Crackdown on 'education tourists' to target illegal immigrant children as Swedish PM slams Cameron's attempts to curb UK's soft touch image
Children of illegal immigrants would be banned from schools under plans drawn up for ministers to curb the impact of ‘education tourists’.
The idea was put forward by officials told to find ways to limit migrants’ access to benefits, housing, and the NHS but has been blocked by ministers.
But David Cameron’s pledge to end the global perception of Britain being a ‘soft touch’ have been slammed as ‘unfortunate’ by Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.
Mr Cameron used a major speech on immigration this week to say the government would make it harder for new arrivals to Britain to claim out-of-work benefits, jump the queue for social housing or get free treatment on the NHS. But it has emerged officials have begun examining how to limit access to free education for children who are in the country illegally.
It is estimated that there could be 120,000 children in the UK without legal immigration status. One plan would require headteachers to check the immigration status of pupils before admitting them to lessons.
The idea has been put forward in a series of emails sent by officials advising the inter-ministerial group on migrants' access to benefits and public services, The Guardian reported.
The group includes schools minister David Laws and immigration minister Mark Harper.
A proposal to ban illegal immigrant children from schools was suggested, but there are warnings it could contravene the UN convention on the rights of the child. Mr Laws is said to consider the idea a ‘red line’.
One email sent by a civil servant on Monday said: ‘Barring children, whatever their migrant status, from compulsory education has pretty much been ruled out by ministers and at the moment is off the table for cross-government discussions.
‘The question now is whether, if not to enforce a ban, it would nevertheless be helpful to carry out migrant status checks as part of school admissions.’
Another email suggested ‘strategies could probably be employed to deal with “education tourists”, in much the same [way] as “health tourists” are managed’.
The plan was revealed by Labour MP John McDonnell who accused minister of being ‘diverted to policy stunts prepared for prime ministerial statements and speeches’ instead of focussing on practical ways to tackle immigration.
He told the Commons that ‘ministerial attention has recently been focused on discussions in the inter-ministerial group on barring migrant children from compulsory education’.
He said the Department for Education then intervened and the children’s rights adviser said: ‘If we were to withdraw the right of education from any children in the UK, regardless of their status, we would be hugely criticised for it by the UN.
‘With the periodic review report due to be submitted in January 2014, this would be very controversial.’
Home Secretary Theresa May played down the idea of banning children outright. She said: ‘We have been looking at public services across the board in relation to what we describe as the pull factors.
‘We have focused on housing, health and the benefits system. We do not propose not having the provision of education for individual children.’
But she rejected the claim that the government’s policy changes were about publicity stunts. ‘We have been sorting out a chaotic immigration system and immigration policy introduced by the previous Government that led to net migration in this country reaching hundreds of thousands a year.
‘We aim to bring it down to tens of thousands. We have already seen net migration cut by a third. That is not a publicity stunt; it is a real benefit and a policy that the people of this country want to see.’
The move to consider targeting illegal immigrant children was condemned by Lesley Gannon, head of policy at the National Association of Headteachers.
She said: ‘You can't hold children responsible for the behaviours of their parents, it's simply not fair.
‘All of our codes of practice around admissions, behaviour and exclusions have always emphasised that you deal with the child and not the parents in terms of their access to education and their treatment within the school. We wouldn't want to see anything jeopardise that.
‘It's also really worrying to start to drag schools into politics in this way. Yes, we are public servants, part of the state, but once you put that process in place, I'd suggest you're encouraging parents who are worried about their immigration status to avoid putting their children into school, to avoid detection. That puts the educational rights of that child at risk.’
Mr Cameron’s speech on Monday focussed on benefits and housing, but was criticised for lacking detail and targeting relatively small numbers of people.
He promised that new EU migrants will be stripped of jobless benefits after six months, but critics said existing rules meant this effectively already happened.
The PM said net migration needs to ‘come down radically’ after getting ‘badly out of control’ under Labour.
He also unveiled a crackdown on so-called health tourism, with hospitals ordered to start charging foreign visitors. Those from outside the EU will need health insurance before being granted a visa.
There will be a major shake-up of council housing rules designed to keep immigrant families off waiting lists for at least two years and possibly as many as five.
But the speech was criticised by the Swedish Prime Minister. Mr Reinfeldt said: ‘I think it's unfortunate. I believe in a Europe that should be open, where we have free movement, and where we instead ask ourselves how people who come here can get work more easily.’
SOURCE
Australia: Conservative coalition to fix asylum seeker problem
The opposition says it will use the full resources of the navy and customs fleets to stem the flood of asylum seeker boats. Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said Australia had a significant fleet of navy and customs vessels and a coalition government would be deploying those assets necessary to get the job done.
But he would not explain just how that would be done. "I am not about to give the people smugglers a heads-up about those sorts of operational matters," Mr Morrison told ABC radio on Thursday.
"What they can be assured of is they can expect an Abbott-led coalition government to put an end to this madness and we will deploy the assets that are necessary to get the job done and the resolve that is needed to get the job done."
The opposition says 600 asylum seeker boats have reached Australian waters under Labor since 2007, with a surge in recent weeks. More than 3300 asylum seekers have arrived by boat this year, more than double the arrivals in the same period in 2012.
Mr Morrison said the coalition had been very clear about its policy of turning back asylum seeker boats where it is safe to do so.
Indonesia opposes the controversial plan and Labor and the defence force say people smugglers and asylum seekers will respond by sabotaging vessels to ensure they can't be returned, endangering passengers and defence personnel.
Mr Morrison said he was confident the Australian Defence Force, and particularly the navy, were quite capable of carrying out the policies of the government of the day.
"Our officers and our naval personnel are trained in these areas and we know that they have the capacity to get the job done, just like they do over in the (Persian) Gulf where they intercepted about 1000 vessels and many of those vessels had armed weapons pointing at them when they did so," he said.
SOURCE
Thursday, March 28, 2013
120,000 Romanians and Bulgarians have already moved to Britain: Census shows in some parts of the country one in ten are Eastern European
Nearly 120,000 Romanians and Bulgarians have already moved to Britain despite not yet being allowed to work freely in this country, official figures showed yesterday.
The data from the 2011 census showed that migration to Britain – at a rate equivalent to 30,000 a year – began as soon as the two countries joined the EU.
The disclosure is fresh evidence that a major movement of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens is likely when restrictions are lifted at the end of the year.
The 119,101 Romanians and Bulgarians are among just under 1 million Eastern European citizens now living in Britain, almost all of whom arrived under open-border rules after their countries joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, the census showed.
It found that in some parts of the country almost one in 10 of the population are citizens of Eastern European countries.
In Boston, Lincolnshire – the town that sparked a fierce argument over the impact of immigration on BBC TV’s Question Time – 10.7 per cent of the population are Eastern European passport-holders.
The figures were released at a time of increased political tension over immigration, amid fears of a large-scale influx of Bulgarians and Romanians next year.
Earlier this week David Cameron tried to reassure voters with promises to make it harder for migrants from outside Europe to get NHS treatment and social housing, and for those from inside the EU to claim state benefits.
Detailed breakdowns published yesterday showed numbers of foreign citizens living in Britain, counted by those who gave their passport nationality on census forms, and of those who declared on the census form the country of their birth.
The real totals may be higher because some – in particular immigrants – have in the past proved reluctant to fill in census forms or provide the full details they demand.
Yesterday’s figures showed there were 73,208 Romanian passport holders in England and Wales on the day the census was taken – 27 March 2011.
No details of Bulgarian passport holders were made public, but the figures showed there were 45,893 who said they were born in Bulgaria.
The census was taken just over four years after the two countries joined the EU, under an agreement that while their citizens would be allowed to travel to and live in Britain, they would not be able to work here as employees.
Those rules have now been lifted and Romanians and Bulgarians get free access to the labour market from 1 January next year.
Sir Andrew Green, of the MigrationWatch think-tank, said: ‘These figures validate our projection that 50,000 people a year will come when citizens of the two countries get free access to the labour market in the New Year.’
The figure does not include 22,000 workers who come as seasonal fruit pickers under a summer work-permit scheme, and then return home.
Census figures gave an official figure of 988,123 Eastern European citizens present in the country in March 2011 – including 588,082 Poles, 104,676 Lithuanians, and 73,208 Romanians.
Around one and a half million people from the eight Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 are thought to have lived and worked in Britain at some stage.
The census showed the highest concentration of Eastern European citizens in any town in Britain was in Boston, with 10.7 per cent of the population.
The town was at the centre of controversy in January after Cambridge academic Mary Beard told BBC Question Time that local fears over immigration were a ‘myth’ and that ‘public services can cope’.
She was rebuked by businesswoman Rachel Bull, who said services were at ‘breaking point’.
SOURCE
Ann Coulter on Amnesty
The GOP can't afford it
If Republicans don’t focus on what is really causing problems, they’re going to fall for the canard that the problem with the Party is its conservative principles. Au contraire. Conservatism is about the only thing the Republican Party has going for it. In Gallup Polls over the last twenty years about twice as many Americans have called themselves “conservatives” as called themselves either “liberal” or “Republican.” No, conservatism is our winning feature.
Which brings me to the final point before I get to your questions and that is the scapegoating of a fake Republican establishment, which is allowing the real Republican establishment to plot and scheme undetected.
My example of this is: What public policy will harm average Americans, [56] drive up unemployment [57], change America permanently [58] in negative ways and on the other hand is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway [59]?
Amnesty for illegal aliens! And half of elected Republicans support it, as far as I can tell most conservative talk radio [60] and TV hosts support it. You want the Republican Establishment, that‘s the Republican Establishment.
There are many, many negative consequences to amnesty but I think the one that ought to concern this crowd is, if amnesty goes through America becomes California [61] and no Republican will ever win another national election. As it is, the state that gave us Richard Nixon [62] and Ronald Reagan [63] will never elect another Republican.
I can see why Democrats would want amnesty, but why on Earth are Marco Rubio and these endless Bushes [64] supporting it?
Even Shemp and Zeppo Bush [65] are supporting amnesty for illegals.
Republicans are grasping at these suicidal policies because they’re panicked; they’re demoralized after the last election. [66] Stop panicking, Republicans! Obama was an incumbent; he did worse than any other incumbent to win reelection in more than a hundred years. Liberals writing the obituary of the Republican Party right now remind me of nothing so much as new homeowners [67] at the heights of the housing bubble [68]. People always announce their complete triumph a moment before their crushing defeat.
Our job, our job, Republicans, is to ensure Democrats have that crushing defeat.
SOURCE
120,000 Romanians and Bulgarians have already moved to Britain: Census shows in some parts of the country one in ten are Eastern European
Nearly 120,000 Romanians and Bulgarians have already moved to Britain despite not yet being allowed to work freely in this country, official figures showed yesterday.
The data from the 2011 census showed that migration to Britain – at a rate equivalent to 30,000 a year – began as soon as the two countries joined the EU.
The disclosure is fresh evidence that a major movement of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens is likely when restrictions are lifted at the end of the year.
The 119,101 Romanians and Bulgarians are among just under 1 million Eastern European citizens now living in Britain, almost all of whom arrived under open-border rules after their countries joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, the census showed.
It found that in some parts of the country almost one in 10 of the population are citizens of Eastern European countries.
In Boston, Lincolnshire – the town that sparked a fierce argument over the impact of immigration on BBC TV’s Question Time – 10.7 per cent of the population are Eastern European passport-holders.
The figures were released at a time of increased political tension over immigration, amid fears of a large-scale influx of Bulgarians and Romanians next year.
Earlier this week David Cameron tried to reassure voters with promises to make it harder for migrants from outside Europe to get NHS treatment and social housing, and for those from inside the EU to claim state benefits.
Detailed breakdowns published yesterday showed numbers of foreign citizens living in Britain, counted by those who gave their passport nationality on census forms, and of those who declared on the census form the country of their birth.
The real totals may be higher because some – in particular immigrants – have in the past proved reluctant to fill in census forms or provide the full details they demand.
Yesterday’s figures showed there were 73,208 Romanian passport holders in England and Wales on the day the census was taken – 27 March 2011.
No details of Bulgarian passport holders were made public, but the figures showed there were 45,893 who said they were born in Bulgaria.
The census was taken just over four years after the two countries joined the EU, under an agreement that while their citizens would be allowed to travel to and live in Britain, they would not be able to work here as employees.
Those rules have now been lifted and Romanians and Bulgarians get free access to the labour market from 1 January next year.
Sir Andrew Green, of the MigrationWatch think-tank, said: ‘These figures validate our projection that 50,000 people a year will come when citizens of the two countries get free access to the labour market in the New Year.’
The figure does not include 22,000 workers who come as seasonal fruit pickers under a summer work-permit scheme, and then return home.
Census figures gave an official figure of 988,123 Eastern European citizens present in the country in March 2011 – including 588,082 Poles, 104,676 Lithuanians, and 73,208 Romanians.
Around one and a half million people from the eight Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 are thought to have lived and worked in Britain at some stage.
The census showed the highest concentration of Eastern European citizens in any town in Britain was in Boston, with 10.7 per cent of the population.
The town was at the centre of controversy in January after Cambridge academic Mary Beard told BBC Question Time that local fears over immigration were a ‘myth’ and that ‘public services can cope’.
She was rebuked by businesswoman Rachel Bull, who said services were at ‘breaking point’.
SOURCE
Ann Coulter on Amnesty
The GOP can't afford it
If Republicans don’t focus on what is really causing problems, they’re going to fall for the canard that the problem with the Party is its conservative principles. Au contraire. Conservatism is about the only thing the Republican Party has going for it. In Gallup Polls over the last twenty years about twice as many Americans have called themselves “conservatives” as called themselves either “liberal” or “Republican.” No, conservatism is our winning feature.
Which brings me to the final point before I get to your questions and that is the scapegoating of a fake Republican establishment, which is allowing the real Republican establishment to plot and scheme undetected.
My example of this is: What public policy will harm average Americans, [56] drive up unemployment [57], change America permanently [58] in negative ways and on the other hand is supported by businessmen who will never vote for a Republican anyway [59]?
Amnesty for illegal aliens! And half of elected Republicans support it, as far as I can tell most conservative talk radio [60] and TV hosts support it. You want the Republican Establishment, that‘s the Republican Establishment.
There are many, many negative consequences to amnesty but I think the one that ought to concern this crowd is, if amnesty goes through America becomes California [61] and no Republican will ever win another national election. As it is, the state that gave us Richard Nixon [62] and Ronald Reagan [63] will never elect another Republican.
I can see why Democrats would want amnesty, but why on Earth are Marco Rubio and these endless Bushes [64] supporting it?
Even Shemp and Zeppo Bush [65] are supporting amnesty for illegals.
Republicans are grasping at these suicidal policies because they’re panicked; they’re demoralized after the last election. [66] Stop panicking, Republicans! Obama was an incumbent; he did worse than any other incumbent to win reelection in more than a hundred years. Liberals writing the obituary of the Republican Party right now remind me of nothing so much as new homeowners [67] at the heights of the housing bubble [68]. People always announce their complete triumph a moment before their crushing defeat.
Our job, our job, Republicans, is to ensure Democrats have that crushing defeat.
SOURCE
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Incompetence and foot-dragging blamed as backlog of 320,000 migrant cases in Britain will take 24 years to clear
Border officials need 24 years to clear their backlog of 320,000 immigration cases, MPs warn today. Incompetence and foot-dragging is blamed for the sheer number of claims – the equivalent of the population of Iceland.
In a blistering report, the Commons home affairs committee also said the army of foreign criminals on the streets was growing, with the total now almost 4,000.
The audit into the work of the UK Border Agency, which was dubbed not fit for purpose six years ago, found 321,726 outstanding cases involving immigrants.
These include 28,500 current asylum cases, 4,000 immigration cases and 181,541 people placed in a so-called Migration Refusal Pool.
The pool comprises migrants who arrived legally but cannot now be found after their work or study visas expired. Officials say many of the migrants will have gone home – a view disputed by the MPs, who say the lack of proper border checks may mean ‘tens of thousands’ are still here.
They are highly critical of the slow pace at which officials are clearing the backlog. Between July and September last year, it was reduced by only 3,430 – or 1 per cent.
This is despite officials writing off 74,000 cases held in the separate ‘asylum controlled archive’ over that period. The controlled archive was created to hold what remains of Labour’s asylum backlog. It was intended to hold cases that had not been concluded, so they could be reopened if the person was traced.
UKBA officials had been tracking them down – but decided to abandon those they couldn’t find. Critics say it amounts to have an effective ‘amnesty’.
Keith Vaz, the Labour MP who chairs the home affairs committee, said hardly any progress was being made in clearing the backlog. He holds former UKBA chief executive Lin Homer – Britain’s most senior female mandarin – responsible for much of the debacle.
She is clinging to her job in charge of HM Revenue & Customs after MPs concluded she was guilty of a ‘catastrophic’ failure of leadership during her time at UKBA.
Mr Vaz said: ‘No sooner is one backlog closed, than four more are discovered.
‘At this rate it will take 24 years to clear the backlog which still stands at the size of the population of Iceland.’ Also within the backlog are 3,980 foreign criminals who cannot be deported and have been released on bail by the courts. This has increased by 26 in only three months, despite repeated government promises to kick the offenders out. Six years ago the asylum backlog scandal prompted then home secretary John Reid to brand the immigration system ‘not fit for purpose’.
The committee recommends senior UKBA staff are not paid bonuses until there is evidence the backlog is being ‘substantially’ reduced and new backlogs are not emerging.
Yvette Cooper, Labour’s home affairs spokesman, said: ‘This highly critical report shows that practical failings in the immigration system are getting worse.’
Immigration minister Mark Harper said: ‘We have always been clear the UK Border Agency was a troubled organisation with a poor record of delivery.
‘Turning it around will take time but I am determined to provide the public with an immigration system they can have confidence in.’
The Border Agency has awarded a £30million contract to outsourcing firm Capita to help track illegals. It began work in October.
SOURCE
Theresa May splits border agency to end 'secretive and defensive' culture
Britain's beleaguered immigration service is to be split in two and brought directly under ministers' control for the first time in five years, the Home Secretary announced today.
Theresa May said the UK Border Agency's performance was "still not good enough" and it would be split to end its "closed, secretive and defensive culture".
The unexpected move means immigration will be supervised by Home Office ministers rather than operating at arm's length under the control of a chief executive.
It comes seven years after John Reid, the then Labour home secretary, described the Home Office as "not fit for purpose" after an immigration scandal that led to the sacking of his predecessor.
"In keeping with the changes we made last year to Border Force, the Government is splitting up the UK Border Agency," Mrs May told the House of Commons.
"In its place will be an immigration and visa service and an immigration law enforcement organisation.
"UKBA was given agency status in order to keep its work at an arm’s length from ministers. That was wrong. It created a closed, secretive and defensive culture.
"So I can tell the House that the new entities will not have agency status and will sit in the Home Office, reporting to ministers."
The announcement will leave the Coalition government open to allegations that it failed to get to grips with the UKBA's failings more quickly, as it comes just a year after the last reorganisation of the agency, and only a day after a scathing attack by MPs on its former boss, Lin Homer.
The all-party Home Affairs Select Committee said in a strongly-worded report yesterday that Ms Homer was responsible for a "catastrophic leadership failure".
MPs warned that it would take the UKBA 24 years to clear an immigration and asylum case backlog.
Mrs May said she hoped the changes would make it easier to cut backlogs and increase the number of illegal immigrants who are deported.
SOURCE
Incompetence and foot-dragging blamed as backlog of 320,000 migrant cases in Britain will take 24 years to clear
Border officials need 24 years to clear their backlog of 320,000 immigration cases, MPs warn today. Incompetence and foot-dragging is blamed for the sheer number of claims – the equivalent of the population of Iceland.
In a blistering report, the Commons home affairs committee also said the army of foreign criminals on the streets was growing, with the total now almost 4,000.
The audit into the work of the UK Border Agency, which was dubbed not fit for purpose six years ago, found 321,726 outstanding cases involving immigrants.
These include 28,500 current asylum cases, 4,000 immigration cases and 181,541 people placed in a so-called Migration Refusal Pool.
The pool comprises migrants who arrived legally but cannot now be found after their work or study visas expired. Officials say many of the migrants will have gone home – a view disputed by the MPs, who say the lack of proper border checks may mean ‘tens of thousands’ are still here.
They are highly critical of the slow pace at which officials are clearing the backlog. Between July and September last year, it was reduced by only 3,430 – or 1 per cent.
This is despite officials writing off 74,000 cases held in the separate ‘asylum controlled archive’ over that period. The controlled archive was created to hold what remains of Labour’s asylum backlog. It was intended to hold cases that had not been concluded, so they could be reopened if the person was traced.
UKBA officials had been tracking them down – but decided to abandon those they couldn’t find. Critics say it amounts to have an effective ‘amnesty’.
Keith Vaz, the Labour MP who chairs the home affairs committee, said hardly any progress was being made in clearing the backlog. He holds former UKBA chief executive Lin Homer – Britain’s most senior female mandarin – responsible for much of the debacle.
She is clinging to her job in charge of HM Revenue & Customs after MPs concluded she was guilty of a ‘catastrophic’ failure of leadership during her time at UKBA.
Mr Vaz said: ‘No sooner is one backlog closed, than four more are discovered.
‘At this rate it will take 24 years to clear the backlog which still stands at the size of the population of Iceland.’ Also within the backlog are 3,980 foreign criminals who cannot be deported and have been released on bail by the courts. This has increased by 26 in only three months, despite repeated government promises to kick the offenders out. Six years ago the asylum backlog scandal prompted then home secretary John Reid to brand the immigration system ‘not fit for purpose’.
The committee recommends senior UKBA staff are not paid bonuses until there is evidence the backlog is being ‘substantially’ reduced and new backlogs are not emerging.
Yvette Cooper, Labour’s home affairs spokesman, said: ‘This highly critical report shows that practical failings in the immigration system are getting worse.’
Immigration minister Mark Harper said: ‘We have always been clear the UK Border Agency was a troubled organisation with a poor record of delivery.
‘Turning it around will take time but I am determined to provide the public with an immigration system they can have confidence in.’
The Border Agency has awarded a £30million contract to outsourcing firm Capita to help track illegals. It began work in October.
SOURCE
Theresa May splits border agency to end 'secretive and defensive' culture
Britain's beleaguered immigration service is to be split in two and brought directly under ministers' control for the first time in five years, the Home Secretary announced today.
Theresa May said the UK Border Agency's performance was "still not good enough" and it would be split to end its "closed, secretive and defensive culture".
The unexpected move means immigration will be supervised by Home Office ministers rather than operating at arm's length under the control of a chief executive.
It comes seven years after John Reid, the then Labour home secretary, described the Home Office as "not fit for purpose" after an immigration scandal that led to the sacking of his predecessor.
"In keeping with the changes we made last year to Border Force, the Government is splitting up the UK Border Agency," Mrs May told the House of Commons.
"In its place will be an immigration and visa service and an immigration law enforcement organisation.
"UKBA was given agency status in order to keep its work at an arm’s length from ministers. That was wrong. It created a closed, secretive and defensive culture.
"So I can tell the House that the new entities will not have agency status and will sit in the Home Office, reporting to ministers."
The announcement will leave the Coalition government open to allegations that it failed to get to grips with the UKBA's failings more quickly, as it comes just a year after the last reorganisation of the agency, and only a day after a scathing attack by MPs on its former boss, Lin Homer.
The all-party Home Affairs Select Committee said in a strongly-worded report yesterday that Ms Homer was responsible for a "catastrophic leadership failure".
MPs warned that it would take the UKBA 24 years to clear an immigration and asylum case backlog.
Mrs May said she hoped the changes would make it easier to cut backlogs and increase the number of illegal immigrants who are deported.
SOURCE
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
New immigrants to Britain told: You must pay to see a GP - and will move to the back of the queue for council homes
Immigrants will be forced to pay to visit a GP and be banned from getting council houses for up to five years after they settle in Britain.
The moves, to be signalled by David Cameron this week, mark a new hardline stance on immigration aimed at reviving Tory fortunes.
The Prime Minister intends to introduce legislation on both issues in the next few months, despite the likelihood of strong opposition from Labour MPs.
The measures are to be rushed through to stop Bulgarians and Romanians being allowed free access to the UK next January.
A senior source said: ‘The PM wants the immigration system to back people who work hard and do the right thing. He is determined to bring an end to the situation where people can come to the UK and get benefits and public services without putting anything in.
‘He is opposed to the “something for nothing” culture of some people who come here from abroad and jump the housing queue of deserving local families who have lived in an area for years and paid taxes.
‘We want to remove any expectation that new migrants can expect the taxpayer to give them a home on arrival.’
Earlier this month, Nick Clegg chaired a Home Affairs Cabinet Committee to examine plans to deter EU migrants from coming to Britain by slashing benefits without breaching discrimination laws.
They examined options to restrict access to housing and welfare, and introducing an ‘entitlement card’ for all EU citizens.
Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is also looking at proposals to restrict access to services by introducing a tighter ‘habitual residency test’.
At the same time, the Home Office has been examining ways to bar migrants from Romania and Bulgaria from using NHS hospitals if they come to Britain without a job.
People who have lived in the UK for the past year can get free treatment at hospitals, while those who are here for a shorter time are charged.
However, foreign patients can use GPs’ surgeries without charge.
The Government review has looked at whether the system applied by hospitals should be extended to GPs.
Doctors’ leaders have suggested that Ministers should introduce a system under which patients who cannot provide proof of residence have to pay for treatment.
However, the British Medical Association has advised its members not to make any checks on residency because ‘there is no obligation on them to do so’ – and it could leave them open to allegations of discrimination.
They have called on ‘other bodies’ within the health service to make judgments about someone’s eligibility for care to avoid putting doctors in a difficult position.
GP practices have been placed under a growing burden by the requirement to provide free emergency treatment and immediate necessary treatment for up to 14 days to any person within their practice area.
EU citizens from outside the UK have the same rights to free NHS treatment as British residents when they take up residence here, either as temporary migrant workers or as permanent residents.
At the same time, nearly one in ten council houses and ‘social housing’ go to foreign nationals, a 30 per cent rise in four years.
The new rules are intended to force town halls to introduce a ‘local residency test’ before letting families join the list for a council home.
They will have to wait a minimum of two and a maximum of five years to join the list, depending on the availability of houses.
Local authorities are currently free to impose such restrictions, but many choose not to.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Publications
1. A Bleak Picture Employment among U.S. Citizens in States Represented by Gang of Eight
2. All the News that Fits Ideologically Skewed Coverage of Immigration at the New York Times
Media
3. "Building an Immigration System Worthy of American Values" Testimony of Jan Ting before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Blogs
4. Napolitano’s Frequent Meetings with Amnesty Activists
5. Selective Truth-Telling in this Morning's Washington Post
6. Mormon Church Support for Immigration Reform — Naive or Mean-Spirited?
7. Adventures in Manipulative Polling
8. Gee, the White Horse is Bigger than the Black Horse
9. Vicente Fox Says Mexico Will Not Act to Stop Illegal Immigration
10. Does Immigration Contribute to Delayed Family Formation?
11. #DontStandWithRand
12. Powerful Response to a Harper's Article
13. The GOP Report: "Growth and Opportunity Plan", or Good Old Pandering?
14. Provisions for Sibling Immigrants in English-Speaking Nations
15. Sliver of a Silver Lining?
New immigrants to Britain told: You must pay to see a GP - and will move to the back of the queue for council homes
Immigrants will be forced to pay to visit a GP and be banned from getting council houses for up to five years after they settle in Britain.
The moves, to be signalled by David Cameron this week, mark a new hardline stance on immigration aimed at reviving Tory fortunes.
The Prime Minister intends to introduce legislation on both issues in the next few months, despite the likelihood of strong opposition from Labour MPs.
The measures are to be rushed through to stop Bulgarians and Romanians being allowed free access to the UK next January.
A senior source said: ‘The PM wants the immigration system to back people who work hard and do the right thing. He is determined to bring an end to the situation where people can come to the UK and get benefits and public services without putting anything in.
‘He is opposed to the “something for nothing” culture of some people who come here from abroad and jump the housing queue of deserving local families who have lived in an area for years and paid taxes.
‘We want to remove any expectation that new migrants can expect the taxpayer to give them a home on arrival.’
Earlier this month, Nick Clegg chaired a Home Affairs Cabinet Committee to examine plans to deter EU migrants from coming to Britain by slashing benefits without breaching discrimination laws.
They examined options to restrict access to housing and welfare, and introducing an ‘entitlement card’ for all EU citizens.
Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is also looking at proposals to restrict access to services by introducing a tighter ‘habitual residency test’.
At the same time, the Home Office has been examining ways to bar migrants from Romania and Bulgaria from using NHS hospitals if they come to Britain without a job.
People who have lived in the UK for the past year can get free treatment at hospitals, while those who are here for a shorter time are charged.
However, foreign patients can use GPs’ surgeries without charge.
The Government review has looked at whether the system applied by hospitals should be extended to GPs.
Doctors’ leaders have suggested that Ministers should introduce a system under which patients who cannot provide proof of residence have to pay for treatment.
However, the British Medical Association has advised its members not to make any checks on residency because ‘there is no obligation on them to do so’ – and it could leave them open to allegations of discrimination.
They have called on ‘other bodies’ within the health service to make judgments about someone’s eligibility for care to avoid putting doctors in a difficult position.
GP practices have been placed under a growing burden by the requirement to provide free emergency treatment and immediate necessary treatment for up to 14 days to any person within their practice area.
EU citizens from outside the UK have the same rights to free NHS treatment as British residents when they take up residence here, either as temporary migrant workers or as permanent residents.
At the same time, nearly one in ten council houses and ‘social housing’ go to foreign nationals, a 30 per cent rise in four years.
The new rules are intended to force town halls to introduce a ‘local residency test’ before letting families join the list for a council home.
They will have to wait a minimum of two and a maximum of five years to join the list, depending on the availability of houses.
Local authorities are currently free to impose such restrictions, but many choose not to.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Publications
1. A Bleak Picture Employment among U.S. Citizens in States Represented by Gang of Eight
2. All the News that Fits Ideologically Skewed Coverage of Immigration at the New York Times
Media
3. "Building an Immigration System Worthy of American Values" Testimony of Jan Ting before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Blogs
4. Napolitano’s Frequent Meetings with Amnesty Activists
5. Selective Truth-Telling in this Morning's Washington Post
6. Mormon Church Support for Immigration Reform — Naive or Mean-Spirited?
7. Adventures in Manipulative Polling
8. Gee, the White Horse is Bigger than the Black Horse
9. Vicente Fox Says Mexico Will Not Act to Stop Illegal Immigration
10. Does Immigration Contribute to Delayed Family Formation?
11. #DontStandWithRand
12. Powerful Response to a Harper's Article
13. The GOP Report: "Growth and Opportunity Plan", or Good Old Pandering?
14. Provisions for Sibling Immigrants in English-Speaking Nations
15. Sliver of a Silver Lining?
Monday, March 25, 2013
Mexicans are not the same as Ellis Is. Italians
People of Mexican descent in New York City are far more likely to be living in poor or near-poor households than other Latinos, blacks, whites or Asians, according to a study to be released on Thursday.
Nearly two-thirds of the city’s Mexican residents, including immigrants and the native-born, are living in low-income households, compared with 55 percent of all Latinos; 42 percent of blacks and Asians; and 25 percent of whites, said the report by the Community Service Society, a research and advocacy group in New York City that focuses on poverty.
The rates are even more pronounced for children: About 79 percent of all Mexicans under age 16 in New York City live in low-income households, with about 45 percent living below the poverty line — significantly higher percentages than any other major Latino group as well as the broader population.
While the Mexican immigrants enjoy exceptionally high rates of employment, their salaries are not sufficient to support young families, the study’s authors said.
“Immigrant Mexicans appear to be having great difficulty making ends meet as they start families here,” said the study, which sought to assess socio-economic trends among young people of Mexican origin in New York City. “Incomes that might support one individual on their own or in a shared household are not enough to support a family.”
“The result could be a cycle of poverty that will pass down from generation to generation,” the authors warned.
The study defined low-income households as those making below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, which is equivalent to about $38,000 for a family of three.
The study was commissioned by the Deutsche Bank Foundation following the publication of an article in The New York Times in 2011 about extraordinarily low educational achievement among Mexican immigrants in New York City. The foundation has also started an initiative intended to improve the educational and economic achievement of the Mexican population in New York City, with an emphasis on children and their families.
The study reaffirmed The Times’s statistical and anecdotal findings about low educational achievement among first-generation Mexican immigrants. Based largely on data from the American Community Survey, the report did not try to analyze the legal status of its focus populations.
The researchers identified what they called “a promising sign” for the city’s growing Mexican population: about 67 percent of all native-born Mexicans between 16 and 24 living in the city were enrolled in school, a higher percentage than Puerto Ricans (54 percent) as well as native-born Dominicans (64 percent), native-born blacks (60 percent) and native-born whites (64 percent), though lower than native-born Asians (78 percent).
Still, even this finding was cast in shadow by more bleak data: Mexican youth who have left school — native-born and foreign-born alike — have considerably lower levels of educational attainment than their peers, with more than half lacking a high school diploma.
“The fact that native-born Mexican young people are less likely than other Latinos (and other racial/ethnic groups) to attain high school diplomas and enroll in college is extremely troubling,” the report said.
The authors concluded their study by recommending policy initiatives that would provide more educational and social support for Mexican children, families and low-wage workers, including increasing access to job training and English-language programs and raising the minimum wage, something that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and state lawmakers are hoping to achieve.
SOURCE
Why we on the British Left made an epic mistake on immigration
By David Goodhart
Among Left-leaning ‘Hampstead’ liberals like me, there has long been what you might call a ‘discrimination assumption’ when it comes to the highly charged issue of immigration.
Our instinctive reaction has been that Britain is a relentlessly racist country bent on thwarting the lives of ethnic minorities, that the only decent policy is to throw open our doors to all and that those with doubts about how we run our multi-racial society are guilty of prejudice.
And that view — echoed in Whitehall, Westminster and town halls around the country — has been the prevailing ideology, setting the tone for the immigration debate.
But for some years, this has troubled me and, gradually, I have changed my mind.
Over 18 months of touring the country to talk to people about their lives for a new book, I have discovered minority Britons thriving more than many liberals suppose possible. But I also saw the mess of division and conflict we have got ourselves into in other places.
I am now convinced that public opinion is right and Britain has had too much immigration too quickly.
For 30 years, the Left has blinded itself with sentiment about diversity. But we got it wrong.
I still believe that large-scale immigration has made Britain livelier and more dynamic than it would otherwise have been. I believe, too, that this country is significantly less racist than it once was.
In many places immigration is working as the textbooks say it should with a degree of harmony, with minorities upwardly mobile and creating interesting new hybrid identities in mixed suburbs.
But it has also resulted in too many areas in which ethnic minorities lead almost segregated lives — notably in the northern ‘mill towns’ and other declining industrial regions, which in the Sixties and Seventies attracted one of the most clannish minorities of modern times, rural Kashmiri Pakistanis.
In Leicester and Bradford, almost half of the ethnic population live in what are technically ghettos (defined as areas where minorities form more than two-thirds of the population). Meanwhile, parts of white working-class Britain have been left feeling neither valued nor useful, believing that they have been displaced by newcomers not only in the job market but also in the national story itself.
Those in the race lobby have been slow to recognise that strong collective identities are legitimate for majorities as well as minorities, for white as well as for black people.
For a democratic state to have any meaning, it must ‘belong’ to existing citizens. They must have special rights over non-citizens. Immigration must be managed with their interests in mind. But it has not been.
The justification for such a large and unpopular change has to be that the economic benefits are significant and measurable. But they are not.
One of the liberal elite’s myths is that we are a ‘mongrel nation’ that has always experienced high inflows of outsiders. But this isn’t true. From 1066 until 1950, immigration was almost non-existent (excluding Ireland) — a quarter of a million at the most, mainly Huguenots and Jews.
Post-World War II immigration has been on a completely different scale from anything that went before. These days, more people arrive on our shores as immigrants in a single year than did so in the entire period from 1066 to 1950, excluding wartime.
Much of this happened by accident. When the 1948 Nationality Act was passed — giving all citizens of the Empire and Commonwealth the right to live and work in Britain — it was not expected that the ordinary people of poor former colonies would arrive in their hundreds of thousands.
Nor was it expected after 1997 that a combination of quite small decisions would lead to 1.5 million East Europeans arriving, about half to settle. But come they did, and a net immigration of around four million foreign-born citizens since 1997 has produced easily the most dramatic demographic revolution in British history.
Yet there was no general discussion in the New Labour Cabinet of the day about who Britain wanted to let in and in what numbers; no discussion about how the country could absorb them without pressure on public services.
By the time of the next census in 2021, the non-white minority population will have risen to around 20 per cent, a trebling in just 25 years.
By 2066, according to one demographer, white Britons will be in a minority.
This is already the case in some towns and cities, including London, Leicester, Slough and Luton, with Birmingham expected to follow in the near future.
If Britain had a clear and confident sense of its national culture and was good at integrating people, then perhaps this speed of change would be of little concern. But this is not the case.
We are deep into a huge social experiment. To give it a chance of working, we need to heed the ‘slow down’ signs that the electorate is waving. And all the more so given that the low economic growth era we are now in means people’s grievances cannot easily be bought off with rising wages and public spending.
The fact is that the whole post-war process of immigration has been badly managed or, rather, not managed at all.
It is often said that the importation of people from the Indian subcontinent to work in textile mills that were soon to close — ironically, partly thanks to competition from India and Pakistan itself — was a poor piece of social engineering.
But the whole point was that no one really engineered it. It just happened.
And then no one came forward to grasp the consequences or even acknowledge there might be a problem.
The fault lies with our leaders, not with the people who came for a better life. There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite’s views and those of ordinary people on the street. This was brought home to me when dining at an Oxford college and the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’
I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham.
Such grand notions run counter to the way most people in this country think or arrange their priorities.
The British political class has never prepared existing citizens for something as game-changing as large-scale immigration, nor has it done a good job at explaining what the point of large-scale immigration was and whose interests it was meant to serve.
Crucially, they failed to control the inflow more overtly in the interests of existing citizens. On the contrary, the idea that immigration should be unambiguously in the interests of existing citizens was blurred from the start.
Then, whenever there were problems with immigrant communities, the tendency was for the host society to be blamed for not being sufficiently accommodating or for being racist, rather than considering the self-inflicted wounds of some minority cultures.
Thus, the absence of fathers in many African-Caribbean households was excused as a cultural trait that just had to be accepted rather than a dereliction of duty that needed addressing.
Yes, being a newcomer can be hard, even in a liberal society such as Britain’s that today offers undreamed of protections and rights compared with earlier eras. But what has been largely ignored is that mass immigration makes big demands on host communities, too, and a successful strategy must engage the attention, consent and sympathy of the host majority as well.
Democratic common sense demands that politics and law cannot concern themselves only with the problems of minorities. The majority must have a voice, too, in how we manage a multi-racial society.
More HERE
Mexicans are not the same as Ellis Is. Italians
People of Mexican descent in New York City are far more likely to be living in poor or near-poor households than other Latinos, blacks, whites or Asians, according to a study to be released on Thursday.
Nearly two-thirds of the city’s Mexican residents, including immigrants and the native-born, are living in low-income households, compared with 55 percent of all Latinos; 42 percent of blacks and Asians; and 25 percent of whites, said the report by the Community Service Society, a research and advocacy group in New York City that focuses on poverty.
The rates are even more pronounced for children: About 79 percent of all Mexicans under age 16 in New York City live in low-income households, with about 45 percent living below the poverty line — significantly higher percentages than any other major Latino group as well as the broader population.
While the Mexican immigrants enjoy exceptionally high rates of employment, their salaries are not sufficient to support young families, the study’s authors said.
“Immigrant Mexicans appear to be having great difficulty making ends meet as they start families here,” said the study, which sought to assess socio-economic trends among young people of Mexican origin in New York City. “Incomes that might support one individual on their own or in a shared household are not enough to support a family.”
“The result could be a cycle of poverty that will pass down from generation to generation,” the authors warned.
The study defined low-income households as those making below 200 percent of the federal poverty line, which is equivalent to about $38,000 for a family of three.
The study was commissioned by the Deutsche Bank Foundation following the publication of an article in The New York Times in 2011 about extraordinarily low educational achievement among Mexican immigrants in New York City. The foundation has also started an initiative intended to improve the educational and economic achievement of the Mexican population in New York City, with an emphasis on children and their families.
The study reaffirmed The Times’s statistical and anecdotal findings about low educational achievement among first-generation Mexican immigrants. Based largely on data from the American Community Survey, the report did not try to analyze the legal status of its focus populations.
The researchers identified what they called “a promising sign” for the city’s growing Mexican population: about 67 percent of all native-born Mexicans between 16 and 24 living in the city were enrolled in school, a higher percentage than Puerto Ricans (54 percent) as well as native-born Dominicans (64 percent), native-born blacks (60 percent) and native-born whites (64 percent), though lower than native-born Asians (78 percent).
Still, even this finding was cast in shadow by more bleak data: Mexican youth who have left school — native-born and foreign-born alike — have considerably lower levels of educational attainment than their peers, with more than half lacking a high school diploma.
“The fact that native-born Mexican young people are less likely than other Latinos (and other racial/ethnic groups) to attain high school diplomas and enroll in college is extremely troubling,” the report said.
The authors concluded their study by recommending policy initiatives that would provide more educational and social support for Mexican children, families and low-wage workers, including increasing access to job training and English-language programs and raising the minimum wage, something that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and state lawmakers are hoping to achieve.
SOURCE
Why we on the British Left made an epic mistake on immigration
By David Goodhart
Among Left-leaning ‘Hampstead’ liberals like me, there has long been what you might call a ‘discrimination assumption’ when it comes to the highly charged issue of immigration.
Our instinctive reaction has been that Britain is a relentlessly racist country bent on thwarting the lives of ethnic minorities, that the only decent policy is to throw open our doors to all and that those with doubts about how we run our multi-racial society are guilty of prejudice.
And that view — echoed in Whitehall, Westminster and town halls around the country — has been the prevailing ideology, setting the tone for the immigration debate.
But for some years, this has troubled me and, gradually, I have changed my mind.
Over 18 months of touring the country to talk to people about their lives for a new book, I have discovered minority Britons thriving more than many liberals suppose possible. But I also saw the mess of division and conflict we have got ourselves into in other places.
I am now convinced that public opinion is right and Britain has had too much immigration too quickly.
For 30 years, the Left has blinded itself with sentiment about diversity. But we got it wrong.
I still believe that large-scale immigration has made Britain livelier and more dynamic than it would otherwise have been. I believe, too, that this country is significantly less racist than it once was.
In many places immigration is working as the textbooks say it should with a degree of harmony, with minorities upwardly mobile and creating interesting new hybrid identities in mixed suburbs.
But it has also resulted in too many areas in which ethnic minorities lead almost segregated lives — notably in the northern ‘mill towns’ and other declining industrial regions, which in the Sixties and Seventies attracted one of the most clannish minorities of modern times, rural Kashmiri Pakistanis.
In Leicester and Bradford, almost half of the ethnic population live in what are technically ghettos (defined as areas where minorities form more than two-thirds of the population). Meanwhile, parts of white working-class Britain have been left feeling neither valued nor useful, believing that they have been displaced by newcomers not only in the job market but also in the national story itself.
Those in the race lobby have been slow to recognise that strong collective identities are legitimate for majorities as well as minorities, for white as well as for black people.
For a democratic state to have any meaning, it must ‘belong’ to existing citizens. They must have special rights over non-citizens. Immigration must be managed with their interests in mind. But it has not been.
The justification for such a large and unpopular change has to be that the economic benefits are significant and measurable. But they are not.
One of the liberal elite’s myths is that we are a ‘mongrel nation’ that has always experienced high inflows of outsiders. But this isn’t true. From 1066 until 1950, immigration was almost non-existent (excluding Ireland) — a quarter of a million at the most, mainly Huguenots and Jews.
Post-World War II immigration has been on a completely different scale from anything that went before. These days, more people arrive on our shores as immigrants in a single year than did so in the entire period from 1066 to 1950, excluding wartime.
Much of this happened by accident. When the 1948 Nationality Act was passed — giving all citizens of the Empire and Commonwealth the right to live and work in Britain — it was not expected that the ordinary people of poor former colonies would arrive in their hundreds of thousands.
Nor was it expected after 1997 that a combination of quite small decisions would lead to 1.5 million East Europeans arriving, about half to settle. But come they did, and a net immigration of around four million foreign-born citizens since 1997 has produced easily the most dramatic demographic revolution in British history.
Yet there was no general discussion in the New Labour Cabinet of the day about who Britain wanted to let in and in what numbers; no discussion about how the country could absorb them without pressure on public services.
By the time of the next census in 2021, the non-white minority population will have risen to around 20 per cent, a trebling in just 25 years.
By 2066, according to one demographer, white Britons will be in a minority.
This is already the case in some towns and cities, including London, Leicester, Slough and Luton, with Birmingham expected to follow in the near future.
If Britain had a clear and confident sense of its national culture and was good at integrating people, then perhaps this speed of change would be of little concern. But this is not the case.
We are deep into a huge social experiment. To give it a chance of working, we need to heed the ‘slow down’ signs that the electorate is waving. And all the more so given that the low economic growth era we are now in means people’s grievances cannot easily be bought off with rising wages and public spending.
The fact is that the whole post-war process of immigration has been badly managed or, rather, not managed at all.
It is often said that the importation of people from the Indian subcontinent to work in textile mills that were soon to close — ironically, partly thanks to competition from India and Pakistan itself — was a poor piece of social engineering.
But the whole point was that no one really engineered it. It just happened.
And then no one came forward to grasp the consequences or even acknowledge there might be a problem.
The fault lies with our leaders, not with the people who came for a better life. There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite’s views and those of ordinary people on the street. This was brought home to me when dining at an Oxford college and the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’
I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham.
Such grand notions run counter to the way most people in this country think or arrange their priorities.
The British political class has never prepared existing citizens for something as game-changing as large-scale immigration, nor has it done a good job at explaining what the point of large-scale immigration was and whose interests it was meant to serve.
Crucially, they failed to control the inflow more overtly in the interests of existing citizens. On the contrary, the idea that immigration should be unambiguously in the interests of existing citizens was blurred from the start.
Then, whenever there were problems with immigrant communities, the tendency was for the host society to be blamed for not being sufficiently accommodating or for being racist, rather than considering the self-inflicted wounds of some minority cultures.
Thus, the absence of fathers in many African-Caribbean households was excused as a cultural trait that just had to be accepted rather than a dereliction of duty that needed addressing.
Yes, being a newcomer can be hard, even in a liberal society such as Britain’s that today offers undreamed of protections and rights compared with earlier eras. But what has been largely ignored is that mass immigration makes big demands on host communities, too, and a successful strategy must engage the attention, consent and sympathy of the host majority as well.
Democratic common sense demands that politics and law cannot concern themselves only with the problems of minorities. The majority must have a voice, too, in how we manage a multi-racial society.
More HERE
Sunday, March 24, 2013
British Liberal leader swipes Tory ideas to talk tough on migration: Deputy PM will use speech to talk of a 'tolerant Britain'
An attempt by Nick Clegg to toughen his position on immigration ran into trouble last night as he was accused of stealing Conservative ideas and Vince Cable ridiculed the idea of cutting the number of incomers to the tens of thousands.
The Deputy Prime Minister will today use his first speech on immigration since the general election in 2010 to set out a vision of a ‘tolerant Britain, zero-tolerant of abuse’.
He will insist that if immigrant workers suddenly ‘downed tools, countless businesses and services would suffer’ and the NHS ‘would fall over’ - but insist borders were ‘grossly mismanaged’ under Labour.
Mr Clegg will say that cash penalties for unscrupulous employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants because they are cheaper are to be increased. Currently, the maximum fine is £10,000 per illegal worker.
He will also claim that he has ‘asked the Home Secretary’ to examine the idea of forcing incomers to put up a cash bond if they want to come to Britain.
They will be required to pay the money as part of a guarantee that they will not be a burden on the taxpayer and will leave the country when their visa expires.
The Daily Mail revealed in March that Home Secretary Theresa May was planning immigration bonds as the next stage of reform, having succeeded in cutting net migration to its lowest level for a decade.
The cash would only be repaid when people leave the country and demonstrate that they have not drawn on particular services, such as non-urgent NHS care or elements of the welfare state.
Mrs May plans to announce a pilot scheme targeted at ‘high risk’ individuals from ‘two or three nationalities’ starting later this year. They or family members already in the UK would be required to put up a sum running into thousands of pounds as security that they will abide by the rules.
Prime Minister David Cameron also floated the idea of immigration bonds and Theresa May plans to announce a pilot scheme targeted at 'high risk' individuals
The 1999 Immigration & Asylum Act allows the UK to require a financial security from temporary migrants, which can be forfeited if they fail to leave the UK after the expiry of their visa.
Prime Minister David Cameron also floated the idea of immigration bonds last year. One Tory source said Mr Clegg appeared to be ‘purloining Conservative ideas’ in an attempt to shift perceptions of his party’s position on a key issue.
In another blow, Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable gave an interview pouring scorn on the Conservative aim of reducing net immigration from the hundreds to the tens of thousands.
‘It isn’t Government policy, it is Conservative policy. And it’s also not true because that policy purely relates to non-EU people. We have obviously no control over the European Union and that is actually where much of the movement comes,’ Mr Cable told The House magazine.
‘The reducing to under 100,000 is not Government policy and it would be unattainable without, if it was attainable enormous damage would be done, notably through overseas students, which is one of the biggest components.’
The Business Secretary said attempts to tighten the visa system had created the impression, particularly in India, that ‘Britain is closed’.
diversity
Mr Clegg praised the diversity of the country's population and says that Britain is made up of rich and varied backgrounds
‘We want overseas students, they are good for us, they are not bad for us. They bring in lots of money. We want to have lots of visitors from all over the world coming here without hassle, an easy flexible visa system and we have lots of highly specialised people in engineers, top managers who we need in our companies and they’ve got to be able to come and go freely otherwise we are not going to be able to compete internationally,’ Mr Cable added.
‘So I do have to keep banging the drum for that.’
Mr Clegg will insist today that the Lib Dems ‘will never seek to outflank our opponents’ on immigration ‘because we think that’s what people want to hear’.
‘That kind of low populism patronises the British people. And it is an insult to the many migrants who have contributed to our country,’ he will say.
‘British society has been shaped by migrant communities in ways more profound than any cliché about chicken tikka masala, or Notting Hill Carnival, or Polish builders can ever express. I’m the son of a Dutch mother - she, herself, raised in Indonesia; a half-Russian father; husband to a Spanish wife. Like millions of Brits, if you trace our blood lines back through the generations, you end up travelling around the globe.’ But he will savage Labour for leaving an immigration system in ‘disarray’.
‘I cannot stress enough just how chaotic it was. The first thing they did, after coming into office, was stop checking if people were leaving the country. They got rid of exit checks. They weren’t counting people in and they weren’t counting people out either,’ the Deputy Prime Minister will add.
‘Since we came into government, net migration has fallen by a third. We’ve capped immigration from outside Europe. And within the EU, we have kept the transitional limits on Romania and Bulgaria, until the point where every member state has to remove them.
‘One idea which appeals to me is a system of security bonds. And so I’ve asked the Home Office to do some work on it, with a view to running a pilot before the end of the year.
‘The basic premise is simple: in certain cases, when a visa applicant is coming from a high risk country, in addition to satisfying the normal criteria, UKBA would be able to request a deposit - a kind of cash guarantee. Once the visitor leaves Britain, the bond will be repaid.’
A Home Office source said: ‘We look forward to support for all our immigration policies and getting down to the tens of thousands.’
SOURCE
Australia: Afghans lead 37% rise in asylum seeker claims
Just what Australia needs: A whole swag of illiterate and aggressive Muslims
The number of people arriving in Australia to claim asylum jumped by more than a third last year, driven by an increase in arrivals from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Last year 15,800 people claimed asylum in Australia, up 37 per cent from 2011. Afghan nationals (3079) and Sri Lankans (2345) accounted for more than a third of asylum seekers to reach Australian shores.
The increase in the number of Sri Lankans travelling to Australia by boat attracted intense public and political interest last year.
The number of Sri Lankans - mainly young Tamil men, but also Sinhalese, Muslims and small numbers of women and children - to make an asylum claim in Australia jumped from 371 in 2011 to 2345 last year (a rise of 630 per cent, but from a low base), figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees show.
The agency's numbers do not include those who arrived by boat after August 13 last year, when Australia restarted offshore processing and, according to the UNHCR, ''have not yet entered a refugee determination process, or been able to lodge a formal claim for protection''.
The number of Sri Lankans who arrived ''irregularly'' by boat on Australian shores increased by a far greater amount last year, from 211 to 6428.
Continued insecurity across Afghanistan and uncertainty over that country's future post-2014 saw the number of Afghan nationals applying for asylum jump 79 per cent to 3079.
And the number of Pakistani asylum seekers reached 1512 last year, up 84 per cent from 2011.
Australia's asylum seeker numbers, while politically sensitive, remain numerically small. Australia receives about 3 per cent of the total asylum claims made in industrialised countries around the world.
The UNHCR noted in its report: ''By comparison, asylum levels in Australia continue to remain below those recorded by many other industrialised and non-industrialised countries.''
Nearly half a million - 493,000 - asylum claims were lodged in industrialised countries last year, the second highest number on record after 2003.
Europe received 355,000 asylum seeker claims, while North America had 103,000. War, civil strife, political repression and sectarian violence continue to force movements of populations across borders.
In particular, conflict in Syria has prompted a new mass wave of refugees fleeing that country.
Afghanistan continues to provide the most asylum seekers of any country in the world, with 36,600 last year, followed by the Syrian Arab Republic, Serbia, China and Pakistan.
''Wars are driving more and more people to seek asylum,'' the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, said. ''At a time of conflict, I urge countries to keep their borders open for people fleeing for their lives.''
And while the latest UNHCR figures deal with asylum claims to industrialised countries, more than 80 per cent of refugees live in developing countries.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has previously called for greater equity in assisting displaced people.
''The burden of helping the world's forcibly displaced people is starkly uneven,'' he said. ''Poor countries host vastly more displaced people than wealthier ones. While anti-refugee sentiment is heard loudest in industrialised countries, developing nations host 80 per cent of the world's refugees.''
Afghanistan alone has a diaspora of more than 2.7 million refugees across 71 countries, but more than 95 per cent are in neighbouring Pakistan and Iran.
SOURCE
British Liberal leader swipes Tory ideas to talk tough on migration: Deputy PM will use speech to talk of a 'tolerant Britain'
An attempt by Nick Clegg to toughen his position on immigration ran into trouble last night as he was accused of stealing Conservative ideas and Vince Cable ridiculed the idea of cutting the number of incomers to the tens of thousands.
The Deputy Prime Minister will today use his first speech on immigration since the general election in 2010 to set out a vision of a ‘tolerant Britain, zero-tolerant of abuse’.
He will insist that if immigrant workers suddenly ‘downed tools, countless businesses and services would suffer’ and the NHS ‘would fall over’ - but insist borders were ‘grossly mismanaged’ under Labour.
Mr Clegg will say that cash penalties for unscrupulous employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants because they are cheaper are to be increased. Currently, the maximum fine is £10,000 per illegal worker.
He will also claim that he has ‘asked the Home Secretary’ to examine the idea of forcing incomers to put up a cash bond if they want to come to Britain.
They will be required to pay the money as part of a guarantee that they will not be a burden on the taxpayer and will leave the country when their visa expires.
The Daily Mail revealed in March that Home Secretary Theresa May was planning immigration bonds as the next stage of reform, having succeeded in cutting net migration to its lowest level for a decade.
The cash would only be repaid when people leave the country and demonstrate that they have not drawn on particular services, such as non-urgent NHS care or elements of the welfare state.
Mrs May plans to announce a pilot scheme targeted at ‘high risk’ individuals from ‘two or three nationalities’ starting later this year. They or family members already in the UK would be required to put up a sum running into thousands of pounds as security that they will abide by the rules.
Prime Minister David Cameron also floated the idea of immigration bonds and Theresa May plans to announce a pilot scheme targeted at 'high risk' individuals
The 1999 Immigration & Asylum Act allows the UK to require a financial security from temporary migrants, which can be forfeited if they fail to leave the UK after the expiry of their visa.
Prime Minister David Cameron also floated the idea of immigration bonds last year. One Tory source said Mr Clegg appeared to be ‘purloining Conservative ideas’ in an attempt to shift perceptions of his party’s position on a key issue.
In another blow, Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Vince Cable gave an interview pouring scorn on the Conservative aim of reducing net immigration from the hundreds to the tens of thousands.
‘It isn’t Government policy, it is Conservative policy. And it’s also not true because that policy purely relates to non-EU people. We have obviously no control over the European Union and that is actually where much of the movement comes,’ Mr Cable told The House magazine.
‘The reducing to under 100,000 is not Government policy and it would be unattainable without, if it was attainable enormous damage would be done, notably through overseas students, which is one of the biggest components.’
The Business Secretary said attempts to tighten the visa system had created the impression, particularly in India, that ‘Britain is closed’.
diversity
Mr Clegg praised the diversity of the country's population and says that Britain is made up of rich and varied backgrounds
‘We want overseas students, they are good for us, they are not bad for us. They bring in lots of money. We want to have lots of visitors from all over the world coming here without hassle, an easy flexible visa system and we have lots of highly specialised people in engineers, top managers who we need in our companies and they’ve got to be able to come and go freely otherwise we are not going to be able to compete internationally,’ Mr Cable added.
‘So I do have to keep banging the drum for that.’
Mr Clegg will insist today that the Lib Dems ‘will never seek to outflank our opponents’ on immigration ‘because we think that’s what people want to hear’.
‘That kind of low populism patronises the British people. And it is an insult to the many migrants who have contributed to our country,’ he will say.
‘British society has been shaped by migrant communities in ways more profound than any cliché about chicken tikka masala, or Notting Hill Carnival, or Polish builders can ever express. I’m the son of a Dutch mother - she, herself, raised in Indonesia; a half-Russian father; husband to a Spanish wife. Like millions of Brits, if you trace our blood lines back through the generations, you end up travelling around the globe.’ But he will savage Labour for leaving an immigration system in ‘disarray’.
‘I cannot stress enough just how chaotic it was. The first thing they did, after coming into office, was stop checking if people were leaving the country. They got rid of exit checks. They weren’t counting people in and they weren’t counting people out either,’ the Deputy Prime Minister will add.
‘Since we came into government, net migration has fallen by a third. We’ve capped immigration from outside Europe. And within the EU, we have kept the transitional limits on Romania and Bulgaria, until the point where every member state has to remove them.
‘One idea which appeals to me is a system of security bonds. And so I’ve asked the Home Office to do some work on it, with a view to running a pilot before the end of the year.
‘The basic premise is simple: in certain cases, when a visa applicant is coming from a high risk country, in addition to satisfying the normal criteria, UKBA would be able to request a deposit - a kind of cash guarantee. Once the visitor leaves Britain, the bond will be repaid.’
A Home Office source said: ‘We look forward to support for all our immigration policies and getting down to the tens of thousands.’
SOURCE
Australia: Afghans lead 37% rise in asylum seeker claims
Just what Australia needs: A whole swag of illiterate and aggressive Muslims
The number of people arriving in Australia to claim asylum jumped by more than a third last year, driven by an increase in arrivals from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Last year 15,800 people claimed asylum in Australia, up 37 per cent from 2011. Afghan nationals (3079) and Sri Lankans (2345) accounted for more than a third of asylum seekers to reach Australian shores.
The increase in the number of Sri Lankans travelling to Australia by boat attracted intense public and political interest last year.
The number of Sri Lankans - mainly young Tamil men, but also Sinhalese, Muslims and small numbers of women and children - to make an asylum claim in Australia jumped from 371 in 2011 to 2345 last year (a rise of 630 per cent, but from a low base), figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees show.
The agency's numbers do not include those who arrived by boat after August 13 last year, when Australia restarted offshore processing and, according to the UNHCR, ''have not yet entered a refugee determination process, or been able to lodge a formal claim for protection''.
The number of Sri Lankans who arrived ''irregularly'' by boat on Australian shores increased by a far greater amount last year, from 211 to 6428.
Continued insecurity across Afghanistan and uncertainty over that country's future post-2014 saw the number of Afghan nationals applying for asylum jump 79 per cent to 3079.
And the number of Pakistani asylum seekers reached 1512 last year, up 84 per cent from 2011.
Australia's asylum seeker numbers, while politically sensitive, remain numerically small. Australia receives about 3 per cent of the total asylum claims made in industrialised countries around the world.
The UNHCR noted in its report: ''By comparison, asylum levels in Australia continue to remain below those recorded by many other industrialised and non-industrialised countries.''
Nearly half a million - 493,000 - asylum claims were lodged in industrialised countries last year, the second highest number on record after 2003.
Europe received 355,000 asylum seeker claims, while North America had 103,000. War, civil strife, political repression and sectarian violence continue to force movements of populations across borders.
In particular, conflict in Syria has prompted a new mass wave of refugees fleeing that country.
Afghanistan continues to provide the most asylum seekers of any country in the world, with 36,600 last year, followed by the Syrian Arab Republic, Serbia, China and Pakistan.
''Wars are driving more and more people to seek asylum,'' the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, said. ''At a time of conflict, I urge countries to keep their borders open for people fleeing for their lives.''
And while the latest UNHCR figures deal with asylum claims to industrialised countries, more than 80 per cent of refugees live in developing countries.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has previously called for greater equity in assisting displaced people.
''The burden of helping the world's forcibly displaced people is starkly uneven,'' he said. ''Poor countries host vastly more displaced people than wealthier ones. While anti-refugee sentiment is heard loudest in industrialised countries, developing nations host 80 per cent of the world's refugees.''
Afghanistan alone has a diaspora of more than 2.7 million refugees across 71 countries, but more than 95 per cent are in neighbouring Pakistan and Iran.
SOURCE
Friday, March 22, 2013
Employment Picture Bleak in States Represented by Gang of Eight
Unemployment for U.S. Citizens in these States among Highest in Country -- Yet Senators Push for More Immigration
Eight U.S. Senators from seven states – Rubio (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC), Flake (R-AZ), Schumer (D-NY), Menendez (D-NJ), Bennet (D-CO), and Durbin (D-IL) – have proposed an immigration plan allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country and increasing legal immigration in the future. A number of the Gang of Eight (Gof8) senators have made clear that they feel that there is a labor shortage, especially of workers to fill low-skilled jobs. (See their comments below).
As part of the Gof8 efforts, labor and business leaders are negotiating a new program to bring in more immigrants to fill “lesser-skilled” jobs. However, as shown by the Center for Immigration Studies' new analysis, employment data does not support the idea that there is a shortage of low-skilled labor. In fact, unemployment and non-work are more pronounced for less-educated U.S. citizens in the states represented by the Gof8 than in the nation as a whole.
“It is ironic that legislators from states with some of the highest unemployment rates are focused on making it easier for illegal immigrants to find work and on bringing in more workers. They seem unaware of the extraordinarily high unemployment figures among less-educated U.S. citizens,” comments the report’s lead author Dr. Steve Camarota,the Center's Director of Research.
The complete study can be found here
Among the report’s findings:
* In the seven states represented by the Gang of Eight (Gof8), the unemployment rate for U.S. citizens with no more than a high school education averaged 12.6% in 2012. This is higher than the 10.2% average for less-educated citizens in the other 43 states.
* The broader measure of unemployment (referred to as U-6), which includes those who want to work but have not looked recently, shows unemployment averaged 21.7% for less-educated citizens in the Gof8 states for 2012. This is markedly higher than the 18.3% average in the other 43 states.
* In the Gof8 states, U-6 unemployment was among the highest for citizens with no more than a high school education in 2012:
24.4% in Arizona, 4th highest in the country
22.1% in South Carolina, 8th highest in the country
22.0% in Illinois, 9th highest in the country
21.9% in New Jersey, 11th highest in the country
20.6% in Florida, 15th highest in the country
20.5% in New York, 18th highest in the country
20.1% in Colorado, 19th highest in the country
* Looking at all less-educated citizens (ages 18 to 65) shows 41.8% did not have job in 2012 in the Gof8 states, compared to an average of 37.9% in the other 43 states. This includes the unemployed and those entirely out of the labor market.
* In 2012, there were 6.5 million less-educated citizens (age 18 to 65) not working in the Gof8 states. Nationally, a total of 27.7 million less-educated citizens were not working.
Comments by some of the Gang of Eight
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaking to a Rotary Club in South Carolina in February 2013 stated that he was “trying to save our nation from, I think, a shortage of labor...”
http://easley.patch.com/articles/graham-immigration-reform-s-time-is-now.
On his web site Senator John McCain (R-AZ) discusses the need for more immigrant workers in many parts of the economy and he makes clear that Americans “don’t generally want the low-paying, low-skilled jobs.” He goes on to argue that the nation needs more foreign workers because “Our native-born work force is getting older. It’s shrinking – remember, our birth rates are falling.”
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=82b06c86-d403-2a4f-7b86-e59912bf5489.
In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal Sen. McCain also discussed the need to allow in more workers, particularly “low-skilled workers” and “agricultural workers.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/03/06/mccain-visa-overhaul-key-hurdle-in-immigration-talks/
Methodology
Data. The data for this analysis comes from the monthly public-use files of the Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 2000, 2007, and 2012. Each year represent 12 months of data averaged together. Each month the CPS includes about 131,000 respondents, roughly half of whom are in the labor force. The tables presented here are reported by quarter. By averaging 12 months together and creating yearly estimates it is possible to create a statistically robust figure at the state level. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the same approach. All CPS respondents are asked their citizenship. This report uses the responses to the citizenship in the public use data to report employment statistics for U.S. citizens (native-born and naturalized).
Defining Unemployment. The standard measure of unemployment, referred to as U-3, takes the number of people who report that they are not working and have looked for a job in the last four weeks and divides it by the number actually working plus those looking for work. The broader measure of unemployment, referred to as U-6, includes those who are involuntary part-time (i.e., would prefer a full-time job but can't find one), and others who indicate that they want and are available for jobs, and they have looked for work in the past 12 months. They are not part of U-3 unemployment because they have not looked for a job in the prior four weeks.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Judge Partially Blocks Georgia Immigration Law; Kansas Hearing Gets Emotional
A federal judge in Georgia permanently blocked the state from enforcing a key part of its sweeping immigration law, according to The Atlanta Journal Constitution.
The part in question would have punished those who transport or harbor undocumented immigrants or encourage them to come to Georgia knowingly.
Offenders would have faced imprisonment for up to 12 months and up to $1,000 in fines on their first charge.
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Thrash advised the state’s law enforcement about the directive.
Immigrant rights groups hailed the decision – saying it was a partial victory.
“It really is a signal that laws like this really kind of belong to an approach to immigration that is increasingly behind us,” Omar Jadwat, the senior staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project told the AJC.
State Rep. Matt Ramsey, who authored the law, told the newspaper he was happy that most of the law remained unchanged.
“In light of all the legal challenges that have been mounted against HB 87,” Ramsey said, “we continue to be very pleased with the outcome overall.”
In another immigration case in the state of Kansas, a House committee hearing on a measure that seeks to repeal in-state tuition for undocumented students was met by an emotional audience Wednesday.
The measure under consideration in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee would repeal the nearly 10-year-old statute that allows students who graduate from Kansas high schools and have lived in Kansas for at least three years to pay in-state tuition at state universities and community colleges, regardless of their residency status, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.
Kim Voth, a Wichita school counselor, said that before coming to testify before the committee, she spoke with one of her students who used the in-state tuition law to get an education degree and has since become a U.S. citizen and a teacher.
"I asked her what I should say today," Voth said, beginning to cry. "She got very quiet, then said, `Please tell them that my college degree changed my life."'
Fred Logan, of the Kansas Board of Regents, said more than 500 of the 630 immigrants currently accessing in-state tuition attend community colleges. He said the 2004 law treats students without legal status fairly.
Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the repeal bill's chief proponent, argued that natives of foreign countries who follow the legal process of getting student visas to attend Kansas universities have to pay out-of-state tuition.
"I think that is an absurd reverse incentive," Kobach said. "If you follow the law, we're charging you three times more."
The biggest response from the crowded gallery came when Rep. Ponka-We Victors, D-Wichita, ended a series of questions to Kobach.
"I think it's funny, Mr. Kobach, because when you mention illegal immigrant, I think of all of you," said Victors, the lone Native American in the Legislature.
People in the gallery then applauded, which is rare in such hearings. The committee did not take action on the bill.
SOURCE
Employment Picture Bleak in States Represented by Gang of Eight
Unemployment for U.S. Citizens in these States among Highest in Country -- Yet Senators Push for More Immigration
Eight U.S. Senators from seven states – Rubio (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC), Flake (R-AZ), Schumer (D-NY), Menendez (D-NJ), Bennet (D-CO), and Durbin (D-IL) – have proposed an immigration plan allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the country and increasing legal immigration in the future. A number of the Gang of Eight (Gof8) senators have made clear that they feel that there is a labor shortage, especially of workers to fill low-skilled jobs. (See their comments below).
As part of the Gof8 efforts, labor and business leaders are negotiating a new program to bring in more immigrants to fill “lesser-skilled” jobs. However, as shown by the Center for Immigration Studies' new analysis, employment data does not support the idea that there is a shortage of low-skilled labor. In fact, unemployment and non-work are more pronounced for less-educated U.S. citizens in the states represented by the Gof8 than in the nation as a whole.
“It is ironic that legislators from states with some of the highest unemployment rates are focused on making it easier for illegal immigrants to find work and on bringing in more workers. They seem unaware of the extraordinarily high unemployment figures among less-educated U.S. citizens,” comments the report’s lead author Dr. Steve Camarota,the Center's Director of Research.
The complete study can be found here
Among the report’s findings:
* In the seven states represented by the Gang of Eight (Gof8), the unemployment rate for U.S. citizens with no more than a high school education averaged 12.6% in 2012. This is higher than the 10.2% average for less-educated citizens in the other 43 states.
* The broader measure of unemployment (referred to as U-6), which includes those who want to work but have not looked recently, shows unemployment averaged 21.7% for less-educated citizens in the Gof8 states for 2012. This is markedly higher than the 18.3% average in the other 43 states.
* In the Gof8 states, U-6 unemployment was among the highest for citizens with no more than a high school education in 2012:
24.4% in Arizona, 4th highest in the country
22.1% in South Carolina, 8th highest in the country
22.0% in Illinois, 9th highest in the country
21.9% in New Jersey, 11th highest in the country
20.6% in Florida, 15th highest in the country
20.5% in New York, 18th highest in the country
20.1% in Colorado, 19th highest in the country
* Looking at all less-educated citizens (ages 18 to 65) shows 41.8% did not have job in 2012 in the Gof8 states, compared to an average of 37.9% in the other 43 states. This includes the unemployed and those entirely out of the labor market.
* In 2012, there were 6.5 million less-educated citizens (age 18 to 65) not working in the Gof8 states. Nationally, a total of 27.7 million less-educated citizens were not working.
Comments by some of the Gang of Eight
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaking to a Rotary Club in South Carolina in February 2013 stated that he was “trying to save our nation from, I think, a shortage of labor...”
http://easley.patch.com/articles/graham-immigration-reform-s-time-is-now.
On his web site Senator John McCain (R-AZ) discusses the need for more immigrant workers in many parts of the economy and he makes clear that Americans “don’t generally want the low-paying, low-skilled jobs.” He goes on to argue that the nation needs more foreign workers because “Our native-born work force is getting older. It’s shrinking – remember, our birth rates are falling.”
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=82b06c86-d403-2a4f-7b86-e59912bf5489.
In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal Sen. McCain also discussed the need to allow in more workers, particularly “low-skilled workers” and “agricultural workers.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/03/06/mccain-visa-overhaul-key-hurdle-in-immigration-talks/
Methodology
Data. The data for this analysis comes from the monthly public-use files of the Current Population Surveys (CPS) for 2000, 2007, and 2012. Each year represent 12 months of data averaged together. Each month the CPS includes about 131,000 respondents, roughly half of whom are in the labor force. The tables presented here are reported by quarter. By averaging 12 months together and creating yearly estimates it is possible to create a statistically robust figure at the state level. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the same approach. All CPS respondents are asked their citizenship. This report uses the responses to the citizenship in the public use data to report employment statistics for U.S. citizens (native-born and naturalized).
Defining Unemployment. The standard measure of unemployment, referred to as U-3, takes the number of people who report that they are not working and have looked for a job in the last four weeks and divides it by the number actually working plus those looking for work. The broader measure of unemployment, referred to as U-6, includes those who are involuntary part-time (i.e., would prefer a full-time job but can't find one), and others who indicate that they want and are available for jobs, and they have looked for work in the past 12 months. They are not part of U-3 unemployment because they have not looked for a job in the prior four weeks.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Judge Partially Blocks Georgia Immigration Law; Kansas Hearing Gets Emotional
A federal judge in Georgia permanently blocked the state from enforcing a key part of its sweeping immigration law, according to The Atlanta Journal Constitution.
The part in question would have punished those who transport or harbor undocumented immigrants or encourage them to come to Georgia knowingly.
Offenders would have faced imprisonment for up to 12 months and up to $1,000 in fines on their first charge.
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Thrash advised the state’s law enforcement about the directive.
Immigrant rights groups hailed the decision – saying it was a partial victory.
“It really is a signal that laws like this really kind of belong to an approach to immigration that is increasingly behind us,” Omar Jadwat, the senior staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project told the AJC.
State Rep. Matt Ramsey, who authored the law, told the newspaper he was happy that most of the law remained unchanged.
“In light of all the legal challenges that have been mounted against HB 87,” Ramsey said, “we continue to be very pleased with the outcome overall.”
In another immigration case in the state of Kansas, a House committee hearing on a measure that seeks to repeal in-state tuition for undocumented students was met by an emotional audience Wednesday.
The measure under consideration in the House Federal and State Affairs Committee would repeal the nearly 10-year-old statute that allows students who graduate from Kansas high schools and have lived in Kansas for at least three years to pay in-state tuition at state universities and community colleges, regardless of their residency status, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.
Kim Voth, a Wichita school counselor, said that before coming to testify before the committee, she spoke with one of her students who used the in-state tuition law to get an education degree and has since become a U.S. citizen and a teacher.
"I asked her what I should say today," Voth said, beginning to cry. "She got very quiet, then said, `Please tell them that my college degree changed my life."'
Fred Logan, of the Kansas Board of Regents, said more than 500 of the 630 immigrants currently accessing in-state tuition attend community colleges. He said the 2004 law treats students without legal status fairly.
Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the repeal bill's chief proponent, argued that natives of foreign countries who follow the legal process of getting student visas to attend Kansas universities have to pay out-of-state tuition.
"I think that is an absurd reverse incentive," Kobach said. "If you follow the law, we're charging you three times more."
The biggest response from the crowded gallery came when Rep. Ponka-We Victors, D-Wichita, ended a series of questions to Kobach.
"I think it's funny, Mr. Kobach, because when you mention illegal immigrant, I think of all of you," said Victors, the lone Native American in the Legislature.
People in the gallery then applauded, which is rare in such hearings. The committee did not take action on the bill.
SOURCE
Thursday, March 21, 2013
What Exactly Is Rand Paul's Position on Immigration Reform?
Waffle
Behold the junior senator and Tea Party hero from Kentucky, best known for citing the U.S. Constitution, Spanish writer Miguel de Unamuno, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, and Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
On Tuesday, Senator Rand Paul threw his support behind legalizing the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., signaling his determination to expand his following beyond the tea party movement as he positions himself for a 2016 presidential campaign. Just two years ago, Paul was pushing to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
Paul's first major speech on the topic came the same day the Iowa Republican Party announced he would headline their annual fundraiser -- a coveted stage for auditioning presidential candidates -- and one day after a Republican National Committee report embraced immigration reform as a way to boost the party's appeal with Hispanic voters. Paul's speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington was striking not for its policy details -- in fact, they were quite fuzzy -- but for the obvious charm offensive it represented toward the fastest growing part of the electorate.
"I think his goal is to appeal to a broader audience," said Sal Russo, a chief adviser to the Tea Party Express and a longtime Republican strategist. "Immigration is not a defining Tea Party issue like spending and debt, and there is a wide spectrum of viewpoints on it. I think it's a political winner."
Paul is not fluent in Spanish but he slipped into the language several times during his speech, drawing applause from the Hispanic audience for his above-average pronunciation. The senator from Bowling Green, Kentucky, also reminded the audience that he grew up alongside many Hispanics in Texas.
"Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans like myself become part of the solution," he said. "That is why I'm here today, to begin that conversation."
Though Paul disagrees with some key provisions of the immigration-reform plan backed by a bipartisan group in the Senate, the partial endorsement from a Tea Party conservative was enthusiastically praised by some of those senators as well as immigration advocates.
"He killed it," Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Reform, said of the speech. "The more people like Senator Paul are engaged in the debate, the more the conversation moves forward. He has credibility with Tea Party conservatives like no one else."
"The more people like Senator Paul are engaged in the debate, the more the conversation moves forward. He has credibility with Tea Party conservatives like no one else."
Paul's speech was also noteworthy for its departure from his libertarian father's legacy. Former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas took a hard-line stance against illegal immigration, demanding tighter border security; banning illegal immigrants from public schools, hospitals, and social services; and calling for an end to birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. Last month, he called the bipartisan plan in the Senate a "bad deal." So by veering from that script, the younger Paul signaled his hope to be taken more seriously than his father, a twice-failed presidential candidate who was frequently marginalized as a fringe ideologue. (The younger Paul said Tuesday after the speech that he would rethink his opposition to birthright citizenship if immigration laws were overhauled.)
Paul's stock has been rising in recent days. He captured national attention and his colleague's praise with a 13-hour talking filibuster and won the straw poll at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference. But his lack of experience on the national stage was apparent Tuesday as his speech created widespread confusion over whether or not he backed allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship.
Though Paul did not use the words "pathway to citizenship" he didn't rule it out in his speech, either. He backed allowing undocumented workers to live and work in the U.S. permanently without requiring them to return to their home country, but he said, "We also must treat those who are here with understanding and compassion without also unduly rewarding them for coming illegally .... My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line." Media outlets from the Associated Press to The Huffington Post initially reported that Paul did back a pathway to citizenship. Even Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and chairman of the Senate immigration subcommittee, was under that impression. "The consensus continues to grow in favor of immigration reform that contains a path to citizenship," he said in a written statement.
Paul's office objected to the early reports and arranged an afternoon conference call. Unfortunately, Paul didn't completely clarify his position during the call, complaining that the debate was trapped in murky and polarizing phrases and words like "pathway to citizenship" and "amnesty."
"Those who are here, if they want to work, let's find a place for them," Paul said. "If they want to become citizens, I'm open to debate as to what we do to move forward."
Paul sought to frame his speech in broad strokes and avoid the weeds of policy details, adding, "I'm a conservative Republican who says we need to move forward on the issue of immigration reform. That's a big step forward."
So does Paul back the bipartisan Senate outline and President Obama's proposal, which would allow illegal immigrants to eventually earn citizenship? Still unclear.
SOURCE
Ridiculous! British Coalition's blast after Labour figures put migrant wave of Romanians and Bulgarians at just 12,700
The number of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants expected when the UK opens its doors next January was put at just 12,700, according to long-hidden figures. The total, compiled under the Labour government, was immediately rejected as ‘ridiculous’ by senior Coalition figures.
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said the estimates, revealed yesterday after months of cover-up by ministers, were drawn up by Labour after comparing the two countries to Poland, which has sent around one million people to the UK.
The document predicts just 4,613 Bulgarians, out of a population of 7.5million, will come to Britain every year, along with 8,156 Romanians – a tiny fraction of its 21.4million inhabitants.
Addressing Westminster journalists, Mr Pickles said he had ‘no confidence’ in the figures and that was why ministers chose not to publicise them, though he said they were slipped out on a Whitehall website in 2011.
The total of 12,769 is very similar to the 13,000 Labour ministers claimed would come to the UK in 2004, when immigration restrictions were lifted on Poland and nine other Eastern European countries.
In the event, more than a million people have flocked to Britain from Poland alone over the last nine years.
Mr Pickles revealed that the research existed in a television interview in January, but immigration minister Mark Harper refused to release the study, saying it would not be ‘helpful’.
Yesterday Mr Pickles said: ‘These are calculations. I don’t have any confidence in them whatsoever.’
He added that he doesn’t know how many immigrants will come to the UK in January but hopes it will be lower than in 2004, when many other EU countries refused to lift restrictions at the same time as Britain.
He said: ‘Last time, we, Ireland and Sweden opened up our boundaries, when France and Germany and Spain didn’t open up their boundaries, so a disproportionately large number of Poles came to the UK.
‘This time everyone is opening up at the same time. If you combine Romania and Bulgaria they don’t even meet the level of the Polish population.’
He added: ‘Bulgarians and Romanians have a link with Spain and with France.’
The campaign group Migration Watch UK has estimated up to 75,000 Romanians and Bulgarians could enter the UK a year.
Commenting on the figures, chairman Sir Andrew Green said: ‘We regard the estimate as much too low and agree with Mr Pickles that it is not a sufficient basis for policy. ‘For a start it ignores the two million Romanians in Spain and Italy, many of whom are now unemployed and might move to Northern Europe.’
Mr Pickles added: ‘No matter how many fancy calculations you can make, I don’t know. The truth is nobody really knows.
‘All the government can do is be careful about pull factors that might range from the health service to housing and benefits to try to ensure there isn’t an extra attraction to come here.’
Ministers are making plans to require new immigrants to register to use public services or claim benefits. The Government is also considering sending home those who fail to find work.
Minister for local government Brandon Lewis denied there had been a cover-up. He said: ‘We have been open and transparent in publishing research.... ‘This analysis was produced by the last administration, and should be treated with extreme caution given how unreliable their statistics have been historically.’
SOURCE
What Exactly Is Rand Paul's Position on Immigration Reform?
Waffle
Behold the junior senator and Tea Party hero from Kentucky, best known for citing the U.S. Constitution, Spanish writer Miguel de Unamuno, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, and Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
On Tuesday, Senator Rand Paul threw his support behind legalizing the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., signaling his determination to expand his following beyond the tea party movement as he positions himself for a 2016 presidential campaign. Just two years ago, Paul was pushing to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
Paul's first major speech on the topic came the same day the Iowa Republican Party announced he would headline their annual fundraiser -- a coveted stage for auditioning presidential candidates -- and one day after a Republican National Committee report embraced immigration reform as a way to boost the party's appeal with Hispanic voters. Paul's speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington was striking not for its policy details -- in fact, they were quite fuzzy -- but for the obvious charm offensive it represented toward the fastest growing part of the electorate.
"I think his goal is to appeal to a broader audience," said Sal Russo, a chief adviser to the Tea Party Express and a longtime Republican strategist. "Immigration is not a defining Tea Party issue like spending and debt, and there is a wide spectrum of viewpoints on it. I think it's a political winner."
Paul is not fluent in Spanish but he slipped into the language several times during his speech, drawing applause from the Hispanic audience for his above-average pronunciation. The senator from Bowling Green, Kentucky, also reminded the audience that he grew up alongside many Hispanics in Texas.
"Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans like myself become part of the solution," he said. "That is why I'm here today, to begin that conversation."
Though Paul disagrees with some key provisions of the immigration-reform plan backed by a bipartisan group in the Senate, the partial endorsement from a Tea Party conservative was enthusiastically praised by some of those senators as well as immigration advocates.
"He killed it," Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Reform, said of the speech. "The more people like Senator Paul are engaged in the debate, the more the conversation moves forward. He has credibility with Tea Party conservatives like no one else."
"The more people like Senator Paul are engaged in the debate, the more the conversation moves forward. He has credibility with Tea Party conservatives like no one else."
Paul's speech was also noteworthy for its departure from his libertarian father's legacy. Former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas took a hard-line stance against illegal immigration, demanding tighter border security; banning illegal immigrants from public schools, hospitals, and social services; and calling for an end to birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. Last month, he called the bipartisan plan in the Senate a "bad deal." So by veering from that script, the younger Paul signaled his hope to be taken more seriously than his father, a twice-failed presidential candidate who was frequently marginalized as a fringe ideologue. (The younger Paul said Tuesday after the speech that he would rethink his opposition to birthright citizenship if immigration laws were overhauled.)
Paul's stock has been rising in recent days. He captured national attention and his colleague's praise with a 13-hour talking filibuster and won the straw poll at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference. But his lack of experience on the national stage was apparent Tuesday as his speech created widespread confusion over whether or not he backed allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship.
Though Paul did not use the words "pathway to citizenship" he didn't rule it out in his speech, either. He backed allowing undocumented workers to live and work in the U.S. permanently without requiring them to return to their home country, but he said, "We also must treat those who are here with understanding and compassion without also unduly rewarding them for coming illegally .... My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line." Media outlets from the Associated Press to The Huffington Post initially reported that Paul did back a pathway to citizenship. Even Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and chairman of the Senate immigration subcommittee, was under that impression. "The consensus continues to grow in favor of immigration reform that contains a path to citizenship," he said in a written statement.
Paul's office objected to the early reports and arranged an afternoon conference call. Unfortunately, Paul didn't completely clarify his position during the call, complaining that the debate was trapped in murky and polarizing phrases and words like "pathway to citizenship" and "amnesty."
"Those who are here, if they want to work, let's find a place for them," Paul said. "If they want to become citizens, I'm open to debate as to what we do to move forward."
Paul sought to frame his speech in broad strokes and avoid the weeds of policy details, adding, "I'm a conservative Republican who says we need to move forward on the issue of immigration reform. That's a big step forward."
So does Paul back the bipartisan Senate outline and President Obama's proposal, which would allow illegal immigrants to eventually earn citizenship? Still unclear.
SOURCE
Ridiculous! British Coalition's blast after Labour figures put migrant wave of Romanians and Bulgarians at just 12,700
The number of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants expected when the UK opens its doors next January was put at just 12,700, according to long-hidden figures. The total, compiled under the Labour government, was immediately rejected as ‘ridiculous’ by senior Coalition figures.
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said the estimates, revealed yesterday after months of cover-up by ministers, were drawn up by Labour after comparing the two countries to Poland, which has sent around one million people to the UK.
The document predicts just 4,613 Bulgarians, out of a population of 7.5million, will come to Britain every year, along with 8,156 Romanians – a tiny fraction of its 21.4million inhabitants.
Addressing Westminster journalists, Mr Pickles said he had ‘no confidence’ in the figures and that was why ministers chose not to publicise them, though he said they were slipped out on a Whitehall website in 2011.
The total of 12,769 is very similar to the 13,000 Labour ministers claimed would come to the UK in 2004, when immigration restrictions were lifted on Poland and nine other Eastern European countries.
In the event, more than a million people have flocked to Britain from Poland alone over the last nine years.
Mr Pickles revealed that the research existed in a television interview in January, but immigration minister Mark Harper refused to release the study, saying it would not be ‘helpful’.
Yesterday Mr Pickles said: ‘These are calculations. I don’t have any confidence in them whatsoever.’
He added that he doesn’t know how many immigrants will come to the UK in January but hopes it will be lower than in 2004, when many other EU countries refused to lift restrictions at the same time as Britain.
He said: ‘Last time, we, Ireland and Sweden opened up our boundaries, when France and Germany and Spain didn’t open up their boundaries, so a disproportionately large number of Poles came to the UK.
‘This time everyone is opening up at the same time. If you combine Romania and Bulgaria they don’t even meet the level of the Polish population.’
He added: ‘Bulgarians and Romanians have a link with Spain and with France.’
The campaign group Migration Watch UK has estimated up to 75,000 Romanians and Bulgarians could enter the UK a year.
Commenting on the figures, chairman Sir Andrew Green said: ‘We regard the estimate as much too low and agree with Mr Pickles that it is not a sufficient basis for policy. ‘For a start it ignores the two million Romanians in Spain and Italy, many of whom are now unemployed and might move to Northern Europe.’
Mr Pickles added: ‘No matter how many fancy calculations you can make, I don’t know. The truth is nobody really knows.
‘All the government can do is be careful about pull factors that might range from the health service to housing and benefits to try to ensure there isn’t an extra attraction to come here.’
Ministers are making plans to require new immigrants to register to use public services or claim benefits. The Government is also considering sending home those who fail to find work.
Minister for local government Brandon Lewis denied there had been a cover-up. He said: ‘We have been open and transparent in publishing research.... ‘This analysis was produced by the last administration, and should be treated with extreme caution given how unreliable their statistics have been historically.’
SOURCE
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
All the News That Fits
Biased Coverage of Immigration at the New York Times
A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that the New York Times's coverage of one of the most pressing social issues, U.S. immigration policy, is flawed by ideological bias that frames illegal immigrants as a vulnerable class to be protected against critics whose motivation is rooted in racism.
The report claims, “Thus conceived as a clash of noble strivers versus snarling nativists, illegal immigration at the Times is not subjected to the rigorous analysis of costs and benefits that, under basic rules of journalism, should be applied to any major issue of public policy.”
The complete report, All the News That Fits: Ideologically Skewed Coverage of Immigration at the New York Times, shows how Times reporters confine their immigration coverage to a narrow, ideological frame. It can be found online here.
It notes, for example, that while the Times' Nina Bernstein has done admirable investigative work in exposing abuse of illegal immigrants, “she appears incapable of acknowledging the accumulating costs imposed on society by the influx of millions of poor, poorly educated, and unskilled immigrants, many of them in the country illegally.”
The paper's coverage of immigration is an example of the problem identified by Daniel Okrent, the first public editor at the New York Times. He wrote that when it comes to coverage of social issues, “if you think the Times plays it down the middle … you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
The new report's author, former reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Jerry Kammer, likens the Times’s immigration coverage to notorious previous failures at the paper, including its work on the national savings and loan scandal in the 1980s, the defeat of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas in 1990, and fabricated rape accusations against Duke lacrosse players in 2006.
In all three of those instances, Kammer writes, the Times’s coverage was so constricted by a rigid ideological frame that reporters suspended the skepticism and independent judgment that are essential to solid journalism.
Finding the same flaws in the Times immigration coverage, Kammer concludes that its failure “affects not only public opinion but also the work of reporters around the country who might otherwise look more deeply into a story of great complexity and profound consequences.”
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Publication
1. Sulzberger’s Voice: How Arthur Sulzburger Radicalized the New York Times Editorial Page on Immigration
Testimony
2. Statement on Repealing the Maryland Highway Safety Act of 2013
Blogs
3. More Birth-Tourism Births Than Indigenous Births in CNMI
4. We Should Remember the Bracero Program ... and Shudder
5. Natural Conservatives? Really?
All the News That Fits
Biased Coverage of Immigration at the New York Times
A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that the New York Times's coverage of one of the most pressing social issues, U.S. immigration policy, is flawed by ideological bias that frames illegal immigrants as a vulnerable class to be protected against critics whose motivation is rooted in racism.
The report claims, “Thus conceived as a clash of noble strivers versus snarling nativists, illegal immigration at the Times is not subjected to the rigorous analysis of costs and benefits that, under basic rules of journalism, should be applied to any major issue of public policy.”
The complete report, All the News That Fits: Ideologically Skewed Coverage of Immigration at the New York Times, shows how Times reporters confine their immigration coverage to a narrow, ideological frame. It can be found online here.
It notes, for example, that while the Times' Nina Bernstein has done admirable investigative work in exposing abuse of illegal immigrants, “she appears incapable of acknowledging the accumulating costs imposed on society by the influx of millions of poor, poorly educated, and unskilled immigrants, many of them in the country illegally.”
The paper's coverage of immigration is an example of the problem identified by Daniel Okrent, the first public editor at the New York Times. He wrote that when it comes to coverage of social issues, “if you think the Times plays it down the middle … you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
The new report's author, former reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Jerry Kammer, likens the Times’s immigration coverage to notorious previous failures at the paper, including its work on the national savings and loan scandal in the 1980s, the defeat of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas in 1990, and fabricated rape accusations against Duke lacrosse players in 2006.
In all three of those instances, Kammer writes, the Times’s coverage was so constricted by a rigid ideological frame that reporters suspended the skepticism and independent judgment that are essential to solid journalism.
Finding the same flaws in the Times immigration coverage, Kammer concludes that its failure “affects not only public opinion but also the work of reporters around the country who might otherwise look more deeply into a story of great complexity and profound consequences.”
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford, 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Publication
1. Sulzberger’s Voice: How Arthur Sulzburger Radicalized the New York Times Editorial Page on Immigration
Testimony
2. Statement on Repealing the Maryland Highway Safety Act of 2013
Blogs
3. More Birth-Tourism Births Than Indigenous Births in CNMI
4. We Should Remember the Bracero Program ... and Shudder
5. Natural Conservatives? Really?
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Opposition to amnesty for illegals blocked in most of the media
The MSM shut out of anti Amnesty opinion remains virtually total (excepting the comment threads). But the memo apparently did not reach the Daily Light of Waxahachie Texas which allowed a really superb exception Why immigration amnesty should and will fail by Jan Ting Thursday, March 14, 2013
Ting grasps that Amnesty means accelerated immigration
He understands Amnesty’s cost
And a major motivation
And (I think) the other
Behaviorally as well as visually!
Jan Ting is an interesting man. The son of Chinese immigrants and a law professor at Philadelphia’s Temple University, he was the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware in 2006. According to his Wikipedia entry he was subsequently forced out of the party in 2008 for supporting Obama over McCain. He “…cited his concerns about John McCain's immigration policy and support for the Iraq War” the latter a very valid point in my personal opinion.
Although this is said to be a syndicated column, I can find no sign any other newspaper picked it up.
What a comment on the totalitarianism of the MSM on Amnesty that this well-argued piece by a highly credentialed observer could only be published in the newspaper of a Texan town with a population of barely 30,000.
SOURCE
Unlikely that immigration reform will save GOP among Latinos
In the November presidential election, the GOP got just a quarter of the Latino votes in the country. And the party is hoping softening its rhetoric and fighting hard for immigration reform could help it expand its tent.
But a Latino Decisions, a Latino public opinion firm, poll out Monday reveals that it is just a first step to get the Latino vote.
An estimated 63 percent of Latinos know someone who is an illegal immigrant making the issue of reform more than a policy decision; its a personal one.
According to the survey, 32 percent of Hispanic voters would be more likely to vote for a Republican candidate if the party showed it was engaged in passing immigration reform and "used party votes" to approve the bill, but nearly 50 percent said it would have absolutely no effect on their vote.
In another possible scenario, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives blocked comprehensive immigration legislation, 47 percent of Latino voters said it would not have any impact on how they voted, while 39 percent said they would be less likely to cast a ballot for a GOP candidate.
The long and complicated battle to find common ground on the immigration reform issue has failed before. And while bipartisan groups of lawmakers in both the House and the Senate are working around the clock to finalize a bill, sticking points remain.
Whether or not the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the country should have to wait in line to get legal status and whether they should be put on a path to citizenship are among the top issues remaining.
The Latino Decisions poll showed 49 percent of Hispanic voters believe that Congress should require illegal immigrants to wait anywhere between one to five years, before they should be allowed to get on a path to citizenship.
Another issue fraught with peril is determining the number of guest workers allowed in the country.
Labor Unions and business owners disagree on the right number of foreign workers that should be allowed to flow into the country. Unions would prefer the number stays low in order to avoid an influx of workers and force wages down. Whereas groups like the Chamber of Commerce would like to see more guest workers, arguing that foreign workers are sometimes the only ones willing to do jobs Americans either won't do or are not qualified for.
"The solution may be a market-driven cap where more immigrants come into the country when the economy is good and when the economy is bad, the government allows fewer immigrants," says Brent Wilkes, the national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a centrist group that fights for comprehensive immigration reform.
But workers are not the only point that could blow up immigration reform.
As if immigration reform was not controversial enough, the issue of gay, binational couples is another area that could bring the negotiations to a screeching halt.
While straight, married couples can sponsor their spouse for green cards, the Defense of Marriage Act bans the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. Therefore, gay couples sometimes must choose to live elsewhere to stay together. The Senate's bipartisan group of lawmakers recognized gay marriage could put a wrench in their negotiations and failed to include provisions to protect gay couples in their framework. Meanwhile, the White House outlined it as of critical importance for them.
SOURCE
Opposition to amnesty for illegals blocked in most of the media
The MSM shut out of anti Amnesty opinion remains virtually total (excepting the comment threads). But the memo apparently did not reach the Daily Light of Waxahachie Texas which allowed a really superb exception Why immigration amnesty should and will fail by Jan Ting Thursday, March 14, 2013
The so-called comprehensive immigration reform proposed by a group of Senators and President Obama amounts to immediate amnesty for millions of immigration law violators, the lifting of limits on future immigration, with some window dressing designed to assuage skeptical voters.
We’ve seen this act before. The 1986 amnesty promised to fix the immigration problem by amnestying 3 million immigration law violators, strengthening the border, and penalizing employers for hiring illegal immigrants. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.
Ting grasps that Amnesty means accelerated immigration
The Pew Research Center estimates that the U.S. population will increase from 300 million to over 400 million by 2050, mainly because of immigration, and that’s if we do nothing. And expect 600 million by the end of the century, again if we do nothing.
Another amnesty will accelerate that rapid population growth. Where will another 100 or 300 million people obtain schooling and health care and energy to heat their homes? Where will they drive and park their cars? Anyone here concerned about the environment, waste disposal, open space preservation, clean air and water?
He understands Amnesty’s cost
The United States is experiencing a protracted period of unemployment still hovering around 8 percent. Prolonged unemployment is a tragedy of broken lives, broken families, foreclosed homes, and life without health insurance. Legal immigrants, including those amnestied, will be able to compete with unemployed Americans for jobs.
And a major motivation
If we’re willing to accept unlimited immigration in order to keep wages low and corporate profits high, we should just say so and stop paying billions of dollars annually for all the immigration enforcement window dressing.
And (I think) the other
I think the American people want to enforce a numerical limit on immigration, even if it means turning away people who look like our ancestors.
Behaviorally as well as visually!
Jan Ting is an interesting man. The son of Chinese immigrants and a law professor at Philadelphia’s Temple University, he was the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware in 2006. According to his Wikipedia entry he was subsequently forced out of the party in 2008 for supporting Obama over McCain. He “…cited his concerns about John McCain's immigration policy and support for the Iraq War” the latter a very valid point in my personal opinion.
Although this is said to be a syndicated column, I can find no sign any other newspaper picked it up.
What a comment on the totalitarianism of the MSM on Amnesty that this well-argued piece by a highly credentialed observer could only be published in the newspaper of a Texan town with a population of barely 30,000.
SOURCE
Unlikely that immigration reform will save GOP among Latinos
In the November presidential election, the GOP got just a quarter of the Latino votes in the country. And the party is hoping softening its rhetoric and fighting hard for immigration reform could help it expand its tent.
But a Latino Decisions, a Latino public opinion firm, poll out Monday reveals that it is just a first step to get the Latino vote.
An estimated 63 percent of Latinos know someone who is an illegal immigrant making the issue of reform more than a policy decision; its a personal one.
According to the survey, 32 percent of Hispanic voters would be more likely to vote for a Republican candidate if the party showed it was engaged in passing immigration reform and "used party votes" to approve the bill, but nearly 50 percent said it would have absolutely no effect on their vote.
In another possible scenario, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives blocked comprehensive immigration legislation, 47 percent of Latino voters said it would not have any impact on how they voted, while 39 percent said they would be less likely to cast a ballot for a GOP candidate.
The long and complicated battle to find common ground on the immigration reform issue has failed before. And while bipartisan groups of lawmakers in both the House and the Senate are working around the clock to finalize a bill, sticking points remain.
Whether or not the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the country should have to wait in line to get legal status and whether they should be put on a path to citizenship are among the top issues remaining.
The Latino Decisions poll showed 49 percent of Hispanic voters believe that Congress should require illegal immigrants to wait anywhere between one to five years, before they should be allowed to get on a path to citizenship.
Another issue fraught with peril is determining the number of guest workers allowed in the country.
Labor Unions and business owners disagree on the right number of foreign workers that should be allowed to flow into the country. Unions would prefer the number stays low in order to avoid an influx of workers and force wages down. Whereas groups like the Chamber of Commerce would like to see more guest workers, arguing that foreign workers are sometimes the only ones willing to do jobs Americans either won't do or are not qualified for.
"The solution may be a market-driven cap where more immigrants come into the country when the economy is good and when the economy is bad, the government allows fewer immigrants," says Brent Wilkes, the national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a centrist group that fights for comprehensive immigration reform.
But workers are not the only point that could blow up immigration reform.
As if immigration reform was not controversial enough, the issue of gay, binational couples is another area that could bring the negotiations to a screeching halt.
While straight, married couples can sponsor their spouse for green cards, the Defense of Marriage Act bans the federal government from recognizing gay marriages. Therefore, gay couples sometimes must choose to live elsewhere to stay together. The Senate's bipartisan group of lawmakers recognized gay marriage could put a wrench in their negotiations and failed to include provisions to protect gay couples in their framework. Meanwhile, the White House outlined it as of critical importance for them.
SOURCE
Monday, March 18, 2013
Must voters have to prove citizenship to register?
The Supreme Court will struggle this week with the validity of an Arizona law that tries to keep illegal immigrants from voting by demanding all state residents show documents proving their U.S. citizenship before registering to vote in national elections.
The high court will hear arguments Monday over the legality of Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law that doesn't require such documentation.
This case focuses on voter registration in Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating similar legislation, officials say.
The Obama administration is supporting challengers to the law.
If Arizona can add citizenship requirements, then "each state could impose all manner of its own supplemental requirements beyond the federal form," Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said in court papers.
A federal appeals court threw out the part of Arizona's Proposition 200 that added extra citizenship requirements for voter registration, but only after lower federal judges had approved it.
Arizona wants the justices to reinstate its requirement.
Kathy McKee, who led the push to get the proposition on the ballot, said voter fraud, including by illegal immigrants, continues to be a problem in Arizona.
Opponents of Arizona's law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly.
SOURCE
Asian illegals
When the topic is illegal immigration, the focus is usually on Latinos. But more than 1 million of the nation's undocumented immigrants are Asian and Pacific Islanders, with an estimated 416,000 of them in California.
The older generation of undocumented Asians tends to stay silent. But Panaligan and other younger members of that group — who have benefited from the temporary protection President Obama extended last year to qualified young people under the Dream Act — think this may be a good time to seize on an opportunity.
They note that 73% of the Asian Americans who went to the polls in November cast votes for Obama, with immigration reform cited as a huge factor. They have seen Republican leaders reconsider the party's hard line on immigration. And they have seen national polls indicating majority support among U.S. citizens for a pathway to citizenship.
SOURCE
Must voters have to prove citizenship to register?
The Supreme Court will struggle this week with the validity of an Arizona law that tries to keep illegal immigrants from voting by demanding all state residents show documents proving their U.S. citizenship before registering to vote in national elections.
The high court will hear arguments Monday over the legality of Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law that doesn't require such documentation.
This case focuses on voter registration in Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating similar legislation, officials say.
The Obama administration is supporting challengers to the law.
If Arizona can add citizenship requirements, then "each state could impose all manner of its own supplemental requirements beyond the federal form," Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said in court papers.
A federal appeals court threw out the part of Arizona's Proposition 200 that added extra citizenship requirements for voter registration, but only after lower federal judges had approved it.
Arizona wants the justices to reinstate its requirement.
Kathy McKee, who led the push to get the proposition on the ballot, said voter fraud, including by illegal immigrants, continues to be a problem in Arizona.
Opponents of Arizona's law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly.
SOURCE
Asian illegals
When the topic is illegal immigration, the focus is usually on Latinos. But more than 1 million of the nation's undocumented immigrants are Asian and Pacific Islanders, with an estimated 416,000 of them in California.
The older generation of undocumented Asians tends to stay silent. But Panaligan and other younger members of that group — who have benefited from the temporary protection President Obama extended last year to qualified young people under the Dream Act — think this may be a good time to seize on an opportunity.
They note that 73% of the Asian Americans who went to the polls in November cast votes for Obama, with immigration reform cited as a huge factor. They have seen Republican leaders reconsider the party's hard line on immigration. And they have seen national polls indicating majority support among U.S. citizens for a pathway to citizenship.
SOURCE
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Some contorted reasoning
The Los Angeles Times ran a Thursday editorial by Middlebury College Professor Bill McKibben arguing that allowing millions of illegal immigrants into America will reduce global warming.
“I feel it's urgent that we get real immigration reform, allowing millions to step out of the shadows and on to a broad path toward citizenship,” wrote McKibben. “It will help, not hurt, our environmental efforts, and potentially in deep and powerful ways.”
McKibben says that while the average American has a larger carbon footprint than a person living in the developing world, bringing more immigrants to America would likely reduce their tendency to have higher birthrates, thereby creating less carbon-producing people.
“It's true that the typical person from a developing nation would produce more carbon once she adopted an American lifestyle,” says McKibben, “but she also probably would have fewer children.”
McKibben, who previously wrote a book arguing for Americans to have smaller families, says that “global warming is arguably the greatest danger we face,” that “immigrants, by definition, are full of hope,” and they are thus less likely to “pull the [election] lever for climate deniers, for people who want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, for the politicians who take huge quantities of cash from the Koch brothers and other oil barons.”
Interestingly, among those who profit from deals with “oil barons,” McKibben failed to mention Al Gore. Gore recently sold Current TV for $500 million to Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government of Qatar, an oil-rich Persian Gulf state.
SOURCE
Australian Leftist PM accused of using rubbery figures in 457 visa fight
She wants to keep LEGAL immigrants out -- while hosting thousands of useless "asylum seekers"
Prime Minister Julia Gillard is being accused of using rubbery figures to justify her call for a crackdown on 457 visa rorts.
On Thursday Ms Gillard told an Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) conference that temporary overseas work was growing faster than employment.
She said temporary overseas worker numbers were up 20 per cent compared with the same time last year, whereas employment growth for the period was only 1 per cent.
"That in itself is evidence of a problem," she said.
"The number of people coming here to fill short-term gaps should not be growing 20 times faster than employment overall."
But demographer and government adviser Peter McDonald says the Prime Minister's statement does not bear scrutiny.
He says that is because the retirement of baby boomers means Australia starts each year 140,000 workers short.
457 visa numbers
2011-12 - 125,070
2009-10 - 67,980
2007-08 - 110,570
2003-04 - 39,500
"If the labour force grows by 1 per cent as the Prime Minister says, that's about 120,000 [people]," he said.
"So we take the 120,000 growth, 140,000 we have to make up, [making a] combined 260,000 new workers that we have to get into the labour force, and 457s make up about 40,000 of that.
"I think the way the Prime Minister expressed it about growth rates, not using numbers, was really statistically misleading."
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor says Mr McDonald's comments are wrong and irrelevant.
"The Government is perfectly correct in saying the total 457 issues has vastly outstripped total employment growth, but the total figures really aren't the point of our reforms," he said.
"The Government doesn't think all 457s are rorts, the Government thinks there are problems with particular firms and particular occupations."
The ABC has confirmed that no-one in the bureaucracy is driving the Government's push against 457 visas.
On the contrary, the Immigration Department issued a statement in February saying falling demand since last June showed the program was responding well to economic needs.
But Ms Gillard sees it differently: "457s are a gap filler for our skills-poor economy at times and places of highest need. Yet that is simply not what is happening today and that is why we must fix it," she told the union summit.
Ms Gillard also said it was unacceptable that too many temporary overseas workers were filling health jobs and that local workers were missing out. She said tighter requirements on visa applicants and employers would address that.
"Most striking of all is the widespread use of temporary skilled labour in hospitals and health," she said.
But Mr McDonald says "nasty" comments like that undermine the system. "The Prime Minister talked about health workers, for example, in I think quite a nasty way," he said.
"The health workers that she's [talking about are] highly skilled health workers, many of them working in regional areas, the only doctor for miles, the only pharmacist for miles.
"And she's telling them that they've been given the priority whereas Australians have to clean the toilets or work cleaning the hospitals, etc. "I think that's pretty nasty stuff."
SOURCE
Some contorted reasoning
The Los Angeles Times ran a Thursday editorial by Middlebury College Professor Bill McKibben arguing that allowing millions of illegal immigrants into America will reduce global warming.
“I feel it's urgent that we get real immigration reform, allowing millions to step out of the shadows and on to a broad path toward citizenship,” wrote McKibben. “It will help, not hurt, our environmental efforts, and potentially in deep and powerful ways.”
McKibben says that while the average American has a larger carbon footprint than a person living in the developing world, bringing more immigrants to America would likely reduce their tendency to have higher birthrates, thereby creating less carbon-producing people.
“It's true that the typical person from a developing nation would produce more carbon once she adopted an American lifestyle,” says McKibben, “but she also probably would have fewer children.”
McKibben, who previously wrote a book arguing for Americans to have smaller families, says that “global warming is arguably the greatest danger we face,” that “immigrants, by definition, are full of hope,” and they are thus less likely to “pull the [election] lever for climate deniers, for people who want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, for the politicians who take huge quantities of cash from the Koch brothers and other oil barons.”
Interestingly, among those who profit from deals with “oil barons,” McKibben failed to mention Al Gore. Gore recently sold Current TV for $500 million to Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government of Qatar, an oil-rich Persian Gulf state.
SOURCE
Australian Leftist PM accused of using rubbery figures in 457 visa fight
She wants to keep LEGAL immigrants out -- while hosting thousands of useless "asylum seekers"
Prime Minister Julia Gillard is being accused of using rubbery figures to justify her call for a crackdown on 457 visa rorts.
On Thursday Ms Gillard told an Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) conference that temporary overseas work was growing faster than employment.
She said temporary overseas worker numbers were up 20 per cent compared with the same time last year, whereas employment growth for the period was only 1 per cent.
"That in itself is evidence of a problem," she said.
"The number of people coming here to fill short-term gaps should not be growing 20 times faster than employment overall."
But demographer and government adviser Peter McDonald says the Prime Minister's statement does not bear scrutiny.
He says that is because the retirement of baby boomers means Australia starts each year 140,000 workers short.
457 visa numbers
2011-12 - 125,070
2009-10 - 67,980
2007-08 - 110,570
2003-04 - 39,500
"If the labour force grows by 1 per cent as the Prime Minister says, that's about 120,000 [people]," he said.
"So we take the 120,000 growth, 140,000 we have to make up, [making a] combined 260,000 new workers that we have to get into the labour force, and 457s make up about 40,000 of that.
"I think the way the Prime Minister expressed it about growth rates, not using numbers, was really statistically misleading."
Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor says Mr McDonald's comments are wrong and irrelevant.
"The Government is perfectly correct in saying the total 457 issues has vastly outstripped total employment growth, but the total figures really aren't the point of our reforms," he said.
"The Government doesn't think all 457s are rorts, the Government thinks there are problems with particular firms and particular occupations."
The ABC has confirmed that no-one in the bureaucracy is driving the Government's push against 457 visas.
On the contrary, the Immigration Department issued a statement in February saying falling demand since last June showed the program was responding well to economic needs.
But Ms Gillard sees it differently: "457s are a gap filler for our skills-poor economy at times and places of highest need. Yet that is simply not what is happening today and that is why we must fix it," she told the union summit.
Ms Gillard also said it was unacceptable that too many temporary overseas workers were filling health jobs and that local workers were missing out. She said tighter requirements on visa applicants and employers would address that.
"Most striking of all is the widespread use of temporary skilled labour in hospitals and health," she said.
But Mr McDonald says "nasty" comments like that undermine the system. "The Prime Minister talked about health workers, for example, in I think quite a nasty way," he said.
"The health workers that she's [talking about are] highly skilled health workers, many of them working in regional areas, the only doctor for miles, the only pharmacist for miles.
"And she's telling them that they've been given the priority whereas Australians have to clean the toilets or work cleaning the hospitals, etc. "I think that's pretty nasty stuff."
SOURCE
Friday, March 15, 2013
Obama administration acknowledges releasing more than 2,000 illegal immigrants for budget reasons
After weeks of denials, the Obama administration acknowledged Thursday that it had, in fact, released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants from immigration jails due to budget concerns during three weeks in February. Four of the most serious offenders have been put back in detention.
The administration had insisted that only a "few hundred" immigrants were released for budgetary reasons, challenging as inaccurate a March 1 report by The Associated Press that the agency had released more than 2,000 immigrants in February and planned to release more than 3,000 others this month. Intense criticism led to a temporary shutdown of the plan.
The director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, told a congressional panel Thursday that the agency had actually released 2,228 people from immigration jails over the course of three weeks, starting February 9, for what he described as "solely budgetary reasons." They included 10 people considered the highest level of offender.
After the administration had challenged the AP's reporting, ICE said it didn't know how many people had been released for budget reasons but would review its records.
Morton, who testified with two other agency officials, told lawmakers that the decision to release the immigrants was not discussed in advance with political appointees, including those in the White House and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. He said the pending automatic cuts known as sequestration was "driving in the background."
"We were trying to live within the budget that Congress had provided us," Morton told lawmakers. "This was not a White House call. I take full responsibility."
The House appropriations subcommittee chairman, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, pressed Morton about the agency's claims that immigrants were routinely released, and Morton acknowledged that the release of more than 2,000 immigrants was not routine.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had previously dismissed reports about thousands of immigrants being released. 'Several hundred are related to sequester, but it wasn't thousands,' she said.
"At the time this release started, the president of the United States was going around the country telling people what the pain was going to be from sequester," Carter said. "That's a fact. That was the atmosphere. It was Chicken Little, the sky is falling, almost."
Morton told Carter that more immigrants were released in Texas than in any other state but did not name other states where they were released.
Morton said that although the most serious offender category can include people convicted of aggravated felonies, many of those released were facing financial crimes. Those released include immigrants who had faced multiple drunken driving offenses, misdemeanor crimes and traffic offenses, Morton said.
The AP, citing internal budget documents, reported exclusively that the administration had released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants since at least Feb. 15 and planned to release 3,000 more in March due to looming budget cuts. Napolitano said days later that the AP's report was "not really accurate" and that the story had developed "its own mythology."
"Several hundred are related to sequester, but it wasn't thousands," Napolitano said March 4 at a Politico-sponsored event.
On March 5, the House Judiciary Committee publicly released an internal ICE document that it said described the agency's plans to release thousands of illegal immigrants before March 31. The document was among those reviewed independently by the AP for its story days earlier.
The immigrants who were released still eventually face deportation and are required to appear for upcoming court hearings. But they are no longer confined in immigration jails, where advocacy experts say they cost about $164 per day per person. Immigrants who are granted supervised release — with conditions that can include mandatory check-ins, home visits and GPS devices — cost the government from 30 cents to $14 a day, according to the National Immigration Forum, a group that advocates on behalf of immigrants.
SOURCE
Senate group considers large reduction in family visas as part of immigration deal
Key senators are developing plans that would make it harder for U.S. citizens to get visas for their family members while easing the path for more high-skilled foreign workers, according to aides and advocates familiar with negotiations over an emerging immigration deal.
The plans — which would run counter to policies that have been in place for generations — are part of ongoing talks between a bipartisan group of eight senators, whose bill is expected to serve as the template for a comprehensive immigration deal between Congress and the White House.
The senators agree that a limited number of people should be allowed into the country each year; the question is who those people should be. Currently, about two-thirds of legal immigrants are admitted for family reasons and 14 percent for employment, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The rest are humanitarian cases.
Republicans would prefer to admit greater numbers of high-skilled workers, who business leaders say are in short supply and who would provide an immediate economic benefit. Democrats generally favor giving priority to family members of citizens and legal residents already in the country, saying they provide support networks that help families thrive.
As it stands, spouses and minor children of citizens are given top priority, followed by unmarried children over 21 and, lastly, married adult children and siblings. The Senate proposal would eliminate the latter two categories altogether, which add up to about 90,000 visas per year. Those people could still apply for entry into the country but would need other qualifications, such as high-tech skills, to be approved for a green card.
Senators involved in the negotiations stress no final decision has been made. But Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a leader in the talks, said in an interview Thursday that “we’re going to change fundamentally the immigration system,” including tighter limits on family visas.
“Right now you get green cards to adult children, to grandparents,” Graham said. “What I want to do is reserve green cards based on the economic needs of the country, and we’ll do something for families. But the goal for me is to replace a chained migration immigration system with an economic-based immigration system.”
The group of senators, which includes four Democrats and four Republicans, has said it will release a comprehensive bill in early April. The Obama administration has expressed support for the group’s general principles.
The proposed changes to the family system have angered immigration advocates, who warn the move could threaten the chances of a broader reform agreement.
“Eliminating these categories would produce only a small reduction in visas while creating greater hardship for thousands of U.S. citizens and their loved ones,” two dozen members of the House Asian Pacific American caucus wrote in a letter to the eight senators last week. “We oppose any efforts to further limit the definition of family.”
The family visa program has been largely overshadowed by fierce public debate over a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants and an expanded guest worker program for foreigners. But potential changes to the family visa program, which has a waiting list of 4.3 million people, also will play a pivotal role in any agreement reached by Congress and the White House.
SOURCE
March 14, 2013
New U.S. poll on immigration
Slightly more Americans trust Barack Obama than congressional Republicans to handle immigration, but with neither side garnering a majority and vast differences in preferences between whites and nonwhites in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Americans overall divide by 45-39 percent between Obama and the Republicans in Congress in trust to handle the issue; the rest are undecided or trust neither side. Whites favor the GOP over Obama on immigration by 47-36 percent, while nonwhites (blacks, Hispanics and others) prefer Obama by a broad 71-16 percent.
There also are sharp partisan and ideological differences in trust on immigration in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. Democrats and Republicans each prefer their side’s approach by an identical 66 percentage points; independents divide closely between Obama and the GOP, 41-36 percent. Very conservative Americans favor the Republicans on immigration by 65 points and those who say they’re somewhat conservative do so by 33 points. Moderates take Obama’s side by a 21-point margin, liberals by 61 points.
Obama has made immigration reform a second-term priority, having beaten Mitt Romney in last year’s election by 61 percentage points among the growing proportion of nonwhites overall and by 44 points among Hispanics, while losing whites by 20 points.
In step with the president’s policy direction, majorities in recent ABC/Post polls have supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. His approval rating on the issue in February, while just 49 percent, was the highest of his presidency and up 11 points since the summer.
SOURCE
£100m a year to kick out illegal immigrants from Britain: Removing one person who has no valid passport or visa can cost £25,000
Booting out migrants who arrive without a visa or valid passport may be costing up to £100million a year. At least 4,000 foreigners enter the UK every 12 months despite having no right to be here.
Each costs as much as £25,000 to remove – putting the potential annual bill at £100million.
Officials admit however that the illegals are often allowed to stay. Many will claim asylum, or be impossible to remove because they do not have a passport and will not co-operate with investigators.
Last night ministers warned that such individuals pose a significant risk to national security. In many cases officials will have no idea who they are, where they are from or if they have a criminal or terrorist history.
Many are thought to come from countries it is difficult to return them to because of human rights issues, including Uganda, Afghanistan and Somalia.
Details of the problem emerged as ministers launched a crackdown on undocumented migrants. Fines for airlines that allow them on to their planes will rise from £2,000 to up to £10,000 per migrant.
Immigration Minister Mark Harper admitted the numbers abusing the aircraft route was ‘too high’.
‘Border security is vital for the UK,’ he added. ‘While it is right that the Government is in the lead on this, carriers and the transport sector as a whole have an important role to play.
‘The proposed changes to incentives and penalties are designed to ensure all passengers arriving in the UK have the correct documentation to get through our strict passport controls.
‘If a passenger arrives in the UK without a document which satisfactorily establishes their nationality or identity, they can pose a significant risk to the UK.’
The Home Office believes 4,100 migrants arrived on flights and ferries to the UK without proper documents in 2011.
Many carry counterfeit or forged passports that should be spotted when they try to board the plane. Others are allowed on to planes despite having expired documents.
Some flush their passports down the toilet during the flight to try to disguise their nationality and help them claim asylum.
Fines are levied in only around half of cases, and airlines may escape paying up if the passports are a very good forgery or if they have a proven record of carrying out effective checks.
The Home Office could not say how many of those who abuse this route into the UK are successfully removed from the country. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch think-tank, said: ‘It is high time these fines were increased. These are all going to become illegal immigrants.
‘They will want to undercut the wages of British workers and allow unscrupulous employers to compete unfairly with honest ones who offer decent pay and conditions.’
In 2009 the National Audit Office estimated that every failed asylum seeker costs between £3,000 and £25,000 to remove.
At first, many arrivals will be locked up in immigration detention centres, but they cannot be held behind bars indefinitely, and the courts may demand they be let out on to the streets if there is no prospect of prompt removal.
Officials suggest that the current fine – which has remained the same since the early 1990s – is now less effective at encouraging airlines to combat the practice. Had it simply been increased to keep pace with inflation, it would be £3,500 today. France and Germany levy fines of around £4,300 (5,000 euros).
The consultation document suggests a £7,000 fine will be of a ‘sufficiently high level to encourage carriers to perform better document checks’. Offending airlines could face even higher penalties. The Home Office estimates a new penalty charge of £7,000 would raise £63million over ten years.
SOURCE
Obama administration acknowledges releasing more than 2,000 illegal immigrants for budget reasons
After weeks of denials, the Obama administration acknowledged Thursday that it had, in fact, released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants from immigration jails due to budget concerns during three weeks in February. Four of the most serious offenders have been put back in detention.
The administration had insisted that only a "few hundred" immigrants were released for budgetary reasons, challenging as inaccurate a March 1 report by The Associated Press that the agency had released more than 2,000 immigrants in February and planned to release more than 3,000 others this month. Intense criticism led to a temporary shutdown of the plan.
The director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, told a congressional panel Thursday that the agency had actually released 2,228 people from immigration jails over the course of three weeks, starting February 9, for what he described as "solely budgetary reasons." They included 10 people considered the highest level of offender.
After the administration had challenged the AP's reporting, ICE said it didn't know how many people had been released for budget reasons but would review its records.
Morton, who testified with two other agency officials, told lawmakers that the decision to release the immigrants was not discussed in advance with political appointees, including those in the White House and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. He said the pending automatic cuts known as sequestration was "driving in the background."
"We were trying to live within the budget that Congress had provided us," Morton told lawmakers. "This was not a White House call. I take full responsibility."
The House appropriations subcommittee chairman, Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, pressed Morton about the agency's claims that immigrants were routinely released, and Morton acknowledged that the release of more than 2,000 immigrants was not routine.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano had previously dismissed reports about thousands of immigrants being released. 'Several hundred are related to sequester, but it wasn't thousands,' she said.
"At the time this release started, the president of the United States was going around the country telling people what the pain was going to be from sequester," Carter said. "That's a fact. That was the atmosphere. It was Chicken Little, the sky is falling, almost."
Morton told Carter that more immigrants were released in Texas than in any other state but did not name other states where they were released.
Morton said that although the most serious offender category can include people convicted of aggravated felonies, many of those released were facing financial crimes. Those released include immigrants who had faced multiple drunken driving offenses, misdemeanor crimes and traffic offenses, Morton said.
The AP, citing internal budget documents, reported exclusively that the administration had released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants since at least Feb. 15 and planned to release 3,000 more in March due to looming budget cuts. Napolitano said days later that the AP's report was "not really accurate" and that the story had developed "its own mythology."
"Several hundred are related to sequester, but it wasn't thousands," Napolitano said March 4 at a Politico-sponsored event.
On March 5, the House Judiciary Committee publicly released an internal ICE document that it said described the agency's plans to release thousands of illegal immigrants before March 31. The document was among those reviewed independently by the AP for its story days earlier.
The immigrants who were released still eventually face deportation and are required to appear for upcoming court hearings. But they are no longer confined in immigration jails, where advocacy experts say they cost about $164 per day per person. Immigrants who are granted supervised release — with conditions that can include mandatory check-ins, home visits and GPS devices — cost the government from 30 cents to $14 a day, according to the National Immigration Forum, a group that advocates on behalf of immigrants.
SOURCE
Senate group considers large reduction in family visas as part of immigration deal
Key senators are developing plans that would make it harder for U.S. citizens to get visas for their family members while easing the path for more high-skilled foreign workers, according to aides and advocates familiar with negotiations over an emerging immigration deal.
The plans — which would run counter to policies that have been in place for generations — are part of ongoing talks between a bipartisan group of eight senators, whose bill is expected to serve as the template for a comprehensive immigration deal between Congress and the White House.
The senators agree that a limited number of people should be allowed into the country each year; the question is who those people should be. Currently, about two-thirds of legal immigrants are admitted for family reasons and 14 percent for employment, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The rest are humanitarian cases.
Republicans would prefer to admit greater numbers of high-skilled workers, who business leaders say are in short supply and who would provide an immediate economic benefit. Democrats generally favor giving priority to family members of citizens and legal residents already in the country, saying they provide support networks that help families thrive.
As it stands, spouses and minor children of citizens are given top priority, followed by unmarried children over 21 and, lastly, married adult children and siblings. The Senate proposal would eliminate the latter two categories altogether, which add up to about 90,000 visas per year. Those people could still apply for entry into the country but would need other qualifications, such as high-tech skills, to be approved for a green card.
Senators involved in the negotiations stress no final decision has been made. But Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a leader in the talks, said in an interview Thursday that “we’re going to change fundamentally the immigration system,” including tighter limits on family visas.
“Right now you get green cards to adult children, to grandparents,” Graham said. “What I want to do is reserve green cards based on the economic needs of the country, and we’ll do something for families. But the goal for me is to replace a chained migration immigration system with an economic-based immigration system.”
The group of senators, which includes four Democrats and four Republicans, has said it will release a comprehensive bill in early April. The Obama administration has expressed support for the group’s general principles.
The proposed changes to the family system have angered immigration advocates, who warn the move could threaten the chances of a broader reform agreement.
“Eliminating these categories would produce only a small reduction in visas while creating greater hardship for thousands of U.S. citizens and their loved ones,” two dozen members of the House Asian Pacific American caucus wrote in a letter to the eight senators last week. “We oppose any efforts to further limit the definition of family.”
The family visa program has been largely overshadowed by fierce public debate over a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants and an expanded guest worker program for foreigners. But potential changes to the family visa program, which has a waiting list of 4.3 million people, also will play a pivotal role in any agreement reached by Congress and the White House.
SOURCE
March 14, 2013
New U.S. poll on immigration
Slightly more Americans trust Barack Obama than congressional Republicans to handle immigration, but with neither side garnering a majority and vast differences in preferences between whites and nonwhites in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.
Americans overall divide by 45-39 percent between Obama and the Republicans in Congress in trust to handle the issue; the rest are undecided or trust neither side. Whites favor the GOP over Obama on immigration by 47-36 percent, while nonwhites (blacks, Hispanics and others) prefer Obama by a broad 71-16 percent.
There also are sharp partisan and ideological differences in trust on immigration in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. Democrats and Republicans each prefer their side’s approach by an identical 66 percentage points; independents divide closely between Obama and the GOP, 41-36 percent. Very conservative Americans favor the Republicans on immigration by 65 points and those who say they’re somewhat conservative do so by 33 points. Moderates take Obama’s side by a 21-point margin, liberals by 61 points.
Obama has made immigration reform a second-term priority, having beaten Mitt Romney in last year’s election by 61 percentage points among the growing proportion of nonwhites overall and by 44 points among Hispanics, while losing whites by 20 points.
In step with the president’s policy direction, majorities in recent ABC/Post polls have supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. His approval rating on the issue in February, while just 49 percent, was the highest of his presidency and up 11 points since the summer.
SOURCE
£100m a year to kick out illegal immigrants from Britain: Removing one person who has no valid passport or visa can cost £25,000
Booting out migrants who arrive without a visa or valid passport may be costing up to £100million a year. At least 4,000 foreigners enter the UK every 12 months despite having no right to be here.
Each costs as much as £25,000 to remove – putting the potential annual bill at £100million.
Officials admit however that the illegals are often allowed to stay. Many will claim asylum, or be impossible to remove because they do not have a passport and will not co-operate with investigators.
Last night ministers warned that such individuals pose a significant risk to national security. In many cases officials will have no idea who they are, where they are from or if they have a criminal or terrorist history.
Many are thought to come from countries it is difficult to return them to because of human rights issues, including Uganda, Afghanistan and Somalia.
Details of the problem emerged as ministers launched a crackdown on undocumented migrants. Fines for airlines that allow them on to their planes will rise from £2,000 to up to £10,000 per migrant.
Immigration Minister Mark Harper admitted the numbers abusing the aircraft route was ‘too high’.
‘Border security is vital for the UK,’ he added. ‘While it is right that the Government is in the lead on this, carriers and the transport sector as a whole have an important role to play.
‘The proposed changes to incentives and penalties are designed to ensure all passengers arriving in the UK have the correct documentation to get through our strict passport controls.
‘If a passenger arrives in the UK without a document which satisfactorily establishes their nationality or identity, they can pose a significant risk to the UK.’
The Home Office believes 4,100 migrants arrived on flights and ferries to the UK without proper documents in 2011.
Many carry counterfeit or forged passports that should be spotted when they try to board the plane. Others are allowed on to planes despite having expired documents.
Some flush their passports down the toilet during the flight to try to disguise their nationality and help them claim asylum.
Fines are levied in only around half of cases, and airlines may escape paying up if the passports are a very good forgery or if they have a proven record of carrying out effective checks.
The Home Office could not say how many of those who abuse this route into the UK are successfully removed from the country. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch think-tank, said: ‘It is high time these fines were increased. These are all going to become illegal immigrants.
‘They will want to undercut the wages of British workers and allow unscrupulous employers to compete unfairly with honest ones who offer decent pay and conditions.’
In 2009 the National Audit Office estimated that every failed asylum seeker costs between £3,000 and £25,000 to remove.
At first, many arrivals will be locked up in immigration detention centres, but they cannot be held behind bars indefinitely, and the courts may demand they be let out on to the streets if there is no prospect of prompt removal.
Officials suggest that the current fine – which has remained the same since the early 1990s – is now less effective at encouraging airlines to combat the practice. Had it simply been increased to keep pace with inflation, it would be £3,500 today. France and Germany levy fines of around £4,300 (5,000 euros).
The consultation document suggests a £7,000 fine will be of a ‘sufficiently high level to encourage carriers to perform better document checks’. Offending airlines could face even higher penalties. The Home Office estimates a new penalty charge of £7,000 would raise £63million over ten years.
SOURCE
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Sulzberger’s Voice
How the New York Times Editorial Page Came to Poison the Immigration Debate
A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies shows how the New York Times editorial page has rejected the moderate liberalism that helped build consensus for a landmark 1986 immigration reform and now poisons the national debate by attacking as racists those who disagree with its proposals.
The report, titled “Sulzberger’s Voice,” makes clear that the transformation at the Times is the work of its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, who delights in provocation and confrontation. It was written by CIS senior research fellow Jerry Kammer, winner of a 2006 Pulitzer for national reporting.
The report is online here
With careful documentation, the report traces the course of Sulzberger’s project to renounce moderation on the editorial page. It cites an authoritative book on the Times that describes how Sulzberger, shortly after becoming publisher in 1992, set about his work of “noisily banging the New York Times into a shape that reflected his own values, beliefs, and personality.”
Kammer says that while Sulzberger claims to promote the tolerance and inclusiveness that are essential to American society, the Times’s immigration editorials have “carried its good intentions to a destructive extreme.” The report takes particular note of the work of the Times’s lead editorial writer on immigration, Lawrence Downes. Describing Downes as Sulzberger’s “passionate voice,” it shows that Downes has gone to the extreme of condemning concerns about the effects of immigration as “an effective substitute” for the racism that has been driven from the public square.
Kammer shows how Downes distorted opposing street demonstrations in Phoenix, “giving them the power of Manichean myth” as he advanced the immigration vision of Arthur Sulzberger. It shows that while Sulzberger said of his editorial page, “We needed passion,” it often has produced poison that has infected a debate that should be open, civil, and well informed.
The report on the Times’s editorial page is part one of a two-part series. Part two, which will be released next week, critiques the paper’s news coverage of immigration.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Senate immigration group: National ID too costly
Senators working on a sweeping immigration bill will likely abandon the idea of a new high-tech ID card for workers because it's too expensive, a key negotiator said.
That means their emerging legislation, which they've promised will crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, likely will seek to expand a little-used system criticized as error-prone and vulnerable to fraud that employers can use to check the legal status of workers, mainly using Social Security numbers.
The system, called E-Verify, is now purely voluntary, and officials with labor and immigrants' rights groups say it would have to be greatly improved before being required nationally.
Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., members of the bipartisan Senate immigration negotiating group, had championed creation of a biometric ID card instead that would use personal markers such as fingerprints to make it easy for employers to check the status of prospective hires. But Graham said cost estimates came back higher than he expected.
"That seems to have been cost-prohibitive, so we're looking at other ways to achieve the same goal," Graham told reporters this week at the Capitol.
Graham said no final decision had been made on ditching the biometric ID card idea, which had also sparked civil liberties concerns, and he declined to say how much such a card would cost. A study by the University of California, Berkeley Law School's Warren Institute last year estimated start-up costs to the government for such a program would top $22 billion.
For Graham, Schumer and the other six senators trying to finalize an immigration bill by next month, a workable employer verification system is fundamental to legislation that also would secure the border, improve legal immigration and provide eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already here. The immigration bill signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is often criticized because it legalized nearly 3 million people while offering assurances that employers would have to verify the legal status of workers, but included no real mechanisms to ensure that happened.
Graham said that no amount of border enforcement would stop the flow of illegal immigrants without measures to keep employers from hiring them.
"If you don't control who gets a job, it doesn't matter how high the fence is," Graham said. "The best virtual fence is an employer verification system."
E-Verify was launched as a pilot program in 1997 and now is used by about 7 percent of employers. It's largely voluntary as a federal program but mandatory in some states. Draft immigration legislation by President Barack Obama, which he has said he'll offer if the Senate group doesn't come to agreement quickly enough, would make E-Verify mandatory nationally, and the Senate group is likely to take the same route.
E-Verify allows employers to electronically submit prospective workers' Social Security numbers or other information to be checked against government databases. Critics say it's error-prone because of mistakes in government records and that it has no reliable way to catch someone who is using a fraudulent Social Security number. Immigrants' rights groups also complain that workers can't easily contest disqualifications and that employers have been known to misuse the program by threatening to run workers through E-Verify if they try to organize a union.
The federal Citizenship and Immigration Services, which helps administer the program, says it's gotten progressively easier to use and more accurate.
"Improving the accuracy of the E-Verify system remains our primary goal," Soraya Correa, an associated director at the agency, told a House hearing last month.
But because of how hard it is for a worker to contest a disqualification, critics say any error rate is too high.
"The error rate is low but when applied to the entire American workforce, every workplace in the U.S., that's a problem," said Emily Tulli, an attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. "Only 7 percent of employers are currently utilizing it so if you think about taking that utilization from 7 percent to 93 percent more, it is problematic."
SOURCE
Sulzberger’s Voice
How the New York Times Editorial Page Came to Poison the Immigration Debate
A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies shows how the New York Times editorial page has rejected the moderate liberalism that helped build consensus for a landmark 1986 immigration reform and now poisons the national debate by attacking as racists those who disagree with its proposals.
The report, titled “Sulzberger’s Voice,” makes clear that the transformation at the Times is the work of its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, who delights in provocation and confrontation. It was written by CIS senior research fellow Jerry Kammer, winner of a 2006 Pulitzer for national reporting.
The report is online here
With careful documentation, the report traces the course of Sulzberger’s project to renounce moderation on the editorial page. It cites an authoritative book on the Times that describes how Sulzberger, shortly after becoming publisher in 1992, set about his work of “noisily banging the New York Times into a shape that reflected his own values, beliefs, and personality.”
Kammer says that while Sulzberger claims to promote the tolerance and inclusiveness that are essential to American society, the Times’s immigration editorials have “carried its good intentions to a destructive extreme.” The report takes particular note of the work of the Times’s lead editorial writer on immigration, Lawrence Downes. Describing Downes as Sulzberger’s “passionate voice,” it shows that Downes has gone to the extreme of condemning concerns about the effects of immigration as “an effective substitute” for the racism that has been driven from the public square.
Kammer shows how Downes distorted opposing street demonstrations in Phoenix, “giving them the power of Manichean myth” as he advanced the immigration vision of Arthur Sulzberger. It shows that while Sulzberger said of his editorial page, “We needed passion,” it often has produced poison that has infected a debate that should be open, civil, and well informed.
The report on the Times’s editorial page is part one of a two-part series. Part two, which will be released next week, critiques the paper’s news coverage of immigration.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. Contact: Marguerite Telford 202-466-8185, mrt@cis.org The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
Senate immigration group: National ID too costly
Senators working on a sweeping immigration bill will likely abandon the idea of a new high-tech ID card for workers because it's too expensive, a key negotiator said.
That means their emerging legislation, which they've promised will crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, likely will seek to expand a little-used system criticized as error-prone and vulnerable to fraud that employers can use to check the legal status of workers, mainly using Social Security numbers.
The system, called E-Verify, is now purely voluntary, and officials with labor and immigrants' rights groups say it would have to be greatly improved before being required nationally.
Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., members of the bipartisan Senate immigration negotiating group, had championed creation of a biometric ID card instead that would use personal markers such as fingerprints to make it easy for employers to check the status of prospective hires. But Graham said cost estimates came back higher than he expected.
"That seems to have been cost-prohibitive, so we're looking at other ways to achieve the same goal," Graham told reporters this week at the Capitol.
Graham said no final decision had been made on ditching the biometric ID card idea, which had also sparked civil liberties concerns, and he declined to say how much such a card would cost. A study by the University of California, Berkeley Law School's Warren Institute last year estimated start-up costs to the government for such a program would top $22 billion.
For Graham, Schumer and the other six senators trying to finalize an immigration bill by next month, a workable employer verification system is fundamental to legislation that also would secure the border, improve legal immigration and provide eventual citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already here. The immigration bill signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is often criticized because it legalized nearly 3 million people while offering assurances that employers would have to verify the legal status of workers, but included no real mechanisms to ensure that happened.
Graham said that no amount of border enforcement would stop the flow of illegal immigrants without measures to keep employers from hiring them.
"If you don't control who gets a job, it doesn't matter how high the fence is," Graham said. "The best virtual fence is an employer verification system."
E-Verify was launched as a pilot program in 1997 and now is used by about 7 percent of employers. It's largely voluntary as a federal program but mandatory in some states. Draft immigration legislation by President Barack Obama, which he has said he'll offer if the Senate group doesn't come to agreement quickly enough, would make E-Verify mandatory nationally, and the Senate group is likely to take the same route.
E-Verify allows employers to electronically submit prospective workers' Social Security numbers or other information to be checked against government databases. Critics say it's error-prone because of mistakes in government records and that it has no reliable way to catch someone who is using a fraudulent Social Security number. Immigrants' rights groups also complain that workers can't easily contest disqualifications and that employers have been known to misuse the program by threatening to run workers through E-Verify if they try to organize a union.
The federal Citizenship and Immigration Services, which helps administer the program, says it's gotten progressively easier to use and more accurate.
"Improving the accuracy of the E-Verify system remains our primary goal," Soraya Correa, an associated director at the agency, told a House hearing last month.
But because of how hard it is for a worker to contest a disqualification, critics say any error rate is too high.
"The error rate is low but when applied to the entire American workforce, every workplace in the U.S., that's a problem," said Emily Tulli, an attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. "Only 7 percent of employers are currently utilizing it so if you think about taking that utilization from 7 percent to 93 percent more, it is problematic."
SOURCE
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Lindsey Graham doing everything possible to avoid constituents
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has been leading the charge for amnesty since the beginning of the year. He is a member of the Senate's Gang of 8, which laid out their amnesty proposal- calling it a "pathway to citizenship"- in January.
Since all of this immigration reform talk started, Lindsey Graham has not held a town hall in South Carolina to get his constituents' views on the issue. He has not done a survey through his Congressional website on immigration either.
The reason for this is obvious: Senator Graham already knows where his constituents stand on amnesty. They don't want it. And he doesn't care.
The Senate's Gang of 8, which also includes Senators John McCain and Marco Rubio, has not actually introduced a bill yet. They set a self-imposed deadline of March 21st to get a bill written and introduced.
March 21st falls on a Thursday. For the two full weeks after that date, Congress will be on recess. This means two full weeks of town hall meetings, Congress on your Corners, and constituent meetings.
This is great! The bill will finally be revealed to the public, and the American people have two weeks to learn what's in the bill and tell their lawmakers how they feel. What a great opportunity for democracy!
Unfortunately, Senator Graham and the rest of Gang of 8 disagree with me. On Tuesday, they changed the plan. The Associated Press reported that the group will not meet their deadline, and instead the American people should expect a bill after the recess in April.
Senator Graham is being very honest on why they did this. From the AP story:
"The legislation is certain to be controversial and may spark passionate opposition from lawmakers' constituents at town halls and elsewhere. Such opposition helped sink the last congressional attempt at overhauling immigration laws, in 2007. So even if it were finished in time, Graham said it wasn't a good idea to release the bill before a two-week recess. "You don't want to leave it hanging out for two weeks to get shot up," he said."
Sen. Graham knows what is going to be in the bill, and he knows the American people aren't going to like it. He certainly knows that his constituents in South Carolina aren't going to like it. So, he is going to do all he can to avoid answering to the public.
Everyone saw what happened to John McCain when he held a town hall two weeks ago in Arizona. His constituents were furious that he is pushing for amnesty, and they didn't even know the extent of the amnesty yet.
Shockingly, Sen. Graham has no town halls scheduled. I tried to call today to double check, giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I couldn't get through to his offices. All of my calls went straight to a voice machine.
Senator Graham doesn't want to face voters back in his state. A state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. A state where nearly 15.8% of its residents are unemployed or underemployed.
He realizes that there is a huge void between his top priority- giving work permits and amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens- and the top priority of people in South Carolina - getting South Carolinians back to work.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Blogs
1. EB-5 Investors Can Use IOU to Gain Residency
2. 9th Circuit Analysis of Arizona's Day Labor Law Lacking
3. Five More States Submit REAL ID Compliance Packages
4. The Negative Hat Tricks of the Immigration Business
5. Fighting Words for Republicans from Notre Dame Sociology Professor
6. State Dept. Takes Small Step in the Right Direction on J-1 Sponsor Fees
7. Bishops Throwing Another $800K Behind Amnesty Fight
8. 'Tis Ever Thus: Creative Criminals and Catch-Up Cops, Now in Marriage Fraud
9. "Minor" Unlicensed Traffic Offender Kills Brooklyn Family
10. Illegal Immigration Meets the Wisdom of Juarez
11. Closing the Gap on REAL ID: 48 of 56 Jurisdictions Have Digitized Vital Records
12. Indian Body Shop Indicted for Abuse of H-1B Program
13. A Mexican Border Patrol? Former U.S. Ambassador Is Skeptical
New Topic Pages on the CIS Website
14. Immigration and the State Department
15. J-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Program
16. E-Verify
Lindsey Graham doing everything possible to avoid constituents
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has been leading the charge for amnesty since the beginning of the year. He is a member of the Senate's Gang of 8, which laid out their amnesty proposal- calling it a "pathway to citizenship"- in January.
Since all of this immigration reform talk started, Lindsey Graham has not held a town hall in South Carolina to get his constituents' views on the issue. He has not done a survey through his Congressional website on immigration either.
The reason for this is obvious: Senator Graham already knows where his constituents stand on amnesty. They don't want it. And he doesn't care.
The Senate's Gang of 8, which also includes Senators John McCain and Marco Rubio, has not actually introduced a bill yet. They set a self-imposed deadline of March 21st to get a bill written and introduced.
March 21st falls on a Thursday. For the two full weeks after that date, Congress will be on recess. This means two full weeks of town hall meetings, Congress on your Corners, and constituent meetings.
This is great! The bill will finally be revealed to the public, and the American people have two weeks to learn what's in the bill and tell their lawmakers how they feel. What a great opportunity for democracy!
Unfortunately, Senator Graham and the rest of Gang of 8 disagree with me. On Tuesday, they changed the plan. The Associated Press reported that the group will not meet their deadline, and instead the American people should expect a bill after the recess in April.
Senator Graham is being very honest on why they did this. From the AP story:
"The legislation is certain to be controversial and may spark passionate opposition from lawmakers' constituents at town halls and elsewhere. Such opposition helped sink the last congressional attempt at overhauling immigration laws, in 2007. So even if it were finished in time, Graham said it wasn't a good idea to release the bill before a two-week recess. "You don't want to leave it hanging out for two weeks to get shot up," he said."
Sen. Graham knows what is going to be in the bill, and he knows the American people aren't going to like it. He certainly knows that his constituents in South Carolina aren't going to like it. So, he is going to do all he can to avoid answering to the public.
Everyone saw what happened to John McCain when he held a town hall two weeks ago in Arizona. His constituents were furious that he is pushing for amnesty, and they didn't even know the extent of the amnesty yet.
Shockingly, Sen. Graham has no town halls scheduled. I tried to call today to double check, giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I couldn't get through to his offices. All of my calls went straight to a voice machine.
Senator Graham doesn't want to face voters back in his state. A state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. A state where nearly 15.8% of its residents are unemployed or underemployed.
He realizes that there is a huge void between his top priority- giving work permits and amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens- and the top priority of people in South Carolina - getting South Carolinians back to work.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Blogs
1. EB-5 Investors Can Use IOU to Gain Residency
2. 9th Circuit Analysis of Arizona's Day Labor Law Lacking
3. Five More States Submit REAL ID Compliance Packages
4. The Negative Hat Tricks of the Immigration Business
5. Fighting Words for Republicans from Notre Dame Sociology Professor
6. State Dept. Takes Small Step in the Right Direction on J-1 Sponsor Fees
7. Bishops Throwing Another $800K Behind Amnesty Fight
8. 'Tis Ever Thus: Creative Criminals and Catch-Up Cops, Now in Marriage Fraud
9. "Minor" Unlicensed Traffic Offender Kills Brooklyn Family
10. Illegal Immigration Meets the Wisdom of Juarez
11. Closing the Gap on REAL ID: 48 of 56 Jurisdictions Have Digitized Vital Records
12. Indian Body Shop Indicted for Abuse of H-1B Program
13. A Mexican Border Patrol? Former U.S. Ambassador Is Skeptical
New Topic Pages on the CIS Website
14. Immigration and the State Department
15. J-1 Nonimmigrant Visa Program
16. E-Verify
Monday, March 11, 2013
Romanian and Bulgarian migration into Germany: 'They come to look for a better life. But someone must pay for that'
The mayor of the German city of Duisburg sparked nationwide soul-searching when he announced that his city could not cope with the influx of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants. But, as Harriet Alexander found out, most Germans blame not the new arrivals, but the EU.
Rolf Karling drives his van laden with bread into the car park every evening. Within minutes it is empty – the loaves seized by hundreds of grappling hands, stuffed into hungry mouths.
But this is not a war zone, it is a high-rise housing estate in northern Germany. And the people he feeds are Romanian migrants who have flocked to the north western city of Duisburg in their thousands, but are without work, unable to feed their families, and crammed into tiny, crumbling apartments.
"They have created a Romanian refugee camp right here in the centre of the city," said Mr Karling, whose charity hands out food to the needy. "They call this place a 'Problemhaus'. But it's not a Problemhaus – it's a ticking time bomb."
German cities have seen a six-fold increase in migration from Bulgaria and Romania since the two countries joined the EU in 2007. Last week Germany once again successfully pressured the EU to delay a decision on allowing both countries into the Schengen passport-free zone, responding to fears over the effects of flinging open borders to countries known for high levels of corruption and organised crime.
"Does freedom of movement mean we have to assume that people from all over Europe who believe that they can live better on welfare in Germany than they can in their own countries will come to Germany?" said Hans-Peter Friedrich, German interior minister. "This danger cannot be allowed to come true."
Germany is currently home to around 249,000 migrants from both countries - double the number officially in the UK. And the situation confronting Chancellor Angela Merkel gives something of a foretaste of what could possibly happen in Britain.
At the end of this year, a temporary ban on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens coming to the EU to seek work will expire. When the EU's two poorest nations joined in 2007, they could visit the UK and be contracted for highly-skilled jobs, work self-employed, or labour where there was a shortage of British manpower, but not – unlike other EU citizens – come merely to look for work.
At the moment Britain is officially home to 93,000 Romanians and 42,000 Bulgarians, who are entitled to housing benefits, child support and council tax credits. They cannot claim unemployment allowances unless they have been in employment in the UK for 12 months.
Yet from next January they will be entitled to come without a job - abandoning Bucharest or Sofia, where the average net monthly pay is £340 and £283 respectively, in favour of the UK – where the average worker takes home £1442 a month. The same will apply in Germany.
It is a chain of events that is sparking a war of words between Brussels – which insists that the EU's rules must be respected – and the UK and Germany, which are deeply concerned about the impact of unrestricted migration from the duo of deprived nations.
Many countries are also scrabbling to find ways to rethink their welfare system to stop an influx of "benefits tourists". And it is worrying Whitehall. On Wednesday Nick Clegg chaired a meeting to examine a wide-ranging plan to deter EU migrants from coming to Britain, and to discuss how British benefits could be tightened without breaching EU law.
Yet in Germany, the impact is already being felt. The country was a natural choice for Romanians and Bulgarians seeking a better life. It has had the same restrictions on working as the UK, but is geographically closer, economically stronger, and has the added bonus of a vast Turkish community – meaning that Bulgarians, with their very similar language, can feel at home.
For Turgut Ezcan, however, the influx has not been welcome. "I'm moving back to Turkey," he said, as he showed The Sunday Telegraph around the Duisburg district of Hochfeld – an area previously dominated by Turks, but now home to the city's 4,000 Bulgarians.
It is a socially deprived neighbourhood of grim Soviet-style housing blocks, its alleys littered with rubbish thrown out of the windows by their residents. Gangs of men in leather jackets loiter on the streets, as Mr Ezcan, 41 – who speaks seven languages – translated snippets of their conversations.
"Out of 1,000 Bulgarian people, maybe 20 will be working," he said. "The Turkish cafés are empty during the daytime as we have jobs; the Bulgarian ones are full. Turks have been here for fifty years and are integrated, speaking German. But this is different."
He points out a shiny BMW X6, and whispers that the owner is the local pimp, bringing girls from Bulgaria for prostitution. A large silver Mercedes cuts across our path. The cocaine dealer, he nods.
"I've lived here for 15 years, but it is really going downhill. The streets are untidy, there is lots of noise at night, and you can't leave your bike outside as it'll get stolen.
"I earn €2,300 a month as a lorry driver. But the Bulgarians tell my boss they will do my job for €1,000 a month – and they don't need visas, unlike me. Turkey is booming now, so it is time to go home."
The sudden arrival has left the Hochfeld International Centre struggling to cope. For over 25 years Karoline Robins has helped new arrivals to the area – translating for the first wave of Turks and then Arabs, then the refugees from the former USSR, and now the Eastern Europeans.
"But it's very difficult at the moment, and we are run off our feet," she said. "They are only looking for a better life for their families – but the existing cultural programmes weren't really suitable for them."
Dr Michael Willhardt, who runs a PR agency, is one of the few native Germans to remain in the district. "I've lived here all my life, and have always tried to keep the area in good shape, attract young professionals, and make it a pleasant place to be," he said. "We feel totally abandoned by the government, who do nothing to support these people and leave us in this state," he said. "If you invite in guests, you have to have someone at the welcome desk."
Inside Duisburg's ornate 1870s town hall – one of the few buildings to survive the Second World War bombing that wiped out 80 per cent of this industrial town – the local politicians agree that more must be done.
The town of 490,000 has a traditionally large immigrant population – Turks were invited to come in the 1960s to work in the steel and coal factories – but has since suffered from a steep decline. Unemployment is 12.8 per cent (compared to 6.8 per cent nationally), one of the highest levels in the country.
"They come here because it's a cheap place to live, and there are lots of empty houses," said Leyla Ozmal, the council's representative for Bulgarian and Romanian integration. "But they are exploited by landlords and forced into ghettos. We want laws to prevent this overcrowding.
"And we also need money from Berlin and Brussels to help fund their health care, education and basic needs. Some other cities in Germany look at us and think we are scandalising the issue – but we are not. We simply recognise the problem and say that something urgently needs to be done."
The city has set up a series of remedial classes for Bulgarian and Romanian children, teaching them German, basic literacy and maths so that they can eventually enter mainstream education. But since 2007, these classes have cost the city €12 million.
"Brussels and Berlin have their heads in the sand," she said. "We are one of the few cities to face up to the scale of the problem. They are quite entitled to be here, but we must be able to pay for it."
Across the Rhine, however, is another story. In the district of Rheinhausen – where the "Problemhaus" is located – the German residents are worried.
Berbel Kohla, 47, who lives opposite the teeming building, no longer leaves her Mercedes outside her home for fear it will be torched. The balconies of the seven-storey block – where 400 people are crammed into 46 flats – are packed with carpets, mattresses, childrens' toys and a collection of car hubcaps. Smashed windows are patched up with splintering chipboard. Gaggles of street-wise children run rings around rubbish and overturned shopping trolleys.
"The problem is that there is no work for them," said Hans-Ludwig Ziegun, 65, a pharmacist who lives opposite. "They come from real poverty and just don't understand how things work here. The noise is incredible."
Their attitude does not surprise Rolf Karling, the social worker.
"Those idiots in Brussels had absolutely no idea what they were doing," he said. "They wanted Romania and Bulgaria to be part of the EU because they were scared Russia might get its claws into them – but they never thought it through.
"Now we are faced with this. And it's going to get worse – two, three, four million will come. You open the floodgates from a very poor country to very rich ones. Wouldn't you move?"
SOURCE
Ed Miliband: It is not prejudiced to worry about immigration
Ed Miliband has said it is "not wrong or prejudiced" to worry about immigration. The Labour leader said the party would stick to its promises to introduce maximum controls on new countries joining the European Union, and commitments to train workers already here so they have "a fighting chance of filling the vacancies that exist".
Earlier this week, Mr Miliband said his party had got it wrong on immigration when it was in power.
Writing in the Sun, he said: "Britain is richer, stronger, better as a country because we have welcomed people from across the world.
"Because of families who have come here and raised their children here, we have entrepreneurs like Levi Roots and Theo Paphitis.
He added: "But people have always worried about the impact of immigration, and particularly over the last 20 years or so. The pace of change has been fast.
"People have seen rapid change in their streets and neighbourhoods, with new cultures and new ways of life.
"In low-paid parts of our economy, such as catering and farming, people's wages have been put under pressure.
"It is not wrong or prejudiced to worry about immigration.
"It is understandable. The Labour Party I lead will listen to people's worries and we will talk about immigration, its benefits and the pressures it creates."
SOURCE
Romanian and Bulgarian migration into Germany: 'They come to look for a better life. But someone must pay for that'
The mayor of the German city of Duisburg sparked nationwide soul-searching when he announced that his city could not cope with the influx of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants. But, as Harriet Alexander found out, most Germans blame not the new arrivals, but the EU.
Rolf Karling drives his van laden with bread into the car park every evening. Within minutes it is empty – the loaves seized by hundreds of grappling hands, stuffed into hungry mouths.
But this is not a war zone, it is a high-rise housing estate in northern Germany. And the people he feeds are Romanian migrants who have flocked to the north western city of Duisburg in their thousands, but are without work, unable to feed their families, and crammed into tiny, crumbling apartments.
"They have created a Romanian refugee camp right here in the centre of the city," said Mr Karling, whose charity hands out food to the needy. "They call this place a 'Problemhaus'. But it's not a Problemhaus – it's a ticking time bomb."
German cities have seen a six-fold increase in migration from Bulgaria and Romania since the two countries joined the EU in 2007. Last week Germany once again successfully pressured the EU to delay a decision on allowing both countries into the Schengen passport-free zone, responding to fears over the effects of flinging open borders to countries known for high levels of corruption and organised crime.
"Does freedom of movement mean we have to assume that people from all over Europe who believe that they can live better on welfare in Germany than they can in their own countries will come to Germany?" said Hans-Peter Friedrich, German interior minister. "This danger cannot be allowed to come true."
Germany is currently home to around 249,000 migrants from both countries - double the number officially in the UK. And the situation confronting Chancellor Angela Merkel gives something of a foretaste of what could possibly happen in Britain.
At the end of this year, a temporary ban on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens coming to the EU to seek work will expire. When the EU's two poorest nations joined in 2007, they could visit the UK and be contracted for highly-skilled jobs, work self-employed, or labour where there was a shortage of British manpower, but not – unlike other EU citizens – come merely to look for work.
At the moment Britain is officially home to 93,000 Romanians and 42,000 Bulgarians, who are entitled to housing benefits, child support and council tax credits. They cannot claim unemployment allowances unless they have been in employment in the UK for 12 months.
Yet from next January they will be entitled to come without a job - abandoning Bucharest or Sofia, where the average net monthly pay is £340 and £283 respectively, in favour of the UK – where the average worker takes home £1442 a month. The same will apply in Germany.
It is a chain of events that is sparking a war of words between Brussels – which insists that the EU's rules must be respected – and the UK and Germany, which are deeply concerned about the impact of unrestricted migration from the duo of deprived nations.
Many countries are also scrabbling to find ways to rethink their welfare system to stop an influx of "benefits tourists". And it is worrying Whitehall. On Wednesday Nick Clegg chaired a meeting to examine a wide-ranging plan to deter EU migrants from coming to Britain, and to discuss how British benefits could be tightened without breaching EU law.
Yet in Germany, the impact is already being felt. The country was a natural choice for Romanians and Bulgarians seeking a better life. It has had the same restrictions on working as the UK, but is geographically closer, economically stronger, and has the added bonus of a vast Turkish community – meaning that Bulgarians, with their very similar language, can feel at home.
For Turgut Ezcan, however, the influx has not been welcome. "I'm moving back to Turkey," he said, as he showed The Sunday Telegraph around the Duisburg district of Hochfeld – an area previously dominated by Turks, but now home to the city's 4,000 Bulgarians.
It is a socially deprived neighbourhood of grim Soviet-style housing blocks, its alleys littered with rubbish thrown out of the windows by their residents. Gangs of men in leather jackets loiter on the streets, as Mr Ezcan, 41 – who speaks seven languages – translated snippets of their conversations.
"Out of 1,000 Bulgarian people, maybe 20 will be working," he said. "The Turkish cafés are empty during the daytime as we have jobs; the Bulgarian ones are full. Turks have been here for fifty years and are integrated, speaking German. But this is different."
He points out a shiny BMW X6, and whispers that the owner is the local pimp, bringing girls from Bulgaria for prostitution. A large silver Mercedes cuts across our path. The cocaine dealer, he nods.
"I've lived here for 15 years, but it is really going downhill. The streets are untidy, there is lots of noise at night, and you can't leave your bike outside as it'll get stolen.
"I earn €2,300 a month as a lorry driver. But the Bulgarians tell my boss they will do my job for €1,000 a month – and they don't need visas, unlike me. Turkey is booming now, so it is time to go home."
The sudden arrival has left the Hochfeld International Centre struggling to cope. For over 25 years Karoline Robins has helped new arrivals to the area – translating for the first wave of Turks and then Arabs, then the refugees from the former USSR, and now the Eastern Europeans.
"But it's very difficult at the moment, and we are run off our feet," she said. "They are only looking for a better life for their families – but the existing cultural programmes weren't really suitable for them."
Dr Michael Willhardt, who runs a PR agency, is one of the few native Germans to remain in the district. "I've lived here all my life, and have always tried to keep the area in good shape, attract young professionals, and make it a pleasant place to be," he said. "We feel totally abandoned by the government, who do nothing to support these people and leave us in this state," he said. "If you invite in guests, you have to have someone at the welcome desk."
Inside Duisburg's ornate 1870s town hall – one of the few buildings to survive the Second World War bombing that wiped out 80 per cent of this industrial town – the local politicians agree that more must be done.
The town of 490,000 has a traditionally large immigrant population – Turks were invited to come in the 1960s to work in the steel and coal factories – but has since suffered from a steep decline. Unemployment is 12.8 per cent (compared to 6.8 per cent nationally), one of the highest levels in the country.
"They come here because it's a cheap place to live, and there are lots of empty houses," said Leyla Ozmal, the council's representative for Bulgarian and Romanian integration. "But they are exploited by landlords and forced into ghettos. We want laws to prevent this overcrowding.
"And we also need money from Berlin and Brussels to help fund their health care, education and basic needs. Some other cities in Germany look at us and think we are scandalising the issue – but we are not. We simply recognise the problem and say that something urgently needs to be done."
The city has set up a series of remedial classes for Bulgarian and Romanian children, teaching them German, basic literacy and maths so that they can eventually enter mainstream education. But since 2007, these classes have cost the city €12 million.
"Brussels and Berlin have their heads in the sand," she said. "We are one of the few cities to face up to the scale of the problem. They are quite entitled to be here, but we must be able to pay for it."
Across the Rhine, however, is another story. In the district of Rheinhausen – where the "Problemhaus" is located – the German residents are worried.
Berbel Kohla, 47, who lives opposite the teeming building, no longer leaves her Mercedes outside her home for fear it will be torched. The balconies of the seven-storey block – where 400 people are crammed into 46 flats – are packed with carpets, mattresses, childrens' toys and a collection of car hubcaps. Smashed windows are patched up with splintering chipboard. Gaggles of street-wise children run rings around rubbish and overturned shopping trolleys.
"The problem is that there is no work for them," said Hans-Ludwig Ziegun, 65, a pharmacist who lives opposite. "They come from real poverty and just don't understand how things work here. The noise is incredible."
Their attitude does not surprise Rolf Karling, the social worker.
"Those idiots in Brussels had absolutely no idea what they were doing," he said. "They wanted Romania and Bulgaria to be part of the EU because they were scared Russia might get its claws into them – but they never thought it through.
"Now we are faced with this. And it's going to get worse – two, three, four million will come. You open the floodgates from a very poor country to very rich ones. Wouldn't you move?"
SOURCE
Ed Miliband: It is not prejudiced to worry about immigration
Ed Miliband has said it is "not wrong or prejudiced" to worry about immigration. The Labour leader said the party would stick to its promises to introduce maximum controls on new countries joining the European Union, and commitments to train workers already here so they have "a fighting chance of filling the vacancies that exist".
Earlier this week, Mr Miliband said his party had got it wrong on immigration when it was in power.
Writing in the Sun, he said: "Britain is richer, stronger, better as a country because we have welcomed people from across the world.
"Because of families who have come here and raised their children here, we have entrepreneurs like Levi Roots and Theo Paphitis.
He added: "But people have always worried about the impact of immigration, and particularly over the last 20 years or so. The pace of change has been fast.
"People have seen rapid change in their streets and neighbourhoods, with new cultures and new ways of life.
"In low-paid parts of our economy, such as catering and farming, people's wages have been put under pressure.
"It is not wrong or prejudiced to worry about immigration.
"It is understandable. The Labour Party I lead will listen to people's worries and we will talk about immigration, its benefits and the pressures it creates."
SOURCE
Sunday, March 10, 2013
N.C.'s immigrant driver's license plan sparks protests
A North Carolina plan to issue specially marked driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants granted "deferred status" by the Obama administration is stirring controversy and protests.
North Carolina was one of five states — along with Michigan, Iowa, Arizona and Nebraska — that initially said they would not issue licenses to young undocumented immigrants who are part of the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Announced last June, the program could allow up to 1.7 million illegal immigrants brought to the USA as children to receive two-year deferments on any deportation proceedings.
Michigan and Iowa both relented in recent weeks and said the immigrants would be issued licenses. Arizona and Nebraska still don't grant licenses to the immigrants.
North Carolina's Department of Transportation announced last month that more than 15,000 Deferred Action applicants could be issued licenses distinguished by a bright pink strip and the words "NO LAWFUL STATUS."
Republican Gov. Pat McCrory has called the plan a "pragmatic compromise." His office this week referred questions to the state Department of Transportation.
North Carolina Democrats just introduced a bill requiring that the licenses be no different than others.
Elver Barrios of Charlotte, a sophomore at Johnson C. Smith University who participated in a protest at the Capitol last week, said the proposed licenses pave the way for potential discrimination and police profiling.
"I'm grateful that I'm getting a license, because I will have an ID, something I've never had since I've been here," said Barrios, 22, who says he was brought to the USA eight years ago from Guatemala. "But the fact that they have to single us out, that's what my concern is. It's sort of like telling everybody what my legal status is, when not everybody needs to know that."
Tanya Broder, senior attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, said she has confirmed that 37 states allow Deferred Action immigrants to apply for driver's licenses. Arizona and Nebraska are thought to be the only states that deny licenses to the Deferred Action immigrants, she said. The law center is suing Arizona, but not Nebraska, she said.
Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Except for those granted deferred status, illegal immigrants in most states are not allowed to get driver's licenses. In January, Illinois became the fourth state — joining Washington, New Mexico and Utah — to allow illegal immigrants to apply for driver's licenses or driving permits.
SOURCE
Don't break the bonds of Britishness
By Andrew Alexander
When immigration becomes the great issue of the day, remember this: a common cultural heritage is a pearl beyond price. It is not lightly to be tampered with.
Our heritage, or what remains of it, is under threat from Romania and Bulgaria. We already have so many classrooms where English is not the first language. Or indeed whole communities where English is rare. This will get worse.
One of the inestimable merits of a common heritage is that it tells you what your neighbours will be like, for good or ill, even before you meet them. You know what to expect and what they will expect of you. It makes for stability. It enables people to live with their differences.
Certain things can be assumed in what we think of as Britishness, a clumsy word with many meanings. At one level, it signifies a tolerably uncorrupt public life, a centuries old tradition of parliamentary government, a largely unchanged and unchanging constitution. In short, we like to stick with our old institutions. When we do make changes, it is by peaceful means, not by the violent overthrow which has been so common across the Channel.
Britishness at a personal level encompasses a variety of values: the stiff upper lip (another name for self-control), a strong sense of fair play and a (lingering) sense that how you play the game is as important as whether you win. Tolerance is a key virtue. Good manners and even the instinct to queue matter.
Apology comes easily, even obsessively. Was there ever such a people for saying ‘sorry’? We are not as hard-working and diligent as the Germans, but neither are we as excitable as the French or the Italians.
We are insular, unsurprisingly, as is our religion. The casual Church of England suits us, the Catholic Church with its rigidities and its urge for power does not.
Our quiet way of life was expressed in George Orwell’s words, which John Major borrowed so shamelessly as he thrust us further into the EU. Britain would always be a land of maiden ladies bicycling to church, of lengthening shadows on long lawns and cricket matches and warm beer.
Orwell himself devoted much effort to observing and living down his own Britishness — Eton and the Colonial Service. It was another characteristic of our race, that instinct to apologise.
When we made the error of joining what was slyly called the Common Market, I was intrigued by the foreign-sounding names of those who, like me, campaigned against it.
Their roots may have lain across the Channel, but in Britishness they had found the model of tolerance and moderation they admired. UK citizens simply took it for granted. But that is, after all, what you often do with a common heritage.
‘The English have something special,’ a politician of foreign descent once told me, ‘and only the English seem not to understand that.’
You may say that the virtues I described in Britishness exist largely or only in the imagination. But that is where we spend much of our lives.
One day Ed Miliband may be our prime minister, though I would prefer not. His father battled to get to Britain from Belgium. He knew enough about Britain to assume, correctly, that his Marxist passions would be endured in some leading British university.
Orwell saw huge importance in language. Would you, could you, understand Britishness with all its fault and virtues without the English language? Yet here we are with large areas where foreign tongues prevail.
You do not know what your neighbours are likely to think or do. The means by which we live with our differences have been seriously curtailed.
We are now told that, American-style, we must have Polish areas, Muslim areas, Indian areas, West Indian areas. Have we then lost our once-so-valuable common cultural heritage? Probably. Can we regain it? Probably not. And that is before we even get round to the Romanians and Bulgarians expected to swarm onto our hospitable shores.
The Government flounders as it studies ways of curbing this influx. Cameron is confused: ‘Yes’ to Indian students but ‘No’ to benefit-hungry Eastern Europeans?
We know that many of the changes suggested to discourage immigrants would fall foul of the EU rules for free movement. No 10 concedes this.
Now Cameron knows what powerlessness feels like. Britishness he never understood anyway.
SOURCE
N.C.'s immigrant driver's license plan sparks protests
A North Carolina plan to issue specially marked driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants granted "deferred status" by the Obama administration is stirring controversy and protests.
North Carolina was one of five states — along with Michigan, Iowa, Arizona and Nebraska — that initially said they would not issue licenses to young undocumented immigrants who are part of the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Announced last June, the program could allow up to 1.7 million illegal immigrants brought to the USA as children to receive two-year deferments on any deportation proceedings.
Michigan and Iowa both relented in recent weeks and said the immigrants would be issued licenses. Arizona and Nebraska still don't grant licenses to the immigrants.
North Carolina's Department of Transportation announced last month that more than 15,000 Deferred Action applicants could be issued licenses distinguished by a bright pink strip and the words "NO LAWFUL STATUS."
Republican Gov. Pat McCrory has called the plan a "pragmatic compromise." His office this week referred questions to the state Department of Transportation.
North Carolina Democrats just introduced a bill requiring that the licenses be no different than others.
Elver Barrios of Charlotte, a sophomore at Johnson C. Smith University who participated in a protest at the Capitol last week, said the proposed licenses pave the way for potential discrimination and police profiling.
"I'm grateful that I'm getting a license, because I will have an ID, something I've never had since I've been here," said Barrios, 22, who says he was brought to the USA eight years ago from Guatemala. "But the fact that they have to single us out, that's what my concern is. It's sort of like telling everybody what my legal status is, when not everybody needs to know that."
Tanya Broder, senior attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, said she has confirmed that 37 states allow Deferred Action immigrants to apply for driver's licenses. Arizona and Nebraska are thought to be the only states that deny licenses to the Deferred Action immigrants, she said. The law center is suing Arizona, but not Nebraska, she said.
Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Except for those granted deferred status, illegal immigrants in most states are not allowed to get driver's licenses. In January, Illinois became the fourth state — joining Washington, New Mexico and Utah — to allow illegal immigrants to apply for driver's licenses or driving permits.
SOURCE
Don't break the bonds of Britishness
By Andrew Alexander
When immigration becomes the great issue of the day, remember this: a common cultural heritage is a pearl beyond price. It is not lightly to be tampered with.
Our heritage, or what remains of it, is under threat from Romania and Bulgaria. We already have so many classrooms where English is not the first language. Or indeed whole communities where English is rare. This will get worse.
One of the inestimable merits of a common heritage is that it tells you what your neighbours will be like, for good or ill, even before you meet them. You know what to expect and what they will expect of you. It makes for stability. It enables people to live with their differences.
Certain things can be assumed in what we think of as Britishness, a clumsy word with many meanings. At one level, it signifies a tolerably uncorrupt public life, a centuries old tradition of parliamentary government, a largely unchanged and unchanging constitution. In short, we like to stick with our old institutions. When we do make changes, it is by peaceful means, not by the violent overthrow which has been so common across the Channel.
Britishness at a personal level encompasses a variety of values: the stiff upper lip (another name for self-control), a strong sense of fair play and a (lingering) sense that how you play the game is as important as whether you win. Tolerance is a key virtue. Good manners and even the instinct to queue matter.
Apology comes easily, even obsessively. Was there ever such a people for saying ‘sorry’? We are not as hard-working and diligent as the Germans, but neither are we as excitable as the French or the Italians.
We are insular, unsurprisingly, as is our religion. The casual Church of England suits us, the Catholic Church with its rigidities and its urge for power does not.
Our quiet way of life was expressed in George Orwell’s words, which John Major borrowed so shamelessly as he thrust us further into the EU. Britain would always be a land of maiden ladies bicycling to church, of lengthening shadows on long lawns and cricket matches and warm beer.
Orwell himself devoted much effort to observing and living down his own Britishness — Eton and the Colonial Service. It was another characteristic of our race, that instinct to apologise.
When we made the error of joining what was slyly called the Common Market, I was intrigued by the foreign-sounding names of those who, like me, campaigned against it.
Their roots may have lain across the Channel, but in Britishness they had found the model of tolerance and moderation they admired. UK citizens simply took it for granted. But that is, after all, what you often do with a common heritage.
‘The English have something special,’ a politician of foreign descent once told me, ‘and only the English seem not to understand that.’
You may say that the virtues I described in Britishness exist largely or only in the imagination. But that is where we spend much of our lives.
One day Ed Miliband may be our prime minister, though I would prefer not. His father battled to get to Britain from Belgium. He knew enough about Britain to assume, correctly, that his Marxist passions would be endured in some leading British university.
Orwell saw huge importance in language. Would you, could you, understand Britishness with all its fault and virtues without the English language? Yet here we are with large areas where foreign tongues prevail.
You do not know what your neighbours are likely to think or do. The means by which we live with our differences have been seriously curtailed.
We are now told that, American-style, we must have Polish areas, Muslim areas, Indian areas, West Indian areas. Have we then lost our once-so-valuable common cultural heritage? Probably. Can we regain it? Probably not. And that is before we even get round to the Romanians and Bulgarians expected to swarm onto our hospitable shores.
The Government flounders as it studies ways of curbing this influx. Cameron is confused: ‘Yes’ to Indian students but ‘No’ to benefit-hungry Eastern Europeans?
We know that many of the changes suggested to discourage immigrants would fall foul of the EU rules for free movement. No 10 concedes this.
Now Cameron knows what powerlessness feels like. Britishness he never understood anyway.
SOURCE
Friday, March 8, 2013
Chinese visa rules 'are not working'
Ms Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, has strongly hinted that a future Labour government would reform the UK’s cumbersome visa system, which is costing the UK economy £1.2billion in lost tourist revenue.
Both the Conservatives and Labour are focusing heavily on immigration in the wake of their parties’ poor performance in the Eastleigh by-election, where Ukip proved a popular choice for disaffected voters.
Labour is attempting to shift its position on immigration, with the party admitting that it should have been more “ready to talk about the problems in the system”.
Ms Cooper will today promise to keep the Coalition’s cap on immigration and bring in tougher checks to stop bogus students coming to Britain for short courses.
However, Labour appears to be backing calls to relax Chinese visa rules in a bid to boost growth. The Daily Telegraph is campaigning to relax visa rules for Chinese visitors.
Currently, Chinese nationals wishing to visit Britain on holiday have to get their fingerprints taken at one of 12 authorities in China.
They also have to fill out a lengthy application form and pay more than if they were to visit the Schengen area of 26 European countries, including France and Italy.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme Ms Cooper called the current visa regime a “genuine problem” and said that relaxing the system would boost trade and investment.
“I think that is a genuine problem because you’ve got huge delays in getting visas for people who legally should be coming, who the Government agrees should be coming,” Ms Cooper said.
“It’s not just actually the tourist visas, you’ve also got business visas. The delays have doubled, for entrepreneurs the delays have tripled, so it is taking people much longer to get the basic visas that they need.
“So the system is really not working effectively enough. The reason you want people to come from China either as tourists or as university students is that [it] also is a way of building up those links with those countries that are going to be huge sources of trade and investment in the future.”
The UK is perceived as unwelcoming by many Chinese tourists and business leaders, which has made some investors reticent to engage with this country, experts have warned.
Last year, the Government announced some changes intended to simplify the rules, including that the visa application form would be translated into Chinese from April. But businesses warn the changes do not go far enough.
SOURCE
Labour let too many low-skilled migrants into Britain, admits Miliband as he promises to give local people 'a fair crack of the whip'
Ed Miliband will admit today that Labour was wrong on immigration and let too many low-skilled migrants into Britain.
In a party political broadcast tonight, the Labour leader will say that communities struggled to keep up with the speed of new arrivals to Britain.
And he will concede that the scale of immigration meant workers' wages have been undercut.
Mr Miliband will pledge to introduce a ‘One Nation immigration policy’ for the many and not the few.
But his party, which has consistently refused to support a cap on numbers, will again fail to spell out any firm policies to cut immigration.
In an astonishing about-face, Mr Miliband will say: ‘Low-skill migration has been too high and we need to bring it down.
‘That means the maximum transitional controls for new countries coming in from Eastern Europe, it means properly enforcing the minimum wage so people aren’t brought here to undercut workers already here, and it means proper training for people here so that they have a fighting chance of filling the vacancies that exist.
‘There’s nothing wrong in employing people from abroad but the rules need to be fair so that local people get a fair crack of the whip.’
In an attempt to distance himself from Labour’s ‘open-door’ immigration policy, which let hundreds of thousands of migrants from new EU countries come to Britain, he will add that it is ‘not prejudiced when people worry about immigration, it’s understandable’.
Mr Miliband will say that every foreigner who settles in Britain should learn English, and all public-sector workers who deal directly with the public must be able to speak English.
And he promise to step up enforcement of the minimum wage to ensure that migrant workers are not paid less to undercut Britons.
But a Tory source said: ‘Vague rhetoric about One Nation does nothing to explain how Labour would control the number of people coming into Britain.’
And UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: 'What will you do Mr Miliband, about the relaxing of controls on Bulgarians and Romanians? Are you prepared to defy the EU treaties and take back our border controls? If not these comments are mere crocodile tears.'
Diane Abbott appeared to torpedo Mr Miliband’s change of tack, insisting Labour would not pander to ‘anti-immigrant’ feelings.
Writing in the New Statesman magazine, Labour’s public health spokesman wrote: ‘There is no path to victory for the Labour Party through the thickets of anti-immigrant politics.’
Mr Miliband will attempt to distance himself from Labour’s ‘open door’ immigration policy which led to hundreds of thousands of migrants from the new EU countries coming to Britain as the UK did not introduce transitional controls.
Nearly 600,000 European migrants came to the UK in 2010 alone, making Labour’s predictions of just 13,000 incomers from the new EU countries laughable.
Mr Miliband will say: 'One of the things I've done since I became the leader of the Labour Party is understand where we got things wrong in government, and change them.
'And one of the things we didn't get right was immigration, and that's why I've got a new approach. Millions of people in this country are concerned about immigration and if people are concerned about it, then the Labour Party I lead is going to be talking about it.'
He will add: 'Britain's diversity is a source of our great strength. It makes us a more successful country. 'But people can lose out if migration isn't properly managed. The pace of change can be too fast or people can see their wages undercut.'
The party political broadcast was filmed at Acton College in West London, where Mr Miliband’s late, Polish father the academic Ralph Miliband came to study English 70 years ago after fleeing the Nazis.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, will make a speech on immigration tomorrow in which she will unveil plans to crackdown on unscrupulous employers who force migrants into overcrowded housing and pay them below the minimum wage.
She will also target 'gangmasters' employing illegal migrants in the social care, hospitality and construction industries - including a ban on housing workers in over-crowded accommodation.
Ms Cooper is also expected to detail proposed reforms of the immigration system and action to improve the training of UK workers so they can fill jobs in shortage occupations.
The news came as Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said migrants could face a minimum period before they could claim tax credits and out-of-work benefits.
Sources said it could be introduced before the lifting of restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants this year.
SOURCE
Chinese visa rules 'are not working'
Ms Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, has strongly hinted that a future Labour government would reform the UK’s cumbersome visa system, which is costing the UK economy £1.2billion in lost tourist revenue.
Both the Conservatives and Labour are focusing heavily on immigration in the wake of their parties’ poor performance in the Eastleigh by-election, where Ukip proved a popular choice for disaffected voters.
Labour is attempting to shift its position on immigration, with the party admitting that it should have been more “ready to talk about the problems in the system”.
Ms Cooper will today promise to keep the Coalition’s cap on immigration and bring in tougher checks to stop bogus students coming to Britain for short courses.
However, Labour appears to be backing calls to relax Chinese visa rules in a bid to boost growth. The Daily Telegraph is campaigning to relax visa rules for Chinese visitors.
Currently, Chinese nationals wishing to visit Britain on holiday have to get their fingerprints taken at one of 12 authorities in China.
They also have to fill out a lengthy application form and pay more than if they were to visit the Schengen area of 26 European countries, including France and Italy.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme Ms Cooper called the current visa regime a “genuine problem” and said that relaxing the system would boost trade and investment.
“I think that is a genuine problem because you’ve got huge delays in getting visas for people who legally should be coming, who the Government agrees should be coming,” Ms Cooper said.
“It’s not just actually the tourist visas, you’ve also got business visas. The delays have doubled, for entrepreneurs the delays have tripled, so it is taking people much longer to get the basic visas that they need.
“So the system is really not working effectively enough. The reason you want people to come from China either as tourists or as university students is that [it] also is a way of building up those links with those countries that are going to be huge sources of trade and investment in the future.”
The UK is perceived as unwelcoming by many Chinese tourists and business leaders, which has made some investors reticent to engage with this country, experts have warned.
Last year, the Government announced some changes intended to simplify the rules, including that the visa application form would be translated into Chinese from April. But businesses warn the changes do not go far enough.
SOURCE
Labour let too many low-skilled migrants into Britain, admits Miliband as he promises to give local people 'a fair crack of the whip'
Ed Miliband will admit today that Labour was wrong on immigration and let too many low-skilled migrants into Britain.
In a party political broadcast tonight, the Labour leader will say that communities struggled to keep up with the speed of new arrivals to Britain.
And he will concede that the scale of immigration meant workers' wages have been undercut.
Mr Miliband will pledge to introduce a ‘One Nation immigration policy’ for the many and not the few.
But his party, which has consistently refused to support a cap on numbers, will again fail to spell out any firm policies to cut immigration.
In an astonishing about-face, Mr Miliband will say: ‘Low-skill migration has been too high and we need to bring it down.
‘That means the maximum transitional controls for new countries coming in from Eastern Europe, it means properly enforcing the minimum wage so people aren’t brought here to undercut workers already here, and it means proper training for people here so that they have a fighting chance of filling the vacancies that exist.
‘There’s nothing wrong in employing people from abroad but the rules need to be fair so that local people get a fair crack of the whip.’
In an attempt to distance himself from Labour’s ‘open-door’ immigration policy, which let hundreds of thousands of migrants from new EU countries come to Britain, he will add that it is ‘not prejudiced when people worry about immigration, it’s understandable’.
Mr Miliband will say that every foreigner who settles in Britain should learn English, and all public-sector workers who deal directly with the public must be able to speak English.
And he promise to step up enforcement of the minimum wage to ensure that migrant workers are not paid less to undercut Britons.
But a Tory source said: ‘Vague rhetoric about One Nation does nothing to explain how Labour would control the number of people coming into Britain.’
And UKIP leader Nigel Farage said: 'What will you do Mr Miliband, about the relaxing of controls on Bulgarians and Romanians? Are you prepared to defy the EU treaties and take back our border controls? If not these comments are mere crocodile tears.'
Diane Abbott appeared to torpedo Mr Miliband’s change of tack, insisting Labour would not pander to ‘anti-immigrant’ feelings.
Writing in the New Statesman magazine, Labour’s public health spokesman wrote: ‘There is no path to victory for the Labour Party through the thickets of anti-immigrant politics.’
Mr Miliband will attempt to distance himself from Labour’s ‘open door’ immigration policy which led to hundreds of thousands of migrants from the new EU countries coming to Britain as the UK did not introduce transitional controls.
Nearly 600,000 European migrants came to the UK in 2010 alone, making Labour’s predictions of just 13,000 incomers from the new EU countries laughable.
Mr Miliband will say: 'One of the things I've done since I became the leader of the Labour Party is understand where we got things wrong in government, and change them.
'And one of the things we didn't get right was immigration, and that's why I've got a new approach. Millions of people in this country are concerned about immigration and if people are concerned about it, then the Labour Party I lead is going to be talking about it.'
He will add: 'Britain's diversity is a source of our great strength. It makes us a more successful country. 'But people can lose out if migration isn't properly managed. The pace of change can be too fast or people can see their wages undercut.'
The party political broadcast was filmed at Acton College in West London, where Mr Miliband’s late, Polish father the academic Ralph Miliband came to study English 70 years ago after fleeing the Nazis.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, will make a speech on immigration tomorrow in which she will unveil plans to crackdown on unscrupulous employers who force migrants into overcrowded housing and pay them below the minimum wage.
She will also target 'gangmasters' employing illegal migrants in the social care, hospitality and construction industries - including a ban on housing workers in over-crowded accommodation.
Ms Cooper is also expected to detail proposed reforms of the immigration system and action to improve the training of UK workers so they can fill jobs in shortage occupations.
The news came as Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said migrants could face a minimum period before they could claim tax credits and out-of-work benefits.
Sources said it could be introduced before the lifting of restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants this year.
SOURCE
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Please America, make it easier for legal immigrants
One British expat in America says his new country should be more welcoming to newcomers who often create jobs and wealth
I'm an immigrant. Many years ago, we packed up our house in Hampshire, England, and set sail for the colonies, braving weeks on the open sea, risking attacks by pirates and privateers, all in the hope of a new life in a distant land where the streets were paved with gold. Well, actually we took the M25 to Heathrow, got diverted to Gatwick, and flew the Pond in the hands of a friendly TWA crew. But regardless, we became immigrants in America.
And, from personal experience, regardless of how welcoming and friendly the American people were, and are, the immigration system is severely broken in the USA. Our first experience of it was on my first visit. The abusive nature of the customs official was eye-opening and intimidating. Luckily, that attitude of "if I don't like you, you're back on the plane" was limited to the official. The people in the Midwest could not have been nicer.
My next experience with the immigration system was after we had waited in line for a number of years, and our green card applications were approved. This time it was an official at the US Embassy in London. I think if he had his way, we'd have been hauled off in irons for some fun waterboarding in the basement. Fortunately, our lawyer got involved, called his boss, and at 5.29pm, one minute before the embassy closed, the official begrudgingly approved our immigrant petition, and we were on our way to the US as permanent residents.
And, as a legal immigrant, I watched the ongoing debate, and sometimes pure vitriol, surrounding immigration. There is the positioning by both sides, the special interest groups that take an all-or-nothing approach. And there are the children who never knew they weren't born here and the families who risked their lives to enter the land of opportunity, albeit illegally. And finally, those who refused to break the law and sought to enter legally, waiting in line, for years, and years, and years.
These are the forgotten. No one talks about these people, who like me, are not interested in breaking the law, regardless of how attractive America looks. These hard working men and women, who wait for the frustratingly slow process that seems to discriminate against those who want to do it by the book. These are the type of people who come here and started my favourite Scottish restaurant – and employ Americans. These are the people who emigrated from southern England and started a tea room where I can get Duke and Duchess tea, with a side of Branston Pickle and cheese – and employ Americans. These are the people who emigrated from China, started the best Chinese restaurant I have ever experienced – and employ Americans.
These are the people who after creating jobs for Americans, embrace the culture while also bringing the celebrations of their home country with them, adding to the vibrancy and diversity that is the American melting pot. And hopefully, my family members who are sitting in line, waiting for an initial review of their application for the past two years, will be able to arrive on these shores and be the next job creators in this region.
And yet, there is a small minority of Americans who see this as a zero-sum game. Where one immigrant means one less job for an American. The facts, however, do not bear that out. Within three blocks of where I sit in downtown St Louis, USA, there are hundreds of people, Americans, who have jobs because an immigrant started a business. Because an immigrant believed in the American dream, and worked hard to build a company, and employed Americans to be part of that dream.
This is why I'm honoured to be a member of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs' new Group of 500. We are a growing assembly of the Midwest's business, political and civic leaders who are working to support the council's Task Force on Immigration and US Economic Competitiveness. The G500 is committed to moving the immigration debate forward into action.
Do I agree with every position the group supports? Absolutely not. But I am in agreement with many of the positions. And I'm willing to work with others of similar and opposite perspectives, in order to do what is best for immigrants and Americans. That is, to have an immigration system that benefits all of us. That causes job growth. That makes immigration easier and quicker for those who want to come here, work hard, and cause our economy to grow.
So as President Obama addresses the immigration issue and as those of us who are immigrants pray for some common sense in Washington DC that does not cater to special interests and actually fixes a very broken system, I have a glimmer of hope. Because I know how welcoming American is. I know how special America is. And my hope is that the locked door, where the No Vacancy sign hangs, will be unlocked and thrown open, and we again hear the refrain of Lady Liberty welcoming those yearning to be free.
SOURCE
Leftist opposition to LEGAL immigration in Australia
THERE is a certain irony to a man with a very thick Scottish accent [Labor senator Doug Cameron] banging on about the evils of 457 visas, the arrangement that allows workers to come to Australia on a temporary basis.
Ditto the woman whose family came from Wales to make a better life. According to Julia Gillard, migrants must be put at the end of the queue and the 457 visa program must be kept in check.
Lacking any systematic evidence of actual rorting of the program, the Prime Minister has decided to rely on "community feedback" - code for lost votes - to clamp down on the program and to impose additional red-tape on all employers, most of which comply with requirements.
Perhaps the most bizarre proposed new condition is English language competence of temporary migrants. For jobs that do not require English language ability, this makes no sense at all.
Were such a condition introduced by the Coalition, there would be accusations of racism. But we should not forget the deeply protectionist and anti-immigration roots of the union movement that has been baying for changes to 457 visas.
Gillard has also claimed that "we inherited from the previous government a 457 temporary foreign-worker visa program that was totally out of control".
If the number of 457 visa holders is indicative of control, then it actually looks as though this government has lost control of the program. In 2007-08, there were 111,000 457 visas granted; in 2011-12, the number was 125,000.
Britain remains the largest source of 457 visa holders, with other significant countries including India, Ireland, the US and The Philippines. While there has been some fluctuation over the past few years, the industry that accounts for most 457 visas is healthcare and social assistance. There are also significant numbers of 457 visa holders working in construction and IT.
The program is good policy. There are various conditions attached, including the need for local labour market testing and the requirement for market wages to be paid.
Given these safeguards are met, employers can access productive and enthusiastic workers from overseas when local workers are in short supply.
And for construction projects which are temporary, the use of 457 visa holders makes sense, particularly where the project is located in a remote location to which it is difficult to attract Australian workers.
Certainly, a good proportion of 457 visa holders do apply to stay in Australia. These people must fulfill the same requirements as other permanent skilled migrants, including the waiving of any entitlement to welfare for a two-year period.
"Trying before you buy" makes a lot of sense for these individuals.
If Canberra is serious about Australia being an open and innovative country hooked into Asia, there is no place for the retrograde changes being made to the 457 visa program.
SOURCE
March 6, 2013
Jeb Bush: No “path to citizenship” in immigration reform
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Monday he does not support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., a central provision of immigration reform plans being considered by Congress.
Bush has long chided the Republican Party to adopt immigration reform and improve its outreach to minority and immigrant voters. But he said that a path to citizenship would violate the rule of law, and instead is proposing giving a path to legal permanent residency to many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country.
"Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward. And if we want to create an immigration policy that's going to work, we can't continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration," Bush said during an interview on NBC's "Today" show. "I think it is important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense. Not to take away people's rights."
Bush, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, is promoting his new book titled "Immigration Wars" that he co-authored with conservative attorney Clint Bolick. It hits the shelves this week, and it will include concrete details on how they believe immigration reform should be handled.
The ex-governor's stance is notable because of his reputation as an immigration moderate within the GOP, especially during the 2012 campaign season when he criticized GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his opposition to immigration reform that legalized undocumented immigrants. As early as June of last year, Bush said he would be supportive of either a path to citizenship or a path to legal residency.
Now, Bush's position on a path to citizenship is to the right of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" Senate proposal, which has been endorsed by his former political mentee Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and several other Republican lawmakers.
The Senate's plan would offer temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants who apply, pass a criminal background check, pay fees, and back taxes, and learn English. Those eligible immigrants would then be able to pursue a green card, and then full citizenship once certain border-security metrics are met along the U.S.-Mexico border. President Barack Obama's plan contains a more direct path to citizenship that is not specifically tied to a border security "trigger."
A path to citizenship has long been the number-one policy priority for immigrant-rights groups, who say that citizenship is necessary for immigrants to compete in society. The alternative, according to these groups, a population of second-class citizens.
But Bush aligned himself with other Republicans who say that a path to full citizenship is not necessary.
"Half the people in '86 that could have gotten amnesty didn't apply. Many people don't want to be citizens of our country," he said. "They want to come here, they want to work hard, they want to provide for their families. Some of them want to come home, not necessarily all of them want to stay as citizens."
He said that offering a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S. could incentivize future waves of illegal immigration.
"I think there has to be some difference between people who come here legally and illegally," Bush said. "It is just a matter of common sense and a matter of the rule of law. If we're not going to apply the law fairly and consistently, we're going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country."
Despite the divisions over key issues like a path to citizenship, Bush sounded optimistic that Congress could pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
"This is the one place where cats and dogs seem to be getting along a little more," he said. "So I am optimistic there could be a consensus going forward on immigration."
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Op-ed: The Cost of Cheap Labor
Publications
2. When Liberals Sided with U.S. Workers: Kennedy/Hatch Push to Allow Hiring of Illegals Stopped by 1991 Coretta Scott King Letter
3. Pro-Immigration Congressional Republicans Do Not Perform Better Among Latino Voters
Blogs
4. Button, Button, Who's Got the Button?
5. A Washington Narrative Meets Reality
6. Saving the Religious Leaders from Themselves
7. Binational Task Force Offers Common Sense and a Leap of Faith at the Border
8. DHS Left Billions from Its Budget on the Table While Releasing Detainees
9. Detention and the 1993 WTC Attack
10. TRACking the Detainer Data at ICE
11. Murder Linked to Immigration Marriage Fraud, Case Number Five
12. ICE Detainees Released ARE Criminals
13. The Employment Situation in South Carolina
14. 20 Years Later: The 1993 WTC Attack and Immigration Failures
15. Blurred Message from DHS about the Sequester-Related Release of Illegals
16. Napolitano Offers Up Border Patrol and Detention for Sequestration
17. Norquist and Rubio: Relegating the GOP to Permanent Minority Status
18. A Little Perspective, Please! ICE Operation is 99.92 Percent Accurate
19. ICE Reverts to Law Enforcement to Boost Deportation Numbers in 2012
20. "Binational Dialogue on Mexican Migrants" Likely to be Abused
21. Univision Reports on High Costs of Migrant Deaths on Texas Rangeland North of the Border
22. Through a Glass Darkly
Please America, make it easier for legal immigrants
One British expat in America says his new country should be more welcoming to newcomers who often create jobs and wealth
I'm an immigrant. Many years ago, we packed up our house in Hampshire, England, and set sail for the colonies, braving weeks on the open sea, risking attacks by pirates and privateers, all in the hope of a new life in a distant land where the streets were paved with gold. Well, actually we took the M25 to Heathrow, got diverted to Gatwick, and flew the Pond in the hands of a friendly TWA crew. But regardless, we became immigrants in America.
And, from personal experience, regardless of how welcoming and friendly the American people were, and are, the immigration system is severely broken in the USA. Our first experience of it was on my first visit. The abusive nature of the customs official was eye-opening and intimidating. Luckily, that attitude of "if I don't like you, you're back on the plane" was limited to the official. The people in the Midwest could not have been nicer.
My next experience with the immigration system was after we had waited in line for a number of years, and our green card applications were approved. This time it was an official at the US Embassy in London. I think if he had his way, we'd have been hauled off in irons for some fun waterboarding in the basement. Fortunately, our lawyer got involved, called his boss, and at 5.29pm, one minute before the embassy closed, the official begrudgingly approved our immigrant petition, and we were on our way to the US as permanent residents.
And, as a legal immigrant, I watched the ongoing debate, and sometimes pure vitriol, surrounding immigration. There is the positioning by both sides, the special interest groups that take an all-or-nothing approach. And there are the children who never knew they weren't born here and the families who risked their lives to enter the land of opportunity, albeit illegally. And finally, those who refused to break the law and sought to enter legally, waiting in line, for years, and years, and years.
These are the forgotten. No one talks about these people, who like me, are not interested in breaking the law, regardless of how attractive America looks. These hard working men and women, who wait for the frustratingly slow process that seems to discriminate against those who want to do it by the book. These are the type of people who come here and started my favourite Scottish restaurant – and employ Americans. These are the people who emigrated from southern England and started a tea room where I can get Duke and Duchess tea, with a side of Branston Pickle and cheese – and employ Americans. These are the people who emigrated from China, started the best Chinese restaurant I have ever experienced – and employ Americans.
These are the people who after creating jobs for Americans, embrace the culture while also bringing the celebrations of their home country with them, adding to the vibrancy and diversity that is the American melting pot. And hopefully, my family members who are sitting in line, waiting for an initial review of their application for the past two years, will be able to arrive on these shores and be the next job creators in this region.
And yet, there is a small minority of Americans who see this as a zero-sum game. Where one immigrant means one less job for an American. The facts, however, do not bear that out. Within three blocks of where I sit in downtown St Louis, USA, there are hundreds of people, Americans, who have jobs because an immigrant started a business. Because an immigrant believed in the American dream, and worked hard to build a company, and employed Americans to be part of that dream.
This is why I'm honoured to be a member of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs' new Group of 500. We are a growing assembly of the Midwest's business, political and civic leaders who are working to support the council's Task Force on Immigration and US Economic Competitiveness. The G500 is committed to moving the immigration debate forward into action.
Do I agree with every position the group supports? Absolutely not. But I am in agreement with many of the positions. And I'm willing to work with others of similar and opposite perspectives, in order to do what is best for immigrants and Americans. That is, to have an immigration system that benefits all of us. That causes job growth. That makes immigration easier and quicker for those who want to come here, work hard, and cause our economy to grow.
So as President Obama addresses the immigration issue and as those of us who are immigrants pray for some common sense in Washington DC that does not cater to special interests and actually fixes a very broken system, I have a glimmer of hope. Because I know how welcoming American is. I know how special America is. And my hope is that the locked door, where the No Vacancy sign hangs, will be unlocked and thrown open, and we again hear the refrain of Lady Liberty welcoming those yearning to be free.
SOURCE
Leftist opposition to LEGAL immigration in Australia
THERE is a certain irony to a man with a very thick Scottish accent [Labor senator Doug Cameron] banging on about the evils of 457 visas, the arrangement that allows workers to come to Australia on a temporary basis.
Ditto the woman whose family came from Wales to make a better life. According to Julia Gillard, migrants must be put at the end of the queue and the 457 visa program must be kept in check.
Lacking any systematic evidence of actual rorting of the program, the Prime Minister has decided to rely on "community feedback" - code for lost votes - to clamp down on the program and to impose additional red-tape on all employers, most of which comply with requirements.
Perhaps the most bizarre proposed new condition is English language competence of temporary migrants. For jobs that do not require English language ability, this makes no sense at all.
Were such a condition introduced by the Coalition, there would be accusations of racism. But we should not forget the deeply protectionist and anti-immigration roots of the union movement that has been baying for changes to 457 visas.
Gillard has also claimed that "we inherited from the previous government a 457 temporary foreign-worker visa program that was totally out of control".
If the number of 457 visa holders is indicative of control, then it actually looks as though this government has lost control of the program. In 2007-08, there were 111,000 457 visas granted; in 2011-12, the number was 125,000.
Britain remains the largest source of 457 visa holders, with other significant countries including India, Ireland, the US and The Philippines. While there has been some fluctuation over the past few years, the industry that accounts for most 457 visas is healthcare and social assistance. There are also significant numbers of 457 visa holders working in construction and IT.
The program is good policy. There are various conditions attached, including the need for local labour market testing and the requirement for market wages to be paid.
Given these safeguards are met, employers can access productive and enthusiastic workers from overseas when local workers are in short supply.
And for construction projects which are temporary, the use of 457 visa holders makes sense, particularly where the project is located in a remote location to which it is difficult to attract Australian workers.
Certainly, a good proportion of 457 visa holders do apply to stay in Australia. These people must fulfill the same requirements as other permanent skilled migrants, including the waiving of any entitlement to welfare for a two-year period.
"Trying before you buy" makes a lot of sense for these individuals.
If Canberra is serious about Australia being an open and innovative country hooked into Asia, there is no place for the retrograde changes being made to the 457 visa program.
SOURCE
March 6, 2013
Jeb Bush: No “path to citizenship” in immigration reform
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Monday he does not support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., a central provision of immigration reform plans being considered by Congress.
Bush has long chided the Republican Party to adopt immigration reform and improve its outreach to minority and immigrant voters. But he said that a path to citizenship would violate the rule of law, and instead is proposing giving a path to legal permanent residency to many of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country.
"Our proposal is a proposal that looks forward. And if we want to create an immigration policy that's going to work, we can't continue to make illegal immigration an easier path than legal immigration," Bush said during an interview on NBC's "Today" show. "I think it is important that there is a natural friction between our immigrant heritage and the rule of law. This is the right place, I think, to be in that sense. Not to take away people's rights."
Bush, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, is promoting his new book titled "Immigration Wars" that he co-authored with conservative attorney Clint Bolick. It hits the shelves this week, and it will include concrete details on how they believe immigration reform should be handled.
The ex-governor's stance is notable because of his reputation as an immigration moderate within the GOP, especially during the 2012 campaign season when he criticized GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his opposition to immigration reform that legalized undocumented immigrants. As early as June of last year, Bush said he would be supportive of either a path to citizenship or a path to legal residency.
Now, Bush's position on a path to citizenship is to the right of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" Senate proposal, which has been endorsed by his former political mentee Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and several other Republican lawmakers.
The Senate's plan would offer temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants who apply, pass a criminal background check, pay fees, and back taxes, and learn English. Those eligible immigrants would then be able to pursue a green card, and then full citizenship once certain border-security metrics are met along the U.S.-Mexico border. President Barack Obama's plan contains a more direct path to citizenship that is not specifically tied to a border security "trigger."
A path to citizenship has long been the number-one policy priority for immigrant-rights groups, who say that citizenship is necessary for immigrants to compete in society. The alternative, according to these groups, a population of second-class citizens.
But Bush aligned himself with other Republicans who say that a path to full citizenship is not necessary.
"Half the people in '86 that could have gotten amnesty didn't apply. Many people don't want to be citizens of our country," he said. "They want to come here, they want to work hard, they want to provide for their families. Some of them want to come home, not necessarily all of them want to stay as citizens."
He said that offering a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S. could incentivize future waves of illegal immigration.
"I think there has to be some difference between people who come here legally and illegally," Bush said. "It is just a matter of common sense and a matter of the rule of law. If we're not going to apply the law fairly and consistently, we're going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country."
Despite the divisions over key issues like a path to citizenship, Bush sounded optimistic that Congress could pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
"This is the one place where cats and dogs seem to be getting along a little more," he said. "So I am optimistic there could be a consensus going forward on immigration."
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
Media
1. Op-ed: The Cost of Cheap Labor
Publications
2. When Liberals Sided with U.S. Workers: Kennedy/Hatch Push to Allow Hiring of Illegals Stopped by 1991 Coretta Scott King Letter
3. Pro-Immigration Congressional Republicans Do Not Perform Better Among Latino Voters
Blogs
4. Button, Button, Who's Got the Button?
5. A Washington Narrative Meets Reality
6. Saving the Religious Leaders from Themselves
7. Binational Task Force Offers Common Sense and a Leap of Faith at the Border
8. DHS Left Billions from Its Budget on the Table While Releasing Detainees
9. Detention and the 1993 WTC Attack
10. TRACking the Detainer Data at ICE
11. Murder Linked to Immigration Marriage Fraud, Case Number Five
12. ICE Detainees Released ARE Criminals
13. The Employment Situation in South Carolina
14. 20 Years Later: The 1993 WTC Attack and Immigration Failures
15. Blurred Message from DHS about the Sequester-Related Release of Illegals
16. Napolitano Offers Up Border Patrol and Detention for Sequestration
17. Norquist and Rubio: Relegating the GOP to Permanent Minority Status
18. A Little Perspective, Please! ICE Operation is 99.92 Percent Accurate
19. ICE Reverts to Law Enforcement to Boost Deportation Numbers in 2012
20. "Binational Dialogue on Mexican Migrants" Likely to be Abused
21. Univision Reports on High Costs of Migrant Deaths on Texas Rangeland North of the Border
22. Through a Glass Darkly
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
When Liberals Sided with U.S. Workers
Coretta Scott King’s Role in Stopping the 1991 Push to Allow Hiring of Illegals
The current debate over “comprehensive immigration reform” pits the interests of U.S. workers against those of foreign-born workers. Although much emphasis has been given to the split within conservative ranks over this issue, not so long ago the split was on the left, with many prominent civil rights leaders viewing immigration control as a necessary protection for American workers, especially minority workers.
Before the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the employment of illegal workers was explicitly permitted by statute. A ban on hiring illegal aliens, known as "employer sanctions", was the key component of the 1986 grand bargain: Amnesty in exchange for promises of future enforcement. But once the amnesty was underway, opponents of enforcement reneged on the deal and launched a campaign to repeal employer sanctions and once again permit the employment of illegal aliens.
In 1991 Coretta Scott King, widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., stopped repeal with a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who had just announced plans to introduce legislation abolishing employer sanctions. Her letter, written on behalf of the Black Leadership Forum, expressed concern that advocates of repeal were using claims of discrimination against foreign workers as a guise “to introduce cheap labor into the U.S. workforce”, and offered to report to the senator on the “devastating impact the repeal would have on the economic conditions of un- and semi-skilled workers – a disproportionate number of who are African American and Hispanic.”
The Center for Immigration Studies report on this incident, including a copy of Mrs. King's letter, can be found here
Among those who supported the employment of illegal immigrants was Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza, who wrote a 1990 report calling for the repeal of employer sanctions just four years after their enactment. (The report is online here) Munoz is now in charge of immigration policy at the White House.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. CONTACT: Marguerite Telford mrt@cis.org (202) 466-8185. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
At least 20 terror suspects have British passports torn up in security crackdown to stop them returning to UK
At least 20 terror suspects have had their British passports torn up on national security grounds to stop them entering the country, it emerged today.
In the last two years alone Home Secretary Theresa May has stripped British citizenship from 16 individuals considered to pose a threat to the UK.
Rules in place for a decade allow ministers to act to revoke passports in a bid to target the so-called ‘enemy within’.
The Home Office today defended the policy from claims it was equivalent to ‘medieval exile’, insisting the British citizenship was ‘a privilege not a right’.
Officials said that from 2002 to September last year 20 citizens were stripped of their passports. A report by the Bureaux for Investigative Journalism, published in The Independent today, suggested the number is 21, of which only two have successfully appealed.
At least five of the 16 to lose their citizenship under the coalition were born in Britain, the report said. One man had lived in the UK for five decades.
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Citizenship is a privilege not a right. The Home Secretary has the power to remove citizenship from individuals where she considers it is conducive to the public good. An individual subject to deprivation can appeal to the courts.’
However, concern has been expressed that after losing British citizenship suspects have been targeted, and in some cases killed, in US drone attacks.
Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader, is to write to Mrs May about the scale of the threat posed to Britain.
‘There was clearly always a risk when the law was changed seven years ago that the executive could act to take citizenship away in circumstances that were more frequent or more extensive than those envisaged by ministers at the time,’ Mr Hughes told The Independent.
‘I’m concerned at the growing number of people who appear to have lost their right to citizenship. I plan to write to the Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Select Committee to ask for their assessment of the situation, and for a review of whether the act is working as intended.’
Two men involved - Bilal al-Berjawi, a British-Lebanese citizen, and British-born friend Mohamed Sakr, who also held Egyptian nationality – travelled to Somalia in 2009. They are said to have become involved with Islamist militant group al-Shabaab, which has links to al-Qa’ida. Both rose to senior positions in the organisation.
They were stripped of their British nationalities by Mrs May in 2010 and were killed in separate US airstrikes.
Saghir Hussain, Sakr’s former UK solicitor said: ‘It appears that the process of deprivation of citizenship made it easier for the US to then designate Mr Sakr as an enemy combatant, to whom the UK owes no responsibility whatsoever.’
Gareth Peirce, a leading human rights lawyer, said the use of the powers ‘smacked of medieval exile, just as cruel and just as arbitrary’.
SOURCE
When Liberals Sided with U.S. Workers
Coretta Scott King’s Role in Stopping the 1991 Push to Allow Hiring of Illegals
The current debate over “comprehensive immigration reform” pits the interests of U.S. workers against those of foreign-born workers. Although much emphasis has been given to the split within conservative ranks over this issue, not so long ago the split was on the left, with many prominent civil rights leaders viewing immigration control as a necessary protection for American workers, especially minority workers.
Before the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the employment of illegal workers was explicitly permitted by statute. A ban on hiring illegal aliens, known as "employer sanctions", was the key component of the 1986 grand bargain: Amnesty in exchange for promises of future enforcement. But once the amnesty was underway, opponents of enforcement reneged on the deal and launched a campaign to repeal employer sanctions and once again permit the employment of illegal aliens.
In 1991 Coretta Scott King, widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., stopped repeal with a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who had just announced plans to introduce legislation abolishing employer sanctions. Her letter, written on behalf of the Black Leadership Forum, expressed concern that advocates of repeal were using claims of discrimination against foreign workers as a guise “to introduce cheap labor into the U.S. workforce”, and offered to report to the senator on the “devastating impact the repeal would have on the economic conditions of un- and semi-skilled workers – a disproportionate number of who are African American and Hispanic.”
The Center for Immigration Studies report on this incident, including a copy of Mrs. King's letter, can be found here
Among those who supported the employment of illegal immigrants was Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza, who wrote a 1990 report calling for the repeal of employer sanctions just four years after their enactment. (The report is online here) Munoz is now in charge of immigration policy at the White House.
The above is a press release from from Center for Immigration Studies. 1522 K St. NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 466-8185 fax: (202) 466-8076. Email: center@cis.org. CONTACT: Marguerite Telford mrt@cis.org (202) 466-8185. The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institution which examines the impact of immigration on the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies is not affiliated with any other organization
At least 20 terror suspects have British passports torn up in security crackdown to stop them returning to UK
At least 20 terror suspects have had their British passports torn up on national security grounds to stop them entering the country, it emerged today.
In the last two years alone Home Secretary Theresa May has stripped British citizenship from 16 individuals considered to pose a threat to the UK.
Rules in place for a decade allow ministers to act to revoke passports in a bid to target the so-called ‘enemy within’.
The Home Office today defended the policy from claims it was equivalent to ‘medieval exile’, insisting the British citizenship was ‘a privilege not a right’.
Officials said that from 2002 to September last year 20 citizens were stripped of their passports. A report by the Bureaux for Investigative Journalism, published in The Independent today, suggested the number is 21, of which only two have successfully appealed.
At least five of the 16 to lose their citizenship under the coalition were born in Britain, the report said. One man had lived in the UK for five decades.
A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Citizenship is a privilege not a right. The Home Secretary has the power to remove citizenship from individuals where she considers it is conducive to the public good. An individual subject to deprivation can appeal to the courts.’
However, concern has been expressed that after losing British citizenship suspects have been targeted, and in some cases killed, in US drone attacks.
Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader, is to write to Mrs May about the scale of the threat posed to Britain.
‘There was clearly always a risk when the law was changed seven years ago that the executive could act to take citizenship away in circumstances that were more frequent or more extensive than those envisaged by ministers at the time,’ Mr Hughes told The Independent.
‘I’m concerned at the growing number of people who appear to have lost their right to citizenship. I plan to write to the Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Select Committee to ask for their assessment of the situation, and for a review of whether the act is working as intended.’
Two men involved - Bilal al-Berjawi, a British-Lebanese citizen, and British-born friend Mohamed Sakr, who also held Egyptian nationality – travelled to Somalia in 2009. They are said to have become involved with Islamist militant group al-Shabaab, which has links to al-Qa’ida. Both rose to senior positions in the organisation.
They were stripped of their British nationalities by Mrs May in 2010 and were killed in separate US airstrikes.
Saghir Hussain, Sakr’s former UK solicitor said: ‘It appears that the process of deprivation of citizenship made it easier for the US to then designate Mr Sakr as an enemy combatant, to whom the UK owes no responsibility whatsoever.’
Gareth Peirce, a leading human rights lawyer, said the use of the powers ‘smacked of medieval exile, just as cruel and just as arbitrary’.
SOURCE
Monday, March 4, 2013
'They leave rubbish mountains taller than I am': Left-wing German mayor's rant at Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants who he says have sent town's crime soaring
The mayor of a German city claims Romanian and Bulgarian migrants are causing havoc, committing crimes and costing his authority close to £15million a year to house, feed and police.
Soeren Link, the left-wing mayor of the former industrial city of Duisburg, close to the border with Holland, claims prostitution and robberies have spiked since the EU's latest members began arriving last year.
'We are massively affected,' said the mayor, confirming the fears of the Association of German Cities which recently warned of 'social unrest' because of the economic refugees.
He spoke of rubbish mountains 'taller than I am' outside of dilapidated housing blocks in the district where, in one, 400 Bulgarians and Romanians are crammed into just over 40 apartments.
'Children are misused there and sent on stealing missions,' he claimed in a TV discussion about the problem.
Germany is the continent's most socially-minded nation with a lavish array of welfare benefits. Some Roma families are claiming over £2,000 a month in child welfare payments, even though they are technically not supposed to work in the country until January next year.
'It is costing us millions and will cost us more by next year,' added Mr Link, who said anyone who thought the problem was going to go away was 'misty eyed'. He added: 'We didn't ask for this problem and we can't handle it alone.'
On his Facebook page the mayor wrote: 'Platitude slogans and strong words do not help!'
His outspokenness earned him the praise of citizens including pensioner Heinz Hoffmann, 67, who said: 'If my rubbish spills out on the street I would be slapped with a summons in no time. Why do they get away with it?'
Housewife Baerbel Kramer, 57, added: 'I have sympathy for the poor people, but we are also afraid of them.'
Immigration mandarins in the UK believe the troubles that have befallen Germany will be imported when British rules are relaxed in January next year and Bulgarians and Romanians arrive to seek work.
'The social balance and social peace is extremely endangered,' reads an internal paper produced by the German Association of Cities earlier this month. Immigration from the two countries has spiked sixfold in the past few years.
The ill-educated have little or no chance of finding work while some Roma families have up to ten children and are receiving payments for each of them from the state. 'The Roma in particular', states the report, 'end up in desolate conditions once they are here'.
The knock-on effect is chaos also in classrooms where native children are being held back because the newcomers know no German.
'This is a totally new phenomenon, brought about by the euro crisis,' says Michaela Menichetti, integration commissioner for a school district in Reutlingen.
Police in several German towns report on organised Romanian crime gangs where children and women are sent out each morning with specific instructions where to steal and from whom.
One police report from Duisburg read: 'For at least a year, observations in Duisburg (but also nationally) show that Romanian groups - apparently family clans - are committing organized crimes on an alarming scale.'
In 2007 there were 31,596 immigrants into Germany from the two countries and a further 83,000 arrived in the following three years. In 2011 alone nearly 64,000 arrived from Romania and Bulgaria.
SOURCE
Romanians and Bulgarians snap up 175,000 jobs in the UK already... and that's before the borders have even opened
More than a quarter of a million Bulgarians and Romanians have come to Britain over the past five years – even before the jobs market is fully opened to them.
About half that number were allowed in as farm workers on short-term contracts and thousands more got permanent posts.
In total, more than 175,000 National Insurance numbers were handed out to workers from the two countries. The remaining 75,000 people settled here with their families.
Campaigners fear that when work restrictions are lifted next year, further pressure will be placed on the jobs market, housing and public services.
Philip Hollobone, Tory MP for Kettering, said: ‘The alarming thing is that even before the borders are flung open, we’re already above a quarter of a million.
‘We’re heading ever closer to my estimate of 425,000 Romanians and Bulgarians, which is a number I simply don’t believe this country can cope with.’
Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union only in 2007 and were not given immediate access to all jobs and services in Britain.
But updated statistics published by the Home Office last week show that between 2007 and 2012, a total of 262,929 applications to work or remain in Britain were approved for Bulgarians and Romanians.
In the past year alone, 14,583 permits for the self-employed and 20,842 for fruit-pickers were granted.
Some of those permits over the past five years may have gone to the same migrants who return to work in fields and factories.
Separate figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions show the volume of National Insurance numbers handed out to Bulgarians and Romanians is also on the rise.
Between 2007 and 2011, there were 176,040 given to workers from the two countries, including a record 40,260 in 2011.
Over the same four-year period, 945 Bulgarians and Romanians were forcibly removed from Britain, 139 were refused entry at the border and 64 left voluntarily. Last week it was revealed that 27,725 Romanians had been arrested in London since 2007, even though only 87,000 people from that country live in Britain.
A Home Office spokesman said last night: ‘Rather than producing speculative projections, we are focusing on cutting out the abuse of free movement and addressing the factors that drive European immigration to Britain.’
Meanwhile, the pressure of immigration on public services has been highlighted by new figures showing that more than 100,000 more primary school places will be needed in England by the next General Election.
The total number of places in England stands at just over 4.3 million, but by 2014-15 it is forecast there will be a deficit of 106,807.
Some of the biggest gaps are in areas where foreign-born mothers are driving increases in the birth rate. In Newham, East London, 4,551 places are needed within three years.
In Peterborough – home to the country’s first school where no pupil speaks English as their main language – 2,216 more places are required.
SOURCE
'They leave rubbish mountains taller than I am': Left-wing German mayor's rant at Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants who he says have sent town's crime soaring
The mayor of a German city claims Romanian and Bulgarian migrants are causing havoc, committing crimes and costing his authority close to £15million a year to house, feed and police.
Soeren Link, the left-wing mayor of the former industrial city of Duisburg, close to the border with Holland, claims prostitution and robberies have spiked since the EU's latest members began arriving last year.
'We are massively affected,' said the mayor, confirming the fears of the Association of German Cities which recently warned of 'social unrest' because of the economic refugees.
He spoke of rubbish mountains 'taller than I am' outside of dilapidated housing blocks in the district where, in one, 400 Bulgarians and Romanians are crammed into just over 40 apartments.
'Children are misused there and sent on stealing missions,' he claimed in a TV discussion about the problem.
Germany is the continent's most socially-minded nation with a lavish array of welfare benefits. Some Roma families are claiming over £2,000 a month in child welfare payments, even though they are technically not supposed to work in the country until January next year.
'It is costing us millions and will cost us more by next year,' added Mr Link, who said anyone who thought the problem was going to go away was 'misty eyed'. He added: 'We didn't ask for this problem and we can't handle it alone.'
On his Facebook page the mayor wrote: 'Platitude slogans and strong words do not help!'
His outspokenness earned him the praise of citizens including pensioner Heinz Hoffmann, 67, who said: 'If my rubbish spills out on the street I would be slapped with a summons in no time. Why do they get away with it?'
Housewife Baerbel Kramer, 57, added: 'I have sympathy for the poor people, but we are also afraid of them.'
Immigration mandarins in the UK believe the troubles that have befallen Germany will be imported when British rules are relaxed in January next year and Bulgarians and Romanians arrive to seek work.
'The social balance and social peace is extremely endangered,' reads an internal paper produced by the German Association of Cities earlier this month. Immigration from the two countries has spiked sixfold in the past few years.
The ill-educated have little or no chance of finding work while some Roma families have up to ten children and are receiving payments for each of them from the state. 'The Roma in particular', states the report, 'end up in desolate conditions once they are here'.
The knock-on effect is chaos also in classrooms where native children are being held back because the newcomers know no German.
'This is a totally new phenomenon, brought about by the euro crisis,' says Michaela Menichetti, integration commissioner for a school district in Reutlingen.
Police in several German towns report on organised Romanian crime gangs where children and women are sent out each morning with specific instructions where to steal and from whom.
One police report from Duisburg read: 'For at least a year, observations in Duisburg (but also nationally) show that Romanian groups - apparently family clans - are committing organized crimes on an alarming scale.'
In 2007 there were 31,596 immigrants into Germany from the two countries and a further 83,000 arrived in the following three years. In 2011 alone nearly 64,000 arrived from Romania and Bulgaria.
SOURCE
Romanians and Bulgarians snap up 175,000 jobs in the UK already... and that's before the borders have even opened
More than a quarter of a million Bulgarians and Romanians have come to Britain over the past five years – even before the jobs market is fully opened to them.
About half that number were allowed in as farm workers on short-term contracts and thousands more got permanent posts.
In total, more than 175,000 National Insurance numbers were handed out to workers from the two countries. The remaining 75,000 people settled here with their families.
Campaigners fear that when work restrictions are lifted next year, further pressure will be placed on the jobs market, housing and public services.
Philip Hollobone, Tory MP for Kettering, said: ‘The alarming thing is that even before the borders are flung open, we’re already above a quarter of a million.
‘We’re heading ever closer to my estimate of 425,000 Romanians and Bulgarians, which is a number I simply don’t believe this country can cope with.’
Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union only in 2007 and were not given immediate access to all jobs and services in Britain.
But updated statistics published by the Home Office last week show that between 2007 and 2012, a total of 262,929 applications to work or remain in Britain were approved for Bulgarians and Romanians.
In the past year alone, 14,583 permits for the self-employed and 20,842 for fruit-pickers were granted.
Some of those permits over the past five years may have gone to the same migrants who return to work in fields and factories.
Separate figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions show the volume of National Insurance numbers handed out to Bulgarians and Romanians is also on the rise.
Between 2007 and 2011, there were 176,040 given to workers from the two countries, including a record 40,260 in 2011.
Over the same four-year period, 945 Bulgarians and Romanians were forcibly removed from Britain, 139 were refused entry at the border and 64 left voluntarily. Last week it was revealed that 27,725 Romanians had been arrested in London since 2007, even though only 87,000 people from that country live in Britain.
A Home Office spokesman said last night: ‘Rather than producing speculative projections, we are focusing on cutting out the abuse of free movement and addressing the factors that drive European immigration to Britain.’
Meanwhile, the pressure of immigration on public services has been highlighted by new figures showing that more than 100,000 more primary school places will be needed in England by the next General Election.
The total number of places in England stands at just over 4.3 million, but by 2014-15 it is forecast there will be a deficit of 106,807.
Some of the biggest gaps are in areas where foreign-born mothers are driving increases in the birth rate. In Newham, East London, 4,551 places are needed within three years.
In Peterborough – home to the country’s first school where no pupil speaks English as their main language – 2,216 more places are required.
SOURCE
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Sheriff Joe: I’ll Put Released Illegals in Tent City
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he has a solution for the federal government's mass release of illegal immigrants to cut costs ahead of the sequester: Send them to his "Tent City."
Arpaio - the outspoken Arizona sheriff of Maricopa County known for his tough stance on illegal immigration - says he'd take the prisoners free of charge at Tent City, his controversial Phoenix-based jail in the desert, where prisoners sleep in tents and are required to wear pink underwear.
"I'll take them. I have room in my tents. I would be happy to have them - and I wouldn't even charge them. I would love to take them in the tents," Arpaio told POLITICO.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced they're releasing an unannounced number of illegal immigrants held in immigration jails in order to cut costs as the country nears sequestration, the automatic $1.2 trillion cuts in federal spending that start Friday.
Arpaio doesn't buy it.
"I am always suspicious when the government that has billions of dollars has to say, 'We are going to release [illegal immigrants] because of budget problems.' I'm wary of that. They're utilizing a budget so-called crisis as the reason to kick these people loose. I do have a concern about that."
SOURCE
Migration to Britain at lowest level for a decade: Curbs on non-EU students and workers cut number of new arrivals by 74,000
Immigration into Britain has fallen to its lowest level in nearly a decade. The number of people coming to live in UK fell by 74,000 in the 12 months to June last year as curbs on students and workers from outside Europe began to bite.
But there were warnings that the Government’s successes may be reversed when the labour market is thrown open to workers from Romania and Bulgaria at the end of this year.
In the year up to June some 515,000 migrants came into Britain, the fewest since 2003 which was the year before the borders were opened to Poles and other East European workers.
Falling numbers of immigrants reduced the key total for net migration – the number by which the population has swollen after both immigration and emigration are taken into account – to 163,000.
The level was down by more than a third in a year, putting Home Secretary Theresa May well on the way to achieve the Coalition ambition of reducing net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ by the next election.
Immigration think-tanks said restrictions on migration from outside Europe, introduced by Mrs May as she tries to tackle Labour’s disastrous legacy and rebuild Britain’s borders, are now having a major impact.
Net migration of 163,000 compares to 247,000 in the previous 12 months, to June 2011, yesterday’s figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed.
The count reveals net migration falling steadily. It was 183,000 in the year to March 2012, according to figures released at the end of last year.
The net migration figures were last at 163,000 in 2008 when foreign workers left Britain as jobs began to dry up at the beginning of the financial downturn.
Otherwise the figure is the lowest since 1999, two years after Tony Blair came to power and opened the immigration floodgates, when it was also 163,000.
This time the falling level is not due to emigration – which in the year to summer 2012 remained similar to the year before – but to reductions in immigration.
One major drop came in numbers of students from outside Europe which were down to 197,000 from 239,000 in the previous year.
However, the figures give the lie to warnings from university chiefs, MPs and business leaders that student curbs would deter the brightest from coming to Britain.
In fact there was a 3 per cent increase in the number of visas issued for students wishing to study at universities in Britain.
By contrast, there were falls of 62 per cent in visas issued for other colleges and 69 per cent in those for language school students.
The figures indicate that visa restrictions have successfully curbed the misuse of the student visa system by bogus colleges operating as a front for economic immigration.
Immigration Minister Mark Harper pointed out that ‘the numbers of skilled people being sponsored by UK employers in sectors such as IT and science have also increased’.
Overall the number of people from New Commonwealth countries – such as India and Pakistan as well as African nations such as Botswana – coming to live in Britain in the year to June last year went down from 168,000 to 117,000.
A second big fall in immigration was a result of reduced numbers coming from Poland and Eastern Europe.
The ONS recorded 62,000 migrants from Poland and the seven other countries that joined the EU in 2004 in the year to summer 2012, compared to 86,000 in the year before.
It was the lowest inflow from Eastern Europe since the borders were opened to citizens of the eight countries in April 2004.
Most other EU countries exercised their right to delay opening their labour markets for seven years. The ONS report said that now all the EU borders are open to Poles and Eastern Europeans, they may have gone to other countries such as Germany.
In 2007 Britain did close its labour market to migrants from Romania and Bulgaria when those countries entered the EU.
However, the seven-year rule means Romanians and Bulgarians have the right to come to work in Britain freely from January.
The 515,000 immigration total was down from 589,000 in the previous year. It was the lowest figure since 2003, when 511,000 immigrants were recorded. Immigration peaked at 600,000 in the year to September 2010.
Mr Harper said: ‘Our tough reforms are having an impact in all the right places – we have tightened the routes where abuse was rife and overall numbers are down as a result.’
Sir Andrew Green, of the MigrationWatch think-tank, said the figures were ‘welcome evidence that the Government’s policies are starting to take effect’.
But he warned: ‘The main risk now to the Government’s objective is an inflow from Romania and Bulgaria next year.
'This adds to the case for making sure that the benefits system does not undermine the immigration objective so crucial to the future of our society.’
SOURCE
Sheriff Joe: I’ll Put Released Illegals in Tent City
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he has a solution for the federal government's mass release of illegal immigrants to cut costs ahead of the sequester: Send them to his "Tent City."
Arpaio - the outspoken Arizona sheriff of Maricopa County known for his tough stance on illegal immigration - says he'd take the prisoners free of charge at Tent City, his controversial Phoenix-based jail in the desert, where prisoners sleep in tents and are required to wear pink underwear.
"I'll take them. I have room in my tents. I would be happy to have them - and I wouldn't even charge them. I would love to take them in the tents," Arpaio told POLITICO.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced they're releasing an unannounced number of illegal immigrants held in immigration jails in order to cut costs as the country nears sequestration, the automatic $1.2 trillion cuts in federal spending that start Friday.
Arpaio doesn't buy it.
"I am always suspicious when the government that has billions of dollars has to say, 'We are going to release [illegal immigrants] because of budget problems.' I'm wary of that. They're utilizing a budget so-called crisis as the reason to kick these people loose. I do have a concern about that."
SOURCE
Migration to Britain at lowest level for a decade: Curbs on non-EU students and workers cut number of new arrivals by 74,000
Immigration into Britain has fallen to its lowest level in nearly a decade. The number of people coming to live in UK fell by 74,000 in the 12 months to June last year as curbs on students and workers from outside Europe began to bite.
But there were warnings that the Government’s successes may be reversed when the labour market is thrown open to workers from Romania and Bulgaria at the end of this year.
In the year up to June some 515,000 migrants came into Britain, the fewest since 2003 which was the year before the borders were opened to Poles and other East European workers.
Falling numbers of immigrants reduced the key total for net migration – the number by which the population has swollen after both immigration and emigration are taken into account – to 163,000.
The level was down by more than a third in a year, putting Home Secretary Theresa May well on the way to achieve the Coalition ambition of reducing net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ by the next election.
Immigration think-tanks said restrictions on migration from outside Europe, introduced by Mrs May as she tries to tackle Labour’s disastrous legacy and rebuild Britain’s borders, are now having a major impact.
Net migration of 163,000 compares to 247,000 in the previous 12 months, to June 2011, yesterday’s figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed.
The count reveals net migration falling steadily. It was 183,000 in the year to March 2012, according to figures released at the end of last year.
The net migration figures were last at 163,000 in 2008 when foreign workers left Britain as jobs began to dry up at the beginning of the financial downturn.
Otherwise the figure is the lowest since 1999, two years after Tony Blair came to power and opened the immigration floodgates, when it was also 163,000.
This time the falling level is not due to emigration – which in the year to summer 2012 remained similar to the year before – but to reductions in immigration.
One major drop came in numbers of students from outside Europe which were down to 197,000 from 239,000 in the previous year.
However, the figures give the lie to warnings from university chiefs, MPs and business leaders that student curbs would deter the brightest from coming to Britain.
In fact there was a 3 per cent increase in the number of visas issued for students wishing to study at universities in Britain.
By contrast, there were falls of 62 per cent in visas issued for other colleges and 69 per cent in those for language school students.
The figures indicate that visa restrictions have successfully curbed the misuse of the student visa system by bogus colleges operating as a front for economic immigration.
Immigration Minister Mark Harper pointed out that ‘the numbers of skilled people being sponsored by UK employers in sectors such as IT and science have also increased’.
Overall the number of people from New Commonwealth countries – such as India and Pakistan as well as African nations such as Botswana – coming to live in Britain in the year to June last year went down from 168,000 to 117,000.
A second big fall in immigration was a result of reduced numbers coming from Poland and Eastern Europe.
The ONS recorded 62,000 migrants from Poland and the seven other countries that joined the EU in 2004 in the year to summer 2012, compared to 86,000 in the year before.
It was the lowest inflow from Eastern Europe since the borders were opened to citizens of the eight countries in April 2004.
Most other EU countries exercised their right to delay opening their labour markets for seven years. The ONS report said that now all the EU borders are open to Poles and Eastern Europeans, they may have gone to other countries such as Germany.
In 2007 Britain did close its labour market to migrants from Romania and Bulgaria when those countries entered the EU.
However, the seven-year rule means Romanians and Bulgarians have the right to come to work in Britain freely from January.
The 515,000 immigration total was down from 589,000 in the previous year. It was the lowest figure since 2003, when 511,000 immigrants were recorded. Immigration peaked at 600,000 in the year to September 2010.
Mr Harper said: ‘Our tough reforms are having an impact in all the right places – we have tightened the routes where abuse was rife and overall numbers are down as a result.’
Sir Andrew Green, of the MigrationWatch think-tank, said the figures were ‘welcome evidence that the Government’s policies are starting to take effect’.
But he warned: ‘The main risk now to the Government’s objective is an inflow from Romania and Bulgaria next year.
'This adds to the case for making sure that the benefits system does not undermine the immigration objective so crucial to the future of our society.’
SOURCE
Friday, March 1, 2013
28,000 Romanians are held for crimes in UK over 5 years... and there are only 68,000 of them living in UK!
The "Romanians" concerned are of course Gypsies
Romanians come second on the list of foreign nationals arrested by police for serious crimes, police have revealed.
Nearly 28,000 have been held for serious offences in London over the past five years, including violence and sex crimes.
That is the equivalent of 15 Romanians being held by the police every day. There are only estimated to be 68,000 living in the UK.
It puts Romania second only to Poland in the list of countries with the most citizens arrested in London – but there are around half a million Poles in Britain.
The figures have caused concern ahead of the dropping of border controls next year. From January, Romania’s 21million inhabitants, along with seven million Bulgarians, will obtain free access to Britain.
Both countries have been members of the EU since 2007 but from January 1 their citizens will have full rights to live and work in the UK.
Critics of mass immigration have warned it could mean 50,000 arrivals every year for the first five years – the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle upon Tyne. Research suggests they would be eight times better off working in a minimum wage job here compared with staying at home.
Sir Andrew Green, of Migration Watch UK, said: ‘It is a matter of real concern that there should be such a substantial degree of criminality among those Romanians who have already come to Britain despite the treaty limitations on their right to work.’
But Romania’s prime minister, Victor Ponta, has said his compatriots ‘will not rush’ to Britain next year. The figures on criminality among foreigners were released by Scotland Yard under the Freedom of Information Act.
Since 2008, 27,725 Romanian citizens have been held for serious offences in London. That includes ten for murder, 142 for rape and 666 for other sex offences.
In the last five years, 34,905 Poles have been detained by the force, including 84 for murder. Lithuanians were the third most frequently arrested foreign nationals in the capital, with 18,594 being held.
A spokesman for the Romanian Embassy said only 624 Romanians were in prison in the UK. He added that the Met figures are for ‘suspects’ and that in many cases arrests will not lead to convictions.
Last April a family of Romanian pickpockets who stole to build ‘palaces’ in their homeland were jailed.
The Rostas family preyed on train passengers as they slept on late-night trains going out of London, stealing hundreds of mobile phones and cash. They also targeted tourists in the West End of London.
The family were living on benefits in Britain and pocketed hundreds of thousands of pounds by stealing from at least 185 victims over two years before selling on the phones in Romania for huge profits.
They built five mansions in Romania and also spent the proceeds of their crimes on designer clothing, gold jewellery and luxury cars.
Brothers Romulous Rostas, 18, and Marin Rostas, 25, their cousins Cornell Rostas, 22, and Govinder Rostas, 17, and another family member, Robert Rostas, 23, admitted conspiracy to steal.
The adults received jail sentences ranging from three years and three months to 18 months, while Govinder Rostas was given a 12-month detention and training order.
Judge Peter Clarke, QC, expressed his shock at their ‘deep-rooted criminality’.
SOURCE
Australian conservative leader rejects claim that freezing asylum visas is racist
CALLING for the freezing of bridging visas for asylum seekers is not a form a racial vilification, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says.
His immigration spokesman Scott Morrison is pushing this policy idea after a Sri Lankan asylum seeker was charged this week with indecently assaulting a university student in Sydney.
But Mr Abbott denies this would racially vilify asylum seekers.
"I just think that's wrong," he told reporters in Brisbane on Friday. "It's very important that people whose status is yet to be determined are being monitored by the government. The government needs to know where they are."
He stood by Mr Morrison's comments. "Of course. The government has to maintain control of the system," Mr Abbott said.
Cabinet minister Penny Wong denies the decision to give asylum seekers bridging visas is creating an underclass in the community.
The finance minister told Sky News the government is providing more initial support than the Howard government did under its temporary protection visa regime.
"There is no easy answer, and anyone who says there is, is wrong," she said on Friday.
The government needed to implement policies that prevented asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat and risking their lives.
"No one can forget the tragedies we have seen in this area in past years," Senator Wong said.
SOURCE
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
28,000 Romanians are held for crimes in UK over 5 years... and there are only 68,000 of them living in UK!
The "Romanians" concerned are of course Gypsies
Romanians come second on the list of foreign nationals arrested by police for serious crimes, police have revealed.
Nearly 28,000 have been held for serious offences in London over the past five years, including violence and sex crimes.
That is the equivalent of 15 Romanians being held by the police every day. There are only estimated to be 68,000 living in the UK.
It puts Romania second only to Poland in the list of countries with the most citizens arrested in London – but there are around half a million Poles in Britain.
The figures have caused concern ahead of the dropping of border controls next year. From January, Romania’s 21million inhabitants, along with seven million Bulgarians, will obtain free access to Britain.
Both countries have been members of the EU since 2007 but from January 1 their citizens will have full rights to live and work in the UK.
Critics of mass immigration have warned it could mean 50,000 arrivals every year for the first five years – the equivalent of a city the size of Newcastle upon Tyne. Research suggests they would be eight times better off working in a minimum wage job here compared with staying at home.
Sir Andrew Green, of Migration Watch UK, said: ‘It is a matter of real concern that there should be such a substantial degree of criminality among those Romanians who have already come to Britain despite the treaty limitations on their right to work.’
But Romania’s prime minister, Victor Ponta, has said his compatriots ‘will not rush’ to Britain next year. The figures on criminality among foreigners were released by Scotland Yard under the Freedom of Information Act.
Since 2008, 27,725 Romanian citizens have been held for serious offences in London. That includes ten for murder, 142 for rape and 666 for other sex offences.
In the last five years, 34,905 Poles have been detained by the force, including 84 for murder. Lithuanians were the third most frequently arrested foreign nationals in the capital, with 18,594 being held.
A spokesman for the Romanian Embassy said only 624 Romanians were in prison in the UK. He added that the Met figures are for ‘suspects’ and that in many cases arrests will not lead to convictions.
Last April a family of Romanian pickpockets who stole to build ‘palaces’ in their homeland were jailed.
The Rostas family preyed on train passengers as they slept on late-night trains going out of London, stealing hundreds of mobile phones and cash. They also targeted tourists in the West End of London.
The family were living on benefits in Britain and pocketed hundreds of thousands of pounds by stealing from at least 185 victims over two years before selling on the phones in Romania for huge profits.
They built five mansions in Romania and also spent the proceeds of their crimes on designer clothing, gold jewellery and luxury cars.
Brothers Romulous Rostas, 18, and Marin Rostas, 25, their cousins Cornell Rostas, 22, and Govinder Rostas, 17, and another family member, Robert Rostas, 23, admitted conspiracy to steal.
The adults received jail sentences ranging from three years and three months to 18 months, while Govinder Rostas was given a 12-month detention and training order.
Judge Peter Clarke, QC, expressed his shock at their ‘deep-rooted criminality’.
SOURCE
Australian conservative leader rejects claim that freezing asylum visas is racist
CALLING for the freezing of bridging visas for asylum seekers is not a form a racial vilification, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says.
His immigration spokesman Scott Morrison is pushing this policy idea after a Sri Lankan asylum seeker was charged this week with indecently assaulting a university student in Sydney.
But Mr Abbott denies this would racially vilify asylum seekers.
"I just think that's wrong," he told reporters in Brisbane on Friday. "It's very important that people whose status is yet to be determined are being monitored by the government. The government needs to know where they are."
He stood by Mr Morrison's comments. "Of course. The government has to maintain control of the system," Mr Abbott said.
Cabinet minister Penny Wong denies the decision to give asylum seekers bridging visas is creating an underclass in the community.
The finance minister told Sky News the government is providing more initial support than the Howard government did under its temporary protection visa regime.
"There is no easy answer, and anyone who says there is, is wrong," she said on Friday.
The government needed to implement policies that prevented asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat and risking their lives.
"No one can forget the tragedies we have seen in this area in past years," Senator Wong said.
SOURCE
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.