of a Caribbean hellhole such as Jamaica or Haiti and re-established themselves in America are obviously smarter than those who stay behind in their scenic but poor, corrupt and crime-ridden homelands. So they do better in America because they are smarter to start with. They are an environmentally-selected superior subset of their parent population. Most of their success follows from that. The first generation too tend to have better motivation, having grown up in a society lacking welfare payments. It's basically work or starve where they come from. And they do of course tend to pass work-oriented values onto their kids."
A question that flows from that, however, starts from the fact that Americans generally are of immigrant origin. So why is not the average white American IQ higher than the average IQ of (say) Britain? The easy answer, of course is that Americans today originate from all corners of the globe. They are not solely of British descent and some of the incoming groups may originally have come from backward populations and thus have dragged the average down.
But let me look in a bit more detail at that: Unlike the "coconuts", the earliest white settlers in North America were NOT fleeing from backward hellholes. They were in fact fleeing from the most advanced civilizations of the day, predominantly Britain and Germany. They were fleeing mainly for religious reasons rather than economic ones and whether that indicates greater intelligence or not is I think at least not obvious. Later waves of immigration, however, clearly DID come to America for economic reasons: poor people from Ireland, Poland, Germany, Russia and Southern Italy, principally. And as Herrnstein & Murray showed long ago, there is a social class effect on IQ: Poor people tend to be dumber. So the fact that the descendants of that later wave suffer no present-day IQ disadvantage illustrates that the immigration effect DID work for them too: The immigrant poor were smarter than the poor populations that they left behind. So, just looking at the major population groups that today constitute white America, there is no reason to expect in them higher average IQs than the average IQs in (say) Britain or Germany. And the reality corresponds to that expectation.
A small coda to that which I mention with some hesitation concerns Ireland -- seeing that I myself have substantial Irish ancestry. The various 20th century studies of Irish IQ have produced some rather low averages, with a 7-point disadvantage often quoted. There are various possible reasons for that but we may be seeing there the other end of the immigration effect: For various reasons, but particularly the potato blight, the emigration from Ireland was particularly heavy and the smartest people left Ireland long ago for parts of the world with greater opportunities: principally Britain, North America and the Antipodes. I am rather glad that some of them came to the Antipodes because I would not exist otherwise. And I can assure you that I am perfectly delighted by my Irish ancestry.
And that somehow brings me to the Chinese. No-one in his right mind can deny the outstanding academic success and success generally of the Chinese in America. So is that an immigrant effect too? Are they smart solely because they are immigrants who had to overcome large difficulties in order to come to America? I think that there is some truth in that, but it is far from the whole story. The studies of IQ in China itself unfailingly show an above-average result, usually considerably above average. On the other hand, as far as I am aware, none of the studies of IQ in China come from completely representative national population samples and it may be that there are among the poor populations of the more remote regions of China some quite low averages to be found, which could well drag the national average down to something like the Western average if taken into account. But that is speculation. Clearly, the parts of China from which Chinese Americans come show above average IQs so Chinese Americans are a select subset of an already talented population. No wonder they do so well.
UK government says “no” to volunteer labor
One of the many consequences of the new points-based system for UK visa distribution is the limitation imposed on non-EU student interns. The current migration regulations bar non-EU students from undertaking fulltime internships in the UK, effectively pronouncing a death sentence on thousands of UK internship programmes at universities around the world.
The objective of this new policy is simple, to protect UK jobs. The government assumes that a drastic reduction in free student labor will compel UK employers to pay EU citizens to do the work formerly done by non-EU interns. If the volunteer labor supply is depleted, organizations with internship programmes will be forced either to increase their expenses by hiring additional employees or do less work because they cannot afford to pay new staff. The points based system ensures that intern-dependent employers reduce either net profitability or productivity.
I grant that this is an oversimplification. It is possible that organizations that previously relied on non-EU interns might maintain their productivity levels by working more efficiently. It could also be argued that the time spent training interns diminishes organizational efficiency. Astute observers may even point out that intern-dependent employers represent a miniscule percentage of UK employers, so the impact on the economy will also be negligible.
Efficiency is a hallmark of free market economies, but it must be worked out in an unfettered marketplace not artificially imposed by regulation. Although the collective economy will notice little effects from the elimination of interns, market sectors containing an abundance of resource poor, intern-dependent organizations – unregistered charities in particular – will feel the effects of the points-based system most acutely.
The anti-intern policy is far from the top of the list of ill-advised policies set forth by the current regime (see capital gains tax reform, non-dom tax, et al.). Nonetheless, the policy is yet another example of regulation that obstructs free enterprise. Hopefully it will follow many of its poorly conceived counterparts to the policy graveyard.
SOURCE
U.S. Temporarily Suspends Policy of Deporting Widows of Citizens
It should be permanently suspended. It is one of the most unfeeling policies imaginable
The Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday it is temporarily freezing a policy of deporting widows and widowers of U.S. citizens, a sign of the Obama administration's interest in new approaches to immigration. Only a few hundred people were at risk of deportation under the policy, but critics viewed it as one of the most painful consequences of President George W. Bush's immigration crackdown.
Under the current interpretation of federal law, some immigrants whose American spouses had died faced possible deportation because their legal status was in limbo. The rule applied to immigrants who had been married for less than two years or whose green-card process hadn't been completed when their spouses died. The clause, known as the "widow penalty," had resulted in a spate of lawsuits.
On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that her agency was freezing any action against such widows and widowers for two years. "Smart immigration policy balances strong enforcement practices with common-sense, practical solutions to complicated issues," Ms. Napolitano said.
A Department of Homeland Security statement said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that oversees immigrant petitions, would give favorable consideration to requests for reinstatement of cases that previously had been revoked under the law.
Ms. Napolitano's directive offers relief, if only temporary, to some 200 widows and widowers. However, it suggests the Obama administration could be testing a softer approach to other contentious aspects of immigration policy. "It's a good sign, and it hedges Obama's bets: If comprehensive [immigration] reform advances, this will help pave the way. If not, at least he can say he tried," said Dan Kowalski, an Austin, Texas, immigration attorney and editor of Bender's Immigration Bulletin.
There have been other recent signals that broader change to immigration enforcement might be afoot. In recent months, there has been a drop in work-site raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which conducted several operations to round up illegal immigrants during the Bush administration.
Ms. Napolitano ordered a review after a February raid -- the first mass arrest of immigrants since President Barack Obama took office -- on an engine factory in Washington state. She has since said ICE agents will focus on employers rather than workers.
In Tuesday's announcement, DHS described Ms. Napolitano's directive as a "short-term arrangement," and noted that immigration law would need to be amended for a permanent new policy to take effect.
Immigrant advocates reacted with cautious optimism. "It's an enormous watershed moment...but it's just a Band-Aid for two years," said Brent Renison, an immigration attorney who has been fighting widow cases for several years.
One of Mr. Renison's clients caught in this legal bind is Diana Engstrom, a native of Kosovo, whose husband, Todd Engstrom, was a U.S. Army contractor killed in Iraq in 2004. She has been fighting in court for years for the right to remain in the U.S. legally. A bill introduced on her behalf by Mr. Obama, then a U.S. senator, with fellow Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin in 2005, was never acted upon. Congress has yet to act on several bills that seek to clarify the immigration status of widows and widowers.
In May, Mr. Renison won a class-action lawsuit in federal district court in Los Angeles against the DHS. Other courts have also ruled against the federal government, but the government continued to enforce the law.
SOURCE
10 June, 2009
Immigration is not an insolvable problem
The article below by Irwin Stelzer is an unusually well-balanced one by my lights. He says that the alienation of native peoples by immigration is avoidable and his principal recommendation of a return to assimilation pressures I wholly agree with. There is however one point which he overlooks so I will add that as a coda at the foot of the article -- JR
In boom times there are plenty of jobs in developed countries. These attract immigrants from all over the world. Come a recession, the job market tightens, and the flow reverses – immigrants go home, either because unemployment is more tolerable at home, or because, as with most Chinese and Indian workers leaving America, the opportunities are better. This ebb and flow is just what a free-trading regime is supposed to produce. Free trade, we are taught, means the unimpeded flow of goods and services, capital and labour across international borders.
At times, the flow of goods causes problems, as when European apparel firms feel that competition with China is "unfair", or US steel companies persuade the government to impose quotas on the importation of steel, or the Japanese erect bureaucratic barriers to the importation of US cars. And, at times, the flow of capital causes problems, as when the Chinese decide to buy up resources the Australian government wants to keep in domestic hands, or an Arab government wants to own US ports, or when "hot money" from speculative investors suddenly flows out of a country.
But these are mere tempests in the proverbial teapot when compared with the problem created by the international movement of labour. In Britain, illegal labourers in search of work and a better life or the country's relatively generous welfare payments, sneak in from France, where they have gathered from Africa and Eastern Europe in preparation for the last leg of their journey. In America, Mexicans by the millions slip across the border in search of work. In good times, they have no trouble finding jobs building the homes and tending the lawns of Americans unable to find citizens to do these jobs, at least at the wages they are willing to pay. In Spain, Italy and other countries, Africans and Eastern Europeans come to find the jobs that are simply not available in their countries.
This creates three problems for the receiving nations. The first, and newest, is that among the immigrants are terrorists who come to wreak havoc on the indigenous populations. The second is that native workers see the newcomers as competitors for jobs, leading politicians to trawl for votes by promising "British jobs for British workers" or, in my country, by forcing a bailed-out General Motors to open new plants in America and close some in China. The third is that the native population senses that its culture is under siege.
The first problem can be solved in part by tighter border controls and better intelligence – and, were it not so non-PC, sensible profiling (or, to use a less emotive term, the application of statistical probability tests). The second, the competition for jobs, is less of a problem during boom periods in which labour is in short supply, and can be met by a variety of techniques, including a points system of the sort now used in the UK and other countries, to match immigrants to labour-deficient markets. This is highly imperfect, and does not prevent immigration from putting downward pressure on wages, but it does unruffle many union feathers.
It is the culture issue that is so intractable. There are places in the UK, France, America and other countries where the existing inhabitants feel they have become strangers in a strange land. The dress is foreign and often scary, the native tongue is unheard on the streets, the odours from the cooking of strange foods are off-putting, children are held back in school by immigrants who do not speak the nation's language, and the religions practised vary from the merely exotic to the positively threatening.
Perhaps worst of all, this is of little concern to the ruling elites, who rarely live in the affected neighbourhoods, or venture into them (except when searching for votes). They are free to favour multiculturalism without enduring its consequences, and to ignore the fact that new immigrants, unlike previous waves, may have no desire to assimilate into cultures they often find abhorrent.
So, for some, the departure of immigrant workers is a cause for cheer. But recessions end, and the flow of people across borders will once again accelerate. Indeed, even recessions do not result in a complete departure of the people attracted by jobs to Britain, the US and other developed countries whose welfare systems are more generous and humane than those at home. Tensions remain – which is unfortunate, since the free movement of people can provide a much-needed addition to the labour forces of developed countries, and the remittances of immigrant labourers a much-needed relief from poverty for residents of poorer countries. There aren't many such win-win situations around these days.
The easier parts are to provide reasonable assurance that terrorists will be detected in most cases, and to match immigrants with available jobs. The harder part is to reduce the availability of welfare for those who come seeking a handout rather than a hand up. The hardest part is to persuade the policy-making elites that insistence on assimilation, rather than continuation of the multicultural policies which make them feel so saintly and modern, will alleviate some of the opposition to immigration and cut into the mounting popularity of racist parties.
SOURCE
The point which I think Stelzer overlooks is political. What effect will immigration have on voting patterns? In that connection, I draw attention to my article of 8th. With the warning that it should be read in context, I quote a small excerpt from that article: "Hispanics [meaning in this case populations South of the Rio Grande] clearly are a low-quality group. Their levels of education and productivity are low, their criminality is high and they almost invariably support populist political policies that usually produce Fascist or near-Fascist governments. Would any reasonable person want unselected members of that group allowed into their country?"
So if large numbers of people who normally support foolish political policies are allowed to become voters in the USA, is that not likely to degrade the quality of the political policies practised in the USA? I can only see a "yes" in answer to that question and the marked drift to the Left of the Democratic party in recent years is I think evidence of that. Without the Hispanic vote, the Democrats would be out of power. -- JR
Kristoff, IQ and immigration
I originally wrote the article below for my DISSECTING LEFTISM blog but I think it has a place here too
Ya gotta laugh! Below are the first three paragraphs from an article by Kristoff. He is making his second obeisance before the badly-flawed work of Richard Nisbett on IQ:In the mosaic of America, three groups that have been unusually successful are Asian-Americans, Jews and West Indian blacks — and in that there may be some lessons for the rest of us.Equating "coconuts", as American blacks often call them, with Jews and Asians is one extravagant comparison. It's true that they outperform American-born blacks but that does not say much. They are nowhere up to the Jewish/Chinese/Japanese standard.
Asian-Americans are renowned — or notorious — for ruining grade curves in schools across the land, and as a result they constitute about 20 percent of students at Harvard College.
As for Jews, they have received about one-third of all Nobel Prizes in science received by Americans. One survey found that a quarter of Jewish adults in the United States have earned a graduate degree, compared with 6 percent of the population as a whole.
West Indian blacks, those like Colin Powell whose roots are in the Caribbean, are one-third more likely to graduate from college than African-Americans as a whole, and their median household income is almost one-third higher.
Kristoff's basic but ludicrous point is that IQ and achievement generally are all due to working hard at your education and that all three groups he mentions do so. I will leave the Jewish/Asian aspect of that aside for the moment and just concentrate on the "coconuts". Their success is largely a reflection of a strong immigration effect. People who have somehow got themselves out of a Caribbean hellhole such as Jamaica or Haiti and re-established themselves in America are obviously smarter than those who stay behind in their scenic but poor, corrupt and crime-ridden homelands. So they do better in America because they are smarter to start with. They are an environmentally-selected superior subset of their parent population. Most of their success follows from that. The first generation too tend to have better motivation, having grown up in a society lacking welfare payments. It's basically work or starve where they come from. And they do of course tend to pass work-oriented values onto their kids. So attitudes do play SOME part in their success. But there is no sign that they are about to rival Jews in Nobel-prize-quality work!
The rest of Kristoff's article is, as far as I can see, just a rehash of points that I have rebutted already in my previous commentaries on Nisbett. See here, here, here and here
One point I have not seen mentioned before, however, is this doozy:One large study followed a group of Chinese-Americans who initially did slightly worse on the verbal portion of I.Q. tests than other Americans and the same on math portions. But beginning in grade school, the Chinese outperformed their peers, apparently because they worked harder.So Chinese pre-schoolers did not speak English well but rapidly caught up and surged ahead once they went to a real school. It has apparently not occurred to Kristoff that the Chinese littlies might have not been good at English or understood their classes at all because they mostly heard Chinese at home!
9 June, 2009
Europe’s right-wing parties appeal on jobs, banks and immigration
Pragmatic measures to fight the recession, and an appeal to nationalist sentiment with plenty of rhetoric on immigrants, were the ingredients of the success of centre-right parties. Armed with a clear message and blessed with an opposition in disarray, the mainstream Right appealed to voters with a sense of grievance at the financial system. But its campaign — leavened with anti-immigrant slogans and calls to reject Turkish membership of the EU — came with a heavy dose of traditionally left-wing attitudes to job protection.
“Right-wing parties are talking about how to regulate markets and how to intervene to save jobs, as well as reform social welfare systems,” said Sara Hagemann, policy analyst with the European Policy Centre in Brussels. “The Centre Right has said this more forcefully and more visibly.”
The big winners — the ruling parties in France, Germany and Poland — were among the most reluctant to follow Gordon Brown’s call for huge fiscal stimulus payouts that would land taxpayers with years of high public deficits. The centre-right European People’s Party will have about 263 of the 736 seats, despite the departure of David Cameron’s Conservatives to form a new anti-federalist group.
The tactic was exemplified by President Sarkozy, who marginalised the already divided Socialists by inviting senior centre-left politicians into his Government and pushing state intervention and protection for vulnerable French industries — while refusing to countenance Turkish membership of the Union.
His UMP party got 27.9 per cent of the vote, thumping the Socialists who had just 16.5 per cent In Germany, Angela Merkel’s CDU and its Bavarian sister party, the CSU, won 37.9 per cent of the vote while their rival Social Democrats plunged to a record low of 20.8 per cent.
In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi’s party was on course for 35.2 per cent, comfortably beating the opposition but falling far short of its own predictions. The Prime Minister’s party chose to blame bad publicity surrounding the nature of its leader’s relationship with an 18-year-old model for the result. [See below]
The Centre Left
“This is disappointing,” said Franz Müntefering, the head of the German socialist SPD party. “The result is significantly worse than we expected.” It was an understatement: the European Left was at a loss to explain its electoral meltdown.
For the opposition in France, Germany, Italy and Poland, as for ruling parties in Britain, Bulgaria and Portugal, it was a drubbing. Whether it was voters deserting them for extremists or fringe parties or simply staying at home in the lowest-ever turnout for a European election of just 43 per cent, or having their clothes stolen by the Right promising to protect people’s jobs, left-wing parties across the continent were staring at the maths: the Party of European Socialists was heading for 163 MEPs, a big disappointment after aiming for 200.
“It was a sad evening for social democracy in Europe. We are particularly disappointed,” said Martin Schulz, the German MEP who leads the group in the Parliament.
Core voters, including students and less educated workers, appeared to have stayed away from the polls, but that was not the only explanation. In Spain, where José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s ruling Socialists were defeated for the first time by Mariano Rajoy’s Popular Party, the daily newspaper Mundo summed up the European mood. “The traditional parties of the Left should ask themselves why, in the midst of crisis, just when free market theories appear to be most challenged, people continue to prefer liberal recipes,” it said.
The Far Right
When the new MEPs of the BNP head for Brussels they will find they have a wide range of neo-fascist bedfellows. There are some familiar faces, such as the French National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen, at 80 now the oldest MEP, but some new ones too — such as the three MEPs for Jobbik, a nationalist Hungarian party with its own uniformed paramilitary wing.
However, neo-fascist Europeans do not have a history of co-operation. In 2007 a group of far-right MEPs formed the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty bloc; it broke up after 11 months when the Greater Romanian MEPs quit over remarks by Alessandro Mussolini, the granddaughter of Il Duce, who said that all Romanians were criminals.
Now that she has left there may be grounds for a rapprochement. But the Greater Romania Party won just two seats, down from the five observer MEPs at the time Romania joined the EU. The party also may have difficulty lifting a travel ban on Gigi Becali, imposed as a condition of his bail on charges of kidnapping three men who allegedly stole his sports car.
One party likely to spurn a group that includes the BNP is the Freedom Party of the maverick Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was banned from entering Britain in February for his strident anti-Islamic views. It won four seats to become the Netherlands’ second-largest party, but has kept a distance from other fringe parties.
SOURCE
CIS roundup
1. The Sea Within Which the Fish Swim
Excerpt: One of the reasons ongoing mass immigration is a security problem for a modern society is that it creates and constantly refreshes unassimilated immigrant communities that serve as cover for bad guys, whether transnational terrorists or transnational criminals, whose access to modern technologies of communications, transportation, and weaponry makes the threat different in kind from anything we faced in earlier eras.
********
2. UAFA Senate Hearing
Excerpt: On June 3, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Uniting American Families Act of 2009 (H.R. 1024, S. 424). Under current U.S. immigration law, citizens engaged in a same-sex partnership with a foreigner have no legal channel to sponsor their partner’s attempt to gain legal permanent residence in the United States. In response, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) have introduced the act in their respective chambers. This is the sixth time a version of the bill has been introduced. From 2000 to 2005, it was known as the Permanent Partners Immigration Act.
********
3. Know-Nothings vs. Restrictionists
Excerpt: I was the keynote speaker at a big naturalization ceremony yesterday at the Paramount Theater in Oakland, Calif. (a really cool art-deco building, at least on the inside; maybe there is some there there after all). I gave a version of my naturalization speech to the nearly 1,000 new citizens, plus maybe 1,500 friends and family, who greeted it with pretty boisterous applause, much more so than at the more sedate ceremonies I've addressed in D.C. and Baltimore.
********
4. The Uniting American Families Act: Addressing Inequality in Federal Immigration Law
Excerpt: Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Sessions, and other committee members, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss proposed changes to U.S. immigration law that would create a new type of relationship in immigration law -- “permanent partners” – for the purposes of obtaining benefits now available only to married men and women. I fully understand the goal of this legislation and the difficulties current law presents, particularly for same-sex couples. However, this legislation is addressing the issue from the wrong direction, and would create new problems for officials who adjudicate immigration benefits applications and for the many individuals involved in those applications.
********
5. First 24 Hours of WHTI a Big Success
Excerpt: The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative reported its first 24 hours of operation at our land and sea ports of entry-- now fully in operation across all ports of entry-- as nothing short of incredible success. On June 1, 2009, WHTI became the first fully implemented 9/11 Commission border recommendation that was not 'under construction' prior to our Final Report of July 2004. I received this information from DHS leadership last night:
********
6. Enhanced DLs Deemed Compliant for Use at Borders
Excerpt: Today the Federal Register announced that the agency responsible for securing our borders, Customs and Border Protection, is designating enhanced driver's licenses and identification documents issued by the states of Vermont and Michigan and the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, and Ontario as acceptable documents for purposes of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) that goes into effect at land and sea borders on June 1, 2009. Washington State (April 3, 2008) and New York (December 2, 2008) were previously designated as WHTI compliant. These documents may be used to denote identity and citizenship of, as appropriate, U.S. or Canadian citizens entering the United States from within the Western Hemisphere at land and sea ports of entry.
********
7. Pull factor down in U.S. Push factor up in Mexico. Trouble predicted.
Excerpt: Unemployment is growing in the United States, and CIS has recently reported that immigrants are being hit harder than natives by the ongoing recession. That means a sharp reduction in the pull factor in illegal immigration. But a study by Mexican researcher Clemente Ruiz Duran indicates that the recession in Mexico is intensifying the push factor of unemployment.
********
8. We Promise to Keep Enforcing the Law, Honest!
Excerpt: Chuck Schumer is making a big show of (the Bush administration's!) immigration enforcement successes, arguing, in the words of the Washington Times story, that 'lawmakers have proved to the nation that they are serious about security. Now, he said, voters should be ready to accept a law that legalizes illegal immigrants and rewrites immigration rules.'
********
9. An Immigration Debate Without Immigrants?
Excerpt: Skirmishing over semantics is such a recurrent component of the immigration debate it seems scarcely worth mentioning. The pro-amnesty, open-borders side eschews the term 'illegal alien' and describes all who enter the U.S. legally or illegally as 'immigrants.' Their policy opponents are equally careful to avoid terminology that serves as euphemisms for lawbreaking, hence their detestation of the coinage 'undocumented worker.' As George Orwell reminds us in 'Politics and the English Language,' improving our language is a prerequisite to improving our political thought. That axiom applies to how we speak and write about immigration policy. This is true of a core component of the issue we have mistakenly subsumed under the label 'immigration policy.' To paraphrase Orwell when he says – 'Since you don’t know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism?' – how can we fix the problem we’re debating if we’re so confused about its essence we're mislabeling it?
********
10. Screening for Illegals
Excerpt: I agree with Heather Mac Donald that the administration's decision to expand immigration checks to all jails is a positive development that needs watching. But I have two concerns that Heather didn't touch on.
********
11. Five Million waiting on Family Visas
Excerpt: For the first time in over a decade, the State Department has released basic information on the number of people on the waiting list for family-based immigrants, reporting that more than 2.7 million people are awaiting interviews overseas for their immigrant visa. In addition, there are another 2.2 million people are waiting in the United States for USCIS to process their family visa application. With visa demand from eligible people now more than 20 times what our law allows in annual issuances, it seems past time to eliminate some of the categories – the current system is unfair to applicants and their sponsors, encourages illegal immigration, and wastes government resources.
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 www.cis.org
8 June, 2009
Is opposition to illegal immigration partly driven by racism?
I find a lot of sense in the writings of Ruben Navarrette Jr. and I agree with much that he says in the article below. One thing he says below, albeit with unusual politeness, is however very contentious: That opposition to illegal immigration is at least in part driven by racism. I would argue that it driven by concerns about the quality of the immigrants but that race, very broadly conceived, can in the present circumstances play a role in evaluating that. Present-day illegals entering the USA usually have very low skills and their children in particular have very high rates of criminality so concerns about quality are clearly realistic.
If immigration were under proper control, immigrants could be treated as they should be: as individuals. Regardless of your race, your own personal qualities could determine your acceptability or otherwise. Where immigration is uncontrolled, however, one has no choice but to look at what is happening from a group perspective. What do we know about the groups that are entering the USA? And, as a group, Hispanics clearly are a low-quality group. Their levels of education and productivity are low, their criminality is high and they almost invariably support populist political policies that usually produce Fascist or near-Fascist governments. Would any reasonable person want unselected members of that group allowed into their country?
Navarette points out, as many do, that the USA for a long time allowed unselected immigration from places like Ireland, Germany. Italy and China and that those groups turned out to be generally OK. But China has had a continuous record of civilization longer than any other, Germany has long been (with only one notable lapse) one of the most civilized places in Europe, Italy gave us both the Roman empire and the Renaissance and Ireland was an integral part of the then most dominant polity on earth: The British empire. So it is no wonder that people of such distinguished origins turned out to be generally OK. But what distinction does Mexico and the rest of Latin-America have in contrast with the four countries just mentioned? Chaos, corruption, poverty and near-unbelievable crime-rates are all that I see.Race and ethnicity must be part of immigration debate
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
A month ago, before most Americans had ever heard of Sonia Sotomayor, I predicted to a group of friends that Latinos would get either a Supreme Court justice or immigration reform — but not both. My theory: The political gurus in the Obama White House know that many Americans think the country does too much to accommodate the nation's largest minority as it is. Asking for more would seem gluttonous.
Still, with the administration promising to at least restart the debate on comprehensive immigration reform this year — although apparently waiting for Congress to act first — advocates are now convening in symposiums or conference calls to search for a new strategy to persuade Americans that it's time to fix a broken system.
As someone who tries to travel down the middle on immigration — for instance, favoring both a path to legalization for illegal immigrants and stringent conditions on how to earn that privilege — I've been invited to participate in a few of these sessions.
Some of what is being said — sprinkled with research and results from focus groups — is insightful. Other parts of the dialogue are frustrating. For me, one thing that is especially hard to swallow is that so many enlightened and well-meaning immigration reform advocates are so eager to run away from the race issue. They believe ?that, once anyone on their side even hints that racism is part of the immigration debate, the conversation is over.
And so, they say, the best way to increase the chances for reform is to avoid that kind of talk and concentrate on arguments that might actually convince people. Talk about personal responsibility, they say — about how those who are in the country illegally must acknowledge wrongdoing, make amends, learn English and otherwise assimilate. And, they say, avoid making any demands on U.S. citizens — most of whom don't accept that they share any responsibility for the current situation.
Still, I'm in no hurry to let go of the racial angle. A big part of the anxiety that many Americans currently feel about increased immigration levels fits a historical pattern. What worries people most is what they see as the inferior quality of the immigrants coming ashore — or, if you prefer, crossing the border.
After all, that's one way that racism typically manifests itself — through a sense of superiority. It can also come through fear or animosity. Some Americans dispute this and insist that race and ethnicity have nothing to do with concerns over illegal immigration. Rather, what has so many people upset, they claim, is that it is — hello — illegal.
Rubbish. If that were true, the debate wouldn't lapse so quickly into talk of limiting legal immigration as well. After all, the Germans, Chinese, Irish, and Italians who entered the country in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries were mistreated in much the same way that subsequent waves from other parts of the world would be. Why? It's because, as foreigners, they were believed to be inferior.
Which brings us to why it's important to be honest about racism in the immigration debate: Acknowledging it allows Americans, the children of immigrants, to empathize with new arrivals who suffer many of the same trials as those who came before them.
Still, some maintain that the best strategy for getting comprehensive immigration reform is to downplay racism because it makes some people feel uncomfortable. Yes, I know. The truth has a way of doing that. And any campaign that asks Americans to deny the truth to achieve a political goal asks too much.
SOURCE
EU offers immigration help to Greece
The European Union moved a step closer to meeting the requests of Greece and other Mediterranean countries for greater assistance in their efforts to tackle illegal immigration during a meeting of justice and interior ministers that ended yesterday.
Following the Luxembourg meeting, the EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Jacques Barrot said that he would make it a priority to work closely with countries such as Turkey and Libya so that they would be obligated to improve their border controls and honor the repatriation agreements that they have signed.
Greece has long complained about Turkey accepting only a small percentage of the thousands of illegal immigrants that arrive every year after setting off from neighboring countries.
Athens has found it increasingly difficult to deal with a growing influx of migrants and the city’s mayor, Nikitas Kaklamanis, applauded the news from Luxembourg. “I welcome this decision, which, once implemented, will significantly stem the unrestrained flow of migrants from our neighboring country into Greece,” he said.
“Elevating the mass illegal immigration problem from a national to a European matter must be accompanied by generous financial and technical assistance from the European Union to Greece to meet the needs of both the Greek Police and the Coast Guard, so that the protection of our borders, particularly at sea, brings substantial results,” added Kaklamanis.
Greece is also likely to have been encouraged by an agreement for a pilot burden-sharing scheme, under which EU member states will accept refugees from Malta on a voluntary basis. “Through this pilot project, refugees and other persons with humanitarian protection currently in Malta will have the opportunity to move to other EU member states and resettle there,” said Barrot.
He said that the EU could not force member states to accept asylum seekers but that the Commission intended to ask the countries to pledge how many migrants from Malta they would accept. Italy had been pushing for obligatory burden sharing but a number of states raised objections.
The issue will be picked up for discussion again when Sweden takes over the rotating EU presidency next month.
SOURCE
7 June, 2009
Dutch anti-immigrant party emerges as big winner in EU elections
A far-right anti-Islamic party emerged as the big winner in the European elections in the Netherlands yesterday as the rest of the Continent braced itself for further gains by fringe parties over the weekend. The Party for Freedom led by Geert Wilders, the maverick Dutch MP who was banned from entering Britain this year for his beliefs, won four seats in the European Parliament at the first time of asking, having been formed in 2006.
The result, which placed the party second in the Netherlands, behind only the ruling Christian Democratic Alliance (CDA), suggested that anti-immigrant parties would attract disaffected voters in a number of countries in the European polls. They are expected to gain seats in Austria, Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania.
With most of the votes counted, Mr Wilders’s party took 17 per cent of the vote, second to the CDA of Jan Peter Balkenende, the Prime Minister, which took 19.9 per cent, losing two of its seven MEPs.
Labour, which is in a coalition Government with the CDA, was the biggest loser, receiving only 12.1 per cent, compared with 23.6 per cent in 2004, and losing four of its seven seats. The result confirmed forecasts that the Right was set to claim victory in the elections, with results from the remaining 26 EU countries being declared tomorrow night after polls have closed. Wouter Bos, the Labour leader, said: “The parties that lost the most were those who supported Europe . . . who defended Europe against a lot of scepticism. It appears that the voters found that unconvincing.”
Mr Wilders, who will not be among his party’s MEPs, lives under police protection after numerous death threats for his outspoken calls for closing mosques and blocking immigration to Europe’s most populous country per square mile. He has likened the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
The party’s message found resonance in a reaction against the tolerance towards immigrants for which the Netherlands has become known. Mr Wilders, 45, made a controversial film last year that portrayed images of extremist violence against a backdrop of the Koran. “Turkey as [an] Islamic country should never be in the EU, not in ten years, not in a million years,” he said while campaigning on the slogan “More Netherlands, less Europe”. Explaining his rise in popularity over the past four years, he added: “My supporters say, ‘At last there is someone who dares to say what millions of people think’. That is what I do.”
Under a banning order signed by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary at the time, Mr Wilders was stopped at Heathrow from entering Britain in February to attend a screening of his film at the House of Lords.
“We want to fight for the right to decide who can immigrate to the Netherlands and that Brussels is not the decision-making body,” said Mr Wilders after his party’s success, in a reference to plans for an EU Blue Card similar to the US Green Card, which Britain has used its opt-out to avoid. “Many people clearly yearn for a different Netherlands and have had enough of this big Europe.”
His demand for the Dutch Government to stand down and call early elections was ignored by Mr Balkenende.
In a sign that Green parties will also pick up votes across the EU, the environmental Groenlinks party gained 8.8 per cent of votes in the Netherlands and three seats, up from 7.4 per cent and two seats, while the far-left Socialist Party remained at 7.1 per cent and two seats.
Mohammed Jabir, a political commentator on Muslim affairs, said: “The middle parties are losing ground. Basically it is Left against Right at this point. As long as the economic crisis continues, people will seek reasons for losing their jobs and their homes.”
SOURCE
Immigration issue helping Berlusconi
Immigration and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s private life are dominating the European elections in Italy. Here, as in many member states, the vote is being seen as a test of the government’s performance. Italy remains deeply divided over Berlusconi, who is loathed by the left but retains firm support on the right, despite several scandals.
A major factor is his strong stance on immigration, which has equally split the nation. There was more evidence of that recently, late in the campaign. In an address Berlusconi said: “When I walk down the streets of Milan and I see the large numbers of non-Italians, I feel like am no longer an Italian or in a European city but in an African one.”
His private life has come under renewed scrutiny with the publication in a Spanish newspaper of topless women at his seaside villa. He condemned it as an invasion of privacy and his lawyer said he would take legal action against El Pais and an Italian paper for reprinting them.
Berlusconi has long maintained he is the victim of a campaign by a left-leaning media and judiciary at home.
SOURCE
6 June, 2009
Immigration an issue in Europe
European elections are poster wars. On the one side of the street in Pasewalk, close to the Polish border, air-brushed candidates stare out from blue back-dropped placards on behalf of the established parties. On the other side, the far-right National Party of Germany (NPD) goes for a stark message and a big exclamation mark.
“Close the Border now!”, says the NPD poster in the small east German community, and someone has added an extra sticker saying “Now!”, to underscore the urgency. The town is a short drive from the Polish port of Szczecin, so Polish commuters have settled there — it has cheaper housing — and some have established companies, and employ dozens of local Germans.
Now the Poles want a say in the running of the town, are standing in local elections and are using the simultaneous European elections to mobilise support for what is essentially a vision of a border-less continent — and the neo-Nazis want them out.
There are similar stories across Europe this week. Immigration has again become one of the burning issues. As the recession hurts some regions harder than others, right-wing protest parties are banging their big bass drums and trying to turn locals against foreigners: the very reversal of the European dream.
“There’s not enough jobs to go round,” says a middle-aged supermarket manager from Lücknitz, down the road from Pasewalk. “If we can’t vote for jobs for Germans, then what’s the point of democracy.”
Despite the death of their charismatic hero, Jörg Haider, Austria’s right-wing Freedom Party is tipped to increase its share of the vote from 6 per cent in 2004 to 17 per cent in the European election, establishing itself once again as the third force in Austrian politics.
That is the power of the European election system, it can bring the marginal to the centre. A shrewd single-issue campaign, accompanied by television advertising, can make the link between European, national and local council elections.
SOURCE
Where immigrants are not only accepted but sought after!
Hey, Poms, fancy living in Adelaide? Australia tries to lure talented Brits
Adelaide has launched a raid on British talent with a campaign luring families to its Mediterranean climate and 'recession-free' economy. As well as a host of job opportunities, the city is offering 300 days of sunshine a year, affordable house prices, and a 'better quality of life'. The offer is all the more attractive as South Australia is on the brink of becoming the world's 'next boom state', according to a report.
The hand of welcome was extended yesterday by the Government of South Australia, which said the opportunities for those wishing to work or invest in Adelaide were 'second to none'.
However, the climate and attractions of the coastal city are bound to be an equal draw. As well as long beachfronts, it boasts average summer temperatures of 28c (82f), world-renowned wine and highly-rated schools. While its climate does mean it is prone to light rainfalls, they are not on the same scale as the depressing downpours suffered by Britain.
The report was commissioned by the South Australian Government to sum up the attractions of Adelaide in order to encourage businesses to invest in a growing economy 'rather than a declining one'. It follows data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which claims not only that Australia has avoided the recession, but that Adelaide is Australia's best-performing city.
British trend analyst Ray Hammond, who was commissioned to compile the report, said he believed the city would boom economically over the next decade. 'If I could, I would buy shares in Adelaide tomorrow,' he said.
Bill Muirhead, South Australia's London-based Agent-General, said: 'This is not just another cynical assault on the Britain that continues to lose business investment to this healthy and growing state economy. 'South Australia's economy outgrew Australia's, and Adelaide was the only state recording growth in the March quarter. 'It is also the nation's food and wine capital - we produce half of Australia's wine and are home to brands such as Penfolds, Wolf Blass and Jacob's Creek.'
According to the report, Adelaide's success is based on world-class education, affordable housing, rich natural commodities and a consistent ranking as one of the best cities in the world for business. The city, which is 450 miles north-west of Melbourne, came in the top ten of The Economist's World's Most Livable Cities index last year.
Australia already attracts many Britons, with 23,236 moving there in 2007-08, including 2,451 who went to Adelaide. Total migration from Britain in the 12 months to June this year was a record 406,000. A survey found that four in ten cited the high cost of living in the UK as the main reason for leaving.
SOURCE
5 June, 2009
Justice Department shifts on voting, deportation
The Obama Justice Department broke with two Bush-era approaches to citizenship and immigration this week, rejecting a Georgia system to verify the eligibility of voters on grounds that it hurt minorities and expanding the right of illegal immigrants to appeal their deportations.
On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. reversed an order by his predecessor, Michael B. Mukasey, and bolstered the legal rights of immigrants facing deportation, saying that immigrants can fight orders to leave the U.S. on the grounds of poor legal representation at their deportation hearings.
That decision was announced two days after the Justice Department banned Georgia from using a system to verify that voter registrants are U.S. citizens, saying it discriminated against racial minorities. In doing so, the Justice Department overruled a local election decision for just the second time since Mr. Obama took office, in this case by ruling on the side of those who want to expand voter access and against Georgia lawmakers who said voter fraud was the bigger danger....
The Georgia voter verification system matched voter registrations against driver's license applications, which require applicants to disclose their citizenship status. The Justice Department concluded the information in the system is often out of date and frequently flags immigrants who have become citizens since receiving driver's licenses.
"The impact falls disproportionately on minority voters," Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, wrote in a letter to the state. Ms. King's letter provided no numerical data on the racial impact of Georgia's verification rules, although it did charge that more than 60 percent of the registrants who had been flagged were able to prove they were citizens, either by birth or naturalization, and thus eligible to vote.
Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, whose office created the system, said the Justice Department's decision will "allow non-citizens to register to vote." Her office also disputed the Justice Department's conclusion that the verification system was discriminatory. "Not a single person has come forward May 2007 to June 2009 and said, 'I wasn't able to vote because of this verification,' " said Deputy Secretary of State Rob Simms. "Not one."
In 2007, Georgia implemented its system to comply with the 2002 federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and state officials complained that the Justice Department ruling puts them in a legal bind. "They are basically ordering us to be out of compliance with HAVA," Mr. Simms said. In addition, the state pointed out, 42 percent more blacks and 140 percent more Hispanics voted in Georgia in 2008, the first statewide election since the new system was implemented, than in 2004, the previous presidential-election year.
But liberal-leaning civil rights organizations that opposed Georgia's system have praised the Justice Department's decision. "The Department of Justice's objection recognizes that the state of Georgia has attempted to disenfranchise not only Latino citizens but Asian-American and African-American citizens as well," said Elise Sandra Shore of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. "The Department's letter reaffirms the importance of the Voting Rights Act and rejects the discriminatory voter identification measures that primarily affect minorities and other under-served communities," she said.
Similar groups also have come out in favor of the department's move Wednesday, which aims to ensure immigrants have competent legal counsel during deportation proceedings. Mr. Mukasey decided near the end of the Bush administration in January that the Constitution did not give immigrants the right to fight deportation on the basis of having received poor legal help. He said the Justice Department could reopen individual cases on such grounds, but that would be a discretionary choice, not a legal right. Mr. Holder's decision reversed that order, saying, among other things, that there had been too little time for public comment. His statement said he would order Justice to produce a new set of rules on effective counsel in deportation cases.
"We are gratified that Attorney General Holder has expressed a higher regard for the fundamental principles of due process and improving the integrity of immigration court decisions," said Ben Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Law Foundation.
Jon Feere, an analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, called the Holder decision a needless expansion of the rights of immigrants that would "unjustly delay deportation." "I am somewhat concerned that Holder's proposal will give non-citizens one too many bites of the apple," said Mr. Feere, whose group advocates tighter controls on immigration. "Aliens are not granted the same constitutional protections that citizenship guarantees."
More HERE
U.S. Trims Waiting Time on Visas for Scientists
The State Department says it is significantly reducing the waiting period for thousands of foreign science students and scholars applying for visas to come to the U.S., a move likely to have a major impact in China.
The aim is to reduce to two weeks a process that in some cases has dragged on for months, said State Department spokesman Andy Laine. Historically, visa applicants from China have accounted for more than half of those screened, records show. A total of 56,000 science students or scholars world-wide were screened last year.
At issue is a program sometimes known as Visa Mantis that is designed to determine whether specific science students or scholars from other countries pose a threat to U.S. national security. It is meant to weed out applicants who might seek to transfer technologies overseas involving weapons of mass destruction, missile systems, dual-use items that can be exploited by terrorists, or other sensitive military technologies.
Congress for years pressed officials to compress the process, fearing that delays hamper America's ability to benefit from the knowledge of foreign scholars.
In October 2003, independent government investigators found that it took, on average, 75 days to complete the special checks, compared with the 24-hour period faced by most nonimmigrant visa applicants who are eligible to enter the U.S. By the end of 2004, the 75-day wait for Visa Mantis was reduced to about 15 days after pressure from Congress, records show. But significant delays crept back into the system in the past year, said Mr. Laine. He didn't have specific data on how much the wait had grown, but he said officials feared the program had become "an obstacle to legitimate exchanges."
Because of security concerns, Mr. Laine also didn't detail the nature of the recent improvements, which he said went into effect last week. He said workers were added to hasten the screening. In addition to China, countries from the former Soviet Union are also significantly affected, government data show.
SOURCE
4 June, 2009
Anti-Defamation League does some defaming of its own
The ADL lists Dan Amato as a Xenophobe and Anti-Immigrant. Rather than describing him as being critical of illegal immigration, the ADL says that "Amato has spewed anti-immigrant rhetoric". Charming! The typical Leftist reliance on abuse, of course. Most of the defamation is via innuendo and guilt by association, however.
I look forward to them doing a number on me and on this blog. I am sure they would be able to find plenty to twist. They would not be the first. See here. I can prove that I am not racist: Some of my best friends are NOT Jews. There! That should do it.
The ADL was formed to protect Jews but it obviously now sees its role as protecting law-breakers: Not a good way of fulfilling its original mission, I would think. Laws tend to protect Jews from often hostile populations. If I were a Jew I think I would make a point of supporting adherence to law, difficult though that often is for Leftists -- which the ADL clearly are
Mike Pechar also has some choice comments about the ADL's rather hysterical misrepresentations.
To Leftists such as the ADL, it is inconceivable that supporters of wholly legal immigration, such as Amato, Pechar and myself, support it because we believe that it gives the government the opportunity to sort out the desirable versus the undesirable immigrants, regardless of what race they may be. Our views HAVE to be motivated by racism or xenophobia, according to the Left. Abuse is their alternative to rational argument
Amato's comments below
Well the only thing that the Anti-Defamation League left out in their little defaming post on me is actually outright calling me a racist, but I assume xenophobe and "anti-immigrant" is close enough for their aims.
They have now done a full page spread on myself going back years, documenting everything in some weird stalkerish posting - including pictures of mine. They compliment me, calling me prolific and inspirational. They tie me to groups. They say that I'm with the Minutemen. A whole host of twisted and skewed information to make me appear like a hatemonger. This is what they do to everyday Americans opposed to illegal immigration.
I will not direct link to this hateful organization (hell, they didn't link to me!), but you can click on the image at right for a full readable screenshot of the article. The link below is to the original on the ADL website. http://www.adl.org/immigration/blogosphere/Dan_Amato.asp
I have finally arrived?
This after all of my tireless work against illegal immigration and never once saying anything against legal immigrants? I'm not really sure why they entitled the full article on me with Brenda Walker's name in the headline. Apparently they are trying to associate the two of us, but I've never met Brenda Walker. They are weaving stuff together for falseness, not truth.
Beyond the compliments and twisted words, the pictures they post are me alongside - oddly enough - what they dub "Latino" xenophobes. Pictures of my own that I have taken at events. Included are me sitting with Raymond Herrera and Mariann Davies - they would dub them "Hispanics".
They seem to have quite the knowledge on me, yet twist it. Anyone who thought that the ADL was some sort of legitimate organization can think this no more. Anyone who knows me, knows that I vehemently oppose any racial groups trying to split this country and fight for an equal playing field for all peoples legally in the US - both citizens and residents.
Here's a little fact that they can add to their little list. When I was in the Navy I actually worked hard in order to pick my own Orders, finishing high in my class so that I could choose Japan as my duty station. Yes I'm such a xenophobe that I wanted to go to Japan and travel all over the Pacific because I hate foreigners. That's just the way I am.
There are other quite obvious things about me, of which my family knows, that pretty much throws that xenophobe charge out the window, but I won't give the ADL any more information than I have to (not that they would mention actual truth).
And yes, this post has been classified in both the Outrageous and Humor categories as that is what their posting on me is.
SOURCE
E-Verify Requirement for Federal Contractors Abandoned by Obama Administration
U.S. Workers and Taxpayers Pay the Price, Charges FAIR
For the fourth time this year, implementation of an executive order requiring that all federal contractors use the E-Verify system to check worker's eligibility has been postponed. With no rule in place, federal contractors will be accessing billions of dollars of stimulus money while having the freedom to hire illegal aliens and displace U.S. workers.
The delay provides further evidence of the Obama administration's unwillingness to enforce U.S. immigration laws and its intent to abandon even minimal protections for American workers struggling to find jobs as the economic crisis drags on. The move belies administration promises to get tough on employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens at the expense of American workers and taxpayers.
This latest delay means that 15 months will have passed from the time former President Bush signed the executive order. During that period conditions for American workers have steadily worsened. Unemployment has risen from 5.5% in May 2008 to a 25-year high of 8.9% in April 2009, while millions more Americans are involuntarily working part-time. A total of 5.7 million U.S. jobs have disappeared since December 2007. At the same time, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports that over 112,000 employers are now using E-Verify, with 2,000 signing up for the program each week.
"Despite the need for E-Verify to protect American workers and the enormous success of the program, the administration and the Democratic congressional leadership are stubbornly ignoring a proven resource that helps prevent illegal aliens from displacing American workers," stated Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "States understand the value of E-Verify in protecting jobs. Twelve states have made E-Verify mandatory in some capacity, yet the Obama administration refuses to extend those same protections at the federal level."
Delaying the E-Verify regulation for federal contractors demonstrates only too clearly the Obama administration's attempt to have it both ways when it comes to immigration enforcement. Appearing multiple times before Congress this year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has professed support for E-Verify. Yet, when it comes to implementing a regulation that has been designed to require contractors who are paid with taxpayer money to use E-Verify, the Obama administration has nothing to show except delays.
"The same administration that rushed through the most massive spending bill in history before anyone had a chance to read it claims to need months of delay to review regulations for a program that state and local governments are already using successfully," noted Stein. "Given the magnitude of the employment crisis, and given this administration's record of swift action, the executive order requiring that federal contractors use E-Verify should have gone into effect months ago," Stein continued. "The fact that we are facing yet another delay demonstrates that gaining amnesty for people who broke our immigration laws remains a higher priority for President Obama than the plight of millions of unemployed Americans."
The above is a press release from Federation for American Immigration Reform, 25 Massachusetts Avenue - Suite 330 Washington DC, 20001, Office 202-328-7004 www.fairus.org. For further comment contact Bob Dane 202-328-7004 or Ira Mehlman 206-420-7733. Founded in 1979, FAIR is the oldest and largest immigration reform group in America. FAIR fights for immigration policies that enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs and wages and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.
3 June, 2009
More stupid British rules
Some of the scum of the earth are allowed to remain in Britain and people with virtually no skills are pouring in daily with no realistic chance of being deported but highly talented performers in the arts are kept out
Stringent new visa controls have brought one ballet company to the brink of collapse and threaten dozens of concerts, festivals and exhibitions. Rules designed to prevent illegal immigration have left international performers struggling to gain access to Britain, a report says. Other artists have decided that it is simply not worth the hassle to travel. It is feared that the new rules could destroy Britain’s reputation as a centre for international arts.
Among the cancellations were two concerts by the Russian pianist Grigory Sokolov, and the deportation of the Canadian singer Allison Crowe from Gatwick because she did not have a certificate of sponsorship. Her passport has been stamped “barred from entry” and she could find it difficult to perform in Britain again.
Così fan Tutte opened at the English National Opera this week but Abbasa Kiarostami, its Iranian director, has had to run it by e-mail because he could not get a visa in time. He complained of “disgraceful treatment” from British Embassy staff.
The Swansea-based Ballet Russe company, which has been performing for more than ten years, faces closure after months of expensive and unsuccessful negotiations to try to obtain visas for its dancers, who are stuck in Russia.
The visa controls are part of the new points-based system for immigration. The rules for touring artists, which came into force in November, include a requirement for each artist to show £800 of savings, and financial support and constant monitoring by a “sponsor” to make sure that they do not abscond during their visit. Artists must apply for the visa in person, supplying biometric data and a digital picture. That has proved difficult in Africa in particular, with artists being told to travel to countries where biometric equipment is available to obtain their visas. In the past artists have been able to obtain, within a few days, a simple short-term visa to tour in Britain.
The report, UK Arts and Culture: Cancelled by Order of the Home Office, was compiled by the Manifesto Club, which campaigns against red tape. The group said that the report gives the first indication of how many organisations have been affected since the changes came into force. It found evidence that more than 20 major events had been cancelled or badly affected by the new system. Other groups told its researchers that it was becoming impossible for them to invite non-EU visitors to perform or speak.
Tango and salsa dance festivals have been badly hit, with Argentine and Cuban dancers unable to obtain the right paperwork. An International Tango Festival this year has become a “bureaucratic nightmare” according to Simon Whittle, the administrator. Anthony Howell, the celebrated tango dancer, said: “No small venue can afford to pay the fees to the Government on top of the fees for the performers. These restrictions drastically reduce the chances of good Argentine tango dancers being able to enter the country.”
Universities say that lecturers are also finding it impossible to obtain the necessary short-term work visas. Dmitry Vilensky, a Russian academic, cancelled a seminar in January when he was denied a visa on the ground that he was not being paid a fee.
Helen Gilbert, professor of theatre at Royal Holloway, University of London, said that the new laws were turning Britain into a laughing stock.
The UK Border Agency said that it wanted Britain to stay open and attractive for creative artists. “But at the same time we are determined to deliver a system which is among the most secure in the world.”
SOURCE
The African refugees whom John Howard so big-heartedly let into Australia are now biting Kevin Rudd
It might make him cautious about letting any more in -- even though nobody is publicly admitting that it is mostly Africans who are attacking the Indians. But it is the fact that Africans are responsible that has got the Indians so wound up. Indians very commonly see Africans as little better than monkeys. They blame the Australian government for letting the Africans in and then letting them run riot
HINDU extremists burned effigies of Kevin Rudd and shouted angry slogans outside the Australian High Commission in New Delhi yesterday.
The fury was over a series of attacks on Indian students in Melbourne, The Australian reports. Amid growing concern in Canberra that the issue was damaging relations between the two countries, the Prime Minister sought to reassure India that Australia was not a racist nation.
However, a new flashpoint emerged, with accusations by Indian students in Melbourne that Victorian police used excessive force to break up a rally calling for action over racial violence.
In New Delhi, about 100 members of the Bharatiya Janata Party's youth wing yesterday staged protests outside Australia's high commission before meeting briefly with Canberra's top envoy to India, John McCarthy.
Members of the BJP's hardline Hindu political ally, the Shiv Sena, also burned an effigy of Mr Rudd and reportedly staged protests outside a visa office in Mumbai.
Across the country Indian cable television networks continued to whip up frenzy over the attacks, showing footage of Victorian police dragging away Indian protesters who blockaded Melbourne streets until early yesterday.
SOURCE
2 June, 2009
Should Judges Set Immigration Policy?
Panel Looks at Erosion of Political Control
On June 8, President Obama will meet with congressional leaders to start discussions on an immigration bill. If such legislation were ever to pass, a central element would be an amnesty for current illegal aliens in exchange for enhanced enforcement.
But what if those new enforcement measures were overturned by the courts? We would then see essentially a repeat of the bait-and-switch that followed the 1986 immigration law. This is possible because of the erosion of the “Plenary Power Doctrine,” which holds that the political branches – the legislative and the executive – have sole power to regulate all aspects of immigration as a basic attribute of sovereignty. In the words of Justice Felix Frankfurter, immigration matters are “wholly outside the concern and competence of the Judiciary.”
The plenary power doctrine has been affirmed by the courts countless times since the 19th century. Nonetheless, there is a movement underway among law professors and other activists to restrict political-branch control over immigration in favor of a judge-administered system based on the implicit idea that foreigners have a “right” to immigrate.
To explore this issue, the Center for Immigration Studies will host a panel discussion on Monday, June 8, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. in the Murrow Room at the National Press Club, 14th & F Streets, NW. Copies of a recent Backgrounder, “Plenary Power: Should Judges Control U.S. Immigration Policy?” will be available. The report examines the long history of the doctrine, the challenges to it launched by supporters of unrestricted immigration, and some possible responses.
The panel is free and open to the public. For more information, contact Bryan Griffith at (202) 466-8185 or press@cis.org.
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 www.cis.org
Prominent English cricketer speaks out
Andrew Flintoff may have to apologise for his anti-immigrant outburst to GQ magazine.
The England all-rounder, 31, told GQ magazine: “I have no problems with a multicultural society, I think that is to the benefit of the country. But you have to be careful what levels you take it to. “It annoys me when I phone a hotel receptionist in my own country and they don’t understand what I am saying because they don’t speak English.
“I think that’s wrong, it’s nothing to do with being politically correct or incorrect, it’s just not right.”
Flintoff, who is married to Rachael, 30, and has a daughter Holly, four, and sons Corey, three, and Rocky, one, also put the blame on rising violence on rap music.
“I see Manchester on a Friday night and I would be horrified seeing my daughter going to the bars," Flintoff added. “There are places I wouldn’t go to now. You see these reports of stabbings, bottlings, shootings, and you think: ‘What is happening to this country?’ “I think rap music has a lot to do with it. It makes it sound cool not to conform, and to be violent.
“That’s why I think that sport plays such an important role.”
Flintoff is no stranger to controversy - the Lancashire cricketer was sacked as England vice-captain and also banned for a World Cup game in 2007 for breaching team discipline in the now notorious 'Fredalo' [late-night drunken hijinks] incident in the West Indies.
Flintoff apologised then and he may have to do the same now following this outburst.
SOURCE
There have been plenty of criticisms of the antisocial content of rap music and it irritates many Americans that they have to press "1" for English so it is difficult to see what Flintoff said that is so egregious. But he was of course speaking in authoritarian Britain, where speech about many topics is heavily restricted
1 June, 2009
British economy losing £4.9m a day - because immigrants send it home to relatives
There is no doubt that if the money were spent in Britain, it would create British jobs
The economy is losing £4.9million every day because of the huge sums immigrants send home to their relatives, official figures show. Analysis by the Office for National Statistics found that £4.1billion was sent out of the UK by migrants working here in 2007. The figure is almost double the £2.3billion sent home in 1998, reflecting the huge increase in the number of migrant workers under Labour. The total amount sent out of the UK over the past decade is £31.5billion.
Britons working abroad are also sending significant sums of cash home to relatives living here. In 2007, they sent £ 2.3billion to the UK, exactly the same level as in 1998. But this still leaves a net outflow from the UK of £1.8billion, or £4.9million a day.
The figures, released in a letter to MPs by National Statistician Karen Dunnell, also show that the amount being sent home in remittances now rivals overseas aid in the support it provides to poorer economies. In 2008, the overseas aid budget was £6.3billion.
Campaign group Migrationwatch UK said the £4billion cost of remittances was the equivalent of the two new aircraft carriers planned for the Royal Navy. Chairman Sir Andrew Green said: 'We are not suggesting that remittances should be stopped - they are an important source of revenue for many families across the world - but claims that there are only positive economic benefits from mass immigration are clearly untrue. 'For years we have been told that immigration can only benefit the economy. But when the evidence is examined, that claim falls apart. 'As employment of foreign-born workers has risen, employment of UK-born workers has fallen. And now we find that remittances have shot up. So much for the benefits of uncontrolled immigration.'
Sir Andrew added that last year the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs found 'no evidence' that net immigration generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population. The remittance figures relate to 2007, the latest period analysed by the ONS. But the total for 2008 - when Britain slid into recession - may be even higher, some analysts say.
In a recent speech, Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, predicted that 'as the financial crisis squeezes the developing world' migrants would send home more money 'to see relatives through the bad patch'.
The Government, recognising huge public concern about the scale of immigration when the economy is in such deep trouble, last month reduced the number of work permits available to non-EU migrants. But critics believe the number of non-EU workers is only likely to fall by around 24,300.
Border and Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said: 'People from overseas poured a record £14.2billion into the UK economy in 2007. 'The Government has made it clear that migration only works if it benefits the British people. That's why our tough new Australian- style points system allows in only those workers we need - and no more.'
SOURCE
Australia's immigration limits do not indicate racism
By Barry Cohen, who was a minister in the Hawke Labor government between 1983 and 1987
In the late 1890s, Moishe Koziwoda departed Russian occupied Poland in a vegetable cart to escape 30 years' national service in the tsar's army. Being Jewish, he was guaranteed the filthiest and most dangerous jobs. Few Jews survived.
From Germany he travelled to England where he found safe haven enabling him to send for his wife Zelda. After having three children in England they sailed to South Africa where they had a further three. Restless souls, they departed South Africa for Australia. Later they tried Canada and the US before deciding Australia was the country for them. Those of his family who did not have his prescience perished in the gas chambers of Chelmno and Auschwitz.
So what's special about the Koziwoda family? Only that they were my grandparents.
Almost a century after they left the villages of Pajeczno and Dzialoszyn, I "returned"..
Thanks to the generosity of the Polish Government and the mayor of Pajeczno, who opened the village archives, we departed with a treasure trove of my family's history.
"When the Nazis arrived in Dzialoszyn in June 1940, they took all the Jews out in the fields and shot them immediately," the mayor recounted. The matter-of-fact way he said it chilled my blood. "However, in Pajeczno they kept all the Jews - numbering about 500 - in a ghetto in the Jewish quarter bordered by Kosciusko Street. They remained there for about one year until one day they rounded them up and put them in the church, where they kept them for a week. While they were there, the Polish people tried to help by smuggling food to them but eventually trucks took them all away. Most were never seen again." Pajeczno and Dzialoszyn had been made, as Hitler promised Europe, "Judenrein".
It is difficult to describe my emotions at the time. At first I was numb, trying yet again, to comprehend how people - any people, let alone the most sophisticated in Europe - could behave this way to fellow human beings. Then my numbness turned to bitterness, anger and frustration. Bitterness at what those monsters had done, anger at the Allies' failure to do more to rescue those whose lives were in peril, frustration that so many of the perpetrators had escaped without trial or punishment.
To this day I cherish a fading sepia-toned photograph of my great uncle and aunt Mendel and Mindel Koziwoda and their children: Itzik, Charna, Malka, Mania, Yidel, Moishe and Faigele. Only Itzik (Jack Cousens) survived Auschwitz to be granted refugee status in Australia where he raised a family and lived into his early70s.
No one should be surprised therefore that I have sympathy for those now seeking refuge in Australia. Had Australia and other democracies shown a similar generosity of spirit to the millions of Jews desperate to escape Nazi Germany, many more would have been saved.
At the Evian conference in France, in July 1938, 32 countries met to see what could be done to help European Jewry. Former Australian PM and then high commissioner to Great Britain, Stanley Bruce recommended that Australia accept 30,000 over three years. On December 1 the then minister for the interior, and later PM, John McEwen, announced Australia would accept 15,000.
In the parliamentary debate that followed, Albert Green disgraced the Labor Party with an anti-Semitic rant that would have been more apposite in Nuremberg. Unfortunately, neither John Curtin nor Ben Chifley, who followed Green in the debate, bothered to disown him. That was left to Labor's William Maloney and United Australia Party's Percy Spender.
Kristallnacht in November 1938 and the outbreak of World War II ensured only a fraction of the 15,000 made it to Australia. Our bureaucrats were not a great help. Only Jews with sufficient money were eligible for visas. If they had sufficient money they were branded as "criminals" in Germany and prevented from emigrating.
How many should Australia have taken: 30,000, 300,000, three million? There was always going to be a limit that would be too many for some, too little for others. Which brings us to the present debate in Australia about refugees, illegals, asylum seekers; call them what you will. It's still a matter of numbers.
Since World War II Australia has taken some 700,000 refugees and people in humanitarian need. Australia's record of taking refugees is one of the best in the world. The target this year is 13,750.
That won't satisfy those in the media and academe who seem intent on proving that Australia is a deeply racist and xenophobic nation. For them, our treatment of Aborigines and the White Australia policy is proof positive of that. The abandonment of the White Australia policy by the Holt government in 1966 and the continuing efforts of successive governments to improve the lot of the Aborigines is conveniently overlooked.
Nowhere was this more evident than in the reaction to John Howard's statement: "We will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come". For the chattering classes this was final proof that Howard was a racist. What they overlooked was that his words could have been used by every PM from Edmund Barton to Kevin Rudd.
When challenged to name one government since Federation with a different immigration policy, they mutter about "compassion". I'm all for compassion but tell me what that means in numbers? Howard could have chosen his words more carefully but he merely reiterated the policy of his predecessors. No Australian government, and for that matter, no government in the world has an "open-door" policy.
The immigration debate has always been about numbers but it's about time those who wail about Australia's lack of compassion look at our record in providing a welcome to the world's dispossessed and tell us precisely how many more refugees they would admit. Double, treble, quadruple? I'll go along with that, but spare us the hypocrisy of indulging in the politics of the "warm inner glow". Tell us, how many or if they would prefer an open-door policy?
SOURCE